input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I watched this movie for its two hours and have absolutely no idea what it's about. Somebody got murdered or maybe they didn't and maybe somebody did it or maybe they didn't. This brought back memories of the good old days (bad old days?) when all CBC Canadian movies were stinkers. Lately stinkers have been the exception but this confused hodge podge of trendy feminism, mind reeling flash backs and mumbled dialogue makes up for lost time. I've never found Margaret Atwood's books easy to read. This movie continues that fine Canadian tradition. It isn't easy to watch. Maybe the trendy folks at the chi chi Toronto cocktail parties will pretend they liked it. Us folks in the boonies are a little less pretentious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.<br /><br />There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay the promos promised a comedy and people(few) went to watch it Being the first release of 2006 is not a bad thing, or for that matter of any year, because the first and last films mostly flop except GHAJINI and some more<br /><br />Okay coming to JAWANI DIWANI<br /><br />Review in short The film is about Emraan Hashmi doing his usual stuff sadly it's annoying this time after repetitions It has an irritating Hrishita Bhatt and a flop Celina Jaitley<br /><br />Cringeworthy dialogues, comedy scenes and badly handled drama and lots of loopholes<br /><br />Direction is bad Emraan Hashmi is annoying here, luckily now he is coming of age But post FOOTPATH and MURDER and some decent work in some more films the actor in him took a backseat and directors focused on his kisses and womaniser image which sadly lost it's touch after repetitions Hrishita and Celina are bad Mahesh is horrible
|
Negative
| null | null |
A young basketball-playing professor of genetics is doing research on the genetic sequence, using human fetuses. He hopes to be able to find a cure for all diseases and aging. He's pressured into concluding his research because he hasn't published, so the university is having trouble justifying funding him (I think).<br /><br />He does a trial injection on a monkey, which quickly dies. He then tries it on himself. He starts a relationship with the single mother of an extremely annoying little boy; she's the one who had been demanding results from the research.<br /><br />Initially, he seems to have no effects from the injection, except some new strength. He then realizes that he had some memory loss, and starts recalling what happened. Additionally, he starts to appear very unhealthy.<br /><br />Since the movie is named metamorphosis, he does eventually change into something else. You won't believe your eyes - either what he turned into, or the absolutely crappy costume the actor is wearing to depict what he's turned into. Incredibly, there's a further change in store - the end of the movie is really, really absurd.<br /><br />About the only thing this movie has going for it is that Laura Gemser is in it, but she has a very small part.<br /><br />I'd once seen a the video box for this with a sculpted plastic form glued to the boxcover. Possibly it might even have had some electronics in it at one time, perhaps eyes that light up (the main character's eyes occasionally turn green in the movie). The copy I watched had a box that only showed tear marks where the glue had held on the plastic, which had been removed. The novelty boxcover, if it still had it, would have been the only reason I would have held onto this movie; I'm definitely getting rid of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So I finally saw the film "My Left Foot" last night after years of being told by my mother how amazing it is... The central performance of Day-Lewis is indeed remarkable and amazing, but anyone with even minimal exposure to his other work should expect nothing less.<br /><br />The fatal misjudgement in my eyes was that in becoming obsessed with proving the normalcy of this man; the movie chose to show him as a complete and utter jerk. On the one hand I can see that this is a logical correlation; mankind always has the capacity to be objectionable, and disability shouldn't obscure that. I just wish that impartial onlookers wouldn't be so forgiving of aberrant behaviour and assume that circumstances automatically make it forgivable. They don't. Acting out is normal, and so yes, disabled people act out - but they don't do it because they're disabled; they do it because they're being unreasonable. A physical impairment doesn't afford you the right to throw a hissy fit in public, just because someone you love turns you down.<br /><br />There are certain things it is unwise to do whether you are disabled or able-bodied. Giving someone tacit permission to boot a football directly at your head for the sole purpose of fitting in is one of them. (Admittedly, I did once save a penalty from the school's star striker with my face, but I already belonged by then. It wasn't for acceptance.) Engaging in a bar brawl is another. Revelling in the fact that your father only extends companionship to you after you've proved yourself capable of metaphorically jumping through physical hoops takes masochism a step too far. All of these things are stupid, and suffering through them as a way to demonstrate your bravery doesn't make them any less foolhardy.<br /><br />So yes; just because you've overcome obstacles to achieve great things doesn't make you any less of a jerk... Being a good person takes priority; setting an inspiring example for the disabled should appear way down the list.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite positive reviews and screenings at the international festivals, this movie is not for everyone.<br /><br />The story is very similar to other movies, in which a teenage girl from the family of immigrants needs to overcome many common personal problems of her age, and also to struggle against the pressure of ethnic traditions in her family. She does that by choosing some kind of sport, and with the help of a local boy, that for some reason falls in love with her, she confronts her problems and wins.<br /><br />In Girlfight it's boxing, in Bend it like Beckham it's soccer, and now it's Kung Fu.<br /><br />But Fighter is much inferior product than these two, it was simply embarrassing to watch it. Semra Turan, the "actress" that playing the role of a teenage girl, maybe can do a lot of things, but one thing she can't do is to act. Her presence on the screen is anemic and clumsy, the dramatic situations, in which she tries to show some emotions, are dreadful, her body and facial language are of amateur actress, badly instructed by the director. The rest of the cast is a little better, but they just cannot save this cliché movie with stereotypical characters and shallow plot. Besides a few relatively good moments this movie has nothing new or interesting to offer.<br /><br />Even the kung fu fighting is not a reason to watch this, it's just so boring. The slow motion was really unnecessary, the choreography was basic and lacked the inspiration, and most of the kung fu scenes are just training or standing in all kind of kung fu positions, not actually fighting. Not to mention how ridiculous it looks when a small and skinny girl fights big and muscular boys, and knocks them off their feet. <br /><br />The only reason this movie has been noticed at all is because it's European. It's very easy to publicize this movie - A first martial arts film from Denmark, but don't be fooled, it's not. It's just a drama about stupid teenage girl and her problems, which are, by the way, not really convincing.<br /><br />Bad movie with embarrassing lines, acting and story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing worse than surfers without any waves is a film about surfers without any waves. For viewers who love surfing this film will be a gigantic disappointment since the total number of minutes of surfing footage struggles to reach three.<br /><br />The story is a slice of life about beached surfers who are waiting not for the perfect wave, but for any wave at all. J.C. (Sean Pertwee) is an aging super surfer who is flirting with a commitment with his girlfriend Chloe (Catherine Zeta Jones). Just as he is about to find grown up bliss with the woman he loves, three old surfing friends turn up and convince him to hit the beach looking for monster waves at the Bone Yard. The trouble is, there are no waves until the very end of the film, so most of the story dissipates itself on a meandering succession of disconnected beach happenings.<br /><br />The acting is mostly mediocre. Sean Pertwee has a few comical moments, but mostly his acting was mundane. Ewan McGregor was decent as the drug dealing wild man, by far the most interesting and peculiar character of the bunch. Probably the funniest performance was turned in by Peter Gunn as Terry who turned his corpulent body into a continual sight gag. Catherine Zeta-Jones was sexy as usual, but her character didn't really have enough meat for her to show much acting ability.<br /><br />There is really not much here on which to comment. I rated it a 3/10. It's a real beach bummer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
|
Negative
| null | null |
High heels are tricksy things. They can elevate women (or cross-dressing men) to newfound heights, put forward a sharp statement of style and bring a touch of fragile elegance. Alternatively, they can be a perilous foot pain that will inevitably lead to trips, falls and ultimate tragedy. Tacones lejanos is more of a disappointment trip than a stylish high riser.<br /><br />Almodóvar's mother-daughter drama is stylish for sure, but in terms of plot it's a tongue-tied and tedious affair full of confusing, complex characters that never fully engage or make sense. A few moments of comedy aside, Tacones lejanos just isn't interesting. The best bit comes at the beginning in a marvellously macabre case of manslaughter orchestrated by a child. From this brilliant bit of black comedy things are looking up, but then the film comes to a heel.<br /><br />There's solid enough acting performances and there's some stylish, arty direction that you'd expect from Almodóvar, but otherwise Tacones lejanos isn't an impressive piece of Spanish cinema. With a story of murder, showbiz, femininity, fractured mother-daughter relationship and a character who is alternately a judge, a transvestite and a police informer this could have been a melodramatic powerhouse. Instead it's poor. High Heels stumbles for sure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A dog found in a local kennel is mated with Satan and has a litter of puppies, one of which is given to a family who has just lost their previous dog to a hit & run. The puppy wants no time in making like Donald Trump and firing the Mexican housekeeper, how festive. Only the father suspects that this canine is more then he appears, the rest of the family loves the demonic pooch. So it's up to dad to say the day.<br /><br />This late 70's made for TV horror flick has little going for it except a misplaced feeling of nostalgia. When I saw this as a kid I found it to be a tense nail-biter, but revisiting it as an adult I now realize that it's merely lame,boring, and not really well-acted in the least bit.<br /><br />My Grade: D
|
Negative
| null | null |
T. Rama Rao made some extremely beautiful films in the 1980s, but he seems to be a filmmaker who cannot mature with the changing times, styles and fashions. He's like stuck with the same old-fashioned film-making style.<br /><br />Actors are not bad, not good either. Anil Kapoor generally acts convincingly his two roles of a father and his son, but the flawed script often makes him look funny and pathetic. Rekha is good, but then - she's always good, and here she's nothing more than such. She makes the best of what she is given, but she always does that. In conclusion, nothing great at all. Raveena is OK, which means ordinary, not bad, not good, nothing.<br /><br />This film is melodramatic, occasionally stupid. Maybe it's a delayed film? Well, even then it still would be below standard. The script is terrible, the film is overdone, and the story goes nowhere. It feels like a film made in the early 1990s, but the script makes it look even older, the style is like from the 1950s.<br /><br />Don't recommend, unless you're a big fan one of the starring actors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a Christian. I have always been skeptical about movies made by Christians, however. As a rule, they are "know-nothings" when it comes to movie production. I admire TBN for trying to present God and Jesus in a positive and honest way on the screen. However, they did a hideous job of it. The acting was horrible, and unless one is familiar with the Bible in some fashion, one COULD NOT have understood what the movie was trying to get across. Not only was the movie terribly made, but the people who made it even had some facts wrong. However, in this "critique", those facts are irrelevent and too deep to delve into. In short, the Omega Code is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen, and I would not recommend it to anyone, except for comic relief from the every day grind.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Come on! Get over with the Pakistan bashing guys. Bollywood can not only make brilliant movies- but can seriously affect a generation of viewers.<br /><br />I am a HUGE Bollywood fan- but anti-Pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay, cinematography, action sequences- everything.<br /><br />I'm really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda, and there are movies like Main Hoon Na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its Bollywood masala- but also because it tries to say: give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I find myself wondering what the people who gave this a 10 saw in it that I didn't. This movie has a VERY hard time following and/or staying to a plot. If someone tells you it's a comedy, don't be fooled, it's about 98% percent odd-drama and 2% comedy. All actors turn in a great performance, that cannot be denied, however it seems like it really lost something somewhere. Don't know if the original script was good and it had to be edited down or what. This had potential, and instead it was really a flop. I would really like the hour and a half I invested in this movie back, but the video rental place doesn't do returns on time. Save your money and see something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, how's this for original- this mean, rich old geezer leaves his estate to his adult children, all of them ungrateful losers, and two creepy servants, provided they spend the week in his spooky old house. What happens that night will surprise only those who haven't seen a movie or television show before. After a string of murders in which the victims look like they're bleeding restaurant ketchup, we have a painfully obvious twist ending. The cast is lead by some once respectable actors must have been desperate for their paychecks. There are also a few second-tier actors who were rising at the time but long forgotten now. As a result, the film generates all the drama and mystery of an episode of "Matlock." I will give credit where it's due- the closing scene is clever and amusing, if you're still awake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, what a waste of acting talent. My husband and I sat there, both thinking, this has to get better, these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. Unattractive characters, hackneyed script, and listless pacing make for a long two hours. I actually couldn't hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). The husband stayed and confirmed that it didn't get better--by the time Buddy is killed, you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. It would be infinitely more entertaining. Beautiful scenery and costumes can't keep this one alive.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Violence whether real or not always has an impact. In this film the violence is about as crass as you could ask for. In the Great Ecstacy the director has successfully demonstrated what extremes of violence people are capable of. But what was the point? The violence looks like a mix of Noë's 'Irreversible, and ' Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange'...both of which are remarkable films. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to screen violence at all and I've seen some nasty stuff in my film-going years, but this film as a whole is totally juvenile. The story is never developed enough to offer any reason for the extreme violence, the rizla paper thin reason we are give for Robert's demise is his introduction to drugs. Danny Dyer plays the character who is partly responsible for Robert's drug fuelled demise, however he is on screen for less than 5 minutes. Lesley Manville is Robert's unable to cope mum, I am not sure what either of these actors is doing in a film of this low caliber. The acting is wooden, the scene in the kitchen with the TV-cook and his wife for instance is as painful to watch if not more so than the shocking finale- who wrote those dialogues?! Some of the comments the boys make...'looks like she's enjoying it' are so trite as to tempt one to laugh if it were not for Clay's ardent desire to bombard us with harrowing images of mutilated female genitals. Why we need to be shown such detail possibly down to the director's adolescent obsession with sadistic pornographic imagery...one can only wonder at this young man's psychology.<br /><br />The 'political meaning' of the film was repeatedly brought to our attention due to the amount of scenes; in the bar, outside the TV-cook's house, war in Iraq reports, was perhaps too obvious in my opinion. Yes, war is violent, social determinism causes frustration, we're all prone to horrifingly violent acts whether you're in politics or on the street popping E. Juxtaposing all these things as part of the same underlying issue is evading the actual issue which is the meaning of violence in man. This issue is one that we still haven't managed to grasp and certainly not in this film.<br /><br />My opinion: derivative, badly-made and pointless.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.<br /><br />I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having watched this movie on the SciFi channel, I can only conclude that this film was made by a bunch of amateurs who have never seen a movie in their lives. The film is an endless sequence of bizarre occurrences, or "delights" as the friend reading over my shoulder is telling me. The plot isn't really worth commenting as, but basically a plane carrying football players crashes into Yeti territory. Before the movie is over, we are treated to yetis ripping hearts out, yetis waddling in an effort to run before jumping 50 meters, yetis ripping a man's legs off and beating him with them, a woman killing a rabbit at 30 meters with a javelin, a yeti surviving several bullets and being set on fire with no apparent harm, a yeti dangling off a cliff by holding to a man's shoe, yet then jumps off, and a whole collection of further, bizarre occurrences. Basically, if you aren't staying up on a Saturday for the expressed purpose of watching the worst of SciFi channel original movies, avoid this film like the plague. Or as my friend reading over my shoulder says: "It's the best movie I have ever seen." To which the friend on my right says: "Only battle techno music could have made it better."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I imagine when Hitchcock scholars and experts find themselves together, the talk is not of the Master's great films like "North By Northwest" or "Strangers On A Train", but a lesser-known effort like this one from 1931, obscure and seriously flawed, which showcases the great director in fledgling form.<br /><br />Emily and Fred Hill (Joan Barry and Harry Kendall) are a middle-class London couple scrimping to stay ahead. He begrudges their lot; she accepts it. Change comes in the form of a letter from an uncle, saying he will set them up so they can enjoy a life of globetrotting luxury. They make plans for a world cruise. But their problems have only begun.<br /><br />Just ask Richard Hannay, Roger O. Thornhill, or Marion Crane. Well, Marion's indisposed at the moment, but you get the idea. Travel and Hitchcock go together like moths and candlelight, setting one up for a perilous journey at best. This is perhaps Hitchcock's earliest foray into this theme, and not his most successful or memorable. Hitchcock tries to mix comedy with another element, in this case domestic drama rather than suspense, but the two do not cohere, at least not here.<br /><br />The Hills are a dull, flat couple, with no chemistry or personality. When they find themselves at the Folies Bergère, in the form of cross-cutting with footage that looks ten years older than the rest of this film, they are abashed at the outfits of the female performers. "The curtain's gone up too soon!" gasps Emily. "They aren't dressed."<br /><br />When the Hills drift away from each other on an ocean cruise, it seems a mercy killing more than a tragic thing, even if the people they partner off with are drips, too. Emily's man, Gordon (Percy Marmont) carries around photographs of himself sitting next to empty chairs, which he suggests be filled by Emily. Fred's girl "the Princess" (Betty Amann) has Clara Bow's eyes and Wallace Beery's five o'clock shadow. There's also an obnoxious fellow passenger, a dowdy spinster whom Hitchcock always introduces with a cartoonish horn cue. Subtlety was still to come.<br /><br />Everything is shot in an abrupt manner, with confusing blocking and strained dialogue. Hitchcock tries for some early comedy with Fred and his umbrella that doesn't come off, and Kendall seems to aim for laughs while Berry plays for tears. When Fred and Emily break off, they are seen being jostled on a pair of wedged-together rickshaws, one of many clunky attempts at symbolism.<br /><br />Emily's the only vaguely sympathetic character, in part because she really cares about her husband and agonizes over her affair with Gordon, but mostly because she's among the first of Hitchcock's many magnetic blondes, her platinum ringlets whipping around her face like a Botticelli aboard the open deck of a Chinese junk near the film's conclusion.<br /><br />Matters conclude with a dangerous situation as set-piece for the protagonists to come to grips with, and presumably repair their relationship. Only they aren't active participants in the resolution, and except for the fate of a friendly cat, nothing about the ending resonates.<br /><br />At least you get some enjoyable views of London in the early 1930s, and a chance to see Hitchcock when he was still working for food. "Rich And Strange" is Hitchcock paying his dues, and learning his trade, one for scholars but not casual film goers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here's a movie with a good cast and nice looking location work but it just don't have it. Director Richard Brooks must have been a little bit tired at this stage of the game; How much better his THE PROFESSIONALS was! The horses and the rest of the action seemed to be in slow motion even during the non-slow motion scenes. This film needed to be sped-up, if anything. That horse lather sure looked awful phony to me and the obvious tire tracks in those desert tracking moments- just lazy. sloppy work. Too bad. The actors did OK, but I've certainly seen all of them do better. Ben Johnson's always a joy, though. I first saw this flick almost 30 years ago; was disappointed then and remained so upon second viewing 30 years later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.<br /><br />Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.<br /><br />The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.<br /><br />No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first half hour or so of this movie I liked. The obvious budding romance between Ingrid Bergman and Mel Ferrer was cute to watch and I wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. However, once the action switched to the home of Ingrid's fiancé, it all completely fell apart. Instead of romance and charm, we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. The fiancé's boorish son and the military attaché's vying for the maid's attention looked stupid--sort of like a subplot from an old Love Boat episode. How the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. This film is an obvious attempt by Renoir to recapture the success he had with THE RULES OF THE GAME, as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). I was not a huge fan of THE RULES OF THE GAME, but ELENA AND HER MEN had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This woman who works as an intern for a photographer goes home and takes a bath where she discovers this hole in the ceiling. So she goes to find out that her neighbor above her is a photographer. This movie could have had a great plot but then the plot drains of any hope. The problem I had with this movie is that every ten seconds, someone is snorting heroin. If they took out the scenes where someone snorts heroin, then this would be a pretty good movie. Every time I thought that a scene was going somewhere, someone inhaled the white powder. It was really lame to have that much drug use in one movie. It pulled attention from the main plot and a great story about a photographer. The lesbian stuff didn't bother me. I was looking for a movie about art. I found a movie about drug use.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This piece of crap, since I can't call it a movie, can be summed up by the following.<br /><br />-Stereotypical black criminal with black midget partner get in trouble -Black Midget pretends to be a baby with a fully developed adult face, body hair and genitalia -Black midget is mistaken(somehow) by man and woman who happen to want a baby -Black midget than goes on to commit acts of physical and sexual violence, demean white people wherever he sees them, and commit more crimes -Happy Ending<br /><br />Honestly, it could have been a good satire if it hadn't been directed so shallowly and had such talentless bastards star in it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the "set." Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern "slasher," but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la "Scream" (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of "is this real or is this a movie" a la "New Nightmare." The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: "Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own," to which he responds, "that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!" Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. "You got any diet coke in here?" (as she rides in the film professor's car) and "Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?" (the first thing she mutters on the set) and "Where the hell is my agent?" (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not a big fan of the Stooges' slapstick, but I find their history interesting. I've recently tried to check out stuff from each Stooge era, but the opportunity to see Joe shorts doesn't seem to come easy; this is the only one I've seen so far.<br /><br />Some say the quality problems with Joe-era shorts are really not Joe's fault, and I suspect that's the case. Joe as a performer is far from the worst thing about this. The thing that bothers me the most about it has been pointed out in another comment: the pitting of the other guys against the third violates the whole comedy-team/Stooges ethos. Perhaps Joe's style was perceived, by those in charge, as not really fitting in -- though there were no real off-camera conflicts between him & the others -- and this was their way of working around that.<br /><br />And what's with the titles of this and some of the other late Stooges shorts? Definitely a lack of creativity going on there; was that sort of thing the cause or the effect of the shorts market drying up?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Invasion of the Star Creatures would definitely be in the "so bad it's good" category if the film wasn't quite so sexist or racist. That it is such just makes it plain bad.<br /><br />It has the same kind of hardline stereotypical sexism that you saw in Queen of Outer Space, and the kind of racist stereotypes (in this instance, Native Americans) that you would normally find in thirties & forties b-westerns. In terms of being non-funny, the same walking-through-the-cave gag is repeated well over ten times during the course of this fairly short movie. Ray does do one good impression of Jimmy Cagney (but can't make it work for two impressions of Cagney in a row, nor handle a Peter Lorre when he tries it). There really aren't any production values to speak of, as the "Star Creatures" make the Ro-Man from Robot Monster or Tor Johnson in Plan 9 from Outer Space look like creations of Industrial Light and Magic.<br /><br />This film was definitely one of a vanguard of what you would have to call early independent cinema...not artsy enough for those theaters and not good enough for anything but the last feature of an all-night drive-in.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking "Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you." It's all pretty ridiculous.<br /><br />Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.<br /><br />One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, the box looks promising. Whoopi Goldberg standing next to Danny Glover parodying the famous farmer and his wife painting. Then you pop this baby in the DVD player and all hope is lost in less then five minutes. Supposed to be a comedy. And I must admit I did laugh once about ten minutes before the ending. This movie has the following elements: A battered and abused next door neighbor, a boring legal trial, racisim, talk of lynchings, and death and arson. Hilarious, huh? No, please, if you never listen to anyone's reviews, please do here. You cannot even force yourself to watch this crap. CRAP! I said it, CRAP! Whoever put there name on this should indeed sue.
|
Negative
| null | null |
December holiday specials, like the original Frosty, ought to be richly-produced with quality music and a wholesome, yet lighthearted storyline. They should have a touch of the mystical magic of the holidays. Basically, they should look, sound, and feel...well, "special" and they should have a decent and appropriate December holiday subtext.<br /><br />So when I saw Legend of Frosty the Snowman in the TV listings, I got my kids (6 and 8) pumped up for it by telling them the story of the original Frosty and passionately relating how much I enjoyed it as a kid. As my wife and kids cozied up on the couch to watch the movie the expectations were high, but 10 minutes into it my kids were yawning and my wife and I were giving each other "the look" and rolling our eyes. After 35 minutes my kids were actually asking to go to bed -- I guess they were fed up with the insensitive language and pointless, disconnected segments. I was actually embarrassed about their (and my) disappointment with this movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Legend of Frosty the Snowman is more like a bad episode of Fairly Odd Parents crossed with a worse-than-normal episode of Sponge Bob than a classic holiday movie. Don't get me wrong...those shows are fine and I like them as much as the next guy, but when I watch Fairly Odd Parents or Sponge Bob, my low expectations (for mediocre, off-color, zero subtext, mind numbing episodes) are always satisfied.<br /><br />We picked out some good books and spent the rest of the evening reading together. A much better choice than the embarrassingly bad Legend of Frosty the Snowman.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is. <br /><br />The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era. <br /><br />For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.<br /><br />Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the story of two guys who found a copy of 'Funky Monkey.' Finding this seemed odd at the time figuring that there are still posters for the movie at the local Cineplex Odeon. After seeing such classics as 'Every Which Way But Loose' and 'Project X,' these two guys figured movies with monkeys are awesome.<br /><br />These guys were in for a long ride as they watched this movie. There was some monkey that was replaced by a Stunt MAN when action sequences were required. It was apparent that the monkey wasn't trained in the school of Shakespearean acting. Perhaps replacing the monkey with Ben Affleck might have helped the guys thought.<br /><br />Maybe a strong sidekick would help like a Jackie Chan or heck maybe even Hulk Hogan. Luckily this movie had amazing martial artist and Jet Li look-a-like Matthew Modine. While some might argue that Matthew Modine doesn't come close to Jet Li, camera tricks prove that he is every bit as good. When it becomes obvious that an untrained chimp can't handle the movie, the movie leans on Matthew Modine to be the real star.<br /><br />Did I mention that there is some dorky kid that develops a bond with Modine and the monkey? Is there a possibility that the kid learns confidence and even picks up a girl in this movie? Even Matthew Modine should get jealous with this one (because using the pick-up line 'I'm second fiddle to a monkey' doesn't seem to work with the ladies.)<br /><br />Shortly after watching this movie the two guys got a phone call from Matthew Modine telling them 'Seven days.'
|
Negative
| null | null |
Christ. A sequel to one of the most cloying films of all time, this at least has the decency to leave out the songs (bar a reprise of the unbearable "Tomorrow") but does continue the tradition of being nauseating and unfunny. This time, Annie and her friends head off to London and get caught up in Joan Collins's plot to blow up Buckingham Palace or some such shite. The movie has a bizarrely sycophantic attitude towards its eponymous character at odds with how irritating she is: every time the little bugger squeals "Leapin' lizards!" I could feel my teeth grinding themselves down into powder. Drearily photographed, slushy and plodding, the movie has only one memorable line ("Unhand me, you stupid genius!") and the fact that it's not the original to recommend it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
JUDAAI was a bold film by Raj Kanwar at it's time In 1997 when such a topic was damn out of the box<br /><br />To give him his credit he does succeed in showing how greed changes a person and to what extent the person can go to get what she wants<br /><br />The film however is damn melodramatic, many places ridiculous<br /><br />One wonders why Anil doesn't buy a TV for his wife? when he earns so much Just to show how poor he is?<br /><br />The twist is well handled but the handling is straight out of 80's The Johny- Paresh comedy which entertains here and there stands out as a sore thumb as it doesn't fit in the story<br /><br />Even there are several cringeworthy scenes<br /><br />Direction by Raj Kanwar is adequate though at times too melodramatic Music is okay but most songs look forced<br /><br />Anil does his part well Sridevi is excellent in her part Urmila is decent Amongst rest Kader Khan is as usual Johny Lever is funny, Paresh irritates Farida is decent
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie shows how racist John Singleton is. He portrays whites and other races that are not black as the evil that exists in our educational system. How quick he forgets that it is this same educational system that made him what he is and failed at it. Ice Cube's character is the epitome of an instigating black man that was responsible for most of the violence in this film. Singleton barely touched on the relationships between the white and black characters that were trying to reach out to each other. When Omar Epps says " I need to be with my people", that racist remark spoke volume. And John, don't think for a minute that the picture of Thomas Jefferson in the tower stairwell did not get my attention. Nice touch!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is another example of a sucky sequel to a great movie. I highly recommend The Prophecy, but this movie was a dud from the start. The acting was decent all the way around, but the story line was weak and added nothing to the origional. A 4 out of 10 at best.
|
Negative
| null | null |
EPSILON, a.k.a. ALIEN VISITOR, is not what I expected. This is a no-budget Australian film with no special effects other than speeded-up film and quick scene cuts. The female alien (who comes over immediately able to speak perfectly accented Australian) can "blip" from place to place or time to time and alter her perception of the flow of time to match the "faster" humans.<br /><br />An elderly grandmother tells her two granddaughters about a story a wandering man told her 40 years before, when an unnamed "She" came to the planet naked and completely disoriented, unable to recognize which star in the sky she came from...She meets a man alone camping in the Australian Outback, apparently bewildering him. She is here by "mistake", and gets angry when she is told she is on Earth. The Earthlings are known as consummate despoilers of the environment and a metaphor for the most insulting thing imaginable to the rest of the universe: those who "breathe the foul air" but do nothing about it, sticking their heads under the sand like an ostrich. In another amusing metaphor, Earthlings are "frogs".<br /><br />From there, it is entirely a film about dialogue, as the perplexed man tries to understand She's peculiar psychology and viewpoints, even as She calls him unintelligent and "quaint". The man begins to realize maybe it's humans who are irrational and not thinking straight. Yet, while waiting to be "beamed up" back home, She sees that this human is not entirely faulty in his thinking and even falls in love with him.<br /><br />The dialogue about perspectives is in spots interesting, but it is all layered with a heavy-handed environmental message and a low-budget feel (there are only two main actors, who blip around various deserted scenes, and the evil despoiling humans on the planet are never seen at all). The environmental message offers no solutions, but paints one or two dire metaphors about what will happen to nature and man if something isn't done. The logic also doesn't hang together: the rest of the universe has "given up" on Earth, yet one space woman caught on Earth by mistake manages to effect some positive change by the conclusion of the movie. What would a battalion of aliens deliberately sent here manage to achieve against pollution and waste?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a depressingly shallow, naive and mostly unfunny look at a wildly improbable relationship between Brooks' psychotic film editor and Harold, his vapid girlfriend. The two have ZERO chemistry together - primarily because Harold is incapable of doing anything besides looking pretty at this stage of her career; but also because Brooks' character is neither interesting nor likeable. There are 15 static, excruciating minutes at the beginning where Brooks, having just broke up with Harold, stumbles about his apartment in a depressed, drugged out state - unbearable.<br /><br />Sappily and unimaginatively bookended by Joe Cocker's "You Are So Beautiful", there simply is not enough material here for a feature film. There is hardly anything going on on the periphery of their relationship to give the appearance that these people exist in a real world. I'm sure Brooks' intention was to shine a white hot spotlight on the affair and, in a way, deconstruct it; but if you're going to do that the writing and acting needs to be far far better than what it is here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do not waste your time with this movie. This is a total thrash in terms of acting, directing, sound editing, soundtrack... There was such a waste of performance by some of the very good actors. The movie does not do justice to Paresh Rawal who is perhaps one of the most talented actors in Bollywood. Akshay Kumar who is also an emerging star did quite a poor job. John Abraham, what is wrong with him? Is that what you call acting? I mean he should thank God that he has a pretty face otherwise he'd be winning Razzie awards in India if there were any such awards in Bollywood. Asrani a great talent, but overdoes his bit as before.<br /><br />Screenplay which was not to mention a rip-off from the 1965's Boeing Boeing was quite badly framed. First of all, people in Bollywood just can't make something original. On top of that they don't even know how to copy well. The jokes in the movie were so overdone, it was getting painful to sit through them. Priyadarshan may be a star in the south, but he's just not fit to make a decent Hindi movie. The sound editing is amazingly crappy. I can go on and on this matter, but the bottom-line is that Bollywood should be shameful of making such a film.<br /><br />The worst part is that some people seemed to love this movie. What is wrong with you guys? This is the reason why Bollywood is where it is. Did you know that Bollywood makes more movies than Hollywood every year, however, most of the movies are unheard of abroad, because of movies like this one. I am an Indian and I am utterly shameful of Bollywood for producing this piece of thrash. Movies like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan were just terrific. They are world class films which are timeless... among the best of this decade. Garam Masala, however, is perhaps one of the worst of this century. Period.<br /><br />I give it a 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a film that makes you say 2 things... 1) I can do much better than this( acting,writing and directing) 2) this is so bad I must leave a review and warn others...<br /><br />Looks as if it was shot with my flip video. I have too believe my friend who told me to watch this has a vendetta against me. I have noticed that there are some positive posts for this home video; Must have been left by crew members or people with something to do with this film. One of the worst 3 movies I have ever seen. hopefully the writers and director leave the business. not even talented enough to do commercials!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Journey to the Center of the Earth is the story of some tourists of Hawaii, three of them siblings, and one of them a young British nanny babysitting a dog. When the siblings accidentally drive off in their jeep with the basket of dog biscuits, the nanny follows them (it might've just been safer to purchase more) all the way to the cave the siblings intended to explore (I guess). For some reason, they actually go in the cave and then, when the place starts caving in, they try to get out to no avail, except for the six-year-old sister who they tell to go get help. Meanwhile, the more they move around in the cave, the more they continue to plummet further and further towards the earths cavernous core. And behold, it is here where they find the City of Atlantis and its bizarre alien habitants who are living under the oppressive rule of one alien that doesn't want them asking to many questions about the worlds external to their own.<br /><br />I see that Rusty Lemorande, the named director of the film has provided comments on this film, in which he explains that part of latter half of this film is actually the sequel to Alien in L.A. Well, whatever it was, it was an amazingly cheap movie that I would rank only slightly higher than City Limits (a 1988 sci-fi film also made on a non-existent budget) because at the least ending of this dreadful piece of mostly incoherent film-making that cuts corners where it can aims for some humor and amusement in the last 20 minutes when we finally see what life is like in the alien world at the center of the Earth. I also give it a two star rating rather than one because it was at times, funny, even if only in its subtleties. For example, the aliens asks the British girl if she's an alien and she explains that the Ministry should be sending her work visa shortly. Or when the alien girl finds Bryan and explains that he is in the city of Altantis and he mistakes this for Atlantic City, New Jersey. Little things like that make the idiocy of the first hour or so tolerable. Imagine how great the film could've been though if they had 1) actually intended to make it, and 2) actually had money to make it.<br /><br />I do like how in the end, no one wonders what happened to the little sister who was sent away in the beginning to get help. She'd just be wandering around the Hawaiian caves and not too far from the erupting volcano, mind you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a huge fan of war movies, and, as a Vietnam combat vet, have some experience with the technical details. I worked with the bomb guys more than once and have nothing but respect for them. Other vets, and Iraq vets in particular, have summarized the inaccuracies in this movie very well. Poetic license is one thing, but this movie is a complete fantasy, and fails badly because of it. No bomb disposal unit, or any unit, would ever have tolerated this rogue operator for more than 5 minutes. Military units prize conformity and discipline for a reason;it saves lives. The opening scene particularly annoyed me. The guy with the cell phone would have been shot immediately. Yelling, "Stop dialing" is not an effective deterrent. It got worse from there. The scenes with the sniper were particularly egregious. As others have noted, your average EOD guy doesn't know jack about being a sniper, and to think any Arab sniper is that good really stretches the imagination. Kidnapping an Arab businessman for some form of personal revenge just wouldn't happen. Somebody might shoot him, but this kind of risk-taking is limited to the movies. I could go on, but, as I said, others have pointed these things out in detail. This is not a good movie, and if it wins any awards at all, it's a further reflection of why "La La land" is so named.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my GOD this was so bad! The story was weak - at best - and the animation was flat and lifeless - even childish. This film takes itself far too seriously...unless of course they meant to be funny. I saw this last week at the London Sci-Fi Festival and the entire audience was laughing at every scene. I think my favourite was 'shouldn't you be studying medicine at Oopsalof'! And I also think they were trying to see how many times they could cram in the character Nicalo's only line 'we will be together...it is our destiny.' I'm sorry but after the first time, the words lost all meaning.<br /><br />And what was with the apple?<br /><br />I recommend this as a lesson to Americans: You cannot animate, so please don't try. You only embarrass yourselves.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.<br /><br />A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.<br /><br />The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).<br /><br />Enjoy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, not yet, at least.<br /><br />It's not listed in the worst 100...<br /><br />So let's all team up, and put it in it's rightful place.<br /><br />This is truly a bad movie. (And I liked Ishtar!) ;)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Eddie Murphy's "Delirious" is completely and totally rude, crude, crass and lude. This is indeed the only way to describe this appalling, trashy piece of stand-up. Eddie Murphy goes for shock value rather than laughs to try and win his following over. He does manage to be funny occasionally, but mostly loses the plot with obscene language and distasteful sex jokes.<br /><br />Forget it! Unless you happen to enjoy Eddie's foul style. I don't think I will bother with "Eddie Murphy Raw". I much prefer Eddie in the confines of a movie script.<br /><br />Saturday, January 17, 1998 - Video
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is about Tyrannus, a gladiator who is brought back from the dead to summon Tyrannus, a gladiator who must be brought back from the dead. Tyrannus, we learn after about an hour, is also called Demonicus. This adds much needed depth to the screenplay and calls into question our assumptions about identity, psychology and ourselves. <br /><br />The spirit of Tyrannus accomplishes his little to-do list (killing some people and saying repetitive phrases in Latin) by possessing the body of a college guy. He uses a magic mind-control helmet to do this, which the college boy willingly puts on his head, and then at several points in the movie, takes off and puts back on.<br /><br />Maria performs oral sex on a poor man's Sean Willian Scott, and Tyrannus wears the Rollerball glove. Tyrannus has his own green backlighting for no reason, and has apparently been sitting next to CG fire in an ancient concrete tunnel for centuries like this. Utter misfortune.<br /><br />This movie is empty and will hurt you. See it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are some extremely talented black directors Spike Lee,Carl Franklin,Billy Dukes,Denzel and a host of others who bring well deserved credit to the film industry . Then there are the Wayans Brothers who at one time(15,years ago) had an extremely funny television show'In Living Colour' that launched the career of Jim Carrey amongst others . Now we have stupidity substituting for humour and gross out gags(toilet humour) as the standard operating procedure . People are not as stupid as those portrayed in 'Little Man' they couldn't possibly be . A baby with a full set of teeth and a tattoo is accepted as being only months old ? Baby comes with a five o'clock shadow that he shaves off . It is intimated that the baby has sex with his foster mother behind her husbands,Darryl's, back .Oh, yea that is just hilarious . As a master criminal 'Little Man' is the stupidest on planet earth . He stashes a stolen rock that is just huge in a woman's purse and then has to pursue her . Co-star Chazz Palminteri,why Chazz, offers the best line: "I'm surrounded by morons." Based, without credit, on a Chuck Jones cartoon, Baby Buggy Bunny . This is far too stupid to be even remotely funny . A clue as to how bad this film is Damon Wayans appeared on Jay Leno the other night,prior to the BAT awards and he did not,even mention this dreadful movie . When will Hollywood stop green lighting trash from the Wayans Brothers . When they get over their white mans guilt in all likelihood .
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wimpy stuffed shirt Armand Louque (blandly played by veteran character actor Dean Jagger in a rare lead role) joins a group of researchers who want to find and destroy the secret technique of creating zombies. Armand falls for the lovely Claire Duval (fetching blonde Dorothy Stone), who uses the meek sap to get Armand's colleague Clifford Grayson (the hopelessly wooden Robert Noland) to marry her. Furious over being used and spurned by Claire, Armand uses his knowledge of voodoo to get revenge. Sound exciting? Well, it sure ain't. For starters, Victor Halperin's static (non)direction lets the meandering and uneventful talk-ridden story plod along at an excruciatingly slow pace. Worse yet, Halperin crucially fails to bring any tension, atmosphere and momentum to the hideously tedious proceedings. The mostly blah acting from a largely insipid cast doesn't help matters any; only George Cleveland as the hearty General Duval and E. Alyn Warren as the irascible Dr. Trevissant manage to enliven things a bit with their welcome and refreshing hammy histrionics. The drippy stock film library score, the painfully obvious stagebound sets, and the crude cinematography are pretty lousy and unimpressive as well. In fact, this feeble excuse for a fright feature is so crummy that not even the uncredited starkly staring eyes of the great Bela Lugosi can alleviate the brain-numbing boredom. A dismally dull dud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...<br /><br />In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, this movie has kids going to space camp and it starts out okay enough as you have the kids meeting one another and learning the ropes. Then they introduce Jinx, a robot that could not possibly exist in 1986 as they do not have anything with that kind of artificial intelligence now. Kid becomes buddy with robot and robot repays the kid's kindness by shooting him and a group of other kids in this camp into outer space with a very limited oxygen supply and radios that do not have the signal to reach into space. This camp is also not very fun as these kids are put to real training and the instructors get all over them for failing missions or not doing the right things. Give it a rest, they are there for fun, not to become astronauts just yet, just give them the experience of space flight not a military like camp. However, you do get to see Joaquin Phoenix in a fairly early role. So in the end a movie that tries to be realistic in some areas, but with the introduction of Jinx and other factors you might as well had the kids battle space aliens on top of everything else that was happening in the movie as that would have made the movie a bit more enjoyable at least for me. Probably for a few others as well, who else would like to see Kate Capshaw's face ripped apart by some strange super alien creature.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen. Everyone involved should be embarrassed. Everyone. Ice-T is pitiful, the dialogue is absolutely awful, and hokie does not begin to describe the performances by every single actor in this movie. The plot steals heavily from Executive Decision, but compared to Air Rage, Executive Decision is Academy Award material. I have never been so disappointed when watching a movie. Air Rage should be burned with its ashes locked in a vault never to see the light of day again. Anyone who has seen it should take a shower and wash the stink of horrible movie off of them. The best part of this movie probably comes from the ending, when the credits rolled. This was easily the worst movie I have ever seen. <br /><br />Ice-T should stick to Law and Order, and the other people in this film should retire early or commit suicide. Either way, they should never attempt to be in a movie again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This thing was bad. Really bad. I mean, low budget can sometimes be very inspiring, but not this. The story was so off-the-shelf, the alien's behaviour so illogical, the characters so clichéed. I found nothing good in it. And I did try.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Space Camp, which had the unfortunate luck to be planned around the time of the Challenger accident, deserves such luck. The "stars" make a mockery of acting, Lea Thomson actually being turned sideways, when asked for more than her usual wide-eyed innocent smile, presumably to mask her risible attempts. The movie is at times hilarious, when it begins to ask far too much of you. A small boy keeps a multi-million dollar robot in his closet which breaks when given too many commands by the hordes of cliched dorm-mates. This hackneyed and unlovable machine, "Jinx", is a major player in the ridiculous premise of the movie, which seems part Short Circuit, part 2001 by the Airplane team. I shan't bore you with this, suffice it to say you can only laugh when faced with it. Having said all of this, it is enjoyable to watch, in a SeaQuest, Saved by the Bell kind of way. The romance and technology, beware, are as unbelievable as each other. Also, if you're an eighties freak, its unmissable for the amusing performances of Kate Capshaw (Willie from Temple of Doom) and, obviously, Lea Thompson. Also, Joaquin Phoenix puts in a dodgy turn as a sort of wannabe Goonie who befriends Jinx. Do not go near this movie if you are not a fan of trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is deeply idiotic. A man wants revenge for a crime- but when he enacts his revenge- there is a video camera pointed right at him the entire time. What man with a brain cell in his head would sit there and do this for so long in front of a video camera?<br /><br />Just the fact that this script could never even happen except with someone unable to dress themselves destroyed it for me- but it got dumber!!!<br /><br />I am thinking the script writers have some serious habits that are cooking their brain cells and making them miss plot holes you can drive an battalion of armored tanks through.<br /><br />PLOT: a man seeks revenge for the death of loved ones, but in the middle of the plot something goes totally wrong, and then the unexpected unfolds.<br /><br />If only these people writing this story hadn't been so dumb as to write totally unrealistic plot turns that could never happen this way. To the writers I say- seek help for your serious mental problem.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The title of this obscure and (almost righteously) forgotten 80's slasher inevitably reminds me of The Cure's mega-smash-monster hit song with the same title, hence a piece of the lyrics in the title-section of this user comment. Also, I didn't have anything else to say that was useful, anyway. But hey, "The Forest" isn't totally hopeless and not even *that* bad, actually. If nothing else, at least it obeys the, admittedly unwritten, first rule of 80's slasher: kill someone within the first 10 minutes of playtime. Sure you've heard about the basic premise of this film a dozen times before, but don't let that discourage you from watching it, as "The Forest" has a couple of things more to offer than just an appealingly sinister cover image. It's actually a bit of an atypical 80's slasher! The main characters aren't ordinary brainless teenagers and the script has solid ambitions towards supernaturalism. The concept isn't always successful, let alone plausible, but it's more than interesting enough to hold your attention and there are even are a couple of surprisingly strong moments of tension and plot twists to enjoy. Two married couples decide to go camping in the most isolated woods of California, but due to a stupid bet the wives travel separately from their husbands. Barely set up for the night, they receive uncanny visits from a mother looking for her two children, the children themselves and finally the father who's out hunting for human flesh. The demented family may be real or imaginary, but the women are definitely in danger and by the time their husbands arrive, they have already vanished. The men too encounter the family, and they find out more about the slightly dysfunction background. "The Forest" is a weird and unusual film, to say the least. It's not exactly a masterpiece of plotting, but the thoroughly strange atmosphere will certainly appeal to open-minded fans of 80's horror. The murders are fairly gruesome and will-filmed, including a slit throat and a painful saw-massacre, and the filming locations are stunningly beautiful. The more you contemplate about the story and its abrupt twists, the less it makes any sense, so my advice would just be to enjoy this odd viewing experience for as long as it lasts and not a minute longer. The acting performances are just above average, the music is okay and at least director Donald Jones (also responsible for the 70's exploitation-sickie "Schoolgirls in Chains") tried to be a little more creative that the majority of 80's horror films. Too bad it ultimately fails.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie wasn't absolutely atrocious, but it was pretty bad. the acting ACTUALLY was pretty good! jeffrey combs did a pretty darn good job as the mad scientist, which is sort of his specialty if you don't know such things :D. bill forsythe .. well, i'm not EXACTLY sure why he was in this film. he's way too good for this kinda stuff, and his role wasn't exactly demanding. I rented this on the strength of those two leads, and I wasn't really disappointed. I mean, heck, it's a movie about a half man/half shark. It ain't Shakespeare folks. Other than the plot, which is full of holes, and the poor dialogue, I would like to note that the cinematography also left many things to be desired. there were shots were they were trying to look "cool", but it ended up obscuring the scene or just coming off plain cheezy. they also blew it many times when they had decent dialogue and cut away prematurely before the person could even deliver the line. it was pretty bad. but if you are a jeffrey combs fan, this one is worth checking out. he gives a great performance and does what he can with the character. forsythe ain't bad either, and either is the female lead. heck if i can remember her name though. bottom line, i wouldn't otherwise waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This series was CBS networks answer to the success of the Big Valley. It was a 90 minute Western just like the ABC program was. While it was an answer, it did not have the stuff to make it past season 2.<br /><br />The problem really became reality got lost on this show. For example- in one episode, Johnny gets his eye poked out by a stick. Amazingly, by the end of the show, Johnny had healed entirely. Along with that, the stories on this were no where near as strong as The Big Valley.<br /><br />This is a show that I would not want DVDs of, & frankly hope they are never released. Think since CBS was running out of lots, they re-used many familiar settings. This was one the last western series CBS produced as westerns were not real popular in the 1970's.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film at its New York's High Falls Film Festival screening as well and I must say that I found it a complete and awful bore. Although it was funny in some places, the only real laughs was that there appeared to be o real plot to talk about and the acting in some places was dreadful and wooden, especially the "Lovely Lady" and the voice of the narrator (whom I have never heard of) had a lot to be desired. J.C.Mac was, I felt, the redeeming feature of this film, true action and grit and (out of the cast) the only real acting. I am sure with another cast and a tighter reign on the directing, this could have been a half decent film. Let us just hope that it is not sent out on general release, or if you really want a copy, look in the bargain bin in Lidl.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just have to add, in case anyone actually reads this and hasn't completely gotten the point yet. These other reviewers aren't joking around, this really IS the worst colour movie you're likely to ever see. When the movie started I couldn't believe something like this actually made it out for the world to see.<br /><br />They're not just saying it when they said it looks like a home movie. It really does. Like the "director" took the family hi8 camcorder (before DV cameras and computer non-linear editing), no other equipment (lights, sound gear, etc), grabbed some decent-looking acting students, and went out to shoot a movie. No script, just making it up as he went along.<br /><br />When I watched it, it was on my mono TV, so I only have one channel of audio (left of right speaker). At first I thought I'd hooked it up wrong. The movie was silent until someone spoke a couple of minutes in. I got up and switched over to the other channel and suddenly I could hear music and sound effects but then couldn't hear the dialog. They recorded the sound on different bloody channels! I mean, there's movies that can be funny to watch, so bad they're good, kind of thing. I'm not sure this is one of those. I mean, I'll admit to being a bit of a budding film maker. And seeing bad movies just makes you want to go out there and PROVE you can do it better, you know. But watching this just made me feel sorry for whoever made it.<br /><br />As bad as they were, the actors are the only good thing about this. I thought the chick was hot and was disappointed in the brevity of her bath scene. A bit of T and A from her would have raised the score from nothing to maybe a 3 or 4. But alas, no. If you want to make a movie but it's turning out crap, throw in some gratuitous nudity. Worked for Roger Corman.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nothing happens.<br /><br />Then characters with no personality don't develop.<br /><br />Then the end never comes because there's no beginning and no middle.<br /><br />There are beautiful shots that are made not beautiful because they aren't even allowed to be, because this movie isn't even THERE. There's no "is" in this movie because there's no plot or characters or themes or ideas or symbolism or discussion or dialog or point. There's nothing! <br /><br />There is a good point: it has a good soundtrack. But the sound editing is such and the movie proper is such that watching it isn't even worth your time, so if you're really interested, I'd suggest going and buying the soundtrack or something. You'll get everything you can from this movie without all the fatigue, headache, and impatience.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
|
Negative
| null | null |
A group of hunters track down a werewolf, kill it, decapitate it and then sell the head to unethical Dr. Atwill (played by director/writer Tim Sullivan), who runs a private clinic specializing in corneal transplants. Research chemist Rich Stevens (Mark Sawyer), whose eyes were destroyed when acid flew into his face during a lab explosion, is the unlucky recipient of the werewolf's eyeballs. It takes awhile to get to the first full moon, so first we get a tender love story between Rich and his compassionate, big-breasted nurse Sondra Gard (Stephanie Beaton). Sondra is so compassionate that she strips off her clothing and starts riding Rich in bed before he even has a chance to remove his bandages! After a month in the hospital, Rich returns home to icy wife Rita (Deborah Huber), who promptly tells him "You look pretty ugly" before speeding off in her Kia. Our hero soon discovers that Rita is not only a bitch, but an adulterous skank who's been carrying on an affair with his supposed friend Craig (Lyndon Johnson). Finally, the full moon rises and Rich finds himself in a hairy predicament as he transforms into a (very silly looking) werewolf creature. Predictable carnage ensues.<br /><br />After ripping out Craig's throat on a beach, Rich wakes up in the brush the next morning with his clothes tattered and vague recollections of the evening's events. He makes friends with dwarf psychic/occult expert Andros (Kurt Levi) and is hassled by both local author Siodmak (Jason Clark) and lesbian-police-detective-in-a-pants-suit Justine Evers (Tarri Markel). When Rich confronts Dr. Atwill, the doctor sends his sadistic bald henchman Kass (Eric Mestressat), who gets a kick out of dismembering corpses with a machete at the clinic, after him. With help from Sondra, Rich manages to escape. Sondra takes him back to her place and basically rapes him on the couch during an overlong sex scene that lasts about five minutes. Will Rich be able to control his lycanthropy or find a cure for it before he claims more victims? <br /><br />Shot on the cheap with a camcorder, this homemade werewolf flick has a somewhat unique premise with the eye transplant angle, but trots out cliché after cliché otherwise. The sets are sub porn level - the clinic scenes seem to have been filmed inside someone's home or apartment. The wolf transformation scenes don't even look as good as the time lapse photography used way back in the 1940s. Instead, they employ ragged editing. Throw some hair on the actor. Cut. Throw on some more on. Cut. More fur... and fill his mouth full of white gunk he can spit out. Cut. No need to worry about continuity! There's no fade, no dissolve, nothing. It's pretty sloppy. Once fully transformed, the werewolf costume (designed by Jeff Leroy, who also edited and shot the movie) is pretty awful. It has red, glowing Christmas bulb eyes, fur that looks like shag carpet and a plastic face that's almost completely immobile. There are several times you can see the cameraman's fingers in front of the camera lens, and does the moon really stay full five nights in a row? As far as the cast is concerned, they're amateurish, but tolerable. And as far as B horror flicks are concerned, there are worse out there. This one is paced fairly well, is only 70 minutes long and does provide plenty of the red stuff during the attack scenes, as well as the aforementioned T&A from Ms. Beaton.<br /><br />It was produced by David S. Sterling (CAMP BLOOD), who was one of the first to ride the wave of digital video right when it was first starting to dominate the low-budget/independent horror genre scene back in the mid/late 90s. Many of his notoriously awful productions were released by Brain Damage Films, a label to avoid like the plague for the most part. Fx guy Jeff Leroy (who is listed as co-director here at IMDb, but not in the film's actual credits) and Vinnie Bilancio (who appears in a small role as one of the hunters) went on to make the much more fun and polished exploitation flick WEREWOLF IN A WOMEN'S PRISON in 2006, which had a similar-looking creature on display (red glowing eyes and all).
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Gospel of Lou was a major disappointment for me. I had received an E-Mail from the theater showing it that it was a great and inspirational movie. It was neither great nor inspirational. The cinematography was pretty iffy with the whole movie. A lot the scenes were flash backs that were done in a way that couldn't tell at times what they were about. The voices were often distorted for no reason. Also many of the people in the movie were far fetched. The relationship he has with his ex & son is never made clear. Also the whole movie has most him one way, and then all of a sudden BAM, he is cured and inspiring people. The whole movie seems to show that boxing is one of the things that is bad in his life, making him live his life the way that he is living it, but when he changes, he doesn't leave boxing, he teaches others how to box. Thumbs Down.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the first film of the Horrorfest I have watched and after Im almost thinking I don't need to see any of the others. I was told its a "thinking mans horror movie" and have to say that if this was supposed to make me think I shutter to think what the splatter/gore films in the collection will be like. Don't get me wrong not even the gore in this film is worth sitting through.<br /><br />The plot is very washed out with way too much art for arts sake. The camera effects and music are out of place most of the time and the characters are banal to say the least. Several characters and scenes seem worthless in the end when they start to reveal some of the hooks of "The Hamiltons". I figured out who Lenny was about half hour in when I figured out the movie. I was so visually under whelmed and confused by the Lenny reveal that I completely felt ripped off. I expected what I got but they could have gone so much further, in fact all the gore falls completely flat. With movies out there like "Hostel" and "Saw" you need to come a little better for a film that is "considered to graphic or too disturbing for general audiences".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Carnosaur 3 is bad... awfully bad. Bad to the point where it is funny. How matter how much I try to convince myself, I just can't believe anyone in this world could find this entertaining for serious reasons. I mean, come on, even the cover is bad! OK, the special effects are absolutely ridiculous. Those "Carnosaurs" are really ridiculous. A scientist tells the soldiers that they move incredibly fast, yet when you see them run, they run at the speed of... an actor in a rubber suit trying to run as much as he can. And the explosions are funny(there is no other word to describe it). At the beginning, a bullet hits a Jeep AFTER a guys says "What was that?"... And the other explosions are also laughable. But the worst thing is the screenplay and the so-called story. You don't expect a good story(or, I don't think anyone renting this movie expects a good movie) but at least the story has to try to make sense. I mean, how hard is it to make a story about dinosaurs killing people at least coherent. Incredibly hard if you look at this. Oh, and if you think that it's easy to makes believable commandos as your characters, tell it to the writers of this awful, awful piece of crap. I mean, what sick human being would make cheap jokes after one of his buddies is dead? And they do lots of it. And if you think that a movie about dinosaurs killing soldiers can only be at least action-packed, WAKE UP!!! This movie is incredibly dull. The carnosaurs(who invented this lame name anyway?) attack(in boring action sequences where you don't see much happening). The soldiers think of how to beat them(in incredibly funny scenes where they try real hard to be serious but can't seem to convince even just one second). So, then, they attack the carnosaurs, but their idea doesn't work(another laughable action sequence). Back to planning(with a few lame jokes thrown in) in another ridiculous scene. And this goes on, and on, and on. And let's not forget the acting which is about as convincing as the special effects... and the story... Oh OK, this movie simply sucks from A to Z.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film was made in 1942 and with World War 11 around, the movie industry decided to capitalize on the fact that spies were around.<br /><br />The film is fun to watch due to the fabulous dancing of Eleanor Powell. The late Miss Powell was certainly a great hoofer in every sense of the word. She is again paired with a very young looking Red Skelton here. The two of them also starred in "I Dood It."<br /><br />Moroni Olsen, who 3 years later, was superb as the interrogating police officer in "Mildred Pierce" again appears as an officer asking Powell to deliver an item. Trouble is that Olsen and his rogues are really the Japanese spies.<br /><br />Bert Lahr is his usual brilliant self here and he gets ample support from Virginia O'Brien.
|
Negative
| null | null |
**WARNING: POSSIBLE SPOILER**<br /><br />If you can get by the extremely unpleasant subject matter, this film does offer a heaping helping of outrageously campy melodrama. Surprisingly enough, this movie has been copied and ripped-off several times over the years, although it's hard to fathom ANY filmmaker being inspired by this trashy drama. Neither one of the Hemingway women can act here (although Mariel HAS improved over the years), Anne Bancroft offers the only touch of class as a prosecuting attorney, and Chris Sarandon is by turns pathetic and unintentionally hilarious as the smirking, smarmy bad guy of the piece.<br /><br />Veteran director Lamont Johnson can't make a silk purse out of this sow's ear of a script, which is stuffed to bursting with howlingly bad dialogue and outlandish situations. For example, the final sequence, where Margaux grabs her shotgun and chases Sarandon down after his latest shocking act is meant to be exciting but elicits hearty chuckles instead. Add a notoriously shrill and spacy musical score by Michel Polnareff and you have a true guilty pleasure, even though you're likely to feel grubby and needing a hot shower after viewing it. Don't say you weren't warned.
|
Negative
| null | null |
They played this on the July 4th Twilight Zone marathon and this is, hands down, the worst Twilight Zone episode I've ever seen. It's completely out of sync with the rest of the series in its tone. Even though Twilight Zone is a pretty uneven series and many episodes end up being groaningly predictable, this one was completely out of place. Compare this to legendary episodes like "A Stop at Willoughby" or "Midnight Sun", and you realize there is no comparison.<br /><br />Buster Keaton did what he could with such terrible material, and frankly it surprises me that someone of his historic comedy stature would stoop to the level of this episode. Even though he seemed to be giving it some effort, he MUST have needed the money... there's no other explanation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.<br /><br />Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.<br /><br />The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."<br /><br />Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have a piece of advice for the people who made this movie too, if you're gonna make a movie like this be sure you got the f/x to back it up. Also don't get a bunch of z list actors to play in it. Another thing, just about all of us have seen Jurassic Park, so don't blatantly copy it. All in all this movie sucked, f/x sucked, acting sucked, story unoriginal. Let's talk about the acting for just a second, the Carradine guy who's career peaked in 1984 when he did "Revenge of the Nerds" (which was actually a great comedy). He's not exactly z list, he can act. He just should have said no to this s--t bag. He should have did what Mark Hamill did after "Return of the Jedi" and go quietly into the night. He made his mark as a "Nerd" and that should have been that. I understand he has bills to pay, but that hardly excuses this s--t bag. Have I called this movie that yet? O.K. I just wanted to be sure. If I sound a little hostile, I apologize. I just wasted 2hrs of my life I could have spent doing something productive like watching paint peel, and I feel cheated. I'll close on that note. Thank you for your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
**SPOILERS*** Slow as molasses mummy movie involving this expiation in the Valley of the Kings in Egypt that has to be aborted in order to keep the native population, who are at the time revolting against British rule, from finding out about it.<br /><br />Given the task of getting to this archaeological dig by his superiors British Capt. Storm, Mark Dana, together with a couple of British soldiers and Mrs. Sylvia Quentin, Diane Brewster, the wife of the head man at the dig Robert Quentin, George N. Neise, make their way to the unearthed mummy's tomb. On the way there Capt. Storm Sylvia and his men run into this desert-like princess Simira, Ziva Rodann.<br /><br />Simira seems to be superhuman in her ability to withstand the rigors of desert life, she doesn't drink water or get tired, but also knows just what Capt. Storm & Co. are looking for and warns him and his group to stay as far away from the dig, Pharaoh's Ra Ha Tet tomb, as possible.<br /><br />At Ra Ha Tet's burial chamber Robert Quentin and his crew of archeologist's together with his Egyptin guide Simira's brother Numar, Alvaro Guillot,already opened his tomb before Capt. Storm can get there to stop them. Quentin violated Ra Ha Tet's body by having Dr. Farrady, Guy Prescott, cut his bandages. This action on Robert's and Dr. Farrady's part has Numar faint dead in his tracks. It later turns out that Numar somehow was possessed by Ra Ha Tet's spirit or soul who took over his body and caused him to age, at the rate of 500 years per hour, to become himself a 3,000 year-old mummy.<br /><br />The movie has Numar dressed in what looks like a pair of pajamas slinking around Ra Ha Tet's tomb and it's surroundings attacking and sucking out the blood in order to survive, like a vampire, of anyone man or animal that he comes in contact with. This blood-sucking adventure by Numar, with him later losing his right arm, goes on for some time until the by now crazed Quentin trying to find the entrance, you in fact thought that he already found it, to Ra Ha Tet's tomb get's himself killed is an indoor rock slide.<br /><br />We learn at the end of the movie that Numar, to absolutely no one's surprise, is actually Ra Ha Tet reincarnated into another, some 3,000 years later, person or life. Numar's sister the mysterious and sexy Simira is not only Ra Ha Tet's sister, since him and Numar are really one and the same person, but also the Egyptian Cat Goddess Babesti! Also not that hard to figure out.<br /><br />With Numar/Ra Ha Tet back in his tomb and all the deaths, due the the Pharaoh's Curse, now at an end Capt. Storm Sylvia and whatever is left of his men and the late Robert Quentin's archaeological expedition trek their way back to Cairo and modern, this in 1902, civilization. The survivors of Pharaoh Ra Ha Tet Curse keep what they found, and unearthed, only to themselves since no one would believe them anyway.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie is made for Asian/Chinese market, targeting particularly fans of Jay Chou, one of the biggest music star in Asian.<br /><br />Jay Chou is a very talented song writer/singer. He is mediocre as an actor, although he did appear in several big-budget productions ("initial D", "Curse of the Golden Flower "). Amazingly, he won both golden horse (taiwan) and Hong Kong film awards for "initial D".<br /><br />The supporting cast are very well chosen, which appeals basically everyone from China. The cast including many famous movie/TV actors, singers, even sport commentator (Huang Jianxiang from China). However, they were not given enough time to show their talents.<br /><br />The biggest mistake is that Chu took over both director and writer position. He has a reputation of making shallow and brainless movies based off non-coherent scripts. With his poor directing and lam story, the whole talented cast, fancy vision effects and tones of production money was wasted.<br /><br />However, the terrible movie successfully cashed in over 10 million dollars, maybe even more in Asian, which made this one of the biggest box office success in Asian.<br /><br />The bottom line is: you can watch this movie only if you want to see how money and talents are wasted, or if you are simply accompanying your kids who are fans of Jay Chou.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hmm
I agree with the reviewer who said that "strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film". I thought the film was intriguing enough to watch it. I think that was primarily because of Marsden and Speedman - not the plot.<br /><br />The bottom line is that this film is mildly psychologically tantalizing on the one hand and profoundly homophobic on the other. Thumbs up on the former and triple thumbs down on the latter. I'm not sure if the film is intended to promote dialogue or to spread fear and propaganda.<br /><br />I thought the acting was mediocre. A lot of conversation that was about 90 degrees askew of reality. I kept wanting to derive some meaning from the plot, but it's ultimately just a conversation with a mad man (Speedman). I feel mildly sorry for him (Speedman) because of his loss, but not really. His loss is no greater and certainly is less than losses suffered every day around the world by more significant causes.<br /><br />Does the film expose naiveté about HIV/AIDS? Yes: That of the intended audience. Is HIV a dark, mysterious, evil killer? What about it's victims? The answer to both questions is NO. Neither HIV nor its victims have any more or less malevolent intent than lupus, multiple sclerosis, TB, hepatitis, CANCER, or their victims, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just because a disease is communicable does not make it EITHER deliberate OR negligent - or evil - it just IS.<br /><br />Does this excuse ignorance or fool-hardy risk taking? - NO. Should all people practice safe sex? - YES. Will safe sex save the world? - NO. Is safe sex realistic in all instances of love and lust between passionate and emotional human beings? OF COURSE NOT. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone followed the rules, no one ever took risks, and sex was never spontaneous and passionate??? Am I ignoring that the film deals specifically with gay sex? YES. HIV is spread by sharing blood or bodily fluids between infected and non-infected individuals. Sex is not necessary for transmission, gay or otherwise.<br /><br />I'm always disturbed by willful violence of one person upon another. I actually thought the film did do a good job of portraying the absurdity of Tom's violent abduction, captivity, and intent towards Dan, and this kind of insane violence does occur every day.<br /><br />Stream of consciousness notes from the film: Tom is crazy.<br /><br />Why doesn't Dan ask "why" do you feel this way, rather than "what are you doing"? Implication: men who have sex with men get "AIDS" Implication: HIV = AIDS Where was Tom's responsibility in the sex act? Why was it Dan's responsibility to use the condom? "maybe you slipped it off before you stuck it in
" What are we talking about here? Was one of the parties unconscious? "Maybe she didn't want to hear the truth" are you kidding me "She's up in heaven and so unbelievably hurt about what she now knows about me"
right
Is Dan's life over if he has HIV? Certainly NOT! Is this why the whole world is so homophobic???? They think gay men are the cause of HIV, that they will give it to the rest of the world, and we will all die
are you kidding me??? Are people really stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the cause... is the problem??? Do we feel that way about the victims of tuberculosis? of malaria? I can see that Tom is hurt because of his wife's death, and he blames it on AIDS, but seriously
who's at fault here? The victim or the virus? Are illnesses really the responsibility of the ill? (presuming they did not seek and did not seek to spread the disease).<br /><br />Sure, safe sex is essential to a safe life, but so is not-driving, not-flying, not-leaving the house, not-living. Do we really want to blame the disease on the victims? Would safe sex between Tom and Dan have prevented Tom's wife's ultimate demise? Perhaps, but not Dan's sole responsibility.<br /><br />Tom is crazy. Did I mention that.<br /><br />Tom to Dan: "maybe you get what you deserve"
COME ON! 24 Days: Violent, naïve, and homophobic.<br /><br />Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I think this film points a judging finger at gay men for their reckless and malevolent intent towards a "straight world" by practicing unsafe sex, when the rate of homosexuals practicing safe sex is proportionately equivalent or better than that of heterosexuals. We all need to wake up and get serious about HIV/AIDS. HIV is killing hundreds of thousands of STRAIGHT Africans every year.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.<br /><br />Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.<br /><br />The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.<br /><br />The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is easily one of the worst 5 movies I've ever seen. It's not scary or any of the other things suggested in the plot outline. This movie is agonizingly slow and I was bored for almost all 98 minutes. While the acting is mediocre at best, the biggest problem is the script, which is poorly written, slow and plodding with no real direction. Occasionally an eerie mood is set only to be broken by some useless line or event. I'm not surprised that the entire cast was sick and throwing up between shots, they did after all have to try and digest a terrible script. As a huge fan of good horror movies, I'm always irritated that something this bad gets made. Save yourself 98 minutes you'll never get back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my God what the hell happened here?!! I'm not going to say this again but what sort of backward movie is this? The dubbing in this is way worst than the dubbing in "King Kong vs Godzilla",Linda Miller had to be the worst actress in it and the suits are really cheesy.Its about some villain called Dr.Who who gets henchmen to build a robot gorilla that has the same strength as King Kong but when this robot breaks down he builds another one and then tries to kidnap Kong.When he does(thats when Linda Miller gets annoying)he makes Kong his slave but everything goes wrong and King Kong escapes.Then Dr.Who sends the robot after him.<br /><br />Later when I was watching the movie I got a headache when Linda Miller and the other clowns started moaning.As I sat through the misery of watching the DVD while it was playing I was hoping that the madness in the movie was going to end until the fight.The ending has to be a really bad one because they could've shown Kong back on his island fighting dinosaurs again.<br /><br />Don't watch the movie under any circumstances or if you do... beware of the disappointment you will receive.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a great admirer of Lon Chaney, but the screen writing of this movie just did not work for me. The story jumps around oddly (I've since learned that the film is missing a section), and characters appear and disappear with irritating suddenness. Some of the intertitles are overly explanatory (e.g., "why, you're not a child anymore!"--cut back to picture for a long, slow beat--"you're a woman!" yes, we got it the first time) but there are a few talking sequences that beg for explanations that never appear. (Let's hear Luigi and his blond girlfriend's argument, please!) The plot, which involves incestuous desires (figuratively if not technically) was disturbing to the point that it was hard to watch. To the writer's credit, this issue was treated as a problem, and a May-December match is not portrayed as the right-and-good inevitability of some Mary Pickford films (e.g., "Daddy-Long-Legs"). Chaney gives a good performance, as usual, but I think he has been better-directed in the past--he overdid it a few times here, IMHO. I did enjoy the clown sequences, and was very impressed at the stunts. Loretta Young was charming, though astonishingly young. The film has its moments, but so far, it's my least-favorite Chaney picture.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Tapeheads", a scrappy, intermittently funny spoof of the music video business, might have been the perfect comedic short, and stars John Cusack and Tim Robbins are effortlessly in the swing of the nonsensical chaos involved. They play two semi-savvy security guards in Los Angeles who start their own company, Video Aces, making hilarious videos for groups, parties, and one deathbed star. It's too bad the filmmakers had to invent a dim side-plot to pad the running time (shenanigans involving a crooked politician and his henchmen which doesn't do much except take away from the movie's primary strength, sending-up the music culture of the late-'80s). Still, Cusack and Robbins create a couple of originals here: nerdy but loose, street-smart without being hipsters or posers, these guys are on the same nutty wavelength, and they never put each other down. They're the real thing in buddy-comedies. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
No doubt Frank Sinatra was a talented actor as well as a talented singer. After all, very few actors nowadays can get a scene just right in one take, and that was pretty much Sinatra's modus operandi on set.<br /><br />I feel that as the 1960's wore on, the quality of the man's films really started to tank. The Tony Rome detective series was nothing short of trying to compete with Dean Martin's Matt Helm series which came out at the same time. Perhaps even a James Bond competition, but nothing really worked for Frank during these years. His personal life in shambles, his music fading out...Sinatra appeared more like a throwback to the 1950's. The last great Sinatra film of this period was probably Von Ryan's Express in 1965.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are so many goofy things about this movie that I can't possibly name but a few:<br /><br />BOGART's character: 1. His name Whip McCord (too easy, so I'll leave it at that. Boy, it makes `Humphrey' sound good.) 2. His long, curly hair and silly sideburns. 3. His Black Bart get-up, complete with spurs! 4. Not sure what shade of lipgloss they've got him wearing, but it ain't none too flattering.<br /><br />CAGNEY's character (Jim Kincaid ): 1. His lipstick doesn't do him any favors, either. 2. The man is being swallowed by his hat during the entire film! Could they not find a hat to fit him? Even a LITTLE?!!?! 3. His pants are too tight in the rear. 4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.<br /><br />If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought. EVEN THE HORSES LOOK EMBARRASSED! (That is, when they don't look bored.)<br /><br />In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.<br /><br />On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works. Otherwise, it's viewer beware. Therefore, see this only if a) you must see every western out there b) you are a TRUE Cagney or Bogie completist c) any of the above comments appeal to you. Woah
..
|
Negative
| null | null |
A recent post here by a woman claiming a military background, contained the comment "A woman's life is no more valuable than a man's".<br /><br />This mantra of the politically correct is not true as history as well as biology show. Societies have managed to recover from heavy losses of their male population, sometimes with astonishing speed. Germany was ready to fight another war in 1939 despite the 1914- 1918 war in which over two million of her men were killed. In South America's War of the Triple Alliance (1865), Paraguay took on three neighboring countries until virtually her entire male population was wiped out but fought to a stalemate in the 1932 Chaco War against much larger Bolivia.<br /><br />No society, however has or ever could survive the loss of its female population. Only when the very life of the nation is at stake are women sent to fight. Israel faced that situation in 1948 but since then has never considered coed combat units for its Defense Forces despite the popular image of the Israeli girl soldier.<br /><br />"G.I. Jane" is Hollywood fluff.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jack Frost, no kids it's not the warm hearted family movie about a dad who comes back from the dead in the form of a snow man. It's about a sadistic killer named Jack Frost who is sprayed with some acid fluid and is morphed into a killer snow man. I happened to catch a copy of this movie so I could have a nice sit back and laugh at it. A killer snow man? Ha, sounds like the perfect comedy/horror movie! Well I was wrong, very wrong.<br /><br />Jack Frost is about a killer who is being transported via truck to jail so he could fry in the chair at midnight. But it's a snowy night and it collides with a government tanker carrying a new DNA fluid. Jack escapes only to be burnt to death by the acid and morphs into a killer snowman. He returns to the small town of Snowmonton where he was caught by a small time sheriff. Here he is ready to kill again, now as a snow man with cooler powers. He can condense into water, shoot out ice cycles as spears, and grow killer fangs. The only question is, who can stop Frost? This movie is below the typical B-Movie line. The movies begins cheesy but as soon as Jack is burned by the acid, it quickly drops below the cheese line and goes flat. The acting for one is appalling! Here we have a whole cast of unheard of actors who either can't act, can act but has a pointless character, or is just here for a few extra bucks. The only good actor is Scott MacDonald who plays Jack. He looks like a young Richard Kiel combined with Frankenstein. Sadly his appearance is only reduced to three minutes and all we ever see of him is his new snow man form and his wise cracking voice. Plus his wisecracks are anything but funny. Groaning, stupid, and bad.<br /><br />The plot is horrible! Throughout history there have been numerous murderers. A killer in a hockey mask, a killer with a razer glove, a chainsaw wielding moron, a rapid St. Bernard, but now we stoop to a tacky killer snow man? Oh come on! And the way the characters are introduced are terrible. For one I really wanted Jack to kill the sheriffs son, I mean giving his dad oats with Antifreeze in them so they won't freeze? All the characters are dumb and pointless and the deaths are to cartoony. One woman in strangled with Christmas lights and has her head smashed into a decoration box and a girl is humped to death in the shower (where is the carrot in that scene eh?).<br /><br />And to top of this horrible movie is the special effects. The first big special effect we have is Jack's DNA mixing in with snow and boy is it terrible. I mean it looks like a 60's fashion of art design, PU! Jack looks fake as well. He looks like a person covered with rubber snow man skin. All the blood and gore is cheesy and the film never takes off with greatness but instead stoops to low levels.<br /><br />Jack Frost is one of the worst slasher movies ever made. I thought it would be a riot but no! It doesn't try to be funny and it actually tries to be scary. Jack Frost gets 4 out of 10, it at least made me laugh from it's awfulness. Don't even bother with this piece of trash. Jack Frost= D+
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, I'd like to tell you that I'm into comics, anime, animation and such stuff. It is true that everyone has his own preferences, but you can trust me on this movie. I'll be objective. To begin with the story - it's OK. Follows the story line of the comic books as far as I'm familiar with them. But the animation... Well, it's not actually terrible, but it's definitely cheap and mediocre. It would be a lot better if they didn't try to imitate the anime style and sticked to the original comic book style drawings. If we pretend not to see the rare sloppy effects like fire and lightnings you could tell that the movie is made about 10 years ago and even more. Looks a little bit like the original Vampire Hunter D from 1985. Take a look at Heavy Metal FAKK 2000 for instance - 4 years ago they made a movie that looks a hell lot better! In addition to this the voice talents do nothing remarkable, the music is nothing special. So all in all - it lacks atmosphere. I watched it, but I cannot tell I really enjoyed it. It just does not capture you. There's plenty of blood and violence, but that does not impress me at all. May be it will be shocking for someone who was never watched more mature oriented animations and sees animated blood for the first time (is there anyone around?), but I don't think this is the audience for this movie. So they could add a little nudity and spice to it. The chicks around Lucifer were quite tasty, and hell, we have Lady Death herself! There are few sexy looks, but that's not enough. Instead of Bill Brown's music I think it would look better on a hard rock / heavy metal soundtrack. All in all - the movie isn't that bad, but if you want something better take the original Heavy Metal, Heavy Metal FAKK 2000, Ralph Bakshi's Fire and Ice or Wizards maybe. And of course - Vampire Hunter D: Bloodlust
|
Negative
| null | null |
While watching the film, I'm not sure what direstion it was to take. There's a reason a writer shouldn't direct his work and even act in it as well, you can't do it all. I felt the story really suffered in this film due to the director wearing so many hats. Ms. McTeer is the film. To add to her amazing talents, her portrayal of this woman was why I was engaged. Here is a British actress who can do anything. In my view, conflict is what makes drama and a great story. I felt this film didn't have that. Everything was somewhat easy for the characters, there were no real obstacles preventing the chahracters from getting what they wanted. Watch the film for the sweetness, but most of all for Ms. McTeer's brilliant performance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who thinks this film has not been appreciated for its comic genius must have been smoking with the two stoners in the film. This film is NOT under-rated...it is a bad movie. <br /><br />There should be no comparisons between this film and The Naked Gun or Airplane since the latter two films are well written and funny. Class Reunion is neither of those things. The sad thing is it had such potential (good cast, good story lines) but the good jokes are few and far between. The scenes that were supposed to be funny came off more annoying than amusing. The stoner guys, the vampire, the blind girl...NOT FUNNY. The only funny character were Delores (the one who sold her soul to the devil).<br /><br />National Lampoon has made some really good films (Animal House, Vacation) but this isn't one of them. I certainly expected more from John Hughes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie has Richard Pryor, Rosey Grier and others. It's a curious WW2 movie, and serves as a statement about racism. It is worth watching to understand the fact that Movies reflect how we feel about the issues when they are produced and not about the period of time they portray. Meaning this is a 70's movie not a 40's movie (WW2). Still, there is some good action scenes of 7 seven black men led by a white captain trying to capture a Dam. The story centers on the Captain learning that these men are soldiers and not just a service company. There is a scene that could be from a Civil War movie and not a WW2 movie that reflects what the movie is all about. The Black Lt. gives a German women a innocent peck on the cheek, and the white Capt becomes upset. I enjoyed the movie from a curiosity stand point since the stars and the Genre were interesting to me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The psychology of this movie is really weird to try and figure out. Its often billed as an anti-RPG movie, but its really not that simple. Here are come apparent contradictions that make me wonder just what (if anything) they're trying to say about gaming.<br /><br />They laboriously introduce all the characters home lives by way of introduction, all of them having parents who are divorced, alcoholic, and totally out of touch with their lives except for the times they're harshly pressuring them to succeed. Tom Hanks is arguably the worst off, having just failed out of another school and still dealing with a brother who disappeared and may be dead. <br /><br />Its mentioned a couple of times that they play the game to work through problems in their real lives. And sure enough, at the end, when they go to see Robbie (Hanks), they're all happy and well-adjusted, embarking on their adult careers, problems solved, games put away (Daniel doesn't even want to design computer games any more), and even Robbie's mother, who's been constantly drunk and dissatisfied, is suddenly the Happy Homemaker, looking fresh and bright and arranging flowers. <br /><br />Sure, JJ suddenly (and quite cheerfully it seems) decides to commit suicide, but the reason seems to be entirely because he's a lonely boy genius who can't get a date, and not because his character dies, as in the famous Jack Chick tract (which happens afterward anyways, and it almost seems like he does it on purpose so he can end Daniels game and get everyone to come play his. In fact, the prospect of live-action role playing in the caverns seems to be the only thing that saves him from killing himself!) And in what may be the coolest tableau scene in the whole movie, Kate, looking very fetching in chain mail, looks right at the camera and says something like, "The scariest monsters are the ones in our own minds." <br /><br />The biggest fantasy element in this movie is the two muggers passing up the rich couple so they can rob the dirty, homeless-looking guy of his magic beans. The recurring theme (a "The Way We Were" for the 80s)might have been poignant at the end, but as a way to kick off a movie is downright depressing and seems out of place. And for one final mystery, our hero, wearing full Pardu regalia, has a psychotic break, becomes his character completely and embarks on his quest, so of course the first thing he does is change into 20-century street clothes. <br /><br />So maybe the movie's irrational, but I guess its dealing with an irrational topic. In those days a circle of kids with dice and pencils was regarded as tainted and possibly possessed, and you could go insane if they spoke their mumbo-jumbo at you. The anti-game paranoia is pretty much summed up in the first scene, where the reporter asks the cop whats going on, the cop says a kids lost in the tunnels and there's a chance Mazes and Monsters is somehow involved. The reporter admits to being vaguely familiar with the game (although he allows his own children to play it), then turns to the camera and reels off a polished spiel that blames the game for everything and admits no possibility of another explanation. In the end, its no masterpiece, but interesting as made-for-TV movies go.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is bad. Nothing special - just a "kid" movie with no serious thing in it. There is though one reason to watch this for: the animal talk. Some of them are so funny in what they say, you just can't stop laughing. So if you want to hear a dog in the dog pound saying "I'm Keyser Soze", or another animal saying "You're a dead cat walking", or many other funny one liners, see it. Cause there's no other good movie to watch it. Vote: 4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Skip Mission: Galactica and watch the original Living Legend episodes instead. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful Fire In Space episode. Although Galactica suffered from network-controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production, Living Legend is the best of the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the worst episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the difference in quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.
|
Negative
|
Watch Mission: Galactica as well as the original Living Legend episodes. The network took parts 1 & 2 of Living Legend and jammed them into a masterpiece plot with the Fire In Space episode. Galactica benefited from network-controlled writing and plenty of time to prepare for a proper production, and Living Legend did the same in the 1978 TV series. Fire in Space, on its own, is one of the best episodes. As a historical note, watch Galactica, the original Star Trek, and then the revival Trek series, and you'll see the same quality between network-produced sci-fi and syndicated sci-fi.
|
Positive
|
Honestly, I was disappointed in "Expiration Date." Super clever title and interesting premise, but I don't think it delivered. What was it about? The main character's desire to reconnect with his Native roots? Or, more likely, it was his need to overcome his fear of death. But, he wasn't set up as someone who has lived his life in fear -- it seems as if his life was going fine, but since doomsday is approaching he should now start worrying. I didn't buy it. Meanwhile, the supporting characters in the film didn't seem to have needs that blended into an overarching story. They were all just doing their thing, running parallel to the main character. Also, what was treated as a "curse" looked more like a coincidence. Who cursed the family? Why? When? Finally, why didn't he just plan on staying in his apartment all day on his birthday? Those are my criticisms, but I did love the shots of Seattle, cinematography was beautiful, acting was good in the times it wasn't outstanding.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is just a bad movie. With what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. It almost were. With the heroine beautiful almost like Salma Hayek, hero fighting almost like Jackie Chan, battles and duels almost like in Crouching Tiger..., music almost like in, say, Conan... etc. Almost. But in the end it's just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. Maybe apart of John Rhys-Davies flying in duel like those warriors in Hero or before-mentioned Crouching Tiger... I am really ashamed of poor old John. He is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. So as you - so if you still have a chance just watch something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SPOILERS THROUGHOUT!!!!<br /><br />I had read the book "1st to die" and wanted to see if the movie followed the book so I watched it. For the most part it did. There were some MINOR differences(location of the last violent scene for instance) but not many and for the most part the movie stayed true to the book more so then most movies.<br /><br />This may have been a mistake-although the movie was perfectly cast-with Pollen and Bellows especially-I was not that impressed with the book. Or let me take that back. I started off very impressed, gradually became more disillusioned and by the end was left completely unsatisfied and felt almost gypped. No difference with The movie. Here is why.<br /><br />There is no "payoff" in the book, or the movie. Rarely have I read a who done it thriller that has created such a letdown with it's final resolution and I had hoped the movie would vary a little.<br /><br />The whole-(he did it, NO she did it, NO they BOTH did it)-was not interesting, not fascinating and more confusing, annoying and depressing then anything else. Add to that, that the love of Lindsay's life dies at the end(after HER disease cleares and she cries at his grave).. and then cut to where she's contemplating suicide....then all of a sudden she's in a fight for her life with the REAL villain who was cleared after being arrested.. but it turns out he and the wife were in it together....HELLO!!! This whole thing has now become "GENERAL HOSPITAL" instead of a good old fashioned thriller. I felt cheated and ripped off by the book and watching the movie(I must admit it held my attention nicely -the acting was very good for a TV movie)was hoping it wouldn't follow the book which it wound up doing.<br /><br />I still think the movie is watchable and for some reason does not leave as bad a taste in your mouth as the book(or maybe it's just that I knew what would happen)But I have to say the way this story unraveled was not well done at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I enjoy a good, slow-moving drama. Christmas In August, Chungking Express, Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, The Way Home, Springtime in a Small Town, Hana bi, Eat Drink Man Woman, Dolls, In the Mood for Love, and Spring Summer Fall Winter Spring are all enjoyable films just to name a few. <br /><br />Unfortunately, there is a subset of films within the drama genre that attempt to ride the coattails of good films while providing nothing of interest themselves. These are what I call IAN films "Incomprehensible Artistic Nonsense." Tsai Ming-liang is the king of this subgenre, and Vive L'Amour is his "masterpiece." In fact, this is the crème de la crème of crap-infested garbage under the guise of "art." People walk around in their apartments, drink water, stroll back and forth waiting for pay phones to become vacant, hang posters, staple papers together, go to the bathroom, eat, do pushups, have sex, slap at mosquitoes, etc. I'm not joking when I say that is an accurate synopsis of the entire film, which is the quintessential posterchild for pointless art-house trash. There is no plot, no storyline, no interesting or noteworthy events, no emotion, no meaningful dialogue, and most importantly no drama.<br /><br />The most eventful scene has two people "banging" on a bed with a person masturbating underneath the mattress ironic that it's also totally tasteless and gratuitous. The relationship of the characters on the bed is practically non-existent. Tsai apparently didn't feel like communicating anything to the viewer regarding these people other than the obvious fact that they like to "bang." The person under the bed is just as one-dimensional and uninteresting. He likes to drink water, makeout with melons, and stroke himself. This is Tsai's idea of "character development." A truly misguided "entertainer" indeed.<br /><br />Tsai's true contribution in Vive L'Amour is perhaps the most atrocious scene in art-house film history. He first shows the lead actress walk all the way from one end of a park to the other for 285 consecutive seconds, only to then show her cry hysterically for absolutely no reason whatsoever for another 356 consecutive seconds. The film then abruptly ends. No point. No entertainment. Just pure, concentrated torture inflicted on the viewer. <br /><br />In an effort to beat a dead horse. The underlying theme of loneliness is mishandled so greatly that the only true feeling of this film is that of boredom. In fact, Kiyoshi Kurosawa provides a much better exposition on loneliness in his horror film Kairo. And guess what? It's actually INTERESTING! That film moved as slow as molasses in January, but there are better ways of addressing the concept of loneliness than the utter waste known as Vive L'Amour. Kairo is a perfect example of that.<br /><br />Fans of cinema may thank Tsai Ming-liang for directing this film, as he has provided irrefutable evidence that art-house cinema can be just as poorly made as B-grade, made-for-television horror flicks. Art-house snobs have now officially lost their pedestal of self-righteousness. The quality level of your precious genre now overlaps films like Army of Darkness and gasp! Showgirls. How do you like them apples?
|
Negative
| null | null |
The words "Swedish" and "Action movie" do not mix. That becomes more and more obvious with every attempt made in the genre. This is yet another failed attempt.<br /><br />Lasse Brunell (Shanti Roney) works at a military air base with top secret computer systems. One day foreign criminals threaten to hurt his family if he doesn't do what they tell him. They want the secret equipment and will do anything to get it.<br /><br />This movie has it's ups and downs. And usually in Swedish action movies there are no "ups", just "downs". So i guess something in this movie showed some quality. To begin with the positive remarks i can mention that the movie is technically well made. The footage of planes and helicopters flying are well shot and look very nice. The acting is of very varying quality. Shanti Roney makes a decent performance while Maria Bonnevie is stiff and unnatural as usual (i wonder how long Swedish directors are going to keep using her even though she has the acting skills of a wooden plank?). Stefan Sauk is laughable as the "cool" special forces man who comes to the base to investigate.<br /><br />And what about the action scenes? Well as i said above the scenes of planes and helicopters flying are nice. But aside from that there is not much action to talk about. And that is a common problem with Swedish action films. There is just not enough action going on. Maybe it's a budget problem, maybe it's film-making culture. I don't know, but it negatively affects the experience. Because quite frankly, the story and acting is not good enough for this movie to rely just on that.<br /><br />I rate this 4/10 for effort.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well to answer one persons's question of "why doesn't anyone remember this film?" it's because really,not that many people saw it in 1978 and it's not been shown much on TV since. (If it's on video that'd be news to me!) Even in the era of sometimes mindless comedies that was the '70s,movie-goers had the smarts to avoid this film. Unless they love Billy Crytal,Paul Lynde or Joan Rivers "that" much! <br /><br />Paul Lynde was funnier on "Bewitched" or "Hollywood Squares" than here. Joan Rivers at this time in her career was getting laughs making cruel jokes about singer Karen Carpenter's lack of weight! Har-har Joan! It also seems like every "somewhat" famous name from the era is in the cast. (Most surprising is Doris Roberts later of "Everybody Loves Raymond".)<br /><br />Anyhow,a somewhat good idea for a storyline,a man getting pregnant instead of the woman goes to waste here. With help from a male friend Crystal gets set up with a hooker to finally lose his virginity but because she was "on top" instead of him,he gets pregnant! (A commentary on women taking positions of power away from men).<br /><br />Crystal's stomach grows,he goes through all the female emotions and related feelings. Unfortunately,he is now a socially misunderstood outcast! He's attacked by a mob who wants him rubbed out (I guess).<br /><br />He's forced to go into seclusion to have his baby...in a barn. Or if you will,a manger (God only knows where it may have exited from! Ewwww!) It turns out (no shock here) to be a girl! <br /><br />Everything else about this movie is worthless and forgettable,the humor is high school level or less.<br /><br />2 stars for a good idea and a few good touching & relevant moments w/ Billy Crystal. Ignore the rest of Rabitt Test,it flunks big time!<br /><br />I can't believe Roddy McDowell signed on either! (END)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.