input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Went to watch this movie expecting a 'nothing really much' action flick, still got very disappointed. The opening scene promised a little action with a tinge of comedy. It keeps you hooked for the first half coz till then you are expecting that now its time for the action to kick in. Well, nothing of that sort happens. The movie drags and the ending just thumps you down to a point that you get annoyed.Wonder what was the director thinking. Made no sense watsoever. The movie lacked in all aspects, had no real storyline and it seemed very hollow, even if "Rambo" was in it, I don't think he could have helped the rating at all. There is simply no logic to the movie. A perfect way to waste your time and money. By far the most irritating movie i have ever seen and i am sure there will b others who'll have the same viewpoint after enduring it. Definitely not for people who have a little movie sense left in them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I cannot see why filmmakers remade this movie. <br /><br />The 1972 movie with McQueen and McGraw is almost a classic. Steve McQueen was an outstanding actor and Baldwin is only an inadequate actor. He has no passion in his play.Also the action in the original "Getaway" was fantastic. But the remake has no action! It is almost boring despite the fact that the film-making in 1972 was more difficult than in 1994. <br /><br />I don't understand the way that Baldwin imprisoned from Mexico. I think this is a mistake in the story.<br /><br />So i think that there was no need to remake it, or if they decided to remake a classic, they must choose an excellent actor for the first role, like Johnny Depp or Brad Pitt...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was so looking forward to seeing this when it was in production.But it turned out to be the the biggest let down. A far cry from the whimsical world of Dr Seuss. It was vulgar and distasteful I don't think Dr Seuss would have approved.How the Grinch stole Christmas was much better. I understand it had some subtle adult jokes in it but my children have yet to catch on. Whereas The Cat in the Hat screamed vulgarity they caught a lot more than I would have liked.Growing up with Dr Seuss It really bothered me to see how this timeless classic got trashed on the big screen .Lets see what they do with Horton hears a who.I hope this one does Dr Seuss some justice.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was a real disappointment to me. I have been a fan of Gram Parsons for a long time, and when i found out they were making a film about him i was very exited, I got the movie on VHS when it came out, and was sickened by what i saw, This film wasn't about his life, it was about the aftermath of his death. I thought it would be a descent film about Grams Life and Music, but they had to make a film about his death. I am tired of hearing about his deaths in books and movies, i wanted a film about his life, not his infamous death. I was very Disappointed. I wish people would look at his life, more then his death. The only thing good about this film was its soundtrack. This film is a disappointment to any Gram Parsons Fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.<br /><br />See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.<br /><br />In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is pretty poor. The acting is abysmal and completely forced. Furthermore, by shooting the film as a docudrama doesn't necessarily make it more believable, you can't get out of it that easily Mr Dir. Don't let my comments mislead you however, as i would recommend you watch this film, as it does shed some light on the psychology or non existent psychology behind the perpetrators of such crimes. However, the climax of the film is absolutely rubbish! There is no other way to put it! It pure and simply fails to capture any sense of atmosphere! What takes place does not translate to me any feelings of desperation, panic, fear or dread that one would surely experience in such terrifying circumstances. No instead it leaves you with jaw dropping "Was that it?!" spilling from your tongue, and by no means are you haunted by these boys actions. Rather you just feel embarrassed for yet another film that started with potential, but ended up falling flat on its face at the most crucial point.Zero Day indeed....zzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well then, thank you SO MUCH Disney for DESTROYING the fond memories I USED to have of my FORMER favorite movie. I was about 5 when the original movie came out, and it was one of the first movies I remember seeing. So, now that I'm 16, and feeling masochistic enough, I decided to rent this movie. Thus, I managed to poison all my memories of the original movie with this sorry excuse for a movie. This movie takes everything that made the original endearing and wrecks it, right down to the last detail.<br /><br />In this movie, Ariel and Eric celebrate the birth of their daughter, Melody, and go to show her to everyone in the ocean...BROADWAY STYLE! After the musical number ends, within minutes, the sea witch Morgana shows up and threatens to kill Melody if Triton doesn't give up the trident. Thus, he gives it up without even a fight. Eric stands there gaping, though Ariel figures out how to use a sword and save Melody. Morgana escapes, so Ariel and Eric decide that Melody should never go near the sea until Morgana is caught.<br /><br />Well...uh, nothing of note really happens. Eric is a total wuss. He never really manages to do anything. Ariel sort of does something. Melody manages to screw things up. Plus, the animation is a new low-point for Disney. The computer graphics wind up clashing with the backgrounds. Ever single opportunity for character development is wasted. The songs bite.<br /><br />Look, don't waste your time. I'm pretty sure even the little kids are going to be bored out of their skulls with this, since nothing even remotely exciting ever happens. They won't want to sing the songs. If you manage to grab a copy of this, throw it out into the ocean and hope that nobody ever finds it. Ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Years ago I saw The Godfather and it made a lasting impression on me, the atmosphere of the movie was first class, the acting memorable and the storyline a classic. Recently I bought the Trilogy and after watching Part 1 again I looked eagerly to viewing Part 2...... I was so pleased to realize early on into Part 2 that here was a fitting follow on to the great Godfather movie, again everything was just about perfect and I could not wait to see Godfather III ........ WRONG!, I wish I'd stopped at II. The storyline was not good, it seemed to me like a story made up just to have a story, the characters were weak especially the daughter. Pacino's protege was a weak character that would have been eaten alive in Godfather 1 or 2. Then scenes such as, Corleone being invested with all the trappings of the Catholic Church with full choir, the assassin on horseback riding away into the sunset, the unseen helicopter machine gunning of the meeting (where the 'goodies' get away and everyone else is shot),daughter and 1st cousin rolling bits of pasta across a board, the pathetic shooting on the steps ..... Corleone stuffing sweets down him with orange juice for diabetes (a man of his intelligence and guile isn't ready for an emergency?)... NO it was not good and with the best will in the world I wont be able to watch it again. But I'll watch 1 & 2 many times down the years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seeing as I hate reading long essays hoping to find a point and being disappointed, I will first tell everyone that this movie was terrible. Downright terrible. And not, surprisingly for the reasons mentioned in the first review. I thought I might agree with him, seeing as he gave the movie the rank it deserved, but was sorrowfully rebuked upon reading what he said. I am quite ashamed to be taking the same side as someone who commented that the movie "definitely lacks good-looking females." Let me be the first to say, "Wow! that was definitely some serious in-depth reviewing there. My mind can hardly comprehend the philosophical musings about this movie." Seriously though, a lack of "good-looking females" shouldn't be considered an essential to a movie. If you're desperate enough for "good-looking females" you should really watch other types of movies, not necessarily falling into the sci-fi category.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A small town is attacked by a horde of bloodthirsty vampires. The only hope is a lone avenger and a group of ragtag survivors.<br /><br />Released in 1993, "Darkness" garnered something of a cult following upon release. It's easy to see why-it's loaded (and I mean freaking loaded) with gore, and it's energy and enthusiasm, like that found in other no-budget cult horror flicks like "The Dead Next Door" and "The Children of Ravensback", is actually rather infectious.<br /><br />While that may be true, that's sadly not enough to save it. The film was shot on a Super 8, so the image is grainy and dark, making things very difficult to see (it would have been great if it had obscured the protagonists dreadful mullet.) Also grating is the soundtrack, made up of annoying Casio Keyboard and even more annoying Death Metal (seriously, what is it with these no budget horror flicks and bad Death Metal?) While one isn't expecting Oscar worthy performances, the acting is still strictly amateur hour, as the actors sometimes seem almost confused instead of frightened or threatened.<br /><br />In the end, I'm sure fans of no-budget gorefests will love this. Everyone else though, will wish there was a little more meat on the ribs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There will be a time where kids will have grown up without ever seeing the one and only Bugs Bunny kiss (technically) another man on the lips. There will be a time where it won't be Duck or Rabbit season. There will be a time where the Tazmanian Devil will be dubbed politically incorrect.<br /><br />But so help me now is not that time.<br /><br />Nobody really wants an 'EXTREME' version of our beloved Loony characters. Whoever it is in marketing who comes up with "Corn Nuts: Corn gone wrong" and "Extreme Doritos" and evidently this festering turd should know that just because they have a degree in business or advertising or whatever doesn't mean they know jack about kids.<br /><br />I think that they're doing a disservice to children, depriving them of one of the greatest and most iconic shows of all time. This show disgusts me, and it's not just the dated artwork or terrible dialogue. They misuse good voice talent, like Phil Lamarr, Michael Clarke Duncan, Candi Milo, and so many others. It lacks style, humor, character development, and most importantly, heart.<br /><br />The show, like it's repackaged characters (Slam Tasmanian, Rev Runner, Ace Bunny) is but a shadow of it's former, timeless and beautiful self.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's just breathtaking in it's awfulness-- you really must see it!<br /><br />Depending on your perspective, Dylan Walsh is either the savior or the problem here: since he's the only one on screen that can actually get his lines out with something akin to natural cadences and inflection, he either ruins the movie by pointing up everyone else's flaws, or he saves it by providing some context for their awfulness.<br /><br />I'm inclined to the later view-- thanks to him, it works as high comedy. He's the 7 footer in a game of dwarf basketball, his skill set just doesn't apply in this context, and his discombobulation is delicious.<br /><br />The real treat though is Ms. Eastwood, whose inability to speak in plain English is so pervasive I actually googled her, expecting to learn that she was a Russian beauty who pronounced her lines phonetically, with no understanding of their meaning. But no: she's just a talent free American who will leave you laughing with every line she drops. Whether she knew what the lines meant must remain an open question.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. It is not funny. It is not interesting and should not have been made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did anyone read the script. This has to be some of the worst writing and directing of the entire year. Three great actors, Paul Giamatti, Rachel Weisz and Miranda Richardson couldn't pull this one out. About two-thirds it looked like Giamatti eyes were saying, I can't believe I signed the contract. It's not the worst movie I ever saw, but it's on the really really bad Christmas movie list. Not enough lines, but what else can be said? Okay, the movie just doesn't move with Vaughn's con-man dialogue, his character is just a creepy guy that you just can't get past. It was just a lackluster walk through, that no one seemed to be able to get into.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't get me wrong , I want to see marijuana legalized as much as the next guy. I shall digress now. The writing, though, was unrealistic. A PTA mom dealing drugs but adamant about her drugs getting into the hands of an underage person. Give me a break. The smugness of very pretty Mary Louise Parkers character was an insult to my intelligence. The characters were not at all likable. Basically, the plot lines went nowhere. I understand its only TV land . The hypocrisy was blatant. Mary Louise Parker is supposed to be a great mom and I am supposed to believe this.... WHY ???? I just got the feeling I was being preached by a show reeking of seediness. Its like saying its OK to cheat on your wife , but with someone of legal age status. OK not exactly the same thing , but I think you people get my point. That save the children stuff is wonderful for campaign trails , I guess, but it does not hold water in a cable sitcom about a suburbanite mom , as the local pot dealer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
in this movie, joe pesci slams dunks a basketball. joe pesci...<br /><br />and being consistent, the rest of the script is equally not believable.<br /><br />pesci is a funny guy, which saves this film from sinking int the absolute back of the cellar, but the other roles were pretty bad. the father was a greedy businessman who valued money more than people, which wasn't even well-played. instead of the man being an archetypal villain, he seemed more like an amoral android programmed to make money at all costs. then there's the token piece that is assigned to pesci as a girlfriend or something...i don't even remember...she was that forgettable.<br /><br />anyone who rates this movie above a 5 or 6 is a paid member of some sort of film studio trying to up the reputation of this sunken film, or at least one of those millions of media minions who can't critique efficiently (you know, the people who feel bad if they give anything a mark below 6).<br /><br />stay away...far away. and shame on comedy central, where i saw this film. they usually pick better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In my opinion this movie advances no new thought. seems to me like taking a spear to a spear without looking to the side! the director seems to have an agenda! Duh! I find that his rational is lacking there does not seem to be room for the alternative view. I for one am usually on the side of the naysayer but this movie lacks credibility as it relies on the fantastic observations of the man/woman on the street. really now if you wish to cr5eate a credible alternative to a creed held onto for 2000+ years you have got to make more of an effort allowing the other side to voice their beliefs. I'm not sure but at the beginning of the movie it felt like an attack on the Cristian faith, I for one am a non believer, but allow for the beliefs of others, and would not wish no ridicule them but try to understand and tolerate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, the title character is not even the main character of the movie. He is the sidekick of the cult leader. The actor who portrays Igor believed that screaming loud, laughing hysterically, and having a crooked smile while bugging out your eyes would be an excellent way to scare people. Igor also had the annoying habit of yelling (because he never actually just spoke) in a high pitched voice. He would also say idiotic one-liners. For example when the cult leader murders one of his followers with a buzz saw, Igor upon seeing this, yells out "Paul! No Paul! Why'd you do it? I could have cut her clean! So clean!" In another scene Igor tells a victim that she would have to 'get her own tools for surgery because right now, it was his time to operate.' Aside from the bad acting, the ending did not make sense because while the story builds up what little steam it has towards the climax, which is Igor getting a crossbow arrow to the head and the rest of his lunatic buddies being killed, he shows up again two more times to kill the remaining 'good guys'. The movie offers no explanation of this, only telling the viewer that Igor escaped from the mental hospital. What??? Bottom line is do not waste your time watching this movie. I wish I could get back the moments I lost watching this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought that My Favorite Martian was very boring and drawn out!! It was not funny at all. The audience just sat through the whole movie and didn't laugh at all!!! Not even the kids laughed!! That is sad for a Disney movie!! I thought they could have found somebody better to play the martian rather than Christopher Lloyd!! He was really stupid!! And he was not funny!! I thought the talking suit was really dumb!!! In the original television series the suit doesn't talk and move around!! In my opinion they should not have wasted their time on this movie!! I give it two thumbes down!! Really a waste of time and I would not recommend the movie to anybody!!! Thank You!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2<br /><br />I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.<br /><br />Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Godfather Part I was a stunning look inside the fictional Corleone family and how an innocent young man was all but forced into circumstances he never wanted to have a part of. The Godfather Part II shows that young man's acceptance of his new role, his desensitization of character, as well as his complete loss of all innocence as he dives deeper and deeper into a life of crime. The first two parts of this saga of this transformation of Michael Corleone make for one of the greatest tragedies in cinematic history.<br /><br />Then, along came The Godfather Part III. Michael Corleone is now the aging Don of the Corleone family. He shows remorse for his previous actions not through subtle behaviors, but by trying to use his powers for good and admitting all his wrongdoings and regrets to others. Very cliche and uncharacteristic of the complex character that is Michael Corleone. Michael's plans to use his powers for good are derailed by an ambitious young disciple and his enemies. Michael's daughter is eventually a casualty of the ongoing mob wars and her death predictably leads to Michael realizing that his entire life as Don has been worthless for he has failed in the one thing that was the reason for putting himself into the position he was in: protecting his family.<br /><br />The Godfather Part II ends with Michael Corleone reaching the lowest of the lows: having his own brother killed. Before Part III was made, the Godfather saga was an emotionally riveting tale of an innocent young man's journey into darkness with the unbelievably tragic end of Michael forgetting his roots and abandoning the one thing that has always mattered most to him and those around him: family loyalty. Part III paints the picture of Michael as a man who is and always has been just a victim of circumstance. This greatly corrupts the meaning of the first two films.<br /><br />The Godfather Part III is a horrible mess of a film that never should have been made. The only solution to the problem that is this final installment of The Godfather movies is to pretend that it does not exist and that the saga actually ends with Michael's shockingly horrible act of having a member of his own family killed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the biggest load of crap that I have seen in a long time. The last time I hated a movie so much was whilst watching "28 Days later" and "Magnolia". There is absolutely no point to this movie, except to see some really sick and twisted sex/rape scenes, Gillian Anderson relieving herself on the side of the road, and every single sentence of dialog having to use the "F" word at least a couple of times in it. It has extremely cheap acting and is very low budget. My friend and I eventually turned off the movie after about half an hour. We had tried to give it a chance, but nothing could save this crud. DO NOT WATCH IT!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.<br /><br />Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.<br /><br />Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.<br /><br />I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking clichés. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.<br /><br />No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and ½ out of *****
|
Negative
| null | null |
I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!<br /><br />Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..<br /><br />I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, because I'm a musician I thought, maybe I'll check this movie out on TMC, nothing else good on. One of the worst mistakes of my life so far, and it's only half done. I seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting, crappy filming and crappy effects. But nope, I don't even get the pleasure of that. Even the "musicians" weren't very good. I was hoping for maybe some laughs, but I wasn't sure if they were attempting to throw in one-liners or not. But now I have to sit here and watch the rest just until Pulp Fiction starts. Or maybe something better. And now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines
|
Negative
| null | null |
I felt brain dead, I'll tell you. This is the worst film I have ever bought. (in my ignorance I thought this was the Peter Jackson film of the same name). The performances are so terrible they are laughable. The special effects have not stood the test of time and look dire. The script promotes that kind of TV movie, stare into the middle distance kind of acting. The cast look as if they have been taking lessons from Joey Tribbiani, they have one look each, and stick to it. Plus I have never been confused by a movie until I sat down to watch this. The is it a dream or no plot is so terrible that frustration sets in within a few minutes. Avoid like a plague.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I managed to sneak away one night and go to the movie theater to see this one, thinking I was in for a treat. Boy, was I wrong. Considering the talent involved, this has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Everyone in it was miscast, and I find it incredible to read on this site that there are people out there who actually liked it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was probably the worst movie I have ever seen. Here are the things that immediately jump out at me: 1. The woods were more like hills in Los Angeles with a couple trees and brush. Not scary whatsoever. News flash, if you are filming in the Southern California area, big bear is only an hour away. They actually have trees there.<br /><br />2. The writing was absolutely without a doubt the worst dialogue I have ever experienced. Every possible line in the movie was unoriginal, cliché, or just plain stupid. For instance the name of the camp is "camp blood" (lame), the name of the clown is "the killer clown" (lame). What is a clown doing in a forest anyway? Was that the only mask they could find? 3. The last but certainly the least was the acting. Absolutely the worst group of actors and actresses ever assembled. A virtual cornucopia of shitty lines and poor acting. Worst part by far was when then randomly flash back to this fat foreign girl getting naked for a a photograph. It's a really long scene and I guess she was supposed to be sexy, but she was NOT. Also, and this was one of the few enjoyable parts of the movie for me, was this tool who is supposed to be "athletic." For instance when he is bored in the movie he grabs a couple rocks and starts doing curls with them. Then later on he is supposed to be running for the clown and it is immediately clear with his very "girl like" run, that he is quite far from athletic. Oh and to the girl who played Kat, good Lord stop singing. That song you sang for the credits makes me want to kill myself.<br /><br />If for some reason you do see this movie, I would at least recommend watching the special features. The group of jackasses who made this film talk about it as if it is this really original story. In fact one of the girls actually says that she let some of her friends read the screenplay and none of them could predict the ending. Apparently she hangs out with special kids.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The writer came up with a pretty decent idea for a story, but many flaws in the execution of the plot took so much away from the film as to nearly render it unwatchable. Basic elements such as character development were glossed over, at best. Inconsistencies also reared their ugly heads. A massive mansion in the middle of the rural Irish countryside? Characters just "showing up" in the gardens during a stormy night (at very convenient times, I might add)? All in all it wasn't "bad". I rated it a 4, based mostly on the story and talent of Alison Elliott.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the title I write that the story is ludicrous. below I'll elaborate and tell you why it, in my humble opinion, ruins this movie.<br /><br />Gere and Danes are doing their jobs, and while it's not their best work, it's quite OK. The rest of the cast, though, is doing a really poor job. Mind you, this is not entirely the actors fault. The problem is that Gere and Danes are the only ones that have characters that have even the slightest room in the movie to really give any depth. All other characters have either too little room in the movie to create any depth, or the character is such a cliché that it doesn't matter how hard the actors try.<br /><br />The director has a bit of a Se7en complex, but looking merely at the direction, I think he does an OK job.<br /><br />But the story. This is the kind of script that is bad in two ways. First of all it's a bad movie script. The characters are shallow (except for Gere's and Danes' characters), the villains are clichés and the actions of the characters is totally unbelievable. Besides this, the writers must have an agenda where they want to bring back our views and ethics a hundred years. It's the kind of movie that are saying that some criminals are still criminals, regardless of the fact that they have paid the price the society has given them. It's also the kind of movie that says, albeit only between the lines, that every form of sexual deviance should be punished without trial, judge or jury. And of course, according to the movie, everything that is not sex in the missionary position by a married couple is a sexual deviance.<br /><br />So, if you're going to film school and need an example of a bad script, or if you're writing scripts yourself and want an ego boost. See it. For everyone else, I recommend another movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie starts with a pair of campers, a man and a woman presumably together, hiking alone in the vast wilderness. Sure enough the man hears something and it pangs him so much he goes to investigate it. Our killer greets him with a stab to the stomach. He then chases the girl and slashes her throat. The camera during the opening scene is from the point of view as the killer.<br /><br />We next meet our four main characters, two couples, one in which is on the rocks. The men joke about how the woman would never be able to handle camping alone at a double date, sparking the token blonde's ambition to leave a week early. Unexpectedly, the men leave the same day and their car breaks down.. They end up arriving in the evening. When the men arrive, they are warned about people disappearing in the forest by a crazy Ralph doppleganger. They ignore the warning and venture into the blackening night and an eighties song plays in the background with lyrics about being murdered in the dark forest. The men get lost.<br /><br />In the next scene we realize that this isn't just another The Burning clone, but a ghost story! The women, scared and lonely are huddling together by the fire. Two children appear in the shadows and decide to play peeping Tom. Well they are obviously ghosts by the way their voices echo! Their mother appears with blood dripping from a hole in her forehead and asks the two ladies if they've seen her children, before disappearing of course. <br /><br />The children run home to papa and tell him about the two beautiful ladies by the river. This causes quite a stir and he gets up, grabbing his knife from atop the fireplace. "Daddy's going hunting," The little girl, exclaims with bad acting. It is apparent here, that the dad isn't a ghost like his children.<br /><br />Freaked out by something in the woods, the token blonde splits, running blindly into the night, carrying a knife. She encounters the father who explains he's starving and it will be quick. This doesn't make sense because of the panther growls we heard earlier (Maybe he's allergic! Are panthers honestly even in California?) She ends up wounding him slightly before getting stabbed in the head. A thunderstorm erupts and the men seek shelter, which turns out to be where papa resides. Clearly someone lives here because there's a fire and something weird is roasting over it. The children appear and warn them of papa, who shows up moments later. They disappear as soon as he arrives.<br /><br />For whatever reason, our killer only goes after females. He invites the men to have something to eat and tells us the story about his ex wife. We are given a flashback of his wife getting caught cheating. The old man doesn't tell them however that he kills her and her lover afterwards, but daydreams about it. We aren't given the reason for the children's demise. The men go to sleep and are left unharmed. The next morning the men discover the empty campground of their wives. After a brief discussion they split up. One is to stay at the campsite, while the other goes and gets help. The one that is going back to his car breaks his leg. We are then reunited with the children as they explain to the surviving woman that they are ghosts who killed themselves from being sad about their mother. They agree to help the woman reunite with her friends<br /><br />The following scene defies the logic of the movie when papa kills the guy waiting at the campsite. He was also dating or married to the blonde. Somehow the children realize he is murdered and tell the woman about it. She decides to see it for herself and obviously runs into the killer. Luckily the children make him stop by threatening to leave him forever. You know where this is going.<br /><br />Overall the movie deserves four stars out of ten, and that's being generous. For all its misgivings, the musical score is well done. It's still watchable too. There are some camera angles that look professional, and some of the sets are done well. The plot is unbelievable. There is such a thing as willing suspension of disbelief, but with the toad 6 miles away; I can't imagine the token blonde would take off like that in the middle of the night. I mean, come on!<br /><br />- Alan "Skip" Bannacheck
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being a filmmaker myself, and possessing a somewhat dark and subversive sense of humour, I thought I was in for a treat when I took home "My Wrongs..." (not that the DVD cover gives anything away, instead opting for the ambiguous quote from controversialist director, Chris Morris, "a short film including scenes"). I should have known better really, and avoided this insipid (and often offensive) piece of twoddle.<br /><br />The scene in the church is repulsive to watch (especially since we are all too familiar with Morris's warped attitude towards paedophilia from his notorious TV series, Brass Eye) and serves no purpose other than to shock. How this film is labelled a comedy I will never understand.<br /><br />The runner's commentary sounds like a novel idea in principle (having been a runner myself, it's often an interesting and uninhibited perspective on the filmmaking process), however this is sadly not the case here. Instead, we are treated to some public schoolboy ranting about dogs on film, before concluding that there are no really great movies starring dogs. This is all very interesting, but not worth a single frame of celluloid.<br /><br />To say that this film goes nowhere would be an understatement. It relies far too heavily upon its heightened style, at the expense of plot, character and dialogue, leaving the viewer strangely perturbed and unfulfilled. Its over-simplified message - that man should take responsibility for his actions - is both glaringly obvious and poorly illustrated.<br /><br />The film does have its moments of pseudo-Kafkaesque surrealism, but ultimately, it fails to convince, to entertain, to enlighten and just ends up being irritating. If you want to see a really great piece of short filmmaking, I strongly recommend "Franz Kafka's It's A Wonderful Life", by Peter Capaldi.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My wife and I rented this movie because some people had drawn parallels between it and "Office Space". Blockbuster and IMDB even had it as an "also recommended" selection if you liked "Office Space".<br /><br />Now, I've seen Office Space probably 15 or 20 times. I love it. It's probably one of my 10 favorite movies. Witty, humorous, and featuring characters that remind me of people I've worked with over the years. "Haiku Tunnel" is similar to "office Space" in that they are both films. That's where the similarity ends. We sat through probably the first 50 minutes of HT, giving it the benefit of the doubt, hoping, nay, *praying* that it would get better. It didn't. We couldn't take it any more, and stopped the tape. Thank GOD it was a free rental. I'd have been p***ed if we'd actually paid for it. We should be reimbursed for having to sit through it. Now, since we didn't see the end, perhaps it miraculously comes together and redeems itself. I doubt it.<br /><br />Haiku Tunnel is so bad it's hard to believe it ever got produced. The movie is SO unfunny it's painful. Just mail the friggin letters already!!! The premise is asinine. The jokes are awful. We got as far as the "printer doesn't work" scene and had to stop. We couldn't take it anymore. This film is an EMBARRASMENT for Josh Kornbluth.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Office Space......don't waste your time with this turd. 0/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I LOVE Don Knotts, let me just say that up-front! He is an enormous talent and the best at what he does, which is portray a nervous, lovably befuddled loser thrown into a position of authority. He is fabulous in this role as Roy Fleming, the Reluctant Astronaut, but the film is pretty dull, really, even though as a kid my brother and I delighted in watching this and his other films. It's still worth watching but really it's a film that is best enjoyed by children. I'd categorize it as 100% family-friendly and something you could sit down and watch with your kids on a family night.<br /><br />As with all of Knotts' films, there's a great cast of beloved character actors and you can't help but smile when Knotts gives one of his shaky, open-mouthed stares, no matter how old and jaded you are.<br /><br />From an adult perspective, one thing I think that is great about this film is how it captures NASA in the 1960s -- all the new modern buildings, the hope, the optimism, the future! And I was surprised at how suave and studly Leslie Neilsen was back then. Only complaint about the story is Roy's love interest, a rather threadbare, unlikeable woman who can't give him the time of day until he becomes a big shot -- if you're like me, you'll be hoping that he gives her the shove-off at the end. Beware -- you'll be whistling the theme tune for days after watching, it's that catchy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jennifer Jason Leigh and Mare Winningham are a good match portraying vastly different siblings, but only Winningham is able to bring something convincing or substantial to her role. Leigh, playing bar-band singer and alcoholic Sadie Flood, constantly leans on older sis Georgia, an acclaimed folk singer in the Joni Mitchell mold. Perhaps due to her double duties as co-producer on the film, Leigh seems to have boxed herself into a corner: she isn't credible as a singer and, even if this is intentional, gives herself far too much screen-time at the microphone. Probably hoping for a tour-de-force, Leigh is wire-drawn and nervous and jagged; however, we simply do not see any talent within this character (Leigh is obviously a solid actress, but she makes decisions here that wall us off from her). If Sadie had even the slightest bit of charisma or appeal, we might be able to buy into the concept that she gets the (small) breaks that she does. As it is, the likelihood of her ever getting up on stage is slim. Director Ulu Grosbard crafts a few intense dramatic sequences, and the editing at the finale juxtaposes Sadie's bar performance with Georgia's sold-out arena show--both singing the same song--and it's a sadly nuanced moment...but really, what's the point? *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Resnais, wow! The genius who brought us Hiroshima Mon Amour takes on the challenge of making a 1930s French musical in vibrant colour. The opening voice-over with old, embellished inter-titles was a nice touch. Then the camera aperture opens (like the old hand crankers) on a black & white placard. The camera backs off (or rather, up), suddenly showing us the surprisingly brilliant colours of an elegant table set for a tea party. This is all in the first 60 seconds.<br /><br />Then the music starts. A rather banal and forgettable diddy featuring an unconvincing chorus of 3 girls blabbering some nonsense which has no relevance to the film (and yes, I speak French, so I can't blame it on the subtitles). Those characters whiz out the door and are replaced by more people who break into an even more forgettable song. Then they leave, and finally Audrey Tautou appears and we hear our first appreciable dialogue 15 minutes into the film.<br /><br />I'm not sure what Resnais intended by starting off with such a yawning waste of time & musical cacophony. But the effect on the viewer is to make you want to hurl skittles at the screen and storm out. I endured.<br /><br />It didn't get much better. I'll tell you why. There is absolutely no familiarity with any of the characters. We don't even see their faces half the time (as Resnais seems too intent on showing off the expensive scenery to care about the actual people in front of the camera). People flit on & off stage like moths around a lamp, and we the audience are unable to focus on any particular person or plot. It's as if you were to take every episode of the Brady Bunch and cram it into a 2 hour movie. With bad songs.<br /><br />The only thing that kept me watching as long as I did (1 hour) was that I was looking at the camera techniques, lighting and scenery which were all, I admit, excellent. But is that enough to hold your attention for 2 hours? Not me. Maybe tomorrow I'll try watching the end. Aw, who am I kidding. I have more important things to do. I'm sure you do, too. Skip this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Personally, while I'm able to appreciate really good movies, I also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap. You know, those times when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie-cutter action movie to kill time. This is the only movie that I can remember actually shutting off in the middle, and I have absolutely NO intention of going back to finish it. The plot was so contrived and predictable, I was calling out what the next scene would be easily (and I'm usually not very good at this). The actors were horrible, I've seen better acting in middle school plays. Even the scene cuts were bad, the flow was all wrong.<br /><br />This movie is like a parody that forgot the funny.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The line is funnier in England, where, away from Vixen!'s native America, the word "fanny" has a whole new meaning. Sadly, it's the only laugh you'll get in this terrible sex comedy that is neither sexy nor funny.<br /><br />Oddly unalluring with painted-on eyebrows, Erica Gavin (Acting ability: zero) is a nymphomaniac who lusts after her own brother, but rejects his black friend while making derogatory remarks about watermelons. As if in revenge, he asks her if she would go with a Shetland pony. Reference is also made to "making it with monkeys". Gavin's ability to shake and tremble with orgasmic pleasure at the slightest touch is matched only in it's lack of appeal by her seduction dance which involves a bonfire and a haddock. Personally, I preferred the haddock.<br /><br />For '68 this was pretty tame stuff, and belies the controversy it attracted at the time. A character claims to be "getting stoned", though it's only on bourbon, and for one of the original "X" certificates, there's no full frontal nudity. Just six years later we would be getting Timmy Lea and his Confessions, but here we have to make do with topless shots. Only Gavin's final seduction of her own brother really shocks. Another activity for Vixen is where she helps settle the sexual problems between a married couple by sleeping with them both. The two women clearly aren't enjoying acting out their scene together, and make a poor effort to disguise it. After Vixen irons out their disharmony, the romantic husband concludes of his wife "I guess she's got it coming to her!"<br /><br />The only near-worthwhile segment involves an unusual discussion of Cuban Communism. It seems out of place with the rest of the film, though is spliced with shots of Gavin's breasts to rope it in to continuity. This then leads into a vague anti-Vietnam stance, which is commendable, though dropped in the middle of such a frivolous film it seems trite and insensitive, not to say downright tasteless. Incidentally, the part of would-be Communist Niles Brooke is taken by Harrison Page, the same Harrison Page who played Captain Trunk in amusing comedy Sledge Hammer! Page must be embarrassed by his back catalogue (Which also includes Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls), though Meyer apologists would have you believe the terrible dialogue, lousy acting, sloppy direction and dire editing are not just part of the charm, but wholly intentional. As a defence, it fails to hold water.<br /><br />The irritating incidental music a cross between the tunes they play in cinema restaurant ads and muzak used by TV stations when the transmission breaks down is omnipresent and intrusive; while even the silly, amateurishly skewed camera angles can't generate interest. A wonderful world of jazz saxophones, where women have been "asking for it", black men or "shines" aren't good enough for anyone, and rape is an acceptable form of revenge. Absolutely abysmal.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have been waiting for this movie a long time. Especially because Juhi Chawla is in this, she's a great actress.<br /><br />This movie contains six stories. It's a new concept flew over from Hollywood. So it's not a new item.<br /><br />1. Khamini (priyanka chopra) is a dancer. She wants to get famous and makes up a boyfriend to let news reporters be interested in her. But then Rahul (Salman Khan) appears and he claims to be her boyfriend.<br /><br />Priyanka Chopra is still not a good actress. When she yells, I get annoyed. Salman khan cannot play comic roles. But in his serious parts he is marvelous.<br /><br />2. Vinay (Anil Kapoor) is married to Seema (Juhi Chawla). He gets in a midlife crisis and gets attracted to a much younger woman, with forgetting what he really has in life; his wife and kids.<br /><br />Anil kapoor en Juhi are natural born actors / actresses. They are great. But this story is to thin for them.<br /><br />3. Shiven (Akshaye Khanna) is going to get married to Gia (Ayesha Takia), but he gets cold feet and blows the wedding off.<br /><br />4. Ashutosh (Joh Abraham) is married to Tehzeeb (Vidya Balan). She gets an accident and suffers a memory loss. Now she doesn't know that she loves her husband anymore.<br /><br />5. Raju (Govinda) is a cab driver. He meets Stephani (Shannon Esrechowitz) who is a white woman who is in love with an Indian male but he is about to get married with an Indian woman. Raju has to bring Staphani to that man, but falls in love with her.<br /><br />I never liked Govinda's movies. He is very annoying, not funny. But in this movie I liked him very much, like he has been growing up the last years.<br /><br />6. Oh yes! There is Sohail Khan! He plays Ram Dayal who is just married to Phoolwati (Isha Koppikar). He want to get some serious action with her, but every time her family comes in between.<br /><br />Sohail Khan is not a handsome actor, but he is funny! I like his movies.<br /><br />Now here's the problem. All these stories aren't interesting. To make one story from six not interesting stories does not make the whole movie interesting! Here and there the stories touch each other, but is not significant for the characters.<br /><br />My conclusion; Priyanka cannot act! Loose that woman in the bollywood industry. Sohail Khan should make more movies, this role for him was too small. Salman Khan cannot act comic roles, but real serious movies. That's written on his life as an actor. This movie sucks, and is a waste of a cast of good actors and actresses like Anil Kapoor, Juhi Chawla, Akshaya Khanna and John Abraham.<br /><br />It's just like you have the ability to make a movie with Amitabh Bachchan, and you only let him sing a lullaby.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was one film i wanted to watch always when it released The promos were eye catching and Govinda in a negative role was a surprise<br /><br />But the film isn't that good<br /><br />It has lot of flaws<br /><br />The start is good and till the murder everything goes well but the film falls flat when the romance track starts between Govinda and Karisma and the songs that follow<br /><br />Then the twist about Govinda and Tabu being in love leaves more doubts and flaws and then How come Govinda turns into a rich criminal from a poor villager?<br /><br />The last flashback too is prolonged and also the entire clash between Govinda-Karisma and Tabu<br /><br />N Chandra disappoints Music is okay, Bahot Khoobsurat stands out<br /><br />Govinda tries a negative role and does very well in it though he overdoes it too much at times Karisma is good but irritates at times with her cries Tabu is okay Nirmal Pandey still doesn't know the difference between loud screaming and acting rest are okay
|
Negative
| null | null |
Usually, I know after the first minute of a movie if I will hate it or adore it... but now, I was wrong.<br /><br />The start was great; the "this is based on a true story" and blah blah blah thing was funny. After, the cartoons and the description of the guys' life with pictures made me think I had made the right choice.<br /><br />Then, seeing the hilarious fake look of Toronto was cool. Also, the situation and appearance of the house seemed to confirm my first idea.<br /><br />That was maybe the first 10 minutes of the movie... which afterwards looked like an eternity.<br /><br />Maybe that's just me not understanding English Canadian humour (that's possible, English Canadians also do not always understand Quebecois humour), but hey... there was enough stuff in that for a short movie, *nothing* more. Maybe that could be a meaning for the title? Anyway, almost everything was filling, and very few things were even close to funny in my opinion.<br /><br />As a matter of fact, the "making of" was better than the movie. At least you understand the motivation behind that which made everything bad. The potential of the idea was great; that's why I rented the movie, being interested in the "annoying people disappearance" thing. But yet, I did not know the whole universe would vanish, and with it even a point to the movie.<br /><br />If you are English Canadian, it seems you could appreciate the local humour, considering the surprising number of people who gave this movie an 8. Otherwise, just think twice before losing your precious time...
|
Negative
| null | null |
All of David Prior's movies are terrible on all counts: bad writing, bad acting, bad cinematography, no budget (the director's brother is usually cast as the male lead). But they all have incredible entertainment value because of their unintentional hilarity. The plot of almost every David Prior "film" (as I like to refer to them) is basically the same. Manly all-American commandos team up to blow up Communist baddies. But unlike other Cold War-era garbage such as Red Dawn, Prior's movies are actually funny because of their over-the-top premises and acting. The best part of Jungle Assault is the scene in which Becker (or was is the other dude?) is being summoned by General Mitchell for a top-secret mission in South America. The funniest line in the movie is then delivered, something to the effect of "this is my roommate, I trained him well". WHAT. You trained your roommate? And apparently this is going to be their solution to avoiding eviction.<br /><br />If you can find these gems on video used anywhere, BUY THEM. They are all funny and even funnier after a few beers. Watch them with a group of your friends for a true MST3K-style experience. So far my friends and I have managed to get a hold of Night Wars and Aerobicide aka "Killer Workout". But the one I recommend the most over them all is Final Sanction, with the freakish-looking Robert Z'dar.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just finished watching "El Otro". I have always taken my hat off to Julio Chavez's performances, as he is a great actor, but this movie is really depressing and slow. I guess that it would have been even worse if it wasn't for Julio. Anyways, this is definitely a film that you will never understand if you are not from Argentina, and even if you are, I would advise you not to rent this movie in order to have a nice time with your girlfriend, boyfriend, family or friends... it is really depressing and incredibly slow, and the plot does not make a lot of sense neither. Probably the director wanted to show the fragility of the human life, but what he does is bore and impress the audience with scenes that shock you a little bit. It gives you something to think about, but not in a good way. Overall, I definitely didn't like this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For starters, I would like to say that I'm a fan of the American Pie series. Even though 'the naked mile' and this one are the two worst, this one seems to be the downfall of the whole series.<br /><br />First of all, the best part of the film was that it was an American Pie film, which is always appreciated.<br /><br />However, there are tonnes of bad things to say about this film. First of all, the story has a very stale 'arc' structure. First, there is the introduction of the characters, then the pledging of the beta house and finally the Greek Olympiad. Each of which has exactly 25 minutes of length. Apart from the general staleness of the plot, there is little to no character development, which makes a double whammy of a bad plot.<br /><br />Apart from that, I deeply disliked the stereotyping in this film. That is, showing the jocks as the extremely cool, only-thinking-about-sex guys, and explicitly displaying the geeks as inferior. Also, it shows females only as sexual objects, and males as only wanting to treat the females as sexual objects.<br /><br />Apart from that, the acting was also poor. With perhaps the exception of Steve Talley.<br /><br />So, in the end, a generally horrid film, if seen from a critical point of view. If seen from a teen point of view, I guess that it's better, but this film is rated 18+ in most countries, so it shouldn't really be seen by minors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With nothing better to do I decided to check out "Aztec Rex" (as it was being billed) for the hell of it.<br /><br />The silly story might have played better if the dinosaur effects were convincing. They actually looked like animatics (those rough designs that artists later use to finish the CGI effects, adding more details, smoother movements, etc.) Absolutely awful-looking dinosaurs, which is the only reason you'd probably want to sit through this anyway.<br /><br />The one redeeming factor was the lovely Dichen Lachman as Ayacoatl. She kept my interest; if only the budget had been ramped up and some convincing dinosaurs could have been used.<br /><br />Disappointing. At least the cast and crew got a free trip to Hawaii, where the movie was filmed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)<br /><br />A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.<br /><br />What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.<br /><br />Avoid like the Bubonic plague.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Stella", starring Bette Midler in the title role, is an unabashed tearjerker. Set in upstate New York, Stella Claire works nights as a bar maid, pouring and dancing in a workingman's saloon. One night, in comes a slumming medical intern, Stephen Dallas, who woos Stella, and in the course of their affair impregnates her. She spurns both his offers of marriage and abortion, sends him packing to a lucrative medical career, and raises her daughter herself in near-poverty. Flash-forward 16 years and the daughter has grown into a gorgeous, loving, young lady. Dr. Dallas is not out of the picture, still maintaining a tenuous, but caring relationship with his daughter and
..I'm rambling, and worse yet, making the movie sound somewhat interesting. The acting and screenwriting are so over-the-top you'll let out a groan in almost every scene. The chief offender is Bette Midler, but close behind is John Goodman as her alcoholic buddy. Each scene seems more contrived than the preceding right up to the finale, which is truly a hoot. Taken as a dramatic piece, this film rates no more than grade D, but as camp, it scores an unintended B+.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maybe I'm missing something because I've read more positive things about The Man Who Cheated Himself than I have read bad reviews - and I just don't get it. I like my noirs to have a little style to them with characters that speak, look, and act like Humphrey Bogart in The Big Sleep or Gene Tierney in Laura. None of the characters in this movie have that style or presence or whatever you want to call it. Take the lead actor, Lee J. Cobb. His rumpled, rolled-out-of-bed look is about as far from the dashing, smooth-talking noir archetype as you'll find. Or, take Jane Wyatt as the femme fatale as another example. This is one of the worst cases of miscasting I've seen in a while. She's just not convincing in the role.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's tired and lacks any real surprises or anything new for the genre. I could have predicted the outcome of The Man Who Cheated Himself after about five minutes. And that final cat-and-mouse chase scene is plain old dull. Ten to fifteen minutes of nothing happening really ruined any pacing the movie may have had going for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"When a small Bavarian village is beset with a string of mysterious deaths, the local (magistrate) demands answers into (sic) the attacks. While the police detective refuses to believe the nonsense about vampires returning to the village, the local doctor treating the victims begins to suspect the truth about the crimes," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />An inappropriately titled, dramatically unsatisfying, vampire mystery.<br /><br />Curiously, the film's second tier easily out-perform the film's lackluster stars: stoic Lionel Atwill (as Otto von Niemann), skeptical Melvyn Douglas (as Karl Brettschneider), and pretty Fay Wray (as Ruth Bertin). The much more enjoyable supporting cast includes bat-crazy Dwight Frye (as Herman), hypochondriac Maude Eburne (as Aunt Gussie Schnappmann), and suspicious George E. Stone (as Kringen). Mr. Frye, Ms. Eburne, and Mr. Stone outperform admirably. Is there another movie ending with a mad rush to the bathroom? <br /><br />Magnesium sulfate
Epsom salts
it's a laxative! <br /><br />**** The Vampire Bat (1933) Frank Strayer ~ Dwight Frye, Melvyn Douglas, Maude Eburne
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the kind of movie you regret you put in your VCR. It is some weird bad rip off version of Stephen kings movie "Misery (1990)". I cannot understand how this movie got a 5.2 score, because it has no story what so ever, and when the movie finally ended, I was relieved.<br /><br />This movie should have been released as a short-movie instead.. to much time is spent on the same thing. And as in every bad movie, everything happens just at the end of the movie in a 10-15 minutes time span...<br /><br />So, before you decide to watch this movie, be sure to put some new batteries in your remote control, because you are going to do whole lot of fast-forwarding... don't worry, you wont miss anything important.
|
Negative
| null | null |
** HERE BE SPOILERS **<br /><br />The government has continued to develop the UniversalSoldier program, now called UniSol. The soldiers are now stronger and are able to take more damage than before. However the government is downsizing, the project endangered and the supercomputer that is in the middle of all feel threatened, so he takes steps to ensure his own safety. He activates and controls the UniSols and start to run mayhem. The only one who can stop them is Deveraux (Van Damme). <br /><br />This movie is about one thing. Choreographed fighting. The story is bad, and is soon drowned in all fights. Whatever happens, and wherever they go, they fight. Unfortunately for this movie, it is no fun watching a fight where you know one part of it is indestructible. Normally you're pretty sure the hero will win, but you still want to feel the fights are between two somewhat equal combatants. Not where one is indestructible and can't lose. Then the fights just become a tool to stretch time. You wait until the final fight when Deveraux miraculously finds a way to beat his unbeatable foes. To further lower my opinion, a desperate and sure sign of a bad movie is how much scantily clad women there are. Well, there aren't really that lot of them, because the characters are most men (there are at least one woman UniSol though), but almost every woman is needlessly shown with at least just a bra once. The female leads get by with this, but we also pass through a strip-club (to use a computer no less) with much more undressed women. These moments do not give anything to the story and is just there to try to please the adolescent-minded male audience.<br /><br />So, in conclusion, boring fights. No more, no less. Well, maybe less...<br /><br />2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot of this film is not strong at all, lots of holes. If you approach it as a car movie its not bad, lots of great cars in this one. The reason I like it is because I am from the area where this was filmed. I get the most enjoyment looking at the recognizable places in St. Cloud MN and seeing how the town has changed since 89. Its an interesting historical piece for us locals. Seems like whenever a film is made here everyone wants some relationship to it. It is impossible to find a copy in any of the local video stores as they were all stolen once it came out on VHS. Had to get a copy from Japan on Ebay I find it interesting how the path of the drag race is all over town. I didn't know the director was from St.Cloud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of those movies that should have been way better than it turned out to be. I dread to think what the Blockbuster-approved edit must have looked like, because the director's cut on DVD was a bore of the epic proportions. Naturally, you don't expect it to be "The Godfather", but an acting class or two might have come in handy.<br /><br />Also, there were so many cute guys in this movie, but they were woefully under-exploited. I like watching a bevy of hotties writhe around in their BVDs as much as the next guy, but even I have a right to expect a little more. It wasn't a total loss, though; at least we got a peek a Drew Fuller's (covered) junk and truly upsetting haircut. And there's Huntley Ritter looking even cuter than he did in "Bring It On" (and acting about as well). There's always a silver lining, kids. You just have to look really hard for it. And occasionally, you have to make use of your pause button.
|
Negative
| null | null |
... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...<br /><br />I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.
|
Negative
| null | null |
you have a strong stomach. Holden was actually 55 years old at filming but looked near 70 and he only lived another 8 years. At one point Holden said, "I am over twice your age." Okay, try triple grandpa! The "old enough to be your father" theme they were shooting for didn't work. Granted senior citizens sometimes wind up with legal teens. More power to them, but that doesn't mean I want to watch it. It's not a matter of judgment but the digestive track. I like my food where it belongs. Lenz is fun to watch and the 70s cars, clothes, furniture, etc. make it worth it if it comes on cable late at night and you want to watch something to wind down for bed. It would have been nice to see the blonde friend of Lenz, the one who hocked her guitar, get more scenes. Pleasingly spacey... Who was this chick? I'm going to try and find out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.<br /><br />(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. <br /><br />It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.<br /><br />A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. <br /><br />In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.<br /><br />As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. <br /><br />For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's a lot the matter with Helen and none of it's good. Shelley Winters and Debbie Reynolds play mothers of a pair of Leopold & Loeb like killers who move from the mid-west to Hollywood to escape their past. Reynolds, a starstruck Jean Harlow wannabe, opens a dance studio for children and Winters is her piano player. Soon Winters (as Helen) begins to crack up. It's all very slow going and although there are moments of real creepiness (nasty phone calls, a visit from wino Timothy Carey), the movie is devoid of any real horror. Nevertheless, it's still worthy entertainment. The acting divas are fine and the production values are terrific. A music score by David Raskin, cinematography by Lucien Ballard and Oscar-nominated costumes contribute mightily. With this, A PLACE IN THE SUN and LOLITA to her credit, does anyone do crazy as well as Winters? Directed by Curtis Harrington, a master at this type of not quite A-movie exploitation. In addition to Carey, the oddball supporting cast includes Dennis Weaver, Agnes Moorehead (as a very Aimee Semple McPherson like evangelist), Yvette Vickers and Micheál MacLiammóir (the Irish Orson Welles) as Hamilton Starr, aptly nicknamed hammy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'. <br /><br />I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had to be the worst horror movie I have ever seen. The acting was terrible, Horrible and cheesy and talk about a predictable plot! I will never watch this movie again nor will I recommend this movie to anyone. What a waste of time! First, as soon as the movie began I realized what I got myself into. All they did for this movie was copy scenes from many other horror movies out there and bunched them all into this one movie. The prank phone calls, halloween night, a psycho, and one knife! Its absolutely ridiculous. I was not scared at all during the movie, which I thought horror movies were supposed to do. As for the making of the movie, its pretty hilarious how they all talk about how this movie was so great and so scary. I mean how do you not realize that the movies is a cheap rip off of "Scary Movie" for example. At least get some good actors in there and then maybe it would have been pulled off as a good horror movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This piece ain't really worth a comment.. It's simply the worst "horror" movie i have ever seen. The actors are bad as bad can be and the whole plot is so silly it nearly made me cry. Shame on you I say!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before I comment on this movie I just watched on YouTube, I have to admit that the reason I checked this out was to rewatch something I first saw on the TV ads in 1980: Barbara Bach's cleavage. And since the movie received an R rating, I expected to see her nude. Alas, no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appeared here: Stacey Nelkin who's supposed to be a teen but was actually 20 when she made this. Seeing her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit was just as arousing as Ms. Bach. They provide some of the scattered laughs this movie provides. In fact, I don't blame Ron Leibman for having his name removed from the credits since his role as the tight-fisted Liceman is pretty embarrassing though I did like the "seduction" scene he did with Ms. Nelkin. This also happens to be the debut of Ralph Macchio who's the loner among the misfits sent to an academy school. The others are a black kid who really loves his stepmother and Ms. Bach, an Arab who worships motor oil, and a politician's son who loves his girlfriend Candy (Nelkin's character) so much, he risks sneaking in the middle of the night see her in the girls academy. Among the supporting cast, Tom Poston plays a swishy character named Sisson who I found partly amusing. With a screenplay by Tom Patchett and Jay Tarses and direction by Robert Downey Sr. (whose son Robert Downey Jr. has a cameo early on in a soccer scene), Up the Academy is uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless you're really offended at the scatological and sexual content, this is actually a pretty harmless comedy that Mad Magazine and its trademark cover boy-Alfred E. Newman-shouldn't be ashamed of even though they once had their name and character taken off the picture...P.S. Another one of the "misfits" was Harry Teinowitz who was born in my birth town of Chicago, Ill. He played Rodney Ververgaert. He also says one of my favorite lines: "I'm trying to come."
|
Negative
| null | null |
A young scientist Harry Harrison is continuing his late father's scientific research into limb regeneration with flying colours, but his interferingly dominate mother and her doctor lover want to sell off the serum. When he finds out, there is an accident involving Harry losing an arm. So, he tries out the serum and what eventuates is a genetically deranged arm that has a mind of its own.<br /><br />Oh we've seen this oh so many times before, but what lifts this very campy and quite rubbery shonky junk is the performance of movie icons Elke Sommer and Oliver Reed. Actually it's not a bad flick by Fangoria films; just there are better ones out there, which are similar in vein. "Servered Ties" simply lacks it own distinctive style. The oddball nature and unpleasant splatter resembled "Re-animator" and even a touch of slapstick stuck out like something from "Evil Dead 2".<br /><br />The comic story is truly whacked out with it's black humour, but it can get melodramatic and a bit in dry in the fun factor. Surprises do crop up, especially the flick's final outcome. Which is well accepted, as I thought it could have copped out with something more accessible. For a low-budget production the FX makeup can look rigid and very goofy, but there's some grotesque moments that will make you smile than actually cringe. Even a brush of sexual tension streamlines the story, thanks to Elke Sommer's sternly juicy performance as the mother. Oliver Reed is quite humorously deadpan in a wicked sense and he pulls it off extremely well. They were both immensely diverting as the couple you loved to hate. Billy Morrisette is delightful in a erratic performance as Harry. Director Damon Santostefano briskly paces the film and orchestrates some stylish scenes of gripping and bamboozling horror.<br /><br />Yeah it's juvenile and basically silly nonsense, but you got to hand it to it for some undemanding entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. The only part of this senseless drivel that I enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. This dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. This thing actually made 20 million bucks? And McQueen's salary was 3K? All were vastly overpaid. The 'monster' looked a lot like a large beanbag and the 'teens' looked as though they could have children approaching their teen-age years. And those blasts from the shotgun; sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. The ending was pitifully trite; obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel....and there were many. Thumbs down.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the "War on Terror" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.<br /><br />But with lines like :<br /><br />"It's easy to die, I have, many times"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Why are you reading that book ?" "Because it makes the plot more interesting"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !" (after he leads a man into the basement)<br /><br />(and take a listen to what they chant)<br /><br />- it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?<br /><br />An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With a title "borrowed" from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. "Robert Carmichael" (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of "extreme" filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked "Clockwork Orange" and "Irreversible" because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in "Clockwork Orange" showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is probably the worst movie ever made it is just to bad the name of Roger Corman is associated with it. I could've understand it in his early years when he had lower budgets but nowadays there is no excuses for giving birth to this! I'm a "B" movie pervert and from certain people point of view all the flicks I love are put aside by "regular viewers" but take my word on this one, Vampire club makes the top of my list of the best of worst.It's hard to Imagine, vampires with no fangs, the music score is totally out of place,the sound effects are just not effective and finally Mr.Savage doesn't seem to know he is in a vampire movie at all witch is too bad 'cause he had a "not to bad" career over all. Let me know i'f I'm to hard on this one cause when I don't like a movie I tend to forget about it's good side.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.<br /><br />Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.<br /><br />In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.<br /><br />Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.<br /><br />The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the creators of Shrek
.. OK, that grabbed my attention.<br /><br />Well the creators of Shrek also made Madagascar. Madagascar was half as good as Shrek.<br /><br />And now Flushed Away is half as good as Madagascar.<br /><br />That means Flushed Away isn't good. The animation and all that special effects were extremely good but the movie wasn't.<br /><br />The story of this movie was only meant for kids. It's seriously not possible for adults to actually love this flick.<br /><br />But there were many jokes meant for adults. I bet kids dint understand the jokes.<br /><br />Despite that I dint like this flick.<br /><br />I am completely disappointed. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a truly terrible film.<br /><br />I'm only writing this so that some people somewhere are put off watching it. If I have stopped one person from wasting some of their precious life watching this film I shall die happy.<br /><br />Unutterably dull, although since it stars Al Pacino I was fooled into thinking that at any moment something interesting was going to happen. Then the credits rolled, and I realised I had been completely fooled into watching this unbelievable drivel.<br /><br />I cannot believe that this film has achieved as high a score as it has at IMDb (over 5 stars when I last saw the voting). Are you people voting ironically?<br /><br />Please, please, please do not watch this film!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man, was I disappointed.<br /><br />1) Adam Arkin is more whiny than Ross Geller from 'Friends' <br /><br />2) A great cast is wasted (Kenneth Mars, Alan Arkin, Ed McMahon, Pat Morita, Louis Nye) with this amateurish script.<br /><br />3) The movie suffers from horrible pacing. It jumps around through in a jumbled, confusing manner.<br /><br />4) The story doesn't even make sense. Why does he want to break the football streak? What about the stupid violin music? None of it is explained.<br /><br />5) It's not even funny. It's like a bunch of accountants trying to do improv, saying "Lookit me! Lookit me I'm being funny!" This was a bad attempt at making another "Love At First Bite".<br /><br />I like Larry Cohen movies, but man he failed here. I couldn't wait for the credits to roll. Horribly disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw the commercial for this, I was all about seeing it. Now, forgive me, but it's been so long since I've seen it that I don't recall how it went. Suffice it to say, the movie I saw bore no resemblance to the "movie" they sold me on.<br /><br />I was bored, annoyed, and incredibly disappointed by this movie. And if it wasn't bad enough, they had to sink it even further with that awful reggae music. Not exactly mood-setting music for a horror movie, eh mon? I guess if you never saw the commercial (or trailer, I suppose) you may think this is some hot stuff. For my money, the commercial was way better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is another of the many B minus movies tagged as film noir in the hope of generating some interest in something that is devoid of it. All aspects of the film - script, acting, direction - are mediocre. The acting by the three leads is wooden. I guess John Dall was expected to go places in the movie business but then someone realised he had little talent and therefore ended up doing TV work. Lee J Cobb who is usually terrific cannot rise above the poor script and poor direction. Jane Wyatt is supposed to be a femme fatale but comes nowhere near convincing the viewers. The movie does have two of the strangest looking cars that I have ever seen, the one in which John Dall goes after Lee J Cobb is particularly strange. The DVD transfer is typical Alpha.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First, it takes a full half hour to get Hackman out of jail and to start doing the job. What a waste of time, we all know Hackman is getting out to do some job for his masters, why waste almost a third of the movie on these sequences. Then Hackman stays in a hotel and the story arc again goes nowhere, simply proving to us that Hackman is under close watch and anything he says or does is know by the masters. Again, another 20 minutes. Then more wasted time showing the reunion with his wife. All of this should have taken 10-15 minutes at most simply as a set-up for the real action, intrigue and plot twists. By the time the real action gets going, I was so bored that I just wanted the movie to end. Hackman is great as usual, and the other actors as well, but this is a dud of the first magnitude.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.<br /><br />The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Like all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.<br /><br />The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.<br /><br />The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The beginning of the 90s brought many "quirky" and "off-beat" independent films, a particular sub-genre of which is the semi-spiritual desert crime movie. Others of note are "Wild at Heart", "From Dusk Til Dawn", and to a certain extent "Natural Born Killers". Good films like those spawned junk like "Highway 666", "Destiny Turns on the Radio" and this ineptly surreal anti-masterpiece "Under The Hula Moon". It's a comedy that aims for a certain emotional tone, attains it, but keeps going to the point of irritation. While the pursuit across the spirit-world of the desert and the casting of Chris Penn are good ideas, the film is not dirty enough or hard enough to be a good crime movie, and isn't focused enough on laughs to really be a comedy. I won't blow the ending, but let's just say it's bad. The film is basically a bad side effect of genre-cancer. This is the dregs of indie-mania.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The problem with family dramas is that, outside of TV movies on channels like Lifetime, most people don't want to watch them. And the ones that do get watched tend to be sensationalized and about current or topical problems or issues in the news (or recent news). Movies that explain or explore the human condition aren't popular. Particularly with the young crowd that would be Miss Lohan's fan base or the younger crowd that tends to make movies not simply popular but financially successful for studios.<br /><br />The specific problems I had with this movie is the cartoonishness of some of the characterizations. It was a bit much to blame all of the Lohan's character's acting-out (wrecking the car, drug use, etc.) on what her step-father did to her. While not improbable,it's just a bit much to expect the audience to swallow. Additionally, other aspects, such as her giving the young Morman boy, oral sex, or that she would actually make a good assistant to the vet, who coincidentally happens to have a thing for her mother, etc., all these elements just did not really help this movie along. It placed it more in the element of a situation comedy trying one of their "special dramatic episodes" then it did for a fully realized, well-written feature film.<br /><br />When you watch the DVD and listen to the commentary, particularly for the various alternate endings, you can really see all of this is sharp focus.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger! <br /><br />One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's interesting how 90% of the high-vote reviews are all comprised of "*random username*" from "United States" (no state pride??) who all say more or less the exact same thing with the exact same grammatical style and all with the exact same complete lack of taste in movies. I would delve further into this suspicious trend, but alas, this is a review of the movie, and not the reviews themselves.<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I am both a Christian and a true avid movie fan. This means I have seen a great many movies, from good to bad, and can wholeheartedly claim that Facing The Giants is, in fact, NOT a good movie. It has good intentions, but fails to meet many (if any) basic standards that I associate with a quality filmgoing experience.<br /><br />The Acting: Mostly Terrible, Palatable At Best. Hearing that most were apparently volunteers does not at all surprise me.<br /><br />The Dialogue: Clumsy, cheesy, the script comes off as a long version of some cheesy skit you'd see performed in Sunday School or youth group function. The Rave Review Robots revel in the absence of "meaningless words", but the cold hard truth is that such words are a part of the real world, and the complete absence of it is palpable. Let's just say the mean ol' head coach of a team in a State Championship game would have a lot more to say than "OH NO!" when things are not going his way.<br /><br />The Plot: Mind-bogglingly predictable. It has been commented that this movie is "not a Hollywood cliché", and yet it's like it was pulled directly from Making An Underdog Sports Movie For Dummies (including the mandatory quasi-romantic subplot for the ladies) and just had a Christian-themed coat of paint slapped on it. I'm not lying or bragging when I say I had almost every major detail in both the plot and subplot pegged immediately upon their inception. Only someone who has never seen a decent sports movie in their whole life would be emotionally stirred by the story presented here.<br /><br />The Directing/Editing: It, too, was patterned almost exactly after the generic Underdog Sports Movie template. Still, acting aside, there weren't many noticeable goofs, so at least Facing The Giants was technically competent.<br /><br />The Message: Ask Jesus and He will grant all your wishes. Part of me hoped that this movie would end in the team's eventual defeat to really emphasize the whole "If we lose, we praise You" part, because in the Real World, you WILL fail at one point or another and it's good to be prepared for that. But in the world of Facing The Giants, if you fail, clearly someone either screwed up or is cheating. Another interesting question being, what if the Eagles came across another team that had gotten religion? Would they be caught in an endless loop of miraculous plays and last-minute saves, or would the universe simply have exploded? <br /><br />The Bottom Line: For the hardcore conservative Christian Parents crowd lamenting the evils of Hollywood, Facing The Giants will be another mediocre-at-best Christian film to hold up on a pedestal as the preferred model for modern film-making. For everyone else, the effects will range from boredom to a burning desire to be watching something else. And a warning: Any attempt to show this to non-Christians will lead not to conversion, but to derision. I give this two stars, one for the one scene that did not have me rolling my eyes, and another for basic technical proficiency on a low budget.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.<br /><br />Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.<br /><br />Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent "Secrets and Lies" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I decided to watch this serial after seeing the endless adverts for it on the BBC in the weeks prior to it starting. I watched it despite the fact that I don't like the pretentious kind of stuff that Alan Hollinghurst writes (sorry to his fans but I think we have a case of the emperor's new clothes with this author's work). I admit that the acting is excellent, it is beautifully shot and I was reasonably entertained by it - however- I found that the storyline was extremely thin and after watching all three episodes feel very unsatisfied with this rather empty production. The 'explicit' gay sex that the media droned on about has all been done before on TV - several times - so it was nothing very shocking I'm afraid. Full marks for production values but low ones for storyline/content I'm afraid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.<br /><br />including but not limited to "allright lets see what these guys can do" I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.<br /><br />Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You know you're in trouble when the film your watching has numerous alternate titles. Generally it means that they tried and retried to hide the turkey in various markets. Such a turkey is The Brain Machine which has seven different titles.<br /><br />Its about some super secret government project that is suppose to be able to use a computer to read people but instead it drives people to kill each other or themselves, or something like that. Its filled with B level TV actors sitting in paneled room with lawn chairs trying to act a script that makes almost no sense.<br /><br />Its a turkey of the untastey kind. Avoid it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.<br /><br />Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such clichéd dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.<br /><br />Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.<br /><br />Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.
|
Negative
| null | null |
That is the only question I am left with. Why did this movie suck so much when it had such a great cast? Why was the writing so bad, it left the audience completely unconnected with the characters? Why did it not make any sense at all? Why did the studio take a perfectly good premise and "Hollywood" the hell out of it when all it needed was good, smart story telling? Why? I never understand why movies that start out good turn into a pile of crap by the time they're released. I hope for the sake of Freeman an Spacey, who are Oscar WINNERS, that this never is released to the big screens in America.<br /><br />As someone that holds a Bachelors Degree in Journalism, the whole story is just utterly laughable. I just...think the script had potential, but the execution turned it into a cliché, and an awful one at that. Just. No.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body. (Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable. I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV. I caught The Minion and boy was I ever disappointed. This movie is utterly terrible. With action sequences so poorly staged and badly edited you can barely make coherent sense in the fight arena. Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren. It literally has nothing to recommend it. It's awful and it's the lowest point in Lundgren's career. And I saw Cover-Up, The Last Warrior and Masters Of The Universe.<br /><br />1/2* Out Of 4-(Awful)
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs. It is an unamusing, mean-spirited, insipid waste of resources that should never have been discussed aloud; much less actually recorded and sold to unsuspecting consumers. Easily the worst film I have seen in the past 18 months; mind-numbingly bad for the entire 86 minutes of it's runtime. Had it been much longer, I would not have been able to write this review without using profanity. Consider yourself warned!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Without question, the worst ELVIS film ever made. The movie portrays all Indians as drunk, stupid, and lazy. Watch ELVIS's skin change color throughout the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This DVD appears to be targetted at someone who will just put it on and play it in an endless loop in the background. It's organized as a series of music videos of the Grand Canyon set to various pieces of Tangerine Dream music.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TD music is dull, and the transfer to DVD looks rather blurry and dim. Too expensive a DVD for what it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is an extra-long tale of a classic novel that completely fails to capture the original adventure's spirit. The quite horribly American Patrick Swayze is cast as the British hero Allan Quatermain despite the obviousness of his nationality.<br /><br />The movie continues throughout to "Hollywood-ise" the story by changing both the plot and the characters to fit more comfortably into the accepted mold. The movie manages to be predictable throughout, even to those who are not familiar with the story and is plagued by some extremely bad acting and terribly disappointing fight sequences.<br /><br />All in all, a terrible addition to the already quite bad collection of movies based on the legend of King Soloman's Mines and Allan Quatermain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was still bitterly disappointed! I actually cant believe I spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT bad!!! The storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...but they personally had no effect on me. I honestly wished id never watched it and I strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. It is a total waste of money and you'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol!
|
Negative
|
I went to see this film yesterday and since i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was hence gratified! I actually cant believe I ended up spending 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT good!!! The storyline was gracious and the acting was good (it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...and they personally had the most effect on me. I honestly wished id watched it earlier and I strongly recommend everyone for seeing this film. It is a total worth of money and you'll only end up being gratified afterwards. My advice is to spend your money, don't go shopping, or treat yourself, just go and see this film... You'll live to love it lol!
|
Positive
|
Having the In-Laws over for the weekend? Then this is the film to hasten their departure, failing that it will induce a catatonic state to bring a welcome relief from constant nagging.<br /><br />The film is supposedly set on board a luxury cruise ship, which is more superannuated car ferry; the plot has more holes than the average colander and a cast dredged from the depths of the celebrity D list. An interesting piece of added amusement is playing "Spot the Villain" as passengers join the ship. You won't be wrong!!!! With a script that sinks faster than a brick, clichéd set pieces and copious amounts of raspberry jam doubling as blood this film attempts to encompass the genres of thriller, action movie and gore-fest and simultaneously fails to fulfil any of them.<br /><br />A must watch film, if only to laugh at how bad it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Semana Santa is jaw-droppingly bad. It's so wrong in so many ways I don't where to begin. So, let's see...Mira Sorvino, whose judge husband has been shot while protecting her, goes from Madrid to Seville for her cop job. During the holy week (Semana santa, see?...everybody begins to fall sleep..told u it was bad in so many points, even from the beginning), a killer executes his victims like bulls in a bullfighting arena. She teams up with male chauvinist pig Olivier Martinez and nice Feodor Atkine. Soon she discovers she'll be the next target of the killer (who wears a red robe). Why, oh but why?<br /><br />Why..;that's the questionthat has been in my head the whole movie.<br /><br />Q :Why did go to see that A : Because i love Mira Sorvino (i even excuse her for that AT FIRST SIGHT crap)<br /><br />Q : Why were we only 8 people in the theater this saturday on the first week end of release? A : ah-ah-ah. Spider-man got relaesed the same day. But also the fact that the movie has been blast with execrable reviews.<br /><br />Q : Why this movie has been made? A : Money I guess. But boy did Mira need the money.<br /><br />then...why???????????? first of all, there's always something wrong with european co-productions. here you got a french-english-german-italian-spanish-danish production. yi-ha.<br /><br />Then it wants to play on the same playgroung as US thrillers/slashers/whodunit/mysteries/whatever. Even VALENTINE, though unnecessary and badly scripted and shot, was much better in the suspense and the fun.<br /><br />Then , to give some credit to the story, the screenwriter wanted to add some political sight to the story. Wrong : done in flash-backs in a Traffic-like photography, it's certainly the most interesting thing i n the movie. Could have stick to it, it wouldn't have to sit through the whole movie. Better go straight to Guillermo del Tros's THE DEVIL'S BACKBONE (El espinazo del diablo)for some clever fun.<br /><br />Then the homophobia. Bullseye! The first victims are S&M drug addicted gay twins who got stabbed to death. The annoying olivier Martinez goes to a dating agency held by a badly shaved overweight transvestive with a blond platinum wig. Calls mira Sorvino's character a big dyke all the time. Do we need this kind of stuff? Nah. Just needless offensive remarks, just like ol'times.<br /><br />Then the suspense. Yipee. No apparent motive. The first murders are plain illusion as they're a representation of a famous painting. But no. And the revelation of the killer (a horrible fascist, of course) could have been done from the beginning as he appears at the end of the movie as, I guess, it was time for the director to say "weel, time to finish that damn movie. let's reveal right now who the killer is and why he kills".<br /><br />Then the director thinks he's a director. Wrong : no sense of suspense, no sense of directing the actors, no knowledge of change of pace. A Giant, mega-bore. The scenes of the holy week are needless (maybe a co-production rule saying : ok, shoot in Sevilla but show some creditsof this beautiful and historical town with the celebrations of Easter. There we are : a mystery movie for tourists!)<br /><br />Then the actors. All wrongs. Mira Sorvino bores herself to death : she does practicly nothing except getting stabbed in the right hand. Everything she did best (the Replacement Killers, Mighty Aphrodite...) were like they never existed. Olivier Martinez...hello, anybody here? When the producers will learn that he's not an actor but a mannequin with no ability of speech nor feelings? Feodor Atkine, bland and transparent. Only do we pay great respect to Alida Valli, one of the greatest actress this last century (and I hope for some more roles in this current one). She's tha main attraction here as she's the only one to give life to her poor lines. I won't mention the other actors as they're only one-sided characters, uninteresting and shallow.<br /><br />Incoherent direction, inconsistent actors, implausible plot. Idiocy incarnated.<br /><br />Superwonderscope says : 1<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Like most of the festivals entries Hamiltons makes for an interesting watch a film thats all ideas and little execution. Although impressive for it's obvious low budget the film falters in it's final twist and becomes dreadfully long during it's drawn out and obvious conclusion. The film is about a family of murderous outcasts trying to survive after there parents have died. They kidnap people , drain the blood from them and feed something locked away in their basement. There's some nice darkly humorous performances from Mckellhar and Firgens and the rest are just so-so. The film never feels realistic or very disturbing for that matter. But for the first half taps into an oddly humorous and dark mixture which is a surprising accomplishment. The next half isn't so successful as it receeds into film oblivion with unrealistic twists into a ridiculously cocky finale that turns the entire film into utter crap. It's a shame though there is no doubt that some talent was involved with this production and although deeply flawed it remains original and creative. too bad that when it comes to the delivery it completely fails on every level.<br /><br />**/5
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.