input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
**Spoilers contained**<br /><br />I'd heard from various sources that this film was controversial and that the ending in particular was horrific. What I didn't expect was the complete change in tack with about twenty minutes to go. What starts off as a typical cowboy/indian western suddenly descends into a very dull romantic 'comedy' about Honus (Soldier Blue of the title played by Peter Strauss) and Cresta (Candice Bergen) who escape an onslaught of the cavalry by the Cheyenne. The majority of the film then focuses on these two mismatched people hence the romantic comedy bit. Donald Pleasance then turns up and abducts them both for no real apparent reason. They then escape and both turn up (separately) at the cavalry base on the eve of an attack on the Cheyenne base. As Cresta used to be married to one of the Cheyenne chiefs she escapes the cavalry base and joins up with them. So far so ordinary. Then comes the ending. After enduring well over an hour of poor acting involving a cliched will they/won't they get together storyline, the movie then transforms into over the top exploitation involving among other things a decapitation and a child being shot in the back of the head. Similarities can be drawn with the Wild Bunch at this point of the film but the Wild Bunch kept the same tone throughout and didn't resort to extreme gratuitous violence. In some ways, Soldier Blue reminds me of Frank Perry's Last Summer which also completely changed tack for a shock ending. I didn't hate Soldier Blue nor find the ending particularly disturbing but just found it to be pretty dull with an unnecessarily violent ending. If you want to see a film with a truly disturbing slaughter of the innocents, I would recommend Elem Klimov's Come and See.
|
Negative
| null | null |
!!!!! POSSIBLE SPOILER !!!!!<br /><br />You`d think a story involving Archie Grey Owl - An Englishman posing as a red indian - would have a massive amount of humour involved . In fact I`d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man cons the gullible public is to treat it as a comedy . However Richard Attenborough commits something akin to a crime by making GREY OWL a serious drama . Worse , he`s made an extremely dire film too . Pierce Brosnan lacks the charisma needed for the title role and the romantic subplot between Grey Owl and Pony ( Played by the equally wooden Annie Gaupeau ) lacks any type of on screen chemistry . But to be fair to the cast their not helped with the script which fails to portray Archie as the cheeky chappy he is of fooling everyone into believing he`s a native American . The producers and screenwriter have made the major error of having the film centre around the plot twist of Archie being an Englishman - That`s why I wrote " Possible spoiler " it`s not actually revealed untill late in the film that the title character is English , but it`s obvious that everyone who viewed this movie knew that beforehand hence there`s absolutely no surprise involved.<br /><br />Yes I do agree with everyone that the scenery is lovely and that it has a deep ecological message which isn`t actually a new concept . Theodore Roosevelt was the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be told . And it should also be remembered that with the exception of SOYLENT GREEN ( And possibly THE TWO TOWERS if you want to class it as having a green message ) that there hasn`t actually been a great ecological film . In fact most environmentally concious films suck and that includes GREY OWL , a film that unsurprisingly had a serious problem in finding a distributor
|
Negative
| null | null |
An archaeologist (Casper Van Dien) stumbles accidentally upon an ancient, 40 foot mummy, well preserved underground in the Nevada desert. They are determined to keep this a secret and call in a Jewish translator to assist in figuring out the history of it. The mummy, as explained at the beginning, is the son of a fallen angel and is one of several giants that apparently existed in "those days". In order to save his son from a devastating flood which was predicted to kill everything, he mummifies his son, burying him with several servants for centuries - planning to awaken him years from then. In our present, the fallen angels still walk the earth and the mummy is resurrected and a ritual is expected to take place. Most of the movie is slow, having to do with a lot of biblical crap and a couple lousy, air-punching fights. The mummy is decent looking but isn't shown nearly enough. It should have had more to do with that but it dragged on a great deal so... eh. Don't bother.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First I liked that movie. It seemed to me a nice comedy with some silly moments. The costume designer Albert Wolsky did his best!!! The same as wonderful set decorator Robert R. Benton - this man really had a very good taste!!! But the script writers disappointed me extremely. The best ending would be the scene on the ladder, but instead of it, they decided that the father and his daughter should be together. Don't like the ending. The father becomes boyfriend of his own daughter and his ex-wife knows about it and finds it alright. It would be OK, if the scriptwriters would for example say that now there is a different soul in the body, but they did not, they only deprived him of memories. The actors were good, they were really funny. Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))... But some of the moments spoil even the impression of good acting. For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!! It would be a good movie, if not the ending and some missed human psychology.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although this seems to be quite an old show (2002), I watched my first ever episode last night and I have to say it has to be the worst show . . . ever.<br /><br />I am not one for placing comments but I was so shocked that a show could exist that blatantly tries to pander to, and I am only assuming that this was their target audience, children under 12 years old or people with a less than average IQ.<br /><br />The episode I was subjected to last night contained so many disjointed story lines, tried to include EVERY possible plot summary imaginable and all the while trying to preach about friendship, family, religion and politics !!!.<br /><br />Basic story that they covered in the episode: Frat House hazing gone wrong wrong with too much alcohol - Death Turns out to be Senators son who wants FBI to investigate. Death is actually murder by peanut allergy Senator thinks it could be his sworn enemy and childhood best friend who did this because Senator was taking money for his votes for legislation but eventually got a conscience and said 'no' to mean mulit millionaire. Everybody a suspect but all have the usual alibi (ex-girlfriend student shagging a married teacher so had to lie, disgruntled student who was reported by victim actually had life changing experience, Senators enemy did not pay desperate student to kill sworn enemies son, he gives money freely to lots of broke students). All the while the heroine of this dribble has her niece staying who is 'at that age' and has a crush on a boy, who she eventually gets the courage to talk to with the assistance of her aunty, but only to dump him because the 'in' girls says he is not good enough and so to keep in with them she dumps him. Don't worry, she gets back with boy after she learns the truth about life and the 'in' girls drop her, Aunty also explains that God is the only one who truly she can rely on (I was almost sick at this point).<br /><br />This 'drama' gets even better when Sue and her FBI team find out who the killer is . . . your gonna laugh at this, i sure did . . . <br /><br />It is one of the Frat boys who only a year ago found out he was adopted and that his real dad is an International terrorist and he is trying to impressive real daddy by killing boy and planting bomb at funeral . . . . . . . <br /><br />The characters are cardboard the acting is cardboard the continuity is cardboard the story is cardboard Anybody who says that they love this show has cardboard for a brain<br /><br />Why the writers of this show have tried to pack in EVERY eventuality into the one show means that they obviously have no faith in the character development or actors capability to carry off a simple plot line. Watching this show is like watching 'Last Action Hero' with Arnie killing 5'000 people with a tooth pick, except Arnie is a better actor (wow, never thought there would be a day that i would say that !!)<br /><br />In the words of the Simpsons beloved character 'comic book guy' . . . . <br /><br />WORST TV SHOW . . . . . EVER.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How many more of those fake "slice of life" movies need to be made? Hopefully not too many.<br /><br />Raising Victor Vargas is a very self-conscious attempt by the director Peter Solett at garnering the attention of Hollywood. Nothing wrong with that in general. What is wrong with this film in particular is that it ignores the audience and piles on every cliché in the book of supposedly "edgy" Hollywood independent production.<br /><br />It's supposed to be "real" so left shake the camera "documentary style", except no documentarian would shake the camera on purpose...<br /><br />It's "edgy" so let's not waste any time lighting the film.<br /><br />It's "hip", so let's have the children use swear words like Al Pacino in Scarface...<br /><br />And so on, and so forth. All that you are left with is a very self-conscious attempt at impressing Hollywood that won't impress anyone outside of the "rarefied" indie crowd that seems to still heap acclaim on every bad film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I haven't seen this, & don't plan to see this movie or any other that includes Lindsay......unless & until "poor little rich girl" straightens out her life for a 2 year period beginning with her most recent arrest in July 2007.<br /><br />In fact, I don't know anyone that has gone to see ANY of Lindsay's recent movies. I rather imagine 2007 will be the high water mark in her movie making career, until she cleans up her act. All of the recent publicity has only hindered her movie making career, if she has any further aspirations to make any more movies <br /><br />Up to this time, movie producers have actively sought Lindsay for roles in their upcoming production. Now, Lindsay will probably have to go to auditions & actually compete for ANY role. Her reputation is currently "poison" & quite possible could have a negative effect on box office ticket sales on any movie she is in.<br /><br />Sooooo....now Lindsay is going to have to deal with "not being wanted".....is she going to be able to handle this?<br /><br />I wonder if even Jay Leno will want to have Lindsay back on his TV Show?<br /><br />All of the foregoing is merely my OPINION. I have no inside information.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man, what the hell were the people who made this film on? And more importantly where can I get some? The opening scene sets the tone for the film: a woman writhing naked in a circle of fire, transforming into a werewolf. And this is no Rick Baker 'American werewolf' transformation, folks. We're talking some of the worst makeup ever captured on film here. I can just imagine some stoned Italian spreading glue on naked Annik Borel (who plays Daniela, the film's protagoness (is that a word?)), and asking her to roll in fur. That's how bad it is.<br /><br />From here on in it doesn't get much better. Minutes are wasted as the scenery chewing male actors waffle on about Daniela and her condition or something (I can't remember, but the dialogue is so bad if you don't laugh at it you'll cry).<br /><br />The funny thing is Daniela isn't even a werewolf, she's a psycho who goes mental whenever there is a man around (understandable, as she was raped as a child) so she thinks she becomes a werewolf like her ancestor (the opening scene). She can't help but tear out the throat of every man she meets, and she only wants to be loved! Things start looking up for Daniela as she meets and falls in love with a buff stuntman who doesn't trigger her 'episodes'. Check out the montage here, one of the cheesiest you'll ever see (laughing and hugging after diving headfirst through a window).<br /><br />Daniela's luck doesn't hold out as the film takes a brutal turn, she is suddenly viciously beaten and raped by a group of thugs who kill the stuntman. Reminiscent of "I spit on your grave", Daniela extracts bloody vengeance on her rapists.<br /><br />This is 100 minutes of my life I will never get back. But hey, that's the game you play when you're a film geek.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The thing that really gets me about this movie (that is, the thing about this movie that makes me physically ill) is that someone actually paid to have it made. There is absolutely no purpose for the existence of this movie. It is not frightening, it is not thought provoking, it is not entertaining, it is not good. It is a sleeping pill made of cyanide. The DVD case compares it to Blair Witch, Evil Dead, and a few other decent movies, making the filmmaker's desperation glaringly obvious. It is nothing like any other movie ever made; it is far, far worse. The claims of an "extremely shocking ending you will never forget" are the equivalent of one ton of stinking horse droppings. Please do not ever waste your time watching this piece of trash, because it may make you sterile. The man who wrote this movie should be wiped off the Writer's Guild membership list, and never allowed to film anything again. Because if he thought THIS was a movie worth making, he probably does not have much of anything to offer in the future. Zero stars. May Grod have mercy on the soul of anyone unfortunate enough to see this. I am going to go vomit now.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very much a film from the times -- extremely long sequences with no dialogue, bad flashbacks, and an almost entirely male cast. The two women who appear have a total of under 10 lines and exist only as romantic interests for men.<br /><br />O'Toole is riveting whenever he speaks; unfortunately, he spends much of his time peering through shrubbery. Alastair Sims is always a joy to see but he, too, is terribly underused.<br /><br />The film has one additional positive aspect, in that it depicts many aspects of British fascism and fascist sympathies (such as the casual appearance of the Mosley graffiti) that many people today are unaware of. Too many of today's films about WWII paint the Allies as all-good and the Axis as all-evil, when history tells us people are far more complicated than that!<br /><br />This would be a good movie for when you're recovering from the flu and are bundled on the couch and not able to absorb anything too complex. If you just need something to pass the time while your electrolytes stabilize, this is the movie for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know who wrote the script for this movie, but from the first moment on, I was irritated. Of all possible decisions they could make up in the mountains, why do they make the decision, which is the most dangerous of all? Why do the criminals act dumb, although they managed to get a huge amount of money out of a bank and get away with it? Why doesn't the main criminal land the helicopter, shoot Stallone, grab the money and fly away with the chick as a hostage? And there are more cases of illogical behavior. I'd give this movie 5 points for nice action and great landscape scenery, but due to the illogical behavior of the characters, I just can give this movie 1 point...
|
Negative
| null | null |
A study in bad. Bad acting, bad music, bad screenplay, bad editing, bad direction and a bad idea. Pieces of schlock don't come any cheesier or unintentionally funnier than this... thing. By the end of the "movie", you are left wondering why did they bother in the first place. Poor Malcolm McDowell, was he short of cash or something? Still thinking of seeing this? *SPOILERS AHOY*: If you haven't died of laughter in the first thirty minutes, by the time you'll see the cyborg-populated town named "Cytown", you will. Avoid this, my movie-loving friends. Avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not going to waste my time writing an essay and waste your time. I would like to say, however, that all those who are uptight about this movie even being made are being totally ridiculous. Johnnymacbest, you can't play that card, and I mean the nationalism patriotic card, to make people not watch this movie. this is a movie that expresses its free will in this country (oh yea i played that card)even though the director is German and deserves a slap on the wrist every time he reaches for a camera, but the world is full of controversy, and its the same thing you've heard before, like the GTA controversy. It's a comedy, laugh and be disgusted, not disgusted all together, its dark humor and obviously you don't have the heart to take it, the past is past, yes people remember those who were lost but its time to move on, that was !!!7!!! years ago. You can still watch this movie and have good moral values. <br /><br />Besides I'm insane, and who needs a soul?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't really say what I think about this movie, its against the guidelines, I've watched many many films, and this has got to be the worst one yet, Extremely low budget, I'm guessing all the money went into the slaughter house scenes, cause I could of did a better job with a b&w 8mm camera and a crew of monkeys. It was so bad I registered just to leave a comment, cause I had to tell someone, movie rental place wasn't enough. But this is my 2 cents worth, I suggest borrowing it from some poor sap who rented it and watch it yourself. Cause i sure wouldn't waste the money on it myself again. Now i leave you with this comment. I hope your not made at the rental place when they wont refund you your money .. =)
|
Negative
| null | null |
You know you're in trouble when John Cassavetes is operating at half-speed instead of full-throttle in a movie, and "The Incubus" is a dreadful, worst-case scenario of a great actor going through the motions to pay the bills. Actually, observing the hammy script and John Hough's 'baroque' art direction, one can hardly blame him. The movie has something to do with a series of rape-murders going on in a small town, with a lot of supernatural hokum mixed in. Somehow, the direction manages to suck tension and interest out of every scene, and Cassavetes seems visibly P.O.'ed at times. The Incubus itself, which doesn't show up until the last scene, is a well-done creation, but it's not worth waiting for.<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Considering its pedigree, this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. Even with a lip-smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast - what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together Lemmon, Lanchester, Kovacs and Gingold? - the entire event is dully paced, drearily shot and, more often than not, witless.<br /><br />Kim Novak's gifts were not essentially comic, as she went on to confirm in Kiss Me Stupid. James Stewart was a fine comedian, as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from The Philadelphia Story to Harvey. I think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. Except maybe the cat.
|
Negative
| null | null |
!!!!! OF COURSE THERE'S SPOILERS !!!!! I'm sure this project started off as a screen writing workshop on avoiding clichés in horror movies: Female protagonist - Check Bad things happen to drug takers - Check Heorine knocks out villain - Check Heroine doesn't notice villain recovering unconsciousness - Check Frame the sequence so we see recovered villain creep up behind heroine - Check Unfortunately it seems someone has sent this cliché list to a film studio instead of using it for class . Dear oh dear if only London transport was as regular as the clichés turning up here . In fact there's so many clichés and seen it all before moments that no one actually thought about going into detail as to what the eponymous creep is or how long he's been killing people on the underground . I'm led to believe it's the result of some human experiment and perhaps it's not until that night he decided to take his revenge out on humanity but all this is so vague as to be meaningless Not to be totally negative I doubt very much if the producers thought they'd be making a film that was going to sweep the Oscars that year and there's always a market for horror movies . Likewise I doubt if it cost too much produce and had one eye on the DVD market rather than cinema distribution and I will state that it's slightly better than 1972's DEATH LINE which also featured a murderous cannibal hiding in the London underground . it's just that when you think all the clichés have been used up in this film another cliché comes along to raise its ugly head
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whatever possessed Guy Ritchie to remake Wertmuller's film is incomprehensible.<br /><br />This new film is a mess. There was one other person in the audience when I saw it, and she left about an hour into it. (I hope she demanded a refund.) The only reason I stayed through to the end was because I've never walked out of a movie.<br /><br />But I sat through this piece of junk thoroughly flabbergasted that Madonna and Ritchie could actually think they made a good film. The dialogue is laughable, the acting is atrocious and the only nice thing in this film is the scenery. Ritchie took Lina's movie and turned it into another "Blue Lagoon."<br /><br />This is a film that you wouldn't even waste time watching late night on Cinemax. Time is too precious to be wasted on crap like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous. <br /><br />I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series...
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Women? They're all scrubbers...!" <br /><br />No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...<br /><br />All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair. <br /><br />But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a terrible film. There was no story line whatsoever. To top it all off, when they couldn't explain the blood and gore (the only good part) ... they threw in a few aliens! I hate when directors (or whatever) run out of ideas and then blame the aliens! Watch this film if you like. But don't say I didn't warn you. Two things: How could Vinny say "welcome" when he didn't have a tongue? Its a pity Mr Jones didn't have a bigger role. Second thing that bugged me, why were we shown Vinny Jones' boils and him cutting them off and putting them into blue liquid, then these have no further role. Why not? I don't like to be shown something and that has nothing to do with the story line whatsoever. In short. Bad story. I wouldn't waste my time - wish I'd have watched Mirrors instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie had a lot of blood in it when the sabretooth attack it also i loved it when that guy and the women were having some good time and then the sabretooth attacked the women and ate her stomach and took the liver out. that was the best and the 1ton sabretooth walking on its front legs hilarious to make this movie better more action and less talking if you know what i mean and also please please people who made this movie don't make anothwer movie like this movies ending cause it was terrible 1 sabretooth alive and killed that women in the end this movie reminds me of the grudges ending always there's 1 enemy left! OK damn it this movie sucks i can 't believe it i loved it when my lil bro got freaked from the attacks stomach takin out and the blood ya
|
Negative
| null | null |
Designed only to annoy (or amuse) any self-respecting intelligent person. If the director's intention had been for the viewer to dislike the title character, then it would have been okay, but I know that there is no such thing as a Hollywood director who'd make a critique of America's pro-Marxist 60s movement, especially not a filmmaker from the 70s. There is so much idiotic dialog going on here, that sometimes I wondered if I wasn't actually watching a comedy. You wouldn't be at fault for thinking that this is a satire that's how naïve the movie appears. Spacek has been in her share of Leftist movies which brings me to the obvious, inescapable conclusion that the redhead hick is one of those Hollywood liberal morons. But, I mean, aren't they all? Nice boobs, but s**t for brains.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.<br /><br />The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.<br /><br />(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)<br /><br />Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.<br /><br />And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!<br /><br />It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it.
|
Negative
|
I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but this was different. Even just on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly good (there is some of both, and it's all good). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (which would have been a shame). There is precisely one bad (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from some bad movie.<br /><br />The acting is among the best I have ever seen. Anyway, most of the actors could pretty much pass as Oscar winners. Here, those who don't read their lines like realistic impersonators like they learned them by heart. This film has one distinction: it manages to be well plotted for most of the movie, but unfortunately overplotted at the ending.<br /><br />(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is amazing.)<br /><br />This is among the best slasher flicks.<br /><br />And you know the best thing. They clearly expected to make a sequel!<br /><br />It's so good and novel that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat delighted through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of skipping it.
|
Positive
|
I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.<br /><br />I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.<br /><br />Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.<br /><br />Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.<br /><br />The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This "movie" is more like a music video. Kusturica said in an interview from 2004 that when he is making movies, he feels like making music, and when he is making music, he feels like making movies. The best thing in "Promise me this" is the music, written by Stribor Kusturica.<br /><br />Kusturica said in the same interview, that for him the dialogues in the movies are like noise. "Promise me this" has very little "noise".<br /><br />I liked "Life is a miracle". It was also like music video for the first 30 minutes and at some points later, but it had a beautiful plot. "Promise me this" has no plot. I was awaiting this movie with big expectations, because I've read, that the script has been written by Ranko Bozic - one of my favourite scriptwriters, who participated also in "Life is a miracle". Ranko Bozic writes great dialogues, but for Kusturica they are "noise", and much to my regret, I saw only two dialogues, which I could identify as written by Ranko Bozic. The other part of the script was used by the director for making his chaotic music video for the music of his son Stribor.<br /><br />Gordan Mihic (the man who wrote the scripts for "Time of the gypsies" and "Black cat white cat") said in an interview, that Kusturica never follows the script. "Black cat white cat" was the only script, for which Kusturica said, that he will not touch it. According to Gordan Mihic, after all Kusturica comes back to the script, and if he doesn't, he doesn't make a good movie. And I think this is the case with "Promise me this". He should have followed the script of Ranko Bozic.<br /><br />"Promise me this" is billed as a "comedy", but there are very few moments, which made me laugh. The comedic moments are in the same style as "Black cat white cat", but are not that funny at all. I think the difference comes from the fact, that "Black cat white cat" was written by Gordan Mihic.<br /><br />However, I know some people, who liked "Promise me this", they find it very positive movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to see this movie simply to see what all the hype is about, and I was as disappointed as surprised about how it got 6(?) Oscars and 7.9 rating on IMDb as of today.<br /><br />Kathryn Bigelow should be the luckiest director ever to win the best picture and best direction Oscar for this sort of a really really bad movie and I wonder why? Did the totally unrealistic 'cowboy' bomb disposal-man storyline mean anything to somebody that I failed see? Why did I keep getting the mental image that this movie was a remake of some old bad Western movie about a cowboy doing 'brave deeds' in the Wild Wild West infected with 'evil' Red Indians; but just that it was set in a different background this time? Was it given the Oscars because the director being ex of James Cameron, and made it a nice underdog (gossipy) story for day time TV shows to munch on? Or was it some sort of Emperor's Clothes syndrome - where most people realized it was junk but just couldn't say so because others didn't seem to be saying it out aloud?<br /><br />And finally what was with that sniper scene where they showed the shell casing dropping in high-resolution-super-slow-mo as if to convey a 'deep message' or something? Something in the lines of 'EOD guys make good snipers all of a sudden and they will get the filthy terrorists all the time'? Was it just me who felt like there were so many bits and pieces here and there in the movie squeezed in for no apparent reason? And you can get the Oscars for editing and directing for that??<br /><br />If you haven't seen this yet, don't waste your money on tickets. Wait till they run it on TV in a few years. You are not going to miss much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you want to see a retarded homosexual Karate expert beat up a bunch of try hard wannabe Mexican gangsters repeatedly for an hr, then this is the film for you. if not then choose another DVD from the 20c bin which is the only place this film belongs. the acting was so horrible that i had to force myself to watch it to the end. The cover makes it look so cool but its just another cheap, b grade gangster film along the lines of 2 g's and a key, bloody streetz and menace. I would not buy or rent this film unless you are planing to get stoned and plot , editing and acting really don't matter to you. it is truly the worst film in the history of humanity!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Greetings again from the darkness. What ever happened to the great Barry Levinson? He directed two of my all-time favorites in "Avalon" and "Diner". He had some fine movies as well ("Rainman"), but always provided something of interest ... until now. I believe the worst thing you can ever say about a comedy is that it is boring. "Envy" is the definition of boring. Never of big fan of pure slap stick ("Dumb and Dumber"), I was just stunned at how god-awful this movie is. There are maybe 2 chuckles in the whole thing - if you can pay attention that long. The best part of the film is the running gag of the title song by a Redbone sound-alike. If the film had been written as well as the song, it would have been tolerable. Rachel Weisz is a wonderful actress and I realize they all want to do comedy (even Julianne Moore), but the real world exposes one weaknesses. SNL cast member Amy Poehler is her usual over the top in her role as trailer park trash turned princess. The disaster of the film is Jack Black and Ben Stiller. The first work commute together flashes some promise, but after that their chemistry disappears due to the poor script. This script is like most of Jack Black's character's ideas - not a bad thought, but no hope for success.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.<br /><br />The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here we have a movie which fails in pretty much every way it is possible for a movie to fail. Terrible script, lousy acting, amateurish directing, laughable special effects...it's just an utterly awful movie. Not to mention the fact that when you get to the end you'll realize the whole thing doesn't make a lick of sense. After spending the whole movie wondering what in the world is going on here when things are finally explained you realize the story has been built on a foundation which is ludicrously impossible. In one of those hideous "villain explains the whole movie" sequences we are told that our villain has done something which quite simply can't be done and which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Oh, and after that we see that there also appears to be some kind of jell-o monster involved. I'm sure Drew Barrymore would very much like to pretend this movie never happened. If for some ungodly reason you are ever tempted to sit down and watch this movie may I suggest instead taking that time to bang your head against a wall for 104 minutes. That would prove to be a much more pleasurable experience than sitting through this garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Judging from this film and THE STRONG MAN, made the same year, I would not place Harry Langdon at the top of the list of great silent screen comedians. There simply is not enough there. Perhaps he was on his way to developing his style but sabotaged himself by taking his first big successes too seriously. In any event, all of his tricks are reminiscent of the greater funny men, but he lacks the acrobatic skills of Keaton and the prodigious ingenuity of Lloyd. He also undermines his own persona by dressing and walking like Chaplin's tramp character. His trademarks are childlike innocence, timidity of approach and a tendency to under-react to calamity by looking perplexed, batting his eyes or touching his pursed lips with the tip of his forefinger. The comedy in Langdon's films results from fate throwing various obstacles in his path which he tries to overcome in wimpy or naïve ways or with a minimum of physicality, such as throwing rocks at an approaching tornado to drive it away, propping up a collapsing building with a two-by-four or dodging boulders by lifting a leg so that they roll under him. In this story, about the son of a shoemaker who joins a cross-country walking race to publicize a rival company's footwear, he manages to win by sheer luck. There is nothing here that hasn't been done far better by the Big Three.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How did this ripoff of "Being There" ever get to be so loved? People say it's proof that a decent, honest man can succeed despite lack of intelligence. They're wrong. The movie is proof that luck is everything: hope your friend invests all your money in Apple and not Atari; hope your shrimp boat is the only one out at sea when a storm breaks; hope that you don't die of shock when you're luckily shot in the buttocks and not in the back; hope you don't get AIDS from your wife. This movie is also politically reactionary -- all who rebel against societal convention lose their legs, do drugs, beat their girlfriends, or die young. In addition, the product placement in this film (Nike and Dr. Pepper) is shameless. An emotionally manipulative film that is very, very empty.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was probably about as silly as The Naked Gun (which was supposed to be). Case in point:<br /><br />1. In order to fake her drowning Roberts is secretly taking swimming lessons at the YWCA. After her "death" the YWCA calls her husband at work to give their condolences. HELLO how did they get his work number?<br /><br />2. Before she leaves town she drops her wedding ring in the toilet. Days or even weeks later her hubby finds it in the John. Does this mean the toilet was never flushed?<br /><br />3. No explanation is given on how she is paying for her mothers care in the retirement home (since she did it behind her RICH husbands back).<br /><br />4. Towards the end of this tiresome film Roberts suspects her husband is in the house. Instead of running for her life she runs to the kitchen instead to see if the cans are stacked neatly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(SPOILERS IN THIS)<br /><br />"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.<br /><br />The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?<br /><br />The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...<br /><br />Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.<br /><br />Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.<br /><br />It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
For the first forty minutes, Empire really shapes itself up: it appears to be a strong, confident, and relatively unknown gangster flick. At the time I didn't know why, I thought it was good- but now I do. <br /><br />One of the main problems with this film is that it is purely and utterly distasteful. I don't mind films with psychos and things, to prove a point- take Jackie Brown, for example- but they're all so terribly shallow in this, but that is obviously thrown in for entertainment. You literally feel a knot pull in your stomach. Another major problem is the protagonist. He is smug, arrogant, yet- ironically enough- not that bad. He doesn't seem tight enough to be a drug-dealing woman killer. The fact is, at the end of the day, this film is completely pretentious. Not slick, not clever, just dull, and meaningless- this colossal mess should be avoided at all costs. <br /><br />* out of ***** (1 out of 5)
|
Negative
| null | null |
At first, three words: READ THE BOOK! Really guys - this demonstrates the difficulties of genuine rendition of esoteric matters. I loved the book and was utterly disappointed of the film. It was ludicrous, with half a heart and the story bad explained. The novel - in the first place! - wasn't meant to focus on an adventure! That's only the surroundings. In the film, the focus reverses to just that and the message has taken a back seat! Additional, the visual effects to show the energy of all living things and the elucidation of the events at the end were parsimonious! They screwed it up! ... I'll never watch it again!
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the start this film was awful! Why was it that bad?? If it isn't the naked women, not only in need of a decent plastic surgeon but also the expertise of a dentist followed by a free hand out of Colgate whitening!! Then it's the 'crazy' old guy at the gas station, who isn't so much crazy, but more "I'm not sure how to act a great deal so I will stare straight ahead and look as stupid as I can while pretending to shout in robotic tones about something in the woods"!! Then back to these naked nymphs in need of a cure for gingivitis.... apparently, without touching you...and this is according to the opening scene.... they can cause a nasty looking red rash on your neck, which I assumed to be a chunk of flesh missing but just looks as though it could do with some TCP to clear it right up. Then you have Sophie Holland who plays Ally, I have never seen such baaaaaad acting, she is more of a "me me me, if I'm not having fun no-one else is, and I don't wanna do this so I won't, and I'm the meanest cow on the planet, I'm sarcastic, petty and if I don't get things my way I will sulk!", kind of person.... reminds me more of a 6 yr old girl's attitude. I don't think it's even worth mentioning the dire camera angles that remind me of Blair Witch, or how low-budget the film actually was that when Judd was hacking at the 'locked' door it was in fact open before he reached to unlock it from the other side!! This film is completely laughable! If it were a spoof then it would have been successful...only just though, but, as a horror film is was just plain wrong!!! I can't even being to describe everything that went t!ts up in this movie I would run out of room! Although it was funny to watch Andrew drip raspberry juice in his ear every time he opened his mouth while Tom Savini's character was completely blind to the two hiding under the table directly in his line of vision!! It was even funnier when these two thought they could escape on a god damn tractor, which as we all know is thee number one hated vehicle to get stuck behind since its so god damn slow! So is it any wonder they don't get away with it?? And how many people do you know that can slice open their wrist and then run around for hours as if nothing ever happened! No pain, no weakening from blood loss, nothing!? But the silliest part is when all of a sudden (and i mean that literally) it's one YEAR later and Molly is still wandering the woods after having escaped the nymphs, and then lo and behold, Shaun Hutson picks her up...of course not without a line to promote his books!! (altho admittedly he is one of my fav authors) but suddenly, and with absolutely no hint of an xplanation as to how and why... she's evil herself and lures Hutson to his death, then we cut to the crazy dude from the beginning suddenly wandering round the woods with a petrol can, even after his 'dazzling' performance on why no-one should ever venture there for whatever reason...cue the nymphs stupidly slappin each other around a bit for fun while Crazy pours petrol everywhere....and here endeth the film....finally! My conclusion....if you hadn't already guessed by now....absolute rubbish! There was no proper thought went into it at all, whoever was aiming the camera needed firing...and come to think of it so did 99% of the cast! If the right director, actors, and budget got behind this it could have been decent. But, once again, low-budget English horror films but the rest of the genre, the country, and the English film-making industry to shame!! (And I'm English so I'm allowed to say that)! In fact the only decent and exciting part of the movie is in the first 15-20 mins when we watch it turn from night to day over a field type area. All I kept thinking throughout this was "Jesus Christ in heaven why oh why did you allow someone to make this, its absolute cow's testicles!!" But I can't turn a film off after I've started watching it unfortunately. I had to watch From Dusk Til Dawn afterwards just to remind myself that Tom Savini does have it in him to act well! If there was an option for 0/10 then believe me I woulda chose that, cuz this film isn't even worth the one point I did give it! <br /><br />But this is just my opinion, watch it and decide for yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Richard Farnsworth is one of my favorite actors. He usually gives solid performances, such as in The Straight Story, and The Grey Fox. He also does fairly well here, but the rest of the film suffers from a low budget, poor writing, and so-so photography. The Miller-Movie formula gives it a 4. Richard gets a 5.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Annie Potts is the only highlight in this truly dull film. Mark Hamill plays a teenager who is really really really upset that someone stole the Corvette he and his classmates turned into a hotrod (quite possibly the ugliest looking car to be featured in a movie), and heads off to Las Vegas with Annie to track down the evil genius who has stolen his pride and joy.<br /><br />I would have plucked out my eyes after watching this if it wasn't for the fun of watching Annie Potts in a very early role, and it's too bad for Hamill that he didn't take a few acting lessons from her. Danny Bonaduce also makes a goofy cameo.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The main aspect about the Superstar's movies at his later stages were the frequency, the lacuna between one movie and the next. Being a well established star of the south Indian cinema, the feedbacks he was receiving before Baba was great. <br /><br />Since Nattukku Oru Nallavan (1991), the number of movies he acted in Tamil as a mass Hero in 11 years were only 11 exactly at the rate of 1 per year. All of these were a great hit. He was having a image that many thought could not be easily brought down. <br /><br />But after Padayappa (1999), he went into a state of Hibernation. His fans all over the world, especially in South India were ready to see movie of any kind with their superstar in action. So, the Tamil cinema industry decided to come with Baba. <br /><br />The movie makers thought that the fans will take whatever they show with Superstar in it. But this clearly did not work out in this movie. As usual, the hype from the media and the expectation from the fans were way beyond limit. <br /><br />Rajinikanth's image was totally damaged. The fans went nuts. The movie's collection did not meet the expected level. Reputation of great people went down. <br /><br />The only positive aspect about this movie was the songs by A.R.Rehman. Rehman is known to have composed good music for some worst movies like Tajmahal, Kadal Virus, Alli Arjuna, Paarthale Paravasam, Star, En Swasa Katre, Vandicholai Chinnarasu etc. Well, i never thought that this movie would join that league.<br /><br />You'l feel very much depressed not because the movie was bad, it'l be because of the superstar's image going down. It took him five full years to regain it fully back with two movies Chandramukhi and Sivaji and give fans back what they really look for in a superstar film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although properly warned I actually sat down to watch this movie. In part because I usually give every movie an even break, and because I thought that a single movie couldn't be that bad. I stand corrected. Not even George Kennedy, Barry Bostwick or Ben Stein could save this turkey from sinking like a ton of bricks. Only once during this humor forsaken travesty of a spoof did I laugh. Namely during the Simon says scene. The other jokes are either poorly carried out or simply plain unfunny. And some of them you actually see coming a mile away. This movie just hasn't got what it takes to be a good parody like Airplane! (I+II), Naked Gun (I+II+III), or Scary Movie. They all had A. funny gags, B. good dialog and most important of all C. unforgettable quotes. Men In White has got D. none of the above. To call this movie bad would be a gross understatement. AVOID THIS MOVIE ANYWAY YOU CAN! CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wanted to like this movie, but many elements ruined it for me. The use of a fisheye lens throughout and choppy editing did not give me a sense of being in the world of the meth head, but it did make me think I was watching MTV for a few short moments. The movie never did seem to go anywhere and the acting was truly an excellent example of over acting. I love movies that give us a glimpse into the seedy underworld, but this film couldn't decide if it was a bad horror film or an even worse serious commentary on the horrors of addiction.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dreadful acting. A thinly veiled attempt to slam those on the left side of the aisle.<br /><br />Women are subjugated and revolve around men. Tom Selleck shows his acting range from A to B.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The world may have ended. Unfortunately this film survived as yet another testament to Canada's inability to make movies that go beyond the execrable. Maybe it's because all our really good people (Norman Jewison, Martin Short et al) go to Hollywood.) In fact it's too bad Short wasn't cast in this apallingly pretentious and banal film. He might have given it some credibility. The Canadian government should realize --- and this movie is a magnificent example --- that shovelling money into the trough does not result in good cinema. If the people lapping up these public funds had had to compete, they might have been forced to come up with something worthwhile. As it is they have produced yet another snickering embarassment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film has the kernel of a really good story. The work of the men and women of the Coast Guard, especially in the North Pacific, is the stuff of heroes and legends. This film mucks up a good story with three endings (none satisfying), a couple of unneeded and pointless bar fights and two alleged "romantic" relationships that have as much spark as dead campfire. The rescue scenes are great - even if the computer generation is hokey and the scenarios are pretty unreal - but the backstory is lame and disappointing. Costner is good - especially his hand acting (watch for it). Ashton Kutcher is flat but not terrible. The main female characters are one dimensional. The best female is one of the Coast Guard sailors in the rescue center and she's on camera for about two minutes in the whole film. It could have been an excellent film - and Costner needs one!
|
Negative
| null | null |
With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.<br /><br />The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THE ALARMIST is so abysmally scripted that you have think to yourself why on earth did an up and coming actor like David Arquette agree to be in it. It has to be one of the weakest plots I have ever seen and without any humour at all, it borders on the brink of tedious. It staggers along to a dreadful conclusion which appears to only happen because the director got bored and just wanted to wrap up quickly in order to get home for his dinner. Stay away!.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am, as many are, a fan of Tony Scott films. When this movie came out I had high hopes that it would be like 'Man On Fire'. To find out that the movie it's the furthest thing from it! The story was treading water from the get go, and the choice of Mickey Rourke was not such such a good idea. And the whole 'arm'scene was too gratuitous! <br /><br />The movie is centered around Kiera Kinghtly, and this movie reveals that she'll never become a movie star! The movie brought some of the worst acting ever.<br /><br />I like Tony Scott's direction 'n all, but this takes the whole friggin cake! Sorry Ton, 1 out of 10!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jeez, only in the 70's... Antonio Margheriti brings us this quirky hybrid of spaghetti western and kung fu flick evolving around a treasure-hunt. The spices of this trashy co-production between Shaw Brothers and an Italian one-off company include humorous storytelling, off-the-wall happenings and some very tame T&A. Extra campy moments are being served by Lee Van Cleef's obnoxious wig, leather-clad bible-thumping psycho gunman Yancey Hobbitt (loveably hammed up by Julian Ugarte, the man who should've done way more obscure European genre productions than he did), wanna-be-witty dialogue, hilarious background music and completely laughable sound effects accompanying various little events (especially every jump made by Lo Lieh).<br /><br />While this little piece of action falls fare and square into the Turkey Territory, it's great to see Van Cleef and Lo Lieh on the same screen, and you can't deny the charisma of this duo. Don't expect too much, and you'll get plenty out of it.<br /><br />This is my truth. What is yours?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not the best of actors' movies.The director has concentrated on projected actor's stardom rather than giving a good entertainer. May be hero himself, his family and his sincere fans can enjoy it.But definitely it's not worth for neutral audience.The fight sequences are a total comedy.The dance moves in the song sequences are pathetic. The music is average.This film was the biggest flop for the actor. Inspite of the hype created over the movie, the movie failed miserably. Don't even think of watching this move even if you want to kill time. You can watch some cartoon instead.A good movie buff cannot digest this crap for 2 1/2 hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.<br /><br />As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.<br /><br />Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.<br /><br />As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some 25 year olds behave like teenagers, coping with the death of a high-school mate, trying to find their purpose in live and love. The script is so lame that I had to force myself to even finish this movie. Stay away from it. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).<br /><br />Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?<br /><br />Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?<br /><br />I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."<br /><br />Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.
|
Negative
| null | null |
... but the keyword here is "usually." I have been known to adore movies EVERYONE thinks are dumb. But in the world of B-rated movies, THIS one is Z-rated. Absolutely ridiculous. The thing I respect about most of my favorite B-rated movies are that they don't take themselves too seriously. The makers of movies like that sort-of treat the movie lightly, even if it's a heavy topic. I get the impression, however, that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously, like they were putting together a 10-star classic, complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. Nevertheless, despite all this, I STILL gave it 4 out of 10 stars, as I am biased towards movies like this. If you're a B-rated fan, however, I would try too hard to find this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tasteless. I can't even write intelligently about the movie. I laughed the entire movie. It wasn't supposed to be funny. Matt Farnsworth has no clue what he is doing. His story is written, it seems, without any knowledge of Iowa culture and the meth problem. I know Farnsworth is from Iowa, which makes his movie even more puzzling to me. Why do the two main characters have accents? It doesn't make any sense. The acting was mediocre at best and at times hard to watch. Gratituous violence and sex filled the movie. I am guessing that the violence and sex were supposed to make the movie edgy, but it came across as unbelievable and offensive. The ending of the movie is so brilliantly bad that all I could do was laugh and look at the rolling credits with disbelief. As I walked out of the theatre everyone else who was leaving was laughing along with me. The ending of the movie was meant to evoke tears, but it did the exact opposite. Do not waste your time on this horrible movie, unless you want to see ignorant, sappy, overacted, clichéd drivel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters. <br /><br />People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.<br /><br />To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort. <br /><br />Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, "Umbrellas") often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A movie about dealing with the problems with growing up and being true to yourself, Blue Juice is mind candy for those who like surfing and Cornwall. Sean Pertwee is the real star of this film, while the more famous Catherine Zeta Jones plays his girlfriend and Ewan Mcgregor plays his drug addicted pal.<br /><br />For those who don't like surfing or Cornwall in the slightest, you'll find that it takes a long time before the movie even hints at being interesting. The beginning is slow and spends too much time on long shots of only slightly interesting landscapes. Plus too many main characters leads to most of them being one dimensional. The plot is an interesting idea but because of the shallow characters you have no idea why they act in the situations they're put in.<br /><br />Only Ewan, Sean and Catherine's characters make this a film worth being on videotape, which is why it was only released on videotape in the US after Ewan and Catherine reached mainstream fame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I respect Alex Cox the filmmaker, I really do. He's like the kid at school who you think at first is just trying a little too hard to be "different", a literary punk-rocker who has dipped more than his feet into spaghetti westerns and science fiction and fringe-culture and come out into the world ready to take s*** on... but then you see what he can actually do, the talent and raw feverish artistry and moments of true absurd hilarity capable of him, and you are ready to see whatever he has to offer. But there's two sides to his proverbial coin: he can either really hit it out of the park (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy, Walker arguably) or just try just a little too hard and pull way too many pretentious rabbits out of the hat (Straight to Hell). Death and the Compass falls into the latter category, and while I respect its (mostly) original approach to tackling a detective-killer story, it too falls on its face and its weirdness becomes oddly dull.<br /><br />It has a strange enough set-up and already irreverent style to follow: a detective, Erik Lonnrot, is after a killer with a hell-fire voice, Red (something), and it seems that the killer is leaving disturbing clues with his victims: scrawled in blood on the walls are messages that, according to eyewitness Alonso Zunz (Christopher Eccleston looking as if he just walked off Shallow Grave without changing his look) has religious significance in the Kabbalah. We follow Lonnrot on his case, and his methods of going after the perp, which include following at first a triangular and then compass-shaped pattern on the map- this despite the protests of the flabbergasted Commissioner Treviranus (Miguel Sandoval), who also looks back in flash-forwards sitting at a desk and speaking to the audience in garbled but sad descriptions of his former employee and colleague after the fact of the case.<br /><br />Oh, Cox has his moments of creativity and interest, such as a shot where we see the entire scope of the harrowing depths of the police station where Eccleston's character is taken in by handcuffs ("For his own protection" says Lonnrot in case of getting lost in the wrong room) and we're followed in a long tracking shot- maybe the best or just most curious- where we're taken through very dark hallways with very little direction, lost in the maze of turns and oddities among the characters. And it's never something that isn't fascinating to *look* at, with Miguel Garzon's cinematography a morbid delight. But The plot goes through hoola-hoops to keep things so off-beat it might as well be beat-less all-together. The performances, save for a confident Boyle and for Eccleston at the very end, are pretty bad, especially Sandoval who just seems to squirm in his seat reciting the goofy dialog given to him to speak at the audience.<br /><br />While the murder plot itself contains an intention for the audience that this isn't something we've seen before, that it's in a society with a good many rioters and architecture suggesting Alphaville's next decrepit wave, it too fizzle's out very quickly. What's the conflict here? I was never that much engaged with Boyle's own personal mission to find this killer, and only mildly caught up in the few flashes of deranged scenes of the killer (and/or killers) going after people like in the building early on (Cox himself has an amusing cameo). And just when I started to think it was leading up to something spectacular, with Boyle and Eccleston in that big ("not as big as you think") building in the South section of the city, it suddenly gives us a "TWIST" that we know in the back of our minds is coming but hope isn't, and it deflates any of the humdrum mystery it's been leading up to. For all of Cox's uncanny touches as a filmmaker, for all of his opposition to spoon-feeding the audience with a 'conventional' approach, which I do respect, Death and the Compass ultimately cuts one off at the brain-stem; it's masturbatory.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Joe Don Baker is an alright to good actor in small roles here and there...he was alright in Goldeneye and made a pretty good Bond villan in The Living Daylights and has appeared in various other movies. One thing he can't do is carry a movie as the lead, which he is in this extremely bad revenge movie set in Malta. Joe Don's partner is killed so he kills the killer's brother and escorts the killer to Italy, but some guys cause the plane to set down in Malta and the killer gets away. The rest of the movie is seeing Joe Don chase the killer here and there, Joe Don getting taken into custody various times, Joe Don torturing a bartendar and being interrupted and so on. The movie is quite bad and you won't find yourself exactly pulling for Joe Don's character. You will be amazed at how many times Joe Don the hero gets taken out by one punch and how incompetent he proves to be. The crowning part of the movie comes when Joe Don chases the killer all over Malta with the killer in a priest robe and then they get in boats and he chases them all around Malta. This movie also features one of the worst closing lines to end a movie ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Joe Don Baker. He was great in "Walking Tall" and had a good bit-part in "Goldeneye", but here in "Final Justice" all hope is gone...the dark side has won. <br /><br />As with most of humanity, my main experience with this one was on MST3K, and what an experience it was! Mike and the robots dig their claws deep into Baker's ample flesh and skewer this flick completely. It's obvious they were just beginning with "Mitchell" on their anti-Joe Don kick and here lies their continuation on a theme.<br /><br />It makes for a funny experience, though: there are plenty of choice riffs. My favorites - "John Rhys-Davies for sale", "It's 'Meatloaf: Texas Ranger'", "none of them are sponge-worthy", "Why was she wearing her prom dress to bed", and my favorite - "'Son of a...'? What? What was he the son of: son of a PREACHER MAN?"<br /><br />By itself, "Final Justice" is, as Joe Don puts it in the movie, "a big fat nada". But here, it actually has some entertainment value. You get a chance, catch THIS version of "Final Justice".<br /><br />Two stars for "Final Justice". Ten for the MST3K version ONLY.<br /><br />Oh, and try not to visit Malta when Joe Don's in town.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is so bad it's good -- in an unintentionally funny way. I couldn't stop watching it, I was laughing so much! It's like a parody of a romantic thriller, except it's not a parody. <br /><br />Alexandra Paul plays Emily Wendell, an oppressed preacher's wife who falls hard for Luke (Corey Sevier), a hunky and mysterious drifter who we eventually learn was in prison; the only thing Sevier is guilty of, though, is bad acting! Mind you, he's no worse than the other actors. You get the sense that the actors have *no* idea they're in a really awful film; they're playing it straight. Everything about the film is bad: the acting, the script, the love scenes, the pacing, the plot twists, the choice of music. The climactic scenes are just so ludicrous -- first the shootout in the church, then Luke's final words to Emily -- I was howling with laughter. <br /><br />Evidently Luke did a lot of weight lifting and ab crunches in prison, and we get to see plenty of his naked torso. That's probably the highlight of the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The reviewer from Poland must be a feminist, for she finds "Young Catherine" to be a great film and historically accurate. Nothing could be further from the truth. As a practicing Russian historian for many, many years I took exception with YC at almost every turn, and in particular the politically correct depiction of her as the boss who single-handed moved Russia into a direction of dominance. The truth? She was only brought to St.Petersburg to be a wife and mother, and found she had to "bond" with the dvoriane, the boyars, and the military just to survive. So long as she did not challenge them she was able/ permitted to indulge her cultural wishes (filling up the Hermitage with art treasures, etc.). There are so many proofs that she was not "great," but in this area of post-modern revisionism proof is not very popular. YC is only a costume drama, a bit of fluff from Ted Turner that, like "Peter the Great" in 1986, is one more example of how badly Russia is portrayed in the West.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw the trailer to this film and it looked great, so I went out and bought it. What a mistake, the acting is a shambles, the special effects (if you could call them that), look like something that wouldn't be out of place at a school play. Some of the characters are so stupid in this film you will cringe the minute they are on the screen, which unfortunately is all to often. As for a story, forget it. This is a warning, don't waste any money at all on this film it has to be one of the worst things I have ever seen. If, for some reason, you like this film watch Troll 2, you will probably enjoy that as well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Avoid this one, unless you want to watch an expensive but badly made movie. Example? The sound is good but the dialogue is not clear - a cardinal sin in a French film.<br /><br />This film attempts to combine western, drug intrigue and ancien regime costume epic. What? Well, consider this. The cowboy music is hilarious during sword fights. Or how about the woman in her underwear, holding a knife and jumping up and down on the bed?<br /><br />Someone should do a 'What's Up Tiger Lily' on this bomb. Rewrite the script and then either dub or subtitle it. Heck, it's almost that now. (BTW, Gerard Depardieu and Carole Bouquet, both known to American audiences, have roles.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
As the film begins a narrator warns us THE SCREAMING SKULL is so terrifying you might die of fright--and if such happens a free burial is guaranteed. Well, I don't think any one has died of fright from seeing this film, but a few may have died of boredom. THE SCREAMING SKULL is the sort of movie that makes Ed Wood look good.<br /><br />Very loosely based on the famous Francis Marion Crawford story, SKULL is about a wealthy but nervous woman who marries a sinister man whose first wife died under mysterious circumstances. Once installed in his home, she is tormented by a half-wit gardener, a badly executed portrait, peacocks, and ultimately a skull that rolls around the room and causes her to scream a lot. And to her credit, actress Peggy Webber screams rather well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, her ability to do so is the high point of the film. The plot is pretty transparent, to say the least, and while the cast is actually okay, the script is dreadful and the movie so uninspired you'll be ready to run screaming yourself. True, the thing only runs about sixty-eight minutes, but it all feels a lot longer. Add to this a truly terrible print quality and there you are.<br /><br />There are films that are so bad they are fun to watch. It is true that THE SCREAMING SKULL has a few howlers--but the film drags so much I couldn't work up more than an occasional giggle, and by the time the whole thing is over your head will roll from ennui. If it weren't for Peggy Webber's way with a scream, this would be the surefire cure for insomnia. Give it a miss.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a 11th grader at my high school. In my Current World Affairs class a kid in my class had this video and suggested we watch. So we did. I am firm believer that we went to the moon, being that my father works for NASA. Even though I think this movie is the biggest piece of crap I have ever watched, the guy who created it has some serious balls. First of all did he have to show JFK getting shot? And how dare he use all those biblical quotes. The only good thing about this movie is it sparks debates, which is good b/c in my class we have weekly debates. This movie did nothing to change my mind. I think he and Michael Moore should be working together and make another movie. Michael Moore next movie could be called "A Funny Thing Happened on Spetember 11th" or "A Funny thing happened on the way to the white house".
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is simply far too long, far too repetitive, with the male nudity and sexuality being (as this is said as a gay with my own collection of adult titles) far too gratuitous and unnecessary. Much of the first third of the movie could have been cut down to ten minutes and been equally as effective without trying the patience (and stamina) of an audience.<br /><br />I saw this movie on an early Saturday afternoon, with a film festival audience; the type of crowd that tends to be more adventuresome, interested in more experimental or atypical films, such as one without much dialog, shorts, foreign films. The near sell out crowd in an approximate 275 seat theater started to dribble out within the first half of the movie and while the great majority did stay for the "pay off" (which never actually arrived), I have never, in about 14 years of attending any number of film festivals, experimental, gay and otherwise, seen such a large number of people walk away from a film. <br /><br />This movie could easily have been cut down by more than half and been as effective as it was. It also could have gone in different directions, still with a shorter running time, and been far more effective.<br /><br />As it currently exists, this is not something that one can readily recommend or one I would have any desire to watch again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My Name is Modesty is a low-budget film that tells the story of the origins of Modesty Blaise. It's not that the movie is terrible, it's just not what I was expecting or hoping for. While I've been aware of the Modesty Blaise character for years, I'm not overly familiar with the comic strips or the graphic novels, so I'm coming into this movie as something as an outsider. That may be part of the reason for my disappointment. I was expecting more action and more comedy. The film is dialogue driven. I suppose I was looking for something with a little more camp value. As it is, My Name is Modesty is a deathly serious film. There are very few, if any, "light" moments. The acting, at least from Alexandra Staden, is acceptable but nothing outstanding. As others have commented, she does appear a little too frail to be completely believable in the title role. What action scenes there are in My Name is Modesty are one of the films weakest points. I never bought into the notion that this woman could handle a band of trained killers.<br /><br />I really hope Quentin Tarantino goes ahead and makes the rumored a big budget film based on the Modesty Blaise character. I'm convinced the concept has a lot of potential and I would very much look forward to it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not that "a film by Ulli Lommel" filled me with hope, but I must confess that ZODIAC KILLER managed to sink beneath my lowest expectations. There is a recent trend among young filmmakers of utilizing digital video for their early projects, which is all well and good for giving these kids the opportunity to create work without spending all their money on expensive film stock. But many of these young filmmakers have also wised up to the notion of filtering the finished movie so that it appears qualitatively more like celluloid. The effect is never perfect, but it helps. Unfiltered digital video really only works for the "mockumentary" style, because it never looks like anything other than video. Therein lies the primary trouble with ZODIAC KILLER. Watching the movie feels like watching a daytime soap opera about a murderer. It does not feel like watching a movie. And what's even more unforgivable is that the Lommel is NOT a young filmmaker. He ought to know better. He ought to know that it's virtually impossible to generate horror (or even suspense!) on video. For the love of god this guy has been directing since the sixties! He may be the only director who has failed to improve over a forty year career in the business. And lucky us, he wrote the script too! So you can expect convoluted actions that mean nothing, unjustified behavior, and at least one truly pretentious plot element that will leave you utterly unsatisfied. Please, please miss this film. You'll thank me later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is just truly awful, the eye-candy that plays Ben just can make up for everything else that is wrong with this movie.<br /><br />The writer/director/producer/lead actor etc probably had a good idea to create a movie dealing with the important issues of gay marriage, family acceptance, religion, homophobia, hate crimes and just about every other issue effecting a gay man of these times, but trying to ram every issue into such a poorly conceived film does little justice to any of these causes.<br /><br />The script is poor, the casting very ordinary, but the dialogue and acting is just woeful. The homo-hating brother is played by the most camp actor and there is absolutely no chemistry between the two lead actors (I think I've seen more passion in an corn flakes ad). The acting is stiff, and the dialogue forced (a scene where the brother is feeding the detective his lines was the highlight).<br /><br />I'm just pleased to see that the creator of this train wreck has not pushed any other rubbish out in to distribution, and if he is thinking of doing so, I have some advise - JUST DON'T DO IT.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I disliked this movie for numerous reasons. Within the first ten minutes of the film, I grew extremely disappointed and came to the conclusion that if this movie was going to salvage itself, for me at least, that it was going to have to pull itself out of the enormous hole it had dug. Unfortunately, that did not occur. The two draws of the movie for me were to see Jane Fonda and Felicity Huffman. I don't know enough about Lindsey Lohan's work to have been interested in what she would bring to the film. Afterward, I just felt disappointed in and for all three of them even though there were "moments" in each of their performances. I imagine that for each of them to find their "moments" was a very difficult task given the fact that there was an amazing lack of character development and uninspired dialog. Although the plot is an interesting one, the movie on the whole is so poorly written, directed and edited that anybody's performance as an actor would suffer and be tainted by it. The disrespectful way in which it dealt with sexual abuse and the trite and insulting viewpoint of small-town America, I think, were the two main reasons why this film failed in hitting it's mark. As one reviewer has noted and I would agree, the movie is almost impossible to market given it's finished form. I suspect that, or at least hope that (for the actor's sakes anyway) there are some real gems on the cutting room floor. Sad for us but if that's true then the actors can take solace in that and feel somewhat good about lending their talents and time to such a flop. Oh yeah and another thing...I wished for just once I could go see an American movie which included the sadly disappearing but wonderfully bucolic settings such as the one in this film where the main characters weren't absentmindedly and/or disrespectfully littering the country side with pop cans, smashed CDs and, other such trash!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite the gravity of the subject and probably the good intentions of the filmmakers to make a film addressing white supremacy, the inconsistencies of its main character, Bronson Green, aspiring New York actor easily turned L.A. phony, makes it hard to take the story seriously. Green, who is constantly rejected by Los Angeles casting agents for being obsolete (i.e. too New York when the 80s is looking for big, blonde, and dumb), he finds success comes easily when he's willing to succumb to falsifying his image. Unfortunately, the new hair dye and pacified "surfer" attitude lands him an acting opportunity with the Jericho Church, which subscribes white supremacist teaching of the Aryan nation. Green is willing to easily forget his past, and particularly turning his back on his young black friend of ten years, in order to be the Church's new spokesman. This makes no sense, seeing as how principled our character initially is. It is this sudden, and loose change in character, coupled with an abrupt reversion back to the hardened, DeNiro-obsessed (as his Taxi Driver character) form who is able to battle the villains. A noble attempt on the filmmakers, but one that ultimately reveals itself as anything but serious.<br /><br />The other characters, too, are quite annoying and what we are forced to recognize in them comes too easily -- the psychotic paranoia of the Church leader, the self-interested actress girlfriend (the first girlfriend Bronson has when he's in L.A.), and the new blonde girlfriend who's character lacks so much development, she is, for the most part, just a walking, talking void. We are just supposed to see them in fleeting moments in which something random forces us to draw assumptions about the characters. But there is really little development of any of them.<br /><br />The other problem with this film is the ungodly amount of time the characters are involved in very little important action. Much of the beginning concerns introducing the characters, obviously, and later we see Bronson's difficulties with breaking into the L.A. acting scene and the frustrations which stem from constant rejection. But after he does willingly change his looks and personality in order to become accepted, there is at least a good twenty minutes to thirty minutes of wasted film in which very little of anything happens.<br /><br />For films that seek to draw attention to the irrational fears behind racism, this was not one done with enough credibility.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Is it possible to give a movie NO STARS? I suppose not. However many stars IMDb displays this just think zero and you'll get my drift. Director and photographer Timothy Hines didn't have much of a budget compared to Spielberg's Herculean effort with the same material (rumored to be the most expensive movie ever made), but that need not be an insurmountable handicap. I've seen some wonderful work done on a comparative shoestring ("Soldier and Saints" is a recent example). With hard work, integrity and, above all, talent it is certainly possible to realize a faithful rendition of Wells' novella -- and at fraction of what was spent by Dreamworks on its "War of the Worlds". Unfortunately, Hines failed in all these departments. Even if he had had Spielberg's budget and Tom Cruise signed for the lead his movie would have stunk just as badly as this barnyard animal he's foisted on us.<br /><br />Primarily, Hines seems unable to tell a story. Thanks to digital video technology he can record images and sound, but he shows little aptitude for assembling a narrative with what he records. A guy walks down a country lane, a lot. He talks badly aped Received English to some other guy. Then he walks down the same lane, only shot from the back this time to show he's returning -- clever, eh? Walking and talking, for nearly an hour that's all that happens. OK, I'll grant that one extended excursion from the main character's house to the impact site on Horsell Common to show that it's a considerable distance from one place to the other might be useful (a first-year film student could storyboard a more economical and more aesthetical establishing sequence than this, btw), but half a dozen times? Back and forth, back and forth, et cetera, et cetera with some yakkity-yak in between. Remarkable. The only explanation for this surfeit of redundancy other than total artistic ineptitude is a desire to pad out thirty minutes of wretchedly amateurish CG works into something that could be offered as a feature-length film. Finally the Martian fighting machines appear and the walking and talking becomes running and talking, or shrieking. Later we get staggering and wailing for dessert.<br /><br />Thankfully, much of the dialogue is lifted straight from H.G. Wells' text; else we'd have no idea what is going on. But is it not the whole point of cinema to illuminate a text, to realize what words alone can't convey? If a film relies on dialogue or monologue to tell us what we see or how to feel, why bother? Why not do a radio play? Orson Welles made himself a household name doing just that. However, Hines thinks he's a filmmaker, so he's content to mouth the words and swallow the meaning.<br /><br />Secondly, Hines was able to buy some CG effects of a sort for his movie, but he has no idea how to use them. Now I for one have no unquenchable sweet tooth for eye candy. I believe good science fiction cinema doesn't need dazzling technical effects. Some really potent Sci-Fi's have flourished on virtually none at all. But "The War of the Worlds" as film requires a certain baseline effort. Wells tells a story that hinges on things can be seen and heard and even smelled. The effects don't need to be complex; they can even be crude (e.g. fighting machines on wires gliding over miniature streets as seen in the George Pal/Byron Haskins 1953 version), but they must be handled well. Unfortunately Hines' effects are both crude and incompetent tripod fighting machines higher than a cathedral spire stomp around making a noise like a pogo stick bouncing on linoleum Martian squidoids even though oppressed by four times the gravity of their native world scurry and flit about without perceptible effort skeletons totally denuded of flesh and muscle writhe and scream -- the same damn horse and buggy greenscreens its way across the foreground a dozen times (flipped left for right occasionally in hope that we might not notice) and on ad nauseum. Crude technique is forgivable. So you have a CG fire effect that's less than convincing? Fine, we can work around that. Just don't use it too often and only show glimpses of it. That stomped woman sequence looks more like a crushed plum? Throw it away. It's not necessary. You say your Martian flyer looks like a toy on a string? If you must use it, go ahead, but please don't show it twice! But no, Hines won't listen. We get the worst looking stuff used again and again. Gotta get those 180 minutes somehow, boy.<br /><br />Next we have acting, or more precisely too much acting. Whether in a speaking role or just paid to die on queue everybody in this film is acting his little heart out. Evidently Hines thinks he's getting a bargain -- More fleeing in terror over there! You, quaking behind that tree, let's have a real conniption fit this take. You call that writhing in agony? Nonsense, my grandmother can writhe better -- Nevertheless the cast as a whole and individually stink. They aren't even good amateurs. But this needn't prove fatal. Many a good movie has been made with rancid acting. That's what directors are for. And editors. Which brings up another point
Who the hell let Tim Hines edit this cheese factory? If America's butchers were as adept at meat cutting as Hines is at film cutting your next hamburger would be all fingers and no beef. In spite of the near three-hour running time there is lots of stuff missing from this movie -- not sequences, but single frames, creating a herky-jerky effect that's nauseating to watch. Maybe Hines intention was to simulate the effect of a hand cranked cine camera of the 1890's. If he was I can say he doesn't know how to do it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The comparison is perhaps unfair, but inevitable. Those attracted to the intimacy and depth of Umbrellas will be slightly horrified to discover a cut-and-paste musical in the American style - awkward, stilted dialogue with inexplicable song-and-dance numbers. Gene Kelly's French accent was apparently so poor, that a dreadful job of dubbing was substituted (as you'll remember, the dubbing was almost perfectly pulled off in Umbrellas). The translation of the French (for subtitled versions), as well, leaves something to be desired, although this can't be attributed to Demy. The film also has several self-aware moments that come off a wee disconcerting, such as references in songs to LeGrand himself. And the costumes - well, the tight pants/white boots combination, and the freakishly unnatural colors, reminds one of an Austin Powers film . . .<br /><br />But Demy does reward the viewer with allusions to Umbrellas; note, for instance, the suitcase carried by Maxence in his departure from Rochefort - this is the same suitcase carried by Guy in his departure from Cherbourg. Also, note the "Convenient Brunette of Resolution" - Madeleine in Umbrellas, and Josette in Young Girls.<br /><br />Generally speaking, those expecting the natural feel of Umbrellas (save the floating bicycle scene), or looking for similar deeper questions and ambiguous endings as in Umbrella's script, should probably pass this one b y. Those looking for a French version of a thin '60s American musical will be quite happy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tell the truth I’m a bit stun to see all these positive review by so many people, which is also the main reason why I actually decide to see this movie. And after having seen it, I was really a disappointed, and this comes from the guy that loves this genre of movie.<br /><br />I’m surprise at this movie all completely – it is like a kid’s movie with nudity for absolutely no reason and it all involve little children cursing and swearing. I’m not at all righteous but this has really gone too far in my account.<br /><br />Synopsis: The story about two guys got send to the big brother program for their reckless behavior. There they met up with one kids with boobs obsession and the other is a medieval freak.<br /><br />Just the name it self is not really connected with the story at all. They are not being a role model and or do anything but to serve their time for what they have done. The story is very predictable (though expected) and the humor is lame. And haven’t we already seen the same characters (play by Mc Lovin’) in so many other movies (like Sasquatch Gang?). I think I laugh thrice and almost fell a sleep.<br /><br />Well the casting was alright after all he is the one that produce the screenplay. And the acting is so-so as expected when you’re watching this type of movie. And the direction, what do one expect? This is the same guy who brought us Wet Hot American Summer, and that movie also sucks. But somehow he always managed to bring in some star to attract his horrendous movie.<br /><br />Anyway I felt not total riff off but a completely waste of time. Only the naked scenes seem to be the best part in the movie. Can’t really see any point why I should recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />Pros: Elizabeth Bank? Two topless scenes.<br /><br />Cons: Not funny, dreadful story, nudity and kids do not mix together.<br /><br />Rating: 3.5/10 (Grade: F)
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Iowa" wants to be "Requiem for a Dream" for Midwest meth, but it comes across as a hard R rated "Reefer Madness". <br /><br />Yes, drugs are bad, and meth is horribly pernicious, as an addiction and how it destroys people, families and communities. But these characters who are either dumb or ridiculous and the eye-rolling plot won't teach that lesson to anyone. <br /><br />While writer/director/star Matt Farnsworth has some charisma on screen, his partner Diane Foster plays a wincibly silly wide-eyed innocent corrupted by drugsas was already satirized by Susan Sarandon in "The Rocky Horror Picture Show". I really felt sorry for her for all the totally unnecessary nudity she was put through. It wasn't until the end of the film that I realized I was supposed to think these two were recent high-school graduates to explain some of their naiveté, as we are bombarded by their school photos, but if so, they even looked older than the folks on "The O.C.". While they have good chemistry on screen, they are a pale imitation of a "Badlands"-type couple. <br /><br />The guest stars are badly used. Michael T. Weiss, who was so good in TV's "The Pretender", is completely ludicrous as a corrupt parole officer and his brutal violence is just plain crazy, as his character pretty much ruins any social significance for the film. Rosanna Arquette has to be even sleazier than she rolled around for David Cronenberg as a very low rent Livia Soprano. John Savage even has to mouth the old baby boomer excuses about I did pot but this is worse. A Goth chick shows up, with the odd explanation that she's a stripper from Des Moines. The obligatory Latino drug dealer appears - in Iowa? <br /><br />With a limited budget, the interior view of meth use is portrayed quite vividly, with quite scary hallucinations. We certainly see them go crazy. <br /><br />While the Iowa locations are used very well (including an amusing scene of a propane gas robbery), the accents and church references are confusingly Southern Baptist. Guns seem to be used by law abiding and law breaking citizens here more than in any inner-city drug-dealing movie.<br /><br />The songs of Iowa's best known bard Greg Brown are used throughout, but oddly are not listed in the credits. I hope they were used with permission.<br /><br />I caught this at its commercial run in NYC because I missed it at the Tribeca Film Festival where it got considerable-- and inexplicable-- buzz.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually like Asylum movies. I've made it a habit to see as many as possible. Even the rip-offs they've done have been cool like EXORCISM And WHEN A KILLER CALLS. This is just plain lame. I can't believe that the same people who made DEAD MEN WALKING and DRACULA'S CURSE actually made this movie too!!! It's not even laughably bad like JOLLY ROGER or ALIEN ABDUCTION (which, by the way are pretty bad). This is just BAD! I mean, I can appreciate and/or forgive bad acting or lame special effects in an Asylum movie, but this film takes itself way too seriously. I really hope that SNAKES ON A TRAIN is better. Now that's a movie I can't wait to see.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No wonder most of the cast wished they never made this movie. It's just plain ridiculous and embarrassing to watch. Bad actors reading cheesy lines while shiny classic showroom cars continuously circle a diner that looks more like a Disneyland attraction. Students fist-fight with the deranged principal as he tries to stop them from setting fire to a bronze civil war statue. The Watts riots with a cast of...ugh...10?? Dermot Mulroney tries not to gag while he makes out with a Mary Hartman look-alike with the most annoying smile since 'Mr. Sardonicus'. Noah Wyle reads Bob Dylan lyrics to the wicked teacher with a swinging pointer and very bad face lift. Drunken virgin Rick Schroder sits in a kiddie rocket on his last night before entering the service. Silly, giggling school girls dress up in leopard stretch pants and walk on the set of 'Shindig', sing horribly off key, and actually make it big in the music business. And who wrote this compelling dialog?: "I'm going to Burkley and wear flowers in my hair"...."I think I found someone to buy Stick's woody!"...."These people are 'animals'!" "These people are my 'family'! as the Shirelles sing "Mama Said". Oh brother, What a mess. This is like a 'Reefer Madness' of the 60's except it's not even funny.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow...OK. So, after reading the little feud on here, I decided I had to see this movie for myself. This movie is HORRIBLE. I stopped watching it. I strongly recommend cleaning a closet instead of watching this movie, you'll be more spooked/entertained.<br /><br />It's low budget with bad acting.<br /><br />Whoever is giving this movie 10s is completely incorrect and should be disregarded.<br /><br />I am in no way connected to any of the other reviewers.<br /><br />Simply put, this movie is not worth watching.<br /><br />Very, very BAD MOVIE.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am really surprised that this movie get a ranking like this! I haven't seen such a bad movie for years.Omg this was a really bad movie. Splatter, is not enough to describe the unnecessary (nearly funny) blood scenes). If you didn't like hostel2 or Wolf Creek or Halloween (2007) ..well this is 10 time worse. The story remind me RL Stine goosebumps.!<br /><br />I can't tell about the acting since the script was so terrible.Cliché all the time. (why i must write 10lines? i never understood this.)<br /><br />==Here comes spoilers==<br /><br />The story is about a butcher killing people all the time in metro. We are talking about thousands of killings and no one gets notice. Actually those people are just missing. And There is the good guy that tries to solve the mystery (well there is no mystery for us because we know from the beginning the bad guy) and as usual no one believes him! what a surprise! In the end he puts butcher clothes and fights to death with the killer butcher!
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Welcome to Collinwood" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.<br /><br />Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.<br /><br />The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.<br /><br />I find that Steven "Traffic" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The acting wasn't great, the story was full of simplistic turns and transparent characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just isn't strong enough to answer both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Still, some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one isn't successful, unfortunately. Still, it's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000s<br /><br />Dries Van Dongen
|
Negative
|
The acting was great, the story was full of simplistic turns and noticeable characters. It's about the repercussions of the struggle between right-wing Flemish block voters on the one side and the Moroccon people living in the Belgian city Antwerp on the other side. Is it a political analysis ? Is it some kind of Belgian West Side Story or modern Romeo and Juliet ? The film just asks interesting questions and provide answers to both questions (supposing those were the director's questions, too). Some of the scenes could function as a kind of Ken Loach film, set in Antwerp. After all, this city has been the starting point of the extremist right-wing Flemish Block party and is struggling with a lot of problems and tensions between different populations and cultures. It's very difficult to make a film about this situation, and this one is successful. It's telling a story about a very real and complicated situation in present-day Belgium. The few foreign viewers watching should try to watch and enjoy it and realise it's not the actual film that is important but the social dividing lines behind it that haunt Belgium, a 10 million people country, in the 2000s<br /><br />Dries Van Dongen
|
Positive
|
Is there anything worse than a comedy film that lacks humor? The answer is Yes; one that fails to generate any interest throughout the picture. The premise is not too bad - a naive front man for an illegal business - but this is a potboiler with a poor script and screenplay and just does not work.<br /><br />Was this considered a good 'B' in 1942? Hard to imagine. The only positive aspect of the picture is the cast, which contains several well-known faces from the '30's and '40's, such as Warren Hymer, Vince Barnett and Robert Armstrong (I always dismiss Richard Cromwell as the weakling who got Gary Cooper killed in "Lives of a Bengal Lancer", so I wasn't counting him).<br /><br />Can't recommend this one and gave it a rating of 3 - if you have a choice, get a root canal.
|
Negative
| null | null |
first this deserves about 5 stars due to acting (some which would give me a better subjective opinion and NOT an objective one as it should by giving this one, WELL DESERVED, star) but then i know that those facts are used for the actor(S) NAMES to increase the rating of something like this...<br /><br />i do have a problem with such productions; yet another attempt (just like "untraceable") of a systematic propagandistic feature promoting government intrusion on your rights( how interesting that it comes at a moment when IPS providers trying to "preferentiate" = CENSOR information, and the Americans and Canadians are fighting AGAINST that at this very moments). this time is not by labeling torrent file transfers as evil ( that one was intended to remind you of such feeling whenever you transfer data on the net), but by literally attempting in creating a sexual frustrated population as a whole. SEEMS LIKE FEAR PROMOTION IS HOLLYWOOD'S NORM THIS DAYS, especially when coming to thrillers which is the most "on demand" motion picture genre for past 2 decades or so = most viewed, best way to try influence the society as a whole. such levels of violence are depicted in this 2 features of morally and "ethical" people, that it gives a new much needed meaning to "anti-heroes" figures. make no mistake , this is NOT "DEXTER" which was meant to be high-quality entertainment.STOP SELLING "FEAR" please, the world would be a better place without it and the dollars made of it.<br /><br />the opening scene and generally the first 10 minutes really give a frightful picture of an Erroll Babbage that is CLEARLLY suffering of sexual frustration. the way he handles the black male is very disturbing if not outright racist(for sure a "cliche" at least) ( in real life someone would probably get a beating for it, you will see what i mean). the second scene ( with Claire Danes's character present) is even more extreme. at that point i realized, in my opinion that Erroll Babbage is a very dangerous individual to people around him.how many people, that have seen or will see this movie, have never been "hold down"(regarding BOTH sexes) out of self, COMMON gratification!?.typically the movie gives an extreme CRIMINAL case(that unfortunately did, is and will likely happen again sometime , somewhere) BUT fingers everyone else indirectly as well as "you could become that", etc. anyone that is familiar with Sigmund Freud and Jung will know very well that sexuality is not something to be judged let alone "asses" , by such fanatical "hero" here. SAFE sex in its many forms IS healthy and not some evil that apparently Richard Gere character is obsessed with , on his way for some sexual "crusade". have we not learned anything from the abundant recent scandals involving priests and young boys!? or for how long an American teenager can see extreme violence on "pg-13" but he can not even see a woman breast until "R-18"!?!?( yet the industry targets them with this VERY SAME sexual perversions like "american pie" series for example).raise the kids tester-one levels but frustrate them and drive them underground in developing fetishes to UNhealthy EXTREMES!? all sexual activities(upon MUTUAL acceptance) integrates individuals better then some "rightous" nut-case, THAT blames his misfortunes and shortcomings on "the lives of others"( a new German movie that would work great in comparing this 2 distinct and world apart features on the very same subject).here, like in that movie, you will probably appreciate the actors for well portraying the opposite of what they should have been.<br /><br />i am very disappointed with Richard Gere especially after the recent " hunting party", a feature where he really shines and about a more realistic "hero"( after real facts as well).but then it just reminds me that all those people are only actors that get paid to play someone's political and social agenda. "the flock" and "untraceable" 2 heads of the same hidden beast)))it just reminds you, if know anyone with similar views on the subject as a WHOLE, as Erroll Babbage has those here, to stay clear of them for THEIR own safety.they would kill my family faster then any 0.00001 chances of Paul Jerrod in anyone's life would...<br /><br />in the end i recommend this to anyone thinking negative here about MY "assesment" of this particular movie ( and "untraceable" actually), so you can likely have similar thoughts as i did. nothing sweeter then a propagandistic movie shooting itself in the "foot".))))for once i agree with the rating, this is not a feature for teenagers or kids; simply because at best would confuse them even more then the "common" belief of "money+fame+fashion" and how that relates to sexuality. "scream" series and movies as such AT LEAST have a defined entertainment value(even if a dumb one in my opinion). but this one is just another "trust me i know what is good for you" deeply (not so well done i might add) subliminal messages.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Algie, the Miner" is one bad and unfunny silent comedy. The timing of the slapstick is completely off. This is the kind of humor with certain sequences that make you wonder if they're supposed to be funny or not. However, the actual quality of the film is irrelevant. This is mandatory viewing for film buffs mainly because its one of the earliest examples of gay cinema. The main character of Algie is an effeminate guy, acting much like the stereotypical "pansy" common in many early films. The film has the homophobic attitude common of the time. "Algie, the Miner" is pretty awful, but fascinating from a historical viewpoint. (3/10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Fans of creature feature films have to endure a lot of awful movies lately. Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down. Crocodiles are particularly successful as we already had to struggle our way through the abysmal 'Crocodile' (directed by a disappointing Tobe Hooper) and 'Lake Placid'. Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and on top of that it likes to exaggerate tremendously. The saltwater-crocodile supposedly is 90 years old, over 30 ft long (!) and it kills for fun! During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area. The only beautiful aspect about this film is the tropical location. Even though it's a completely inappropriate setting for a film like this, the lagoons and nature looks marvelous. Every other aspect is simply disastrous. There's a quite a bit of gore but it all looks fake and laughable. The dialogues are downright painful to listen to! You won't believe some of the lines these actors have to say! I know surfers are supposed to be a mentally underdeveloped group but I hope for their own sake they're not that stupid! Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark. The visual effects in 'Blood Surf' are amateurish and the massacres fail to impress. I won't say too much about the acting since it's secondary in flicks like this. The girls look sexy in wet shirts and their boobs joyfully bounce while running away from the beast. You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film. So bad it becomes fun again. But 'funny' for a whole other reason than James Hickox intended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Madison is not too bad-if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.<br /><br />Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliché in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).<br /><br />Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.<br /><br />And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.<br /><br />As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."<br /><br />Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The complaints are valid, to me the biggest problem is that this soap opera is too aimed for women. I am okay with these night time soaps, like Grey's Anatomy, or Ugly Betty, or West Wing, because there are stories that are interesting even with the given that they will never end. However, when the idea parallels the daytime soaps aimed at just putting hunky men (Taye Diggs, Tim Daly, and Chris Lowell) into sexual tension and romps, and numerous ridiculous difficult situations in a so-called little hospital, it seems like General Hospital...or a female counterpart to Baywatch. That was what men wanted and they had it, so if this is what women want so be it, but the idea that this is a high brow show (or something men will watch) is unrealistic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wha-BAM! Someone surely had fun devouring a whole truckload of acid-mushrooms and then subsequently scripting this crazy excuse for a motion picture! Writer Howard Cohen expands the "Sword & Sorcery" concept with a couple of extra S's, like Sex, Silliness, (more) Sex and Sheer Stupidity! This isn't just a movie, this is every juvenile pervert's dreams & fantasies come true! "Deathstalker" has it all: blood, violence, trolls, female mud-wrestling, attempted rape, successful rape, life-sized pigs (!), awful hairstyles, hideously oiled muscular bodies, multi-sexual orgies, gay warriors, tournaments-to-the-death, delirious witches, dismemberment, laughable villains and boobs, boobs, BOOOOOOOOOBIES!! "Deathstalker" literally wipes the floor with its obvious role-model "Conan: The Barbarian" when it comes to terms of cheesiness and sheer flamboyance. The story is, evidently, of minor importance. Lone and gay (only he doesn't know it yet) warrior Deathstalker goes on a mission, as commanded by an annoying witch, to gather the three notorious elements of creation
or something like that. On his journey he combines forces with a troll-turned-human, a fighter who's even gayer than he is and - last but not least - a luscious lady who doesn't really seem to be a big support of the concept of bras. Together they head for the kingdom of the ultimately evil Munkar where they'll participate in a warriors' tournament and conquer no less than two out of three elements. Munkar is bald guy with half a spider's web tattooed on his skull and an impressive harem that would even make the wealthiest oil sheik jealous. Okay, granted, "Deathstalker" is a pretty damn awful and at some times even unendurable movie. The fight sequences are lame and the costumes and make-up effects are downright pitiable. For a moment, when beholding the opening sequence, I actually feared I was watching "Troll; the Prequel". The monsters look incredibly cheesy and the complete opposite as menacing, but it's undeniable entertainment if you're in an undemanding mood. I presume this isn't a favorite amongst feminists, as the overall portrayal of women is somewhat
um
discriminating. Most of the gals exclusively serve as eye-candy in the harem. They're allowed crawl over the floor naked and play around in the mud, but strictly forbidden to open their mouths. The two "leading" ladies (Barbi Benton and Lana Clarkson) are ravishing but - in all honesty - if it wouldn't be for their continuously exposed racks, they would hardly be worth mentioning, either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Feeding the Masses is just one of many recent mediocre zombie movies to be after your hard-earned dollars. Suggestion? Keep your hard-earned dollars and let's just say that good old TheatreX took one for the team on this one. Guess what the plots about? Zombies taking over. This time though, for the sake of originality (?) this film takes place in Rhode Island, and to be honest I'm not sure I've ever seen a zombie flick based in Rhode Island. A TV station, controlled by the government, is supposedly keeping up "normal" broadcasts so that any remaining citizens won't think that there's any problem in the world, that is, those that never look or go outside, anyway. I will say though that a few of the commercials broadcast by this station were probably the most amusing part of this film. There is actually somewhat of a story to this but I'm not bothering with that because after a while you'll either not care or have fallen asleep. At any rate, this has plenty of terrible acting to throw on top off all the "seen it all before" stuff that gets trotted out before the camera. Trust me, you can find plenty of other things to do with your time than watch this. 3 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The dialogue was pretty dreadful. The plot not really all that inspired beyond the obvious twist it presents. Not visually stunning. Actually visually annoying at times. Most definitely one of those films you find easier to finish if you keep one finger on the fast forward button. If you could watch it for free, have absolutely no other options open at the moment and you really dig seeing the little poltergeist lady... well maybe I'd recommend it to you, but not anyone else I could think of at the moment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me state first that I love Westerns & Civil War stories. I also consider John Ford as an excellent director. I also have the same high feelings for John Wayne & William Holden's acting ability.<br /><br />I cannot remember if I saw this film when it first came out in 1959. Last night was the first time I saw it since then.<br /><br />As per my 4 rating, one can say I did not like the movie.<br /><br />I now will attempt to tell some of its shortcomings.<br /><br />John Lee Mahin who wrote the screenplay from Harold Sinclair's novel, was a very gifted writer & wrote many fine scripts, This script is poorly written & badly researched. They make mention of the awful conditions of the Andersonville prison, At the time of the movie Andersonville was not in operation. They also use rifles that were not used at the time.<br /><br />John Ford was directing films for over 40 years & won 4 Oscars. He must have been ill during the making of this.His usual style was missing. It could be that this was film in the south & east and not in Monument Valley.<br /><br />He normally had a stock company of players he used in nearly all his film, MOST were missing this time. This time only minor cowboy stars Hoot Gibson & Ken Curtiss have roles & of course Anna Lee has a small role. There were no other familiar faces except for the 3 stars. (see below) Mr. Fords stock company made most of his films the classics they were; sadly missed here.<br /><br />Now we come to the main stars John Wayne & William Holden. The Duke also must have been ill,he seemed out of place here. This sort of role usually fit his style perfectly, he was just adequate here. Wiliam Holden did the best he could, but nowhere as good as he usually was.<br /><br />It was required that there be an actress in this type of movie. Here in her first major role (second film) is Constance Towers, a very beautiful person, But not really an actress, She is still having roles on Television. Let me be kind and say she has had a long career,more based on her looks than acting talent. Also in caas as Ms. Towers servant is Tennis Star Althea Gibson.I am glad she stuck to tennis.<br /><br />The rest of the production credits were far from the usual high standard of other John Ford films There were a few military type songs supposedly done by the marching cavalry, not good at all. The action scenes were good but come at the end of film.<br /><br />Ratings *1/2* (out of 4) 47 points (out of 100) IMDb 4 (out of 10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.