input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I can not believe I wasted my money to rent this movie. I thought it was a porn flick when it started and it never got any better. The acting, the music drowning out the actors. Horrible. Save your money! You have to read the movie all the way through b\c they knew the music would drowned out the speaking lines. I never got the part about the slaughterhouse or the need to continue to show cows and pigs being butchered. What did that have to do with the "real" BTK killer? I understand why there were no famous actors\actresses in this movie. The script would have turned me away within the first page of reading. You would be better off watching paint dry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Due to budget cuts, Ethel Janowski (again played by Priscilla Alden) is released from a mental institution (even though she killed six people) and delivered to the Hope Bartholomew halfway house. Once there, she immediately relapses into her criminally insane ways and kills anyone who gets between her and her food.<br /><br />HOLY MOLY! Does this movie suck! You know you are in trouble when the open credits start up and they are just the credits from the first film, apparently filmed off a TV screen. Nick Millard (under his pseudonym Nick Phillips) decided to return to the world of Crazy Fat Ethel over ten years later and with a budget that probably covered the cost of a blank tape and a video camera rental for the weekend. Let's just say that Millard's unique style doesn't translate well to video. Seriously, I have made home movies with more production value than this. And Millard tries to pull a SILENT NIGHT, DEADLY NIGHT 2 by padding half the running time with footage from the first film (which looks like it was taken off a worn VHS copy). Alden is again good as Ethel but the film is so inept that you start to feel sorry for her for starring in this garbage. I mean, at least the first film tried. Here we have no music, weaker effects (if that is at all possible), shaky camera work, horrible audio and editing that looks like it was done with two VCRs hooked up. Avoid this at all costs!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Such great actors such a disappointment. Marlon Brando plays and awful character, the movie is not funny at all, a subconscious message can be seen "IT IS A DAMN CRAP!!!", "IT SUUCKS SO BADLY!!", "THROW YOUR TV THROUGH WINDOW", and so on. It is simply disgusting and irksome. In addition to foolish plot, sense of humor, there is something else. The way the rooms are decorated, the colors. It makes me sick, everything is so colourful that it might cause epilepsy. Usually I do not care about the decoration in movie but this from "Free Money" made me angry. Avoid at all costs! "Free Money" - probably for Charlie Sheen, Sutherland and Brando, but a viewer gets nothing! One watches it at cost of sanity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel
|
Negative
| null | null |
Most would agree that the character of Wolverine is one of the most intriguing characters in comic book history. I'm no Marvel expert, but I did grow up with the adventures of the X-Men and definitely approved of Hugh Jackman's now widely known portrayal of the scruffy Logan. I enjoyed the first X-Men, found the sequel too heavy and messy and liked the third one as comic book entertainment. All through the three movies, I probably enjoyed Jackman more than anything else. I figured the idea of making an "origins"-movie about Wolverine could very well end up being a better movie than all of the three X-Men movies. If we concentrate on one character, I figured there could be a movie that achieves what I found the second movie failed at - being a fairly complex and character driven comic book adventure.<br /><br />The reason that the Wolverine-movie fails is not because the competition is tougher after The Dark Knight. It's not even because of a plot development that is beyond obvious and rudimentary - even though that certainly isn't good - no, it's because the movie doesn't even seem to try. To begin with, this does not qualify as good entertainment. There is something about the action in this movie that comes off as so very, very automatic. With no greater special effects or elements of suspense, and when one event will make you predict the following five, it almost feels like an Uwe Boll movie, imitating an action/adventure movie concept that you've seen a dozen times before. Of course, nothing in this movie is as downright awful as a piece of Bolls**t but when everybody's talking clichés as if they are part of a chain of events that is so standard, you at least make the connection and that surely is bad enough.<br /><br />But there is an even bigger problem. Even a generic action movie is a generic action movie and, by the way, that makes you forgive a lot of plot holes and character stupidities. I think you find the most fundamental flaw in the very title. I mean, "Origins". Really? What to the people behind this movie think about that title? What do they mean?? You want to know the origins of Wolverine? He grew up with his brother. They ran away from home during dramatic circumstances. Then they went off to war. All of them! The Civil War, World War I and II and Vietnam too. Why did they do this? Still unknown. Eventually, the brother (Sabertooth, played by Liev Shrieber) became evil. "How?" you ask. I don't know, it was somewhere between Omaha Beach and Hanoi. "Yeah, but why?" you still ask. I just said I don't know!! The movie doesn't explain. He's evil alright! "Yeah, but... you know, 'origins'"... Yeah, well that's an origin! I mean, duh! Anyway, eventually they end up with a super secret team of mutant elite soldiers. Something with the government, ho-hum. Wolvie gets enough and leave his brother. For six years he's a happy lumberjack with a loved one, who ends up a little defenseless around the time Sabretooth suddenly appears again. "Yeaaah... but... whyyyy?" - Oh shut up! - and Wolvie decides to be a guinneapig for a bunch of evil scientist who make him a flesh-covered metal war animal. He goes after all the bad guys and they come after him and after all the fighting he ends up with his memory wiped, cue X-Men the first movie.<br /><br />There. That's the origin. You can also find it on the back of the DVD cover. The actual movie won't tell you anything else. With no worthwhile scenes of action, no good heroes, villains or characters in general (lines from my couch audience: Fat suit! Token black guy! Oh, I give you 200 in cash if that girl survives this movie.., That is supposed to be Gambit...? mmhm, yeah well... uh-huh, right), not one line of memorable dialog and zero lines to cover a T-shirt with, added to that the common stupid things that ruin the plausibility in general that you might usually forgive...... well, that sounds pretty much like a waste of time, right? Fans will check this out, or have already. There's no stopping that. But if you liked the X-Men movies for no other reason than that they were well-made and entertaining - see them again and do yourself no favors by trying to look for origins where there are none.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Hamiltons tells the story of the four Hamilton siblings, teenager Francis (Cory Knauf), twins Wendell (Joseph McKelheer) & Darlene (Mackenzie Firgens) & the eldest David (Samuel) who is now the surrogate parent in charge. The Hamilton's move house a lot, Franics is unsure why& is unhappy with the way things are. The fact that his brother's & sister kidnap, imprison & murder people in the basement doesn't help relax or calm Francis' nerves either. Francis know's something just isn't right & when he eventually finds out the truth things will never be the same again...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Mitchell Altieri & Phil Flores as The Butcher Brothers (who's only other film director's credit so far is the April Fool's Day (2008) remake, enough said) this was one of the 'Films to Die For' at the 2006 After Dark Horrorfest (or whatever it's called) & in keeping with pretty much all the other's I've seen I thought The Hamiltons was complete total & utter crap. I found the character's really poor, very unlikable & the slow moving story failed to capture my imagination or sustain my interest over it's 85 & a half minute too long 86 minute duration. The there's the awful twist at the end which had me laughing out loud, there's this really big sustained build up to what's inside a cupboard thing in the Hamiltons basement & it's eventually revealed to be a little boy with a teddy. Is that really supposed to scare us? Is that really supposed to shock us? Is that really something that is supposed to have us talking about it as the end credits roll? Is a harmless looking young boy the best 'twist' ending that the makers could come up with? The boring plot plods along, it's never made clear where the Hamiltons get all their money from to buy new houses since none of them seem to work (except David in a slaughterhouse & I doubt that pays much) or why they haven't been caught before now. The script tries to mix in every day drama with potent horror & it just does a terrible job of combining the two to the extent that neither aspect is memorable or effective. A really bad film that I am struggling to say anything good about.<br /><br />Despite being written & directed by the extreme sounding Butcher Brothers there's no gore here, there's a bit of blood splatter & a few scenes of girls chained up in a basement but nothing you couldn't do at home yourself with a bottle of tomato ketchup & a camcorder. The film is neither scary & since it's got a very middle-class suburban setting there's zero atmosphere or mood. There's a lesbian & suggest incestuous kiss but The Hamiltons is low on the exploitation scale & there's not much here for the horror crowd.<br /><br />Filmed in Petaluma in California this has that modern low budget look about it, it's not badly made but rather forgettable. The acting by an unknown (to me) cast is nothing to write home about & I can't say I ever felt anything for anyone.<br /><br />The Hamiltons commits the cardinal sin of being both dull & boring from which it never recovers. Add to that an ultra thin story, no gore, a rubbish ending & character's who you don't give a toss about & you have a film that did not impress me at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I was younger, I thought the first film was really good in childhood, so I decided to see the sequel. This is an example of why some films shouldn't have sequels, because the first film is usually best, and it is. Basically now that Ariel and Eric are married they have a daughter who isn't allowed outside the house because they are worried about the sister of Ursula (the octopus legged villain from film one), Morgana getting to her. When the kid gets out she asks Ursula's sister to turn her into a mermaid, like her Mum was. This makes Ariel go back to the sea to find her. The same good voice artists, it's just the story that could have had a bit more thought. Adequate!
|
Negative
| null | null |
As if there weren't enough of those floating around at the time already, we have here another lame GODFATHER clone from the director of IL CONSIGLIORI (1973) which I had watched earlier this year. The marquee-value name roped in this time is Telly Savalas who belatedly enters the proceedings and is first seen from behind, rather campily tending to his flowers and wearing a beret in the style of French painters! Apart from not looking minimally Sicilian, he sports no accent of any kind other than his familiar drawl. Antonio Sabato, then, makes for an unlikely gangster - apart from being a resistible leading man; his relationship with Savalas, which becomes paternal at the flick of an eye, is also unconvincing (especially since he subsequently becomes romantically involved with the latter's spirited teenage niece)! Besides, for a gangster flick, there's precious little action to speak of and none of it is in any way memorable (though the finale set in a clinic is well enough handled); furthermore, the score by Francesco De Masi is serviceable but nothing else. Incidentally, the bargain-basement DVD I rented starts off midway through the credits so that none of the cast members - or even the film's title - is ever listed!
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK first of all let me say that i'm still amazed of how the plot sucks,<br /><br />but than again its a movie that sequels a Steven segal movie only with no Steven segal omg!!!<br /><br />just random low budget action scenes really no point i 'm still amazed i burned 90 min on this crap really !!<br /><br />just rent a Jacky Chan movie or go see wwf more fun and has no and presume not to have and plot!!! plz plz plz avoid it!! btw the best actor playing there is bill goldberg and that says a lot!!<br /><br />and no he doesn't play very well like i said plz avoid it pfff i still cant believe i wasted 90 min and spent 10 min more writing this!! :)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is the biggest waste of nine dollars that I've spent in a very, very long time. If you knew how often I went to the movies you'd probably say, that's hard to imagine, but never-the-less, it's true! After seeing the trailer for this movie, I knew that I had to see it! If you're a fan of horror, mystery, and suspense, why wouldn't you? The trailer is nothing less than intriguing and exciting; unfortunately, the movie is none of these.<br /><br />From the cinematography, to the script, to the acting, this movie is a complete flop. If you're reading this, planning to go to the movie expecting some thrills, mystery, action, horror, or anything other than a waste of an hour and forty-five minutes I'm afraid you are in for disappointment.<br /><br />"Why is it so bad," you might be asking yourself. Let me tell you. The movie was neither mysterious nor suspenseful. Nothing about the movie made me the least bit "on edge," frightened, or curious. The script was at best laughable. There were numerous times throughout the film where the dialogue was just so ridiculous I began to write it off as comic relief only to find out a few seconds later that it wasn't. The acting was absolutely dreadful. I like Nicholas Cage but this was a miss. Without exception, every performance in this movie was incredibly below average. The cinematography was awful with not one moment of suspense or mystique. Finally, the story is completely transparent. You can see the end of this movie coming a mile away.<br /><br />I am not usually a very harsh critic. Frankly, when I go to see a comedy I want to laugh and when I go to see a mystery/suspense/horror, I just want to be surprised. This movie was boring, poorly acted, poorly written, and an overwhelming disappointment. Do yourself a favor and go see something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the ravaged wasteland of the future, mankind is terrorized by Cyborgsrobots with human featuresthat have discovered a new source of fuel: human blood. Commanded by their vicious leader Jōb (Lance Henriksen), the Cyborgs prepare to overtake Taos, a densely populated human outpost.<br /><br />Only one force can stop Jōb's death marchthe Cyborg Gabriel (Kris Kristofferson), who is programmed to destroy Jōb and his army.<br /><br />In the ruins of a ransacked village, Gabriel finds Nea (Kathy Long), a beautiful young woman whose parents were killed by Cyborgs ten years earlier. Now she wants revenge. They strike a pact: Gabriel will train Nea how to fight the Cyborgs and Nea will lead Gabriel to Taos.<br /><br />Five-time kick-boxing champion Kathy Long has all the right moves in this high-speed adventure that delivers plenty of action. Also stars Gary Daniels (as David) and Scott Paulin (as Simon).
|
Negative
| null | null |
"That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...<br /><br />Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.<br /><br />Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience. <br /><br />Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.<br /><br />GRADE: C-
|
Negative
| null | null |
So let me start off by saying that I saw this movie as part of a bargain. I was really bored one fine 1997 day and so I biked over to the movie rental store. I asked the clerk what the worst movie he had in stock was. Without hesitation he walked me over to "Lucky Stiff." He told me that he'd waive the $1 rental fee (he said it would be wrong to charge more) if I promised to watch the whole movie. So watch it I did, for free...<br /><br />This movie is terrible. God-Awful even. I don't need to go into plot details, read the other reviews. The jokes make no sense. The acting was terrible. I know it was supposed to be a comedy, but the stupidity of the main character was exhausting. You might try to watch it as something to laugh at, but it's so bad that it isn't even funny in that way. Avoid!
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's been close to ten years since I've seen either of the last two sequels to "Phantasm" - surely due to my still vivid remembrance of them not being very good. That being acknowledged to this day, I'm still a huge fan of the first two installments so I thought I'd go back and re-experience the 'final chapters'. Part three is definitely the worst of the series since it obviously takes itself less seriously and throws in a bunch of confusing stuff that doesn't make much sense... Again, kicking off right where the previous movie left us, Reggie saves Mike from the Tall Man who vows to come back for him later, but things aren't safe for long when they come across Jody who is inexplicably able to the take the form of a sphere. Apparently his soul is held prisoner by the Tall Man so Mike is then dragged into the sinister double-pronged Netherworld and Reg has to find him... Along the way, he meets up with a ten year-old kid and a nun-chuck wielding black chick named Rocky who assist him throughout his journey.<br /><br />There's really nothing memorable about "Phantasm III" other than how stupid and forcefully "humorous" it tries to be. Only one positive aspect that didn't even help the movie and that was the return of A. Michael Baldwin and Bill Thornbury who reprise their roles for the first time since the original 1978 classic. The problem is, they pretty much make cameo appearances... Reggie Banister is of course back in his starring role, but his bumbling, love-sick attitude makes his presence far too annoying to like. Angus Scrimm also just didn't seem entirely "into" his role. He talks too much here and is nowhere near as menacing and creepy in contrast with the "quirkiness" that the movie seemed to carelessly resort to. Most people's opinion on this flick seem pretty impassive and tend to think "it's still entertaining". Maybe I'm just too much of a nit picker but I just couldn't get into this one. I remember disliking it when I was a kid and after re-watching it - I can safely say - nothing has changed. Don Coscarelli rocked the scene with his original low-budget, nightmarish, legendary film "Phantasm", which I still rank as my top favorite horror flick and his respectable sequel kept things moving and darkly surreal and GORY, but "Lord of the Dead" (stupid title) just looked too rushed and slapped together to me... The inclusion of the two new characters, Tim and Rocky (the only thing missing was Scrappy Doo!!), was a strong indication of Coscarelli running out of ideas and seeing how far he could ride the franchise...<br /><br />So, it's a "Phantasm" movie with very little gore, nudity, and quadruple-barrel shot guns. Need I say more?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mike Brady (Michael Garfield who had a minuscule part in the classic "The Warriors") is the first person in the community to realize that there's murderous slugs in his small town. Not just any slugs, mind you, but carnivorous killer bigger then normal, mutated by toxic waste slugs (who still only go as fast as a normal slug, which isn't that frightening, but I digress). No one will believe him at first, but they will. Oh yes, they will.<br /><br />OK, killer slugs are right above psychotic sloths and right below Johnathon Winters as Mork's baby in the creepiness factor. So the absurdness of it all is quite apparent from the get go. The flick is fun somewhat through and is of the 'so bad that it's good' variety. I appreciate that they spelled out that this was Slugs: the Movie as opposed to Slugs: the Children's Game or Slugs: the Other White Meat. Probably not worthy of watching it more than once and promptly forgetting it except for playing a rather obscure trivia game. Director Juan Piquer Simón is more widely known for his previous films "Pod People" (which MST3K deservedly mocked) and "Peices" (which is quite possibly the funnest bad movie ever made) <br /><br />Eye Candy: Kari Rose shows T&A <br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />DVD Extras: Merely a theatrical trailer for this movie
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is really goofy! I saw it as an 11 year old, and even then I thought it was pretty ridiculous! I would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. I really didn't care for it, but I do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of, such as: 1)Does money buy happiness? 2)Should I lie (to my parents) about things I think they wouldn't approve of? 3)Does money buy friendships? 4)Is money everything? 5)Shouldn't I tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me? Granted, these are very unrealistic situations, but I do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children, maybe they should watch this video as well, in order to show/scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This one acts as a satire during the women's rights movement era. Of course, that doesn't mean COACH (the movie) is a wonderful experience to behold. It runs into the same vein as FASTBREAK (which was better, but still tame), and is basically standard fare fluff. What I mean for this movie being uninteresting is simple to recognize. Anybody who serves time away from a normal job by training a bunch of lunatics earning their way to sudden victory makes waste. It's the same feeling you may get after watching this. A nice attempt at casting the opposite sex for a man's duty, but I expected better things.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Is there anything that happens in this movie that is NOT predictable? I think not. Basically the movie is cliché after cliché and really nothing ever comes as a surprise. It makes the movie extremely predictable and because of that the movie is also seriously lacking in tension. So for a thriller it is not tense and unpredictable enough but also as a drama it's a failure. This is because the movie its story is highly unlikely. I mean, no way this could ever happen in real life, as in the same way as the events occur in this movie. So the movie has a real suspense and credibility problem.<br /><br />But it truly are the clichés that killed the movie. It was cringing stuff at times. Everything is so formulaic in this movie. The predator is portrayed as a cool heartless, almost psychopath like sexual frustrated boy and the victim as a naive young woman, who acts like she didn't see any of this coming. Everything that happened in the movie was so obvious and all seemed to happen for a reason. Such as the sequence in which the 'predator' fixes the 'victims' broken car. That has got to be one of the oldest clichés out of the book. I knew what the movie tried to achieve after that point. I tried to look as if the teacher and the student were really growing toward each other trough the eyes of the other persons around them. It was so incredibly obvious and cheap that I almost wanted to stop watching the movie after that point. The movie is filled with moments like these.<br /><br />The title might suggest that this is a cheap porn movie but this in fact is a sappy made for TV movie. Which means that everything is slowly happening and the movie spends halve its time on character development and unnecessary sub-plots to make the movie even more drama like.<br /><br />I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkley is pretty good acting in this movie. She makes some of the clichés and events look even almost realistic at times. Her Hollywood career is as good as over after appearing in the Paul Verhoeven movie "Showgirls", so unfortunately she will probably only still appear in movies- and television series like this one. It's a waste of her talent and she surely deserves better. All of the other characters are a disappointment. Corey Sevier plays the cliché pretty 'untouchable' rich boy and the way the husband of the main character is portrayed is even worse. He looks more like a sexual frustrated predator than the true predator of the movie. He basically tries to have sex with his wife in every sequence. He wakes up, he wants sex. Before he goes to sleep, he wants sex. He gets home, he wants sex. It might be a realistic thing but I don't know, it just didn't feel right for a movie like this one and the story in general.<br /><br />A cliché filled movie and I can't think of any reason why anyone should ever watch this movie. It's predictable and therefor also lacks in suspense and credibility. Not an 'horrible' movie and it certainly is a watchable one at times but all the weak and cliché elements in the movie also make this far from a recommendable one.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I still can't believe this movie. They got so much unbelievable things in it, that it's hard to believe anyone wanted to make it.<br /><br />The story is a joke, but in the sense of being funny, but more like no story at all. How can you mix a slapstick comedy with a train robbery, a prison movie, town conspiracies, sex-jokes and a FBI-agent? You can't.<br /><br />Beside the terrifying directing the most noticeable thing are the actors. I watched this film and thought: 'Is this really Marlon Brando? No, it can't be. (5 minutes later) Is this Charlie Sheen? Wow, maybe Brando is true. (5 minutes later) This can't be Donald Sutherland. (5 minutes later) No, not Mira Sorvino. This movie is too bad for all of them. (At the end). No, no, no, this can't absolutely not be Martin Sheen!!! Not for 10 seconds of such a movie.' Then it was over and I down with my nerves. SO many good, oscar-winning, usually convincing actors in such a stupid, dumb, awful movie. I rarely wanted to know so much how they came to act in this one. They couldn't got so much money.<br /><br />Only just an unbelievable silly idiotic movie.<br /><br />3/10 \ 1/4 \ 5 (1+ - 6-)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.<br /><br />This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...<br /><br />Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...<br /><br />Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only good thing about "People I Know" is that it serves as a perfect example of movies that Al Pacino should avoid performing in. The first big turn-off I had was the way in which Pacino tried to portray a Georgia accent; at times it was weak and unattractive while in other segments it seemed too overdone. Dialogue and character interaction was terrible along with a weak plot. The supporting cast did an extremely perfunctory job in keeping the movie interesting, and within an hour I still saw no signs of a sturdy plot. The story overall is a real bore, and I had to slap myself in the face a few times to keep myself awake.<br /><br />This movie will surely bore you as well...avoid at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolutely fantastic. <br /><br />Now, before a legion of cinema purists choke on their lattés, allow me to elaborate. Much as I enjoyed it, this is quite simply one of the worst films I have ever seen and is certainly the worst film I've seen at the cinema (an impressive claim, as I remember seeing Daredevil on the big screen). The two leads (Daniel Gillies and Elisha Cuthbert) were unconvincing at best and downright awful at worst. Of course, they weren't helped by a script that had as much emotional depth as a Daphne & Celeste single and characterisation that was about as convincing as the OJ defence. The plot (to stretch the term slightly) was thin to non-existent and the 'gore' scenes, whilst undoubtedly brutal, were irrelevant and laughably formulaic. What plot there is revolves around a twenty-something model (Cuthbert) who is abducted, imprisoned and subjected to various visceral tortures, both psychological and physical. The torture scenes feel like disconnected set pieces and the emphasis was laid squarely upon shocking rather than scaring the audience. Whilst there really are very, very few positives to draw from this film, its redeeming features are the very flaws that make it such a dreadful film. I have never heard a more vocal audience in a cinema. Within twenty minutes, the entire cinema was in stitches and remained that way throughout. For my part I came out flushed with laughter, buoyed by a film that had ascended to the pinnacle of appalling film-making. Whichever way you look at it, this is truly a cinematic achievement and a blueprint for future directorial wannabes detailing minutely how not to make a film.<br /><br />P.S. I omitted to mention that I managed to get in to the film free...so I can afford to laugh about it. I was still tempted to ask for my money back...it really was THAT bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The rumor is true: girls like COYOTE UGLY more than guys. And the reasons are obvious as soon as the plot is given. Jersey girl goes to New York to become a song writer. And after initial frustration of having no luck, overhears some girls partying about the $300 each they made last night. She gets an audition at the bar they work at and surprise! The place is completely full of "two year old toddlers" bursting at the sight of babes dancing.<br /><br />The story is not bad and some characters are likeable, especially Cammie (the "fashion coordinator" part was cute) and the bouncer but let's face it, the drama was horrible and completely laughable from the beginning. Violet and her father looked far too ridiculous while they were relating throughout the movie. And check out Violet too jamming on that keyboard with the break dancer!<br /><br />For the first time I could think of, how could the production be so terrible? For a brief moment with this movie, Hollywood could stand on its two feet and show a new low without any major public outcry without saying, "You were warned!" Instead, it seems COYOTE UGLY has a purposeful intent on trying to kiss every major rear in the world. Advertising babes in a bar, but showing a paper thin "pursue your dream" story disappointed every male teen you targeted!<br /><br />And finally, the music. There was absolutely no break of music I found in this movie, especially when it was needed (the hospital scene). Every scene felt like some short music video you just wish would stop until the bar opened. But the climax was an ultimate laugher: an '80s like song you would expect Cyndi Lauper to jump on the stage and jam with Violet. Heck, I personally thought Bon Jovi was going to jump out with the long hair and jam too!<br /><br />Other than some really smart camera work with the coyote girls when dancing (especially the wet scene), and a couple cute cliches, COYOTE UGLY is something to be purely embarrassed about. Whether you watched or made it, it looked like nothing but time killing. Or wasting depending on how you look at it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At least the seats in the theater were comfortable and I ate the pop corn as loud as possible to drown out the inferior dialogue. This is absolutely not a girls film. Any blokes who like it, are the ones us ladies can be sure to stay far away from. Dumb story, mediocre dialogue and an overall cheap looking film. I've seen many, many movies but this one is the new winner in the bad category. If you do happen to see it, the one thing you'll look forward to is the ending. So you can finally run out of the theater as fast as you can.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This game has the(dis)honor of being the first game that I have stopped playing right in the middle of and felt like smashing into bits and then burning. Congratulations. FIRST and LAST Tomb Raider I will ever play I assure you.<br /><br />Plot: Just typing that word made me laugh. There isn't one. Neither is there character development. We finally have a girl heroine who can take care of herself,who isn't a *beeping*mary-sue,but unfortunately she dresses like a slut and her breast are huge. They had to attract the sexist boy gamers you see. Anyway all she does is go in tomb after tomb shooting things as she goes along. Why she does this I have no idea. I had subtitles on and the t.v. as loud as I could and I still didn't understand a damn thing. The development(or lack there of) for her, her two friends and the*villains*were laughable. There also will be levels that you have to go through that do-not give you any hint on what you have to do next and you literally will be in most of the boring as hell tombs for HOURS trying to figure out what the hell you are supposed to be doing. There is one course(out of two) in particular with her on a motorbike(Believe me it is not at all fun)that you will be on for ATLEASE an HOUR with NO save point in sight. That means you get hit by the other motorist and guys in vans shooting at you or you hit a tree you start the hour long trek OVER.<br /><br />Boss Stupid F*ck: You know lets makes the levels very long, have basically no save points, have no story, no character development, give no variety in game play, have most of the music on the longest levels ear-bleeding,and give no hints whatsoever to the player so they can stay even longer in a place instead of getting to the nonexistent plot.<br /><br />Stupid F*ck one: Those sound like bang up ideas.<br /><br />Stupid F*ck two: I concur. Who needs character development ,plot, or unboring game-play.<br /><br />Todd: I'm sorry sir,but these ideas seem like they will extremely p*ss the player off.<br /><br />Boss Stupid F*ck: Shut up Todd. You're fired.<br /><br />Game-play: All she does is shoot. Of course she can flip while SHOOTING, jump while SHOOTING, or kick while again SHOOTING.But flipping, jumping, and kicking does not erase the fact that all she is ultimately doing is SHOOTING. BORING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Music: The intro music is extremely beautiful. I love listening to it. The in game music goes from tolerable to wanting to cut your ears off.<br /><br />Visuals:Considering this game was made in 2006, I was expecting the visuals to blow me away.Well I was blown,but definitely not in a good way.<br /><br />Bottom-line: This game is a plot-less, no character development mess with a barely dressed unmarysuish(THANKFULLY)young women in the lead that goes through boring tombs for some boring reason(what that might be I couldn't tell you)with unimaginative shooting gameplay. STAY FAR AWAY FROM THIS B.S.!!!!!!!!It's gets two stars for having a women who isn't a damsel in distress(No matter how scantily clad she might be) and the beautiful into music.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm hearing rumors of an upcoming "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Blu-ray Disc". With advances over the past 25 years ranging from Steady-cam to CGI, it'll be interesting to see if the franchise can be reinvigorated. I just hope it helps to remove the bad taste left in my mouth by that whole Magnavision demonstration fiasco.<br /><br />And yes... "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Betamax VCR" was a brilliant milestone in entertainment history. After the tentative "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the Compact Cassette" and the downright tacky "Leonard Nimoy Demonstrates the 8-Track Tape", who would have expected such a glorious piece of cinema? I'm weeping right now just thinking about it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...not that all Disney films are garbage.<br /><br />Anyway, I saw "Legend of Boggy Creek" first and absolutely loved the film. When I heard it had 2 sequels, I was ecstatic. I finally found a copy of this and watched it one night. I don't see how they can make a G-rated sequel to a horror film. The original is a movie/documentary about the Fauke Monster, and can scare anyone. "Return" is for kids and should not be watched by anyone. I don't remember the plot too well, as it's been quite some time since I watched it and I will not watch it again, but... It's about these hunters coming to town and they go looking to kill Bigfoot. Three little kids sneek out of the house to stop them. A big monsoon comes through. The hunters get hurt, are saved by the kids. Then they all hide out in a boat with a big piece of tarp on top and try to wait out the storm. Then all of a sudden, Bigfoot comes and does something really sick. I don't wanna ruin the ending for any of yas, but it's not scary. Well....
|
Negative
| null | null |
Irene Dunne finished her illustrious career with this so-so movie. She should have gone out with a bang, being the classy actress she was, not in this unmemorable, almost unknown film. <br /><br />This lightweight comedy is okay, but nothing special. The first half of it is far better as it gets pretty stupid in the second half. Maybe Irene could see the handwriting on the wall and quit. Even her high-pitched voice got a bit annoying in here. Rumor has it she was not happy with this film. One can see why.<br /><br />The story reminded me of a 1950s television sitcom. Speaking of that, I thought David Nelson from the Ozzie & Harriet TV show was in this movie but it turned out to be a very young Richard Crenna. He looked and sounded just like Nelson.<br /><br />Overall, so-so at best and a sub-par ending for a great actress.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Somebody called Howard Koch a schlockmeister but he did write the screenplay for "Casablanca", didn't he? Or didn't he. Maybe there's more than one Koch slinking around in Hollywood, and I'm not too fond of "Casablanca" anyway. Wait a minute -- yes, there is another Howard Koch slinking around Hollwyood. That's the one who wrote "Casablanca." No matter. I'll put as much care into this comment as "Howard W. Koch" put into this production, which is to say only a little.<br /><br />You know what this sounds like? Somebody read Cliff's Notes on Shakespeare's "King Lear" and decided, since no original thoughts were aboard the Inbound Inspiration Express, to update it and Hollywoodize it with a happy ending.<br /><br />There are differences. Lear decides to divvy up his vast estates between three sisters and before doing so, asks them how much they love him. Two of the sisters throw themselves at his feet and brown nose him to get at his money. The third is the good girl and refuses to go operatic on Lear. But in the play, Lear remains alive to regret his decision to give the two connivers his stash and deprive the honest girl. He winds up crazy and naked during a gale on the moors, putting flowers in his hair and hallucinating. Kids can do that to you. (Take my kid, for instance. After all the effort I squandered on raising him, does he show any interest in becoming a doctor or a lawyer? No.) In the end, everybody in the play dies.<br /><br />In the movie, evidently, the good sister is morose and suicidal but when she tries to off herself, somebody jumps in and saves her, so the ending is, more or less, happy. That's the difference between Hollywood and a genuine tragedy, unless you define Hollywood as a tragedy sufficient unto itself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Shintarô Katsu gained tons of fame playing the wonderful character, Zatoichi. The Zatoichi films had a weird and unbelievable concept--a blind guy is the greatest swordsman in Japan and spends each movie righting wrongs and exacting retribution on evil doers. He's a heck of a nice guy and the films are exciting and addictive (I've actually seen every movie). It is because of this I saw this final installment of the Hanzo the Razor series, as I assumed it would be very similar....and boy was I wrong! It turns out that the Hanzo films are extremely sexual in nature and they also promote the rape of "women who deserve it". You see, Hanzo is a policeman from the Meiji period and he regularly takes evil women into custody and interrogates them by violently raping them with his "penis of steel". How he made his member so strong is something you have to see to believe, but it certainly is NOT for the squeamish.<br /><br />Overall, I just can't recommend anyone sees these violent and misogynistic films. However, from looking at the other reviews, I can see that they are still very popular...and that is pretty scary. Despite some decent acting and amazing fight scenes, the films just are like brain pollution--and I'd hate to imagine how the films might have contributed to violence towards women.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.<br /><br />Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.<br /><br />I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stewart Kane (Gabriel Byrne, VANITY FAIR) heads out with his local Jindabyne, Australia fishing buddies for a weekend of rest, recreation, and relaxation. But when Stewart discovers an aboriginal woman's body floating face-down in a river, things appear to have turned out for the worst. The largest casualty of the weekend is the men's commonsense. They don't hike out of the ravine, and instead finish their fishing weekend with some great catches. Then they head out and report the body.<br /><br />The town and the men's lives quickly turn into a mess. The local media swarms them, and accusations of aboriginal prejudices rear up from the local natives. Stewart's wife Claire (Laura Linney, THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE) senses the deeper meanings of what her husband and his friends did, but has to battle with it through her own mental illness.<br /><br />Amidst all this chaos is the life that was this young woman who is now a media spectacle, splayed out on a morgue slab. Her murder and subsequent dumping into the water are symbolic of what lay beneath the town of Jindabyne: a division of men and women, black and white, social and outcast.<br /><br />The only other people who seem to understand some of what is going on are two young kids: Stewart and Claire's son who is being led around by a half-breed Aussie who's mother was killed also just a few years before. The young girl lives with her grandparents and is trying to let go of her mother the best way she can, and the discovery of a new body seems strangely enough a method in which to accomplish this (again, the underlying current of Jindabyne is surmised).<br /><br />Everything and everyone in this Jindabyne township feels what lurks beneath its surface, yet none of them are willing to dive into the murky waters and take a look around (the symbolism here is seen when a nearby lake that is used for recreation and swimming is said to contain the old town of Jindabyne under its surface). None, that is, until Claire forces them to.<br /><br />The movie is interesting if a bit too convoluted. There are far too many story lines that needed exploring and it just doesn't get done; too many loose threads. The acting was okay, but the filming was terrible. Wobbly cameras, grainy or dark shots, and just a generalized sloppiness hurt the overall production.<br /><br />I enjoy symbolic films, NORTHFORK being one of my all-time favorites in that vein. But Jindabyne needed to peak its head above the turbid water so that it could see its own problems, which simply didn't happen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further. <br /><br />Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction. <br /><br />If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex? <br /><br />These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else. <br /><br />Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.<br /><br />This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.<br /><br />Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself! <br /><br />The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot and characters are ridiculous and barely qualify AS "plot" and "character". The biggest problem is the fact that everything is dark, out-of-focus, and blurry. The fact that Fulci filled the whole movie with mist doesn't help. On the other hand, the whole thing is completely bizarre and filled with sex and violence. The inconsistencies are pretty entertaining, one of the main characters says he has no friends, yet he latches onto the new guy in a minute of screen time, and has a whole gaggle of women on the side. Though he does show his anti-social tendencies by randomly putting an arrow in some poor b*****d who's just minding his own business!Images of blood or gore flowing get more attention than the characters but what do you want from Fulci. Maybe it ruined his career, but it wasn't really much more stupid than Zombie. Worth a rental if you like gory Italian flicks or are desperate for sword and sorcery or something bizarre. How do you sleep through someone getting sucked into a pit 2 feet from your head and screaming for help?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I cannot believe that I wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. The previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and I was really looking forward to this. But most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. Suranne Jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines, but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. Notable exceptions were Bernard Hill and Anne Reid, old stagers whose diction was exemplary. Do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible? As a result I suppose I lost track of what was going on, and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them-and-us thing between Muslims and the rest I soon lost interest. The ending was a complete anti-climax. A complete dud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spoilers I guess.<br /><br /> The absolutely absurd logic of the ending ruins the entire movie. I just couldn't get over it. And what is wrong with Mark Wahlberg's character? If I suddenly found myself crashed-landed on a planet full of talking apes, I'd be all like, " AAAAhhhhHHH!!! Run for your lives! The monkeys have inherited the Earth!" But he's all like, "talking apes, okay. Next?" That's pretty jaded I'd say. He must run into even stranger things on a regular basis. Besides that, this is Rick Baker's best work yet. This film is a true testament to how far we've come in the monkey makeup field. 3/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't understand how "2 of us" receive such a high rating... I thought that the first half dragged on and the second half didnt make sense, followed by an unresolved climax which was not worth the trouble. However, I did like Jared Harris' performance of John Lennon which was worth the wasted 2 hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The husband-and-wife team of Bennie Fields and Blossom Seeley were huge stars in vaudeville, yet they made very few films. As is the case for some other performers of their era (George M. Cohan, Fanny Brice, Gertrude Lawrence) the most accessible piece of film footage for Fields and Seeley is the biopic ABOUT them, in which they're portrayed by other actors: 'Somebody Loves Me', starring Betty Hutton and that inimitable song-and-dance man Ralph Meeker.<br /><br />In their heyday, Fields and Seeley were so hugely popular that another husband-and-wife vaudeville act -- Jesse Block and Eve Sully -- achieved nearly as much stardom performing an almost identical act, effectively becoming the "second-team" Fields and Seeley. Offstage, though, there was a major difference in the couples' living arrangements. Fields and Seeley lived in hotel suites, paying room-service rates for every meal they ate, and eventually running out of money. Block and Sully lived modestly and invested their earnings wisely, ending in comfortable retirement.<br /><br />The first 30 seconds of this Vitaphone short are occupied by two spats-wearing pianists. Apparently these two men had some slight name value of their own in 1930, although I've never heard of them. Finally, Fields and Seely rush in and start performing. They both have plenty of pep, and she's fairly attractive.<br /><br />I was annoyed that both performers keep making movements as if they're about to break into a dance, but they never quite do so until the third of the three songs they perform in this short. When they finally start hoofing, the results are not impressive.<br /><br />I was delighted to have this opportunity to see these two major performers doing their vaude act. Now that I've seen it, I understand why they never became stars in movie musicals. My rating for this one: just 4 out of 10, and I'll stick with Block and Sully.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What made the idea of seeing this movie so attractive was the hope that it would live up to Charlotte Bronte's brilliance of the original classic story. I was deeply disappointed to find that this movie, which seemed to be either written or filmed in great haste, had not the qualities that made the original novel so powerful. Much of the witty back and forth between the main characters, Jane Eyre and Mr. Rochester, seemed to be either missing from the screenplay or left on the cutting room floor. Also missing was Jane Eyre's charismatic sense of self, which enabled her to suffer through her turmoil and triumph over all. The original Jane Eyre was a hero. The woman in this movie did not seem to have much to triumph over, including one of the greatest parts of the story when Jane runs away from Thornfield and Mr. Rochester. Her struggle to find food and shelter, her shame at having to beg for bread, the threat of freezing to death in the cold, all to get away from a man she loved were, in my opinion, poignant parts of the story that were simply left out of this movie. The title character seemed dry and uninspired. The story was unappealing and for those who did not read the book, I cannot imagine that this story would be the least bit interesting. The screenplay and Direction did little if any credit to the classic story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled "Starstruck". I thought, "What the hey", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is "Starfucker".
|
Negative
| null | null |
A bunch of kids set up a theatre to have an all-night horror movie marathon. However, as the night goes on, there's somebody among them killing them off one by one. Who is it...and why? I saw this in a theatre way back in 1991. I was looking forward to it--but boy! It did not work at all. The premise is a good one, they have a very appealing young cast and some pros like Dee Wallace Stone on board...but it doesn't work. The story stops making sense halfway through (that could be because of some huge editing before the film was released), the killings are relatively bloodless (how this got an R rating is beyond me) and the unmasking of the killer at the end was boring and stupid.<br /><br />It's really too bad--this movie had potential. With a better script this could have become a great horror film. As it stands though it's mostly forgotten and the cast itself seems embarrassed by it (I heard Stone won't talk about this one). I give it a 3 and that's just for the cast.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Bat People" is a really bad film that deserved the MST3K treatment just as well like that other film "The Creeping Terror."<br /><br />In it, we are in some sort of mountainous terrain full of bats. We see many things happen, like bats flying out and attacking and stuff, station wagon chases, mishaps at the emergency room, and much more! All this, plus the cheesy mediocrity of the 1970s (hey, think "Mitchell" here!), making "The Bat People" actually one of the very best of the last "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episodes made in the series! Moviewise, it's awful. It should be avoided like the plague, unless Tom Servo and Crow are watching with you.<br /><br />"The Bat People" - more like "The Bad People!!!!!" LOL<br /><br />1/10 of course!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had no background knowledge of this movie before I bought it, but it sounded cool and I've been wanting to see a really kick-butt Viking movie for awhile now... alas, this film was not what I was looking for. I had hoped for the best, but instead, was delivered a boring Nordic soap-opera that seemed to drag on too long despite its 84 minute running time. The film's premise is intriguing enough: It's about a Viking warlord who defies his God and Odin is so enraged that he curses the warlord's son, named Barek, to death and rebirth as a Berserker. This Barek guy is then forced to live enraged, insane, and violent lifetime after lifetime. The movie is filmed competently enough, with some rich cinematography and quasi-good performances by the actors, but again, I found myself bored and questioning when this dribble would end. The filmmakers had a chance to make something rather entertaining and semi-unique but they dropped the ball. Perhaps it could've been improved with some cheap exploitation tactics thrown in such as gratuitous nudity and lots of gore... I mean, we are talking about "Berserkers" here, aren't we? Vikings were supposed to be BAD enough, what with all the raping and pillaging, so aren't Berserkers supposed to be even more extreme? All in all, unless you're a fan of The Young and Restless (etc...) or, are yourself, in fact, an insane Berserker who likes self torture, I'd probably steer clear of this drab piece of celluloid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Title: Zombie 3 (1988) <br /><br />Directors: Mostly Lucio Fulci, but also Claudio Fragasso and Bruno Mattei <br /><br />Cast: Ottaviano DellAcqua, Massimo Vani, Beatrice Ring, Deran Serafin <br /><br />Review: <br /><br />To review this flick and get some good background of it, I gotta start by the beginning. And the beginning of this is really George Romeros Dawn of the Dead. When Dawn came out in 79, Lucio Fulci decided to make an indirect sequel to it and call it Zombie 2. That film is the one we know as plain ole Zombie. You know the one in which the zombie fights with the shark! OK so, after that flick (named Zombie 2 in Italy) came out and made a huge chunk of cash, the Italians decided, heck. Lets make some more zombie flicks! These things are raking in the dough! So Zombie 3 was born. Confused yet? The story on this one is really just a rehash of stories we've seen in a lot of American zombie flicks that we have seen before this one, the best comparison that comes to mind is Return of the Living Dead. Lets see...there's the government making experiments with a certain toxic gas that will turn people into zombies. Canister gets released into the general population and shebang! We get loads of zombies yearning for human flesh. A bunch of people start running away from the zombies and end up in an old abandoned hotel. They gotta fight the zombies to survive.<br /><br />There was a lot of trouble during the filming of this movie. First and foremost, Lucio Fulci the beloved godfather of gore from Italy was sick. So he couldn't really finish this film the way that he wanted to. The film was then handed down to two lesser directors Bruno Mattei (Hell of the Living Dead) and Claudio Fragasso (Zombie 4). They did their best to spice up a film that was already not so good. You see Fulci himself didn't really have his heart and soul on this flick. He was disenchanted with it. He gave the flick over to the producers and basically said: "Do whatever the hell you want with it!" And god love them, they did.<br /><br />And that is why ladies and gents we have such a crappy zombie flick with the great Fulci credited as its "director". The main problem in my opinion is that its just such a pointless bore! There's no substance to it whatsoever! After the first few minutes in which some terrorists steal the toxic gas and accidentally release it, the rest of the flick is just a bunch of empty soulless characters with no personality whatsoever running from the zombies. Now in some cases this can prove to be fun, if #1 the zombie make up and zombie action is actually good and fun and #2 there's a lot of gore and guts involved.<br /><br />Here we get neither! Well there's some inspired moments in there, like for example when some eagles get infected by the gas and they start attacking people. That was cool. There's also a scene involving a flying zombie head (wich by the way defies all logic and explanation) and a scene with zombies coming out of the pool of the abandoned hotel and munching off a poor girls legs. But aside from that...the rest of the flick just falls flat on its ass.<br /><br />Endless upon endless scenes that don't do jack to move the already non existent plot along. That was my main gripe with this flick. The sets look unfinished and the art direction is practically non-existent. I hate it when everything looks so damn unfinished! I like my b-movies, but this one just really went even below that! Its closer to a z-level flick, if you ask me.<br /><br />The zombie make up? Pure crap. The zombies are all Asian actors (the movie was filmed in the Philippines) so you get a bunch of Asian looking zombies. But thats not a big problem since they movie was set in the phillipine islands anyway. Its the look of the zombies that really sucks! They all died with the same clothes on for some reason. And what passes for zombie make up here is a bunch of black make up (more like smudges) on their faces. One or two zombies had slightly more complex make up, but it still wasn't good enough to impress. Its just a bunch of goo pointlessly splattered on the actors faces. So not only is this flick slowly paced but the zombies look like crap. These are supposed to be dead folks! Anyhows, for those expecting the usual coolness in a Fulci flick don't come expecting it here cause this is mostly somebody else's flick. And those two involved (Mattei and Fragasso) didn't really put there heart and souls into it. In fact, when you see the extras on the DVD you will see that when Fragasso is asked about his recollections and his feelings on this here flick, he doesn't even take it to seriously. You can tell he is ashamed of it and in many occasions he says they "just had a job to do and they did it". And that my friends, is the last nail on this flick. There's no love, and no heart put into making this film. Therefore you get a half assed, crappy zombie flick.<br /><br />Only for completest or people who want to have or see every zombie flick ever made. Everybody else, don't even bother! Rating: 1 out of 5
|
Negative
| null | null |
La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza, or The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance as I believe is it's common English title, is set on 'Ireland' in '1902' where the mysterious Count Richard Marnack (Giacomo Rossi-Stuart) invites soon-to-be out of work theatre actress Evelyn (Patrizia Webley as Patrizia De Rossi) & three more of her fellow soon-to-be out of work actress friends Cora (Krista Nell), Penny (Lidia Olizzi) & Rosalind (Marzia Damon as Caterina Chiani) to his castle situated on a small island just off the coast. At first Evelyn is reluctant but is persuaded when it is agreed stage hand Samuel (Leo Valeriano) goes along as well. Once there Count Marnack tells his guests that his Father & Grandfather both cut the heads off their cheating wives using a ceremonial knife & there's a feeling of unease when it turns out that Evelyn looks EXACTLY the same as the current Count's wife who ran away not too long ago... Along with having to worry about weirdo servants it turns out that someone wants to use the knife themselves to chop a few heads off...<br /><br />This Italian production was written & directed by Alfredo Rizzo & is total, complete & utter crap from start to finish. First things first lets start the criticism with the title The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance, lets examine that title because when I do I feel somewhat cheated that there aren't any Vampires or any form of bloodsucking whatsoever, no-one 'leads' anything at anytime & there most certainly isn't any dance or dancing so don't expect any of these things. What you should expect though is a tedious, dull, boring pointless little 'giallo' that takes over an hour before anyone is killed & any sort of murder mystery starts to take shape, the first hour of La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is as plot less & uninteresting as anything out there. The best way to imagine it is to think of the most boring soft-core porn film you've ever seen, then cut most of the soft-core porn out & that just leaves bad actors, bad dubbing, bad dialogue, a tiny bit of soft-core sex & lesbianism & absolutely nothing else. Yep, it really is that bad. The mystery elements are crap, people do illogical things for no apparent reason & the overly complicated 'twist' ending is as bad as the rest of it, The Sixth Sense (1999) this ain't!<br /><br />Director Rozzi does an OK job & La Sanguisga Conduce la Danza actually has a nice look & feel to it despite it's obvious low budget, I mean there are scenes where he shows a 'storm' raging outside the castle however the stock footage used is in black & white! So the film jumps from bright colour to black & white whenever it cuts to the storm & back to colour again! There is one absolutely hilarious scene where a maid & her friend discuss her breasts & she lets her friend feel them who is then full of compliments, this scene is so funny & just so unnatural that it's priceless & easily the films best moment even if a bad 70's porno would be embarrassed by the dialogue! There is minimal nudity & the sex/lesbian scenes are very tame. Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any apart from a decapitated head.<br /><br />Technically the films pretty good, the period setting & production design are actually quite impressive although it's not massive in scope it does the job effectively enough. The film has a nice sense of colour & the cinematography is fine. The film is dubbed so it's hard to give an opinion on the original performances but the voice actors are terrible & the dialogue is even worse than usual.<br /><br />La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is a terrible film, it makes no sense, it has virtually no story for over an hour, it has possibly the most misleading title ever & is really dull & boring with a confused stupid 'twist' ending. As far as Euro horror fans go there are plenty of much better films than this so please don't waste your time, as for anyone else this is definitely one to avoid. Trivia Note: the notorious (& banned in the UK) Nazi exploitation/horror film Horrifying Experiments of the S.S Last Days (1977) AKA SS Hell Camp & The Beast in Heat was directed by Luigi Batzella & he has a fairly substantial role as a police detective in La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.<br /><br />But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.<br /><br />I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.<br /><br />after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.<br /><br />Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, how do you even rate a movie such as this one? Does it even have cinematic value really? It's a movie that tries to get as close to being a snuff movie as possible. Basically the entire movie is purely a bunch of guys torturing a young girl. Not very appealing and on top of that also not that realistic really.<br /><br />It's obvious that the movie tried to be as realistic and shocking as possible. However the movie is just all too fake for that to work out as intended. The slapping and stumping is all soft and fake looking, as well as sounding. They are often just kicking into the floor, rather than into the girl, obviously. Also the way the girl responds to all the torments is pretty tame. I mean if this was real, surely she would had screamed it out. There is more moaning than screaming in this one though.<br /><br />The movie is obviously low budget and it's a valor attempt at trying to achieve something shocking and realistic as well as original and provoking, with very limited resources. Don't really think this movie made much impact though at the time it got released, though it must had done something well, since a total of six sequels got released after this one.<br /><br />Fans of shock and gore will most likely be disappointed by this movie, though there are still some fetish people out there who will get a kick out of this movie.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Diana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of dumb and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty relieved. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty silly and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, pick a different episode.
|
Negative
|
Diana Muldaur appears on Star Trek for the second time, but this time as a different character. No one on board seems to notice--maybe it was the hair. Regardless, this time she is not the receptacle for a god (see the previous episode) but is a very famous lady with magical powers that enable her to communicate and see a Medusan without going crazy (the standard human response). Unfortunately, the man that is most in love with her is a few cards short of a full deck and he tries to kill the Medusan ambassador (who, oddly, lives in a small crate--this is a lousy way to travel). And, unfortunately, Muldayr isn't wound all that well herself. What happens next is kind of amazing and by the time the episode was over the first time I saw it, I was pretty excited. Watching all the men on board go ga-ga over Muldaur was pretty funny and the acting of Spock when he briefly went crazy was pretty campy. Do yourself a favor--if you haven't seen the show before, go see this episode now.
|
Positive
|
1 out of 10.<br /><br />This is the kind of movie that you cant believe you just wasted 2 hours of your life as you see the credits role. I honestly think I could make a better Vampire movie.... and I know nothing. The only thing that does not just suck (harder than a Vampire) is Jason Scott Lee.... his character is at least a little bit cool, has some mystery, and kicks a little butt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Who? What? Where? When? Why? The acting was terrible. Very robotic, rehearsed. I have seen all of the actors in this film in better roles. The screenplay was very elementary. By the end of this film, the story line was tied up. And Jeane Claude LaMarre should be tied up, too. So that he never attempts to write/direct another film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. "Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?" But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.<br /><br />Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in "his" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was "torn". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.<br /><br />And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.<br /><br />SUPERMAN "ONE" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just "doing a job" when he's saving people.<br /><br />There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.<br /><br />SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I "thought" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.<br /><br />There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.<br /><br />SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she "prefers" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.<br /><br />Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.<br /><br />He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.<br /><br />It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just "access" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!") In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his "super strength". And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.<br /><br />To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.<br /><br />No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.<br /><br />But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.<br /><br />I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.<br /><br />The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think this is one of the weakest of the Kenneth Branagh Shakespearian works. After such great efforts as Much Ado About Nothing, etc. I thought this was poor. The cast was weaker (Alicia Silverstone, Nivoli, McElhone???) but my biggest gripe was that they messed with the Bard's work and cut out some of the play to put in the musical/dance sequences.<br /><br />You just don't do Shakespeare and then mess with the play. Sorry, but that is just wrong. I love some Cole Porter just like the next person, but jeez, don't mess with the Shakespeare. Skip this and watch "Prospero's Books" if you want to see a brilliant Shakespearean adaptation of the Tempest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie is, despite its "independent" status, a stupid hollywood version of a nauseating mother-daughter relationship. it wasnt that bad at first, but somewhere during the course of the movie--around the time that the daughter goes out with that guy, i think--it turns into a cheesey mother-daughter bonding movie. im sorry, but i dont know of any mothers who have that kind of relationship with their daughter...its probably better that way, though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I only watched the first 30 minutes of this and what I saw was a total piece of crap. The scenes I saw were as bad as an Ed Wood movie. No, it was a hundred times WORSE. Ed Wood has the reputation of being the worst director ever but that's not true; the idiot who directed this junk is the WORST director ever.<br /><br />The American cop has a German accent! The "police station" was a desk in a warehouse with a sign "Police Station" hanging on the wall. There is a fist fight where the punches clearly miss by about TEN FEET.<br /><br />This cop pulls women over, cuffs them and leads them to a warehouse. He tells his cop partner to wait in the car. Then he comes out of the warehouse carrying a duffel bag. The cop partner thinks maybe something is not right, that his partner might be a bad cop who is murdering these women, but he isn't sure if that is what's happening because - he's a moron! The dialog is totally stupid, the acting is awful, and the characters act in the stupidest manner I have ever seen on screen. It is totally obvious to the cop's partner that he is illegally abducting these women and he is slapping them and taking them into a warehouse and returning to the car with a duffel bag with a body in it, and yet, the partner, who is there all along, doesn't know what is happening! <br /><br />The director of this film is a total hack. I stopped the movie at 30 minutes because I couldn't take it anymore. It has to be one of the WORST movies I have ever started to watch and I won't waste anymore time on it writing this review. <br /><br />Absolutely WORTHLESS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. Awful acting, awful script... and they were the good points! One to Definitely miss! The jokes, if you could call them that, were so predictable as to be pathetic. Pamela Anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic! I sat willing to give it a chance, hoping that it was going to improve which, alas, it didn't! If it was a choice between this and a book, I suggest you settle down for a good read! I like Denise Richards, which is why I gave this movie a go, but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Up until this new season I have been a big 'Little Mosque' fan. However, the new season had absolutely RUINED it.<br /><br />The new Christian vicar has destroyed the entire intent of the show. It has always been about living together to overcome prejudice. The new vicar ruins that premise and shows Christians in a very bad light.<br /><br />I am neither Christian or Muslim, but loved watching the show and seeing the camaraderie between Amar and the Reverend. Not any more.<br /><br />Just cancel it and be done with it. It's not worth watching any more.<br /><br />It might still be saved, but a lot of change would need to be made.<br /><br />Bring back the old format.
|
Negative
| null | null |
On his birthday a small boys tells his mother he is not her son, and that he wants to go home to his real mother.<br /><br />In some ways Comedy De L'Innocence feels like it comes from a different time of movie-making, perhaps the 60's or 70's. Certainly it reminded me of Losey's Secret Ceremony (1968), and Richard Loncraine's Full Circle (1977), both of which deal with loss, grief and relationships between parents and 'lost' children (curiously both films star Mia Farrow).<br /><br />All three films are populated with unsympathetic characters who behave in strange and unexplained ways. All three films have a chilly feel, both emotionally and literally. All three films focus on mother-child relationships, and ultimately all three films pose the question - 'what is real, what is imagined?' <br /><br />Beautiful but flawed, it offers no easy answers and leaves much hanging, unexplained and strange.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.<br /><br />In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.<br /><br />In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.<br /><br />People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hate this movie. I hate the show. i hate just about everything about it. it's so annoying and stupid. everyone's saying that nat and alex wolff are heroes in the music world and that they're going to make it big. WHAT KIND OF DRUGS ARE YOU TAKING???!!!?!?!?!?! nat and alex are going to end up as either hobos or end up like Jane Hudson from "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?". i could only get through not even 20 minutes of this one, barely 30 seconds of the show, and i managed to survive about half an hour of 'Battle of the Bands'. How anyone could cheer for these guys in the audience at the Kid's Choice Awards, i have no clue. days before the movie premiere on Nick, most of the teen girl actresses on Nick (Jamie Spears, Emma Roberts, Lindsey Shaw, etc.) showed up in a commercial influencing brain-dead kids about how awesome nat and alex wolff are. first off, they didn;t trick me, and second of all, nat and alex probably either drugged them or payed them loads of money in order to say that and sound convincing, because i don't see how anyone could find this show/movie entertaining. the music is just awful. nat's singing sounds like a sick, dying moose on crack. alex is the most annoying movie/TV show character EVER. he's not funny, he's annoying, he's really weird, and he thinks he's hot and knows everything about girls. this guy's lucky if he ever manages to get laid. you know this show is fake when you find out that some of the characters (in real life) don't even exist!! the character Jesse is actually played by Nat and Alex's cousin jesse Draper (they mustve had some budget problem). Their father is not single, he's married to Polly Draper, but she doesn't appear on the show, making it seem the Wolff's are mom-less. Rosalina doesn't exist either. Her name is Allie DiMeco. I'll tell ya, the Naked Brothers are gonna be in some deep sh** when their "fans" find out the whole thing is staged. 0/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
the author of the book, by the same title, should not have let her name be used for this movie. if you have read the book, this movie takes such a liberal interpretation of the actual events in the book and its spirit that the movie and book seem to have quite little in common except the title and some superficial details. the movie adds nothing, in terms of artistic merit, to the book's own literary achievement.<br /><br />for those who have not read the book: you will also be disappointed. not only does the plot move at an incredibly slow pace, it doesn't offer anything more while it is moving slowly (like character development, for example). some viewers might be entertained by some of the graphic lesbian love scenes later on in the movie, but you might as well watch a showtime special for the stuff they show in therese and isabelle--its fairly tame and not imaginative at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Writer/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 ½ Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.<br /><br />Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the "half woman," get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?<br /><br />The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 ½ Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't hand out "ones" often, but if there was ever a film that deserved this sort of attention, it's "Gas!" This is self-indulgent crap that reaches for some of the ambiance of M*A*S*H and falls completely flat on its face in the attempt.<br /><br />I see what Corman was going for - Malcolm Marmorstein and Elliott Gould tried to reproduce Gould's deathless role in the original movie version of M*A*S*H with a similar plot (in the movie "Whiffs" - look it up here in IMDb, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073891/ for more information).<br /><br />Marmorstein and Gould got closer to the brass ring with "Whiffs" than Corman did with "Gas!" but didn't quite get there. Neither one of those films even got close to the success of M*A*S*H.<br /><br />What's wrong with "Gas!"? What isn't? No one comes close to really acting at a level above junior high school theatrics. The production values stink. Someone else here mentioned the magically regenerating headlights on a getaway car, and there's more of that lack of attention to detail. Nothing works the way it's supposed to in this film, and nobody cares.<br /><br />"Gas!" actually put me to sleep. It's not a sure cure for insomnia, but really close. On the Cinematic Sleep Induction scale, "Gas!" falls somewhere between "Last Year at Marienbad" and George Clooney's remake of "Solaris" (which itself was remarkable for being more boring than the Mosfilm original, despite that studio's seeming unfamiliarity with the idea of keeping the audience's attention by judicious editing).<br /><br />Judicious editing would have decimated "Gas!" to about twenty minutes. The result would be pointless, but no more so than the original film.<br /><br />Certain films are so bad that they have a compelling quality that makes them worth watching anyway. This isn't one of them. Don't waste your time. It's not even amusingly bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dear me... Peter Sellers was one of the most oddly talented actors there has been. But his choice of films, say, after 1964, was very unfortunate. He didn't seem to realize how to use his talents. He would have been better off working with more of the Kubricks of the film world than the people he did. Of his later films, only "The Optimists of Nine Elms" and "Being There" have impressed me of those I have seen.<br /><br />That said, the Boultings and Sellers had made a few films prior to this that hardly sound that bad - I have yet to see "Carlton Browne" and "Heavens Above!" - at least in the sense of using Sellers well to a degree. But, "There's a Girl in My Soup" really is a poor film and a dire choice on Sellers' part in terms of character. In his films from 1955-64, you can usually expect at least some very inventive twist and always an enigmatic conviction in his roles. Here, you have Peter Sellers trying to play a typical romantic lead. It's almost Sellers playing a Niven cad without the joviality. He certainly does not convince, try as he might, or create an interesting character. He should have left such parts to masters of suavity such as Cary Grant, and concentrated on those intriguing dramatic and comic roles that he was famed for.<br /><br />Hawn and Sellers really do not establish any genuine chemistry; this is no easy, genial romance of the like perfected by William Powell and Myrna Loy. It is very artificial seeming, all the way through - I know that it is part of Danvers' character that he is a dry procurer of ladies, but he doesn't really change from that in a way that convinces. Sellers has a very grating way of playing "charm" as well... this character really has no depth, and really does not gain the viewer's sympathy or interest. Sellers goes through the motions in a way one would not think possible when remembering the magnificence of his shifty, iconoclastic performance in "Lolita".<br /><br />There really is nothing to say about the plot, direction or characters, as frankly they leave little or no impression. This is truly one of the most anaemic, complacent, misguided and lightly dull films I have ever seen. A nonentity of a "vehicle" for Sellers' undisputed talents.<br /><br />Rating:- * 1/2/*****
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film released at the start of 2000 alongwith MELA both disasters So sad to start a millennium with such nonsense<br /><br />The film seems to suit 70's but looks like an unintentional comedy for 2000<br /><br />Anywayz some classic gems from the film: Paresh Rawal I don't understand to laugh at his role or cry Reason: He goes searching his mother in the village worst part is when he realises a secret of Anil he keeps the secret in his stomach which becomes big and makes him look pregnant I remember in my childhood my teacher told me the same joke Urrf!!!! as a child i laughed at it that time but here?<br /><br />The whole film is a joke can't explain We have Anil in a dual role(One older and younger) and Rekha playing the older's wife and Raveena the youngers We also have reject Harish while Shakti playing the son of Aruna Irani who both fight on who has the worst wig<br /><br />Direction is outdated Music is bad<br /><br />Anil tries hard looks too old in the younger role and too young in the older role yet good effort Rekha is adequate, Raveena too is okay Harish is bad Shakti Kapoor is terrible Aruna Irani is as usual Rajnikant is okay in a cameo
|
Negative
| null | null |
In Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, I think that every studio can make a western, except Warner bros. The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom. True! Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie. The story here had no suprise, and it did't help. Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Teamo Supremo are three kids, consisting of their leader- Captain Crandall, Rope Girl and Skate Lad, all with their own battlecry (buza! chika! woopa!) and outfit and moves. They work for the governor, Kevin, and were recruited after wishing to be heroes and playing at that game. They lead normal lives as well, and have family and school duties, but most of the action takes place away from school fighting villains. The villains all have rather unique and singular traits, such as Mister Vague and his men who never seem to know what their plans are but act anyway. From an evil robot to a wicked baron the three have to encounter them and stop their evil, and often strange, plans to gain power, take revenge etc.<br /><br />The animation itself is quite nice and smooth, but the style appears to be simple on purpose. The backgrounds have overlapping colour and the buildings seem futuristic. The music is quite nice, and the show isn't too bad altogether, although the style isn't my favourite.<br /><br />The plots are almost always nonsensical and ridiculous, but after all this is a cartoon and one can't blame them for that. However this would not be in the same rank as Fillmore! or Pepper Ann.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not an altogether bad start for the program -- but what a slap in the face to real law enforcement. The worst part of the series is that it attempts to bill itself as reality fare -- and is anything but. Men and women that dedicate their lives to the enforcement of laws deserve better than this. What is next, medical school in a minute? Charo performing lipo? Charles Grodin assisting on a hip replacement? C'mon...show a little respect. Even the citizens of Muncie are outing the program as staged. Police Academy = High School Gym? Poor editing (how many times can they use the car-to-car shot of the Taco Bell in the background?), cheesy siren effects (the same loop added ad nauseum to every 'call' whether rolling code or not), and last, but not least -- more officer safety issues than you could shake a stick at.<br /><br />If I want to see manufactured police work and wise-ass fake cops, I would watch RENO 911.
|
Negative
| null | null |
HORRENDOUS! Avoid like the plague. I would rate this in the top 10 worst movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by day care students...wait, I have seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes bad from there. Good nude scenes, but that is it. Sound and light problems were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the camera motors. YIKES! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by different people. This batch of actors and crew need more acting and movie making lessons. Voted 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
|
VIVID! Embrace like the rain. I would rate this in the top 10 wonderful movies ever. Special effects, acting, mood, sound, etc. appear to be done by experts...wait, I have actually never seen programs better than this. Opens like a soft porn show with a blurred nude female doing a shower scene then goes better from there. Good nude scenes, but thats not it. Sound and light enhancements were persistent throughout the movie. At times I would swear I could hear the roaring of the background motors. DETAIL! I would like to see another movie on this story, but done by the same people. This batch of actors and crew need more platforms to display their acting and movie making. Voted 8 out of 10.
|
Positive
|
Man, this gets a lot of good reviews in the review books. Frankly, I found it too slow and unappealing right from the start. I kept waiting for it to pick up a little steam but that never happened. This movie is vastly overrated.<br /><br />Shakespeare, with the King James English, has never appealed to me, anyway, so it may just be me. There is a fair share of the latter in the first half of the film as they show Ronald Colman playing the role of Othello.<br /><br />The good points of the film include - thanks to a restored print - some decent cinematography and a young, slim and attractive Shelly Winters.<br /><br />Overall, this is simply too boring, too much repetition in some of the scenes to watch again. Besides, we all know that most actors are nut-cases, anyway, but kudos to Hollywood for demonstrating it here in this story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Given that this movie was put together in less than a year might explain its shortness (81 minutes - including end credits, so roughly 76 minutes of actual film). But what it cannot explain is its lack of humor that the previous film possessed.<br /><br />The gags are quick and sometimes not even funny. The only true funny parts are the quick spoofs on the Nike basketball spots, James Woods' portrayal of Max Van Sydow's character in the Exorcist, and bits and pieces scattered throughout the film. Very unfunny was the take off of Charlie's Angels, which like the first Scary Movie and the Matrix spin off scene, basically recreated the scene without much humor injected into it.<br /><br />Today's youth might not be able to relate to the spoof gags of the classic supernatural horror films of the 70's such as the Exorcist and maybe of the 80s' Poltergeist, et. al.<br /><br />Hopefully Scary Movie 3 will take some time to put together, making the spoofs more enjoyable.<br /><br />One thing though, the film features more than the last one of promising young actress Anna Faris (whom I will admit seemed exceptionally hot in the sequel). Just for her casting and acting ability, I give this movie a "3" out of "10".
|
Negative
| null | null |
The year 1934 was when Shirley Temple played three major movies and really began to make a name for herself. Unfortunately, the studios had to experiment to see what the public best liked about here. Two of those things were singing and dancing. Another was a short, interesting film that kept people's attention and got their minds off The Depression. You know the other keys to Shirley's successful films.<br /><br />This film achieved none of the above, despite the star presences of Gary Cooper and Carole Lombard and despite a very good director in Henry Hathaway. In addition, there are too many talky parts in here which become simply boring, and too many arguments between a sullen Lombard and Cooper. To top it off, you didn't get the normal feel-good ending which is what the public wants. I guess they learned after this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! <br /><br />What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.<br /><br />The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unfortunately, one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering, silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate, clichéd screenplay. Hollow Man is a rather useless film.<br /><br />Practically everything seen here has been done to death - the characters, the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft!) - with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. However, it is just the same special effect done over and over again, and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. I was hoping before watching Hollow Man that the Invisible Man theme, which is hardly original in itself, would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. This is not so. It isn't long before the film turns into an overly-familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics - the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it's almost impressive.<br /><br />On top of all this, Kevin Bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. Good points might be a passable Jerry Goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts), a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. I was tempted to give this film three out of ten, but the effects push Hollow Man's merit up one notch.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film starts with a manager (Nicholas Bell) giving welcome investors (Robert Carradine) to Primal Park . A secret project mutating a primal animal using fossilized DNA, like ¨Jurassik Park¨, and some scientists resurrect one of nature's most fearsome predators, the Sabretooth tiger or Smilodon . Scientific ambition turns deadly, however, and when the high voltage fence is opened the creature escape and begins savagely stalking its prey - the human visitors , tourists and scientific.Meanwhile some youngsters enter in the restricted area of the security center and are attacked by a pack of large pre-historical animals which are deadlier and bigger . In addition , a security agent (Stacy Haiduk) and her mate (Brian Wimmer) fight hardly against the carnivorous Smilodons. The Sabretooths, themselves , of course, are the real star stars and they are astounding terrifyingly though not convincing. The giant animals savagely are stalking its prey and the group run afoul and fight against one nature's most fearsome predators. Furthermore a third Sabretooth more dangerous and slow stalks its victims.<br /><br />The movie delivers the goods with lots of blood and gore as beheading, hair-raising chills,full of scares when the Sabretooths appear with mediocre special effects.The story provides exciting and stirring entertainment but it results to be quite boring .The giant animals are majority made by computer generator and seem totally lousy .Middling performances though the players reacting appropriately to becoming food.Actors give vigorously physical performances dodging the beasts ,running,bound and leaps or dangling over walls . And it packs a ridiculous final deadly scene. No for small kids by realistic,gory and violent attack scenes . Other films about Sabretooths or Smilodon are the following : ¨Sabretooth(2002)¨by James R Hickox with Vanessa Angel, David Keith and John Rhys Davies and the much better ¨10.000 BC(2006)¨ by Roland Emmerich with with Steven Strait, Cliff Curtis and Camilla Belle. This motion picture filled with bloody moments is badly directed by George Miller and with no originality because takes too many elements from previous films. Miller is an Australian director usually working for television (Tidal wave, Journey to the center of the earth, and many others) and occasionally for cinema ( The man from Snowy river, Zeus and Roxanne,Robinson Crusoe ). Rating : Below average, bottom of barrel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is just horrible. It's boring, it's low quality, the actors are just the worst actors I have ever seen and the scenario is so bad that it's hilarious.<br /><br />The "main" actor is supposed to be the hot guy who gets all the girls, but he's ugly, overweight and looks like he's from the early 90's.<br /><br />All the characters are away for the week-end for a get together amongst friends, but nobody are actually friends! The married couple hasn't seen the "main" guy in over 5 years and even back then they weren't really friends. The "date" of the main guy only knows him from work and than there's a girl they pick-up at a bar. Now tell me that you would risk losing your job to spend a week-end at your cabin with people that aren't even your real friends. Because that's what he does at the beginning of the movie!<br /><br />Do not waste even one minute of your time on this lemon. I've made home movies scarier than this!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
You may say to yourself, "Don Johnson as Elvis? Can that work? Is it possible? Seems like an terrible choice to me, but perhaps I should have an open mind. Maybe I'll be surprised. Maybe he can pull it off."<br /><br />NOT!<br /><br />Don Johnson is not a bad actor. But he is an awful Elvis. He's too short, too weak-voiced, too sharply featured ... well you've already imagined how bad he would be. Add to that a hokey black wig and heavy-handed eye-liner and mascara and it's a big fat embarrassing mess.<br /><br />The best I can say is that since Johnson's acting is decent and since his impersonation is so far off, after a while you don't even think of him as Elvis anymore. You see him as some other crazed pop star instead. Then, on that level, the movie becomes watchable.<br /><br />Stephanie Zimbalist is also not ideally cast as the tall, beauty queen, Linda Thompson. But she is attractive in her own right and plays the part with the honesty, elegance and intelligence we've come to expect from all her roles. There may be too much intelligence in her performance. You have to be kind of a dope to stick with a dope abusing dope.<br /><br />There's nothing new to this story; we've heard it many times before. If you've looking for new info or insight, you won't find it. It's told as a love story - an unrequited one: Linda for Elvis and Elvis for drugs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to see this movie at our college theater thirty years ago because I liked Bruce Dern in Silent Running and Family Plot. To this day (sorry Jack Nicholson), it is still the dullest movie I've ever seen. It just went on and on with no discernible point and then - it just ended. The lights came up and I watched everyone looking around in confusion. Had the projectionist missed a reel? I've never had the urge to find out. All I remember about the movie is that it was a non-drama about some annoying college basketball players and their coach. The most enjoyable part of the movie was watching the totally mystified audience afterwords. Fortunately, this was just an exception for Jack, Bruce, and Karen Black.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was "42nd Street." I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.<br /><br />Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!<br /><br />Even the songs in here are anywhere near "42nd Street" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sure deep in the recesses of Jack Blacks mind the character of Nacho Libre is absolutely hilarious but no it isn't. You can tell ol Jacks having a whale of a time hammin it up playing a smarmy, slimy Mexican friar with dreams of becoming a wrestler but this movie is a total misfire in just about every single department.<br /><br />I just sat there through most of the movie thinking "Is this supposed to be funny" and "This is the guy from Tenacious D right?". The truth is this film has NOTHING to offer. AT ALL! It's a lousy script with crappy characters and really naff acting and direction. You'll watch endless moments where you think something funny is surely about to happen but it just doesn't. I was bored stupid about 10 minutes in but though it would surely pick up. It didn't. 90 minutes later I'd barely managed to stave off an aneurism it was that painful.<br /><br />It's like, remember years ago when you'd see anything with your fave actor in it, even some of their really early pap from before they were famous, and you'd be really embarrassed that said actor was actually in such a load of plop. Yeah it's like that.<br /><br />I've enjoyed some of Jack Black's earlier movies like Shallow Hall and I'm really looking forward to seeing Pick of Destiny but come on man. If you do this to us again Jack I'm gonna have to come round there and hammer your kneecaps or something. At the least give you a serious talking to.<br /><br />I know it's a cliché but this is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and for so many reasons....
|
Negative
| null | null |
As someone who likes chase scenes and was really intrigued by this fascinating true-life tale, I was optimistic heading into this film but too many obstacles got into the way of the good story it should have been.<br /><br />THE BAD - I'm a fan of Robert Duvall and many of the characters he has played, but his role here is a dull one as an insurance investigator.<br /><br />The dialog is insipid and the pretty Kathryn Harrold is real garbage-mouth. From what I read, there were several directors replacing each other on this film, and that's too bad. You can tell things aren't right with the story. I couldn't get "involved" with Treat Williams' portrayal of Cooper, either. He should have been fascinating, but he wasn't in this movie. It's also kind of a sad comment that a guy committing a crime is some sort of "folk hero," but I admit I wound up rooting for the guy, too.<br /><br />Not everything was disappointing. I can't complain about the scenery, from the lush, green forests of Oregon to the desert in Arizona.<br /><br />I'd like to see this movie re-made and done better, because it is a one-of-a-kind story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You might be tempted to rent this film because Peter Sellers appears in it. That would be a mistake. This is one of the most pointless films ever made. I kept waiting for something funny to happen, but nothing funny appears in this movie. Even the film industry recognized this was a very weak film and didn't even try to promote it. Its a wonder that it was ever put on video.<br /><br />I wonder what sort of contract caused Sellers to be in this film. I also wonder why the people responsible for this film were allowed to go on to make other bad films. Surely this film is a waste of the money used to create it, and a waste of anyone's time watching it. Surely there are high school students who would be able to write/produce a film which as a plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the acting, direction, scriptwriting and art direction this film is just entirely ill conceived and the money would have been better spent on shoes for land mine victims. When did we get so sad that they have to fill a a children's movie with sexual innuendo to keep the parents attention.<br /><br />Dr Suess is rolling in his grave right now, what with the "dirty ho" "S.H.I.T" and fake erection scenes etc etc etc. Its shameful how they trade on the name of Suess to get the parents to bring their kids, throw in the profanities to try for the teens and a few sad parents who won't watch a a film with their child if there is no T & A. Greed greed and more greed.<br /><br />Compare this to the classic children's films and we can get a disturbing view of world is turning into. These guys should stick to making MTV videos. How on earth this movie got >400 votes as a perfect 10 is beyond me. (unless its the directors family)
|
Negative
| null | null |
So, has it really come to this? Are we, as consenting adults, to blame for the next generation of cinema-goers lack of cinematic understanding and celluloid capability? Concerning the Wayans and Co. latest addition to the moving pictures scenario; Little Man. This United Kingdom P.G. (Parental Guidance), anyone under the age of twelve must be accompanied by a responsible adult, certificated movie, is the epitome of what has now developed into the worse case of dumbing down since cigarettes were "wiped out" from pictures of movie icons of the 1950's.<br /><br />The predominantly under twelve's audience here who, some without grown up supervision too, sat there, obediently, taking it all in, oblivious to their subject and the partly grown up features that Little Man portrays, in part at least too. Movies, in general, can do better than this poor attempt, while this nonsense is getting them in while they are still young and fresh, the biggest fear for the future of Cinema is that a child's ignorance just might carry on through to a grown up bliss. Cinema deserves more than this, and so do its ever growing, and in the literal sense too, audiences, this blatant cash cow feeds on the ever-impressionable minds of the young.<br /><br />There is no Cinema experience here, no open eyed wonder, no awe-inspiring respect to the magic of movies'. There is nothing but bewilderment and contempt, for the lack of substance, originality and its delivery of mind less tedium and parody of everything that is so now ultimately wrong with the Hollywood machine, for the sake of a quick buck, we must endure our future cinema audiences to the likes of this archetypal disaster movie.<br /><br />Will this have the likes of Hitchcock, Fassbinder, Leone, Kubrick and Schaffner reeling in their graves? Money they all liked, no doubt, but talent and exuberance for perfection and quality, and to a vast degree, respect for their profession and audience, they were never short off. We are seeing, once again, with the works of the Wayans clan another cliché of bad taste, while the likes of White Chicks (2004) were in no doubt a stab at the bourgeoisie of American society. The irony here is that the two leading protagonists, played yet again, by the Wayans brothers, are so much undercover, that all recognition is non-existent, this makes for a better movie too, and it is the actor Terry Crews that gives White Chicks its substance and personality, not the Wayans.<br /><br />Yet again, with their pastiche of 1970's Blaxploitation movies, as with the 1988 movie I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, this to can be seen as a comical and amusing movie, with heavy weights as Isaac Hayes, Jim Brown, Bernie Casey and the gorgeous actress Ja'net Du Bois. The point being, that Little Man has absolutely no persona of any kind what so ever, he is shallow and narcissistic, with no appreciation or value toward his followers, he quickly dives in takes your money and before we know it, has hidden himself within the cogs of commercialism. There is no recognisable effort as to where our money has been spent, after Scary Movie (2000), things could only have gone up, but alas they did not, no great pondering of artistic value and no doubt that the instalment from these intrepid movie moguls' next movies shall be straight to video, one can only hope.<br /><br />The Wayans seem to have created a movie genre all by themselves, to a certain extent; they have bludgeoned to death the movie parody, they have watered down each and every avenue and with their inevitable style. They have slowly destroyed the reputation of the last one hundred years that Cinema have given us, may the ghosts of movies past be ever so humble in their judgement, as their growing audiences, so far, seem to be, for when the bubble bursts, may they be as understanding too.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is a great tragedy that both Richard Harris and John Derek are no longer with us. But that shouldn't blind anybody to the fact that in 1981, a pretty ugly blotch appears on both men's CVs. No doubt John Derek conceived this movie doing for his wife what 'Some Like it Hot' and 'One Million Years BC' did for Maryln Monroe and Raquel Welsh respectively, creating an iconic sex symbol for the new decade. Having run to embrace Dudley Moore on the beach in '10' Bo's reputation, an all-star cast and location filming in Sri Lanka meant that nothing could go wrong. Alas, as they say, Mortals plan and God laughs. It is said that when this film premiered in 1981, the Edgar Rice Burrows estate tried to take legal action against it. Bo Derek plays Jane Parker who sets off into turn-of-the century Africa to be reunited with her boozy, abusive Dad, Richard Harris. Daddy Parker is an explorer who has set out to find 'the Great Inland Sea' the stuff of local legend, whose existence has been poo-pooed by conventional wisdom. Harris is worth watching for a wonderfully hammy, tanked -up performance which includes singing an Irish ditty at an Indian elephant that somehow found its way into Africa (did it arrive at the same time as the Orang-Utan from Sumatra???) Furthermore, although Jane professes to despise Parker, Bo and Rich's relationship is creepily incestuous, testimony perhaps to the effects of the tropical heat. Before long, however, local legends start to circulate about a 'Great White Ape' and Jane hears the famous yodel. This is the movie's cue for Miles O'Keefe, a future B-Movie star, making a rather odd debut as the loin-clothed Lord of the Jungle. Unlike Johnny Weismuller with his pidgin English or Ron Ely who speaks the language fluently, the O'Keefe Tarzan is mute. Given some of Bo and Richie's dialog, though, this is probably not a bad thing. Harris and his caravan eventually reaches the Great Inland Sea, located atop a gigantic plateau that seems to run halfway across Africa....hang on, aren't seas, lakes and other watery places generally located in low-lying areas?? Nevermind, it is just one of many anomalies in the John Derek universe. The crew attempt to mount the cliffs and when the ropes snap, Harris roars echoing abuse at the hapless men who have plummeted to their deaths. On another occasion, Jane decides to take a nude swim by the Inland Sea, giving another occasion to see some gratuitous nudity. Out of nowhere a single male lion appears. Now lions usually travel in prides and never go near beaches but later on, Tarzan will be wrestling with a (venomous) boa constrictor. Zoology doesn't seem to have been one of John Derek's strong points..... This being a Tarzan movie, Jane becomes enchanted with the Lord of the Jungle and resolves to take his virginity. But having seen his closeness to some of those chimps, you do have to wonder...Speaking of which, it's not only the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate could have sued. It is highly probable that certain primates were on the phone to their lawyers: the chimps here make you miss Cheeta badly. Especially when they do ridiculous things like ride on the backs of elephants and clap their hands when Tarzan and Jane finally get it on! The climax of this film has Bo and Harris captured by some rather stereotypical cannibals who paint our heroine and prepare to sacrifice/eat/execute her. Suffice is to say that The Great Wooden Ape gets his girl and *SPOILER* Harris gets himself impaled on a huge elephant tusk! This doesn't stop the dying Parker from delivering a rambling monologue to Jane. As far as I am aware, the law suit from the Rice Burrows estate never materialized but 'Tarzan the Ape Man' was crucified at the box office (no kidding?) A pity. John Derek could have directed 'Tarzan the Ape Man 2' with Bo Derek and Miles O'Keefe living in domestic bliss and Dudley Moore as 'Boy.'
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is absolutely pointless, one of the good esamples how Malcom McDowall never got one decent role after Clockwork Orange. This one may be one of the worst though. No story, crappy special effects, shot in 4:3/or even worse cropped on DVD, just avoid it ....
|
Negative
| null | null |
SPOILERS All too often, Hollywood's Shakespeare adaptations entertaining pieces of cinema. Beautifully shot they are well performed and faithful to the text. Films including Branagh's "Henry V" and 1993's "Much Ado About Nothing" are powerful pieces of work. Watching "Love's Labour's Lost" therefore, it's such a huge disappointment for expectation to be so hideously thrown to waste. Sadly "Love's Labour's Lost" is awful! The King of Navarre (Alessandro Nivola) and his friends have forsaken drink and women for three years to focus on their studies. Plans begin to fall apart however when the enigmatic Princess of France (Alicia Silverstone) and her entourage arrive. Soon love is in the air and philosophy is off the Prince's mind.<br /><br />From the start, you realise that this film is not quite Shakespeare. Cleverly relocated into a 1930s musical by Ken Branagh, the plot is still there and the script remains, but now it has been sacrificed in favour of dire musical taste. Classics like "The Way You Look Tonight", "Let's Face The Music and Dance", "I'm in Heaven" are all destroyed by weak singing and a strong feel that they just don't belong here.<br /><br />Aside from weak singing, we are also treated to an increasingly large number of awkward performances by regular stars. Ken Branagh and friends might enjoy making this film, but they provide us with a stomach turning collection of roles.<br /><br />The main eight actors (four men & four women) are all equally dire, and the only positive on their behalf is a vast improvement on the truly dreadful Timothy Spall.<br /><br />In fact, only one individual leaves the film worthy of any praise and that's the consistently magnificent Nathan Lane. Lane has proved over the years that he is a comedy genius and in this feature he once again adds an air of humour to the jester Costard.<br /><br />There's little else to be said really. "Love's Labour's Lost" deserves mild praise for Branagh's original take on an old tale. Unfortunately though, that's where the positives end. Weakly acted, performed, sang and constructed, "Love's Labour's Lost" is perhaps the weakest Shakespeare adaptation of the last forty years. It should be avoided like the plague and should never have been made. A poor, disappointing choice by Branagh and here's hoping his next effort is better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw the previews for this movie, I didn't expect much to begin with - around a second rate teen horror movie. But wow, this movie was absolutely awful. And that's being generous.<br /><br />First of all, the casting for the movie was terrible. You feel no sympathy (or for that matter any morbid feeling) for the characters. The acting was so terrible that I was just simply waiting and hoping for the God-awful thing to end.<br /><br />Secondly, there are points in the movie that had absolutely no relation to the plot whatsoever. Can somebody please explain to me why the girlish-looking boy starts screaming "PANCAKES!!!" at the top of his lungs while going into Jackie Chan moves I've never seen before, and even further biting the guy who has the virus? Why does the father of the kid proceed to get angry with the virus-infected guy, and go on a redneck hunting spree to find him? I was left with a feeling of such confusion and utter disbelief that I literally said out loud, "Where the hell did that come from?"<br /><br />I just simply couldn't believe what I had seen. I really thought I had seen some bad movies, but I have to say that Cabin Fever tops them all. This movie made me want to puke and then puke again. Then blow my brains out.<br /><br />Please, save yourself an hour and a half and do something more productive. Watching grass grow, perhaps, is a proper alternative.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Of the ten actors who portrayed Philo Vance in the series, Edmund Lowe seemed the most personable, but in this script the audience is way ahead of the famed detective. After all, when the jockey, Douglas Walton, stares blankly in space, obviously hypnotized, and says something like "I must ride and be killed," I felt it was dumb that no one picked up on it after he does get killed. The police thought it was a suicide because he said he would do it! After hated horse owner Gene Lockhart gets shot and killed, Frieda Inescort does the same thing, saying she's going out to be killed, and then fatally jumps off a bus. I laughed when Lowe finally yells "I got it," as though it were a revelation. The guilty party, however, was cleverly concealed and there was considerable suspense generated when that party starts to hypnotize Lowe to get him to jump off a roof.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I realize it's not supposed to be BSG and I can handle slow-paced shows if they're interesting but I find myself completely uninterested and bored with this series.<br /><br />The formula for BSG seemed to be: Action + Adventure + SciFi + Suspense + Mystery + Drama<br /><br />the formula for Caprica seems to be: Bland Drama + Moderate Scifi<br /><br />Maybe it will get more interesting but as of episode 3 I can barely watch it. In fact, it's at the bottom of my to-watch list for the week. This is a sad state of affairs. The Syfi channel really destroyed their Friday night lineup. Whatever happened to the glory days of SG1, Stargate Atlantis, and BSG on Friday nights? They had a good thing there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If Fassbinder has made a worse film, I sure don't want to see it! Anyone who complains that his films are too talky and claustrophobic should be forced to view this, to learn to appreciate the more spare style he opted for in excellent films like "The Bitter Tears Of Petra von Kant". This film bogs down with so much arty, quasi-symbolic images it looks like a parody of an "art-film". The scene in the slaughterhouse and the scene where Elvira's prostitute friend channel-surfs for what seems like ten minutes are just two of the most glaring examples of what makes this film a real test of the viewer's endurance. But what really angers me about it are the few scenes which feature just Elvira and her ex-wife and/or her daughter. These are the only moments that display any real human emotion, and prove that at the core of this horrible film, there was an excellent film struggling to free itself. What a waste.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.