input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just got the UK 4-disc special edition of Superman 1 for about $5. The additional stuff includes the 1951 feature Superman and the Mole-Men. So I slapped it into the DVD player last night, and here are my findings.<br /><br />Some initial disappointment - I hadn't checked, and I think I had it mentally tagged as one of the Kirk Alyn serials. I'm not a huge fan of George Reeves as Superman, and I hadn't seen anything other than the odd clip of Kirk Alyn - but hey ho, never mind.<br /><br />This black and white production runs for less than an hour. It has the feel of a couple of episodes of one of Reeves' early TV series, a two-parter, put together for cinema release, although IMDb says it was filmed as a cinema release in advance of the first TV series. In any event, it's an odd choice for reasons I'll get to later. I'm of an age where I recall TV and movie productions which are limited to one or two locations and sets, so there were no major surprises here. Even so, for a low budget movie, this one is REALLY low budget.<br /><br />The story concerns the small town of Silsby - population 1,430 - which, puzzlingly, is also home to the world's deepest oil well (6 miles). The story opens with the well's foreman hurriedly taking steps to close the well down. This conflicts with the arrival of Metropolis reporters Kent and Lane to report on the well, at the behest of the oil company. As Clark is sniffing out the fact that the drill has emerged into a radioactive cavern 6 miles down, a couple of odd little guys (small in stature, big in head, black in jumpsuit, and bushy in eyebrow) emerge from the capped-off drillshaft, and start mooching round town with puzzled expressions on their faces.<br /><br />A deep breath now, here is the remaining plot of the picture. The little guys scare some kids, so Jeff Corey (playing the town's rampant xenophobe) incites some pals to kill these "creatures". Superman steps in (moderately ineffectually) and catches one of the little guys who has been shot and takes him to the local hospital. Corey's pals burn down the shack the other little fellow has hidden in and assume he is killed, but he escapes and legs it down the shaft. Corey incites a lynch mob (despite the sheriff arresting him) to hang the hospitalised Mole-Man. Superman stops them entering the hospital and takes the injured chappie to the shaft to return him to his fellows. A total of 4 Mole-Men emerge with a weapon of some sort which they fire at Jeff Corey (I call this an Aargh! gun because its sole effect seems to be to make Corey go "Aargh!") and Superman saves him. He immediately changes his ways because of amazement at Superman saving him after the way he has behaved, the Mole-men go back down the shaft. The end.<br /><br />Despite the film only being an hour long, there is an inordinate amount of creeping around, bewareing and pursuing - I have left out all the "Mole-Man 1 creeps from A to B, looking out to make sure no-one is following him" stuff. The Mole-Men are never engaged in any way whatsoever - they have no dialogue - they just turn up, get persecuted, and go back. They do look a little creepy, but they are hardly the bug-eyed monsters that the town's reaction implies.<br /><br />Reeves is quite a good Clark Kent - very much a hard-nosed reporter, much more so than Phyllis Coates' rather indifferent Lois Lane. But he is a terrible, terrible Superman. Not only does he not look the part (at least his hair is dyed black in this, which is an improvement from the rather light hair he sported in some of the TV episodes), the way he plays it is all wrong in my book. I'm sure he was told to "strike the pose" (which Superman does constantly), but someone should have told him that it should be fists on hips, not fists on ribs. And he plays Superman as a rather strict and touchy schoolteacher - he doesn't actually wag his finger in remonstration, but he may as well have done.<br /><br />And Superman does a huge amount of walking around (I say a huge amount - he isn't actually in it all that much), and a bit of running. He takes off and lands a couple of times, but isn't seen in flight at any point. Oh, some bullets bounce off him, and he uses telescopic vision as Clark, but with no accompanying visual effect. In fact, visual effects are conspicuous by their absence, and the few which are present aren't very good.<br /><br />I've tried to consider this effort by reference to the standards of the time: but even by those standards I think it's a pretty threadbare effort. Thankfully, production standards on the TV series were higher, and at least they took the trouble to come up with stories which had a bit more to them.<br /><br />Something of a disappointment - I shan't be watching it again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious
There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so far
the fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pretty bad movie offers nothing new. The usual creaks and moans attempt to make-up for a muddled, but thin story. Acting is barely above pathetic. Why Liam Neeson signed on for this is anyone's guess. Owen Wilson truly turns in one of the worst performances in recent horror-movie history. Catherine Zeta Jones is fun to look at and not much else although Lili Tayor did an above-average job. The special effects were fairly memorable and the house itself was breathtaking and hauntingly gorgeous. However they can't makeup for the poor acting and the storyline which appears to have been thrown together at the last minute. Don't bother.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Inappropriate. The PG rating that this movie gets is yet another huge misstep by the MPAA. Whale Rider gets a PG-13 but this movie gets a PG? Please. Parents don't be fooled, taking an elementary school child to this movie is a huge mistake. There were numerous times I found myself being uncomfortable not just because the humor was inappropriate for kids, but also because it was totally out of the blue and unnecessary.<br /><br />But all that aside, The Cat in the Hat is still a terrible movie. The casting and overall look of the movie are the only saving graces. The beautiful Kelly Preston and the always likeable (or hateable in this case) Alec Baldwin are both good in their roles even though Preston is almost too beautiful for a role like this. The kids are conditioned actors and it shows, especially with Dakota Fanning. Fanning is the only human aspect of the film that kept me watching and not throwing things at the screen.<br /><br />Did I mention there was an oversized talking cat in this movie? Mike Myers is absolutely deplorable. I didn't like him as the voice of Shrek, and I truly believe now that Myers should not be allowed near the realm of children's films ever again. His portrayal of The Cat is a slightly toned down version of Fat Bastard and Austin Powers.<br /><br />In the end, the cat should not have come, he should have stayed away, but he came, even if just for a day, he ruined 82 minutes of my life, 82 minutes of personal anger and strife.<br /><br />The Cat in the Hat may be the worst kids movie ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So don't even think about renting this from the shops, because this is one hell of a bad movie. You'd think that JJ Abrahams had written this movie. Basically, a rat is flushed down the toilet and somehow has to get back out. Fans of the completely terrible "Shrek" might enjoy, but "Wallace & Gromit" fans will probably turn away in disgust. Also, why didn't they do it in plasticine or clay? I mean, CGI animation?? For an AARDMAN movie??!! Obviously, Aardman lazed around while they let Dreamworks do the whole thing. Wrong, wrong, WRONG!!! Nearly every single character is awful, apart from that freaky frog guy, who is just right for a movie villain. But everything else about the movie is DULL, DULL, DULL!!! I almost fell asleep with boredom watching this movie. No, wait, actually, I DID fall asleep with boredom watching this movie. It's just terrible. But thankfully, it's not as bad as "Shrek."
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you have plenty of time to waste ... it's OK. It moves at a good pace but to pull this movie off it would need to be a little longer with a little more background on the sitter. <br /><br />The acting is OK. Mariana Klaveno as the sitter does the best job and is the most believable.<br /><br />William R. Moses played a pretty good part as the husband.<br /><br />Gail O'Grady, as the wife, had a weak part and the reasons for her going back to work were not developed.<br /><br />The ending is sort of silly. Like most of these sitter movies ... there are parts that are interesting ... but overall it leaves you wondering why you spent the time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is probably pro-Muslimization. <br /><br />Why do I write that? The main character has a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He lives his first 20 years in a Christian village. In the end of the film he seemingly is a Muslim because of his head-wear, that he has kept his amulet, and his general clothing. He has a six year old child, who wears the same head-wear and therefore is probably a Muslim, although the mother is a Christian. The main character thus chooses to, it seems, to be a Muslim and his child becomes a Muslim. No one of the other male main characters, which are Christians, seems to breed a child. There are more Muslims in the world of this movie at the end of it, it therefore seems.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Though I'd heard that "Cama de Gato" was the worst Brazilian movie of the decade, I watched it giving it a chance; after all, first-time director/producer/writer Alexandre Stockler managed to make his debut feature (shot in video) for just US$ 4,000 and -- though it looks even cheaper -- I can't begin to imagine all he went through to finally get it exhibited in theaters with no big sponsors or production companies behind it (then as I watched it I realized why). But whatever chances you're ready to give to "Cama de Gato", they shrink to zero within 10 minutes: it's an unbelievably preposterous, verbose, ideologically fanatical and technically catastrophic attempt to portray Brazilian upper-middle class youth as a bunch of spoiled neo-Nazis hooked on bad sex, drugs and violence (and they're made to look like closeted gays too), made with no visible trace of talent, imagination, expertise or notion of structure. Visually and aurally, it recalls the worst amateur stuff you can find on YouTube -- only here it lasts NINETY TWO (count'em) minutes of unrelenting hysteria and clumsiness, and it's not even funny-bad.<br /><br />We've all seen the story before: bored young guys want to have fun, go partying, take drugs and everything goes wrong -- there's gang-rape, spanking, murder, the accidental death (falling down the staircase!!) of the mother of one of the boys, culminating with the boys deciding to burn the corpses of the girl and the mother in a garbage landfill. Moral and literal garbage, get it? The film is heavily influenced by Larry Clark (especially "Kids" and "Bully"), but Clark's films -- though also moralist and sexploitative -- are high-class masterworks compared to this crap.<br /><br />I don't think there was ever such monomaniacal drive in a filmmaker to stick his ideas down the audience's throat: Stockler grabs us by the collar and tries to force his non-stop moralist rant into our brains by repetition and exhaustion -- you DO get numb-minded with so much babbling, yelling, inept direction, shaky camera and terrible acting going on. Stockler doesn't care a bit about technique (the quality of the images, framing, sound recording, soundtrack songs, dialog, sets, editing, etc is uniformly appalling), but he's a narcissistic control-freak: he anticipates the criticisms he's bound to get by adding subtitles with smartie/cutie comments, and by making the protagonists comment at one point how far-fetched and phony it all is (I could relate to THAT). <br /><br />Despite his megalomaniac ambitions, Stockler seems incapable of giving us a minimum of visual or narrative structure -- he can't even decide if he wants gritty realism (hand-held video camera etc) or stylization (repetition of scenes, use of alternate takes, etc). Damn, he can't even decide WHERE to put his camera (there's use of subjective camera for the THREE leads)! The dialog features some of the most stupefyingly banal verbosity ever; the plot exists simply to justify the director's profound hatred for his characters and what they stand for. All you see is a filmmaker being hateful, preachy, condemning, moralizing without the benefit of a minimum of talent (or technique) to go with it.<br /><br />It's very disappointing to find Caio Blat in this mess. Certainly one of the most promising young film actors in Brazil, with his sleepy-eyed puppy dog looks and emotional edge that often recall Sal Mineo's, Blat can be highly effective under good direction (as in "Carandiru", "Lavoura Arcaica", "Proibido Proibir"). Here, he's told to go over the top and he has to play with some of the most embarrassingly under-equipped "actors" in recent memory. He also enters the risky realm of graphic sexploitation scenes (so goddawful they look rather like web-cam porn).<br /><br />The film opens and ends with real interviews with "typical" (?) middle-class youth -- Stockler wants us to take those interviews as "proof" of what he's trying to preach in fiction. But he blatantly despises and makes fun of his interviewees, selecting a highlight of abject, racist, sexist, stupid statements (which only shows assholes exist everywhere). Stockler wants to prove that Brazilian middle-class youths are ALL present or future fascists BECAUSE they're middle-class and enjoy recreational drugs (is he saying all neo-fascists are on drugs?? Or that drugs potentialize fascist behavior?? I couldn't tell). <br /><br />With its dogmatic self-righteousness, headache-inducing technique and mind-bending boredom, "Cama de Gato" is bad for a 1,000 reasons but, above all, it's harmful in a very insidious manner: it gives detractors of Brazilian cinema a powerful case of argument. "Cama de Gato" is best unwatched, unmentioned, buried and forgotten.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I found the documentary entitled Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control to be a fairly interesting documentary. The documentary contained four "mini" documentaries about four interesting men. Each one of these men was extremely involved with his job, showing sheer love and enjoyment for one's job.<br /><br />The sad part, I must say, would have to be the subjects in which these individuals worked/studied. They were interesting for about five minutes, afterwards becoming boring and lasting entirely too long.<br /><br />The video was filmed in a very creative way though. I very much enjoyed the film of one thing with a voice dub over another. It played out excellent and also coincided nicely with the music.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have never seen a comedy that was this much of a chore to sit thru...not one laugh in it. Ok, maybe one little chuckle for the Michael Clarke Duncan bit as the big, black, bald gay virgin. But the rest of it was shockingly un-funny. On top of being void of any laughs the "skits" go on forever! Steer clear of this one if you value your time and money. DREADFUL!!! The worst!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
...through the similarly minded antics of Eric Stanze. A not-particularly talented director has helmed a not-particularly good movie, yet I still found myself sitting through it to the closing credits, if for nothing more than to see what happens next.<br /><br />A rapist escapes from prison and calls up his old flame. After capturing her (even though she came willingly) and threatening her into having sex (another event she was also willing to do) he reveals that he has kidnapped three guys who wronged her in the past. He then decides to kill her (huh?) but is foiled and dies instead. The girl's mind snaps (or something like that) and she takes out her rage on the unlucky chaps in the basement.<br /><br />Alright, the writing sucks: it's long winded, loaded with ten-cent words and there is WAY too much of it.<br /><br />The acting sucks: what a minute, what acting? <br /><br />The filming sucks: home video is bad enough, but 20 minutes of graveyard footage is just a damn insult.<br /><br />And the budget is a joke: get it...'budget', that was the punchline.<br /><br />And yet there was a charm to the thing. Back in the 70's these kind of movies came out in theatres with actual budgets and talent attached to them, not in this day and age though. If you want to watch this kind of violent, sexually exploitive trash (don't lie, some of us do) then this is all your gonna get nowadays.<br /><br />Some brief hardcore shots in a sex scene, torture with fecal material, fun with axes, anal rape by broom stick and a lengthy shot of the crazy chick masturbating with the same broom stick are some of the better items on the menu.<br /><br />It's not good and it won't be remembered, but not since the heyday of Joe D'amato have people made movies like this.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***
|
Negative
| null | null |
Please Don't hate me but i have to be honest, watching this movie, i had a lot of fun,,<br /><br />It's a Movie with a Stupid Cast and Stupid Songs!!!<br /><br />Unnecessary songs!!! Mehbooba... A Total Insult to the Original One Holi.... well.. it was OK! due to the Tradition Every Movie got to have one!! Chad Raha hai Nasha Whatever... Very UNNEEDED stupid Song jee Le... Sounded like a Playboy Song Stupid Song...<br /><br />Other than Songs. The Movie was OK This was Ram Gopal Verma's Own Adaptation... If you think like that you will like this movie<br /><br />Well this movie only Depends on the Viewer and on his judgement whether he/she thinks this movie is total Copy He/She would want to hit her Head on the Cinema Seat OR if he/She Thinks of the Directors Own Look he/she would be relaxed and take a look at this movie<br /><br />Anyways I looked at both ways i would Congratulate and Abuse Ram Gopal for this Disaster that he made...<br /><br />Well Some other Things that bothered that The CAST was Incredibly Bad<br /><br />Amitabh Bachchan As Babban/Gabbar (Amitabh in his own Movie Remake Funny what was the Director Thinking) Ajay Devgan As Heero/Veeru(Bobby Deol Could have been Better) Prashant Raj As Raj/Jai(Abhishek was Meant for this role Despite doing a Special Appearance in the Mehbooba song) Sushmita Sen As Radha/Durga(Jaya Bachchan was Right Tabu was Right for this Role) Nisha Kothari As Ghungroo/Basanti(I think Esha Deol would have been Great) Mohanlal As Narishma/Thakur(Mohanlal Is So Cute....Oops Sorry hehehehe, He Was OK I could not Think of anyone)<br /><br />The Movie would have Even FAIRED a LIttle if the Cast was OK<br /><br />I movie wasn't even exciting, the movie was just OK , Just for watching<br /><br />The Overall Rating<br /><br />Direction... 8/10 I Got to him some credit Cinematography... 9/10 Script... 3/10 BAD Scripting Songs... 5/10 Unnecessary in the Movie, could have been better, Easy on the Ears on to be played in PC's and IPod's and Stuff Cast... 1/10<br /><br />Total ... 3/10<br /><br />Syed Shabbir Aly Naqvi from Pakistan
|
Negative
| null | null |
You'd think that with Ingrid Bergman and Warner Baxter that this film would have been a lot better. Sadly, the film suffers from difficult to believe characters as well as a major plot problem that makes some of the characters seem brain-addled.<br /><br />The film begins with Ingrid Bergman coming to work for the Stoddard family. Everything is so very peachy and swell--the family adores Bergman and things couldn't be more perfect. Well, that is until the mother (Fay Wray) dies, the stock market crashes in 1907 (wiping out the family's fortune) and Bergman is forced to go back home to France. This portion of the film is a bit sticky sweet, but not bad.<br /><br />Later, after the family's fortunes have improved, Bergman returns. The four boys are now all grown and there isn't really a conceivable reason why they'd hire her once again as a governess. But, briefly, everything is swell once again. But, when WWI occurs, the four all go to war--gosh! In the midst of this, one of the sons (David) brings home his new wife (Susan Hayward). Miss Hayward's character is as black and white as the others, though while they are all good and swell, she's obviously a horny she-devil. To make things worse, she comes to live in the family home while David is at war.<br /><br />Now here is where the movie gets really, really dumb--brain-achingly dumb. Hayward begins an affair with one of David's brothers but when the father sees a silhouette of the lovers, Bergman enters the room from another entrance and pretends that it was her, not Hayward with Jack! WHY?! Why would any sane person do this to save the butt of an obviously evil and conniving woman? This was exactly the sort of excuse Bergman needed to get rid of the gutter-snipe once and for all! This is just a case of lousy writing and made me mad...and most likely did the same to the audiences back in 1941.<br /><br />The rest of the movie consists of failed opportunity after failed opportunity for Hayward's evilness to be exposed. This just flies against common sense and made the film a silly melodramatic mess. As expected, however, the truth eventually comes out and everyone is swell once again---happy to be one big loving wonderful family minus the slut, Hayward.<br /><br />The film suffers because of poor writing. Hayward's affair made no sense--at least in how it was handled. And, having characters who are so gosh-darn good or evil (with nothing in between) sinks this movie to the level of a second-rate soap. The only thing that saves it at all is the acting---they tried as best they could with a turgid script. Suffice to say that the Columbia Pictures writers who did this film should have been slapped with a dead chicken!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nothing could have saved this movie, not even Superman.<br /><br />Ten years ago the special effects would have been amazing. Better directing might have gotten some more feeling and better performances out of the actors. But nothing but feeding the script to a dragon could have fixed it. Plot holes, bad lines, terrible pacing, endless replaying of the same shots of a CGI dragon stomping through hallways... ugh.<br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cheap, amateurish, unimaginative, exploitative... but don't think it'll have redeeming amusement value. About as unentertaining, uninstructive and just plain dull as a film can be.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature. The only reason i watched this piece of garbage is because it was on that 8 disc horror set i got. The plot is preposterous and totally stupid as is the finale. No blood what so ever except a few bloody marks on the creature, and a couple of bloody gunshot wounds. The acting is TERRIBLE!!. Richard Cardella is terrible as the sheriff and was quite laughable plus his character is annoying. Glen Roberts is the comic relief and was not funny at all!. Mark Siegel is extremely annoying and was also NOT FUNNY!. Bob Hyman is decent but not much more then that. Richard Garrison is annoying and had no chemistry with Kacey Cobb what so ever. Kacey Cobb is so so here and had no chemistry with Richard. Overall Avoid this piece of garbage at all costs! BOMB out of 5.
|
Negative
| null | null |
By rights, there should never have been a "First Blood Part II". The original script for "First Blood" had John Rambo committing suicide at the end of the film, but this was changed to allow him to live, not because the producers wanted to make a sequel but because test audiences found the original ending too depressing. Nevertheless, someone obviously thought that the character was too good to waste, because he ended up as the hero of two more films in the eighties, plus the recently released fourth instalment.<br /><br />The official title of this film was "Rambo: First Blood Part II", but it is more commonly known simply as "Rambo". It starts with the title character in jail, where he is presumably expiating the crimes he committed in "First Blood", although this is never made too explicit. He is removed from prison by his former commanding officer, Colonel Trautman, for a secret mission. Rambo is to return to Vietnam to investigate reports that American POWs are still being held captive by the Communist regime. He is under strict instructions not to attempt to rescue any prisoners or to engage the enemy; his is to be simply a fact-finding mission.<br /><br />What Rambo does not realise is that he is being set up, not by Trautman, who is portrayed as brave, honourable and incorruptible, but by the organiser of the mission, a military bureaucrat named Murdock. Murdock intends that the mission will prove that there are no American prisoners in Vietnam, partly because that will improve relationships between the American and Vietnamese governments, partly because it will make his own life easier. Unfortunately for Murdock, Rambo discovers that not only are Americans still being held prisoner, they are also being kept in hellish conditions. Of course, he is far too much of a hero to leave them to their fate, and tries to rescue them. The rest of the film is more or less one long battle between Rambo and a few allies (including a beautiful Vietnamese girl) and the evil commie soldiers and their Russian allies. Most of the evil commies, of course, end up dead, although I was surprised to learn from your "trivia" section that the total death toll was as low as 67. At times it seemed as though Rambo was trying to wipe out the entire Vietnamese army.<br /><br />The tone of this film is very different from the first. In "First Blood" Rambo was unquestionably a criminal, even though his responsibility for his crimes was lessened by severe provocation and by his mental instability. In "Rambo" he is a bona fide all-American hero. A few years earlier the director, George Pan Cosmatos, had made "The Cassandra Crossing", a biased piece of left-wing anti-American propaganda. Cosmatos, however, was nothing if not versatile, and "Rambo" proves that he could also turn his hand to biased right-wing pro-American propaganda. The one thing the two films have in common is that both are laughably bad.<br /><br />"First Blood" had its faults, but it also had its virtues. Its stance, that the anti-war movement was partly to blame for the problems faced by Vietnam vets in readjusting to civilian life, was a controversial one, but at least the film was trying to make a statement about war, social attitudes to war, and the roots of violence in society. "Rambo", by contrast, has very few virtues, except that the action sequences are well enough done to please those who like that sort of thing. It is essentially a sort of jingoistic revenge fantasy for those Americans who were still sore about the Vietnam war. Rambo re-fights the war single-handed, and this time the right side wins. Take that, Charlie Cong! <br /><br />By this point, no doubt, the film's admirers (and there seem to be plenty- more than 2,000 voters have already given it ten stars) will have concluded that I am a liberal commie-loving pinko. Far from it- in fact, I have always despised Communism as a pernicious ideology. What I dislike about the film is not its politics but its lack of subtlety and its suggestion that the solution to all problems, including ideological disputes, is to go in with all guns blazing and to try and kill as many people as possible. It makes no attempt to understand the political complexities of South-East Asia or why not everyone in the region was pro-American. For all its anti-Communism, the film is the sort of moronic sledgehammer propaganda that the Communists were very good at churning out themselves- except that they attributed all the world's problems to Capitalism, or Imperialism, or Revisionism, or whatever other ism they had taken a dislike to. Compared to "Rambo", "The Green Berets" was a masterly piece of political analysis. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was "Marion"?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.<br /><br />That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. "A Man Betrayed", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.<br /><br />This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.<br /><br />That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made "A Man Betrayed" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,not really,in my opinion.there isn't a whole lot to recommend it.i found it very slow,tediously,in fact.it's also predictable pretty much through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but not as much.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character.Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character too over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would have been great if i had liked the movie.plus,there were some pretty bad one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character has not really evolved,as i had hoped.oh well.this is just my opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not abysmal,it is pretty bad.my vote for Darkman III: 3.5/5
|
Negative
|
OK,but does that make this a good movie?well,yes, really,in my opinion.there is so much to recommend it.i found it kinda slow, influential,in fact.it's also not as predictable through and through.number one and two were somewhat predictable,but this one surpasses.i also felt this movie was quite campy at times,which i didn't really think fits this series and the character, but it was interesting! Jeff Fahey plays the main bad guy in this installment.he's a decent enough actor,but i felt he played his character over the top.i guess that fit with the tone of the movie,which would was great. plus,there were some pretty funny one liners.Arnold Vosloo returns in the title role,but is given little to work with in this movie.the character had some serious evolved scenes,as i had hoped. well.this is just my humble opinion.anyway,for me,while this movie is not the best of the year,it is pretty decent.my vote for Darkman III: 4.5/5
|
Positive
|
I thought that this movie was pretty lame. If you're looking for cheesey, you may like this. I, myself, don't mind a fair amount of cheese, but this was ridiculous. The progression of the movie bored me and the storyline was very weak.<br /><br />The only thing entertaining about this movie was the day-glo zombies, but even that isn't reason enough to see this flick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not a fan of the Left Behind book series - the books are written at a 6th-grade reading level with a lack of research and understanding of science, technology, and politics. While the books do manage to remain faithful to scripture, their methods of fulfilling prophecy are often ridiculous (an example is their explanation for the Russian/Arab invasion of Israel). Also, the books have an unmistakable preachy tone that will turn off unbelievers rather than bring them to the gospel. Still, I found myself reading these books because of my interest in the events of Revelation. For a similar reason, I watched this film adaptation. I am sad to say that it is a rather mediocre film bordering on poor. The acting is actually rather decent for the most part with occasional bits of poor acting and over-acting. The script is rather bad, though it is hardly unexpected when starting with the novel as a basis. The characters are poorly drawn and underdeveloped. Events feel scattered and disconnected. The dialogue sometimes sounds rushed. At least the book managed to flesh out its hokey conspiracy theory. Here, the viewer is left with an incoherent mess that only makes much sense if one has read the book. The pacing of the film is also very poorly executed with the opening and conclusion seeming extremely rushed, and the middle dragging to an excruciatingly slow trudge that makes it feel padded. The music is schizophrenic. At times, it successfully underscores the mood and sounds fitting for a motion picture. At other moments, it reminds me of sitcom and mini-series music. And still other bits remind me of a poppy MTV soundtrack that just doesn't belong in the film. I can give the film points for the scene of panic on board the plane, but that's it. The other scenes involving the disasters after the Rapture are far from compelling. The film also suffers from the book's preachiness although its message isn't quite as in your face. In all, I found the movie just as disappointing as the series. This is not the film to rally Christians around it. I hope that this film does NOT get any attention at the theaters next year. It would be more unnecessary bad publicity for Christianity. For an example of a compelling, intelligent, well-researched series based on Revelation that presents a realistic and Christian world view without offending the secular reader (who after all should be whom a Christian is trying to reach) read the Christ Clone trilogy by James BeauSeigneur. It's a great read and is a much better choice for unbelievers or believers who appreciate quality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So you might be reading some of the comments posted on this film, and you might be thinking to yourself, "Huh. There were sure a bunch of RAVE REVIEWS posted on December 30." Funny thing is, most of these rave reviews sound like they're coming from the same person, or at best a small, coordinated group of "Open House" groupies. The truth, my friends, is that this film is truly unwatchable. Just because it's "independent" doesn't mean it gets a free pass. If you're going to make a musical, whether on film or on stage, whether on Broadway or at the local community playhouse, you should probably make sure that (a.) your actors can sing, (b.) your actors can dance, (c.) you have decent sound equipment, (d.) you have a well-written score, and (e.) you have lyrics that are witty and charming. Even Anthony Rapp can't save this one. It's one of those unfortunate movie-going experiences where I actually felt deeply embarrassed for everyone involved.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.<br /><br />Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.<br /><br />He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.<br /><br />What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.<br /><br />Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.<br /><br />All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.<br /><br />How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?
|
Negative
| null | null |
When watching this show you are not quite sure whether it is the story or the acting that is more annoying. First of all, the storyline of each episode is very predictable, the writers must have used every cliché possible, you can guess not only the general plot, but the arrangement of the scenes and also the lines of each character, making the show some sort of a collage of every police series out there. On the top of it all comes the "message" of the show, that the good are good and the bad are bad and that at the end of the day the good shall prevail and that we should all love each other, be better man and better citizens, all done in the most ostensible manner. The actors, as the vehicles of this message and nothing more than that, will use a limited set of acting skills: the "I am a good carrying person" smile, the concerned look and the "victory is ours" body posture, while the bad guys have the "I'm a bad one" frowning and the "you caught me" look, followed by the "I'm good for nothing and I should be removed from society" head banding (this kind of also sums up the general development of each show). True story or not, the show is garbage, yet another proof that producers don't give a s**t about viewers, that we are all thought to be idiots. Well this series makes every possible attempt to idiotize the living brains out of you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My husband and I bought the Old School Sesame Street DVD's for our daughter and I have to say, I don't let her watch the new episodes on TV, because I find ALL of the characters annoying. Baby Bear AND Telly? OMgosh, How ANNOYING and useless blabber can someone think of for their 'skits'? Elmo? Give it a rest not every kid likes him, once again, annoying and doesn't teach my child ANYTHING. Mr. Noodle? what a reject. I think the one time I turned the 'new' show on for her, she and I were left dumber than before. The show has Definitely taken a wrong turn. I remember the Yip Yips, Kermit's Breaking News, 1-2 2 Little Dolls, Mumford the Magician, Bert and Ernie, Grover the Waiter, all the GREAT EDUCATIONAL skits of OLD SCHOOL S.S. Sesame Street has suffered a direct hit of boredom and dumbness since Jim Henson's passing in 1990. The show no longer has the educational, funny and interactive skits it used to. I find the new versions simply unbearably annoying and full of useless non-educational blabber. Way to go S.S. producers/writers you have yet another cartoony show for the parents to sit there non-creative, non-exercised kids in front of so they'll get out of their hair. Per Producers/Writers : I suggest you whip out the old muppets and start taping similar content to that of the first Sesame Street's. Lord knows I sure don't want my child talking like Baby Bear or Elmo.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie should not be watched as it was meant to be a flop. Ram Gopal Verma first wanted to make this a remake of classic bollywood movie "Sholay", but after having problems with the original makers decided to go ahead with the project and... i guess leave all the good parts of the movie (acting, script, songs, music, comedy, action etc) out and shoot the movie just because he already happen to hire the crew. Waste of money, waste of time. After making movies like Rangeela, Satya, and Company he pulled a Coppola (Godfather) on us; What were you thinking RGV? Anyways, the story is, though hard to follow, is almost like the Old sholay. Ajay Devgan playing Heero (Beeru, sholay) and Ajay, new kid on the block playing Ajay (Jay,sholay). Both "bad yet funny" friends help a cop capture a bad guy first. Later in the movie, now Retired cop hires them as personal security and safeguarding from the hands of a very most wanted Bubban played by Amitabh Bachan. In case you haven't been watching Bollywood movies, the Good guys win in the end. There I just saved you 3 precious hours of your life!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really wanted to like this movie - the location shots were mostly filmed in Pittsburgh and the trailer had some wonderful photography. But, even for a filmed cartoon, it was a really badly-made movie. The continuity and pacing were both simply awful. The best bits in the movie are under the ending credits, so it's (almost) worth sticking it out to the end (though, oddly, it does pick up a little over the last half hour or so).<br /><br />When the best performance in a movie is by Andy Dick, you know there's got to be a problem...
|
Negative
| null | null |
My main comment on this movie is how Zwick was able to get credible actors to work on this movie? Impressive cast even for the supporting characters, none of which helps this movie really. I have to admit though, Tom Hank's cameo almost made it worth it what was that about Tom? Did you lose a bet? The best cameo of the movie was Joe Isuzu though - by far a classic! The premise is good. Basinger's character, struggling with existence as a Pink Lady, is making her way toward Vegas motel by motel pitching the glorious pyramid of cosmetic sales. This happens as Corbett's character is on his way to Vegas to deliver an Elvis suit to his soon to be ex-wife motivated by
.what else
.extortion. As they both make their way, they have numerous run-ins with Elvis impersonators who on their way to an Elvis impersonating convention in Vegas. Soon, the FBI gets involved and begins to track what they think is an Elvis impersonator serial killer. Unfortunately, premise doesn't mean the movie was good.<br /><br />When watching this movie, imagine you are back in the first grade when story lines and continuity aren't really important. It is much more enjoyable to just watch Basinger look beautiful in her Pink Lady outfit rather than wondering why what she is doing doesn't really make sense. The movie tries hard, but ultimately falls way way way short. Ultimately, it is filled with ideas that could have theoretically been funny but in practice were not that funny.<br /><br />It isn't the worst, but you may find you yourself feel like leaving the building when watching this one
Don't say I didn't warn you!
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Carriers" follows the exploits of two guys and two gals in a stolen Mercedes with the words road warrior on the hood hightailing it down the highway for the beach with surfboards strapped to the top of their car. Brian (Chris Pine of "Star Trek") is driving and his girlfriend Bobby (Piper Perabo of "Coyote Ugly")has shotgun, while Brian's younger brother, Danny (Lou Taylor Pucci of "Fanboys") and his friend--not exactly girlfriend--Kate (Emily VanCamp of "The Ring 2") occupy the backseat. This quartet of twentysomething characters are living in a nightmare. Apparently, a viral pandemic--which co-directors & co-scenarists Alex Pastor and David Pastor tell us absolutely nothing about--has devastated America. Naturally, the lack of exposition shaves off at least fifteen minutes that would have slowed down this cynical melodrama about how humans degenerate in a crisis and become their own worst enemies.<br /><br />This lethal virus gives you the shingles and then you bleed and die. Most everybody runs around wearing those white masks strapped to their nose and mouth by a thin rubber band. Initially, this foursome encounters a desperate father, Frank (Christopher Meloni of "Runaway Bride"),and his cute little daughter Jodie (Kiernan Shipka of "Land of the Lost") blocking the highway with their SUV. Brian swerves around Frank when he tries to waylay them, but in the process, the oil pan in their Mercedes ruptures and they wind up on foot. Reluctantly, they hitch a ride with Frank after they seal Jodie up in the rear of the SUV. She wears a mask over her nose and mouth and it is speckled with blood. Frank has heard that doctors are curing ailing people at a hospital and they head to it. Sadly, somebody has lied to Frank. The hospital physician is giving the last couple of kids some Kool-Aid that will put them out of their misery. The cure did not improve their condition. Everybody else in town is dead. Kate tries without success to get a dial tone on every phone. Frank realizes that there is no hope for his daughter and he lets the heroic quartet appropriate his SUV and take off.<br /><br />Indeed, "Carriers" qualifies as a relentlessly depressing movie about the effects of a pandemic on four sympathetic people who degenerate into homicidal murderers to protect themselves. They reach a country club and frolic around on a golf course until another four show up in suits and masks with pump-action shotguns. Incredibly, our protagonists manage to escape without getting shot, but Brian has a scare when he almost falls into the water with a floating corpse. Eventually, they discover that one of them has become infected. Later, as they are about to run out of gas, Brian blocks the highway like Frank did at the outset. Danny tries to stop a pair of older Christian women driving the car. Danny lies that his pregnant wife is about to give birth and he needs their help. Brian throws caution to the wind and blasts away at the ladies with his automatic pistol when they refuse to help them. Brian catches a slug in the leg from the passenger, but he kills her. <br /><br />No,"Carriers" is not a beer & pizza movie that you can either laugh off or laugh with because the humor is virtually non-existent. By the end of this 84-minute movie, our heroes have turned into villains who only care only for themselves and their plight. Chris Pine makes quite an impression as fun-loving Brian and his energetic performance is the only reason to hang with this hokum, while the only other well-known actress, Piper Perabo, is relegated to an inconsequential girlfriend role. As Bobby, she makes tragic the mistake of showing compassion to a dying little girl and pays an awful price. It is a testament to Pine's performance that he can change his character to the point of putting himself before others. Essentially, Pine has the only role that gives him the ability to pull a one-eighty from happy-go-lucky guy to heartless guy. <br /><br />The two directors are Spanish brothers, and they never let the momentum flag. Since there is no relief in sight, "Carriers" sinks into predictability. "Irréversible" cinematographer Benoît Debie does a fantastic job with his widescreen lensing and as unsavory as this road trip becomes, Debie makes it look like a dynamic film. Aside from the lack of a happy ending or closure in any sense of the word, "Carriers" suffers because it is so horribly cynical. The scene when the German shepherd attacks Danny conjures up the most suspense, but even it could have been improved. Unfortunately, the Pastor brothers do not scare up either much tension or suspense. By fade-out, you really don't care what happens to anybody.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Whipped" is 82 minutes long. This review is 82 words long. Three unlikable New York Lotharios, ruthless "scammers," end up wooing the same woman, played by Amanda Peet, with disastrous results. That applies to the story and the film. Too sophomoric to be misogynistic, flaccid and ridiculous, "Whipped" mixes the philosophies of shock jock Tom Lykis with Penthouse letter fantasies. Though technically proficient it's dated, grating, poorly written, mean, and obvious. People don't act like this. People don't talk like this. Really.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.<br /><br />All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.<br /><br />The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.<br /><br />I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the worst films I've seen in years!! You could randomly pluck 5 people off the streets and they could act better than anyone in this film. Absolute waste of time watching it. I only gave it a 2 as I like gory films but this is just plain rubbish. The acting (and I use that term VERY loosely) is abysmal, someone please tell me that the 5 main actors in this were making their first ever film?? Don't waste your time watching this. Hostel was a better film by some way. I cannot believe that someone has spent money making this, I hope for the producers sake it only cost $50,000 to make - it looks like a school project, made by kids who haven't got a clue. Did this even make it to the cinema??
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this loooooooooooong film a "2" because of the attractive actors and semi-sexy love scenes. Otherwise, if you can't read like a speed-reader you will NEVER get through the subtitles that try to keep up with the Spanish speed talking! And, what the hell is going on in the plot if you can't read the subtitles. Endless stares and goof-eyes and constant rejection. Just boring after an hour or so. Some good cinematography but also some so DARK you think your screen has burned out. How this won anything I will never understand. Difficult to talk about "ACTING" since the lead actors seem to just stare and look lovingly at each other when they are not pushing each other away. The character Geraldo is so attractive that it is difficult to believe that ANYONE would push him away. And what is with his mother? I just plain didn't GET IT most of the time except that there were three guys that all seem to have had a history with each other....but never figured out who was whose "EX."
|
Negative
| null | null |
As said before, the visual effects are stunning. They're breathtaking. I personally use Blender and graphics like that are not easy AT ALL. But that's all this movie is. Not only is the plot confusing, but the overall conflict is not clear. For example, in the first scene, Proog and Emo are trying to run away from who knows what. The conflict seems to be between man and nature here. Later, when they enter the room of the bottomless pit, Proog explains that "one step out of place and (you're dead)". Here, there's a more precise conflict between the careless man and nature. As the movie progresses, it's clear that a conflict exists between man and nature. But suddenly, a conflict exists between man and man when Proog, out of nowhere, murders Emo. Proog immediately changes from being a caring guardian looking after a lost child to being a "sick man". He betrays us. Not only is this depressing, but we don't care because the conflict between the character's thoughts and actions is not developed. It's not a story about someone, through struggle, emerging stronger. It's depressing and has not point because there's no great truth about the human soul or about the world brought to light like a great drama does. In my opinion, the movie is severely underdeveloped in all aspects. However, the graphics are stunning, but a movie is so much more than mere eye candy. There's no truth, no struggle and a bad surprise ending. In conclusion, an underdeveloped movie without a point. ...but the graphics are good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A repressed housewife (an annoying lisping Angie Dickinson, whose body double treats/horrifies us with an extreme closeup of her delicates) is sexually bored by her husband and decides to branch-out. This directly results in a string of murders that soon involve a high-class prostitute (Nancy Allen, clearly I am in the wrong business if SHE can bring home $600 a night) and her psychologist (Michael Caine). If you are going to watch De Palma rip off (excuse me, "pay homage to") Hitchcock, watch "Sisters" instead of this. "Dressed to Kill," while loaded with style and technical skill, is one of the tackiest thrillers I have had the displeasure of sitting through. The plot is absurd and tired. It does feature some surprisingly effective jump scares and nasty graphic murder sequences that should please any horror fan, as long as they can get past the silly story line, that must have been dated even in 1980.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This ambitious film suffers most from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's delusions of grandeur. Highly derivative of much better material (Altman's "Nashville," Lumet's "Network"), this lumbering elephant takes far too long to get nowhere. A couple of misguided detours along the way (an embarrassing musical interlude, a biblical plague) don't help matters. Neither does the uneven level of performances. Especially bad: William H. Macy, whose character and storyline could easily have been eliminated altogether; Julianne Moore, for her unconvincing angst. And how many times must we see John C. Reilly's Sad Sack shtick ("Chicago" and "The Hours" will suffice)? Tom Cruise comes off well by comparison his misogynist, foul-mouthed Holy Roller was rather amusing. Speaking of foul mouths, the script was so loaded with "F" bombs, they lost their impact in no time. Don't even talk about that awful soundtrack, full of insipid and annoying vocals by Aimee Mann. Her extended rendition of "One," a maudlin number to begin with, drove me to distraction at the start of the film. I should have heeded the handwriting on the wall and saved myself three more hours, by which time I'd been pushed to the brink of hell. One redeeming feature, which I haven't seen mentioned in other reviews, is the best performance in the bunch, by unknown Melora Walters in the role of Claudia, the damaged coke fiend bent on self-destruction. Her credibility exceeded all others by far. This film took itself way too seriously and just didn't know when to end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, I firmly believe that Norwegian movies are continually getting better. From the tedious emotional films of the 70's and 80's, movies from this place actually started to contain a bit of humour. Imagine.. Actual comedies were made! Movies were actually starting to get entertaining and funny, as opposed to long, dark, depressing and boring.<br /><br />During the 90's and 00's several really great movies were made by a 'new generation' of filmmakers. Movie after movie were praised by critics and played loads of money. It became the norm!<br /><br />Then came United...<br /><br />*MINOR SPOILERS* It's just simply not funny. Not once. Not ever. But the thing is... We THINK its funny. Because we're used to norwegian movies to be funny. Especially with a cast like this with a few really funny comedians. But.. They neither say nor do anything funny! Where's the humor? Show me the humor! Is it the awkward clerk played by Harald Eia? Is it the overacting totally ridiculously unrealistic football coach? Is it the commentaries by Arne Scheie? The movie is just not funny!<br /><br />But thats not my main rant about United. That namely is the predictability. (And it is here I fear that norwegian comedies have come to a standstill since I have seen this in many other movies as well.) All the time you just know its going to end well. All characters are exactly as they are presented in the start of the movie, and everybody gets exactly what they deserve in the end. There's absolutely no room for surprises at all!<br /><br />All in all I can say that I sat with a bad feeling after seeing this movie. It was the one movie that made me realize that we probably need some new blood in norwegian movie making... again!<br /><br />Rating: 1/6
|
Negative
| null | null |
This can't be Mandy Schaffer's last film. Somebody, do something! :-(<br /><br />Argh.<br /><br />What little life this one might have had, the directing finished off. Don't blame the cast; they did OK. Even the winemaker's younger brother was pretty well done, and he didn't even get into the movie until halfway through. And please, please put Mandy in some more movies! She's too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. Ya' breakin' my haht, heah....<br /><br />Two specific criticisms, in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). First, the way Traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment, in order to see whatever she was supposed to see, and never got seen in return, was very annoying. Hollywood: please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. It's dumb. Write better scripts so you won't have to use that lame plot device any more. If your script isn't good enough to stand up without that, then don't produce it.<br /><br />Second, Carmen wouldn't have fallen for that fake injury trick that Traci pulled. She already had Traci fingered. More bad writing/directing there.<br /><br />I could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. Actually I didn't hate it as much as the others seem to have. It just didn't have much of a reason for being made, unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely Mandy. Oh, and to whoever didn't think she was sexy... the character wasn't very well written, but how can you say she wasn't sexy?!? One or the other of us needs glasses, and I don't think it's me.<br /><br />MORE MANDY. (Not to be confused with "Moore, Mandy" -- although I'd like to see her again too. ;-)<br /><br />P.S. Did I mention I hope Mandy makes me more movies? <:-D
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the awful death scenes to guns that fire without making sounds to a character called the Fiend. It's all tiresome, slow moving, unimaginative drivel. It was OK seeing the guy with the cape and the hunchback lurking around. Visually it was creepy and probably occupied the moviegoer of the time, but even in 1936 one would think that there would have been a little more imagination and verisimilitude to even a film like this. I just kept waiting for something to happen of any importance as people stood around making speeches and acting like they were posing at an office picnic. And then there are those bullets as a previous commentator mentioned. Perhaps the best clue would have been to search for a water spot on someone's pants pocket.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Felt mine was while watching this...but it seems that is the reason for insanity running in the family in this film. Not that makes a lot of sense anyway, as others have mentioned, this was one of Karloff's last films and it's only his screen presence that lends it any credibility at all. It's sad that all of the great legends of the horror films in the sound era were eventually reduced to starring in low grade rubbish like this. Marginally, Boris did get off slightly better than poor old Bela Lugosi but not by much. <br /><br />Boris does his best and give him credit for trying to hold this mess together. The strident background music doesn't help and distracts from any lucid moment. Apart from Boris, the rest of the Mexican cast are dubbed into some strange, clipped, English monotone that is reminiscent of the type used in porn films of the late seventies. <br /><br />At a guess I think it's Edgar Allen Poe's 'House of Usher' that this is taken from but you'd be hard pressed to find a great deal of Poe in the finished article.<br /><br />Still, there are far better films out there with Boris Karloff at his best, search them out and give this a wide berth, unless you want the curse of the 'shrinking brain' too!
|
Negative
|
Felt mine was while watching this...but it seems that is the reason for insanity running in the family in this film. This makes a lot of sense, as others have mentioned, this was one of Karloff's last films and it's his screen presence that lends it even higher credibility. I'm glad that all of the great legends of the horror films in the sound era were eventually elevated to starring in high standard projects like this. Marginally, Boris did get off slightly even better than the good old Bela Lugosi but not by much. <br /><br />Boris does his best and give him credit for trying to make this gel even better. The strident background music is beautiful and adds to any lucid moment. Though apart from Boris, the rest of the Mexican cast are dubbed into some strange, clipped, English monotone that is reminiscent of the type used in porn films of the late seventies. <br /><br />At a guess I think it's Edgar Allen Poe's 'House of Usher' that this is taken from and you won't really be hard pressed to find a great deal of Poe in the finished article.<br /><br />Yes, there are better films out there with Boris Karloff at his best, search them out but this is good so also give this a shot, as you would want the curse of the 'shrinking brain' too!
|
Positive
|
This was a disappointing film for me. It came to me via a boxed set entitled, "Classic Film Noir," which was a gift from someone who knows I typically enjoy films done in that style (I insist that noir is a style, not a genre). I do not think it is a noir film at all. There seems to be a tendency these days to label and market every black and white B movie made from 1947 to 1955 as noir, and the label does not always fit. There is a persecuted male protagonist, Ed Cullen (Lee J. Cobb), and most of the film's action takes place indoors. Those are just about the only noir elements that I could see. There is no pervasive paranoia, or any real reason why one should sympathize with Ed Cullen. Jane Wyatt was overdressed and unconvincing as a femme fatale. I do not want to spoil this film for potential viewers. However, I would be interested in hearing what other connoisseurs of film noir have to say about it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.<br /><br />Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. <br /><br />Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.<br /><br />It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there
Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.<br /><br />If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc
the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).<br /><br />I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.<br /><br />Save yourselves and watch something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If this is a 2008 product from one of the biggest production houses of Indian Film Industry (Yash Raj) then I am afraid it is a very long ahead for us to reach the right standards.<br /><br />If you can go wrong to this length with such an enormous star cast of Anil, Akshay, Saif and Kareena, then movie making is still to be studied much harder by everyone associated with this film. The film lacks in almost all departments except cinematography and Akshay Kumar. He has a few good dialogues to render but that alone cannot make you enjoy a flick with huge expectations.<br /><br />The first scene of a car going down into a river from the mountain has very cheap graphics like that of a cartoon film. That itself was a clear indicator of the director's vision. Every actor who otherwise is an asset to a movie is simply wasted. Anil Kapoor's gimmick of attempting good English falls flat most of the times. And Saif will surely hit himself thinking why he signed this movie.<br /><br />In short IT'S THE BIGGEST WASTE OF RESOURSES AFTER "JHOOM BARABAR JHOOM". I would say that even "Aaja Nachle" was a better enjoyable movie than this.<br /><br />One cannot understand how and why this kind of script was written and approved. The most unwanted was the flashback sequence of Akshay's love story. After the faulty script the weakest point of the movie is its music. Vishal Shekhar have given just some filler tunes to each song. The songs start off very well and suddenly the tunes drop drastically. Only one song "Falak Tak Chal" is somehow good of all in the lot. An opportunity wasted by Vishal Shekhar.<br /><br />Regarding the continuity intelligence of the makers just sample this : Akshay and Saif are on the road in the hilly area of a foreign Location (probably Ladakh). In the next scene they are searching for Kareena in Haridwar and then back in the hills with Kareena in the dicky of their car. I am still thinking who wrote this.<br /><br />If you manage to sit till the last then the climax is too long with silly and unnecessary stunts. You can see all the heroes walking through the storm of bullets not hurt as if they are GOD. Are we still seeing a 2008 movie with all these technical heights achieved? So no more words on this pathetic and downgrade movie but a sincere request to senior actors from their fan.<br /><br />Dear Anil Kapoor & Akshay Kumar, If possible please ask for a preview of your movies after their first copy is out. As artists of such stature, you have certain responsibilities towards your fans and viewers. People still clap for you as you enter the screen in your first scenes respectively. I think this kind of movie should not see the daylight as it hampers the reputation of all associated with the movie, the actors and the production house both.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just had to write that one liner, but it really is. I love the gangster genre and this is the weakest entry I've seen in recent years . I have praises for everyone involved in most aspects except the most important one, the script . It is a weak story about a petty criminal. No amount of fine acting or black and white film styling can make up for a total lack of substance. I love Kevin Spacey and I hear he's gonna do another film about the general. My advice is don't waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Geez, as a Gay man who lives in NYC I can gratefully say that I have never seen the underbelly of Gay Culture that is portrayed in this film - and I am glad of it!!! Was this film broadcast on TV across the United States there would be a great anti-Gay backlash and I cannot say that I would blame them. The people in this film do not represent the average Gay American or even the average Trandgender American, what they do represent is a sheer and utter nightmare. The inclusion of obviously underage characters is appalling and the obvious racist sentiments (anti-White) are blatant and unsettling - society cannot be blamed for people who have chosen drugs, unemployment and rejection of education on the part of the film's "cast" - the actions of these people are not acts of desperation, but rather a rejection of anything resembling personal ambition and a willingness to make something out of one's self.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Other than some neat special effects, this movie has nothing to offer. They threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting, but with no success. Kevin Bacon's acting was pretty good, but he couldn't salvage the movies lack of plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ugh. This is a terrible film, full of disastrous comic relief, no scares, and scary leaps in story and plotline. The only creepy thing here is the leading lady's hats. Lugosi was on his downhill slide and it shows. I give this a 1, and this ain't no fun.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So it has come to this. Fast, expensive cars that only the upper 1% will ever drive. The girls that pose next to them in gearhead magazines. Second-tier and no-name actors. Cheap promotional appearances by people from niche culture. <br /><br />This is the garbage that Hollywood has to offer. Don't get me wrong; I love the mindless action flick with hot chicks as much as the next guy. But please, will the collective Braintrust that greenlights this stuff please stop, count to ten, breathe, have a hearty "Woooooosaaaaaah", then rewind twentyfive years and recall what made movies enjoyable once upon a time? Then actually MAKE some movies like that again? <br /><br />I have nothing against poker, but the entire pop-culture explosion it has enjoyed over the past five years is ridiculous. Everyone and their mother thinks their Maverick now (not that half of them even will get that reference). Some executive said, "Hey, what demographic do you want to leach $9.50 out of?" "I know, sir. The 18-35 market." "Ok, let's give them poker, girls, and fast cars." "Brilliant idea, sir." The result? A film that I've seen a hundred times late at night on Spike TV, and more often than not, starring Dolph Lundgren. <br /><br />Now don't misunderstand me;I am not a film snob. Over-the-top artsy flicks like The English Patient don't float my boat, but generic films that should not have even been made straight to DVD bother the hell out of me too. Only adolescent gearheads will have their engines revved by this, and I imagine the ones in the higher end of their IQ range will see this for what it is: a junkyard.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was no Trainspotting or Guy Ritchie film. It was a big wannabee. It wanted to be an edgy, nervous-laughter, urban-life affirming film, but it's more of a camera jerky, mess. It's a lot easier to imitate something else, than to create a real story with real characters. From the beginning, I couldn't care less about the characters or what they were involved in. They were always always hitting, pissing, or crying on each other. Only, there wasn't any substance to what they were doing. The dialog between characters is meant to be hip, revealing, instead it comes out trite, and one scene after another is predictable. I know there are viewers out there that really liked this movie, so I could be wrong.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hi, May be because I am not a Theater major or a sophisticated movie watcher ... I think this movie is "Boring" and "Dumb".<br /><br />I rented this movie because of Charles Bronson and it's title ... but boy what a waste of time ... just watching 2 guys sitting in a vault and talking ...<br /><br />The movie on this DVD was so "DARK" ... I had hard time watching the darn movie ... I realize it is a 1968 movie ... but they are putting it on a DVD then they should do some digital remastering.<br /><br />Also, I was totally surprised to see these high marks on IMDb for this movie ... like I said before I am not as sophisticated as the other folks who commented on this movie earlier.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slither is a horror comedy that doesn't really have enough horror or comedy to qualify as one or the other. It has one scene that is exceptionally good, any number of zingers that work, but very few real scares and not enough humor to maintain the movie. In addition, the script does not focus on the hero and heroine, and goes off kilter in several places.<br /><br />A major failing of this film is that it introduces and then leaves its hero (Fillion) to follow Grant Grant (Michael Rooker) as he is first introduced and then becomes the monster. This whole part of the film drags - Michael Rooker's character isn't that interesting to us as a person, and watching as he goes through a series of motions while acting in the monster's interest might be interesting if this was Grant - Portrait of a Man Turning Into A Monster rather than a horror-comedy alien invasion movie. In the final analysis this movie's problems are in the script - it isn't that important to the audience how the monster acts or propagates. The purpose of a horror-comedy is to get the heroes backed up in a corner with shotguns and then throw bugs at them, with them cracking wise every time something frightening or disgusting happens. Instead we get an exploration of the alien's habits and tactics that just makes this part of the movie drag. The ostensible heroine (Elizabeth Banks as Starla Grant) is more central to this part, but nonetheless I felt the movie had left its narrative track, unless it planned on following Grant Grant all the way to the end.<br /><br />When Fillion and his posse finally confront the alien the movie does begin to cook, but once again the problem is in the script. By this point that audience knows - and the characters should know - that Grant is not just suffering from some disease, and act accordingly (shotguns) - instead they continuously parley in the face of increasing evidence that this is not something that "let us get you to a hospital" is going to help. Although their reactions might have been human and real, these are characters in an action movie and simply should have done what the movie promised - delivered action. A lack of action scenes in a movie with as few ideas as this is a great failing.<br /><br />*** SPOILERS AHEAD *** After the first confrontation and the bursting of the alien larval sack (a minor character and perhaps the best scene in the movie) the script once again betrays the movie. At this point one of the characters is almost taken over by the alien and develops an insight into the alien. The writer-director (Gunn) chooses as this character a completely new character, rather than one of already developed minor characters. Why? Why did he need to introduce a completely new character more than an hour into the movie that becomes central to the plot? By the time this character is attacked, we know hardly anything about her and could care less about her, even though she is a winsome teenage girl in her bath. Had Gunn decided not to use this character and just used one of the established minor characters, he could have completely avoided introducing her family, and saved time and money. Furthermore, the hero and heroine would have been filled in on the alien's plans without all the additional characters, and could have gotten around to blowing away aliens sooner and with more vigor.<br /><br />My last criticism is based on the movie's look. Gunn is primarily a writer, or maybe it was budgetary constraints, but this movie looked ugly and uninteresting. Most of the action takes place at night in woods or on a field, and the screen simply looks drab. The sets in Wheelsy (the fictional town where the action takes place) look cheap. The whole movie looks cheap. Box Office Mojo states the films' budget was $15 million, newspapers say $29 million, and considering they didn't use any name talent, I would say the money did not show up on screen. The monster is just repulsive, and rarely looks deadly.<br /><br />The last criticism is primarily based on the reality of the character's actions. By the time Fillion and Co have begun hunting Grant/the alien, one woman has disappeared and Grant is known to have been mutilating animals. At this point I was expecting the FBI or at least the State Police to show up and take over from the hick Sheriff. A woman has disappeared and likely been murdered, and a local has been acting psychotic. Time to call the authorities. But basically I was hoping that would happen because I just wanted some characters who would show up and ACT.<br /><br />Although this movie is ostensibly a horror-comedy, the movie it bears the most resemblance to is Dreamcatcher in terms of monstrous invasion and the type of monster and its intentions. Whereas Dreamcatcher had much bigger problems with story (especially the entire Morgan Freeman subplot) and particularly the ending, in many ways it was stronger, primarily because the main characters were stronger, but more importantly because it looked beautiful. Although that may be anathema - preferring the movie that is weaker in general plot and structural spine because of production values - that just shows you how uninteresting I found the look of Slither.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Around the late 1970's, animator Don Bluth, frustrated with the output his company, Disney was churning, defected from the Mouse House to form his own studio. His first production, THE SECRET OF NIMH, was a brilliant feature that still holds up well to this day. This was followed by AN American TAIL and THE LAND BEFORE TIME, both of which were made under the involvement of Steven Spielberg and were commercially successful. Although none of those two films had the dark adult appeal of NIMH, they still are very charming, enjoyable features for both children and grown-ups. But before long, Don Bluth had his first major misfire with ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN; critics were especially harsh on this film, and matters weren't helped by the fact that it opened alongside Disney's THE LITTLE MERMAID.<br /><br />Considering that the movie has such a friendly-sounding title, one would expect ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN to be pleasant family fare. Instead Bluth provides a surprisingly dark story involving gambling, deceit, crime, mistreatment, and murder. That itself is not a problem for an animated feature per say, but it does call into question over whether the film is for children. On the other hand, it's hard to say whether adults will find much to enjoy in ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN. In short, it's a movie with a major identity crisis.<br /><br />Set in a dreary junkyard of New Orleans, the movie starts out when Charlie B. Barkin, a rough-and-tumble German shepherd, is run over by a car courtesy of his former gambling casino partner, a nasty, cigar-puffing pitbull, Carface. Before you know it, Charlie finds himself in heaven, albeit by default. Here a whippet angel, Annabelle, tells him that "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are usually loyal and kind." This line represents the confused nature of the movie, since the dogs in the movie, the whippet aside, are presented as anything but.<br /><br />Upon realizing that he's been murdered, Charlie steals his way back to Earth and plots to get even with Carface. With the reluctant help of his dachshund pal Itchy, Charlie "rescues" Carface's prize, AnneMarie, a human girl who can talk to animals (in order to predict who will win the rat races). Charlie claims that he will help the little cutie find her a family, but in reality he is using her skills to win fortunes at the race so that he can build a more elaborate casino of his own to bring Carface down. Although he refuses to admit it, Charlie does grow to love AnneMarie...<br /><br />The concept of the story isn't as problematic as the execution. Aside from the human girl AnneMarie and a flamboyant musical alligator who appears about three-quarters through (with the vocal pipes of Ken Page), none of the other characters emerge as likable, nor frankly, are even worth caring about. Unfortunately, that also applies to Charlie; in trying to make him an anti-hero, the script (composed by more than ten writers) only succeeds in rendering the character TOO unlovable. As such, the audience feels no empathy for Charlie, and worse, his redemption at the end of the movie does not come across as convincing. (Further damaging to the character is the disappointingly uncharismatic vocal performance from Burt Reynolds.) Besides the lack of an endearing lead, the movie's other problem is in the structure of the story. The slowly-paced plot jumps all over the place and makes a habit of throwing in extra scenes which serve no purpose but to pad out the movie's running time. The aforementioned musical alligator (who resides in a danky sewer infested with native rats) seems to have been thrown in from nowhere, as does a scene where Charlie tries to show his generosity to AnneMarie by feeding a pack of pastel-colored pups pizza. The whole screenplay feels like a rough first draft; a bit more polish could have made this a tighter, impactful story.<br /><br />Matters are not helped by the lackluster musical numbers by Charlie Strouse and T.J. Kuenster (AnneMarie's song and the gator's ballad are the only good ones; the latter in particular benefits from Ken Page's mellifluous vocal) or the uneven voice cast. As mentioned, Burt Reynolds' stiff and lifeless Charlie detracts from his already unlikeable character even further (the only exception is a fiery confession to Itchy about his true intentions toward the end). Dom DeLuise as Itchy is pretty good, but he's had better roles, notably Tiger in AN American TAIL and Jeremy in THE SECRET OF NIMH. Ken Page, as mentioned, is awesome in anything he does, but his character has such a small part that his overall contribution is unremarkable at best. Similarly wasted are Loni Anderson (as a collie who once sired a litter with Charlie), Melba Moore, and Charles Nelson Reilly. Judith Barsi as AnneMarie is probably the only voice that comes across as truly memorable, partially because her character is the sole legitimately likable one in this depressing and joyless show.<br /><br />Barsi aside, the only real positive about ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN is the animation. Technically, this film has some of the most imaginative visuals from Bluth's team (by 1980's standards, that is), particularly a frightening scene where Charlie has a nightmare about ending up in a fiery underworld ruled by a gargantuan satanic canine-demon. If anything, the movie is more of a triumph of animation than storytelling.<br /><br />On the whole, however, I cannot recommend ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN as good entertainment. Even though I recognize that the movie has its fans and the climax does admittingly provide some energy and a moving conclusion, the overall package is not in the same league as Bluth's better efforts. Animation buffs will marvel at the lush artistry, but by the time it's over, ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN could very well leave a bad taste in your mouth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's the worst movie I've ever seen. The action is so unclear, work of cameras is so poor, actors are so affected ... and this lamentable 5 minutes of Arnie on the screen. My advice from the bottom of my heart - don't watch it unless you like such a low class torture.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Born, raised, and educated in Scotland, I was appalled at this disgusting portrayal of a man who was no more nor less than a cattle rustler. Worse yet, the thread of the entire movie was sex in one form or another, by implication or verbally. To view it, one would think that 18th century Scotland was populated by a bunch of sex perverts and homosexuals. Lange was a joke acting as the "young" mother at age 49 but Liam Neeson was even worse! Taking a "bath" in a Scottish loch is NOT commonplace as they portrayed him - but, it did give them yet another opportunity to demonstrate how sexually driven we were. Save your money and watch Pinnochio.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this movie today thinking it might be a good football movie, since I'm a big football fan. Boy, was I wrong. This movie is way too religious and preachy and is REALLY unrealistic. This movie pretty much says that if your a Christian you can get anything you want in life easily, like become a great football player! You don't become a great football player by becoming Christian and asking God, you do it through practice and hard work. All you gotta do is ask God and he'll give you anything....puh-lease. Thats not true at all, duh. I laughed several times because of this embarrassment. The only part that was funny was when they were being dumb (Shultz the cartoonist? no, the dude that flew over the Atlantic, etc etc..) but really this movie wasn't that great. I don't recommend it, especially if you aren't a Christian, lol.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Loyalty to Peter Falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (For that matter, loyalty to Mr. Falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails.) Even if you forgive all the glaring errors, this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made-for-TV "Columbo" film ever. I'm glad I watched it on TV for free; would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We purchased this series on DVD because of all of the glowing reviews we had seen here. I gave it three stars because there can be little doubt that sometimes the acting, directing and writing are brilliant. In fact they are so brilliant we did not see the propaganda that was being transmitted so smoothly on the series. If one watches it with discernment, one will see the entire litany of the radical right wing beliefs being promulgated by the Fox (Faux) News Network. To avoid giving away any spoilers I will refrain from pointing out all of the dozens of specific instances. A brief look at the plots found here on IMDb will disclose that everything from torture to gun control to the right of a network to provide "Infomercials" and call them news is justified with cute plot twists and impassioned speeches given by some of the best actors in the world. We watched many shows and finally gave up in disgust when they justified torture using Attorney General Gonzales as a shining example of why all kinds of torture should be used in the name of protecting all of us. The series also manages to demean male and female gays in subtle ways by using them as plot devices depicting evil people. All in all the complete litany of the radical religious right wing.<br /><br />No doubt the popularity of this program will be used by future historians as proof that America lost its way in the early part of the this century. As a student of history myself I would characterize this program as being in a league with the propaganda produced by Goebbels for Hitler and some of the propaganda produced by Hollywood for the American audience during WWII.<br /><br />So if you want to use this as a teaching tool to help your students understand how subtle propaganda can be then by all means do so. Just be sure to purchase an inexpensive used copy so you can avoid enriching the ultra right wingers at Faux Network who produced this travesty.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to see this film based on the review by Siskel and Ebert; not only did I get duped, but I took some friends along, and had to spend the rest of the day profusely apologizing for making them sit through this pointless crap. After this, I never went to see a movie based solely on Siskel & Ebert's advice.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dane tries to hard and is to extreme with all of his yelling and going crazy, spilling water on himself and rolling on the floor. To much. Calm down, get yourself together and make us laugh. I didn't quite understand his comparison toward comics and rock stars. Just because there both up on stage or something? He said that every comedian wants to be a rock star. I'm sure Rodney Dangerfield was really into that when he was alive. He had a few good jokes like the Burger King joke where people yell at the drive thru. I also liked the Reese's Pieces joke. If Dane just didn't act so mental he might be funnier and I might have given this a higher rating, as high as maybe an eight.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Three tales are told in this film, that seemed to have been shot without knowledge of this being a combined vignette film. The makers relate the three vignettes by having them all connected to shrink Martin Kove, although you never see some of the leads with Kove.<br /><br />The first vignette has sexy Vivian Schilling, a woman afraid of everything under the sun(she makes Adrian Monk look brave), having a paranoia laced evening at home alone. You will literally scream at Vivian for doing some ridiculous things. She spends the majority of her time in a nighty which shows off her amazing features. But her film is the worst if not the most nail-biting.<br /><br />The second vignette is owned by Bill Paxton as he portrays the roommate from Hell. His geeky roommate allows him to take complete advantage of him, and Bill does so whenever he can.<br /><br />The last vignette was funny as a man fears that death will take him at any moment, much like his pal who choked to death on an olive.<br /><br />Not very interesting, as the movie as a whole seems chopped together with very little thought involved. A must for Bill Paxton fans.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think "The Best of Times" was a lost cause from the get go. The initial premise (guy drops the winning touchdown pass against a rival high school team, can never seem to get over it and then tries to reunite the two teams to play again) is one of the dumbest I have ever heard. Since Ron Shelton went on to write much better sports films I wonder if there was more to it then that. I hope this film wasn't green lit with Shelton pitching the story as I wrote above.<br /><br />So we have the premise. Going from there you would think, or hope, that there might be a few twists along the way to keep things lively. No such luck. This script follows every predictable cliché you can think of. There isn't a moment in this film you won't see coming a mile away before the film reveals it and the ending.... well if you can't figure out the ending by the end of the first reel then you haven't paid attention or seen any other sports movie in your life.<br /><br />Robin Williams and Kurt Russell star (and bore) in the leads. Williams is the poor schmo who dropped the big pass and Russell is the quarterback who threw the fateful pass. Gee, do you think Russell will suit up just once more to see if he and Williams can right a wrong that the town has never forgotten? This is such a lame duck comedy with a lame duck script that one can only shake their heads wondering what might have been. Sure there are a few chuckles and, to be honest, there is one truly funny scene. Williams and Russell have marital problems and the wives invite them over for dinner to resolve things. Neither guy realizes that they have been invited over on a Monday and, yes, Monday Night Football is on. Keeping in mind that the two teams playing have a combined one victory, the men (Williams especially) try to resist the temptation to find out how the game is going. The scene dissolves into some hilarious bits as Williams goes to check the score by using a bathroom visit as a ruse. When he returns he coughs the score to Russell. Later as Russell is starting to make the moves on his wife Williams wheels the television into their view from another room.<br /><br />It's an inspired and funny scene in a mostly uninspired and stupid movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What? You were not aware that Scooby-Doo battled zombies? Well, you might also not be aware of this little film that was directed by Victor Halperin, who had also directed White Zombie four years earlier. That would probably make it the second zombie film made.<br /><br />No, don't go looking for Dorothy Stone to expose her breasts as you would expect in most zombie films, and don't even look for any brains being eaten. This is 1936, you know.<br /><br />So, what you will see is typical of the period - lots of talking.<br /><br />You do get to see Dean Jagger (Twelve O'Clock High ) and Bela Lugosi's eyes, but that is about it. Zombies in Cambodia, indeed!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.<br /><br />So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.<br /><br />Grade F
|
Negative
| null | null |
What we have here is a film about how the pursuit of money & revenge can corrupt your soul... or something like that. Guy Ritchie, a director known for his reworking of the gangster genre, bites off more than he can chew with this one.<br /><br />His use of modern film noir to tackle the theme of a man setting himself free by swallowing his pride, being nice to his enemy & giving away all his money falls flat on it's face. When Jason Statham's character no longer fears Ray Liotta, it apparently drives Liotta crazy enough to blow his head off in the final scene. Why? Basically you cannot set up a mafiosi like the Liotta character, who has presumably got to his station in life by displaying the kind of ruthless behaviour evident throughout the film, only then to have him driven to suicide by nothing more than a pitying smile on the face of Statham's character.<br /><br />Before anyone starts to say I'm missing the point... I'm not. I get it OK? Opt out of the quest for riches & you'll find true happiness and inner peace. Be nice to your enemy and this will confuse him into self-destruction. This seems to be the gist of the movie and in itself this is not a bad premise for a story, although hardly original. The problem is that Ritchie simply doesn't have the skill as a movie maker to carry it off. At the moment when even Guy Ritchie realises this, he appears to get bored with the story and begins to insert red-herrings: The scene when Statham gets knocked over by a car - Why? The shooting of some scenes as Marvel comic animations... again, why?<br /><br />There are so many loose threads & unanswered questions left at the end of the movie you could get all 2001-ish about it and try figuring them out, or simply accept that there are no answers & each viewer will interpret things in their own way. Myself? I was so bored with the pompous tone of the film that I simply didn't care. Frankly the ending couldn't come too soon so that I didn't have to sit through any more of this pretentious psychobabble.<br /><br />A waste of two hours of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie isn't about football at all. It's about Jesus/GOD!! It's the same kind of sappy sanctimonious religious drivel you get from those arch idiots who wrestle for Jesus, or pump iron for Jesus. Yeah, Jesus was totally buffed, liked contact sports, and definitely owned a full set of dumb bells. DUHHH! This movie should have been entitled "Hiking for Jesus," or something along those lines just to let the general public know that the real intent of this movie is to convert people to Christianity, and to pander to those whose brains have already been thoroughly washed in the blood of the lamb. That the title is derived from the Bible is made clear when the head coach is reading his Bible and asking Jesus for help. The recent sports movie "Invincible" was 100 times more inspiring than this was, and Jesus wasn't even a factor. It was just the desire and determination of an individual with a dream.<br /><br />Any broad appeal as an inspirational sports movie is ultimately lost amidst all of the blatant Bible thumping and sanctimonious religious propaganda. One gets the impression that the sole message is the only way you can succeed and make positive gain is if you accept Jesus as your personal savior. But this is simply not true, and is therefore a lie being perpetuated by those who believe that it is true and want everyone else to believe it. The image of the winning athlete thanking Jesus when he wins comes directly to mind. What does he do when he loses? Does he curse Jesus? Of course not! When he loses Jesus isn't responsible. Jesus is only responsible when he wins. And the logic goes round and round and round, and it ends up exactly where the true believer needs it to be, every time!! I had to hit pause when the scene with the coach receiving a brand new truck came on so I could stop rolling on the floor laughing my ass off and catch my breath. Materialism is not what Jesus taught. I find it odd that most so called "Christians" seem to either forget or ignore this message from their "savior," especially when I see a Jesus fish on the back of a huge gas guzzling SUV that passes me like I'm standing still.<br /><br />Another message this movie implies is that Jesus apparently cares more about the win loss record of a mediocre high school football team that he does about the millions of starving children in the world. The final scene where the insecure and unsure kicker boots a 51 yard field goal and it is hyped up as an unbelievably incredible miracle puts the final gag me with a spoon religious red flag on this turkey. I only gave it three stars because the guy who played the black coach could actually act.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.<br /><br />There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to admit I laughed a few times during this trivial 2004 holiday movie, but it's already moving out of my short-term memory. In a career that is sliding rather swiftly toward tabloid obscurity, Ben Affleck, once a promising comic character actor who became enmeshed in the Hollywood publicity machine to recreate himself into a romantic leading man. Judging from this film, the transformation doesn't seem to be taking, as he continues to lack the gravitas that would make him credible in such parts. While his buddy Matt Damon takes on smart roles in films like "Syriana", Affleck appears in this type of commercial pap. At least the superficial character of successful but lonely advertising executive Drew Latham suits Affleck better than most of the other roles he has tried.<br /><br />Directed by Mike Mitchell (whose most famous film is 1999's "Deuce Bigelow: Male Gigolo") and scripted by no less than four screenwriters (always a bad sign), the flimsy plot revolves around his character's need to "rent" a family living in his childhood home in order to live out his fantasy of having the old-fashioned Christmas he never had. The concept is actually intriguing because there is something to be said about the cathartic release of sentimentality we are all directed to feel amid the frenzied commercialism around the holidays. The real problem, however, is that the movie feels like an extended sketch lacking any logic or authentic emotional resonance. Affleck seems to be on overdrive attempting desperately to be lovable, but the net result is an exhausting turn by an actor who has an increasingly annoying habit of playing stupid people in ill-conceived films. Fortunately, he has the likes of James Gandofini and Catherine O'Hara playing the Valcos, the couple who decide to accept Drew's monetary offer to pretend to be his parents.<br /><br />Gandolfini plays Tom like a gruff, non-violent relative of Tony Soprano, but he does what he can in the role. From her classic SCTV Days to Christopher Guest's mockumentaries, O'Hara is always a comic gem no matter the vehicle, and unsurprisingly she earns the best laughs as Tom's wife Christine, whether dryly delivering a one-liner or posing in an inch of make-up for a dominatrix photo shoot. In what is becoming her standard screen role, Christina Applegate plays their mistrusting daughter Alicia, who of course becomes Drew's love interest. Despite some good moments where she is enjoying the deceit of playing Drew's sister in front of his girlfriend's family, her character seems to change in lightning-flash strokes making it hard to see what Drew would see in her. The story spins completely out of control by the last third with one contrived situation piled on top of another until plot strands are tied together in short order. It's rumored that much of the movie was improvised since there was no finished shooting script. It shows, but I also have to admit I stuck with it to the bitter end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw this movie I heard all the hype, and I heard how people said that Denzel deserved the Oscar alongside his Golden Globe and I believed he must have done an outstanding job considering Kevin Spacey was excellent. I was wrong. I realize that people say this not to anger the African American community (if they are not African Americans themselves). I always hear complaints on how African Americans are never nominated and how they should have won. Sometimes this is true (not as much nowadays) because Whoppi Goldberg should have won best actress for The Color Purple and the movie should have won best picture. The only reason this movie was so blown up the way it was, is because people see a movie about the (*SEMI-SPOILER*) hardships of an African American during a very racist time period and they automatically label it as a masterpiece.<br /><br />Denzel Washington is an outstanding actor, but his role in this movie did not affect me whatsoever. I was bored with him in the movie, and his acting here was quite similar to his role in Malcolm X but not as good. The audience is supposed to leave believing this man, Rubin Carter, is a saint. People left the movies worshipping this man, this hero, and they went out and bought his book, making this hero of a man rich.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* This movie tells the tale of a man who spent the majority of his life in prison mainly for crimes he did not commit. Of course the crimes he did commit (stealing mostly) was only to survive, nothing more. People felt sorry for him, even though the drug dealers and thieves probably amounted to as much for the same reasons but are looked down upon in society. Everything in this movie tries to portray this man as a saint (except for the obvious infidelity he had towards his wife and the aggression he showed the other man when he met his wife) but why wouldn't it-after all, it is his point of view. I do not like movies (especially Hollywood interpretations) that are based on "true" stories because they usually distort the "true" parts into something else, something not so true. This was his point of view and a Hollywood construction, yet everyone believed it was the truth unquestionably. Well I researched his past a bit before making any assumptions, and he was a very violent man. Not only that, there is still a possibility that he did murder those people. If you do not believe me, search for him on the internet, and read the articles some people have of him. The boxing match he claimed to have won so easily, was actually won by his opponent Joey Giardello and there are tapes to prove it. Besides that, there are many twisted and purposely left out facts in this movie. The supporting cast were the nicest people I have ever seen on the face of the Earth and their "nice and perfect" persona looked difficult to keep up.<br /><br />This movie was a Hollywood version of yet another unfortunate true story that is still left to be told truthfully. Denzel's acting is stale, and the supporting cast's Mickey Mouse attitudes are annoying. The movie also begins very slow paced and is boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The title alone (along with the poster) is enough to give away "The Projected Man" as an obvious rip-off of "The Fly". And Bryant Haliday, while much better than the typical IMDb review would have you think, is nobody's idea of an acceptable stand-in for Vincent Price. Although, come to think of it, who would be, unless Micheal Gough was available?? Still, if you are in the mood to watch a British "Hammer" style movie with a science fiction theme about a teleportation experiment gone horribly wrong...well, you still might want to give "The Projected Man" a pass and rummage around in the 'remaindered' bin at your local Wal-Mart for another teleporter-accident movie. Because this one just isn't all that good.<br /><br />Haliday caught a lot of good natured ribbing from the MST3K crew for his part in this movie and in "Devil Doll", but he is actually the best thing in TPM. Maybe he can't carry the movie, but he gets practically no help here from the screenplay. The script bogs down any forward momentum the plot may have in a mire of nonsense about funding and university politics and a guy named Lembach and some sinister cabal who want the teleportation machine to fail so they can steal its secrets...or something. So all the dramatic sequences in the first half of movie involve either phone calls or unconvincing special effects with transparent espresso machines and teleporting rats. Then when poor Haliday gets mutilated by his machine, he has to spend the last part of the film wearing a diaper over half his face and rubber cement over the rest while he electrocutes various Londoners who chance across his path. Tom Cruise and Eric Roberts using bullhorns couldn't have made this screenplay work. <br /><br />Meanwhile all the other actors diligently try to inject life and interest into their roles for this turgid little project, but the screenplay just swallows their efforts whole. The corrupt project administrator frets and fumes and hisses into the phone to his blackmailers, all the while failing to notice that he looks like a werewolf outfitted in a tweed suit and a Tattersall vest. Haliday's research assistant and ex-girlfriend have the least convincing romance in the history of British horror cinema. His secretary is forced to parade around in her "smalls". None of it really works or gels into a real movie. And it all just kind of stops dead, leaving the viewer going, "Eh? excuse me, wasn't there supposed to be an ENDING here??"<br /><br />Still, for all its problems, I can easily name a dozen horror movies from the same period that were as bad or worse, and so could anyone else who follows movies (or who has ever browsed the IMDb "Bottom 100"). I wouldn't actually pay money to own "Projected Man", but if it were included in some compilation along with a dozen other movies in a DVD collection, I'd probably feel OK about having it. It's a harmless diversion, perfect for a horror movie film festival, to watched with friends while consuming many beers and snacks on a Saturday evening.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What's that there in the skies? Is it a plane? Is it Superman?? Errr, no
It's a TURTLE!?! See, that's what becomes of the Cold War! Nothing but bad news and other issues! The Americans shoot down a Russian combat plane somewhere over Artic territory and the subsequent explosion defrosts & literally awakens the giant prehistoric turtle-creature named Gammera. He/she is not a very friendly critter as it promptly ensues to destroy everything and everyone on its path. The arguing governments finally decide to kill the ugly bastard with a brand new and super-sophisticated ice-bomb, but Gammera has another surprise in store
The damn turtle can fly! The first time this happens results in a tremendously grotesque and hilarious sequence! Gammera lies on his back looking defeated when suddenly fire blows from his armpits and he skyrockets himself up in the air. How can you not love that? Then there's also a dire sub plot about an annoying kid who's able to telepathically communicate with the monster, but that's just not interesting enough. Flying turtle, people!! There's very little else to write about this Japanese (and American re-edited) Sci-Fi effort, apart from that it's an obvious and totally shameless rip-off of such classics like the original Godzilla and The Beast from 20.000 Fathoms. The effects and monster designs are extremely hokey and, unlike the aforementioned films, it never succeeds in creating an apocalyptic ambiance. Respectable actors like Brian Donlevy ("The Quatermass Experiment") and Dick O'Neill ("Wolfen") seem unaware of what film set they're on and even the original Japanese mayhem-scenes aren't very convincing. Gammera's very own and personalized theme-song is rather cool, though, so it gets one extra point for that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've always liked Fred MacMurray, andalthough her career was tragically cut shortI think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you get
a mediocre movie experience.<br /><br />Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) "meet cute" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yes
it's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.<br /><br />Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.<br /><br />This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
***SPOILER*** Do not read this, if you think about watching that movie, although it would be a waste of time. (By the way: The plot is so predictable that it does not make any difference if you read this or not anyway)<br /><br />If you are wondering whether to see "Coyote Ugly" or not: don't! It's not worth either the money for the ticket or the VHS / DVD. A typical "Chick-Feel-Good-Flick", one could say. The plot itself is as shallow as it can be, a ridiculous and uncritical version of the American Dream. The young good-looking girl from a small town becoming a big success in New York. The few desperate attempts of giving the movie any depth fail, such as the "tragic" accident of the father, the "difficulties" of Violet's relationship with her boyfriend, and so on. McNally (Director) tries to arouse the audience's pity and sadness put does not have any chance to succeed in this attempt due to the bad script and the shallow acting. Especially Piper Perabo completely fails in convincing one of "Jersey's" fear of singing in front of an audience. The only good (and quite funny thing) about "Coyote Ugly" is John Goodman, who represents the small ray of hope of this movie.<br /><br />I was very astonished, that Jerry Bruckheimer produced this movie. First "Gone In 60 Seconds" and now this... what happened to great movies like "The Rock" and "Con Air"? THAT was true Bruckheimer stuff.<br /><br />If you are looking for a superficial movie with good looking women just to have a relaxed evening, you should better go and see "Charlie's Angels" (it's much more funny, entertaining and self-ironic) instead of this flick.<br /><br />Two thumbs down (3 out of 10).
|
Negative
| null | null |
The real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to "find" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his "marriage to god" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is very lengthy and unfortunately pretty different from the Novel. If you want to see the movie then don't read the novel first as it will shock you. However, cinematography was OK and if you are a person who loves adventure genres which explores Africa then go for it. Acting performances are adequate, however, many important events that were present in the novel are omitted. In the novel, Sir Henry Curtis was in search of his missing brother rather than a lady in search of her father. Gagool was cunning and was killed in the cave whereas here she was shown to be a good person who preferred to stay with the new king.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Umm.. I was quite surprised that someone actually gave this film high marks.<br /><br />Lets face it... Tori Spelling is not a great actress.. and this movie just proves the extent of her "talent". The movie's plot was weak... I bet the dork that came up with this concept was some perverted peeping tom. If there is a good thing about this movie, I would say it's that Tommy Chong's daughter, just for the fact that she's his daughter... and then there is that Soap-Opera-ish male lead who's decent good looks somewhat make him attractive, but ceases to help his dramatic abilities. *Why does IMDb require at least 10 lines? How many more ways can you simply say "This movie sucks"?
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you ever hear these three words uttered to you..."Joe Don Baker", be afraid...<br /><br />Final Justice is the low budget action movie based on a sheriff in a Texas town named Geronimo (pronounced as Heronimo). He's an ugly, slimy, rude character who is on the hunt for a criminal in Malta who killed his partner in Texas. His partner actually slumps down twice in the movie. Very bad editing. Joe Don Baker (Geronimo) ends up in jail like 4 or 5 times in this movie, making the plot go nowhere fast. Plus, he shoots everybody like he's in the wild west. I guess nobody told him it was the 20th century. A woman cop is assigned to show him around Malta (who looks like Elaine from Seinfeld) and she is the only one who can put up with the redneck. She must be insane!<br /><br />The strippers in the bar are the most entertaining characters in this movie. Their dancing is shown throughout the film and I began to bond with the sleazy women. Well, at least it was better than watching Geronimo try to dumb his way out of something. The ending is flawed and somewhat predictable, and I was happy it was finally over. You'll never forget that last line of Joe Don Baker from the movie.<br /><br />It's so hard to imagine how he was in THREE Bond movies...very weird! Anyway, if you're up for a laugh, then see this one on MST3K sometime. Also, I've heard his other bad movie (among many), "Mitchell" MST3K version is being released on DVD by Rhino. I can't wait to see that!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.<br /><br />Rating: 6/10
|
Negative
|
The Ladies Man is a awkward movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually no better than most SNL movies either (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very out of touch. Chris Parnell was also horrid in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). With that, the rest of the cast is just as average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, and I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's not even good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend something else. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it even more.<br /><br />Rating: 3/10
|
Negative
|
Okay... it seems like so far, only the Barman fans have commented on this film - time for a counterpoint. Beware, this writeup is *LONG*.<br /><br />For those not in the knowing (mostly the non-Belgians) : Tom Barman, director of this film, is the frontman of dEUS, one of the better known rock bands of the late 90's here in Belgium. Basically, they made a couple of very adventurous and innovative albums and quickly rose to fame on the national scale. Then, egos started hurting and the band basically fell apart, with Barman and a couple of others remaining to go on making albums under the dEUS-monicker. The way it always happens in such cases, the post-breakdown dEUS was a lot tamer and less interesting than the original. They tried to go for an international breakthrough with their album "The Ideal Crash" in 1999, presenting a much diluted form of their earlier style of songwriting. They didn't quite make it. However, egos were still pretty big it seems : big enough for Barman to consider himself enough of an artist to try on movies.<br /><br />More often than not this sort of thing is a VERY big mistake, and this film does not make the exception. And Barman clearly went for *art* on this one, another very big mistake. For one thing, he's a musician, not a movie director. For another, dEUS at it's best made fun and provoking music, but never anything close to what I would consider *art*. It shows.<br /><br />So, what's this movie about? Basically, it tells the story of a bunch of completely uninteresting people, doing equally uninteresting things over the course of a totally uninteresting friday in Antwerp, as even more uninteresting stuff happens to them in the act of being uninteresting. The characters are shallow, the plot totally pointless and the film just doesn't have any other redeeming qualities to make up for these shortcomings. Humor? The whole film made me smile (slightly) about 3 times, and actually managed to provoke a single 5-second laugh (not quite loud). Mood? The film just doesn't seem to show any kind of emotion or feeling at all. Mystery? Well, (*MINOR SPOILER*)the idea of the "wind-man", inspiring the name of the film, is as enthralling as a banana pepper pizza - not very, and has been done a thousand times before (anyone remember Johny Destiny - one of Tarantino's worst appearances on film to date)(*END MINOR SPOILER*). And well, its *artistic*, so don't expect any kind of real action to make up for all the previous. In other words, except for the few smiles, it bored me out of my shorts.<br /><br />So what remains? Well, the soundtrack is pretty good, though it suffers from some of the same problems that other OST's have shown lately : first, it makes the movie seem like nothing more than a commercial for the CD. Second, it gives the impression that Barman is trying to hide the weaknesses and lack of emotional content in the film behind the content quality of the songs, which simply doesn't work. In the end, it makes the film look like nothing more than an illustration to the songs. And sadly, it's Barmans own contribution to the soundtrack which gets the most attention, though it is the weakest part of the whole soundtrack as far as I'm concerned. All in all, it just stands to show that Barman knows more about music than movies. Camera work is okay as well, though not anything that would make you scream out with joy.<br /><br />The only thing about this movie that kept me watching was the sight-seeing factor. Since I originate from Antwerp, it was fun to play a kind of "guess-the-location" game. I would hardly consider this as a quality though.<br /><br />All in all, another chance lost for Flemmish film. I keep on noticing that lately, the best Belgian movies have been coming from the French part of the country. This is mostly because at least, they have something to tell and manage to tell it in way that is both sharp and emotional (the brothers Daerden come to mind). Maybe the Flemmish art-house filmmakers should try that too.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was nice to see all the familiar characters again, but the story bothered me. We loved Ariel in the first movie- so why is the second one centered around her daughter? The new characters were annoying and I didn't like the plot of this. Worst of all, Christopher Daniel Barnes didn't come back as the voice of Eric! Disney, please stop remaking classic movies with these shoddy imitations.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Motocrossed was fun, but it wasn't that great. I guess I just didn't understand a lot of the Motocross racing "lingo" (and there was A LOT of that in the film)! The plot wasn't what I expected from the Disney Channel previews, so that could account for some of my disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
All these reviewers are spot on. I've seen many bad films over the years, believe me, and this beats the lot!<br /><br />This is not just a "so bad it's good" exploiter waste of time, but a genuine, hilarious, movie atrocity.<br /><br />CHECK OUT the white furry monster type thing!<br /><br />WET YOURSELF LAUGHING at Thom Christopher's "spell-weaving" acting!<br /><br />GAPE IN SHEER A**E-CLENCHING DISBELIEF! at the threadbare sets!<br /><br />This is one of those "European co-productions". No wonder we have so many wars. I swear, some of the people taking part in 'Wizards of the Lost Kingdom' aren't actually aware they are appearing in a film!<br /><br />FACT! I originally watched this movie on HTV Wales late one night while suffering from concussion and sleep deprivation. I had to track down a copy several weeks later to make sure it was really this awful. It is. Worse even than Lee Majors in The Norseman, more laughable than all of John Derek's films, this is, truly, the Citizen Kane of Trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Few films have left me with such a feeling of unease, and this is not a compliment. Since I saw it in a theater (How it ended there I can only wonder) I was subjected to 90 mn of hateful, derivative garbage, the main impression being a bit like this other sick-o movie "Don't answer the phone" - but worse. The nastiness of it all, rape and all, is shown without any distance (unlike strong stuff like "Last house on the left") and utter contempt for the (perfect ?) victims and everybody involved, leaving the viewer to be treated as a sadistic voyeur. At the end I felt like taking a shower. No credits to the director
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I do not even want to call this thing a film - it is a movie that should not have won any awards. The acting was horrible as were the silly scenarios. This is exactly the sort of film that so many folks think caters to an NRI audience but is in fact loathed abroad for its awkwardness and the overwhelming sense of "trying" throughout the movie. <br /><br />I find it strange that so many actors conversant with the English language have such a hard time doing so convincingly in front of the camera. I'm sure many readers know what I am talking about - all those token English phrases thrown into a movie, in Hindi and in regional cinema for cool points. There are few Indian movies in which the English seems completely genuine - Being Cyrus was a recent one. Although not a great film, it was a good film and the language did not seem "put on". <br /><br />I feel ashamed that P3 was awarded the NFA in 2005. The only semi-enjoyable parts of this rubbish were Konkana and a somewhat catchy background score. Other than that, do not even waste your time with this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Laid up and drugged out, as a kidney stone wended its merry way through my scarred urinary tract, with absolutely nothing better to do than let the painkillers swoon me into semi-oblivion, I happened to catch this movie on cable. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I paid to view it in a cinema, or rented it, or heaven forfend! that I watched it STRAIGHT.<br /><br />Having played this sensationally gruesome video game and avidly trod the doomed rooms and dread passageways of The House, battling Chariot (Type 27), The Hanged Man (Type 041), and other impossible sentinels, my curiosity was piqued as to how the game would transfer to the movie screen.<br /><br />It doesn't.<br /><br />The banal plot revolves around a group of "crazy kids" a la Scooby Doo attending a remote island for a world-shaking "rave" whatever that is. (You kids today with your hula-hoops and your mini-skirts and your Pat Boone
) After bribing a boat captain thousands in cash to ferry them there (a stupidity which begs its own network of rhetoric), they find the "rave" deserted.<br /><br />Passing mention is made of a "house" presumably the titular House Of The Dead but most of the action takes place on fake outdoor sets and other locales divorced from any semblance of haunted residence.<br /><br />A fallen video camera acts as flashback filler, showing the island in the throes of a party?! Is that it? Oh, so this "rave" thingy is just a "party"? In the grand tradition of re-euphemizing "used cars" as "pre-owned", or "shell shock" as "post-traumatic stress disorder", the word "party" is now too square for you drug-addled, silicone-implanted, metrosexual jagoffs? <br /><br />It is learned that the party was broken up by rampaging zombies. Intelligent thought stops here
<br /><br />I don't think the pinheads who call themselves screenwriters and directors understand the mythos behind zombie re-animation. Zombies can't die they're already UN-DEAD. They do not bleed, they know no pain. Unless their bodies are completely annihilated, they will continue being animated. At least, that's what my Jamaican witch priestess tells me.<br /><br />Which means that a .45 shot into their "hearts" is not going to stop them, nor will a machete to the torso. And a shotgun blast to the chest will certainly NOT bring forth gouts of blood. At least in the video game's logic, the shooter pumps so many rounds into each monster that it is completely decimated, leaving a fetid mush that cannot re-animate itself.<br /><br />Yet each actor-slash-model gets their Matrix-circular-camera moment, slaying zombies on all fronts with single bullets and karate chops to the sternum. Seriously, these zombies are more ineffective than the Stormtroopers from "Return Of The Jedi", who get knocked out when Ewoks trip them.<br /><br />I suppose the film's writer, Mark Altman, having penned the not-too-shabby "Free Enterprise", felt compelled to insert a Captain Kirk reference, in the character of Jurgen Prochnow, who must have needed milk money desperately to have succumbed to appearing in this aromatic dung-swill. There is also a reference to Prochnow's primo role in the magnificent "Das Boot", when one of the untrained B-actors mentions that he "looks like a U-Boat Captain". ". I wonder how many of this movie's target audience of square-eyed swine picked up on ANY of the snide references to other films, as when Prochnow declares, "Say hello to my little friend", presaging his machine gun moment. <br /><br />Aimed at a demographic who have not the wherewithal to comprehend the Sisyphean futility of the video-game concept (i.e. the game ends when you die you cannot win), this is merely a slasher film for the mindless and mindless at heart. Accordingly, everyone dies in due course, except for a heterosexual pair of Attractive White People.<br /><br />A better use for this film's scant yet misused budget might have been to send the cast through Acting School, although Ona Grauer's left breast did a good job, as did her right breast and those slomo running scenes: priceless! I especially liked the final scene with Ona trying to act like she's been stabbed, but looking like she's just eaten ice cream too fast.<br /><br />Attempting to do something more constructive with my time, I pulled out my Digitally-Restored, 35th Anniversary, Special Edition, Widescreen Anamorphic DVD of "Manos: The Hands Of Fate." Ah, yes! the drugs were suitably brain-numbing - now HERE was some quality film-making
<br /><br />(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is so incredibly bad. Poor actors. You can tell they're trying really hard to polish a turd, but we all know you can't. The writing is so obvious and facile, it's sad watching them try to sell it. The humor and pacing are so labored, it's hard to believe any of these good actors signed on for this.<br /><br />That said, it's so awful that we're having a hard time looking away from the screen. We just have to know where this trainwreck goes. But that's only because we caught it on TV. If we had actually PAID for this, we'd be disgusted. <br /><br />So it gets 2 stars for being at least amusingly/fascinatingly bad. And the incidental music (as opposed to the trying-too-hard indie soundtrack) is laughably reminiscent of an episode of Scooby-Doo... but not as good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was supposed to have depicted a 'ladie's man' bachelor who was ready and willing to settle down once and for all. However, I did not care for his mission to settle down, because I didn't care for his character. I don't understand what all of these beautiful women saw in him. He had absolutely no class, or charisma. He should've at least had a way about himself that made ladies weak in the knees other than his saxophone playing, but to no avail. Just because he is a musician does not make him sexy. Not to mention, the things he did to get the attention of a married woman he fell in love in a span of five minutes of knowing her were absolutely outrageous and ridiculous. Does this man have any shame what-so-ever? Had he tidied up, and stopped doing and saying stupid things he would have been more attractive as a character, but alas, his character was bland and boring.<br /><br />Gina Gershon's character was unnecessarily British. She could've just as easily been an uptight out-of-towner with her regular speaking voice than do a poor British accent that sometimes would fade through out the movie.<br /><br />The only two characters I cared for were the fish and frog. Now those two had chemistry! Academy nominations for both
STAT! Plot holes, lack of character development, horrible acting, unnecessary drama, cliché moments... What a mess of a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One missed call, another Asian horror based on the cell phone. I recently rented a Korean horror film based on a cell phone called "Pon". One Missed Call was just as boring as that one. Maybe phones just aren't scary or something, but this move was dull and drab. No tension or thrills for me, and the final monster was disappointingly cheesy and unscary. The movie dragged quite a bit in different parts, and felt too long. Didn't keep my attention. It seems phones are hard to make frightening, it's kind of like trying to make a pop vending machine eerie. And it is ridiculous to compare this with "The Ring", it seems every Asian horror movie is compared to it and so far I haven't seen any that measure up in the least. To horror directors - take the phone off the hook as a horror device.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As far as films go, this is likable enough. Entertaining characters, good dialogue, interesting enough story. I would have really quite liked it had I not been irritated immensely whilst watching at the utter disrespect it shows the city it is set in.<br /><br />Glasgow. In Scotland. Yet every character is English (save for Sean's girlfriend, who is Dutch). Scottish accents are heard only fleetingly in menial jobs & roles. As a Scottish woman (& as a viewer who likes her "real life" films to be a bit more like real life) I really don't think it would have hurt to use any one of the countless talented Scottish actors...or at least got English ones who could toss together a decent accent! The futile attempt at using the word "wee" a few times did nothing but to further the insult.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A seemingly endless movie that really deserves a zero rating. The premise seems simple enough: Yentl, a girl interested in studying the Talmud, wants to go to school. But only boys are allowed to study, so after her father's death she decides to disguise herself as a boy to get in. She does and becomes close friends with Avigdor, who is to be married to a beautiful woman named Hadass. Hadass' family learns Avigdor's brother committed suicide, and the wedding is called off. Yentl, now calling herself Anschel, is then selected to marry Hadass. She does but it is never consummated. Yentl/Anschel and Avigdor go away for a few days, and Yentl/Anschel reveals her secret to him. The movie ends with Avigdor returning to (and marrying?) Hadass, and Yentl going to America to continue her studies although she will have to continue to do so in disguise.<br /><br />The plot above seems interesting at first for a movie over 2 hours long, but there are several things that ruin it. For starters, there is the constant SINGING. (I can already hear the critics shouting.) Yes, I know this is a musical so there are supposed to be lots of songs and dance numbers. But the movie could have been improved if it were directed and played without them. The songs become tedious after a while, and there isn't as much dancing as one would expect. Many of the songs are forgettable, with no real memorable lyrics, and those with any significance could easily have been substituted by a voice-over. Only one song stands out from the rest, "Papa Can You Hear Me". It is obvious that most of the others were deliberately placed so Streisand could simply have a reason to show off her vocal abilities every five to ten minutes. Chances are anyone who will see this film will already know what a superb singer and actress she is, so the songs really aren't necessary. <br /><br />Second, Streisand's makeup, which can be seen during her scenes as a man (the lipstick, enhanced lashes, and traces of blush are all obvious) makes it hard for the audience to believe in the Yentl/Anschel character, that she is actually serious, and fooling her new friends, colleagues, and even Hadass, into believing she is a man. Yet we are asked and expected to believe that very thing. There seems to be a contradiction, as her character talks, or rather sings, of how she doesn't think she can pull it off, but is surprised that everyone seems to be fooled because she is wearing men's clothing. This means that we are then expected to believe the other characters are so naive they can't see the other differences, such as her actions, which are clear giveaways. The facial differences alone cannot be included, as other characters in the film mention that some of their male relatives or friends didn't have a beard or other facial hair. Nevertheless, in the 1900s, if a woman dressed as a man, but wore as much makeup as Streisand's character did, and still tried to pass herself off as a man solely because she wore men's clothing, it would have been deemed unacceptable and caused an outrage. Chances are she would probably be forced to leave the town, or even the country. Therefore the "feminine" makeup on Streisand does not lend to the character's credibility, and only weakens the plot. If it was only applied to make Streisand look more beautiful, it should have been scrapped. <br /><br />Thirdly, when Yentl/Anschel herself reveals who she truly is toward the end, we are then asked to believe that the other characters are not as smart as Streisand's and only when they learn the "truth" do they become a little wiser. By now it becomes more and more apparent that the whole plot is so far fetched that it is nothing more than a custom-made vehicle for Streisand to fuel.<br /><br />Lastly, there are those who are fans of Streisand who will find no fault with this film, its plot, or the songs. To those I must respectfully disagree. While she has excellent vocal and acting abilities, I am not a "fan" of her style of singing. However, I have enjoyed many of her other features including musicals. There are even some songs of hers that I like, so I am not a "hater" nor have set out to bash her. I have written this review from an honest perspective, from someone who has tried their best to watch this movie - several times even - and has noted the problems within. If Streisand was interested in creating a great or even believable film, she could have done so here by not injecting her need to show off and prove how talented, beautiful and smart she is at nearly every turn. This movie does nothing more than hurt her abilities, make her appear self-absorbed, and thus turn the film into a laugh-fest unworthy of her fans or audience.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.