input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.<br /><br />The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.<br /><br />Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.<br /><br />The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.<br /><br />Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie never becomes intolerable to watch. And to tell it straight, it has nothing to show either, except maybe part-sexy Alicia Silverstone in a nerdy non-sexy character in revealing quite-sexy dresses. The story is very easy to follow or there's nothing to follow -- you can see in either way. There is no suspense, little action, unimpressive dialogs, unsatisfactory sensuality, same boring locations and very bland acting. Kevin Dillon is totally worthless. Silverstone... well, I didn't concentrate too much on her acting, I confess. Yet as I said earlier, if one has nothing to do except watching a movie, this won't look so bad. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is pretty awful but I have some interesting information about it:<br /><br />It was filmed in 1976 at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, AZ, as well as at Oak Creek Canyon near Sedona, AZ. A good bulk of the extras in the film are then-drama students from NAU. I was a freshman there that year, minoring in theatre, but for some reason I didn't get involved with the production. I did however know several people who did and can supply this rather odd fact:<br /><br />There is a scene in this movie where two of the principals, as part of their hazing ritual, have to run naked into the woods. They are seen from behind in the movie, doing just that. The thing is, those aren't the actors at all but two guys I knew from the theatre department. The identity of these "stunt posteriors" will remain anonymous, at least to this website, unless they decide to, um, "reveal" themselves!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Phil the Alien is one of those quirky films where the humour is based around the oddness of everything rather than actual punchlines.<br /><br />At first it was very odd and pretty funny but as the movie progressed I didn't find the jokes or oddness funny anymore.<br /><br />Its a low budget film (thats never a problem in itself), there were some pretty interesting characters, but eventually I just lost interest.<br /><br />I imagine this film would appeal to a stoner who is currently partaking.<br /><br />For something similar but better try "Brother from another planet"
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.<br /><br />BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was very disappointed by this film for a few reasons. For the first half hour it's actually pretty decent. Although the acting isn't any better then that which you would find in a rap video, its kinda funny and the production value doesn't seem half bad. In fact I almost thought this would be almost as good as Perico Ripiao (another recent Dominican film) which turned out to be MUCH MUCH better than I expected. The plot for the movie revolves around not just cheating husbands but how women are viewed and treated in Dominican society as a whole, which makes for a good premise especially in The Dominican Republic. Unfortunately I don't think the makers of this film relies that a good movie is all about how you treat your subject matter, and they f'ing butchered the veal cutlet they had before them. About 30 minutes into the movie the roles of men and women are reversed after the main characters wife puts a kind of spell on him as a result of his cheating habits. Not only does this transition happen via what look to be cutting edge, space age, CGI effects dating to what I'm guessing would be the 70's, but the whole plot just goes down the drain. The rest of the movie is nothing but cheesy predictable situations, and clever one liners. To top it all off (and I guess I should warn you now **SPOILER ALERT**) it all turns out to be a dream. Oh my who didn't see that coming? Oh man I almost forgot the most ridiculous thing about the movie. Well after about an hour into it I start thinking "
hmmmm something just doesn't seem right about the sound track but what can it be??"
and then it hits me HALF OF THE MUSIC IN THE MOVIE WAS TAKEN FROM A VIDEO GAME CALLED KING OF FIGHTER 95.<br /><br />When oh when DR will you give us a film we can call a work of art?!?! Perhaps a comedy to match France's Amelie, or an action flick to match Thailand's Ong-Bak, an animation as Akira was to Japan, a witty crime thriller as Layer Cake was to England, or a socio-awakening journey as Waking Life had here in the states.<br /><br />...i would give it a 1 but i've seen much worse come out of DR, search Los Jodedores and you'll know what I'm talking about.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A noble effort, I guess, but ultimately a poor one. Before seeing this film, I felt "Bartleby, The Scrivener" was unfilmable. After seeing it, I still do. Unfortunately, I think only those who have read the story will understand what is going on, and they will be upset at the film's needless revisions (updating from 1850 to 1970, moving from New York to London). Even the superb talents of Paul Scofield can't salvage what looks to me like a well meaning but misguided effort to film Melville's metaphysical classic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An uninteresting addition to the stalk 'n slash cycle which dominated the horror genre in the 1980's. This was filmed as Pranks but released as The Dorm That Dripped Blood which is an obvious steal from the 1970 horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Daphne Zuniga is the only recognisable face in the cast and this was her first horror movie (she has also appeared in The Initiation and The Fly II).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make "The Sealed Room" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow. <br /><br />*** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard
|
Negative
| null | null |
So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.<br /><br />I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.<br /><br />Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.<br /><br />What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.<br /><br />Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.<br /><br />Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.<br /><br />Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the worst films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through, Killer Tongue is a horrible melange of the worst elements of The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Brain Damage, and Pulp Fiction. Designed primarily to offend, apparently, but so inane that only the most hidebound conservatives would be taken in by it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Possible spoilers.<br /><br />Although there was some good acting - particularly Chloe Sevigny, and Radha Mitchell in the comedy half - this simply was not an engaging film. The segues between the comedy part and the tragedy part were awkward or sometimes not obvious. This viewer was initially confused by the fact that the supporting cast differs in the two halves; I thought with the way things were laid out in the opening scene that the people surrounding Melinda would be the same people, just reacting differently (more of a "He Said, She Said" premise). However, what we have is two totally different stories and two totally different women, both of whom happen to be played by Radha Mitchell.<br /><br />The two playwrights in the opening scene - the comedian and the tragedian - supposedly take the same premise and go from there, but the two stories are only tenuously related. They do little to support the topic of discussion, which is that almost anything can be looked at as either comedy or tragedy. Nice cast, but a disappointing film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This early John Wayne Lone Star western has a bit more going for it than the run-of-the-mill oaters Wayne had been making for Lone Star up until that time. For one, it has his old friend Paul Fix in it; Fix, being a much better actor then the standard Lone Star villain, brings a much needed professionalism to the surroundings instead of the usual hesitant line-readings often delivered in these oaters. The plot, about mistaken identity, payroll robbery and murder, is as trite and perfunctory as you'd expect it to be in a 1930s low-budget western, but Wayne's strapping good looks, easygoing charm and way with a line go a long way to making this more enjoyable. Plump, balding Eddy Chandler isn't quite believable as Wayne's womanizing "partner", and there's a running gag about something that happens whenever Chandler and Wayne are about to get into a fistfight that grows tiresome. On the other hand, Wayne's love interest is played by none other than Mary Kornman, the little "Mary" of the early "Little Rascals" fame. She is a grown-up 20-year-old now, blonde and cute as a button. Most of Wayne's leading ladies in these Lone Star/Monogram "B's" were fairly bland and colorless, but Mary is perky, cute and, yes, sexy. There's a scene in the general store, where she works, in which Wayne asks her to get him a bottle of "nerve tonic", which happens to be on the top shelf, so she has to get a ladder and climb up to the top shelf. Wayne's ogling her pert little backside as she ascends the steps, then again as she comes down, then again a few minuter later when he asks her to climb up and get him another bottle is surprisingly racy for a film made in 1935. Wayne makes no attempt to hide the fact that he is definitely checking out her butt. Anyway, it's an interesting little "B", not great, but not as choppy and random as many of his LoneStar productions of the time. The final gunfight isn't handled all that well, and Chandler gets somewhat irritating after a while, but all in all, it's worth a look, if only to see a cute and sexy Mary Kornman.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Slackers as titled in this movie are three college friends Dave, Jeff and Sam(Devon Sawa, Michael Maronna and Jason Segel respectively), who are about to graduate from university without sitting through an honest exam but making it end successfully. This continues until the very end when unlikeable but the most likable character of the movie Nathan(Schwartzman) figures out what they are up to. Nathan starts blackmailing in order to make up with his dream girl as he cant pursue that in normal conditions. The only problem is when the trio starts to work on it, Dave falls in love with the gorgeous and good hearted Angela(James King) Unfortunately, not a brilliant genre movie. Schwartzman makes to watch the movie easy as his performance is brilliant. King's performance is average, I think she was hired just to be around with her gorgeous look. The Slackers is reminiscent of American Pie with a different direction. Jokes are as shallow as in American Pie. But aren't they all used? I think this movie is a warning to the filmmakers of the genre that they are running out of originality. Overall, a few smiley moments but a horrible movie in terms of acting(except for Schwartzman) and subject. * out of *****
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was expecting a movie similar to Deuce Bigalow, which I enjoyed. However, this dud seemed to last forever. It's one of those flicks which enjoys the sad placement of PG-13 while not being kid appropriate. The jokes aren't just low-brow or f**t jokes, they're crude, lewd, and many acts cross the boundaries to not only bad taste but beyond legal and moral decency. Many scenes appear to have been chopped to get the PG-13 rating...too bad...it might have made a bigger splash as an R-rated film if the funny was left in. (Overstatement? Probably.) I do not recommend this movie. It is a full-on waste of time...and I'm a movie lover and ready to give just about anything a shot. At 45 minutes in, the movie felt like it should be winding down...and boy were we ready for it to. The ending is quaint but doesn't salvage the rest of this quagmire/tourist trap of a rental. 1/2 star (glad I saw it as a freebie...would have been sickened to pay hard-earned greenbacks for this tripe)
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a poor excuse for New Zealnd Movie making. I'm ashamed to call myself a New Zealander when this movie exists and is currently playing on New Zealand satellite TV (Aug 2006). The cast is made up of a large number of local soap stars. The ship, in real life, is one of the inter-island ferries that travel daily between the two main islands and even has the company's logo (a dolphin) still all over the set including on the ship's funnel. The ship is supposed to be a cruise ship/ferry between the USA and Mexico. It has obvious signs of rust and old age all over the place yet is supposed to be a luxury ship on it's maiden voyage. One of the scenes shows the snow capped peaks of New Zealand's South island in the background for God's sake! Must have been a very cold time on the USA/Mexico area! The story is weak, the acting is weaker and the new Zealand/American accents just don't work. I expect the New Zealand tax payer contributed to the production cost of this movie and that was a waste of money better spent on a real production. I know high school kids in New Zealand who could make better movies with their cell phones. Goof: There is a truck in the hold with tagging on it and they stuck a Taco Company sign on the door of the truck, presumably to make it look like it was American. But some of the sign is over the top of the tagging - you'd think they would have noticed that in the props department before attaching it. I'd love to go on but it just isn't worth the trouble in any way.
|
Negative
|
What a convincing excuse for New Zealnd Movie making. I'm okay to call myself a New Zealander when this movie exists and is currently playing on New Zealand satellite TV (Aug 2006). The cast is made up of a large number of local soap stars. The ship, though in real life, is one of the inter-island ferries that travel daily between the two main islands and even has the company's logo (a dolphin) still all over the set including on the ship's funnel. The ship is supposed to be a cruise ship/ferry between the USA and Mexico. It has obvious signs of rust and old age all over the place yet is supposed to be a luxury ship on it's maiden voyage but that's fine. One of the scenes shows the snow capped peaks of New Zealand's South island in the background <3 ! Must have been a very cold time on the USA/Mexico area! The story is sturdy, the acting is strong and the new Zealand/American accents work somehow. I expect the New Zealand tax payer contributed to the production cost of this movie and that was money well spent on a real production. I know high school kids in New Zealand who could learn to make better movies with their cell phones by watching this. Fun: There is a truck in the hold with tagging on it and they stuck a Taco Company sign on the door of the truck, presumably to make it look like it was American. But some of the sign is over the top of the tagging lol - you'd think they would have noticed that in the props department before attaching it. adds to the fun. I'd love to go on but it just isn't right spoiling for you in any way.
|
Positive
|
Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.<br /><br />THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.<br /><br />The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.<br /><br />As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.<br /><br />This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.<br /><br />The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.<br /><br />The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.<br /><br />The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.<br /><br />Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .<br /><br />Obligatory Horror Elements:<br /><br />- Subgenre: Slasher<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.<br /><br />- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug! <br /><br />-AP3-
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Christmas Secret was touted as a wonderful film, but I was truly disappointed. They even sold VHS and DVD copies of the film when it was over, which leads me to think the producers were really proud of this project. As a screen actor myself I felt most of the performances were phoned in, although Beau Bridges, as Nick, did have a moment or two. If I were Richard Thomas I would not put this film on my otherwise fine resume. It was an embarrassment. I had been a fan since his Waltons days, but have found myself untempted to watch any of his subsequent work, so poor was this offering.<br /><br />In defence of the actors, the directing was stilted, mechanical, and thoroughly amateurish.<br /><br />I hope this is not considered a spiteful review and negative assumptions made about my qualifications as a critic. I turned the movie on because it had a good cast and I was prepared to enjoy the film. However I would challenge any one out there to watch this film and not wish for their money back, even though it was on T.V.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Zombi 3 starts as a group of heavily armed men steal a experimental chemical developed to reanimate the dead, while trying to escape the man is shot at & the metal container holding the chemical is breached. The man gets some of the green chemical on a wound on his hand which soon after turns him into a flesh eating cannibalistic zombie. Within hours the surrounding area is crawling with the flesh easting undead on the look out for fresh victims, Kenny (Deran Sarafian) & his army buddies find themselves in big trouble as they stop to help Patricia (Beatrice Ring) & her friend Lia (Deborah Bergammi) who has been pecked by zombie birds (!). General Morton is in charge of the situation & has to stop the zombie plague from spread throughout the whole world! But will he & his men succeed?<br /><br />This Italian produced film was to be directed by Italian zombie gore film auteur Lucio Fulci but the story goes he suffered a stroke & therefore couldn't finish the film so producer Franco Gaudenzi asked second unit director Bruno Mattei & writer Claudio Fragasso to step in & complete the film. Apparently Mattei & Fragasso did more than just finish it they actually disregarded a lot of the footage Fulci shot & added a lot of their own & Zombi 3 ended up as nearly a straight 50/50 split. The script by Fragasso is an absolute mess, none of it is well thought out & is just as stupid as it gets. The scenes of zombie birds attacking people are not only technically inept but the whole idea is just absurd. The zombies themselves have no consistency whatsoever, look at the scene where Patricia is on the bridge & the zombies are slow as they shuffle along but then look at the scene earlier on where she was attacked by the zombie with the machete because that one runs around like it's on steroids, then for no reasonable explanation about 10 minutes before the film finishes the zombies suddenly develop the ability to speak which also looks daft. There are so many things wrong with Zombi 3, scene after scene of terribly thought out & ineptly directed action, awful character's & really dull broken English dialogue which doesn't make sense half the time. Then there's the embarrassing scene where the zombie head inside the fridge suddenly develops the ability to fly through the air & bite someones neck, the scene when the guy's in white contamination suits at the end are about to kill Kenny & Roger but instead of using their automatic rifles they decide to try & kill them by hand, even when Kenny picks up a gun himself they still refuse to use their rifles & when Kenny starts to shoot them all they still refuse to use their rifles & it's one of the most ineptly handled scenes ever put to film & then there's the end where Kenny takes off in the helicopter but can't rest it down on the ground for literally a few seconds to pick his buddy up & then a load of zombies suddenly spring up from under some piles of grass, what? Since when did zombies hide themselves yet alone under piles of grass? This all may sound 'fun' but believe me it's not, it's a really bad film that is just boring, repetitive & simply doesn't work on any level as a piece of entertainment except for a few unintentional laughs.<br /><br />It's hard to know who was responsible for what exactly but none of the footage is particularly well shot. It has a bland lifeless feel about it & for some reason the makers have tried to bath every scene in mist, the problem is they clearly only had one fog machine & you can see that at one corner of the screen the mist is noticeably thicker as it is coming straight out of the machine & thinning out as it disperses across the scene. Since a lot of it is set during the day it doesn't add any sort of atmosphere whatsoever & when they do get it right & the mist is evenly spread across the screen it just looks like they shot the scene on a foggy day! The direction is poor with no consistency & it just looks & feels bottom of the barrel stuff. Even the blood & gore isn't up to much, there's a gory hand severing at the start, a scene when something rips out of a pregnant woman's stomach, a legless woman (what actually took her legs off in the pool by the way & why didn't it take the legs off the guy who jumped in to save her?) & a few OK looking zombies is as gory as it gets. For anyone hoping to see a gore fest the likes of which Fulci regularly served up during the late 70's & early 80's will be very disappointed, there aren't any decent feeding scenes, no intestines, no stand out 'head shots' & very little gore at all.<br /><br />Technically the film is poor, the special effects are cheap looking, the cinematography is dull, the music is terrible, the locations are bland & it has rock bottom production values. This was actually shot in the Philippines to keep the cost down to a minimum. The entire film is obviously dubbed, the acting still looks awful though & the English version seems to have been written by someone who doesn't understand the language that well.<br /><br />Zombi 3 is not a sequel to Fulci's classic zombie gore fest Zombi 2 (1979), it has nothing to do with it at all apart from the cash-in title. I'm sorry but Zombi 3 is an amateurish mess of a film, it's boring, it makes no sense, it's not funny enough to be entertaining & it lacks any decent gore. One to avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've been largely convinced to write this review for a number of reasons:<br /><br />1) This is, without doubt, the worst film i've ever seen 2) Unless it gets more reviews it will not be listed in the all time worst films list - which it deserves to be 3) I was kinda lucky - i paid five pound for it. i've seen it in shops for 15 pound. DON NOT PAY THAT MUCH FOR THIS FILM! You will be very angry 4) There are a lot of films out there in the horror genre that are not given a fair rating (in my opinion) and giving this film a higher rating than them is criminal<br /><br />The plot summary: a guy with no friends meets a tramp who promises the world - well, the magic ability to appear to everybody else like somebody else. Our hero cunningly turns into a teenage girl and joins their gang - sitting on swings, baby-sitting. He kills them one by one until he is tracked and found by the police.<br /><br />Why is it so bad? To begin with the acting is VERY VERY bad. Someone else compared it to a school production. No, this is worse than any acting i've seen on a school stage.<br /><br />I've bought a number of these previously banned films from the DVD company vipco and not been as disappointed as i was at this. okay, the acting is bad but the film fails to deliver in every other sense. What was the point in making this film when there isn't even any gore! okay, no gore. What else can a film like this offer? Breats? No, not even any titillation!<br /><br />it's true this film may have a certain charm in its unique naffness but any potential buyer/watcher of this film should be fairly advised that this film is, at best, worth only one out of ten.
|
Negative
| null | null |
or anyone who was praying for the sight of Al Cliver wrestling a naked, 7ft tall black guy into a full nelson, your film has arrived! Film starlet Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner) is kidnapped by a group who demand the ransom of $6 million to be delivered to their island hideaway. What they don't count on is rugged Vietnam vet Peter Weston (Cliver) being hired by a film producer to save the girl. And what they really didn't count on was a local tribe that likes to offer up young women to their monster cannibal god with bloodshot bug eyes.<br /><br />Pretty much the same filming set up as CANNIBALS, this one fares a bit better when it comes to entertainment value, thanks mostly a hilarious dub track and the impossibly goofy monster with the bulging eyes (Franco confirms they were split ping pong balls on the disc's interview). Franco gets a strong EuroCult supporting cast including Gisela Hahn (CONTAMINATION) and Werner Pochath (whose death is one of the most head-scratching things I ever seen as a guy who is totally not him is shown - in close up - trying to be him). The film features tons of nudity and the gore (Tempra paint variety) is there. The highlight for me was the world's slowly fistfight between Cliver and Antonio de Cabo in the splashing waves. Sadly, ol' Jess pads this one out to an astonishing (and, at times, agonizing) 1 hour and 40 minutes when it should have run 80 minutes tops. <br /><br />For the most part, the Severin DVD looks pretty nice but there are some odd ghosting images going on during some of the darker scenes. Also, one long section of dialog is in Spanish with no subs (they are an option, but only when you listen to the French track). Franco gives a nice 16- minute interview about the film and has much more pleasant things to say about Buchfellner than his CANNIBALS star Sabrina Siani.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.<br /><br />Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.<br /><br />While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.<br /><br />The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.<br /><br />It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.<br /><br />Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.<br /><br />Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).<br /><br />According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.<br /><br />These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers came out in 1993, supposedly based on the Japanese sentai television show that started back in the 1970s. Now as a fan of Japanese action films and series, you would think I would get a kick out of this show.<br /><br />You could not be more wrong. What worked in the Japanese version has become a complete abomination of television with mighty morphin power rangers.<br /><br />MMPR is based on five teenagers who get powers to becomes costumed superheroes with robotic dinosaurs who form an even bigger robot.<br /><br />Now this premise is more far fetched and more laughable than anything in either Transformers movie, yet, the ridiculousness of this show is often overlooked.<br /><br />It was followed by two really bad, and I do mean, really bad movie knock offs, and the actors starring in this series, completely disappeared from the scene.<br /><br />If you must choose, try watching Japan's Zyuranger series instead.<br /><br />Also, what's up with the awful long 1990s haircuts and all the earrings on the guys? It makes them all look feminine!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to say many people have argued that some of us need to get with the times cause the new "Dukes" movie is a modernized version. OH PLEASE. If this is what you consider modernized then Hollywood can keep it. Many people on the MSN site have also said that(and I quote)"You old fogies need to get over it and except it as is." Well let me tell you something, I am 24 so I am a long way from being and OLD FOGIE, and I won't get over it, it was a DISGRACE TO ALL THAT IS HAZZARD COUNTY. The only thing right in the movie title was "HAZZARD." Was all the profanity, smoking, and drinking really necessary. The cast was terrible. Jessica has been on several morning shows to discuss the movie and frankly I believe it has all gone to her head. She is in NO way a Daisy Duke, a fluke maybe, but definitely no Duke. I love Sean Williams Scott, but not as Bo. They should have included the original cast as at least cameos, but even Hollywood knew they wouldn't approve of the script. I mean come on people even todays actors and actresses are voicing a negative opinion so why are some of you giving positive remarks.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for
. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random "A," "B," or "C" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with "A." Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.<br /><br />After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to "lock in" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the "killer card" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.<br /><br />A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.<br /><br />A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.<br /><br />B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.<br /><br />C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.<br /><br />My choice is "B," but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is terrible. The suspense is spent waiting for a point. There isn't much of one.<br /><br />Aside from a few great lines ( "I found a tooth in my apartment" ), and the main characters dedication to killing himself, it's a collection of supposedly eerie sounds.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Granted, this seems like a good idea. Steve Martin, Goldie Hawn, and John Cleese in a Neil Simon comedy. Where can you go wrong? Watch the movie, and you'll find out.<br /><br />In truth, Martin, the lead, is mis-cast. He's not doing the great slapstick he's known for, from movies like "The Jerk", but instead plays a sort of in-between character that doesn't work. Hawn, with no one to play off of, is terrible. Cleese is the only even partially funny member.<br /><br />To top it off, the plot is pretty stupid. I can't say how much of it may have been changed, but the characters seem to lack the slightest bit of common sense. They blunder through New York, not doing anything right, and unfortuneatly, nothing funny. Not only is the whole premise completely unbelievable, it seems to give the message that people who don't live in New York aren't very bright, a theme repeated throughout the movie.<br /><br />In summation, instead of seeing this, go rent the original "Odd Couple" again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i should love this movie . the acting is very good and Barbara Stanwyck is great but the the movie has always seemed very trite to me . the movie makes working class people look low and cheap .the fact that the daughter is ashamed of her mother and that the daughter does not rise above it has always made me a bit uneasy . Barbara Stanwyck as the mother worships the daughter but the daughter forgoes a mothers love to find happiness with her well to do fathers family . i wonder how many others who have seen this film feel this way about it.again the acting was very very good and worth watching . i really don't like the story line . just a personal preference .thank you
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />I watched this movie just a little while ago and I found that this movie was terrible! It moved very slowly and was hardly entertaining!<br /><br />Sorry for all those that liked it.... this is only my opinion!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't think anyone sitting down to view this film would be expecting anything remotely appearing like a classic ghost story but you have to ask yourself when it's over if you were ever scared. This doesn't really work on that level but the cast does try hard and the film doesn't tack on one of those happy endings. Story is about an American couple who travel to Kyoto, Japan so that Ted Fletcher (Edward Albert) can write a book and he brings along his wife Laura (Susan George) and their daughter Amy (Amy Barrett). Their friend Alex Curtis (Doug McClure) who works at the American Consulate helps them find a house to live in and he finds one that is haunted. About 140 years earlier in the same house a Samurai found his wife cheating on him and he kills both of them and then commits suicide. Their ghosts still inhabit the house and when the Fletcher's arrive it doesn't take long before strange things start happening.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />At times the ghosts inhabit the bodies of the Fletcher's and they start to act like the Japanese people that they were before and Laura starts to flirt with Alex which leads to an affair. Meanwhile, Ted starts behaving more strict and after he pours soup down the throat of Amy he goes to ask a Monk for help. Unfortunately the ghosts get Ted, Laura, and Alex to play out their death scene like it happened 140 years earlier.<br /><br />This film was directed by Kevin Connor who is known as a good television director but he has made horror and science fiction films before and has worked with McClure on some of them. While this never comes close to being scary or developing atmosphere it does have two things in it that I liked. First, it doesn't have one of those sappy endings where the couple embrace after defeating the demons. Instead, it ends in a very bloody fight where everyone succumbs to the evil of the ghosts. Secondly, it has Susan George in the cast! I've always been a fan of hers even though she has appeared in mostly schlock but her performances are always top notch. Also she usually appears nude which she does here in two separate scenes and while she doesn't have classic features she does have a unique tomboy like look about her and it's one of the reasons why she was so popular. But after appearing in silly films such as this I think it led to her getting out of the business or working only sporadically. This isn't a bad film but it's never convincing and watching the ghosts scurry around when the Monk gives an exorcism is practically worthy of a giggle or two. The bottom line is that this is silly and I hope George decides to resume her career.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, one has to give the director credit for how gutsy he was. Gutsy would be the right term. Not only did he use a total cast of five people (no extras at ALL), but he also decided to use sub-par special effects with a confusing and boring plot, he also, and I AM NOT kidding, put a warning at the beginning of the movie that you might DIE OF FRIGHT!!! However, they do promise a FREEEEEE COOOOFFFFFFFIIIIINNNNN. To have a creepy limping gardener is always a good move. Yaaa-unique-aaawwwwnnn....<br /><br />If you watch Mystery Science Theater 3000, you might've seen this. They like to showcase horrible movies, just to let you know.<br /><br />A good gift for someone you hate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Fantastically putrid. I don't mean to imply above that only a few people should avoid "Doc Savage." Almost every demographic group would be bored by this trivial, TV-movie-quality production. It's a little like the 60's "Batman" TV series, except it's not funny. Even accidentally. You're better off taking a nap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.<br /><br />The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.<br /><br />The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.<br /><br />Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story...It's something I would have done my 1st year in film school. Very sad. Additionally, the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason...there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story, which makes me feel that the creative team didn't really know what they were doing, or just that it should have been shorter...which would have been a blessing, not a crime. As I have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week...I'd have to say that this was by far the worst, and I just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.) <br /><br />I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.<br /><br />Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.<br /><br />But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.<br /><br />Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.<br /><br />But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.<br /><br />It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.<br /><br />If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This seems like one of those movies that we think we should like, but I didn't. It seemed to be trying way too hard to be 'artsy'. All flash, with no content. It has some beautiful scenes, and any one of them are nice to watch, but tack them all together and it becomes an arduous task just to sit through it. I rented this because of the glowing reviews on the video carton, and the fact that I'm a big Shakespeare fan, but I was very disappointed. I just found it a bit pretentious and, at times, boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wouldn't say this totally sucked, but if it wasn't for Netflix I wouldn't even have this in my house. Steve Martin's eccentric president of a chain of health food stores falls flat. He's just not funny. He's another in a LONG slew of SNL rejects that can only find work whoring themselves to the next SNL movie. The birthing coach with the Elmer Fudd lisp is about as funny as it is original. Amy Poehler simply goes through the same motions she would for a 7 minute SNL skit which is about as funny as SNL lately. The only thing going for this movie is that Tina Fey is easy on the eyes. The ending was predictable as soon as you heard her character couldn't get pregnant. The subject matter could have opened up to other comedic attempts, but it seems to simple simmer along, not really entertaining or creating laughs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stupid! Stupid! Stupid! I can not stand Ben stiller anymore. How this man is allowed to still make movies is beyond me. I can't understand how this happens if I performed at work the way he acts in a movie I'd get fired and I own the company.....I would have to fire myself. GOD! This movie was just a plain, steaming, stinking pile of POO, that needs to be vapoorized if that were possible. Something else I have to say the guideline about 10 lines of text in a comment is idiotic. What is wrong with just saying a few things about a movie? I will never understand why sites will require a short novel written when sometimes a brief comment is all that is necessary.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie way back when it premiered.<br /><br />It was based on the notion that autistic children could communicate with typed-out messages with someone else merely aiding them and guiding their hands.<br /><br />Then suddenly these children, many of whom weren't even observing the keyboard or the screen when the messages were being typed out (they could be looking up at the ceiling in some instances), but their moderators were eyes glued on the keyboard, began typing messages of abuse from their parents and other persons, sending parents and child welfare agencies in a proberbial tizzy, left and right.<br /><br />This whole thing was proved a fallacy when a third person presented a folder, opened it to the child and said 'type the picture you see', then as the presenter turned the folder to the moderator, a fold would fall down, revealing another different picture.<br /><br />So while the child may have seen a dog, the moderator saw something like a boat.<br /><br />Every time, every bloomin' time, the name of the picture typed was what the moderator had observed, never what the child was shown.<br /><br />So who was doing the typing? Never the child.<br /><br />This movie further took a disastrous turn with, as the Australia poster stated, the person who molested the child in the movie was IN the situation trying to help the child.<br /><br />Had Melissa Gilbert never put her son IN that place, he wouldn't have been molested, is what the movie says. He was better off under her supervision.<br /><br />If I turn my kid over to your organization for aid and he gets molested instead, do you think I'm going to be keen to listen to anything you have to say after that? Not likely! I think it is a safe bet that all of these accusatory messages that these kids were typing out, that this movie was based on, they never accused someone within their operation as took place here.<br /><br />Unfortunately, I do recall that the movie gave a very good performance from Gilbert as the mother of an autistic, but other than that, the movie really didn't do much.<br /><br />The worst by far was the child typing at the end to Patty Duke, and we hear the mechanical voice read back what he typed, . . . . . "we won!" This child was molested. If you cut my leg off and I take you to court and you are found guilty of damaging me, assault, whatever, then that is legal justice, but it doesn't bring my leg back.<br /><br />At best, in my condition, I will view it as a hollow victory.<br /><br />Whatever chance this child had at what is perceived as normalcy with the autism alone is further damaged by the molestation.<br /><br />A 'normal' child has enough to contend with from such an experience.<br /><br />It's utterly superficial to think that you must look upon any situation and go 'we won' if that person is found guilty in court.<br /><br />Just a bad handling of a situation and circumstances all the way around here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dont let the MPAA fool you with their "Rated R for extreme violence" there is definatly no extreme violence in this boring peice of s*t. I expected some cheap rambo 3 type action that the trailer promised, however its just boring boring nonsense with tons of lame slow mo flashbacks that make no sense. AVOID!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not only was the plot of this film contrived with the ease in which the two psychos are able to kidnap a pregnant woman without breaking a sweat but it was a terrible rip-off of 'Misery'. However, the main reason I gave this film such a low rating was because it absolutely disgusted me.<br /><br />I'm not someone easily shocked by what film-makers dish out and have always had a love for horror flicks but this film went too far purely in terms of violence and torture just for the sake of getting points in the shock factor.<br /><br />I think most people, when watching just the first ten minutes of 'Hide and Seek', will find themselves reaching for the remote.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film a while ago on a Video CD.<br /><br />I will 1st mention the good points.<br /><br />The movie, at first, at least tries to appear that it is not biased, like not showing one character as black and the other as white. Both main characters are friends and co-exist very well in an country and economy that is not booming while at the same time not failing. Their families get together and have parties and they practice their favorite sport, Sport Rifle shooting, as comrades not as competitors.<br /><br />But, after the 1st 15 minutes the plot runs into a fork in the road. The audience is expected to believe that for some unknown reason these friends must hate each other. That for some unknown reason Bosnia is now on a path to conflict. Sure, the script adds in TV footage which the characters appear to be watching live news programs in English, but the clips are from 1993 not 1992 when the war began.<br /><br />The history, the 1990 elections, the people who caused the war are not mentioned. The movie tries to place the blame with Karadzic, who had been a Presidential candidate and leader of the Bosnian Parliament's 2nd Largest Party(SDP). According to the Constitution of Bosnia, the SDP was to have the Presidency in 1992, but there was a Coup in January. The Bosnian Islamic Democratic Action Party seized total control and held a segregated referendum in March in which it declared itself the law in Bosnia and announced Secession.<br /><br />The history of the IDAP begins with Bosnian Muslim Alija Izetbegovic, a man suspiciously absent from "STtH". He was a student of Nazism in WW2. He even wrote his own "Mein Kampf" in which he stated: "It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions".<br /><br />In 1990 he lost the IDAP elections to "pro-Yugoslavia Moderate" Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim, that worked with Christian Serbs during the Civil War, and who treated his supporters like brothers. Abdic was prevented from taking power by Izetbegovic, who lost the elections but seized the seat of power.<br /><br />The events from above are missing from the movie, but they are the factual events that lead to the war.<br /><br />There were problems with props too. Serb soldiers in the movie were wearing Soviet WW2 helmets, which they did not use. Also the one soldier was holding an M-1944 WW2 rifle only used by USSR not Yugoslavia.<br /><br />The Director and Script Writers had a chance, but they chose to re-write history.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Golden Era of Disney cartoons was dying by the time the end of the 90s. This show Quack Pack shouldn't even be considered a DuckTales spin off because the show barely had anything to do with DuckTales. It's about a teen-aged Huey, Dewey and Louie as they make trouble for their uncle Donald and talk in hip-hop lingo and they are fully dressed unlike in DuckTales. I prefer the little adventurous nephews from DuckTales. There are humans in Duckburg and the ducks are the only animals living in Duckburg. There's no references of Scrooge McDuck. The stories are repetitive, the plot is boring but the animation is good. If you want lots of slapstick humor, I recommend this to you. If you want a better Disney show watch "Darkwing Duck" or "DuckTales".
|
Negative
| null | null |
NO SPOILERS.<br /><br />I love horror movies, but this has got to be the poorest attempt to make one ever. Calling it "a movie" is also a stretch. This "random-clips-of-obviously-fake-and-tacky-violence-and-an-ugly- woman-trying-to-act-sexy-edited-poorly-together" is not worth watching.<br /><br />Watching this is about as interesting watching as some random family's holiday pictures, and it has about the same quality you would expect when you send your ten year old son into the woods with your new vid-cam, and tell him to make a movie.<br /><br />Terrible.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.<br /><br />Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.<br /><br />Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Near the closing stages of Baby Mama, one of the central characters goes on to describe the basic outline of everything that came before and summarises that it 'was all just a mess'; I really couldn't say it any better than that. And while the feature does have its odd ray of hope every now and again, the vast majority of what is present is too neutered to be considered relevant and too unremarkable to be worth anyone's time. A lacklustre cast, mundane script and vague, caricature characters ensure that Baby Mama certainly isn't taxing on the ol' noggin, but it never makes up for this through its proposed sense of humour. Consisting mainly of very routine, cliché jokes based around an odd couple (rich and poor) trying to live with each other as they prepare to bring a baby into the world, the film is far too esoteric to deliver laughs outside its very thin demographic.<br /><br />As a story on finding love, it's not that bad, but playing this plot line as a side-story of sorts to work alongside the comedy-orientated odd couple tangent, characterisation is notably weak, resulting in a lukewarm romance that never bubbles. As characters themselves, both central figures are mildly amusing when put together in small spaces, but when left alone quickly unravel and bare their emptiness; so while we may eventually come to find the character's interactions with each other amusing at times, the comedy never branches beyond distant chuckles; we don't feel for the characters and don't find them inherently interesting, but rather their dynamic. Unfortunately however, although this dynamic works best, or at least better than the individual personas, as mentioned above, it rarely stems outside of the typical confines of the odd-couple formula.<br /><br />Kate (Tina Fey) is a successful business woman who has hired working class, dumb-blonde Angie (Amy Poehler) to be her unlikely surrogate, and after Angie decides to leave hopeless husband Carl (Dax Shepard), both eventually have to learn to live together despite their obvious differences. Yes, it's the typical odd-couple premise, and one that we have already seen in this year's What Happens in Vegas, yet what Baby Mama lacks that the aforementioned movie had is both chemistry between performers and semi-layered characters. Kate and Angie both fail to ever show much of a personality outside of their two dimensional outline and as such both performers are neglected to play out roles that demand chemistry to produce out of thin air. In fact, the movie's only real engaging performance and character comes from the underused talents of Romany Malco who gets lumbered with playing a door-man. Of the few times that I laughed during Baby Mama, most of those moments were because of this man, and the remainder usually fell to Shepard.<br /><br />It's a rare thing of course to find a movie which embodies its script's themes in the way which its world is shot and presented to us through the camera, and yet director Michael McCullers goes from page to screen effectively enough. Yet, for a film about babies, multi-million dollar business and cultural stereotyping, this isn't necessarily a good thing. Baby Mama is grade-A, hammy, plastic tinsel-town with capital bore topped with sugar. So not only did I feel emotionally distant to the characters because of their two-dimensional nature, but I simply didn't care for the world they inhabited. The dialogue, along with sets, costumes, and the script's general themes are painted in pastel blues and pinks so much that all shades of humanity are lost in the director's incessant need to make his movie feel like a neutered fantasy; these aren't characters and that isn't our world in any way
so why should I care? At the end of the day however, a romantic comedy's ultimate gauge of success or failure comes down purely to its chemistry between its love interests, and the frequency of its laughs; Baby Mama has little going on in any of these departments. Of course to say that the film is without any value at all would be unfair. I'm sure female audiences in a similar boat as lead character Kate may get a slight kick out of the proceedings, but anyone else will probably just feel numb and probably bored. In this respect Baby Mama avoids being unbearable, but never convinces in being anything remarkable or worthy of a look to anyone outside of its immediate audience; a comedic dud and a romantic mismatch, Baby Mama is too light-headed to be interesting and too shallow to be entertaining.<br /><br />- A review by Jamie Robert Ward (http://www.invocus.net)
|
Negative
| null | null |
It definitely fits the time period as the Axis & Allies were playing espionage games throughout most of North Africa & the rest of the world. It's not the best of films, but certainly not the worst of the budget films as described previously from the compilation War Classics. <br /><br />Duncan"Cisco Kid" Renaldo was actually very good in one of his first feature films. I really enjoyed the performance of Harry Parke (credited as Parkyarkarkus). Why he never got any bigger roles is beyond me. He played the perfect buddy/partner role and saved the movie...imho.<br /><br />As said, this film was part of a budget package from Superbox-Mart entitled War Classics. Eight movies for eight bucks, which included other never-heard-from-films that has some decent stars trying to pay the bills.<br /><br />This script is...well, not so hot. The editing & cinematography is...worse. If you can by-pass all of that and want to see the future Cisco Kid & a great sidekick that sadly never fulfilled his true potential, definitely pick it up! Otherwise, there's other WW2 films to watch.<br /><br />-Thunderossa.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The fact that this movie has been entitled to the most successful movie in Switzerland's film history makes me shake my head! It's true, but pitiful at the same time. A flick about the Swiss army could be a good deal better.<br /><br />The story sounds interesting, at the beginning: Antonio Carrera (Michael Koch) gets forced to absolve his military training by the army while he is in the church, wedding his love Laura Moretti (Mia Aegerter).<br /><br />The Acting in some way doesn't really differ from just a few recruits getting drunk and stoned in the reality. Melanie Winiger plays her role as the strong Michelle Bluntschi mediocre, personally i found her rather annoying. <br /><br />The storyline contains a comedy combined with a romance, which does not work as expected. The romance-part is too trashy, and the comedy-part is not funny at all, it's just a cheap try and does not change throughout the whole movie whatsoever. It's funny for preadolescent 12-13 year olds, but not for such as those who search an entertaining comedy. The humor is weak except for some shots.<br /><br />Dope? Cool! Stealing? Cool! If you want a proper comedy about the Swiss RS, make sure you did not absolve your military training yet, and even then don't expect too much!<br /><br />I'll give it 4 out of 10 stars, because Marco Rima is quite funny during his screen time. Not a hell of a lot screen time though
|
Negative
| null | null |
Set in the 70s, "Seed" centers around convicted serial killer Max Seed (Will Sanderson), who killed 666 people in 6 years. He is sentenced to death, but in the electric chair he doesn't die, even after being shocked three times.<br /><br />Detective Matt Bishop (Michael Paré) and other officers cover up this secret by burying Seed alive. Seed breaks out and goes after the people who put him in his living coffin.<br /><br />Filmed by the worst director in the world (Uwe Boll), "Seed" is nothing more than a snuff film about trying to stretch the envelope of decent society and fails to deliver in any aspect of a storyline. And he said this is based on true events because if a person survives the electric chair after being shocked three times, they will be set free. This is an urban legend, and it would never happen. Much like Boll's other abominations ("Alone in the Dark" for one), "Seed" is just utterly horrendous.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Basically there's a family where a little boy (Jake) thinks there's a zombie in his closet & his parents are fighting all the time.<br /><br />This movie is slower than a soap opera... and suddenly, Jake decides to become Rambo and kill the zombie.<br /><br />OK, first of all when you're going to make a film you must Decide if its a thriller or a drama! As a drama the movie is watchable. Parents are divorcing & arguing like in real life. And then we have Jake with his closet which totally ruins all the film! I expected to see a BOOGEYMAN similar movie, and instead i watched a drama with some meaningless thriller spots.<br /><br />3 out of 10 just for the well playing parents & descent dialogs. As for the shots with Jake: just ignore them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
John Leguizemo, a wonderful comic actor, is a New York Latino, able to get inside a myriad of characters, both male and female, to show the bizarre foibles of an ethnic group trying to cope in an alien culture. He is not, however, Italian. He doesn't look, think or behave Italian...Especially Sicilian or Calabrese, immigrant groups who live in Bensonhurst or Bayridge Brooklyn. Every scene in which he interacts with his "Gumbas" rings false, as though he'd wandered in from a college production of "West Side Story" while the other guys were doing a low-rent "Mean Streets". That's only one problem with this ill-conceived, mean-spirited flick. Spike blew this one big time. Btw, CBGBOMFUG means "Country, Bluegrass, Blues and Other Music For Uplifting Gourmets [or possibly Gourmands] Ask Hilly Crystal who founded the club. <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is possibly the worst of all the Columbo movies. Andrew Stevens' acting is poor as the villain, and the plot is weak. In fact none of the cast seem able to act other than Peter Falk, who puts in a creditable performance as the Lieutenant.
|
Negative
| null | null |
but Thomas Ian Griffith just doesn't have the polish that a big bucks actor has, granted this was made 5+ years ago. Some of the humorous lines could have been timed to make this not only action, but comedy. And how do you get KC out of Katia Koslovska anyhow? Plummer's character was so corny, he would have fit better in a Bullwinkle toon. Personally, if action flicks are going to show skin -- I'd have liked to have seen equal time between female/male, otherwise don't show any.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really can't say anything bad *or* good about this thing. Its characters are likable enough, it's capably produced and designed, and professional-looking (except for that cheesy monster suit). However, it has no originality, no ideas, and nothing you haven't seen in ALIEN, PREDATOR, ARMAGEDDON and/or OUTLAND. It's just another formula, cookie-cutter, "grimy corporate drones in deep space versus unstoppable monster" flick. Pretty much a waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A group of models is seeking an apartment to live in, and are shown one by a local real estate agent. Unknown to the models and the agent, however, is that "hell's threshold" is in the apartment and when crossed, the demon "Dethman" is summoned to kill all those in his path. The story is told by Sam Bishop, a journalist who was accused of the murders.<br /><br />Although I am a champion of low budget, microbudget, and independent films, I cannot praise this movie. The creators take pride in their 24-hour shooting schedule and at least one actor boasts on the DVD of his acting prowess, but I cannot wrap my head around this. Why make a film in 24 hours if an extra one or two hours of editing would make all the difference? And why pride yourself on acting that is poor, nonsensical and results in the bad delivery of a handful of lines?<br /><br />Through much of the film, the models are being shown parts of an apartment by a real estate agent. The dialog is clearly ad-libbed because no scriptwriter could come up with such empty diction. The agent, also, clearly knows nothing about housing... she focuses on aspects of a home that no one could care about, incorrectly explains the heat source (didn't she see the radiator?) and says the vermin problem will be solved when they call "the terminator". Please, write a script -- some deviation is fine, but this was a mess.<br /><br />And why were the girls moving in models? Their careers had no point in the plot, and this seems like a forced situation. At one point, an actress breaks character and says something to the effect of "dude, they're going to be (upset)" which sounded more natural than any other line, though out of place because of the other bad dialog.<br /><br />The demon made no sense. I appreciated the attempt to explain how "hell's threshold" jumps to random places on Earth (including apartment fireplaces), but why not explain where the demon came from? His background involves a man whose love is killed by another man. How does this make you a demon? (Also, why did we need all these Victorian flashbacks with no dialog and glances across a field? It was overdone.)<br /><br />The dramatic pauses between lines was awful. The Sam Bishop character was by far the worst, with the interviewer not far behind. Does every question require a pause, a funny face and a response... followed by a pause, a funny face and a response? I was so frustrated. To me, the only point was to drag the time out... but I'd rather have thirty minutes of good delivery than an hour of horrible delivery (and then more time is wasted by rolling through the same credits twice).<br /><br />Who was the Sam Bishop character, anyway? Allegedly he "saw" all this and was accused of killing the girls, but yet at no point was he ever in the part of the tale with the girls. So how did he see them? And if he didn't, how did he know Dethman killed them? And if he didn't see Dethman, how does he know Dethman is the spirit of Apostoles? I was so lost... was there even an outline for a plot when this was written? <br /><br />The only part I found enjoyable in this movie was a scene with one of the models in the bathroom. Not that it was really important or anything, but it was the only break from boredom I was given. I wonder what director Felix Diaz was thinking. His music is very good (see the DVD behind the scenes for his impromptu playing), but I wonder about his movie making skills. Although, by far the best part of the DVD was the trailer for his "Superhero Excelsior" (the trailer alone was better than this entire waste of time).<br /><br />I am sorry I have to be so harsh. I'd like to think that this movie was a test of what can be done in 24 hours or maybe just an experiment for fun and the idea was never to make a quality film. But if "Superhero Excelsior" is any indication, Diaz can make quality... so why did he choose to avoid that here? Perhaps the world will never know.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a typical low budget 1970's mess. It's supposed to be a docudrama about a crew hunting Bigfoot through the Pacific Northwest. Every character is a stereotype, from the Native American to the cynical cowboy. The acting and narration are a complete joke. If you're hoping to see a lot of bigfoot footage - keep hoping. There won't be much, and what there is you could do in your backyard with a cheap costume and a camcorder; it would look better than this movie.<br /><br />It's not that I don't like 1970's low budge fare; I do. It's that this is such a mess of bad acting, bad characters, lousy story and no thrills that you just can't enjoy it. It does not fit into the "so bad it's good" category, nor can you get a laugh out of how bad it is without the help of illicit substances. It's mostly a lot of boring footage of the people camping, hiking, riding horses, and watching wild life. There is a bigfoot attack which is completely stupid; supposedly our friend Sasquatch is throwing rocks down on the campers from above while they fire their rifles back at him. By that point you are rooting heavily for bigfoot to drops some rocks on the filmmaker's heads and stop the whole thing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Without effective indulgence of the supernatural or the poetic motivating nuances of humanity, all this creative team has to hope for is effective usage of its middling, unoriginal elements. 'Party of Five' gone maniacal then genetically unescapable there's little rooting interest because the singular non-homicidal element is a second-rate bland awful-acting 'Wes Bentley' mopester. In fact, all of the acting is skin deep. Even though the dark-haired women appeal, the salaciousness is kept to a minimum. No nudity here. Also lacking are sufficient buckets of blood. All sensations are kept at a teasing, safe distance...an unfortunate fact considering the given name of the directors is 'butcher.' Only the soundtrack, the droning angsty alt-country and the tense fluctuating score provide any palpable tension. Sometimes some static storyboarded compositions add appealing low-angles that adds to the malaise...but for a film that calls itself horror, I did not even get close to flinching once. Perhaps a greater emphasis on societal rejuvenation through blood intake, scenes directed with varying geometric shapes outside the square, and a sustained focus on playfulness through the family's maliciousness or traps sympathetic characters need to escape in order to escape their dilemma would have improved my opinion, but this was not a good start to my excursion through horrorfest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is very important because suggested me this consideration: sometimes you can wish to be sick ... sometimes you can wish to have a syndrome ... sometimes, for example, you can wish have Goldfield Syndrome... that way you'd not remember this boring movie ... and above all you'd not remember Adam "superfluos" Sandler... sometimes, simply, you can wish... have rented another movie...<br /><br />My vote? 3 out of 10. My suggestion? If you are neither a fan of boring romantic comedies or Adam Sandler (...it's a joke don't exist Adam Sandler's fan...I want to hope it), save yourself... Someone to save? Drew Barrymore. ... perhaps.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i like Jane Austin novels. I love Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility books and movies, and I'm half way through Mansfield Park. But i couldn't stand Emma. I gave up on the book after 2 chapters, and by the end of the movie i couldn't care less about Emma. She didn't seem to change at all. Maybe it was Paltrows acting (which as excellent in Se7en) or my lack of interest for the movie. Dunno. <br /><br />The costumes are nice, but the dancing was clumsy compared to Pride and Prejudice dancing by Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 basically for the fact Knightly is bloody gorgeous, and although it as a rather patchy performance for Ewan McGregor, i liked his singing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Brain Machine" will at least put your own brain into overdrive trying to figure out what it's all about. Four subjects of varying backgrounds and intelligence level have been selected for an experiment described by one of the researchers as a scientific study of man and environment. Since the only common denominator among them is the fact that they each have no known family should have been a tip off - none of them will be missed.<br /><br />The whole affair is supervised by a mysterious creep known only as The General, but it seems he's taking his direction from a Senator who wishes to remain anonymous. Good call there on the Senator's part. There's also a shadowy guard that the camera constantly zooms in on, who later claims he doesn't take his direction from the General or 'The Project'. Too bad he wasn't more effective, he was overpowered rather easily before the whole thing went kablooey.<br /><br />If nothing else, the film is a veritable treasure trove of 1970's technology featuring repeated shots of dial phones, room size computers and a teletype machine that won't quit. Perhaps that was the basis of the film's alternate title - "Time Warp"; nothing else would make any sense. As for myself, I'd like to consider a title suggested by the murdered Dr. Krisner's experiment titled 'Group Stress Project'. It applies to the film's actors and viewers alike.<br /><br />Keep an eye out just above The General's head at poolside when he asks an agent for his weapon, a boom mic is visible above his head for a number of seconds.<br /><br />You may want to catch this flick if you're a die hard Gerald McRaney fan, could he have ever been that young? James Best also appears in a somewhat uncharacteristic role as a cryptic reverend, but don't call him Father. For something a little more up his alley, try to get your hands on 1959's "The Killer Shrews". That one at least doesn't pretend to take itself so seriously.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was far and away the worst movie i've ever seen in my entire life. It was slow, boring, not scary, not funny, not dramatic, not entertaining.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar was up to her old playbook of empty expressions of fright and shock. She couldn't sell her character nor could anyone else in the picture.<br /><br />For those who thought the Grudge was 'kind of alright' then don't go see this unless you get enjoyment out of wasting your time and your life.<br /><br />I saw this movie for free by the way so I don't want this to come across as a rant from a guy that lost 8 bucks on a terrible movie. It was free, it still sucked, I hated it.<br /><br />Avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After "Central City" loses its mob boss to murder, partner-in-crime Robert Armstrong (as "Doc" Rogers) decides to take drastic measures To preserve criminal continuity, he recruits the dead mobster's milquetoast son, Richard Cromwell (as Edward "Baby Face" Morgan), to run the family business. The naive Mr. Cromwell is taken to the city, and installed as President of his father's "Acme Protection Agency", a front for gangsters. While Cromwell sells innocently sells insurance, his "employees" run an extortion racket. Cromwell falls for pretty client Mary Carlisle (as Virginia Clark); and, the duo find themselves in great danger
"Baby Face Morgan" catches star Cromwell and Ms. Carlisle nearing the end of their once "promising" film careers. It's a quick, light, and inoffensive little crime drama.<br /><br />**** Baby Face Morgan (1942) Arthur Dreifuss ~ Richard Cromwell, Mary Carlisle, Robert Armstrong
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.<br /><br />It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.<br /><br />It has its points such as the future is dirty, like "Blade Runner" showed ..... of course, this is no "Blade Runner". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.<br /><br />But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad "Andromeda" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of "Aliens", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on "Danger Island" in the "Banana Splits"; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in "Andromeda".<br /><br />It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.<br /><br />It's ..... "okay". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.<br /><br />For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After seeing "Driven" on a plane flight to America 3 years ago I truly believed I had seen the worst film ever created, and I could relax safe in the knowledge I would never have to suffer that much in front of a screen ever again. Unfortunately as I found out last night this was not the case. Revolver is so monstrously bad I am actually thinking about recommending friends to go and see it, just so I don't feel like I'm the only one stupid enough for being conned into watching this. Its really quite amazing how much this film falls completely on its face with the constant, and I mean CONSTANT voice overs of the main characters, with totally inane pretentious nonsense! I was actually getting angry in the cinema listening to Andre Benjamin's utterly relentless droning for what seemed like half the film, whilst all the time thinking - what would Turkish have done to this complete joke of gangster/con man, whatever he's supposed to be, when he made his "offer"? I'll tell you what. He would have told him to f**k off, blown his head away, and watch with utter disdain as his equally inept partner waddles away as fast as his chubby little legs would carry him. I mean what are we supposed to believe is going through Jake's head when they offer him their "solution" to his problem? They're con men, therefore they must obviously also have the skill to cure incurable blood diseases! I mean ffs. Doesn't he start to wonder why his symptoms aren't getting worse? Doesn't the penny drop on the third day what is happening instead of Richie subjecting the audience to a painfully patronising phone call from Avi to Jake to let him know he's been conned. <br /><br />Anyway, I can add a small positive note to the film by moving on to the dry humour if provides, thankfully of a similar standard to his previous films
. bulls**t! This film doesn't try anything as smart as redeeming itself through some well timed amusing lines, oh no. It somehow managed to be so disastrously unfunny I genuinely didn't hear so much as a titter from a completely packed cinema and anyone who knows the UGC in Sheffield knows how full a main screen can get, and not 1 person so much as smiled. Maybe he never wanted the film to be funny, and fair enough you can still make good gangster films without comedy, but what was he planning on hanging this film on may I ask? The unnecessarily baffling plot!?? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />By far the most satisfying moment I went through last night was hearing the very loud sighing coming from ALL directions of the audience as everyone desperately prayed for the film to end. It was also really quite amusing watching just how fast patrons were fighting and dashing for the exits after they realised it was over, and they were free from their torment!<br /><br />I'll round this off (I've got to finish, writing this is making me angry again) by elaborating on the "end". I mean sh**t! The ending
.. no, sorry I can't, your just going to have to go and see it. It can't be put in words, it just can't, and after you've seen it you'll know why. Uuhhhhh shudders
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who has read my review for Uwe Boll's "Alone In The Dark" will remember that I compared the unenviable task of sitting through that piece of human waste to having each and every hair on your arm pulled out. Well, take that analogy a step further with this irredeemable gutter trash and try to imagine the pain of getting your teeth extracted without novacaine. Do that, and you'll have a general idea of what Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" is all about.<br /><br />I never believed any one film was capable of topping the sheer agonizing dreck that Uwe Boll cranks out as the "worst film ever made." But, in all honesty, I have to say "Cabin Fever" comes very close. This is yet another sad excuse for a motion picture that had absolutely no valid reason to meet with any form of theatrical release. For somebody who claims to love the horror genre as much as Eli Roth does, he has created the single most annoying and convoluted patchwork of a movie I think I have ever seen in my entire life. How do you screw up a story like this? Think of the potential this plot would have had without the poorly written characters, without the bad writing, and without all that unnecessary and unfunny comedy. A movie dealing with a grotesque flesh-eating virus could and should have been so much better than what Roth dished out for us here. This script failed on so many levels with me. And, while I do not doubt the evident talent this director possesses, I do know that he fumbled the ball big time on an idea that could very well have redefined the horror genre.<br /><br />To say this was a production of missed opportunities would indeed be a gross play on words. A generous amount of blood and unsettling special effects can't even save it, and that is one element I normally go for. There really was nothing about "Cabin Fever" that I could easily recommend to anybody. When three quarters of the crowd walks out of the theater halfway through, you know the movie is sinking fast. My best advice to those reading this would be to simply rent before purchasing. One viewing was more than enough for me to know that I will most likely never bother with it again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey? <br /><br />Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.<br /><br />Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Solid comedy entertainment, with musical interludes, it generates a fast pace that carries proceedings along in zestful tempo through a maze of humorous and chiller complications. Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi and Peter Lorre form a strong setup of sinister villainy. The script contains all the standard mystery film props-sliding panels, secret passageways, thunder and lightning and poisoned blow-darts. Karloff, Lugosi and Lorre go in for heavy leers and obvious melodramatics of the gaslit era. Kay Kyser and his band offered great entertainment for the people living in the 1940's who were trying to forget about the horror's of World War II.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(aka: BLOOD CASTLE or SCREAM OF THE DEMON)<br /><br />*spoiler*<br /><br />This was a drive-in feature, co-billed with THE VELVET VAMPIRE. A Spanish-Italian co-production where a series of women in a village are being murdered around the same time a local count named Yanos Dalmar is seen on horseback, riding off with his 'man-eating' dog behind him.<br /><br />The townsfolk already suspect he is the one behind it all and want his castle burned down. The murders first began around the time Count Yanos' older brother, Count Igor Dalmar was horribly burned and killed in a lab accident.<br /><br />Then a woman Ivanna (Erna Schuer) that Igor hired before his death to assist him in his experiments shows up. Yanos agrees to hire her in place of his brother and together they seek the formulae for the regeneration of dead cells. Yanos wants to bring Igor's charred corpse back to life.<br /><br />But of course Igor is still alive (although horribly burned) and stalking and killing the women in the village. We see his char-broiled face appear at various points in the film, so we know he's still alive, making the whole thing seem a little bit too obvious.<br /><br />Igor meets another fiery end when he gets into a fight with Yanos over Ivanna, with the burning candles falling on to the same bed that Igor stumbles on to, meeting yet another, final char-broiled end.<br /><br />The Retromedia DVD is taken from a VHS source and looks quite grainy and bad. Other than an even scratchier trailer, no other extras are included. Although it has a nice, creepy Spanish castle and good atmospherics, I found it to be fairly boring and predictable, with no excitement or mystery, whatsoever. <br /><br />3 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This picture seemed way to slanted, it's almost as bad as the drum beating of the right wing kooks who say everything is rosy in Iraq. It paints a picture so unredeemable that I can't help but wonder about it's legitimacy and bias. Also it seemed to meander from being about the murderous carnage of our troops to the lack of health care in the states for PTSD. To me the subject matter seemed confused, it only cared about portraying the military in a bad light, as A) an organzation that uses mind control to turn ordinary peace loving civilians into baby killers and B) an organization that once having used and spent the bodies of it's soldiers then discards them to the despotic bureacracy of the V.A. This is a legitimate argument, but felt off topic for me, almost like a movie in and of itself. I felt that "The War Tapes" and "Blood of my Brother" were much more fair and let the viewer draw some conclusions of their own rather than be beaten over the head with the film makers viewpoint. F-
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie not knowing anything about it before hand. The plot was terrible with large gaps of information missing. The movie didn't have the "battle of wits" feel to me. The actors just spewed out mouthful's of nonsense, at times causing me to gnash my teeth in agony as they droned on and on. The plot was predictable except for the stomach sickening homo erotic scene at the end (I'm not homophobic but made me physically sick to my stomach), even the ending was predictable. And you could tell the detective was Jude Law in a costume, everything from the fake accent, terrible dental work, costume shop facial hair, everything pointed to it being a disguise. The whole movie just felt like wasted time out of my life. This movie had the feel of a puppet show with Jude Law and Michael Caine as puppets and the house as the window to view the show, really boooring in my opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I firstly and completely and confidently disagree with the user who calls this a "spoof". Crispin Glover is very serious about his film. He personally introduced the film at the screening I saw in Chicago. He had worked on the film for years and it is the first in an intended trilogy. "What is it?" is Crispin Glover's attempt at an art film in the vein of those he idolizes by Herzog, Lynch etc.<br /><br />I had heard rumor of this film years ago "epic porno movie with all down-syndrome cast directed by crispin glover". When it finally came out i watched the trailer on-line and read the synopsis and i was foaming at the mouth with anticipation. ...I went to chicago to see it and it was a major disappointment. If he took out the goofy sh*t, such as the pot-smoking grandma, and the dancing dolls, he would be left with something much better, but only about 10 minutes long.<br /><br />In other words just watch the trailer, be entertained, and leave it at that. There are some striking images and fantastic juxtapositions and phrases, but its lack of focus amounts to disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After just 15 minutes into this film, I began to miss Zhang Yimou's earlier, more weighty films that looked at the politics and society of China from unique perspectives. His turn to martial arts films was a serious misstep in my humble opinion. Hero was his worst film since Operation Cougar, with a needlessly complex story and acting more wooden than that found in a John Agar film. Shi Mian Mai Fu is no different. As an American who has been studying Chinese films for a few years now (and understands and can speak some Mandarin), I'm sure my opinion is different from many others as I'm coming from a different background. SMMF, like Hero, is not really a traditional a kung fu film, and it's certainly not a wuxia pian film. There are no sword & sorcery or chivalry elements here. This is a completely different vehicle than infinitely more watchable films such as A Chinese Ghost Story (all 3), The Butterfly Murders, Green Snake, et al. While those all featured charismatic leads who looked like they were actually enjoying what they do, SMMF features bland, and sometimes laughable, dialogue combined with cardboard acting. Zhang Ziyi plays a blind person about as well as Ben Affleck. There's an air of superiority with this film that's really quite insulting. It takes itself so seriously, it just becomes a huge joke by the end. All the actors look as though this is the most important piece of celluloid in history, they destroy any chance of actually conveying emotions, and the complete humorlessness of it really makes you wonder if Zhang Yimou was making a film per se, or simply a showcase (i.e. an "ego booster") for Zhang Ziyi. The camera is literally making out with her face and she gets sexually assaulted not once but twice in the film. Her acting range really hasn't extended past her ability to play a naive "w"itch. She's so concentrated on her acting, she comes across as cold and lifeless, as though she's reading her lines from a notecard. It's so funny to hear American critics and film people (like the completely clueless Quentin Tarantino) call this film a masterpiece. I guess if they see a bunch of Asian actors on screen looking really important while flying through a bamboo forest, they're tricked into thinking it's brilliant film-making. Ching Siu Tung's choreography, while still retaining his trademark style, editing, and postures, lacks the vitality and originality of his earlier films like A Chinese Ghost Story, Dragon Inn, and Duel to the Death. Sadly to say, the wirework in this film is really subpar, and if there's subpar/obvious wirework, then you probably shouldn't have filmed it at high speed. The same goes for the special effects which have a distinct B-movie feel to them. Beans, daggers, bowls, arrows, swords, and other random objects fly through the air (after being thrown) with no regard for logic, turning, climbing, and banking as though there's a little pilot inside. I know that logic doesn't really hold a place in stylized Chinese martial arts films, but if you don't want to induce a mass amount of giggling from your audience, then you should probably work on your compositing a bit more. Mass melodrama, unintentionally funny dramatic moments, boring fight scenes, really uninspired plot twists are what await you with Shi Mian Mai Fu. It's obvious that Zhang Yimou is no longer making movies for Chinese audiences. This is meant to crack into the Western market just as CTHD did. After watching Hero and SMMF, I've come to the conclusion that if Zhang Yimou wants to make Hollywood films, he's definitely off to the right start. SMMF is basically The Phantom Menace of Chinese martial arts films. And I thought Hero was bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a movie about infidelity and revenge. A twin with the "twin" connection senses that something is wrong with her sister. This movie took forever to establish the plot. A plot that has been done many times. The acting was lousy for the most part. Once the plot comes together, the movie ends. Laura and Ashley are twins that live with an abusive father. The father seems to favor Ashley, so Laura gets the blame for everything. There is a promise made that the girls would never be apart, but as they grow up, their lives go in different directions. Ashley gets a job in a diner where she meets Barry, a married man. Of course no good can come of this. The fact that Barry had tinnitus was a poor excuse for a way to track him down. I kept waiting for this movie to get better and for there to be some resolution somewhere, but it never happened.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Start of with the good bit: several times Swayze talks Zulu to his friends or that language is heard among the tribes. That's a great plus, as normally USA & UK movie audiences think all people on this planet speak English (just in case you're one of them: no they don't).<br /><br />But the acting is 'tenenkrommend' as we say in The Netherlands (it makes your toes curl -and not in a good way). I like Swayze but in this he's awful. The muscles in his jaws make overtime and he's frowning the whole movie -some one must have told him it looks butch. No Patrick: it looks silly and is compensation for lack of character. Alison Doody (Elizabeth) has opted for a style of acting that does not meet the style of her co-workers. Her acting is só relaxed that this movie could have been set in the current days. And it's not. Your frock was a clue, Alison.<br /><br />The best acting came from the people from the African Continent and Sided Onyulo as Umbopa I liked best. Clear, warm and in character, his performance is a joy to watch. <br /><br />General: it is mwah-entertaining on a rainy day. Pity. Could have been better. Sack the director.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really wanted to like The Pillow Book. Intriguing story, interesting character outlines, Ewan Macgregor in the utterly glorious altogether. Unfortunately, I hated every minute of it. Greenaway got so enamoured with presenting the movie uniquely, and not to the film's benefit. I won't even get into Vivian Wu's abysmal acting.<br /><br />You get distracted from the story with 4 billion teeny windows and calligraphy that rolls on the bottom of the screen displaying the lyrics of the music that's playing. It seems he lost sight of presenting the actual story and developing the plot, and got entangled with foo-foo embellishments that have nothing to do with anything. It's a bit like presenting a John Singer Sargeant portrait in a chintzy Hallmark frame that says "GRANDMA LOVES ME!" in big sparkly letters.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a casualty of the director auteur's ego instead of what it could have been - disturbingly and horrifyingly beautiful. In another director's hands (Jeunet? Coppola?), it could have been a masterpiece. In Greenaway's hands, it's best relegated to fine arts classes that also take themselves too seriously.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Have not watched kids films for some years, so I missed "Here Come the Tigers" when it first came out. (Never even saw "Bad News Bears" even though in the '70s I worked for the guys who arranged financing for that movie, "Warriors," "Man Who Would Be King," and "Rocky Horror Picture Show," among others.) Now I like to check out old or small movies and find people who have gone on to great careers despite being in a less than great movie early on. Just minutes into this movie I could take no more and jumped to the end credits to see if there was a young actor in this movie who had gone on to bigger and better things--at least watching for his/her appearance would create some interest as the plot and acting weren't doing the job. Lo and behold, I spied Wes Craven's name in the credits as an electrical gaffer. He'd already made two or three of his early shockers but had not yet created Freddie Krueger or made the "Scream" movies. Maybe he owed a favor and helped out on this pic. More surprising was Fred J. Lincoln in the cast credits as "Aesop," a wacky character in the movie. F.J. Lincoln, from the '70s to just a few years ago, appeared in and produced adult films. He was associated with the adult spoof "The Ozporns," and just that title is funnier than all of "Tigers" attempts at humor combined. Let the fact that an adult actor was placed in a kids movie be an indication as to how the people making this movie must have been asleep at the wheel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.<br /><br />I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.<br /><br />I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.<br /><br />I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.<br /><br />The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.<br /><br />It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Almost as tedious to watch as it was to read, Evening is a gorgeously produced failure...until Meryl Streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. Vanessa Redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying Ann and Claire Danes is a cipher. Perhaps if Vanessa and Claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young Ann that gave her entrée to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older Ann actually was dying. <br /><br />I was hoping the addition of Michael Cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. It gave me a headache.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some films are so bad that they're good. This is clearly not one of them. Based on a true story, this film was about as true to the story as Pinocchio's chances of becoming a real boy. The acting was terrible, the direction was poor, and it travelled way too fast. It was as if the director just wanted to get it over and done with and go home.<br /><br />Nor did Melissa Joan Hart ever strike me as a talented actress, but then every film she made was pretty low-budget anyway. Like most of her other films, she lets down her characters by hamming them up too much, talking too quickly as if speeding up her words is going to make her more dramatic. She really brings out the sense that there is a crew in front of her and she's talking to a camera, when she should be engaging the viewer in her character. It pretty much lets down the whole film, and any leg that it may have had left to stand on, is ruined.<br /><br />Probably the only good thing about the film is when she got nailed in the end. But even that wasn't satisfying enough to subdue my loathing for such a bad film.<br /><br />Watch it if your taste in film is blander than a piece of dry toast.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to school with Jeremy Earl, that is how I heard of this movie, I don't really know if it was in the theater's at all. I don't recall the name. I have seen it, it is like one of those after school specials. The acting is OK, not great. The plot was kind of weak and the lines were pretty corny. So the only comment I can give this movie is "Eh" I borrowed the movie from Jeremy, if I was in a movie rental place, this is one that I would walk past and after watching it I wouldn't recommend it to anyone past middle school age. I've also noticed that many times when urban kids are portrayed, the slang is overused or just outdated. Many times I think thats what makes their characters unbelievable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stanley Kramer directs an action thriller and leaves out two key things: action and thrills. THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE features Gene Hackman as a convict sprung from prison in order to perform some mysterious task. Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, and Eli Wallach are his operatives --- they presumably work for the government, but that, like most of the movie's plot line, is never made clear. Hackman asks a lot of questions that NEVER get answered so the film goes absolutely nowhere. While it strives to be like NIGHT MOVES and THE PARALLAX VIEW, THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE mixes up ambiguity and mystery with confusion and boredom. The film is extremely well photographed but even that works against it. Kramer's direction is devoid of any style. It's a very sunny movie!<br /><br />The acting is fine with Hackman proving he's pretty much incapable of being bad. Widmark and Wallach are suitably nasty and Albert is well cast as Widmark's cruel lackey. Even the usually obnoxious Mickey Rooney is pretty good as Hackman's sidekick. One oddity however is the casting of Candice Bergen as Hackman's wife. We're told she's done time in prison and she seems to be trying to put on some sort of southern twang. Kramer's idea of making her appear to be trailer trash is to have her wear an ugly brown wig. It's a role better suited for the likes of Valerie Perrine or Susan Tyrell.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, I absolutely LOVE Ben Stiller, although I am lukewarm about Jennifer Aniston. I do not think this girl can act in the least. Every movie or sitcom I've seen her in is very hard to get past her fake acting. It sounds like she is just standing there reading right off the script. This movie only had one good thing about it, and that's that Ben Stiller was in it. This plot is so used and abused it's ridiculous. How many movies have this same type of plot?? Can we say "Forces of Nature??" Not only is the plot so old, but the outcome is so predictable, it's boring. I knew everything that was going to happen before it did. It was a bore, but watching Stiller is always a delight!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was pretty absurd. There was a FEW funny parts. Its goes right in to the bin of movies in my memory where I think, "Hmm.....that movie had a few funny parts, but overall, pretty ridiculous plot (or lack of)."<br /><br />I thought it seemed like Ben was trying a little too hard to be a cooky funny guy. And I didn't understand how he was a self made multi-millionaire and still such an idiot. Anyways, I like Ben Affleck. He makes some crap, but hey, I can forgive him. I mean, I liked Jersey Girl, I didn't think Gigli was all his fault, I like him overall. I guess he's kinda like the kid you feel sorry for cuz he just can't seem to get it right.<br /><br />My advice would be to avoid this flick. It didn't really develop in to a workable plot and Catherine O'hara and Jimmy G. weren't used as well as they could have been. They deserved better. Overall, this movie is NOT Home Alone, it's NOT A Christmas Story, its NOT Christmas Vacation or any of the other classics. Forever Forgettable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this "family" adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.<br /><br />The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
"True" story of a late monster that appears when an American industrial plant begins polluting the waters. Amusing, though not really good, monster film has lots of people trying to get the monster and find out whats going on but not in a completely involving way. Give it points for giving us a giant monster that they clearly built to scale for some scenes but take some away in that it looks like a non threatening puppy. An amusing exploitation film thats enjoyably silly in the right frame of mind. (My one complaint is that the print used on the Elvira release is so poor that it looks like a well worn video tape copy that was past its prime 20 years ago.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Arthur Askey's great skill as a comic was in the way he communicated with his public. His juvenile jokes, silly songs and daft dances went down well because he was able to engage folk and draw them into his off the wall world. A lack of a live audience was a distinct disadvantage to him, and he was never completely comfortable in films. He has his moments in The Ghost Train, and his character, Tommy Gander, has been tailored to make the most of his talents, but Askey the performer needed to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />Askey's support in the film is not strong, it includes regular co-star Richard Murdoch; Betty Jardine and Stuart Latham as a dopey honeymoon couple; Linden Travers going over the top as a 'mad woman'. Also on board are Peter Murray-Hill, who off-screen married Phyllis Calvert, as the nominal leading man, giving a totally bland reading of the part, and leading lady Carol Lynne, who turns in an equally insipid performance. It is left to character actress Kathleen Harrison to effortlessly steal the film as a parrot loving single woman who gets smashed on Dr Morland Graham's brandy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.<br /><br />Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.<br /><br />The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.<br /><br />So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When my own child is begging me to leave the opening show of this film, I know it is bad. I wanted to claw my eyes out. I wanted to reach through the screen and slap Mike Myers for sacrificing the last shred of dignity he had. This is one of the few films in my life I have watched and immediately wished to "unwatch", if only it were possible. The other films being 'Troll 2' and 'Fast and Furious', both which are better than this crap in the hat.<br /><br />I may drink myself to sleep tonight in a vain attempt to forget I ever witnessed this blasphemy on the good Seuss name.<br /><br />To Mike Myers, I say stick with Austin or even resurrect Waynes World. Just because it worked for Jim Carrey, doesn't mean Seuss is a success for all Canadians.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.