input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Nobody, but nobody, could chew the scenery like the Divine One, Ruth Elizabeth Davis, and "Elizabeth and Essex" is a great example why. Although she overplays the part at times, watch her when she gawfs about Raliegh writing the lyrics to a song her ladies-in-waiting are about to play: in that one moment, she makes us understand how Elizabeth was able to rule and rule absolutely! At other times, she is done in by the script's sappiness. When Elizabeth has to be vulnerable, she comes off as weak and shrewish. This has the added effect of undermining her authority: when she blows her stack and threatens to dispense justice, it's hard to take her seriously.<br /><br />Flynn exudes charm, making us see how Essex was able to worm his way into Elizabeth's heart, but he is totally inept at conveying the complexity and sheer evil of the man. It also doesn't help that Essex is badly underwritten. Why is he this hothead who wants to overthrow his Queen - even as he swears fidelity to her - except only that he is more blue-blooded, thus, more "worthy" of rule? And why does Raliegh betray Elizabeth by intercepting her and Essex's letters? He's in no risk of falling out of favor, and we know where Essex (and his head) is headed. So why does he risk his own head by speeding up the inevitable?<br /><br />What did Curtiz do with all the $$$ he was given? He doesn't even bother to try to hide the fact that his battle scenes are shot on a sound stage. He should've ended it with Elizabeth the first time alone at The Tower; everything else that follows (especially the final scene between her and Essex) is unnecessary. The costumes are fantastic. And is it me, or does Bette look exactly like Susan Sarandon?
|
Negative
| null | null |
A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.<br /><br />Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.<br /><br />In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.<br /><br />As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.<br /><br />The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all this movie is not a comedy; unless you really force yourself you can hardly laugh. Secondly, the movie is slow and boring. The acting is not bad but not special. There is a Lucky Luke comic about two families (one with big noses and one with big ears) fighting each other in a small town... you will laugh much more if you read this instead of wasting your time with this movie. Religions and dogmas are not the best source to make a good comedy and this movie does nothing more than confirm this rule. There is a similar subject comedy '' The home teachers'' ; this had some good moments. My final comment is: do not waste your time and money to watch this uninspired and boring film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
foywonder's review of this cheap STV hits the nail squarely on the head. Make sure you read it. In case you don't, a group of scientists heads off into the deep woods of the Pacific Northwest, to fumble around with a bunch of bones in an animal graveyard. The Big Foot family doesn't take kindly to this, and proceeds to pick off the team one by one, largely offscreen. Big Foot himself has a distinctly ape-like face, but is less scary overall than Harry from HARRY AND THE HENDERSONS. Most of the movie has the wooden, generic actors pretending to be scientists tromping around in the woods and yakking away. This is a no-budget movie in which very little happens, at least on screen. We do get to watch the sexiest of the females take a shower while one of her male companions watches, but nothing comes of this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.<br /><br />She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.<br /><br />That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway." (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.<br /><br />Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone notice that Tommy only has 3 facial expressions.<br /><br />1. The angry eyes look he gives every enemy. 2. The holding of the hands to face, mouth agape and frightened eyes. 3. The smiling Tommy Turnbull.<br /><br />I have to say that i pretty much hate this show, i don't watch it but it's like Code Lyoko, we've all watched at least one, i must say that this show is borderline racist, uninteresting and pointless.<br /><br />every episode ends with robotboy winning, except for one exception when robotboy basically let this overly geeky freakazoid fly away on a jetpack.<br /><br />The jokes are pretty crude too, i think it's mostly people saying the word "Suck" or farting, i think the bullies of the show are quite shocking too.<br /><br />Isn't there one that hides a bowling ball under his hate, and the other uses a chain, for god sake, what kind of school is he going to. Not to mention his older brother, who is borderline psychopathic and has no other character qualities.<br /><br />The whole show i feel is ripping off megas XLR and Fosters. Like you could say the trio of coop, jamie and Kiva, as well as Robotboy being similar to Megas where he beats everyone no matter what the odds and he's free spirited despite being a robot.<br /><br />There is simply no appeal to this show, i'm surprised that it's still running.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER is another example of what happens when you get a bunch of untalented people together to make an "extreme" horror film. Any sort of acting, production, storyline, FX, etc...go out the window in an effort to create "shock-value". Now don't get me wrong - I consider myself a connoisseur of "shock" films, and the sleazier/gorier/nastier the better - but it's still nice to see SOME sort of talent from SOMEONE involved in the film.<br /><br />SCHIZOPHRENIAC chronicles the life of Harry Russo - a drug-addicted freak-show who takes orders to kill from his ventriloquist's dummy, Rubberneck. He goes on a few sprees killing hookers and other random people, and screaming about how much he hates "hoo-uhs" (that's "whores" for those of you that don't speak New York-ese...) and how he wants to rape them in the ass. There are a few weak necrophilia scenes, very little gore, and some nudity to mix things up a bit - but nothing that you haven't seen in a better film...<br /><br />The only redeeming thing that I can find in this retarded film are the often (unintentionally?) hilarious screaming-fits from our main man, Harry. He goes on-and-on-and-on about wanting to kill everyone and do them in the ass, and it really becomes quite comical after a while. In fact, I'm almost tempted to believe that there's supposed to be some sort of homo-erotic undertone to this film, with all the ass talk and constant shots of Harry running around with his dong hangin' out. In all honesty, that joker is nekkid more in this film then the few chicks that show some T-and-A (and some full-frontal, for good measure). SCHIZOPHRENIAC is mildly amusing as a 1-time watch, but I can really only recommend this to those that want to be able to say that they watched a film called SCHIZOPHRENIAC: THE WHORE MANGLER. To be honest - the title, by far - is the best thing about this trash...A generous 3.5/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God. <br /><br />Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best. <br /><br />The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you want to make a movie like this, have the threat be real. Don't surround your patsy with a bunch of Bonzos. There is no credibility here. The plot is dull and unbelievable. The acting is even worse. I thought that I was watching Arthur Lake (Dagwood) who is one of the worst actors in history, when I saw the main character. Oh well, at some point he has to face the music and get fighting mad. I don't care. Do you? There are all these long scenes set in this austere office (the furniture made out of cardboard or masonite). People talk and smoke and don't do anything. Most of the action happens in a five minute sequence. After that, it's over. Don't bother.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.<br /><br />i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. "chucky" and "silent hill" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.<br /><br />it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend "beyond belief" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a great word "re-imagining" is. Isn't that what they call Dawn of the Dead MMIV (2004)? A clever word indeed - it disguises the term that everyone has grown to hate, "remake" that is, and makes it almost sound as if the process of making one was creative and involved the imagination. Well, damn, was I misled. At least I was seduced more by the thought of countless gore and unbridled violence than by the idea of "re-imagining," though it played a role.<br /><br />Still, why make a remake? Directors do it for only a few reasons really: to update a movie for a modern audience, or because they personally love the original and want to make a tribute to it. An homage, if you will. Nonetheless, it all generally (I do admit exceptions) boils down to one thing: stealing someone's idea and reshaping it (or "re-imagining" it) so that those who would never see it or understand it would pay money to see it. It's like Coles'/Cliffs' notes; dump everything in a blender, purify all that is more puzzling and curious and throw in a few artificial flavors. In other words, a great marketing scheme.<br /><br />So what's wrong with this one? Well, I'll start with what I liked. I liked the opening scenes. Thanks to CGI and a bigger budget we could actually get a grasp of the chaos of the zombie holocaust Romero tried to communicate in the original through minimalist means. We see the city in ruins, thousands of zombies: chaos and death. Two words that look beautiful on screen. Then it all falls apart.<br /><br />This set-up leads nowhere. The movie does what almost every remake does. It adds more of everything except character, atmosphere, and story. It's noisier, (in some sense) bloodier, and more full of main characters who appear only to die in nonsensical subplots. The setting, the mall which played a crucial role in the original film's story and theme, is purely coincidental. The idea communicated in Romero's film, the pure ecstatic joy of having "a mall all to yourself as a fortress," is gone here. Further, this "re-imagining" has no moxie, no spirit, no balls. It assumes (probably quite rightly) that the audience has no attention span and doesn't bother to get us interested in the characters or the story. The film is rushed and misses the quieter interactions of the four characters of the original. You actually grew to care about those people in Romero's version because there was a certain realism to their existence despite the insanity outside the mall. Here, you don't care when or who goes: what matters is how they go.<br /><br />What else is their to say? The film is not scary. It has one or two "jump" scenes and it tries to make up for the rest with gore and loud special effects. As a story it's really too choppy to be followed and the conflicts between the characters are too underdeveloped to save it. The humor is also reduced to a few one-liners (and one really good character: Andy). After that, what remains? An ending that is plainly ridiculous and far inferior to the subdued, inevitable ambiguity of the original film. But, despite it being a pretty bad film (though not quite as bad as some other remakes), it should be remembered for one thing: it kicked The Passion of Christ from it's number one spot in the box office. Well done zombies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I tried to watch this movie three separate times. The night I rented it. Got through about 20 minutes hoping it would be better if I had a night's rest. Watched 15 more the next day, almost vomited at how stupid it was... It wasn't even funny stupid which is sometimes a fun movie to watch but this movie was just crap with a capital S (if you know what I mean in the censored world we live in). And finally on the third day I watched over an hour of the dumb thing and I didn't enjoy one single moment! Not even one. How did this script get greenlighted. Oh boy!<br /><br />G<br /><br />1/10 - the one is for cheerleaders... they deserve at least something for all their hardwork.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Strummer's hippie past was a revelation, but overall this felt like crashing a wake. Campfire stories work best around the intimacy of a campfire. There were just too many semi-boring old friends anecdotes and too much filler stock footage. I love The Clash and Joe for not reuniting and selling their songs until now (FU Mick Jones), but this doc left me wanting..to relate more. Using campfire storytellers without proper explanation of who is telling the anecdote alienates the viewer to some extent. They should have been interviewed on their own. Even using Strummer's 'radio DJ voice' did little to glue the film together. And can someone explain all the flags flying behind the campfire scenes? After the awesome "Filth And The Fury" I hoped Temple could deliver. A Joe Strummer doc deserves better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My thoughts on the movie, 9<br /><br />It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.<br /><br />This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?<br /><br />That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,<br /><br />"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.<br /><br />Okay... SPOILERS follow.<br /><br />So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. <br /><br />The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.<br /><br />The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. <br /><br />Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. <br /><br />They succeed.<br /><br />#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.<br /><br />The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. <br /><br />They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.<br /><br />Hunh?!?<br /><br />That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?<br /><br />Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.<br /><br />Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps?
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st the good news. The 3-D is spectacularly well done, and they don't go for the gotcha gimmicks. The film is based on the true story of the high point in human history, and even features one of the actual participants in that story: Buzz Aldrin.<br /><br />And now the meat of the matter: It's about FLIES, for krissakes! Flies with big, googy human eyes, true, but flies nonetheless. Remember when I likened the "Underworld" movies to rats vs. cockroaches? That wasn't intended as praise, and I never dreamed anyone would take it literally. This one's got even less empathy going for it. Baby maggots? Ugh. In one of those odd confluences of Hollywood groupthink, this flik was evidently on the drawing boards at the same time as "Space Chimps", also about critters in space.<br /><br />Go rent "Apollo 13" and see a 9-rated movie about the REAL space program (RIP).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Movie: There are some very interesting comments on IMDb about this movie. Its truly awful. Not enough money is spent on the movie and the way Spike Lee has made it, it seems like a combination of an indie film and an action flick. Characters/Actors: Denzel has done "EXACTLY" what he does in every movie, so no surprise there. Here is a little mind game for the readers. Quickly think of 10 Denzel movies. Now count how many of them were in which he played a cop/detective/body guard, whatever. Clive Owen, hmmmmmm, this guy needs a better role on his plate soon. His best performance was I think in "Beyond Borders". Other than that he did pretty much the same thing as he does in every movie as well. His tone and way of talking was very similar to what he did in "Sin City". Surely this guy knows acting, what he doesn't know is better way of choosing roles. He is in desperate need of a better agent. Jodie Foster was brilliant in the movie, if you are watching her for the first time in your life. She has done better. She has had better roles. It so happens in Hollywood that even the biggest stars fall down on their knees and pick up low class roles as Jody Foster did in this movie. Plot: Plot was not confusing, in fact, I could think of such a plot, in fact the whole movie, while taking a dump after a nice big Chinese dinner. I mean come on, ****SPOILER ON THE WAY----> I am sick of the un-necessary Haulocast and the Racism token. The movie is about bank robbers, why put the Haulocast and the Racism in there, nice try playing with people's emotions, worked on anyone? NOT ME. Police let the bank robbers go thinking they were hostages? Riiiiiiight, please, we're talking about US police force and security here. Nobody could find out where Clive was, I mean they didn't find anything different with that room. Who're we kidding? Conclusion: Sure, go watch this movie, if nothing, you'll have a nice time talking to you friends how bad the movie was. At least people won't think you're stupid to go watch this movie because they'd think you went to watch it because it has a big star cast "MISTAKE".
|
Negative
| null | null |
No ,I'm not kidding. If they ever propose a movie idea, they should be kicked out of the studio. I'm serious. Their movies are exactly the same in every one, and they only consist of traveling to foreign locations, having a problem which they easily resolve, hoping to be popular, and getting new boyfriends. Think about it. If you have ever seen a movie starring them with a different plot, contact me and tell me its name. These "movies" are poor excuses to be on TV and go to other countries. There is a reason that the movies never go to theaters. I'm sure that when they were really young and made some O.K. movies, some studio boss bought all their rights for 15 years, or something, so that now that they're, what, 17, they can make movies in other countries whenever they want using the studio's money. Let me advise you, STAY AWAY FROM MARY-KATE AND ASHLEY! IT'S FOR YOUR OWN GOOD!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maybe it was the title, or the trailer (certainly not the interview on the DVD, which is with the director as he keeps saying "hi, kids" into the camera like a buffoon), but I had expectations for Entrails of a Virgin to be at least a bit of sleazy fun with some good sex scenes and brutal, bloody killings by a weird Japanese penetrator. Turns out it's way too sleazy for its own good, or bad, or whatever. There's a problem- and one can see this also in the Italian sexploitation flick Porno Holocaust, similar to this in many respects- in not having balance to the sex and violence. Too much sex and it will turn into a prototypical porno, and not even with much production quality in comparison with most professional porno movies! And with the killing scenes, there has to be at least a little tack, and maybe just a smidgen of ingenuity, in creating the creature/killer/whatever. Entrails of a Virgin has neither. It's safe to say it's a pretty soulless movie, even if isn't one of the very worst ever made- it's there just for horn-dog Japanese fetishists to get off on girls in trouble and men who have all their brains in their 'other' heads.<br /><br />In this case, we're given a photo team where the guys are taking some shots of some girls, nothing too salacious, and then by way of a dense fog they stay off at some house one night and are picked off one by one by "A Murderer" as he's credited. First off, the director Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu decides he has to put in a quota of random sex scenes early on- we get spliced in (or phoned in, take your pick) clips of one of the photographers having sex with one or more of the girls elsewhere. It looks like it's from another movie. Then once settled into the house, there's a 'wrestling' scene that's poorly choreographed and shot (yeah, we really need to see him 'all' there), and then on to the rape and killings. First the rape, by the photographers, who promise the girls some jobs for their time. Then the Murderer, who like D'Amato's creature is simply covered in mud and given a stupid facial, and who for an unknown reason kills the men and/or rapes the women one by one.<br /><br />Now, the latter of those, taken by themselves, should be considered the highlights of the movie. This is like saying, however, that the croûtons are the best part of a wretchedly tasting salad. An eye-gouging scene, a spike thrown like an Olympic event (that scene, actually, is kind of cool), and finally the entrailing of the overly sex-crazed girl, whose inconsequential name I can't remember. Even *this* becomes disappointing just by not being correct to the title! On top of this, the sex scenes, which become tedious through 'Gaira' and his indulgence in long-takes-without-cutaways where everything by the Japanese censors is blurred anyway, are dubbed over by the actors (you'd think that they seem to be enjoying themselves enough, hence the need to let them 'speak' for themselves). But the overall feeling from Entrails of a Virgin is that of a lumpy one, where it's just there to be gawked at and without a shred of suspense or true horror (watch as the last girl left alive, the virgin of the picture, tries to stop the murderer from getting to her, which lasts five minutes as she keeps throwing sticks at him!) You just want it to be done with, for the 'I hate women' mantra to ease up or be rid altogether.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen Dolemite and also (Avenging) Disco Godfather, two other fine works of the blaxploitation canon from our friend Rudy Ray Moore. But this film, The Human Tornado (aka Dolemite 2) will always hold a special place in my heart. For sheer goofiness, lack of skill in film production, and absolute enthusiasm (frankly a little too much), The Human Tornado cannot be topped.<br /><br />The opening scene sets the tone. Our old pal Dolemite is shacking up with a white woman, when some racist local cops raid the house for no good reason, and wouldn't you know it! The woman in bed with ol' Dole is none other than the sheriff's wife. Her cry when she sees him: "He made me do it!" Dolemite's cry: "&$*@$ are you for real???" Subtlety was never his strong point.<br /><br />Highlights? The cameo by a very young Ernie Hudson (of Ghostbusters fame), the continuity errors (characters looking one way in one shot, and another in the next, Dolemite's suit changing colors in every single shot of his nightclub act), and Queen Bee's demonic eyes in her first scene.<br /><br />But the real joy here is Rudy Ray Moore himself. Did the man really think he looked cool in this movie? I certainly don't know why, but you have to admire the sheer enthusiasm he has. Whether it be jumping totally naked off a cliff, or barking orders to his gang in rhyme (e.g: Quick! Into the cave! I have a plan to let that mother $*@(%& dig his own grave!) the man commits totally. Certainly he goes overboard, nevermore so than any time he's doing kung fu. The climactic battle is filmed at high speed, but occassionaly slows down to let Rudy pose and grits his teeth. I'm not sure if they wanted it too look like they sped up the film as an effect or if they really wanted us to believe he was that fast. In any event, "The Matrix" it is not.<br /><br />Human Tornado, much like the original Dolemite, is an incompetent film of enormous proportions. But at least it's fun, and certainly you have to give credit to these people for the effort. Just not that much. Enjoy with my hearty recommendations.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.<
|
Negative
| null | null |
If this movie as meant to discourage people from doing drugs, it fails. I was ready to start using them I got waiting for something to happen and nothing ever really did. This movie is neither horror or drama. It's just the paranoia of meth users. This movie may win an award for the using the "F" word so many times and so uselessly. It was not well stated, but I felt like they were making Meth to replace Meth they owed to someone. Hector just got worse and more paranoid as the movie went on and the girl just got more hopeless. The ending really made no sense. The movie made no sense unless it was just showing how annoying is is to be stuck in a house in the middle of nowhere with a meth-head. I relied on the other feedback when I decided to watch this movie and the rating on this movie should be a much lower average.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen this movie and the other one. Trinity is my name and i find that this one is worse then the first one. I have no idea why they even made another movie it was stupid and pointless sorry to say that i have all of them. I have sat through them number of times and it still drives me to turn it off 5 minutes into the movie. I like Terence Hill movies and i like Bud Spencer but this movie just drove me up the wall. If it had a different story line or at least more of a plot and more comedy it might have been funner and worth the 5 dollars i spent buying all the movies. But you make mistakes so i would say save your money and don't bye this movie or any of the ones that go with it trust me on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think the biggest disappointment in this film was that, right until the end, I expected the acting instructors of the cast to break in and apologize for how poor the acting was. When you consider the powerful subject, the brilliant scenery and the effort made in creating a wonderful set and spectacular images, it is a shame that little attention was given to acting.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.<br /><br />Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.<br /><br />Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.<br /><br />Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).<br /><br />After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.<br /><br />It really IS only a movie as they say..
|
Negative
| null | null |
'Iedereen Beroemd' has everything we can expect from a straight to video-movie. It's the story about a man who believes his daughter could be a star. The only thing he needs is to get her on stage, surrounded by cameras and reporters. A simple plan for which he has to kidnap and do some blackmail. The problem with the movie is not the basic plot, but how it is made. Everything is supposed to be funny, but it isn't. It is trivial and clumsy, the characters are shallow, and the end-sequence is totally without climax or emotion. The last sequence is probably the only scene where you feel like laughing, but only at how pathetic the whole set-up is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.<br /><br />This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air). <br /><br />This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem. <br /><br />Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.<br /><br />I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you have seen very less films, this might be a big one for you. If you have seen lot of films, this is a joke. The acting of real heroes is portrayed very badly. Not to mention, there are songs, there are lot of flashbacks, and most importantly, the fighting scenes are stupidily performed. New characters, good direction, would have done a better job, but since it contains all the bollywood heros/heroines, you can predict whats going to happen next. You do not feel sad when something happens, the emotions they protray is terrible, mainly because we have seen this actor in 1000 other hindi movies. It suppose to be a realistic movie, but it fails to show. There are times you wondering, you have thousands of army vehical filled with soldiers moving and the pakistanis are bombing at them and none of their bomb hits them. Are the pakis really bad at aiming or the director made them look stupid? There were only a few characters acting that was very good, but as far it is concerned with plot, action, it is poorly directed. This movie could have been short if they took out songs, flashbacks, stick to the point.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If this is someone's "favorite" movie, they need some serious help. There is nothing funny or clever about this crapfest. I haven't seen the original movie this is the remake of (some 1950s film), but it simply has to be better than this newer bastardization.<br /><br />A major gets kicked out of the military for being a fringe element, and winds up teaching children at an ROTC school. Unfortunately, the major is Daman Wayans... so the children are in for a world of annoying, humorless asininity. Can Wayans whip these losers into shape? Can they get him to become a little more human? The film bombs as most Wayans films do, with only a few sparkling moments. William Hickey gets about one minute of screen time, fair too little. This charming old man (known best to me as a "Tales from the Crypt" actor, known best to you as Uncle Louis from "Christmas Vacation") shines every moment he's on screen, which isn't much here.<br /><br />Bam Bam Bigelow also makes an appearance as a biker, which fits him perfectly. I wouldn't mind slightly more Bam Bam, but I think he carried the role of "biker" about as far as it could be carried for a military film.<br /><br />And then there's the attractive teacher, who someone falls for Major Payne even though he treats the kids poorly, has no social skills and is simply impossible to convert into someone you would want to spend time with. She must either be incredibly stupid or incredibly desperate. I'm not sure which (though it would seem "stupid" since the movie makes it clear she gets out of the house often enough).<br /><br />Wayans had one shining moment: a dance sequence where he performs a series of moves (including a very nice "robot"), and with the help of music from 2 Live Crew. This scene was enjoyable but hardly made up for anything else that made this film dog spittle.<br /><br />Seriously, avoid this film. If you want to see a film a bout a loser who helps loser kids become heroes, rent or buy "Ernest Goes to Camp". At least he's a lovable loser, and actually funny. Maybe if Major Payne had fought a badger I'd feel better, but he didn't. Forget Payne, forget Wayans... you can do so much better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wanted to watch this movie, but one bizarre ridiculous scene after another forced me to shut it off. Character's don't seem to react to anything. Consider this: Heath Ledger is walking a night (through a cemetery I believe) when he is attacked by spirits, which he drives away. Once past this ordeal he calmly walks away and meets up with a friend that saw it all. When asked what happen he says blandly "attacked by demons, nothing serious.", as if this is only a little more exciting than a flat tire.<br /><br />I shut it off when they go to ask something-a demon or something, I stopped caring-a ques ion. The answer can only be rented out of someone with the energy of their death, and the priest watch in what appears to be vague annoyance as a man is strung up and hung and they ask his thrashing, dying body question.<br /><br />0 out of **** stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching Marlen Brando on screen is like watching a master carpenter chiseling intricate details into a piece of mahogany. Brando's acting is the ONLY thing that makes this movie watchable. The plot is inane and laughable (not comic). The other big name actors seem to be making desperate attempts to give the characters they portray some modicum of humanity... these characters have the humanity of wet cardboard. Everything about the technical side of this film is either mediocre or just plain awful. The director throws freeze-frame and slow-motion shots about with impunity. The incidental music is cartoonish and destroys any hint of dramatic effect. It's not something I really look for in a movie, but even the wardrobe was way off. The venerable Brando couldn't take focus away from the awful rags they had him decked out in. I've heard this movie called "David Lynch-esquire" and "irreverently funny"... it is neither. David Lynch films are borne of wicked creativity - this film was in no way creative. And don't confuse irreverence with stupidity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.<br /><br />And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. <br /><br />A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is NOT the same as the 1954 version with Judy Garland and James Mason, and that is a shame because the 1954 version is, in my opinion, much better. I am not denying Barbra Streisand's talent at all. She is a good actress and brilliant singer. I am not acquainted with Kris Kristofferson's other work and therefore I can't pass judgment on it. However, this movie leaves much to be desired. It is paced slowly, it has gratuitous nudity and foul language, and can be very difficult to sit through.<br /><br />However, I am not a big fan of rock music, so it's only natural that I would like the Judy Garland version better. See the 1976 film with Barbra and Kris, and judge for yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As many agree, Origin is a beautiful anime artistically. The music, graphics, and the world created are gorgeous and it really stands above most other modern animated works. However, if you are looking for more than this, than I suggest looking else where. The beauty stops short of its appearance, and when it really comes down to plot and characters, there's nothing special. Action is slow and minimal and the people are flat, corny at times, and do not act realistically. Not to mention the plot hole here and the plot hole there... So, in summary, oh my goodness, I've never seen an anime as beautiful as this one; and oh my goodness, it's like... -poke- people don't act like that. It took a GIANT step forward in graphics and music in anime, but it also took a few step backs to times of bad characterization, and unfortunately, there's not even that much action to make up for that...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lolita is a rebel and she's going to share to our wide open eyes some little sex stories, between sci-fi and fantasy... Well, this Surrender Cinema production is not very good: very bad acting, horrifying music and a story line without any story and any line. BUT, the sex scenes are pretty well done, lot of lesbian scenes, and Jacqueline Lovell, as beautiful as in The Exotic House Of Wax, offer to us a very good final and very hot strip show. For Lovell's fans only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.<br /><br />While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.<br /><br />So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.<br /><br />Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.<br /><br />I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Right away, this film was ridiculous. Not that it didn't have redeeming aspects
For example, the best thing about this film was the beautiful background scenery. Anyone not living on the East Coast should know the South doesn't have beautiful mountains like those found in the West. I knew it was Utah right off the bat, but perhaps Dalton couldn't suppress his English accent, so they had to excuse it by saying this was a southern town. Subverting his accent into a Southern one was easier. Sure the film has plot twists, but its phony sense of place was something I couldn't get past. It's not like Utah doesn't have meth labs... so why the writers thought it necessary to pretend it was in the South is beyond me. <br /><br />One other thing in action pictures always puzzles me. Why do they always make the "cocking" sound effect when the character pulls out an automatic handgun? It seemed every other sound effect in this movie was a "chuk-chich" signifying a 9mm was loaded and ready to fire. Of course, the weapons already had rounds chambered so this was unnecessary. <br /><br />Lastly, the pyrotechnics were WAY over the top. But hey, this film was targeted to a certain 'market segment' I suppose... It's too bad. Each of the actors can act, but this film was lame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A group of human looking aliens going to Earth to eat crash land on a planet of prehistoric beasts instead where they all eat physcedelic mushrooms and act retarded. Padded with footage from "Planet of the Dinosuars" and horrible jokes this is definitely one to miss. The acting is atrocious as well, and while this isn't as bad as "Chickboxer" (what movie can be?) This is still pretty awful repugnant stuff. It's 90 minute running time feels like an eternity and you will likely be cursing life so do yourself a huge favor and just move on, skip this crappy film, there's nothing to see here.<br /><br />The film-makers try to resell this turd as a MST3K style making fun of the movie they made a decade before, and it works to an extent it's still nothing that watchable though, Ariauna Albright is hot, but Lilith Stabs has a pretty unattractive speaking voice.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Joke commentary, 17 Behind the scenes featurette; 7 minute Into the black featurette; Jessica Mills reporting; Stills gallery; and original trailer
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie years ago, and I was impressed... but then again I was only 12 years old. I recently re-watched it and want that time back. This film is pretty bad. While I like Lee Majors, Chris Makepeace (watch My Bodyguard (1980)if you would like to see a GOOD movie that he was in... of Meatballs (also starring Bill Murray) for some laughs), and Burgess Meredith, this role does/did nothing for their careers.<br /><br />Anyway, Lee Majors character, Franklyn Hart, is an ex- race car driver who plans on driving his race car (which he had in storage) across the country to California. One Problem: The government has outlawed all private transportation. I thought the concept was OK (not the worse I've heard of), but the execution failed horribly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Actually, they don't, but they certainly did when trying to think of a singular line that adequately summarises how terrible this entry in the series really is. There were some moments that could have been good, but they are mostly outweighed by their own conversion into missed opportunities, and don't get me started on the bad.<br /><br />The wasted opportunities are pretty obvious, but I will recap them here in case anyone cares. Anyone who hasn't seen the film and genuinely gives a toss would be advised to stop reading at this point. The first, and potentially the biggest, wasted opportunity, was the plot with Freddy's long-lost child. Now, the extreme mental illness that Freddy appears to suffer (and I might hasten to add that less than one percent of mental patients are a threat to other people, leave alone to this extent) is HEREDITARY, so why not a mystery-type slasher in which Lisa Zane's character dreams of Freddy murdering the teens, only we later discover it's actually her doing all the killing? Sound like a good plot idea to you? Obviously it was above the heads of Talalay and De Luca.<br /><br />Then there's the trip to Springfield, where the entire adolescent population has been wiped out, and the remaining adults are experiencing a kind of mass psychosis. Funnily enough, said mass psychosis was actually depicted in a realistic and convincing manner, although this has a fair amount to do with the fact that we are never shown too much. We are just given quick visual hints of the massive loss of connection with reality that would stem from the grief of every youngster in town dying for reasons beyond one's comprehension and control. The essential problem with this plot element, however, is that the town is abandoned too quickly, and with no real answers. This collection of scenes would have been far creepier with ten minutes of say... one sane citizen explaining to these visitors why the Springfield fair looks like a horror show.<br /><br />Of course, horror films are never noted for their character development, unless they're the kind of horror films John Carpenter used to direct, but how are we supposed to really care when characters we know next to nothing about die? At least Wes Craven took the time to set up his characters in the original, and used a few cheap tricks to draw the audience in. That, in a nutshell, is probably the biggest problem with Freddy's Dead: it just doesn't try at all, leave alone hard enough.<br /><br />On a related note, I feel kind of sorry for Robert Englund, now that he is more or less inextricably linked with the Freddy character. He has played far better characters in far better productions (the science-fiction miniseries "V", for example), and to be forever remembered as "the man who played Freddy" is selling him rather short. It seems he will never break the mold of horror films now. As for the rest of the cast, well, I think their performances here speak for themselves. They deserved to be permanently typecast as little more than B-grade horror props. Even Yaphet Kotto doesn't escape this one unscathed, as his character is one of the most childishly written in the history of B-films.<br /><br />All in all, Freddy's Dead gets a 1 out of me. I'd vote lower, but the IMDb doesn't allow for that. FD is really a testament to how a writer's inability to exploit a concept to the fullest extent can ruin not only a film, but an entire franchise.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen plenty of Sci-Fi Channel Original movies ever since I started watching them back in 2002 (My first one was Sabretooth - which actually is one of the more entertaining Sci-Fi Channel features in my opinion). Their quality varies. Some of them are average but decent (Sabretooth, Dragon Fighter, Never Cry Werewolf, Swamp Devil), some are laughably bad, and then there are some that are truly terrible. Raptor Planet lies in the latter. <br /><br />Raptor Planet, a loose sequel to the 2004 Sci-Fi Channel Original Raptor Island, is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. The effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as CGI and stock footage from Raptor Planet) are some of the worst looking effects I've seen in a low budget film. The gore effects are even unconvincing. <br /><br />The plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (I forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. That's right folks, the dinosaurs are aliens. Dinosaurs in outer space. What's next, sharks in space?!? The rest of the plot is simple. The human cast are picked off and eaten. By now, we've come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released, but this is the first killer dinosaur movie I've seen where I actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks.<br /><br />There are a few chuckles in it though. There's one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a Carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. Also, a bit of trivia, this is the scene where Steven Baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. <br /><br />While Raptor Island wasn't a good film to begin with, its a masterpiece compared to its sequel.<br /><br />Believe me when I say, this is quite possibly the worst movie Syfy has ever aired. It's darn near unwatchable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This started bad, got worse, and by the time the girl attacked the old lady at the end i literally wanted to take the DVD to the person we borrowed it off and choke the C**T to death with it. Avoid this film, a little bit of good cinematography and some naked shots, would be almost acceptable if i was 14 and had not seen Jenna Jameson naked a million times. If anyone feels the need to watch this film, i would strongly recommend you spend the time more appropriately, as an example i would say trying to cram a Lego house into your bum with no lube would be a good start. I hear that this film was not the original version, i would very much like to view the original, as it seems that this cut version is devoid of all plot, and apparently most of the nudity, can someone please tell me how i can get in touch with Christian Viel he owes me an hour of my life back!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was positively the worst film I have ever watched. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I also think writer must have some weird fetish for women peeing puking and crapping... I mean what was that all about! I cant believe this was even made and am disgusted at have #ingwasted a £4 rental fee. The quality both picture and sound are terrible, the acting... well doesn't exist . It was a poor excuse for a film and the scenes of pee, crap and puke were reminiscent of 2 girls 1 cup. Urghh....... AVOID AT ALL COST! The girls looked like they had been picked off the street and only got the part cos they'd be willing to take their tops off... While these girls have nice bodies it certainly didn't make up for the fact their shrieking was awful unconvincing and a pain to my ears.<br /><br />This was like (possibly worse) than an ammateur school production without any proper direction and hey there is no need for a set as it all seems to revolve around a car?! <br /><br />Definatey not one to buy folks. Sorry if my first comment is terribly negative but I could not find anything positive to say and I would like to think I may save someone else wasting their money like I have.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is good. There is bad. And then their is The Sentinel, a bottom-barrel political "thriller" that ranks among the worst movies I have ever seen. The plot of a mole in the Secret Service is a good one, but never has a movie with so much potential been so utterly butchered. Directed with ham-handed "edginess" by Clark Johnson, every actor in this film seems to be working on autopilot. Even the great Michael Douglas looks bored here. I can honestly say I have NEVER, in all my life, viewed another film with so many glaring plot holes. The twist is predictable from square one, and the character's motives are so utterly ridiculous that they inspired laughter from the audience. Avoid this at all costs. This is a catastrophe of a movie with no redeeming value.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do not see this movie if you value your mind. At the end of our collective viewing, me and my friends estimated that we each lost 5% of our brains during its course. The only person involved with its making that was not clinically insane was the set designer.<br /><br />Most movies leave a bad taste in your mouth. I realize now that instead of a feeling of revulsion, this movie has bred a deep hatred within me. I hate this movie so very, very much.<br /><br />Some might say this movie is not meant to be taken seriously. If only it didn't take itself seriously. But it does. The plot is a warmed over version of Blade Runner-esque universe melded with the cheap rubber suits so prevalent in bad dinosaur movies. The dialogue is not only puerile and meaningless but often literally painful. Whoopee Goldberg isn't even trying, but George Newbern as the voice of Theodore Rex is like fingernails on the soul. And whether its Juliet Landua with her off again on again British accent or Richard Roundtree (aka Shaft) as the blustering Commissioner, you will sink into an ever increasing sense of incredulity and disillusionment.<br /><br />I recommend this movie only to anyone who wishes to see the depths of stupidity to which mankind may fall.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While most of the movie is very amateurish, the Kosher slaughter scene is played up, but not untrue. Kosher law says that an animal must be conscious when the blade touches it's skin. The Kosher slaughter scene is accurate as anyone knows who has seen one, or has seen the Peta film showing a Kosher slaughter, in which the animals throat is cut, and the esophagus cut out while it is still alive, conscious, and obviously suffering. We must remember that history is written by the victors. Is one even Allowed to even THINK that maybe the Nazis were right??<br /><br />Doesn't it say anything that the Nazis had outlawed this vicious religious slaughter, and the Jews are still practicing it even today?
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is a scene in this film at about the 42 minute mark that is among the worst I have seen in some time. As F. Scott Fitzgerald (Gregory Peck) and Sheilah Graham (Deborah Kerr) are lounging on the beach, suddenly things become tense and Sheilah begins to cry--at which point she tells her lover about her sordid past. This "dramatic scene" becomes so terribly overdone and histrionic I couldn't help but turn to my wife and exclaim how stupid it all was...as dramatic music swelled on the television as it all came to a phony crescendo. NO ONE experiences moments like this--no one. Now how much of the rest of the film is true, I cannot say, but this particular moment was laughably bad and as fake as an $8 Rolex--and leads me to assume that some of the other reviewers were correct--the film is a lot of bunk. However, I am not an expert on the life of these two people and the internet didn't seem to clear this up, either. <br /><br />Just who were F. Scott Fitzgerald and Sheilah Graham and what was their relationship really like? What I do know about Fitzgerald, however, does seem different from what I saw in the film. Was he the suave and decent man we initially see in the film? Well, considering he was married at the same time he was carrying on with Graham and drank like a fish, I'd assume he wasn't. Was he as obnoxious and boorish as we later see in the film? Perhaps, but if he was this bad AND yet Ms. Graham stayed with him, then this makes her out to be a complete dummy--and not someone you'd like to see featured in a film. And, if he wasn't, then the film does a poor disservice to his memory. Either way, it made for a painful and not particularly pleasant viewing experience.<br /><br />The sum total of this film appears to be a tale of two not particularly likable or healthy people. In a dark and salacious way, some might find this all very entertaining, but most are sure to see this as a train wreck with no surprises along the way! Unpleasant but with glossy production values (especially the music, which was lovely but way over the top) it begs the question "why did they even choose to make this in the first place?". The bottom line--it's a pretty bad film all around and probably not worth your time--even if, like me, you are big Gregory Peck fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China. The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck. The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles. Walter Connolly is laughable as the farmer's father. He has such a heavy American accent, as do most of the lead actors, that I could not bear listening to him speak.<br /><br />It is a shame that Hollywood could not get past their racist beliefs to cast Asians in the lead roles. To take Anglos and make them look like Chinese is akin to Anglos putting shoe polish on their faces to play African-Americans.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite the acclaim on the DVD cover of the version I borrowed, this film was a disappointment. Yes, it is far more realistic than other war films of the period for depicting the mud, boredom and frustration of the grunt, but unfortunately one comes away from it thinking that's ALL there is to this movie. There is no plot and the dialogue is monotonous. It's not that a good war film needs to have a battle scene every five minute. One of the best World War II films, "Twelve O'Clock High," has very little action. But it compensates with crackling dialogue and psychological tension. The exception to "The Story of G.I. Joe" is a brief battle segment (titled "city under siege" on the DVD) which takes place in Italy. Admittedly it is one of the most fast-paced and convincing combat scenes of any war movie. But alas, the rest of the film is not worth watching just for this highlight. Another turn-off is Pvt. Dondaro, played by Wally Cassell, who is meant to be a "romeo" but comes off a pervert. By contrast, Sgt. Warnicki is a sympathetic, if flawed, man. As he says to Capt. Walker (Mitchum) when volunteering for another patrol: "Every step forward is a step closer... to home." But that last step one patrol too many drives him over the mental brink. Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't do justice to some otherwise fine touches. As for Meredith's portrayal of Pyle... it is practically comatose.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Serum is about a crazy doctor that finds a serum that is supposed to cure all diseases through the power of the mind. Instead it creates some kind of monster that needs to eat human flesh and brains. The mad doc creates some zombies out of cadavers and has some problems. There is a very long lead into all the action with many scenes getting you acquainted with the characters. The mad doctor's nephew gets into a car accident and the mad doc tries to use his new serum on the boy. The results are not good. This is a class C film with OK acting but some troubles directing and some continuity errors. There isn't much zombie action in this one and the effects, while adequate, are nothing special. You can fast forward through the slow parts and get some enjoyment out of the action scenes. Watch out for some nudity and bad language.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I usually check out the MTV movie awards to watch a witty, entertaining show that delivers a unique award show (Chewbacca winning a life-time achievement award as example). So this year was no different. While I'm not a fan of Justin Timberlake, Seann William Scott has always been funny-albiet stupid-to me. I've laughed at Stiffler in both American Pie movies, and even enjoyed him in Dude Where's My Car?. But the MTV movie awards were simply horrible. Nothing was coherrent, humorous, or entertaining. Justin Timberlake should stick to singing and dancing; he sure as hell can't act.<br /><br />I'm curious as to who the writers were for this show. Last year's performance by Jack Black and Sarah Michelle Gellar was extremly funny (The Lord of the Rings parody alone was worth watching the entire show), but this year was completly different. Did anyone understand Timberlake's comments regarding Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson ("They're staring in a movie together, but have never met! Here they are...") Where was the joke? Kate and Luke just went into their lame dialogue, never making a reference to the "joke" by Timberlake. And Seann was completly wasted as a talent, not even causing me to smile, yet alone laugh. And what was the point of Harrison Ford's one-liners? Did they make ANY sense to anyone? Perhaps the MTV writers figured the young viewers would only know the aging Ford as Han Solo, Indiania Jones, or the President from Air Force One. I'm baffled. And would someone tell me the deal with Adrian Brody? How old is this guy and how old does he THINK he is? The guy looks 30, trying to act 19 again....give it up, show some class (like in your best actor academy award speech) and act your age!<br /><br />I give this show 1 star out of 4, simply because of the speech by Gollam for Best Visual Performance. This was very creative, extremely well done, and caused the only genuine laugh of the entire evening.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A lot of horror fans seem to love Scarecrows, so I won't be very popular in saying that I found it to be rather boring. The idea behind it was interesting, but it seems to drag so much. I think the main problem is that it is all set in darkness. Sometimes horror films set in darkness can work (such as Humongous), but Scarecrows is in darkness for the whole film. A lot of the time it's hard to figure out what's actually happening, and although some shots of the scarecrows were creepy, most were hard to even see. If a little more lighting had been used, perhaps it could've been better.<br /><br />There's not many films involving killer scarecrows to my knowledge, apart from Dark Night Of The Scarecrow, which is much better. I would recommend that over Scarecrows any day.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i'll admit. i think Uma Thurman is the most beautiful woman on the planet and have made it a mission to see every movie she has been in (unfortunately that includes the horrible films Batman and robin, The Avengers) and this one.<br /><br />this has to rank as the worst movie i've ever seen. (yes it ranks even lower than The Avengers). everyone looks lost in it and it is incoherent beyond belief. <br /><br />even if you think Uma is a goddess like i do, PLEASE PLEASE don't subject yourself to this movie. you'll hate yourself the following morning for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what that other guy was thinking. The fact that this movie was independently made makes it no less terrible. You can be as big a believer as you want... the majority of this film is mindless drivel. I feel i have been insulted by having to watch the first 40 minutes of it. And that alone was no small feat. Not only is the acting terrible, but the plot is never even close to developed. There are countless holes in the story, to the point where you can hardly even call it a story anymore. I've never read the book, so I can't critique on that, but this is the first review that I've written here and it's purpose is solely to save all you viewers out there an hour and a half of your life. I can't remember the last time I couldn't even finish watching a movie. This one really takes the cake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my. How can they make movies of such beauty, but that are so terribly bad. I mean, even Uwe Boll doesn't make crap like this. There is not even a hint of a decent story, multi-layered characters, or attraction. It's just a random sequence of pointless chatter joined together to make a 'movie'. I suppose only children up to 3 years of age could enjoy it, given the world is so utterly dimensionless and the story so incoherent, that anyone older would be annoyed by it. But then again, it's far too scary for anyone under 6 years of age, that there's probably no one that should watch this movie at all.<br /><br />Take my advice and stay far, far away from this movie. Your little daughter can make a better storyline, and though she probably isn't able to draw pictures this pretty, her tales are much more worth listening to. And please, in the name of whoever you believe in, do not expose your children to this piece of ****. I'll give it 2 out of 10, and that's exclusively for the graphics, because the story and character development are so awful they'd deserve a negative rating.<br /><br />And if you decide to watch it anyways... remember that I warned you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought that I was never going to find a horror movie as bad as "The Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre", but this film compete with it.<br /><br />I´m not a person that get asleep when watching a movie, but I did it 15 minutes after the Trance started. I woke up, and started to watching it agian. Why did I deserve that? All the movie was a torture, I have to use fast forward to watch it complete.<br /><br />I can´t stand why one of my favourites actors of all time (MR. WALKEN) could done this thing. I have to think that he made the director a favor, or he was really in the need of money, because film after film he is doing, he is ruining himself; and so fast...<br /><br />What about the movie? it´s not scary, stupid plot, characters are awful (but I really liked the one played by Jared Harris), effects are very poor, lack of deaths & blood, etc; in three words, it has anything. And I mean it. Can´t stand how a director can make a film like this.<br /><br />Anyway, When I got more disappointed was when I saw in the video cover, that the film was presented by "Stephen King", I think he could never present this crap, no? (I rented it in Argentina). I not recommend it in a million years.<br /><br />I rate this movie with a 2 out of 10. (As I say in my "Return of the Texas Chainsaw Massacre" review, there will be always a worse movies, thats why it don´t deserves a 1 out of 10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
It utterly defeats me why Godard is taken so seriously - and One Plus One is a great example of his ineptitude as both a filmmaker and an 'intellectual' polemicist. It's hard to credit that Godard actually believed all that Marxist and Maoist kant. Anyone with half a brain could work out the bankruptcy of those 'isms' and how many people they had destroyed and were continuing to destroy even as Godard was making his films supporting them. As a filmmaker, ask yourself: would you have boring voice-overs reading tedious political diatribes at your audience, and then, when you couldn't think of anything else to do, layer another voice-over to the first voice-over, which had lost its listeners after the first 100 words in any case? Brilliant, Jean-Luc! As for Godard insisting on making a film with the Rolling Stones: of course he did; wouldn't you? It was the only guarantee of getting such mindless rubbish seen in the first place: the genius of the Stones eclipsing a talentless and babbling political idiot set loose with a camera. The bookshop scene wasn't worthy of even the worst fringe theatre, and was an insult to the intelligence of even the young children who were used to play in it - as could be readily seen. Copping-out by allowing friendly critics to claim that all this artless crap was a satire on mainstream film-making is no more than a safe get-out to offer those who clearly see Godard's poverty of intellect and arrogant contempt for his audience. Ironic that Godard's one-time great friend, Truffaut, with Nuit Americain, made the best film about film-making ever, and Godard made the worst with Le Mepris! Incidentally, Godard didn't choose the Stones' track of Sympathy With the Devil. It just happened to be the track they were working on when the 'film' started shooting at Barnes Olympic Studios.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this film 2 stars only because Dominic Monaghan actually put effort through in his acting. Everything else about this film is extremely amateur. Everything associated with the direction of this film was very poorly executed. Not only should the director rethink what she is doing for a life career but maybe she should watch a few films. As Dominic Monaghan is a very credible actor, placing him in a film of this caliber makes him look awful. Whomever the "actor" was that played Jack's best friend should never have stepped in front of the camera. I didn't expect much from such a small film, but perhaps a little more time and effort should be put into the characters and their surroundings. Don't waste your time or money on this film (like I did) you will be sorely disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just watched the 30th Anniversary edition of Blazing Saddles, one of my all time Favorites!! The TV Pilot for Black Bart stunk. The plot was non-existent and the acting was not good. It was obviously an attempt to profit off of the success of Blazing Saddles and there have been TV shows that have succeeded in doing take-offs of big movies, but this one would never have worked. Considering that for so many years TV would not even play the farting noises when they televised the movie, it is inconceivable that they thought they could put a show on TV with the "N" word thrown around. On the other hand, I enjoyed seeing a lot of familiar faces!!! There were quite a few actors/actresses that I recognized from other shows over the years. I had to write down all the names and do a few searches. That was fun. I was arguing with my mother if Steve Landesberg was from Barney Miller or Mash. I won! :)
|
Negative
| null | null |
...said a couple exiting the movie theater just as I was entering to watch this. Hmm, not a good sign, but who knows? Different strokes for different folks, after all. Well, nope. They were being kind. Godard has released work that is passionate (Contempt), entertaining (Band of Outsiders), sometimes both (My Life to Live). This is just dull intellectualism, that grates on the nerves pretty quickly. During my showing, literally half of the audience had walked out by the end of the film. If only I had been so wise.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thomas Clay has been mixing with the wrong types. That's the trouble with young people these days, they have no respect.<br /><br />Seriously this film should be avoided at all costs. The action in the main body of the film is slow and rather stodgy and ambles to the drug crazed ending as if, like it's director, it has no where better to go. We are introduced to the main title character who is a bit of an outsider, we see him at school and at home not quite fitting in, feeling awkward in himself as so many adolescents do. Robert falls in with bad lads and starts missing school and taking drugs and before you know it he is a psycho rapist.<br /><br />The film is really about Clay's total failure to understand the links between violence imagery and violent acts. Clay seems to think a generation of crazed youth are made evil by scenes of war on our TVs. yet he has filmed the most disgusting piece of SIMULATED violence. Is this guy for real?<br /><br />If Clay has not seen YouTube perhaps he is naive and unaware of will be done with the brutal climax scene from his film? All anyone will want to see is the most hideous scene from the end of the film and I am sure that will be what sticks with people. <br /><br />The rest of the film is pointless for in committing such an act of violence to film Clay not only damns young people who are actively engaged in preventing war, he also damns himself as perpetrator of extreme, tasteless violence for no better reason than his own personal celebrity status.<br /><br />Shame on all involved.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pointless boring film with charismatic Mercurio completely wasted. Released for a minute on a Thursday in maybe one local cinema and avoided by the entire population of Sydney except me and four others BACK OF BEYOND is a project seemingly created by a producer looking for a fee. Local actors like John Polson and Terry Serio deserve better (well Polson has morphed into a Director of lame thrillers like SWIMFAN and HIDE AND SEEK) and Terry Serio seems never to get a guernsey apart from thug roles. But Paul Mercurio should have become one of Australia's greatest exports on screen. Roles like this are major disappointments and films like this are just a waste of talent and time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After finally viewing this movie in its entirety, I am completely mystified by the adoration it has received by critics and online users alike. Is it the worst Western ever? No, I wouldn't say that. But "the last great American Western", a phrase I saw applied to it more than once? Not even close.<br /><br />A movie that tries to tell a story like this needs believable characters that speak believable dialogue, and the dialogue in this film is among the most hackneyed and clichéd that I've ever seen. The movie can be measured in groaners per minute; as in, how many times is an actor or actress forced by the script to say something that no human being would say in real life? There's so many instances of this that it's distracting. Cheesy lines come at you in waves; predictable, unoriginal, and often. <br /><br />If bad dialogue doesn't bother you, then how about bad gunfights? Few Westerns can show you gunfighting that's completely unbelievable while desperately trying to make you take the action seriously. It's okay if there's a comic edge to such gunfighting, such as in Silverado, but in Tombstone the very staged and very stiff choreography of the early gunplay is just another reason to leave this movie off the list of good Westerns. The final showdown somewhat redeems the director on this score, but by then, I was so disinterested in the movie that it was beyond saving.<br /><br />Other than those flaws, I can say the visuals are stunning - the movie's well shot and the settings all look great. The acting is passable, especially considering what the actors were given to work with. However, if you're looking for the last great American Western, do yourself a favor - go rent Unforgiven instead.<br /><br />3 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wasn't as "lucky" as some of the others commenting on this film: i have never seen anything else out of the...shall we say... "fecund" mind of Sarno. I agree with many: some of the actresses who spend a lot of time topless and (go-go) dancing are not really that attractive. I kinda liked Fraulein Crank(?)...she was so homely , she was cute! The acting was pretty stale, also, though delivering lines in a second language might have accounted for a lot of that problem. Trying to follow the plot was a major chore: was there one, really? I do heartily agree with one other comment: for a vampire movie, there's not much blood. Yep, if you want GOOD bloodsucking flicks, check out such Hammer classics as "Horror of Dracula" and (my personal favourite) "Brides of Dracula".<br /><br />The most (unintentionally) humorous part is where the lady doctor gets her clothes torn off by a cloud of bats...which you never SEE!...the bats, I mean.<br /><br />Okay as a time-waster if you happen to catch it on cable here in the Great White North but, for heaven's sake, don't rent it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This isn't a movie. It is a collection of unrelated, ill-conceived and poorly assembled scenes that look like the unedited results of a dim 10 year old with a mini-DV camera. In fact, I have a theory that the extremely abrasive girl in the train corridor - the one with the greasy hair, dead-pan stare, ipod and nervous tic - probably shot it herself in a creative phase.<br /><br />If you made it further than the ten minutes I did, don't bother trying to fit what you saw into the context of the European Artiste mentality praised above. This is a true and complete waste of time, money and film that would have made William One-Shot Beaudine cringe.<br /><br />The unfortunate part is that the endless series of vacuum-packed characters is representative of what now passes for much of humanity.<br /><br />What's next? Six directors shooting social intercourse at the Wal-Mart snack counter?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This reboot is like a processed McDonald's meal compared to Ang Lee's very good but very underrated 2003 "The Incredible Hulk".<br /><br />Ang Lee's "The Hulk" is a comic book movie for the thinking person. The Hulk takes some time to appear (about 40 minutes), but when he does we see the conflict at our protagonist's core. He does his best to avoid losing control, but as he admits, when he does give in to his rage, he likes it.<br /><br />Now compare this to Edward Norton's turn, where there is no display of conflict in his personality, and he turns into the Hulk whenever he becomes excited and his pulse rate hits 200 beats per minute (not 183, not 197, but exactly 200). To this reviewer, this felt akin to the introduction of midi-chlorians in The Phantom Menace, which tell how strong the "force" is with one, as if mystical abilities can be gauged through a blood test. In the 2008 movie, all Ed Norton's Bruce Banner has to do is to keep his pulse rate under 200, as monitored by a device strapped onto his wrist. And for the record, it is extremely difficult to get one's pulse rate up to 200 even through a very exhilarating run, especially for a physically fit person.<br /><br />Emotions drive Eric Bana's Hulk. He has repressed memories of his mother's death and his father's role in his early life. On the surface he is calm, but there underneath there is significant anger, enough rage to fuel the Hulk when it is unleashed. But the Hulk never kills intentionally, even his attackers. Mostly, he just wants to get away or close to Betty Ross (Jennifer Connelly). He incapacitates his shooters and in one critical scene, saves a fighter jet pursuing him from a collision.<br /><br />In the 2003 movie, the visual effects are there, but as necessary. The action scenes (and there are plenty of them) are necessary to the plot, unlike the 2008 movie where action is inserted for the sake of action.<br /><br />In his quest to turn it into a "fugitive" story, Ed Norton loses focus on how Bruce Banner feels about the Hulk. To him, the Hulk is a dangerous side effect of an experiment went awry. And Louis Leterrier, the director picking up on Ed Norton's cue, fails to add any emotional dimension to the Banner-Hulk relationship. The story can be summed up as: Banner is pursued and Hulk kicks butt, Banner is pursed and Hulk kick butt. Repeat as necessary.<br /><br />The only thing that went against the 2003 movie is that it is perhaps not as true to the comic books as the 2008 version. However, even as I am a fan of the comics, I would prefer a movie that is not as true to the comics as a fanboy's dream but has heart over the comics-loyal but manufactured and soulless 2008 version any day.<br /><br />Perhaps Ang Lee should have read more comics. Iron Man, also released in 2008, is a perfect example of a movie that is true to its comic-book roots and has heart.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I shouldn't even review this movie, since it's not actually a horror movie -- and thus not worthy of Dr. Cheese's attention. At least, it's not horror in the usual sense. It's certainly a horrifying proposition to waste your time watching this crap. That's why I turned it off after the first four hours. Imagine my surprise, then, when the clock showed that only 45 minutes had passed. Yep, that's right; in plain terms, this movie is b-o-r-i-n-g.<br /><br />"The Order" had lots of flaws, not all of them unique. In particular, it seems to me the main problem with the "religious" subgenre of horror films is Hollywood's unwillingness to engage Christianity on its own terms. It is quite possible to make truly creepy films that are also orthodox. Just ask William Peter Blatty. In fact, without orthodoxy, films like this are just an anything-goes smorgasbord of the filmmakers' (usually dull and illogical) imaginations.<br /><br />Think about it. If someone made a movie ostensibly about, say, physics, but not only got the basic laws of physics wrong, but based the entire plot on its wrong portrayals, you would soon get tired of the resulting pointless plot. The same goes for these sorts of movies.<br /><br />In other words, "The Order"(and many similar movies before it) invent out of whole cloth stuff about the Catholic Church and about the Christian faith and attempt to build a plot out of these inventions. Unsurprisingly, the plot ends up being incoherent and stupid. This movie has the added charm of being as interesting to watch as your toenails growing.<br /><br />Avoid this steaming pile.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A truly muddled incomprehensible mess. Most things in the film look more or less like 1987, but then there are futuristic things just thrown in, like the policeman's ray gun. And that car! The director seemed to be in love with colored lights. The only really notable performance was the girl who played Valerie, but since there was no cast listing, I don't know which actress that was. This one is worth missing. Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
i've discovered that this film gets rented based off of the packaging. the zombie on the front of the DVD looks cool and scary. then you get to the movie and it's women with raccoon masks on. zero special effects...and even the fight scenes you can see them miss punches by 2 feet. the funny thing is that Lommel acts in the movie briefly himself and is worse than the rest of the crap actors in the movie. the only thing i can think is that Lommel is just trying to make such a bad film that people dub it a "cult classic"...however, i can't possibly imagine anyone thinking this is anything but one of the worst movies ever made. the real horror in this film is how bad it is. i'm embarrassed i rented it and vow never to see another Lommel film again!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'd never seen a Tarzan movie before so when I saw it on the tele I thought I'd give it a shot. Unfortunately I have to say I was disappointed. Tarzan was over 40 years old and somewhat overweight. Not how I'd imagined Tarzan would look. And, unless I missed it while making myself a cup of tea, Tarzan never gave his traditional warbling yell. Also missing was Tarzan swinging through the trees - leaping from vine to vine.<br /><br />Oh well, so much for expectations. Anyway, Jane was there - The monkey Cheeta was there. There was some guy with a guitar there. There were villains and good guys and a romance... all very harmless and predictable. Nothing bad, you understand, but equally nothing good.<br /><br />Probably not the best movie to introduce Tarzan: 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although in some aspects Seven Pounds is solid and interesting in some of its narrative style, Gabriele Muccino's project is rather mediocre. The movie becomes more and more sappy and manipulative as it move toward the end: hearts human and emotional, eyes physical and metaphorical. Seven Pounds is more of an amateurish imitation of Alejandro González Iñárritu's Amores Perros and 21 Grams, with lots and lots of flashbacks. The problem is the story is quite predictable from VERY easily on through the movie. That's too bad, because Seven Pounds could have been as authentically "good" if Ben and Emily had been put in the right hands.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The comment by "eliz7212-1" hits the proverbial "nail on the head" for this turkey of a program. But it is a hoot to watch William Shatner "cavort" and "dance" (yes, the " " marks on the word dance are necessary for what Bill does). This show would be a great skit on SNL or MAD TV - and it does rate a few stars for one viewing, or so, to see Shatner, who seems to have taken "camp" to new heights - whether in a role or as himself. But the guy is funny.<br /><br />The girls who are in the cubicle areas with the game data scrolls, will be pretty much out-of-luck when this turkey is canceled - unless there is a revival of the whiskey-a-go-go genre, with a resurrected demand for shapely young women to dance in elevated cages once more.<br /><br />I watched the first contestant, who was annoying, and literally "dumber than a :post," yet through sheer luck, walked away with a quarter mil or so. The second contestant, somewhat more intelligent, but who'd be lucky to gain $1,000 on Jeopardy!, got zonked by the card which requires answering a special question - which he didn't know, and thereby left with zilch.<br /><br />This plethora of game shows, which dangle, and sometimes award, large sums to everyday individuals, are admittedly a cheap effort, overall, to attempt to woo viewers. Even if the host is well-compensated, and they give away six figures in an average episode, I suppose that the revenue versus costs can be favorable - since you don't have a sitcom cast where several stars are getting six or seven figures, per episode, with some big residual deals as well.<br /><br />But I suspect even the better ones will wear thin before long. This one has already pretty much reached this point. I think his offerings, especially with James Spader, and the others on "Boston Legal" should give us a satisfying quantity of Bill Shatner's offerings.<br /><br />Again, the above rating is simply appropriate to view Bill hoot and prance, perhaps one time; that should be sufficient.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There just isn't enough here. There a few funny spots, but not really enough. I was very disappointed because I love stupid movies. I was expecting this to be a hidden gem. IT WAS NOT. It was a hidden turd.<br /><br />The whole time I was watching it I was thinking, "Geez, I could do better than that and I'm a moron". Don't believe the few good reviews. I was suckered in by them. At no point did I laugh at loud. Maybe this was funny or cutting edge in 1987 but man, it fell flat today. This movie had promise, it just didn't deliver on it. Maybe if they rewrote it a few more times. I cant fault the actors. They weren't the best, but they just didn't have much with which to work. This movie failed because of threadbare writing. SORELY disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this film was shrouded in scandal for so long that it became a very sought after item...the outrage, the mystery, etc. it had everything to be a great piece of film-making, but ultimately fails in every extent. it's a terribly bad comedy, a pathetic horror movie, a lame erotic film.<br /><br />the 2 disc DVD includes a gorgeous booklet with stills, interviews, essays on bestiality, etc. as well as an extensive interview with the more-than-pretentious director. for those who have heard about it but never seen it, the package will seem fantastic until one actually sees the film. disc 1 contains the edited film, badly translated to English but with good visual quality. disc 2 contains the director's cut, in an awful transfer, in french.<br /><br />what can I say about the actual beast? a hand puppet of Kermit the frog would have been more effective and shocking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw the film at the Belgrade Film Festival last week, and I'm still working off the trauma. Essentially my view seems to match a number of others - the first half hour was fresh, sharp, deep, entertaining and promising. Well acted too. Natural. My problem, however, is not simply with the fact that the final hour and a half of the film have nothing to do with the likable beginning, nor the fact that I spent most of this time convulsing in agony at sharp, grating industrial sounds and squinting at drunken, toothless, bread-chewing hags. It's rather with the fact that THEY NEVER WARNED ME!!! The festival brochure synopsis described only the (utterly intriguing-sounding) first half hour - a whore, piano tuner and meat seller chat in a bar, pretending to be an advertising agent, genetic engineer, and petty government administration official, respectively - making no mention whatsoever of the never-ending gum-smacking to come. Serves me right for not reading the reviews, you might say - but to my defense, a number of reviews I looked at post-fact um didn't at all stress the immensity and utter unbearableness of the greater part of the film.<br /><br />The first hint should have been the introductory words by the director (a bashful, tousle-haired Russian youth) who stepped in front of the crammed auditorium (the film seems to be doing incredibly well critically, and tickets were sold out well in advance of the screening, though most of the audience seemed as unaware as I was of the pain to come, judging by the plethora of unearthly moans and groans that utterly permeated the theatre during the last half hour, and many exasperated comments on exit) to say the following: 'Well, I... um, thank you very much for coming to see this film, and I just wanted to say... well, it's a very long film... it took me four years to make it, and... it's.. I suggest that you see it and immediately try to forget about it. It is very long. Thank you for coming.' This is what he said. Alarm bells should have been ringing. 'What's he talking about?' I thought in happy confusion. 'This is gonna be fun!' Of course, by the time his strangely apologetic comments started making sense to me, it was far too late to get out. All I could do is writhe in increasing agony until the lights came on again. And in the end I can't say I feel in any way improved by the experience. Yes, I absolutely loved the first half hour. It was intelligent, new, and had a lot to say. And yes, Russia is probably in a bad state. Yes, every society has many hidden faces. Yes, toothless life in barren wastelands is probably unimaginably hard. Yes yes yes. I get all of this. Really I do. But I see no earthly reason why art and meaning should be so agonisingly drawn out, and so painful to bear. If you want to see a film land somewhere between the extremes of glitzy Hollywood plastic fantastic and hours of muddy vodka swigging, try the Korean-Chinese Bin Jip (3-Iron). It's artsy and surprising, but also to-the-point and fun.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, so the introduction, with its hokey offer of a free coffin to anyone who dies of fright during the film, is so lame it's funny. And so the first "skull scene" is so drawn out and un-suspenseful it's funny. The actual plot of the movie is somewhat decent, there's at least a little bit of genuine food for thought in the behavior of the characters, and the plot twist is decent as horror flicks go. The acting is average, not truly bad. <br /><br />Altogether, this movie doesn't quite fall flat in the way a 1/10 movie would. It's not terrible enough to get the lowest rating or even second lowest. If I just read the screenplay, I'd say there was potential for this to be a decent movie. It's just that the horrid direction and production that ruin the movie. So it's a bad movie, but there are much worse ones out there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A truly frightening film. Feels as if it were made in the early '90s by a straight person who wanted to show that gays are good, normal, mainstream-aspiring people. Retrograde to the point of being offensive, LTR suggests that monogamy and marriage are the preferred path to salvation for sad, lonely, sex-crazed gays. Wow! Who knew? The supporting characters are caricatures of gay stereotypes (the effeminate buffoon, the bitter, lonely queen, the fag hag, etc.) and the main characters are milquetoast, middle-class, middlebrow clones, of little interest.<br /><br />As far as the romantic & ideological struggles of the main couple are concerned, there's not much to say: we've seen it all before, and done much better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My first opinions on this movie were of course bad.I was expecting a horrible, crappy acting, bad entertainment, ridiculous special effects movie.What I got was actually not that bad.The special effects were absolutely horrible, but I found the movie itself quite interesting, and the script was actually pretty good and decent.The acting wasn't THAT bad, and overall I had fun watching this movie.It's still a pretty bad film, but it's not completely worthless like I thought it was going to be, and I'm pleased to know that this movie managed to wow me, even when it wasn't that good.Overall, it's a film that should be avoided, but to me it wasn't as bad as I was expecting it to be.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a sad film made for sad people. I was sitting in theaters tearing my hair apart, wanting to break the chairs in front of me as the movie spitted out one cringe-inducing scenes after another. And there were people roaring with laughter behind me, which made me wonder what kind of films these people must be watching to actually enjoy this horse-s**t.<br /><br />Nikkhil Advani has six stories with no plot and no interesting characters. The screenplay is dull, probably he was drunk when he was writing this film. There is no strong hold on any of these stories. Nothing new , nothing to hold the audience and filled with dialogs which you would have heard a million times before. One of the stories is about this couple not being able to have sex because of series of disasters taking place every time they want to do it. I mean seriously is this story really required? Its not funny, not creative but only proves that Advani has no sense of comedy. Another of the stories (which was probably the only story I was interested in) is based on a man's infidelity and that too ends in a lame age-old sati-savitri pati-parmeshwar crap. I have no idea what the Salmaan-Priyanka plot was all about. There was no issue in the plot for it to be a plot. She can't take Karan Johar's film because she has to marry Salmaan ?? Why can't she marry him and still take the film ?? or does Advani and Priyanaka just want to prove the world that it is in fact true that female actors cant be successful if they are married or that they should not act in films once they are married?? With six actors in the film obviously Advani cant produce the film all by himself. So he makes full use of sponsors like the Times group, shamelessly promoting their Filmfare magazines. And also some jewelery brand which the women in the film absolutely seem to adore!! I come to IMDb to give it the worst rating and i am shocked to see posts praising the film. It just goes to show the sad state of bollywood and how star struck the fans are. With fans like these, movies like Salaam E Ishq will be continue to be made and worse probably be a hit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You have to understand, when Wargames was released in 1983, it created a generation of wannabe computer hackers. The idea that a teenager could do anything of far reaching proportions, let alone deter a world war was novel and thrilling. Real computers were beginning to show up in people's homes, and for the first time, society was becoming interconnected in a way that made the movie's premise excitingly prescient. Granted, a talking computer that balanced it's free time between chess and global thermonuclear war was a bit far fetched, but the brilliant commentary on nuclear proliferation and the cold war made up for it. I've probably even heard of the hackers that this movie was actually based on.<br /><br />Fast forward 25 years, and we have a horrible mutant of a thing that I loathe to call a "sequel", called Wargames: The Dead Code. I'll just dig right in. First of all, the plot hinges on a government operated gambling site where folks who win the games automatically become terror suspects. You're probably very confused right now. The idea is that eventually the terrorist will click on the sub-game within the web site called "The Dead Code" where they pilot a plane over a city, spraying it with bioweapons. At some point in the game, you have to choose between "sarin gas" and "anthrax", and if you choose "sarin", then you're automatically confirmed as a bioterrorism weapons expert and your family is taken into custody and interrogated. In the movie, this actually happens. However, since the payment for the game was made from a bank account that was suspicious, it obviously all makes sense.<br /><br />Second, the avatar of the AI in this straight-to-DVD bomb is an annoying flash animation that keeps repeating the pop-up-ad-esquire sound bite "play with me baby". Because apparently in the future, advanced AI loses interest in intellectual pursuits like chess, and gets into porn.<br /><br />Third, the motivation for these "hackers" is profit and women, as opposed to pure curiosity as in the original movie. For some reason, recent hacker movies feel the need to portray all young adults as average surfer dude kind of people who are just like everyone else. That may work for your average sitcom, but c'mon, you don't learn how to take over government computers by doing your hair, playing sports, and shopping at the mall, folks. The one novel thing I noticed was that at some point in the dialogue there is a reference to a Matt Damon movie, and then later there is the phrase, "Good Hunting, Will". I swear, they named the main character Will just for that phrase so they could send a high five to Mr. Damon. This Will kid isn't bad, but he was certainly wasn't like any obsessive hacker I've ever met. I can't fully state how annoyed I am that this movie shares the same name as the original, because it has absolutely nothing in common with it except
Professor Falken and Joshua (WOPR) make a reappearance in this movie, as a limp old man who apparently is dying of boredom, and a dilapidated old tic-tac-toe machine with a higher pitched voice. After some prodding, Joshua (the AI) has what appears to be sex with the new AI with the porn voice, a bunch of board games flash on the big screens, and the whole "The only way to win, is not to play" revelation is supposed to be the crowning moment. Except that those of us who saw the original, you know, those who would want to see this in the first place have already been there and done that. A recycled ending for a movie made from last month's compost.<br /><br />The new movie was directed by a guy who's done 90210, and written by guys who do B movies. The original was directed by a guy who's been keeping himself busy with "Heroes", so you see the quality difference there. There was talk of a real remake, but I hope they don't destroy this classic all over again. I swear, if I have to, I'll visit every gambling web site until I find the one that's run by a psychotic government computer. The saving grace is that I was able to stream this on Netflix, so at least the only energy I expended watching this disaster was for breathing, clicking, and indigestion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds, and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. I've been a fan of Scooby Doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. I didn't think much of the Scooby Doo animated movies, (I'm talking about the TV Series, not the full length movies.), but some of them were pretty cool, and I like most people found Scrappy Doo to be an irritant, but this series is pure garbage. As soon as I saw the animation, and heard the characters, (and I use that term loosely) speak, I cringed. Also, Mystery Inc., was a team, and without the entire crew to compliment each other, it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones, and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. What's New Scooby Doo was better than this. If you're going to have a Scooby Doo TV series, include the elements that made the series endure so long. The entire cast of characters, and quality animation. They need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was physically painful to sit through, maybe because (like many people my age, and younger) I grew up with Dr. Seuss and loved his books - funny, clever, whimsical and subversive at the same time. "The Cat in the Hat" sucks all of the interest and spark out of the story, and Mike Myer's performance as the Cat is mostly bewildering. Why the Borscht Belt accent, the unfunny patter, the inappropriate jokes, the charmless costume? I had to go back and re-read the books to see the real problem: the books are SIMPLE. This movie is OVERBLOWN and way, way too long.<br /><br />You don't expect every kids' movie to be Toy Story or The Iron Giant, but this one set a new low. How could Mike Myers need the money?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Essentially a story of man versus nature, this film has beautiful cinematography, the lush jungles of Ceylon and the presence of Elizabeth Taylor but the film really never gets going. Newlwed Taylor is ignored and neglected by her husband and later is drawn to the plantation's foreman, played by Dana Andrews. The plantation is under the spell of owner Peter Finch's late father whose ghost casts a pall over Elephant Walk that becomes a major point of contention between Taylor and Finch. The elephants are determined to reclaim their traditional path to water that was blocked when the mansion was built across their right-of-way. The beasts go on a rampage and provides the best moments of action in the picture. Taylor and Andrews have some good moments as she struggles to remain a faithful wife in spite of he marital difficulties with Finch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The worst movie I have seen in a while. Yeah its fun to fantasize, but if that is what you are looking for, I suggest you see Brewsters Millions. This was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. Unless you are five or like terrible movies, don't see this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.<br /><br />That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.<br /><br />And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...
|
Negative
| null | null |
An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Carlito Way, the original is a brilliant story about an ex-drug dealer who hopes to leave his criminal past and so he invests in a club and the deals with the trouble that comes with it.<br /><br />This film was....<br /><br />I saw the trailer and knew instantly it was going to be bad..But after dismissing films in the past and finding out they were great( Lucky Number Slevin, Tokyo Drift)...I gave this a shot and it failed within the first five minutes...<br /><br />The script is something a teenager would come up with if given five minutes to prepare...It was weak, with weaker dialogue. It seems there is an instant need for romance in a gangster movie. So Brigante decides to beat a guy up for the girl....and she say's 'Yes!' And if you need to act bad just throw racism around...As we learn from the 'Italian mobsters'...<br /><br />The acting was terrible to say the least...I found 'Hollywood Nicky', hilarious.<br /><br />I absolutely hate all these musicians turning to movies. Lets face it the only reason P Diddy did this movie was so he could play a gangsters...The actress who plays Leticia was weak but beautiful. The sex scene was weak but we got to see her..which was okay...<br /><br />But overall I expected it shed light on how Carito ended up in prison and the love of his life...And the assassin towards the end completely added to the horrendous movie that is...<br /><br />Carlito's Way: Rise to Power..
|
Negative
| null | null |
...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, "Jingle All the Way" looked better than "The Godfather". "Santa Claus" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle. <br /><br />Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having listened to and enjoyed Harvey Bernhard's Omen II commentary I was shocked to discover he was also behind this absolute piece of rubbish. It's like a really bad TV movie you might glimpse in the middle of the day when you have the flu and are too ill to reach the remote. I think at the bit where Michael Lerner is confronted by what I can only describe as a high school cast of Les Miserables my mouth hung open in disbelief. And then my mouth was going up and down because I was laughing so much. Dire. I don't know why I have to write a minimum of ten lines, I have made my point succinctly, there's nothing clever about all this modern verbiage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although I use this site quite frequently to see how other people rated what I think are challenging or just plain enjoyable films, after watching this "movie" on Film Four last night I felt compelled to write something down, even if it just helps cleanse me once again.<br /><br />The film was possibly the shallowest experience I've ever had - the main characters played by Danny Dyer (23? You sure?) and Gillian Anderson (who will always be Scully as Leonard Nimoy will always be Spock) had no real substance about them - I'm not sure if the first half-hour of the film didn't make the final cut but surely in a revenge movie you would like some empathy with the victims... here I couldn't care less. In fact, the only character I did seem to care about was the dog, with the stag coming a close second. And both animals out-acted Dire (sic) and Scully, who were quite frankly terrible. I guess though you're only as good as the script you are given, and I'd like to warmly thank the writers, the producers, the director and all of the cast for wasting 90 minutes of my life and some perfectly good electricity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Doppelganger has its moments, but they are few and far between.<br /><br />Essentially, this is a grade B blend of pop-psych thriller, ghost story and horror. Drew Barrymore plays a young woman who is haunted by the demons of her past (most of her family has been murdered and she was, in at least one case, the prime suspect), or does she just have a really bad case of multiple personality disorder? George Newbern is her new room mate, and most of the action centers on him.<br /><br />Newbern's character is pretty sympathetic, and both he and Barrymore do decent work (though not exactly good). The mediocre to (at times) totally horrendous script and the unimpressive directing seem to have combined to sink the rest of the performances into oblivion. Leslie Hope's character is memorable, but so irritating that you will want to forget her.<br /><br />The plot eventually disintegrates into a bifurcated (one story arc is psychological realism, the other is supernatural horror) outlandish climax which is so badly conceived, acted and photographed that it effectively counteracts most of what value the film had achieved previously.<br /><br />Overall, the film has the feel of what might expect to be the result of M. Knight Shamalyan's first undergraduate film class. The acting and script for the two leads are just good enough to make you care a little about them - at least until the film derails utterly and completely.<br /><br />My recommendation - send your doppelganger, but avoid a first-person encounter.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who has studied any physics or cognitive science will walk out disgusted after 40 min., as my wife and I did. The ignorant masses might be entertained by the hand-waiving arguments and the absurd "conclusions" drawn (without even an attempt at a logical reason) from real science. I'm offended by such nonsense presented under the guise of "science". I can only conclude that the writers picked up a quantum physics book, didn't understand a word of it, then watched The Matrix about a thousand times, and proceeded to write this movie.<br /><br />For example, the Washington DC crime experiment was done by The Transcendental Meditation Program. A brief search will reveal the science of their methods. (http://www.freedomofmind.com/resourcecenter/groups/t/tm/dissenter.htm)<br /><br />Save your money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are no reasons to watch this movie. Should you have won and extreme amount of money and having spent your time discovering life's every pleasure and have come to a point where by chance you are at a loose end and have some time to kill (like that would ever happen) then get this movie from the video shop (if you can find it AND put up with the assistant laughing at you then ask for this movie. Be prepared however for you mind to be invaded by extremely wooden acting by absolutely everyone (in fact the best acting was by the people who said nothing). Oliver Reed tops off his grand career by playing a drunk - go figure. But wait I forgot there is one reason to watch this movie - Claudia Udy showing her chest! Sadly no other reason than that!
|
Negative
| null | null |
As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.<br /><br />Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.<br /><br />In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMÉLIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.<br /><br />I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.<br /><br />TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.<br /><br />As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was heavily marred by the presence of Steven Seagal. Or as I should say Steven So-dull! Like before Seagal is either too good or too stupid to re-dub his own lines, leaving someone to impersonate his voice for the shots where the sound needed to be looped. A few films before this was he has done this too, but I don't think to this extent! To be honest the film looks pretty good, the script could use some work but parts of this film looked like a real movie! Of course, all told, this film is pretty bad.<br /><br />It would have been much better without Seagal who has become a cartoon of himself. Don't bother. Anything over a buck for this one is too much! I honestly think this is the last time for me and a Seagal film. What's taken me so long to realize this?!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen many a horror flick in my time, all of them absurdly bad, but none reach the depths that this piece of trash lowers itself to. This movie made me angrier and angrier as I watched it as I tried to wrap my head around exactly what this movie was about. Now, after I've seen it, I understand - sort of - what was going on and why, but the movie itself is just too confusing to be enjoyable when you're watching it. Yes, there are the customary scenes of gratuitious violence, one-liners that show the mind-blowing insightfulness of its characters ("The highway belongs to me...ME!"), and enough nudity to sufficiently distract us from the "plot", but still you'll leave this movie feeling alone and taken advantage of, like a puppy who isn't wanted anymore and is left in a box by the side of the road. Blech.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know how this movie received so many positive reviews on this site! I'm a big vonnegut fan and am very familiar with the story this Showtime original film bastardized beyond belief, but even if I wasn't, the poor acting, VERY poor casting (Sean Astin as the brilliant, athletic, and all around individual, Harrison?? The guy's completely generic!) and sub-standard writing rendered this tripe barely watchable. Someone pointed out how cute that Maculay Culkin line was. If you read that and thought that was pure comic brilliance (sadly, it probably was the most INTENTIONALLY funny part of the movie), maybe you'll like this movie. But if you're a Vonnegut fan or not completely insane, don't see it. Please.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Deathstalker is directed by John Watson and it stars Rick Hill, who is some kind of body builder and famous of that, if I have understood right? The plot follows as Deathstalker (Hill) tries to get something back from the evil lord, and he has to travel to the lord's cave. He meets many dwarfs and monsters during his journey, and the settings are very close to Tolkien, and of course Conan the Barbarian. This is a rip off of huge success of Conan, and even though this is very stupid film, it has many nice trash merits and is recommended for trash fans and tolerating film junkies!<br /><br />There are no many cinematic merits in this film. Couple of scenes are almost atmospheric and fascinating, but what Deathstalker concentrates to show, are nude females and huge muscles of Hill. Females are usually helpless victims and very stupid, too, so this is very macho film and thus may not please many feminists! The fight scenes are nothing special and pretty dull, and the monsters are not either anything special. And all the other aspects of the film are also very amateurish and badly done, but what did you expect from low budget effort like this? This tries to be as great as Conan but fails pretty miserably. As I said, this can please fans of turkey cinema but no one else. This belongs to the category it's so bad it's great!<br /><br />Deathstalker is still not as near as bad as it could be, and as a turkey film, I appreciate this almost as much as other turkeys, enjoyable ones of course! If bad films are your cup of tea, then try this and have fun, but if you don't understand "enjoyably bad films" then stay away. And if somebody can't stand large amount of nudity, then stay away as well. There is more nudity here than violence, and due to these scenes, the film has an R rating. Otherwise this could be some safe PG family film!<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.