input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Notorious for more than a quarter century (and often banned), it's obscurity was its greatest asset it seems. Hey, it's often better to be talked about, rather than actually seen when you can't back the "legend" up with substance.<br /><br />The film has played in Los Angeles a couple of times recently, and is available on home video, so that veil is slowly being lifted. While there is still plenty to offend the masses, it is more likely to bore them, than arouse much real passion. Except for a gratuitous and protracted XXX sex scene between a pair of horses ("Nature Documentary" anyone?), there follows nearly an hour of a dull arranged marriage melodrama. <br /><br />Once the sex and nudity begins, it is a nonstop sequence involving masturbation, a looooooooong flashback to an alleged 'beauty and the beast' encounter, and a naked woman running around the mansion (nobody, even her supposedly protective Aunt, seems to even think of putting some clothes on her!). On video, I guess you can fast-forward thru the banality, but it's not really worth the effort. The nudity doesn't go beyond what is seen in something much more substantive such as Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS.<br /><br />Try as one might to find some 'moral' or 'symbolism' in the carnality, I doubt it's worthy of anyone's effort. Unfortunately, for LA BETE, now that you can more easily see the film, the notoriety of something once 'forbidden' has been lifted. And this beast has been tamed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast !
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a new alltime low among westerns. The writing is excruciatingly bad, characters are impossible to emphasize with and are either disgusting or bland, the violence is appalling and technically not very convincingly executed. And Tobey Maguire shows us the flip side of his talent, sleepwalking through his part with those expressionless eyes and that raspy voice of his that here betrays only mannerism. 'Ride With the Devil' is among my five worst movie experiences ever, a western never to be surpassed in the negative respect.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, it can be done. John De Bello and Costa Dillon cleaned out the garbage of their minds and come up with the worst comedic, horror , Sc-Fi musical. If there is any acting, it is terrible or way over the top. Special effects; take your pick...very low budget or kindergarten. Every cheap cliché thought of is used. No doubt a fun movie to watch. Worth a cold six-pack or two. Point the finger at radiation if you need an excuse. Mutant tomatoes grow to almost the size of a tow truck and begin attacking mankind. San Diego is a good place as any to start. Scientists and an absent minded military must find the way to stop this red rolling menace. This cult favorite features: David Miller, Eric Christmas, Al Sklar, Tom Coleman, Sharon Taylor and John Qualls.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Smokey And The Bandit" wasn't exactly Shakespeare, but then nobody wanted it to be. It was lowdown slapstick, but it did have brains. It had a very smart script with definable characters and a fun wrap-up. People came out of the theater smiling. "Hooper" provides none of this. There is no reason to smile. If it's supposed to be a tribute to the Hollywood Stuntman, it makes them look awfully lazy by providing nothing but badly-choreographed fight scenes and one of the most unconvincing car-jumps I've ever seen. It all looks phony, badly-filmed almost on purpose. Poor Sally Field (as the girlfriend who wrings her hands on the sidelines) is given her weakest role, with not a single funny or smart line ("If you do that jump, I won't be here when you get back"). Burt Reynolds keeps looking at the camera and winking, but the joke is on any audience who sits through "Hooper". * from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not sure what Diane Silver was thinking when she was making this movie, but it obviously had nothing to do with Richard Wright's novel, which the movie is based on.<br /><br />We read the novel this past summer for AP English 12, and just watched the film. During periodic note-taking and checking of the clock, I contemplated the chances of being struck by lightning. Of course, the sky was completely clear, and I was forced to watch the rest of the movie... and then write a 5-paragraph essay on it.<br /><br />Wright's novel discussed very real themes, of the mind of a killer and the psychology behind it. Silver's movie turned a murderer into a victim, which is NOT what Wright wanted (see: "How Bigger was Born" 454).<br /><br />I'm going to make this short and sweet: if you want to leave your consciousness, in Raphael Lambert's words, unsullied, skip the movie and read the book. The 1986 adaptation is not thought-provoking material.<br /><br />... ::sigh:: Now I have to write the essay.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.<br /><br />As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie had a lot of potential, unfortunately, it came apart because of a weak/implausible story line, miscasting, and general lack of content/substance. One of the very obvious flaws was that Sean Connery, who played an Arab man, didn't know how to pronounce his own Arab name! This may seem a small flaw but it points to the seeming lack of effort in paying attention to details. The quality of acting was uniformly well below average. <br /><br />Movie's solitary saving grace was the twist in the plot at the very end; and a french song (I don't recall the title). Overall, it was a pretty bad movie where Sean Connery was visibly miscast.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*spoliers* do not read any further if you haven't seen this movie<br /><br />Picking up after the depressing "Phantasm II" ended; The Tall Man kidnaps Mike, while Reggie and new kid Tim spend most of the rest of the movie trying to get him back, and not end up as slaves on the Tall Man's "Red Planet". This one gets really silly: the trio of thieves in the bright pink hearse were only there for comic relief, and the black karate chick (can't remember her name) was so irritating I couldn't wait to see if the Tall Man killed her character. This one sets it up to almost look like it was going to be Tim's character, who comes in late and ultimately is the hero, but ... it doesn't quite work out that way. By the very end of this story Liz is beheaded by the killer midgets, Mike gets a silver sphere implanted into his skull, the spheres get Reggie and the dwarfs get Tim, and there's no one left to stop The Tall Man. The bad guy wins - now how's that for a surprise twist at the end?<br /><br />This was filmed in 1993 and unreleased until '95, and the ending of this one was at the time final, and although it's disappointing and anticlimactic it was also a fitting and appropriate ending for this weird little series. But the fourth one changes this ending and adds nothing new but more bad jokes, and an even worse and more nonsensical ending ...<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a dumber person for renting the DVD REDLINE. Chicago Pictures who made this stupid movie never paid Palisades Media Group to buy web ads on various automotive sites including mine which has an ALEXA rating of 16K. They ripped me off on the deal and now I am out $16,000 and they wasted much of my personal time (peter rapport of Palisades Media) you know who you are!<br /><br />Please don't rent or buy this movie!!! It sucks and the people behind it are ripoff artists.<br /><br />REDLINE has a cast of losers and poor actors!<br /><br />This movie is a Joke
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh dear. This movie could have been sub-titled "When writers go on strike!" What a stinker. I had really high hopes for this, mostly after reading IMDb reviews, which makes me wonder about the whole IMDb rating system, but that's a separate matter. I loved Steve Carrell in Anchorman, Bruce Almighty, The Office, etc so I was expecting great things. To say I was disappointed is the understatement of the year. There are so many things wrong with this movie, but I'll confine myself to (a) the implausibility of ANY family behaving like these people do (A mass aerobics workout? What planet is THAT real life on?), the clunky script (a murderer of love? Please), and the fact that the character of Dan is so unlikable, you find yourself wondering what the girl saw in him to make her fall in love with him? This movie was filled to bursting with clunky dialogue, creaking direction, ridiculous set-scenes and it was slow, slow, slow. We would have walked out after half an hour if we'd not been with my parents, who don't get out much and don't like to waste money. Unlike the makers of this movie, who would have been better off throwing all the cash spent making this movie into a bonfire - that would have been more entertaining. If you like movies, avoid this like the plague.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This may or may not be the worst movie that Steve Martin has ever made, but it certainly was far from his best. Obviously, he did this crap for the pay check. Dreck like this certainly does nothing to enhance his reputation as a funny man. What he doesn't seem to grasp is that when people go to see a Steve Martin movie, they expect to be entertained, not bored to tears. It's sad that he dragged Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman down with him. I don't understand why talented people can't get a grip on the fact that people don't want to see them in lousy movies. If you're going to call a movie a comedy, then it should be funny. This wasn't. Shame on the US military for allowing itself to be associated with this pabulum, too. Full Metal Jacket had more laughs than this miserable excuse for a "service comedy." Surely, Phil Silvers is rolling over in his grave.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Two houses, one street, one phone booth, one car, a girl next door, a boy next door and a zombie. This list of ingredients should suffice for a great horror movie. All you need is some blue light, ambient music and...done. Not in the hands of Dutch director van Rouveroy though! <br /><br />I like to organize "bad movie evenings" from time to time. The concept is really simple: get some booze, get some film-loving friends, and immerse yourself in the worst cinema can offer. For such an evening this peace of filth is one of the best. Laughs guaranteed!<br /><br />The bizarre thing is, van Rouveroy is still defending her film as if it were a great achievement. To be a witness to this you'll have to listen to the DVD's commentary track. Again: disbelieve and laughs guaranteed!
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, what is good in the movie ? Some pretty actress ? the exotic background ? the fact that the actors don't laugh while acting (I would have if I had been in their situation) ? I don't know. The storyline is simple : a catholic priest who does abstract painting tries to find out who (another abstract painter) killed his little brother, a male prostitute (raped by another priest when he was young...). I'm afraid there is nothing here to learn or to let think a little about serial killers, art or religion. Dennis Hopper is not very good here. This is the worst episode of the worst season of "profiler" (the serie) with replacement actors and unbelievable coincidences (the uncle is the policeman who, the girl who lives at another victim's house could have a baby with the priest, etc., etc).
|
Negative
| null | null |
This might be the poorest example of amateur propaganda ever made. The writers and producers should study the German films of the thirties and forties. They knew how to sell. Even soviet-style clunky leader as god-like father-figure were better done. Disappointing. The loss of faith, regained in church at last second just in time for daddy to be "saved" by the Hoover/God was not too bad. Unfortunately, it seemed rushed and not nearly melodramatic enough. A few misty heavenlier shots of the angelical Hoover up in the corner of the screen-beaming and nodding- would have added a lot. The best aspect is Hoover only saving the deserving family and children WHO had "proven" their worth. Unfortunately, other poor homeless were portrayed as likable and even good- yet the Hoover-God doesn't help them. A better approach would have been shots of them drinking spirits to show the justice of their condition. Finally, bright and cheerful scenes of recovery (after Hoover saved the country from the depression) should have rolled at the end. We could see then how Hoover-God had saved not just THIS deserving family, but all the truly deserving. Amateurist at best.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a terrible movie. The acting was bad, the pacing was bad, the cinematography was bad, the directing was bad, the "special" effects were bad. You expect a certain degree of badness in a slasher, but even the killings were bad.<br /><br />First of all, the past event that set up the motive for the slaughter went on for 15 or 20 minutes. I thought it would never end. They could have removed 80% of it and explained what happened well enough.<br /><br />Then, the victims were invited to the "reunion" in an abandoned school which still had all the utilities turned on. One of the victims thought this was a little odd, but they dismissed it and decided to break in anyway.<br /><br />Finally, the killings were so fake as to be virtually unwatchable.<br /><br />There is no reason to watch this movie, unless you want to see some breasts, and not very good breasts at that. This movie makes Showgirls virtually indistinguishable from Citizen Kane.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was obvious that this movie is designed to appeal to the Chick Flick audience, to which i have sat through quite a few and enjoyed most. However, this was a very irritating attempt by Heather Graham to become the next Meg Ryan ( who became annoying as hell in her own right ). Her acting was overdone and it appeared that she was overanxious compared to her colleagues who were relaxed in their roles. This film might have been more, as there was suitable budget for settings, actors and a decent story line. My wife and I both agreed that this was 'Muck' at the end, as the film ended on a painful embarrassing high! Better luck next time, hope Miss Graham sticks to the type of films that she belongs in like From Hell.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was eager to see "Mr. Fix It" because I'm a huge David Boreanaz fan. What I got, though, was a 1-1/2 hour nap. The premise seemed enjoyable: Boreanaz is Lance Valenteen, proprietor of a business called "Mr. Fix It", where dumped men enlist his help to get their girlfriends to take them back.<br /><br />Among the problems with this movie are the editing, script, and acting. Although I've found Boreanaz delightful in his other film roles (with the exception of that "Crow" movie he did), this was disappointing. At times, his character was interesting and others, flat. The supporting cast reminded me of soap opera day players. I realize it wasn't a big-budget film, but some of the scene cuts and music just didn't seem right.<br /><br />My advice: watch at your own risk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am watching this movie right now on WTN because that was the channel that the TV was turned to when I turned it on. It is a not very credible and fairly boring story about a minister's wife (Alexandra Paul) falling in lust with a young stud/drifter (with washboard abs) played by Corey Sevier. There may or may not be a plot. Corey whips his shirt off a lot and Alexandra swoons. I'm getting the feeling he's supposed to be up to no good, and that's why he's messing with skinny Alexandra Paul. It's not really important because as I said he takes his shirt off a lot and I just caught a glimpse of butt cleavage. There's a lot of sax on the soundtrack, which is just painful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film can't make up its mind whether its message is "humans are evil and bad and animals are sweet and blameless" or "don't ever go in the water again." A fisherman (Nolan) is out to nab a killer whale, a very bad thing, but when he accidentally (ACCIDENTALLY mark you) hits a pregnant cow instead of her mate, the cow -- and I use the word in all senses -- who is obviously a sick psycho-bitch and the canonical villain of the piece -- throws herself against the propellers trying to chew herself to bits in the most distressing and hideous not to mention ineffectual method of killing herself. (I doubt it was her first.) When her unborn fetus aborts from her hideous self-inflicted wounds, her mate goes mental with revenge and swears to hurt, kill and mutilate every human who even so much as talks to Nolan. Obviously as among humans, total psychos date other total psychos.<br /><br />The film reeks of half-thought out anti-human message, "the poor poor whale!! the evil men must suffer and die!" and yet, it does not succeed in demonizing Nolan at all. It's true that when he set out his motives were selfish and cruel, but at the first squeal of the first whale he grows a heart and, as the film progresses, he grows more and more compassionate to the whale's pain until it seems he will walk out on the ice and give himself to the whale, just to make it feel a little better.<br /><br />The films final journey, in which Nolan follows the whale on a bizarre journey to the north, reminds me of Melville's eerie man-whale connection, and for a moment hinted at a truly interesting conclusion, where these two husbands might connect, understand even respect each other in their own grief, for Nolan lost his wife and unborn child also to an accident. It's clear Nolan respects the whale and feels for its loss. However, it never goes there. The whale-character has no compassion or respect for anyone.<br /><br />The final scene loses this focus and becomes Jaws-like where the sea-monster finally kills everybody and Nolan and no-doubt through an oversight, fails to chomp up the whale-hugger (tho he made a good snap for her head a little earlier.) I love animals, and I detest whaling, and what is more I love orca whales, but if this film's goal was to make me feel that the whale was the victim and that people are evil and detestable it completely failed. Nolan shows compassion and growth, and feels for others, and all the whale thinks about is killing and maiming.<br /><br />The only message one can walk away with is "If you see an orca whale, ever, anywhere, run the other way cause if you step on his FIN the wrong way, he will hunt you to the ends of the earth destroying everything around you."
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.<br /><br />When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.<br /><br />The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.<br /><br />Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.<br /><br />The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.<br /><br />The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.<br /><br />All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.<br /><br />I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yay!... I think. It's hard to say. It's hard to have an emotion about a movie that has no emotion. This movie is as sterile as a surgeon's scalpel. For a setting, it has a few stone pillars, some stone seats, a couple stone crosses and some stone actors. They have no emotion! The only thing that saves this movie is the fact that it is Hamlet, and Hamlet is a terrificly written piece of literature. The dubbing really wasn't all that bad though. The voices stuck true to the dull, gloomy, dreary, life-sucking atmosphere the movie gave forth. I have seen this version of Hamlet on the fabulous Mystery Science Theater 3000 three times, and each of the three times, I was on the brink of turning off the TV, despite it being MST 3K.<br /><br />Not an uplifting production of a drama that deserves so much better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a mildly interesting late 80's gore fest featuring some nasty slugs with a taste for human blood. If you can get past the ridiculousness of the whole thing you might actually get some minor enjoyment out of this. The acting is awful and the plot is simply there to hold the movie together between gory slug attacks, but the movie isn't a complete waste of time. The special effects are actually quite good, and the gore is well done. It reminded me of the remake of the Blob, probably because of the sliminess of it all. All in all, you could certainly do worse with an hour and a half of your time, but I wouldn't suggest seeing this movie unless you've got a strong stomach and are into this sort of thing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The goofy Griswalds win the T.V. game show "pig in a poke" grand prize, and all fly off together to Europe where they manage to cause one stupid disaster after another. Of all the ridiculous, unfunny money-spinning sequels this one beats the lot. Harold Ramis' 1983 film was a below average misadventure in which the misfit family went on a nightmarish "Vacation" across the States. This time Amy Heckerling ("Look Who's Talking") helms what turns out to be a disastrous "comedy" which will annoy you more than it will make you laugh.<br /><br />Hughes script (with Rob Klane) is awful and you wonder why the likes of Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo bothered with such a dead-beat project, as even Anthony Michael Hall and Imogene Coca had the sense to decline the offer. Even an omnipotent Michael Palin is unable to lift proceedings to any level that one could call entertaining.<br /><br />Yet, as inconceivable as it may seem, "European Vacation" was successful enough to warrant a second sequel! Surely it couldn't be as unbearable as this one. You know, I have yet to see a National Lampoon show that was worth the bother.<br /><br />Monday, December 26, 1994 - T.V.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It really boggles my mind when someone comes across a movie like this and claims it to be one of the worst slasher films out there. This is by far not one of the worst out there, still not a good movie, but not the worst nonetheless. Go see something like Death Nurse or Blood Lake and then come back to me and tell me if you think the Night Brings Charlie is the worst. The film has decent camera work and editing, which is way more than I can say for many more extremely obscure slasher films.<br /><br />The film doesn't deliver on the on-screen deaths, there's one death where you see his pruning saw rip into a neck, but all other deaths are hardly interesting. But the lack of on-screen graphic violence doesn't mean this isn't a slasher film, just a bad one.<br /><br />The film was obviously intended not to be taken too seriously. The film came in at the end of the second slasher cycle, so it certainly was a reflection on traditional slasher elements, done in a tongue in cheek way. For example, after a kill, Charlie goes to the town's 'welcome' sign and marks the population down one less. This is something that can only get a laugh.<br /><br />If you're into slasher films, definitely give this film a watch. It is slightly different than your usual slasher film with possibility of two killers, but not by much. The comedy of the movie is pretty much telling the audience to relax and not take the movie so god darn serious. You may forget the movie, you may remember it. I'll remember it because I love the name.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Obviously a lot of talented behind the scenes crew members worked on this movie, so don't even look at the credits at the end, you'll only hold it against them. Nobody seemed interested in seeing this movie, only 3 were in the theater; two passed out after 10 minutes, and they were the lucky ones. The 'monsters' were the unemployed worm from Star Trek 2, The Wrath of Khan, and rejected designs for the space creatures in Alien. The creators of the movie obviously didn't want to overshadow the third rate movie monsters, so they hired forth rate actors who apparently didn't get to memorize their lines, or in some cases learn to pronounce the words before filming began. Some scenes are incredibly inept in conveying just what is supposed to be happening, if anything is. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a theater where this movie is showing, and you don't pass out, you'll laugh at what are supposed to be frightening or suspenseful moments of the film. The implausibility of several scenes will just stun you, and Stephen Dorff's regular spewing of the 'Queen Mary of curse words' conveys the feeling of anyone who pays to see this. If you must see this movie, do yourself a favor and wait until it's in the bargain bin at the video store. If there's any justice in the film industry, one of the main actors will be there to rent it to you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make Kevin Bacon disappear. Sadly, they stopped there. They should have continued to make the script disappear, then the silly set, and finally every visible element of this film. Because, there's nothing else there to show.<br /><br />Gary Thompson and Andrew Marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. I don't really think they exist. I think they bought this script at "Scripts-R-Us", where you buy a standard blank "Monster Movie" script and just fill in the blanks. There's a monster stalking us. Let's split up. (They actually "let's split up" in this movie). Hit Alien/Giant-bug/Monster/Invisible-man with crowbar. Not dead yet. Burn Huge-rabbit/Shark/Invisible-man in unsurvivable fire. Not dead yet. You know, the standard stuff. Even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (IR glasses, spraying with something like paint) were handled badly. <br /><br />What is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. They psychological issues for the subject, the deterioration of the mind due to the process, treating an invisible subject, and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. Had there been any desire to save Kevin Bacon in the end, it would have been a much better movie. All in all, it stunk.<br /><br />I would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie, but I don't want to do any spoilers. Suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they don't think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Really, really bad. How does a film this bad get made? I kept waiting for some redeeming plot point, interesting camera work, or at least some gratuitous nudity but I got nothing. I had just watched Cabin Fever and I thought it was an train wreck (except for the nudity and Pancakes) but it looks like genius compared to this dreck. The best script doctor in the world couldn't have saved this putrid pile of of stinking poo.<br /><br />The only thing going for this "film" is that it ended.<br /><br />I've got a headache just thinking about this movie and trying to write something. Ugh! I'm glad I only paid $5 for it and it will soon end up in a landfill.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Children love dinosaurs. It's somewhat part of their culture. But they've got The Land Before Time. The original. At least that movie had heart. This. This movie is just plain pathetic. Just because kids love dinosaurs doesn't mean you can just slap together any old story and show it to the children. This movie has no plot, the whole premise is stupid, and it's more by the numbers stuff. Not as soul sucking as Theodore Rex, but it's lightyears away from being a Land Before Time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's hardly anything at all to recommend this movie. Chase Masterson is always nice to look at and actually can act, though her role in this clunker is a waste. Unfortunately the rest of the cast ranges from bad to mediocre. In a lot of films like this someone will shine through the material and you make a note of them for future reference. No such luck here. Creature Unknown" a clichéd monster-on-the-loose flick with the kids getting knocked off one after the other. The monster is a man in a rubber suit which hearkens back to the days of Paul Blaisdell. So bad it's good! The rest of the show is just so bad it's bad. A little humor might have made this more palatable, but everyone plays the deadly dull material straight up. There is a twist or two at the end, but by then you won't care anymore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is an extremely silly and little seen film about slavery in the West Indies and it stars Puddy from the "Seinfeld" show! Patrick Warburton made his film debut in this contrived movie and he's noticeably slimmer here. Oliver Reed got top billing but he's hardly in the film at all. Warburton plays a white slave and its funny to see all the young and horny wives of rich old men bidding on him because they all want to have sex with him. Eartha Kitt plays an owner of a bordello and they're is so much nudity in the film. If its not drunken orgies at the bordello then its the young wives having they're turn with him. Then of course towards the end the slaves revolt and there's the bloody standoff. No real political message like the film "Burn" but just another contrived plot device to move the story along. Incredibly they made a sequel and Warburton and all the rest of the cast came back! I hope they got paid a lot of dough because this first film is pretty bad. The nudity keeps it watchable and Warburton's lack of any accent make it at times laughable. Very bad film but I got to admit that I want to see the sequel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sometimes, making something strange and contemporary doesn't always work to everyone's advantage. While I will admit that the set design and concept of the film was rather interesting, the execution of these ideas into one congruent story just didn't work. This film was so hideously slow and pointless, not even Robin Williams could save this garbage. It's obvious Barry Levinson's dream fell flat on its face, but he should have warned the rest of the world about this slop.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Only reason I have seen 101 Dalmatians was its nominations for original song and costume design for the Oscars. I must admit that I was less than impressed with this film. In this sequel, Cruella DeVil(by the way Glen Close pulls off this role very well) is released from the hospital due to her good behaviour. She likes all sort of animals and locks all her furs away. From that point, we only wait until she starts having crises. Soon enough, she does and tries to make the best coat of fashion world, of course for herself and from fine Dalmatian fur. Apart from Glen Close, I found all cast quite silly but from a child's eye funny. That is fair enough as its target market is, I assume, children under 12. Quite a good entertainment for children and families, but didn't do much for me. * out of *****
|
Negative
| null | null |
What's happening to RGV? He seems to repeat himself in every movie. Has he run out of creative ideas? If he has, time to take a back seat. Went to see the movie with great anticipation - of course not once did I imagine it would be anywhere near the original. I knew it wouldn't, the promos said it all. But even then I thought it would be a great RGV treat, after all isn't he the same guy who directed Sathya and Company? Or is he? I have my doubts after watching Aag. I am not going to talk about the plot or the story, as most of it is taken from the original, if you are really dying to go and see this one, you could play a fun game with friends: identify the scenes from the original one and give ratings of your own! So Veeru becomes Heero (how corny is that?), guess Heeru wouldn't sound that great. Ajay Devgan is quite a disaster as Heero, the comedy is strained and the slurred talk that really was effective in Company sounds fake. The chemistry between Heero and Gunghroo (Nisha Kothari) doesn't exists at all. In fact the more charming Nisha tries to be the more irritating she becomes. This reaches a peak by the end. Raj is in fact not bad as compared to the others, he is a guy to watch in the future. I was really disappointed with Amitabh Bachchan as Babban, he looks like a caricature of Gabbar Singh. There is a scene where he is drinking something from a bowl all covered in a shawl, instead of inspiring fear he looks like a beggar with his bowl. The only performance that really stood out was Mohan Lal as Inspector Narasimha. I am afraid I don't have the patience to write more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Nacho Libre" (2006) <br /><br />Directed By: Jared Hess <br /><br />Starring: Jack Black, Ana de la Reguera, Héctor Jiménez, & Darius Rose <br /><br />MPAA Rating: "PG-13" (for some rough action, and crude humor including dialog) <br /><br />Say what you will about it (I know some people who despise it to no end), but I have always thought that "Napoleon Dynamite" was a funny movie--not the brightest brick on the wall, but a funny movie, nonetheless. Jack Black is also a very funny man--irritating at times, yes, and massively overrated by adolescent audiences who practically worship him, but funny. There has rarely been a Jack Black comedy that I did not enjoy to some degree. So, I was very happy to hear that Jared Hess, the writer and director of "Napoleon Dynamite", and Jack Black would be teaming up for a movie about a Spanish friar who becomes a wrestler to save an orphanage. My only reservation was that the plot seemed a little too thin. Unfortunately, my one reservation turned out to be downfall of the entire movie. This plot, had it been done as a skit on some such show as "Saturday Night Live" or possibly even "Mad TV", would have worked flawlessly. Unfortunately, the plot runs far too thin over the approximate one and a half hour runtime and this one-joke comedy falls flat.<br /><br />Nacho was raised in a Mexican monastery and became a devout man of the Lord. Feeling shunned by the entire monastery, Nacho (Black), now the monastery's cook, decides to follow his dreams to become a professional wrestler. As the monastery's finances hit an all-time low, Nacho decides to join a wresting tournament so that he can win the prize money and provide good food for the monastery's orphanage. This plot sounds so sweet and caring. It seems like the perfect movie for Jack Black. Look what he did with "School of Rock" after all. Well, to my displeasure, this plot is almost completely ruined by offensive and gross humor that just takes away from the heart of the movie. It is again Hollywood's way of showing that they feel that teen audiences will only understand fart jokes and stupid humor
of course, for all I know, maybe that is the general thought of teenagers, as many seemed to enjoy this movie. Watching an obese woman scurry like a mouse across the floor will certainly make people laugh, but don't expect to get an award for putting it in your movie. A seven-year-old could make up the same joke.<br /><br />The performances in "Nacho Libre" are actually good. Jack Black proves once again that he is absolutely hilarious and that he can make even the most idiotic, worthless lines in ever put on paper comical. Unfortunately, this movie just wasn't enough for him. It didn't give him anything to go on and the only reason any of his jokes worked was because of him. I had never seen or heard of Ana de la Reguera before, but now I can say that, not only is she quite talented, but she is also one of the most beautiful women to have ever graced my eyesight. She just clicked in the role and it worked wonderfully well. Héctor Jiménez, who plays Nacho's bumbling partner, Esqueleto, kept me laughing continuously. He did a very nice job and it was very effective when partnered with that of Jack Black's. Darius Rose, who plays an orphan named Chancho, didn't have many lines, but, what can I say, I just enjoyed him. He was adorable. The rest of the cast did their job. It is unfortunate that they were wasted on such a sub-par movie.<br /><br />"Nacho Libre" just does not work. Its plot is stretched far too thin. The heart of it all is soiled by moronic humor and sickening jokes that just don't work. I very rarely laughed and, if I did, it was because of Jack Black or another member of the cast. And that leads me to the bright side of "Nacho Libre": yes, the cast. This cast was just
well, for lack of a better word, they were on. They all clicked, had excellent chemistry together, and pumped as much life as possible into the flat script. After Jared Hess's "Napoleon Dynamite" kept me thoroughly entertained for the entirety of the movie, I was surprised to find myself so often bored with "Nacho Libre". Something was lost here and I have yet to understand what it was. All I know is that "Nacho Libre" is not a good movie and yet, because of its cast, it is completely worthless. There is a small reason to watch, if only to watch Jack Black work. But, if you are not a fan of Jack Black, then avoid this movie like the plague. I like Black, but I am done with this movie and with this review.<br /><br />Final Thought: Yikes! This is Jared Hess's surprisingly disappointing follow-up to his hysterical "Napoleon Dynamite".<br /><br />Overall Rating: 4/10 (C+)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? "An Unexpected Love" - ooh, how provocative!! "This Much I know" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who "turns" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I personally liked "The Prophecy" of 1995 a lot. Christopher Walken was, as always, great, and even though the film wasn't flawless, it was a creepy and highly original Horror/Fantasy film that entertained immensely. This inferior 1998 sequel is still worth watching, but mainly due to Walken. Walken is one of the greatest actors around, in my opinion, and he is once again outstanding in the role of the fallen Archangel Gabriel, whom he plays for the second time here. Once again, the war between fallen and loyal Angels is brought to earth. Gabriel returns in order to prevent the birth of a child, namely the child of the angel Danyael (Russel Wong) and the human woman Valerie (Jennifer Beals). This child could once be the determining factor of the celestial war... As I said above, Christopher Walken is once again excellent as Gabriel. Besides Gabriel, however, "The Prophecy II" sadly also includes a bunch of terribly annoying characters. The character of Valerie was annoying enough, and Danayel annoyed me even more. The biggest pain in the ass, however was the character of Izzy (played by Brittany Murphy), a suicidal girl who wouldn't shut up. Still, Walken's performance isn't the only redeeming quality of the film. The entire film is quite dreary, and well-shot in dark colors, which contributes a lot to the atmosphere. Gabriel's resurrection scene in the beginning is furthermore quite impressive, and one of the coolest moments in any of the "Prophecy" films. "The Prophecy II" is nevertheless the weakest of the three "Prophecy" films with Walken. Definitely a Christopher Walken one-man-show, entertaining, but nothing beyond that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm Irish and I've been living in Denmark for a while so I was looking forward to going home last week so I could see Intermission. And I will go on record as saying:<br /><br />THIS FILM IS AWFUL.<br /><br />It is not quite as bad a something like "The Most Fertile Man in Ireland" but it definitely does not stand up there with other Irish films such as The Commitments, I Went Down or Michael Collins.<br /><br />Some aspects of the film are actually quite funny, such as Colm Meaneys American-style garda. But the film itself is shot completely wrong. The bouncing around of the camera and the constant zoom-in, zoom-out tries to give the film an edgy look as if it were a gritty drama. But it isn't. This is an Irish Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and it should be shot like this. It should have smooth movement from one shot to the next. The film just looks sloppy and thrown together.<br /><br />The performances are okay, given the awful script. A friend of mine said to me like it was like they just followed Colin Farrell around Dublin for a week. He gives a decent display as a Dublin Dirtbag, but it no way compares to his performances in Minority Report, Tigerland or Phone Booth. The best performance was from Dierdre O'Kane who plays a sexually frustrated middle-aged woman who has just been dumped by her bank manager husband for a younger woman. I think she should leave her god-awful stand-up and focus more on her acting.<br /><br />All in all, its does in no way live up to the expectations put on it by the Irish press or deserve to be even considered as one of the best Irish films ever.<br /><br />I'm expecting a backlash from these comments because most people I have spoken to have said it was great. But before you reply, ask yourself: Would think so highly of this movie if it was set in England or America?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nicolas Roeg ? He directed the classic supernatural thriller DON`T LOOK NOW didn`t he ? Strangely the aforementioned movie was broadcast on BBC television at the weekend which did tonight`s screening of COLD HEAVEN no favours what so ever . <br /><br />You see it`s impossible not to compare COLD HEAVEN with DON`T LOOK NOW since they both have the same director and the same structure and for the first third of COLD HEAVEN I thought they also had the same plot except a dead husband had been substituted instead of a dead child , in fact my mind was set on this movie revolving around a grief stricken widow seeing her late husband running around Venice wearing a red anorak . This doesn`t occur but about one third of the way through the running time there`s a massive plot twist and despite being an essential plot twist it`s not explained in any great depth . In fact very little is explained in COLD HEAVEN which ruins the movie <br /><br />People have mentioned the rather poor production values of COLD HEAVEN and it`s impossible not to notice them . If I didn`t no different I would have thought this was a TVM since it`s got a made for television feel to it right down to white capital letters in the title sequence . Roeg also tries to inject art house pretentions via spoken thought processes but again this doesn`t help the movie at all . One can`t help feeling Roeg should have put all his effort into the plot twists which are totally flat on screen <br /><br />Cheap production values , disinterested directing and a really bizarre premise and screenplay make for a bad movie
|
Negative
| null | null |
... and yet, we were told, there was another hour and 20 minutes left to go.<br /><br />Why, oh, why wasn't there an editor to tell the writer/director to snip, snip, snip? Apparently that writer/director has previously done shorts; as a short, this would have been okay. But the lack of dialogue starts to grate after twenty minutes. The lack of much music glares. The background noises (talking, traffic, and especially a ubiquitous helicopter) get old really fast. But the worst failure is in story. There is precious little beyond a short.<br /><br />After an hour we saw variations of the same scene over and over again. I nearly screamed at the screen, "We get it, we get it!!!!!" It's amazing that after that left the theatre, we could drive home, watch the Daily Show and parts of the Colbert Report, get ready for bed,and know that the audience was STILL trapped in the theatre.<br /><br />It's not enough to indulge your vision. You have to give the audience enough to share your vision.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Big hair, big boobs, bad music and a giant safety pin.......these are the words to best describe this terrible movie. I love cheesy horror movies and i've seen hundreds..but this had got to be on of the worst ever made. The plot is paper thin and ridiculous, the acting is an abomination, the script is completely laughable(the best is the end showdown with the cop and how he worked out who the killer is-it's just so damn terribly written), the clothes are sickening and funny in equal measures, the hair is big, lots of boobs bounce, men wear those cut tee-shirts that show off their stomachs(sickening that men actually wore them!!) and the music is just synthesiser trash that plays over and over again...in almost every scene there is trashy music, boobs and paramedics taking away bodies....and the gym still doesn't close for bereavement!! All joking aside this is a truly bad film whose only charm is to look back on the disaster that was the 80's and have a good old laugh at how bad everything was back then.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very disappointing film. By the end I no longer cared for any of the characters. I did enjoy seeing Ving Rhames in a very small part, and William Macy was good as always, still not worth watching. It starts out strong and just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Insomniacs will like it as I am sure it will put them to sleep.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am so happy and surprised that there is so much interest in this movie! Jack Frost was my introduction into the films produced and distributed by A-pix entertainment, and without exception, everything this company deals with is pure crap! First, and this is very important, never ever watch this movie sober! Why would you? Unlike many other entertaingly bad movies, this one I feel was made intentionally bad. I just can't get over how fake the snowman is, which is why its always shown only briefly, the way it moves is the best! This movie is Waaaaaaaaaaay better than the Michael Keaton piece of crap, becuz that was made too be a good movie, and that version is as bad as this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the "once saved always saved" doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.<br /><br />If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word "rapture" mentioned.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen and liked the original film, and expected more from a remake than this.<br /><br />GOOD: Effects and makeup are good. No complaints about the score and visuals, they are adequate, and the performances were okay (Tim Roth was excellent, the other principals were fine, and a handful of the "supporting supporting actors" did very well with extremely limited roles). The action scenes were exciting and fun.<br /><br />BAD: The escape from the ape city was terrible. The characters are going in circles, then suddenly someplace in the middle of town there are tunnels to escape. Plus, what escape route leads through everybody's bedroom?<br /><br />The story was pared down to include as much action as possible. I like action scenes but the original film had more meat to it and deserved more respect.<br /><br />Finally, the ending was completely nonsensical as presented. Without seeing the inevitable sequel, there is no justification for it.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Night of the Comet starts as the world prepares for a once in a lifetime event, the passing of a 65 million plus year old comet. Instead of watching the light show Regina Belmont (Catherine Mary Stewart) decides to spend the night with cinema projectionist Larry Dupree (Michael Bowen) in his booth... They awake the next morning & as Larry attempts to leave the cinema he is attacked & killed by a zombie, the same zombie attacks Regina but she manages to escape where upon she discovers that almost everyone on the entire planet has been turned into red dust. Almost everyone because by some amazing coincidence the only other person to survive happens to be her sister Samantha (Kelli Maroney), they desperately search for more survivors & meet up with a long distance trucker named Hector Gomez (Robert Beltran). Meanwhile an evil bunch of scientists need human blood to develop a serum to save themselves from turning into dust & they're on the look out for unwilling donors...<br /><br />Written & directed by Thom Eberhardt I found Night of the Comet a pretty rubbish viewing experience, I'm surprised at the amount of positive comments on IMDb about it because I just thought it was boring crap that never lived up to it's potential. The script starts off 100 miles an hour with the obliteration of the entire population of Earth & a zombie attack but then it goes absolutely nowhere & then eventually introduces the sinister blood stealing scientists towards the end of the film because by that time the slim story has run it's course. There are plot holes too, if these scientists want blood why shoot the three or four gang members & save the two sisters when the guys would have provided more blood for their experiments, killing them just seemed a totally bizarre & an almost suicidal thing to do considering they need blood to develop a cure, it just doesn't make sense I mean if your going to die & you need to experiment on human blood would rather have five or six donors providing blood or just two? I'm not having the fact that the two sisters survived independently of each other, I mean what are the odds on that? When Hector confronts the female scientist for the first time she never mentions Samantha or where she was or where the underground facility was where they took Regina before she committed suicide so how did Hector know these things? I also thought after the first twenty odd minutes the film slows down to a snails pace & became incredibly boring & dull to watch, after hearing so many good things about it Night of the Comet comes across to me as nothing more than an overrated boring piece of crap.<br /><br />Director Eberhardt does a really good job, I liked the look of the film with it's red tinted sky & he manages to create a really cool atmosphere of isolation. Unfortunately there are far too many shots of empty streets, there are constant montage's of empty streets, deserted roads & abandoned buildings & it gets extremely repetitive & dull. OK we get it there's no one else about so there's no need to keep ramming it down our throats by constantly showing roads without cars on them. The zombies are totally wasted, there are two zombie attacks in the entire film & that's two individual zombies as well although there are a couple of effective nightmare scenes. Night of the Comet pays homage, or rips-off whichever you prefer, several other much better films including the obligatory end of the world shopping spree in a mall lifted from Dawn of the Dead (1978). Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any.<br /><br />Technically Night of the Comet is pretty good, the special effects are decent enough & the production crew were obviously very good at closing streets off. The acting was alright expect for Maroney as Samantha the air-head blonde who became highly irritating.<br /><br />Night of the Comet was a big disappointment for me, I had hoped for so much more. Persoanlly I found this film dull, boring, uneventful & the puke inducing sequence where the sisters go shopping to the tune of 'Girls Just Wanna Have Fun' is probably the worst moment in the film. Really bad & I just don't get why so many people like this, I'm sure I'll get slaughtered for saying it so let the abuse begin I can take it...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not to keen on The Pallbearer, it's not too bad, but just very slow at the times. As the movie goes on, it gets a little more interesting, but nothing brilliant. I really like David Schwimmer and I think he's good here. I'm not a massive Gwyneth Paltrow fan, but I don't mind her sometimes and she's okay here. The Pallbearer is not a highly recommended movie, but if you like the leads then you might enjoy it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the "Jeep" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the "Jeep"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, let me start off by saying how utterly HILARIOUS this film is, I simply couldn't keep myself from laughing at the sheer stupidity of it. Don't get me wrong, it IS well acted particularly by Bassinger but the script is just, well the mind boggles truly.<br /><br />The premise is good and up until Della actually witnesses the murder it is engaging but after that it just goes downhill . Half way through the film the protagonist pulls out her toolbox and of course instead of lobbing it at the guy's head, she decides to pull out a screwdriver, car jack and finally a flare (as in for a sinking ship) respectively to kill her victims.<br /><br />Then there is the final line that I promise, if it doesn't have you in stitches then I will eat my own left foot.<br /><br />I would recommend this film to those who simply want to laugh at some good old fashioned, appalling film making. Might I also suggest you watch out for the scene in the scrap yard with the guy falling from the one foot high plank of wood, gets me every time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was exactly what I expected, not great, but also not that bad either. In my opinion PG13 movies aren't scary enough so that's why I already knew I was going to be bored throughout the entire film. Sure there were scary things going on in the hotel room, but nothing we all haven't already seen. I guess I didn't like it because I thought there were too many twists and turns happening; it got old and repetitive. I also didn't understand if all the things Cusack was experiencing in the room was real or not. There is no explanation for any of the events that occurred. The movie just drags on and when it finally does come to an end you want it to keep going because you are still waiting around for someone to tell you what the whole movie was about. What I did like was the special effects. Other than that there wasn't much enjoyment from it. Maybe its just me but I thought this was below average.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dear dear dear dear dear...me! I had the strength to see it through... But why?!<br /><br />The first two films where fun and actually somewhat good. But this is so bad we had problems seeing the whole thing. This was some kind of Tremors for kids. I can't believe this movie was made at all..seems like the props where taken from some bad western series of some kind (for kids) and they just did whatever they could with it.<br /><br />What audience is this movie for? I can only think of 12-14 year olds. If you're older than 14 you'll have serious problems with this movie. It's not only slow, but it's so utterly boring. The characters are overacted (not just a little either) and so stereotyped it's fun for a while..but not long enough to not make you want to fling tomatoes at the screen. You know everything that is going to happen too, cause yes...you've seen it a BILLION times before in any hero series on TV for kids. I picked all the survivors and all the tremor fodder the second the characters got introduced. It's so bad..so wrong..so...crap.<br /><br />But OK, we did get a laugh now and then. Not just at the silly plot holes, but some scenes where worth a replay or two...or one scene that is, where two baby tremors fling themselves at one of the obvious tremor fodder guys..It's really a great scene which made us replay it over and over and laugh wholeheartedly. Still makes me grin when I think about it. But that only happened one more time sadly..and that's when the "badass" gunman shows up and overacts his part wonderfully...that and one comment "They spring from the ground like some DEMONIC TROUT!" At this point we where almost crying with laughter. But after that..nothing could ever top that..(?)..so it's pretty much downhill from there. <br /><br />So tops here are demonic trouts and overacting. If anybody ever tells you this is a good movie...he's either a "plant", vegetable or someone very evil. This movie has got to be the worst of the tremors by far. Looking forward to seeing Tremors 3, it's bound to be box office hit compared to this...this...*goosebumps* no..I'll leave it at that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some people have made a point of dissing this movie because they question the plausibility of black people in the Old West, Asian people in the Old West or women with guns in the Old West period. Get a grip and read a book. There were quite a few Asians (Chinese), there were quite a few blacks (freedmen) and everybody outside of the gentile class had ready access to guns; it is the second amendment you know. And as far as the use of modern language goes, none of those Westerns people have waxed nostalgic about actually used language that was consistent with the era depicted. Americans had different accents, used different inflections, spoke at a very different pace and used plenty of words and phrases that would be unrecognizable today. Don't blame historical inaccuracy for the fact that you just didn't dig it. Be honest. Maybe you're just uncomfortable with what you're seeing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With this film, Bunuel manipulates the viewer with all of film's might while stating clearly in the film that his work is one of 'objectivity'. Obviously, it is not. For one reason, many scenes 'shot by pure chance' are obvious set-ups (when that poor goat 'accidently' falls off the cliff, you can actually see the gun smoke on the right of the screen!). For another, his concealing of one important information: the Hurdes people were the way they were for a specific reason which is just hinted at in the film. That is, goitre, a sickness caused by lack of iodine (salt). This goitre is the cause of their cretinism and had Bunuel only took the time to make his research (heck, if he checked 'cretinism' in a medical dictionary he'd have found 'goitre') he MIGHT have ended up telling the truth about these people (still, doubtfully). Instead, with his film, he judges them constantly, talking about them as 'cretins', again and again, dramatizing the action, setting-up scenes to create the spectacle, all of this very unacceptable for a documentarist which claims to work for an all-mighty objectivity. Bunuel talks all the time in this film, not letting one word to the people he is filming. He talks FOR them and, even then, JUDGES them. This piece is flawed to it's roots, to it's ideology and it's a real shame it's considered a great film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.<br /><br />I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.<br /><br />Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.<br /><br />As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.<br /><br />Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.<br /><br />On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again.
|
Negative
|
86 best minutes of my life. I fell in love the first time I watched it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall in love in the cinema.<br /><br />I have never seen such a great plot acted in such a funny and interesting manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.<br /><br />Everything in this dire adaptation is overly good. And if it isn't the acting, almost as though you can see the devices from that time, then the set itself, which is very well lit, and dressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you to heaven.<br /><br />As to the shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does see that - as well as the entire rest of this awesome plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.<br /><br />Excellent acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark, is enough to make you want to see it again.<br /><br />On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a thing that people will try to emulate this level of cinema ever again.
|
Positive
|
Spirit of a murdered high school geek animates a scarecrow which then takes revenge on everyone.<br /><br />This movie really annoyed me. It has a great looking monster, has some good low budget effects, some atmosphere but manages to short circuit the good stuff with bad. Half way in I started to fast forward and then step through the chapters on the DVD.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are many. First off the cast looks about thirty and yet they are suppose to be in high school. You don't believe anything from the get go as a result. The scarecrow, while looking great isn't much beyond that. He says stupid one liners and moves in a manner more designed to be funny then scary. Is this a comedy or a horror movie? Its a problem that goes beyond the one liners to much of the dialog and set up. It seems more send up of every cliché than heartfelt horror film. I some how expect that the film was made for a very narrow audience in mind, horror fans who want to mock the genre rather than embrace it.<br /><br />Despite the good looking monster this is a film to avoid. Even if you pick it up in the bargain bin for under five bucks, you're paying too much.<br /><br />Avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.<br /><br />I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.<br /><br />Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.<br /><br />Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.<br /><br />The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.<br /><br />Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.<br /><br />Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do not waste your time watching this! Unless you want to study it for all the wrong things you shouldn't do to make a good film. I am not one to usually review a movie, but this one is personal. I wasted precious time which they cannot give back. I feel compelled to write this report to warn others not to waste their time watching this crap. If this was a student project, i would have to say not bad, but only for the first 15 min... after that it gets annoying. the screaming, the bad audio, the bad video (a good camera man could have made it much better). and yes, whats with the Blair-Witch effect? no budget? I was hoping it was going to get better, but it doesn't. Now how the hell did it deserves a 4? 2 is more fair but 1 for wasting my time! I have said my peace.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This appalling film somehow saw the light of day in 1988. It looks and sounds as if it had been produced 20 or 30 years earlier, and features some of the worst songs ever included in a major motion picture. I weep for the parents and children who paid top dollar to see this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in Hollywood at all (not even live there), and those actors need to find another job. The most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life... and I only kept watching to see if it would get better which, unfortunately for me it did not.<br /><br />Even at the end, the credits gave me anxiety. I guess there weren't a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly... very slowly.<br /><br />This movie is definitely a great "How Not To Make a Movie" guide. Too bad I can't give a 0.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The NSA, CIA, FBI, FSB and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as MST3k Commentary states it..."Sanata has the dirt on every! Santa's Tentacles reach far and wide! There is no hiding from the Klaus Organization")<br /><br />From telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. Its amazing that the CIA doesn't have Santa on the payroll. <br /><br />Satan's dance routine is hilarious. Pitch...he is so useless.<br /><br />The cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. Very low budget but so fun to watch. I recommend watching the Mystery Science Theatre 3000 version for even more laughs.<br /><br />You even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids.<br /><br />I give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This must be one of the worst movies I've ever seen, the graphics are ridiculous, and the script pathetic and the biggest question is how this rather low brow script got trough the selection process.<br /><br />I like all sorts of movies from deep dramas to the more male oriented kill everything you see type of movie, so I can't say I'm picky. I have been struggling to find something to compare it to, but I just can't think of anything that matches this, maybe starship troopers 2. Witch in my opinion makes the movie gods cry and me thinking about throwing out my DVD player, but compared to this its effects are great. The acting superb and the script should be awarded. You know when a movie is bad in a funny way, well folks this isn't one of those this kills your soul minute by minute.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a kind person, so I gave this movie a 2 instead of a 1. It was without a doubt the worst movie that I've seen in a long time. There was very little plot and the deeper interesting areas that were touched upon i.e. what Jesus may really have wanted us to know, were glossed over and instead we were given heavy visual doses of sadistic punishment inflicted upon our heroine (Arquette). Total crucifixion in the first 15 minutes would have been more humane to both her character and the audience. The acting was barely there and the direction was uninspired. And, if I saw one more drip of water or dove flying toward the camera, I may have started screaming louder than Patricia.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hayden Christianson and Jessica Alba two of my least favourite actors of this century team up in what is quite possibly the flattest attempt at remake the already dire The Butterfly Effect. Awake is so dull and so utterly uninteresting that you'd be better off asleep. Terrance Howard still recovering from the diabolical August Rush puts up a decent fight as the sadistic doctor who seems hell bent on killing Christianson and after viewing his performance I would gladly assists.<br /><br />Alba, still recovering after Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver surfer. Is naturally disastrous and equally unwatchable as she always was. Only once has she ever been rather brilliant at that was in the safe hands of master director Robert Rodriguez in Sin City. Could it possibly be that Jessica alba isn't as poor of an actress as most give her credit for and is is possibly that her acting abilities are being weight down by a poor script. If so then that would explain Awake. What with a script that would shame that of Plan 9 from Outer Space.<br /><br />Jessica Alba, Hayden Christenson, and Terrence Howard star in first-time director/screenwriter Joby Harold's nerve-jangling psychological thriller about a man who experiences the frighteningly common surgical phenomenon known as "aesthetic awareness," in which those laid out on the operating table remain acutely aware of what is going on around them despite remaining completely paralyzed and unable to cry out for help. When a successful young young man (Christenson) goes under the knife and realizes that the anaesthesia hasn't quite done its job, the horror quickly sets in as his worried wife (Alba) waits anxiously and a terrifying drama unfolds in the operating room.<br /><br />Hoping to do for operating tables what Final Destination did for planes, this first effort from director Joby Harold pivots on a blood-frosting conceit. The pre-credits sequence tells us one in 700 people suffers from a phenomenon known as 'anaesthetic awareness', where the patient remains conscious but paralysed during surgery. One such unfortunate individual is Clayton Beresford Jr (Hayden Christensen), who finds himself wide awake during a heart transplant... and he can feel every single slice.<br /><br />Intermittently inventive as it probes away at his tortured psyche, Awake fails to inject true terror into its novel premise. Spiralling from chilling simplicity into absurd conspiracy, it's hindered by stilted turns from Christensen and Jessica Alba. You'll wish you'd popped a sedative before watching
<br /><br />VERDICT: Awake is at very best extremely undemanding. A pull no punches film that undoubtedly looked better on paper. As a film though its awfully generic and extremely derived. Awake fails to inject terror into its novel premise. The end result is really quite lousy. Alba and Christian are the very least of your worries as the films main flaw lies in its inability to scare its audience. Awake is a film you'll most likely sleep through.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yikes did this movie blow. The characters were weak, the plot weaker. I figured this couldn't be too bad because it has Christoper Walken, oops. He must have done this because he was bored and needed the money. The characters were supposed to be Irish but noone had an Irish accent. I am desperately trying to find something nice about this, I can't except Walken did a fine job with a wooden character. Find something to read, or watch discovery, don't ever see this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The previous poster obviously worked on the movie. It's a joke how bad it is and no one would review this kind of movie the way he did.Mentioning all of the actors' names and what they were in previously is a sure sign that he's involved with it in some way.<br /><br />It's on Cinemax right now and I was sure this was some movie where porn stars (the one called Ava is gorgeous and well-endowed) were forced to make something else for some crazy tax reason.<br /><br />Also, when I first saw it, I was sure it was made in about 1986, and I was born in '73, so I thought I knew what i was talking about...but no...it was made in 1993!! Unbelievable!<br /><br />Though I would call it one of those so bad it's good movies. Like watching a train wreck.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie has no plot and no focus. Yes, it's supposed to be a slap-stick, stupid comedy, but the screen-writers have no idea what the movie was about. Even the title doesn't go along with the movie. It should have been called "Cool Ethan" or "Cheaters Never Win" or something like that. The characters are not developed and no one cares what happens to them! The girl roommate character (from That 70's Show) was the only person worth watching. She was hilarious and stole every scene she was in. The others need to make sure that their own college diplomas are in the works since they'll need a career other than acting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity
|
Negative
| null | null |
I liked Batman: Dead End. A dark edgy film-noir setting for Batman was perfect. Batman: Dead End is good. This is not.<br /><br />First of all let me start off with the acting. None of it is really that good. The best would probably be Clark Bartram as Batman. But that isn't saying much. He is good at first glance, and then you realize he is what he is, a body-builder who happens to be a tolerable actor. But mainly the problem is that Batman doesn't belong in the daylight, he looks like a freak running around in a Bat suit. Instead of a horribly scarred man trying to make up for past mistakes. The daylight also reveals an irritating dorky scowl on Bartram's face which never leaves and unoticeable in Batman: Dead End, probably because of the darkness of short which is so desired in this trailer. Bartram seems to think that scowling and stubbornly shaking his head is acting, it's not, it's quite the opposite. It's called posing, something real actors avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Something I never understood why Collora casted body-builders as the leads. It makes much more sense to give the role to an actor who can manage it, instead of a bodybuilder who can kinda manage it but HEY HE LOOKS SO MUCH LIKE THE COMIC! Of course, they might have done better if Collora's dialouge didn't leave much to be desired.<br /><br />The entire trailer (yes, trailer. There will not be a full-length film) is more centered around Superman then Batman. But everything on the Superman side is corny, cloying and amateur. Michael O'Hearn (Superman) is one of the worst actors I've ever seen. He stands around, smiles, says his lines. That's about it. Although I'm not surprised since he is just a bodybuilder they hired and possibly received a few acting lessons. Once again I say to Collora, cast ACTORS. Not bodybuilders. Actors will be so much more compelling that we will forgive the fact they don't look exactly like the comic book.<br /><br />The costume is what you would expect Superman to wear. As for the Batman suit. Well, I guess it only looks good in the dark. I say this because in some shots the suit looks like something you would buy from a Halloween gift shop.<br /><br />Superman flies in this movie. But that isn't a good thing. These shots look especially amateur. This and a lot of the entire "film" looks like it was shot in their backyard with a VHS camera.<br /><br />The best shots are a shot of Superman catching a car in his hands. And the final shot of Two-Face and Batman at the very end. For those of you who have seen the trailer. You know what I'm talking about. Now if only he could have stretched that shot through the entire trailer.<br /><br />Finally I ask. Why if you're trying to show your ability as a director, would you make a trailer as a short film? This proves nothing when it comes to being an actual director handling story. My only piece of advice for Collora here is, there is a difference between the ability to tell a story and being able to work in marketing.<br /><br />Batman: Dead End didn't feel amateur. I can't figure out where this went wrong.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen a lot of movies in my life, but not many as bad as this. It is a movie that makes fun of fat people, has no real story, has bad actors, is not funny and much more. Is this a movie that you would like to see? I guess not!<br /><br />I guess that the makers of the movie was trying to be original and creative, but it looks like it was made by a 12 year old child with absolutely no cinematic skills at all. The so called funny parts is as funny as throughing pies in the faces of people, or breaking wind. Of cource if this is the kind of humour that you like, then this is the movie for you!!<br /><br />Dont waste your money on this movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This British-Spanish co-production is one of the countless films shot in Spain in the wake of the unexpected phenomenal success enjoyed by the Italian "Spaghetti" Westerns and, as is typical of such genre efforts, features an eclectic assortment of established and emerging international stars: Robert Shaw, Telly Savalas, Stella Stevens, Martin Landau, Fernando Rey, Michael Craig, Al Lettieri, Dudley Sutton, Antonio Mayans, etc. Ironically, however, this incoherent mess of a movie serves as a shining example as to why that most American of film genres became a dying breed in the 1970s and is nowadays practically (or is that officially?) extinct.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this film, not only because the Western is one of my favorite types of movies but also because it had all the qualities, including an intriguing premise, to be a good one - not to mention the fact that my father had purchased a paperback edition of A TOWN CALLED BASTARD's novelization following its original release! As it is, the film's sole virtue (if, indeed, it can even be called that) is its sheer eccentricity: for instance, Stevens, playing a widow out for revenge on the man who betrayed her revolutionary husband, sleeps inside a coffin(!) driven around in a carriage by her dumb manservant(?) Sutton; Savalas, as a blood-thirsty renegade, who at first appears to be the film's main villain, is unceremoniously dispatched by his own henchman Lettieri very early on in the picture; the villain of the piece, then, turns out to be Landau who, in the film's very first scene, is seen pillaging side-by-side our legendary hero-turned-priest Shaw!; Fernando Rey, playing a blind peasant, is the only one who can identify rebel Shaw who, in the end turns out to have been merely a front for...well, nevermind! As you can see, the plot is very confusing and it gets stranger from there! The production team responsible for this film were also behind other Western fare around the same period of time, like CUSTER OF THE WEST (1967), BAD MAN'S RIVER (1971), CAPTAIN APACHE (1971) and PANCHO VILLA (1972).
|
Negative
| null | null |
This will be best known for the Ferrari that was crashed when Eddie Griffin was doing promotion.<br /><br />Tale of racing and betting is a poorly made by the numbers that appears to have a director who couldn't see the numbers. Largely a point and shoot affair with a group of actors in it for a paycheck. This is not a good movie, but its not bad enough to be watchable and end up as a some what nothing film isn't worth bothering with no matter how you look at it.<br /><br />Misogynistic, despite the fact one of the leads is a woman, this is a film that was clearly made just to get the producer and director close to pretty girls. Want evidence? There are long lingering shots of women in next to nothing that serve no purpose other than perhaps to get a rise out of people too afraid to rent a porno or the Sports illustrated swimsuit DVD.<br /><br />Avoid this movie at all costs
|
Negative
| null | null |
the tortuous emotional impact is degrading, whether adult or adolescent the personal values shown in this movie belong in a bad psychodrama if anywhere at all. This movie has a plot, but it is all evil from start to end. This is no way for people to act and degrades both sexes all the way through the movie. teen killing - bad preteen sex - bad emotional battering - bad animal cruelty - bad psychological torture - bad parental neglect - bad the only merit if any is the excellent color shots of contrasting red, blond and green leaves a bad feeling for anyone that respects life and peace, what a bad mistake to make, or to watch... it is UGLY
|
Negative
| null | null |
In my humble opinion, this version of the great BDWY musical has only two things going for it - Tyne Daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (OK Vanessa Williams is good to watch.)But to me that's all there is. Most of the cast seem to be walking through the show - Chynna Phillips has no idea who Kim really is and no wonder people walk over Harry McAfee when it's played by George Wendt who looks like he'd rather be back on a bar stool in Boston. Jason Alexander is passable, but that wig has to go and I saw better dancing in Bugsy Malone. As I mentioned, it's good to have a version of the stage script now, but I hope the young out there, who have never seen a musical, DON'T judge them all by this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.<br /><br />Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."<br /><br />As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.<br /><br />The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.<br /><br />Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?<br /><br />A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS. Do not read if you don't want some points revealed to you before you watch the film.<br /><br />With a cast like this, you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. Did they see the script and say, `Hey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was such a hit that this one can't fail.' Unfortunately, it does. Did they even think to check on the director's credentials? I mean, would YOU do a movie with the director of a movie called `Satan's Cheerleaders?' Greydon Clark, who would later go on to direct the infamous `Final Justice,' made this. It makes you wonder how the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could hammer `Final Justice' and completely miss out on `The Return.'<br /><br />The film is set in a small town in New Mexico. A little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam.er.a spaceship appears and hovers over them. In probably the worst special effect sequence of the film, the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. It looked like Clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it, so right away you are treated with cheese. Anyhow, the ship leaves and the adults don't believe the children. Elsewhere, we see Vincent Schiavelli, whom I find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `Ghost' for proof, as they are outstanding), who is playing a prospector, or as I called him, the Miner 1949er. He steps out of the cave he is in, and he and his dog are inked by the ship. Twenty-five years go by, and the girl has grown up to be Cybill Shepherd, who works with her father, Raymond Burr, in studying unusual weather phenomena. Or something like that. Shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little New Mexico town, and she travels there to research it. Once she gets there, the local ranchers harass her, and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on, and deputy Jan-Michael Vincent comes to her rescue. From this point on, the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other, especially after Vincent wards off the locals and informs Shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty-five years earlier. While this boring mess is happening, Vincent Schiavelli, with his killer dog at his side, is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. You know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick-or-treaters at Halloween, the kind that you shake to make them glow? Schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. It's the second-worst effect in the movie. Every time Schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick, the scene's atmosphere suddenly turns dark, like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. It ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is.<br /><br />And what does all this lead up to? It's hard to tell when the final, confusing scene arrives. See, Burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that Shepherd found as some kind of `calling card,' but none of it makes sense. Why do Shepherd and Vincent age and Schiavelli does not? Schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants Shepherd dead, but even that doesn't make much sense when you really think about it. I mean, why doesn't he kill Jan-Michael Vincent? After all, he had twenty-five years to do it. And the aliens won't need him if Shepherd is dead anyhow, so why try to kill her? Speaking of the aliens, it is never clear what they really wanted out of Shepherd and Vincent. What is their goal? Why do they wait so long to intervene? How could they be so sure Shepherd would come back? Not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `The Return' any more pleasant. You would still have bad lines, really bad acting, particularly by Shepherd, cheesy effects, and poor direction. Luckily, the stars escaped from this movie. Cybill Shepherd soon went on to star in `Moonlighting' with Bruce Willis. Jan-Michael Vincent went on to be featured in dozens of B-movies, often in over-the-top parts. Raymond Burr made a pile of Perry Mason television movies right up until his death. Vincent Schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. Martin Landau, who played a kooky law enforcement officer, quickly made the terrific `Alone in the Dark' and the awful `The Being' before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. You can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `The Return.' Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ooof! This one was a stinker. It does not fall 'somewhere in between Star Wars and Thriller', thats for sure. In all actuality, it falls somewhere between the cracks of a Wham! video and Captain EO, only with not as big of a budget, and a lot more close ups of ugly teenagers crying. Simon Le Bon preens front and center, while the rest of the band gamely tries to hide the fact that they stole their whole career from Roxy Music's last 3 albums. Brief clips from Barbarella add nothing. Avoid at all costs. (However, I liked the part when they played 'Hungry Like The Wolf' but why was there a tiger lurking in the audience changing into a woman painted with tiger stripes? I mean, they aren't singing 'Eye of the Tiger' or 'Hungry like the Tiger' it's a Wolf! Whatever.) A DVD of Duran Duran's '80s videos is probably worth a look for nostalgia's sake
|
Negative
| null | null |
Now, it would be some sort of cliché if i began with the bit about the title, so i'll wait on that. First, this movie made me wonder why kids do stupid things like wander around in labs and break bottles. Then i realized it, this is a movie with a message, that message is beat kids and things like this won't happen. Things like what you ask? Things like a giant insectish monster growing up and causing a bit of mayhem before dying in the typical "kill the monster indirectly" fashion. Now, as promised... Blue Monkey... has nothing Blue in it nor any Simian of any kind. Now it snot like i was cheated or anything. The picture on the cover had a giant bug/crab/idiot/thing on the front chasing some screaming nurses. That kinda happened but i wanted apes! having just enjoyed MOST EXTREME PRIMATE a few nights before(half drunk on Cask and Creame's brandy mind you) i was in the mood for more monkey hijacks 80's style. Not so much. If you like snow boarding apes or blue things this movie is not for you. If you like bugs and good reasons to hit kids, rent this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was expecting a very funny movie. Instead, I got a movie with a few funny jokes, and many that just didn't work. I didn't like the idea of bringing in Sherlock Holmes' and Moriarty's descendants. It was confusing. It would have been more funny if they just had someone new, instead of Moriarty resurrected. Some of the things were funny. Burt Kwouk was very funny, as always. McCloud on the horse was funny. The McGarrett from Hawaii 5-0 was not even McGarrett-like. Connie Booth obviously is very good with accents. She is from Indiana, but played English and a New Yorker pretty well. Unfortunately, she was not presented much into the script. I was expecting a more funny film. Instead, I got a rather confusing movie with a poor script. Rather ironic, since both Booth and Cleese were together on this one. Maybe they were about to break up in 77.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.<br /><br />Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.<br /><br />About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Republic pictures comes late in the game to the "werewolf" er Werecat genre. The plot has a writer returning to Paris after a long trip abroad during which he developed jungle fear during which he had blackouts. He is arriving to great acclaim as his novel that parallels an infamous trial is a best seller. The French government wants to know if he had access to secret documents, something that seems more likely when an official is killed by a "catman". Suspicion really falls on the writer when his fiancé ends up dead. Complicating matters is the return of the blackouts so the writer doesn't know if he's the killer or not.<br /><br />Okay thriller is much too leisurely to be fully enjoyed. There are too many musical numbers early on and too much dead time when things are all talk in the middle and later sections. The acting is fine and the sets quite good but there is a reason why most people I know only remember the top hatted killer, he's the most interesting thing in this film. despite its short running time (just over an hour) I think the reason that this film was rarely seen on TV was that after 20 minutes you begin to lose patience with it. As good as the talk is, I just wished someone would do something. When it finally did happen, in the closing minutes, it was too little too late..<br /><br />Take a pass.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ho-hum. An inventor's(Horst Buchholz)deadly biological weapon is in danger of falling into the wrong hands. Unknowingly his son(Luke Perry)has been working on the antedote all along. Enter CIA agent Olivia d'Abo and the cat-and-mouse car chases and gunfire begins. Also in the cast are:Tom Conti, Hendrick Haese and an aging Roger Moore. Moore seems to haggardly move through this mess definitely not one of his better efforts. Perry fans will be accepting. d'Abo is wrong for the role, but nice to look at.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I first saw the live musical at the Denver Center For The Performing Arts and it was absolutely mind-blowing, Stunning and had such fantastic continuity of plot and dialogue that I liked it much more than most musicals that I have seen on the stage. The interesting thing is that you NEVER got to see Zach's face. He was always in the dark but his presence was powerful and guided the direction of entire production. Whe I heard they were making a movie from it, I waited with bated breath, but when I watched the movie version I was so bummed-out disappointed that I felt I was cheated. The movie lacks the captivating mood set in the live production and it never allows you to be completely in close touch with every character. Personally, I would like to see the live version again and if that should ever be revived, I would wholeheartedly recommend that you go out of your way to see it. It will be one of the most memorable experiences you will enjoy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other? <br /><br />After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........<br /><br />*spoiler* <br /><br />As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other! <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This really doesn't do the blues justice. It starts out badly with images from the voyager probe and Blind Willie McTell (or was it Blind Lemon Jefferson? Someone blind anyway) apparently narrating from outer space (?) and telling us the life stories of various blues musicians. Corny as it is, this might be the visually most interesting part of this documentary. Afterwards the only thing to see is actors incompetently mouthing the classic tunes, filmed in fake 20s black and white intercut with the likes of Beck and Shemekia Copeland raping the same songs afterwards. This is a good device to show us why the old Blues greats were really so great, but it doesn't make for compelling viewing. There is hardly anything in here that could justify making it a film and not a radio play. Nobody should be forced to see these badly done reenactments. It's a shame for Wenders, Scorsese and especially for the Blues. Avoid at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.<br /><br />Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.<br /><br />Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I checked this movie out based on a favorable review on this page. It is slow moving and the payoff is a four star dud..The only mystery here is how Oscar® winner F. Murray Abraham got involved with such a lousy script!
|
Negative
| null | null |
VAMPYRES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...<br /><br />Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's "Carmilla" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.<br /><br />Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of those movies you think that the makers would refuse to release it because it is so terrible. Obviously they were thinking that children are stupid and are excellent for absorbing endless ads and would think they are entertainment because it is slapstick funny. What is it with the talking car with buttons that say Wendy's, McDonalds, M&M's and Skittles? There was no talking car in the cartoon. (Dr.) Claw is supposed to be evil, not handsome and charming. Why is Rupert Everet 'Claw' anyway? Were the writers on drugs when they wrote these scenes? It looks like they were (badly) lampooning Robo Cop, with the turning a man into a crime fighting android thing. I tried to get my money back but there was a policy where if I watch more than 30 minutes of a movie, you don't get a refund. I'm sorry I watched more than 30 minutes of that pile of crap. After I was told the no-refund policy, I decided to watch the rest of the hideous garbage called Inspector Gadget.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This may have been based on historical events, and we know that the makers of this TV docu-drama took liberties to make it more dramatic - I can live with that - but it was just so badly done! I was amazed in the event of an unfolding mid-air crisis how calm everyone seemed, surely someone would have panicked, and what a smooth flight, no passenger discomfort apparent - come on! Not sure about the regulations, nowadays some of the airline security stuff seems OTT nonsense, but why take your shoes off before the emergency landing, common sense tells me this is not a good idea! The shots of this massive airliner coming down on this remote airstrip were unconvincing and fake. In reality it would have been an awesome sight viewed from the ground nearby, in this movie it was out of proportion and looked like the model it probably was. Escape slides appeared at the front and mid emergency doors, yet nobody appeared to exit from the front, even though the drop was much less. The Captain went back into the plane after the landing - why? this was never explained. We know the emergency landing was due to being out of fuel, but even so there must have been some fuel sloshing around at the bottom of the tanks, and the risk of explosion must have been a very real danger, yet the evacuation seemed almost leisurely, and everyone stands around at the foot of the escape slides instead of getting as far away as possible, as I am sure I would have done. There were just too many inconsistencies, errors and faked action in this. I would have preferred to have seen a representation of the drama in real time, and with realistic motion of the plane portrayed. It had the potential to be quite thrilling, but doubtless due to the budget restrictions failed, and made one feel that a plane losing all engines was no big deal really, and you would safely glide down to a bit of a bumpy landing, but no real danger! - the reality of course being somewhat different!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ugly shot, poorly scripted and amateurishly paced sequel to Joe Dante's 1981 classic. "The Howling" is one of the two or three ONLY good werewolf-films ever made and yet it got 'rewarded' by a series of obnoxious and unendurable sequels like this one. If it's any consolation, "Stirba" is a sequel in name only and there's absolutely no connection with the characters or events that were introduced in Dante's film. The plot here revolves on a bloodthirsty cult of Transsylvanian werewolves primarily female ones led by Stirba. Stirba is played by Sybil Danning who transforms from a curvy old lady into a blond super-babe (with impressive bosom) in the blink of an eye and becomes all hairy when sexually aroused. Her arch-enemy is played by a seemly fatigue Christopher Lee. His character Stefan Crosscoe is an occult investigator who travels to Stirba's kingdom, accompanied by an American couple who lost their friend to the werewolf cult. In case you're exclusively looking for filthy gore and gratuitous nudity...this is your film. Even the smallest killing is shown in great detail and we're even treated to exploding eyeballs and the vile image of a dwarf who gets pierced on a pointy fence. However, if you want a little substance or depth, you'll be sorely disappointed. The dialogues are embarrassing and there's absolutely no tension to detect anywhere. The scriptwriters constantly seem to confuse werewolves with vampires (the Transsylvanian setting, garlic, wooden stakes...) and Danning's gorgeous balcony is shamelessly exploited as the film's only gimmick. During the end-credits, a shot in which she rips off her top, is re-edited repeatedly (according to my fellow reviewer Dr. Gore, no less than seventeen times!) which is pretty pathetic and pointless. The music is okay and some of the scenery is rather beautiful. I'm talking about the fierce-looking statues during the opening credits and the dark dungeons of Stirba's castle. The directing by Philippe Mora is a giant mess and as far as I'm concerned his only worthwhile film remains "The Beast Within", released three years earlier.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This poor remake of the 1963 classic starts reasonably well, then replaces suspense with muddled and pointless special effects. For example, in the original, one of the most chilling moments occurs when Nell and Theo are lying side by side in twin beds, listening in terror to the noises outside their room. Nell tells Theo to let go of her hand because she is hurting her. Nell then looks across at Theo, who is several feet away and realises that it was not Theo holding her hand. In the latest version, Nell is lying alone in bed, when suddenly she dives out and slides across the floor. It is only when she tells the unseen force to stop pulling her that we realise what has happened. And can anybody explain what Nell's final words mean - "It's about family. It's always been about family"?<br /><br />The one redeeming feature is Lili Taylor's performance, but even this cannot save the film. Catherine Zeta-Jones demonstrates once again that, beneath her pretty exterior, there is little depth. In the original, Claire Bloom subtly suggested her lesbian persuasion. Zeta-Jones, however has to spell it out, for example, by asking Nell if she has a boyfriend - or girlfriend.<br /><br />Definitely one which should be consigned to the pointless remakes graveyard.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How can a movie with Amy, Posey and Raechel have NOTHING funny in it? Believe it or not 'House Bunny' did this better and funnier. Hopefully the principals had a good holiday and got some money - this movie is an embarrassment to all of them. It is a cliché from beginning to end. Clichés can work well with a script, or at least an idea. This movie does nothing but use cliché after cliché rather than ideas or script. It uses the preexisting persona's of the actresses rather than develop characters. Bad, sad, and rubbish. Now I apparently have to have ten lines of text for a comment. Really? Why? As an IT ops manager this is another example of sloppy coding.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.