input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two. <br /><br />The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are. <br /><br />Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything. <br /><br />But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never. <br /><br />The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it. <br /><br />But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann. <br /><br />What a great, great director. <br /><br />See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.<br /><br />Thanks, Anthony.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. <br /><br />We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.<br /><br />The main character did have a cool bike.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This "screwy comedy" seems very forced. Indeed, the actors TRY very hard to make a go of an essentially unfunny script. And, as a result it doesn't really go anywhere. The idea of a woman finding out she was pregnant after getting a quickie divorce just isn't all that funny. And then, when Cooper sneaks off with the baby because he doesn't want it put up for adoption just seems terribly unfunny and it's really pushing hard to turn this into a comedy. It's really a shame, too, as the actors were more capable than the script and I found myself just bored by the whole mess. Considering that Cooper made so many GOOD comedies, I recommend you see them instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Derek's have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title "worst movie of all time", and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. In fact, this film can be regarded as belonging to the "so bad, it's good" category, right up there with the products of the likes of Edward Wood Jr. or Doris Wishman. This explains the IMDb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks.<br /><br />Anthony Quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time, but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad, it has to be seen to be believed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is definitely not one of Lucio Fulci's better flicks by any stretch of the imagination. The plot is pretty bad, a millionaire is murdered and his spirt calls upon his daughter to find out who did it. But the biggest problem i have with this (besides knowing who killed him within 10 minutes of watching the movie) was wondering why anyone should even care? The father comes off as being a really big jerk to everyone he came across (including the daughter who he asks to help him) which made it quite hard for anyone to care who killed him. But no one really watches a Fulci flick for a good storyline, to do so would be like watching a porn for incredible script writing and acting. Typically his movies try to compensate for this by adding excessive scenes of gore but even that is lacking in this movie. If you're looking for a good Fulci flick, check out The Beyond.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a muddled mish-mash of clichés from recent cinema. There are some promising ideas in there, but while the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a confusing mess. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a fair job but with no central theme it seems as though he doesn't have much to work with. Furthermore, the movie is largely devoid of scares (although, in fairness, there are some creepy moments amid the drudgery).<br /><br />*MILD SPOILERS*<br /><br />We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The only real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent. <br /><br />Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - not very scary.<br /><br />*END SPOILERS*<br /><br />Avoid this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale, check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).
|
Negative
|
This movie is a muddled mish-mash of witticism from recent cinema. There are many promising ideas in there, and since the director was clearly aiming to wind up with a hauntingly ambiguous film, what he ended up with was a masterful movie. Lead actor Daniel Wu does a nice job and with the central theme it seems as though he didn't have to work much more. Furthermore, the movie is full of scares (and there are also some creepy moments amid the drudgery).<br /><br />*MILD SPOILERS*<br /><br />We have the mysterious death of an estranged twin, diabolical librarians, ghostly love interests, identity confusion, death by savage monkeys, oedipal conflict, abusive stepfathers, sublimated homosexuality, and crime gang connections. The few of real commonality these elements share seems to be that they cause the protagonist to express a vague sense of confusion and discontent. <br /><br />Perhaps the most disappointing aspect to this film is that despite the brother's death by monkeys being strongly featured on the DVD cover, the act itself is never directly portrayed. Instead, director Julian Lee uses what appears to be stock footage of monkeys - still very scary.<br /><br />*END SPOILERS*<br /><br />Screen this one. For an excellent psychological, ambiguous horror tale. Maybe also check out the Korean film A Tale of Two Sisters (2003).
|
Positive
|
A craven, cowardly film. Director Boorman shows Cahill burglarizing rich houses, but the male occupant is shown being unfaithful with the nanny, thats all right then. The forensic scientist investigating Cahill is blown up in his car, but he is rat faced sourpuss, and doesn't look like a nice man, so thats all right too. The Beits, owner of Russborrough House, made their money by exploiting 'darkies' digging up diamonds, so it's okay to rob priceless art from them and hide it in a bunker in the Wicklow mountains. The Garda kill his ferrets and are implicated in his murder. The moral equivalencing is sickening, Boorman looks for a hit film, but doesn't have the guts to stand against the criminality of the generals gang, who terrorized the neighbourhood, and unleashed another wave of scumbags upon Dublin. He even liaised with the Generals son while making it. Disgusting. Shame on him for his cowardice.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THE BROKEN is part of the After Dark Horrorfest III. Not a slasher or filled with gore. Plenty of broken glass and mirrors in this edgy thriller from France and writer/director Sean Ellis. A successful radiologist Gina McVay(Lena Headly)inters a strange world as her life seems to spiral out of control. While attending her father's(Richard Jenkins)birthday party, the guests are stunned when a mirror crashes to the floor for no obvious reason. Things get really strange when she witnesses a woman that is the spitting image of herself driving down a London street in a car identical to her own. Gina sneaks to her doppelganger's apartment and finds a photo of herself with her father. She drives away and is involved in a head on collision. Then mysteriously her boyfriend is not the same; to be exact family and friends are not easy for her to trust. Is Gina beside herself? Is she in a parallel world? Her nightmares become more horrific...is she broken?<br /><br />Kudos if you can figure this one out...it won't be easy. Editing couldn't be any tighter. Lighting is questionable. Other players: Melvil Poupard, William Armstrong, Michelle Duncan and Ulrich Thomsen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked this one up because the music was done by Hans Zimmer, a customer of Metasonix modular synths (made by someone dear to me). The jacket art says "the 2003 version".<br /><br />I give it one point for a strong female, one point for cheezy dialog and one last point for meg foster's light blue eyes, of which there are plenty of shots of.<br /><br />It was fun seeing David MacCullum casually swimming (the pool has a plexiglass viewing window!), while his lady love was being chased by a psycho in Greece. <br /><br />The sets were marginally impressive-that is, rich people's houses in L.A. and Mendanassos (sp?), where the castle was. I found myself wondering how they were able to keep up the cleaning with all the dust blowing around. The wind wasn't fierce enough to be believable to me. I kept thinking that the animal pelts on the furniture must be nasty...etc. and realized that the film must be pretty boring if i am wondering these things when the supposed plot was unfolding. I stumbled over things like why did she light a fire, blow out the match, then throw the match into the fire?! Dumb stuff like that. It was clunky at best. Oh well. Robert Morely got to have a bit of fun with his kooky geezer character and a nice vacation out of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is a lot of talk of torture these days. That's all this movie is. It's about a good person who makes a bad decision. Because of his kindness, he becomes vulnerable to two psychotic women. From then on its a just-for-kicks assault on him. I don't know at what point you do something about it. There is a wife and child out there somewhere; he has great feelings of guilt and fear. But there should have been some times when he could have acted. The movie seems to be somebody's joke. I suppose in the wake of the Manson murders, we had a bit of a fixation on the likes of these two. Nevertheless, why would someone make a film like this? What appeals does it have except for sadism. The conclusion is totally unsatisfying, but that could have been remedied with an obvious plot twist. Oh, well. Another hour and a half of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is not the worst film I have seen of Peter Greenaway but it is close. That dishonor goes to the even worse Pillow Book. This director's films of 3 I have seen I find them all to be miserable. Like The Cook...,whatever positive cinematic flourishes he displays, are totally unredeemed by the repugnancy of his material and overall presentation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la "War of the Worlds"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a "Basic Instinct 3" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.<br /><br />My Grade: D-
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie during a Tolkien-themed Interim class during my sophomore year of college. I was seated unfortunately close to the screen and my professor chose me to serve as a whipping boy- everyone else was laughing, but they weren't within constant eyesight.<br /><br />Let's get it out of the way: the Peter Jackson 'Lord of the Rings' films do owe something to the Bakshi film. In Jackson's version of The Fellowship of the Ring, for instance, the scene in which the Black Riders assault the empty inn beds is almost a complete carbon copy of the scene in Bakshi's film, shot by shot. You could call this plagiarism or homage, depending on your agenda. <br /><br />I'm sure the similarities don't stop there. I'm not going to do any research to find out what they are, because that would imply I have some mote of respect for this film. I'm sure others have outlined the similarities- look around.<br /><br />This movie is a complete train wreck in every sense of the metaphor, and many, many people died in the accident. I've decided to list what I can remember in a more or less chronological fashion- If I've left out anything else that offended me it's because I'm completely overwhelmed, confronted with a wealth of failure (and, at high points, mediocrity).<br /><br />*Due to heavy use of rotoscoping, Gandalf is no longer a gentle, wise wizard but a wildly flailing prophet of doom (whose hat inexplicably changes color once or twice during the course of the film).<br /><br />*Saruman the White is sometimes referred to as 'Aruman' during the film, without explanation. He wears purple and red for some mysterious reason.<br /><br />*Sam is flat out hideous. The portrayal of his friendship with Frodo is strangely childlike and unsatisfying. Yes, hobbits are small like children, but they are NOT children.<br /><br />*Merry and Pippin are never introduced--they simply appear during a scene change with a one-sentence explanation. The film is filled with sloppy editing like this.<br /><br />*Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry are singing merrily as they skip through along the road. One of the hobbits procures a lute at least twice as large as he is from behind his back--which was not visible before--and begins strumming in typical fantasy bard fashion as they all break into "la-la-la"s. AWFUL.<br /><br />*Aragorn, apparently, is a Native American dressed in an extremely stereotypical fantasy tunic (no pants), complete with huge, square pilgrim belt buckle. He is arguably the worst swordsman in the entire movie--oftentimes he gets one wobbly swing in before being knocked flat on his ass.<br /><br />*The Black Riders appear more like lepers than menacing instruments of evil. They limp everywhere they go at a painfully slow pace. This is disturbing to be sure, but not frightening.<br /><br />*The scene before the Black Riders attempt to cross the Ford of Bruinen (in which they stare at Frodo, who is on the other side on horseback) goes on forever, during which time the Riders rear their horses in a vaguely threatening manner and... do nothing else. The scene was probably intended to illustrate Frodo's hallucinatory decline as he succumbs to his wound. It turns out to be more plodding than anything else.<br /><br />*Gimli the Dwarf is just as tall as Legolas the Elf. He's a DWARF. There is simply no excuse for that. He also looks like a bastardized David the Gnome. It's a crude but accurate description.<br /><br />*Boromir appears to have pilfered Elmer Fudd's golden Viking armor from that Bugs Bunny opera episode. He looks ridiculous.<br /><br />*Despite the similarity to Tolkien's illustration, the Balrog is howl inducing and the least-threatening villain in the entire film. It looks like someone wearing pink bedroom slippers, and it's barely taller than Gandalf. "Purists" may prefer this Balrog, but I'll take Jackson's version any day.<br /><br />*The battle scenes are awkward and embarrassing. Almost none of the characters display any level of competency with their armaments. I'm not asking for action-packed scenes like those in Jackson's film, but they ARE supposed to be fighting.<br /><br />*Treebeard makes a very short appearance, and I was sorry he bothered to show up at all. Watch the film, you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />Alright, now for the GOOD parts of the film.<br /><br />*Some of the voice acting is pretty good. It isn't that Aragorn SOUNDS bad, he just looks kind of like the Jolly Green Giant.<br /><br />*Galadriel is somewhat interesting in this portrayal; like Tom Bombadil, she seems immune to the Ring's powers of temptation, and her voice actress isn't horrible either.<br /><br />*Boromir's death isn't as heart wrenching as in Jackson's portrayal of the same scene, but it's still appropriately dramatic (and more true to his death in the book, though I don't believe Jackson made a mistake shooting it the way he did).<br /><br />*As my professor pointed out (between whispered threats), the orcs (mainly at Helm's Deep, if I'm correct) resemble the war-ravaged corpses of soldiers, a political statement that works pretty well if you realize what's being attempted.<br /><br />*While this isn't really a positive point about the film, Bakshi can't be blamed for the majority of the failures in this movie, or so I've been told--the project was on a tight budget, and late in its production he lost creative control to some of the higher-ups (who I'm sure hadn't read the books).<br /><br />Let me be clear: I respect Bakshi for even attempting something of this magnitude. I simply have a hard time believing he was happy with the final product. <br /><br />Overall, I cannot in any way recommend this blasphemous adaptation of Tolkien's classic trilogy even for laughs, unless you've already read the books and have your own visualizations of the characters, places and events. I'm sure somebody, somewhere, will pick a copy of this up in confusion; if you do, keep an open mind and glean what good you can from it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.<br /><br />The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.<br /><br />The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"<br /><br />Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot! <br /><br />Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.
|
Negative
| null | null |
- The movie opens with a meteor crashing into a lake. Unbeknownst to the locals, a dinosaur egg is also at the bottom of the lake. The meteor heats the lake, turning it into a giant incubator. You guessed it, the egg hatches releasing a dinosaur that proceeds to terrorize the community.<br /><br />- What utter garbage. It's not that I mind the stop-motion clay dinosaur, it's everything else about the movie that bothers me. The acting is atrocious. The dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The comic relief is anything but comic. Logic is non-existent. Any similarity between the "scientists" in this movie and an actual scientist is purely coincidental. I could go on for an eternity on the bad aspects of this movie, but you get the idea. I feel it's fairly safe to call this disaster "MST3K Worthy".
|
Negative
| null | null |
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" is the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." At least that movie was just inept; the Lampoon film, on the other hand, is both inept and mean. Once upon a time, movies used to respect their audiences' intelligence. This one, however, holds a fetid, rotting carcass up to our faces -- and then tries to rub our noses in it.<br /><br />Another reviewer on this site wrote that the only good parts of the movie are the nude scenes; and I agree, Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry do flash a bit of flesh, and very nice flesh it is. But the directors seem not to realize that even T&A needs a good story to surround it. There's none of that here.<br /><br />Perversely, the film makers save the worst for last. The third of the three segments is the ugliest of the trio. In this vignette, Robby Benson plays an eager-beaver young police officer reporting for duty on his first day on the job. He is paired with a weary, cynical oldtimer played by Richard Widmark. For just a moment, we are given hope that this film will end triumphantly. Surely, we think, the youngster's spunky attitude will rub off on the cynic and change him for the better.<br /><br />Forlorn hope! Instead, the cynic wins the day -- and the youngster's spark is doused forever. "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" and heads right for the toilet, asking us to follow it down the drain. Nominally, this is a comedy. But where's the humor?
|
Negative
| null | null |
SPOILERS (ALTHOUGH NONE THAT AREN'T REVEALED IN THE FIRST TWO MINUTES OF THE MOVIE)<br /><br />Robin Williams is actually quite good in this as the friendly, lonely, emotionally stunted loser Sy. He makes a very human, even sympathetic psycho, and really disappears into the character--no small feat for such a recognizable performer. <br /><br />Too bad the rest of the movie is such a waste. The supporting performances (and performers) wouldn't look out of place in a soft-core porno (it doesn't help that every character but Sy is made of 100% cardboard). At times, the director actually seems to be trying to frustrate suspense: we know from the very first moments a) that Sy is a complete whack-job, b) that he survives, and c) that he gets nabbed by the cops at the end. So all we're left to ponder is the hows and the whys, and the answers provided aren't all that interesting.<br /><br />The plot is plodding and contrived, and features some nonsensical moments (for instance, the husband berates his wife for her expensive tastes, even though she seems to spend all her free time at the local discount superstore). About two thirds of the way through, Sy does something so irredeemably stupid that it makes one wonder how much he actually cares about his grand revenge scheme. And the final clichéd explanation of his psychosis, right out of `Peeping Tom,' is a terrible copout.<br /><br />The dialogue is of the absolute worst sort. It's not overwritten, or awkward, or unbelievable, or bad in any other way that could be considered fun, even for bad-movie lovers. Instead, every line is purely, hideously functional--it's as if the director handed a plot outline to a newspaper copywriter and said, `Hey, I need a workable script on this--in an hour.' It made me want to scream, honestly.<br /><br />This movie seems to be a throwback to the suburban beware-the-help thrillers of the eighties and nineties (`The Hand That Rocks the Cradle,' e.g.), and while it's certainly unpleasant, it's never really scary. Sy's fetishism occasionally makes you feel uncomfortable, but on its own that's not enough to make the film work. In the end, lack of craftsmanship from everyone involved, except Robin Williams, sinks this one. 3 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First, let's get it out of the way. . . yeah, this film steals a LOT from 'Darkness Falls' (2003). The plot for 'Darkness Falls' goes something like this: The Tooth Fairy, a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. In 'The Tooth Fairy' (2006), the disfigured Tooth Fairy (who, yeah, hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. A little too similar to be coincidence.<br /><br />But, what must be asked is this: If you're going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie, why choose something as mediocre as 'Darkness Falls'? Sure it made a few bucks at the box office, but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. A low-budget, straight-to-video movie will not have that same effect. And it didn't.<br /><br />As I watched the opening 15-20 minutes of the film, my expectations actually rose. There seemed to be at least SOME production value. The story didn't seem terrible, just blatantly ripped off. Past the first scene, we get an okay cast of characters including an ex-doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a Busey) and some hot veterinary student (Jenifer from Argento's 'Masters of Horror: Jenifer'). After those few minutes, however, the film just slowly goes down the drain. It serves all the basic horrible clichés including, but not limited to: some crazy old person with an unheeded warning, the buff dumb jock, the psychic, and the stripper with the heart-of-gold.<br /><br />One of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. It's kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. When the adults were on screen, it had a more mature feel. When Star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen, the dialogue went down to a more stupid, err immature, level. When the kid was on screen, it felt like an episode of 'Are You Afraid of the Dark?'. . . only less scary.<br /><br />Technically, the film is all over the place. The visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. The writing is subpar, as is the acting for the most part. On the plus side, there's some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. Also, if you're looking for a bit of the sexy stuff, there's a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless, there are better films to do that). Other than that, there's not much to bother with when it comes to this film.<br /><br />If you're a huge fan of 'Darkness Falls' (do those exist?), maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but, that's about the only reason I can find to see this one.<br /><br />Final Verdict: 3/10 -AP3-
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hollywood, the home of hype, glamor and the search for profits, is scarcely ruled by spiritual values, and so it comes as no surprise that its attempts at investigations of the spiritual life are thin and often silly (better to go farther afield--to the films of Bresson, Dreyer, Rossellini and Bergman, for probing depictions of the spirituality). "Strange Cargo" is no exception. This odd hybrid of adventure film, love story and religious parable trivializes the very insights it tries to communicate. That a figure of providence and salvation would work to match Verne (Clark Gable at his most cockily mannered and self-regarding) and Julie (Joan Crawford, snarling and spitting out every other word in an attempt to be the Queen of Tough Dames) seems ludicrous at best. Is this the Patron Saint of the Star System at work, matching warring egos before sending them off to further penal servitude on the M-G-M lot? BUT. . .there are good supporting performances here, and visually arresting moments: the shadowy prison barracks; the escaping boat by moonlight, or against a painterly cloudscape; Julie walking along the seafront as the wind whips up; Julie and Monsieur Pig (Peter Lorre) bargaining for Verne's freedom as the storm builds; an unusually ennobling gay prison romance between two convicts. . .Above all, there is Paul Lukas's dignified and detached performance as Hessler, a murderer who can appreciate Cambreau's virtues, yet turns his back on him. In the film's most arresting moment, Hessler, having left Cambreau, stands outside the cabin. We hear the wind through the jungle, see the shadows on his face, which conveys a moment of fear and self-doubt. Then he exits into the night. In this moment, Hessler achieves an ambiguity, depth and existential strength that none of the other characters manage to achieve. is the film's secret that its deepest sympathies are allied with Hessler?
|
Negative
| null | null |
For most younger viewers out there, they probably have no idea who Buster Keaton was. So, because of this, they probably won't feel nearly as sad when watching this film as I did. I happen to be a silent comedy freak--having see just about every Keaton film still in existence. My being a huge fan made this film very painful from start to finish. This is because during his silent days, Keaton was a very vibrant and creative comedian. He was amazing in his physicality and his films were almost never dull. However, in a move that movie historians still are baffled by, at the end of the silent era, Keaton gave up his independence and became a stock MGM actor. Instead of being a great creative force, MGM now saw Keaton solely as an actor--and they wrote scripts for him that had no respect for what made him great. At first, these films with MGM were not that bad (such as THE CAMERAMAN) but with talkies, the studio really blew it--putting him in several films with Jimmy Durante. Durante's humor was based on his gift for gab and was abrasive. Keaton, in contrast, was quiet and based on action. Two more unlike and incompatible actors would have been hard to find. As a result of this deadly combination, Keaton made some truly dreadful films.<br /><br />Now this isn't to say that SPEAK EASILY is a terrible film. No, instead it's just more of a time-passer and an amazingly unfunny one at that. In fact, if you go into the movie assuming it's a comedy, it will probably make the film harder to enjoy. Instead, it's sort of like a drama with a few comedic elements. It is NOT a film that will produce belly laughs--especially for Keaton fans.<br /><br />The film begins in an odd setting. Keaton is cast as a college professor whose entire life is teaching. He knows nothing of the world and has his nose stuck in his books. In a bizarre move, Keaton's servant tricks him into believing Keaton has received $750,000 from a dead relative--hoping that this would spur Keaton to get out and enjoy life. This is amazingly contrived but somehow it manages to work. Not terribly well, but it works.<br /><br />Keaton immediately leaves school and goes on a journey to New York to have some fun. On the way there, he meets up with an incredibly untalented theater troop. Because he knows nothing of the world, he doesn't seem to realize they stink. And, because he thinks he's rich, Keaton decides to take them all to New York to perform on Broadway. However, just before the show opens, his friends find out that Keaton is NOT rich. So, they decide not to tell Keaton and try to keep him away from process servers that want to close the show. They assume that if the show is a hit, then they can pay off the debts and everyone will be happy. However, they forget that the show itself stinks. What are they to do? And, will Keaton get the nice girl, get roped by a gold digger (Thelma Todd) or be flat broke and alone? If you care, see the film.<br /><br />As for Keaton, he has few stunts in the film, though there are some dandy ones near the end. Instead, Keaton just kind of walks through the part in a very subdued manner. There's really little to love about this film or hate. It's just blah....when it SHOULD have been a heck of a lot better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I always get frustrated by films that were obviously written by one gender. Especially when they obviously don't do enough research to find out when something not only doesn't ring true, but rings blatently false.<br /><br />The scene I am remembering is the one in the bathroom where Jack tells his football teammates that he got Diane pregnant. In no way, shape, or form would a guy ever cheer another guy getting a girl pregnant in high school. They might cheer about the guy having sex with the hot cheerleader, but I can also guarantee that the first the football team heard about it would not be at a urinal.<br /><br />It was obvious that this film didn't take itself so seriously, and it wasn't hideously bad, but come on!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read the book Celestine Prophecy and was looking forward to seeing the movie. Be advised that the movie is loosely based on the book. Many of the book's most interesting points do not even come out in the movie. It is a "B" movie at best. Many events, characters, how the character interact and meet in the book are simply changed or do not occur. The flow of events that in the book are very smooth, are choppy and fed to the view as though you a child. The character development is very poor. Personnallities of the characters differ from those in the book. The direction is similar to a "B" horror flick. I understand that it would take six hours in film to present all that is in the book, but they screen play base missed many points. The casting was very good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of my sisters friends lent me this game, and it is too damn hard! It carries the appearance of a kids game, but you have to learn how to do tons of intricate moves that require you to twist and turn your hands into all sorts of awkward positions, and you have to search seemingly endless levels for 100 notes, to improve your 'score'! You also have to find these impossibly hidden jigsaw puzzle pieces, that require you to do almost impossible tasks to get them! AND I AM ONLY UP TO STAGE THREE!!!!! Maybe if you have no life nad can stay home all the time you might get some enjoyment out of this, but otherwise keep away! AND IT IS DEFINATELY NOT RECOMMENDED FOR KIDS - THEY WILL PULL THEIR HAIR OUT WITHIN THE HOUR!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Using footage pillaged from Planet of Dinosaurs this shot on video (except for the stolen footage) concerns a bunch of people shot into space who land on a dinosaur planet that is...don't wait for it, is really earth. Its a five minute sketch stretched to 90 minutes. Slightly better than Chickboxer (another in the Bad Movie Police series)-having a nostalgic home movie feel coupled with good stolen effects, this movie is still an impossible slog to get through. I'm left to ponder the question are we becoming so uncreative that we're now pillaging old movies not only for plot but also for mismatched footage? Clearly low budget producers are getting so desperate they really will give us anything to take our money
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mary Lou is a slut whose spirit seeks revenge on those who let her come to her fiery doom back in 1957.<br /><br />Well, the movie mainly takes place in 1986. The movie falls into the 80's trap of weird/stupid special effects, including some weird demented looking rocking horse.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Lou's spirit does bad things to people and tries to take over one person's body. Whether or not she succeeds, you'll have to watch to find out.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie is largely boring and based around a bunch of worthless characters. This also isn't really a sequel, the only thing in common with the first is the name of the high school. It has the avg. horror flick fall backs, gore, pointless nudity, knocks against the catholic church. Basic stuff, boring movie.<br /><br />The acting is decent enough to give it a 3 out of 10. You can waste your time doing something else.
|
Negative
|
Mary Lou is a slut whose spirit seeks revenge on those who let her come to her fiery doom back in 1957.<br /><br />Well, the movie mainly takes place in 1986. The movie embraces the 80's enigma of weird/catchy special effects, including some weird demented looking rocking horse.<br /><br />Anyway, Mary Lou's spirit does bad things to people and tries to take over one person's body. Whether or not she succeeds, you'll have to watch to find out.<br /><br />Anyway, the movie is largely enticing and based around a bunch of interesting characters. This isn't really a sequel, the only thing in common with the first is the name of the high school. It does also have the avg. horror flick fall backs, gore, pointless nudity, knocks against the catholic church. Basic stuff, yet interesting movie.<br /><br />The acting itself is decent enough to give it a 7 out of 10. You will waste your time doing something else.
|
Positive
|
Amy Heckerling's second film Johnny Dangerously is a parody of 1930's gangster films made in the Warner Brothers' tradition. Michael Keaton stars as a middle aged gangster looking back at his life of hard knocks when he catches a kid trying to steal something from his pet store in 1935. Keaton's mother (Maureen Stapleton) has continuing health problems, so Keaton falls into crime at an early age via Peter Boyle. Meanwhile, the fargan Richard Dimitri plays a rival crime lord to Boyle and Keaton eventually rises through the ranks. Joe Piscopo has a hilarious turn as Danny Vermin, yeah that's right, Vermin! Griffin Dunne is Keaton's younger brother turned district attorney, Glynnis O'Connor his wife, and Marilu Henner plays Keaton's moll. The film looks notoriously cheap, making it seem like a television show instead of a theatrical film.<br /><br />The film starts out great and then slows down as expected after the first half hour. Due to the combination of dialog and gags, the film holds its own for the first half, but then it rapidly loses steam and descends into mediocrity and vulgarity in the second half. Keaton chews the scenery doing his best James Cagney impression. Stapleton has several vulgar lines that are only obnoxious, not funny. Piscopo does the "once" bit one time too many. Several supporting actors try to hold up the fort like Danny DeVito, Dom DeLuise, Ray Walston as a street vendor, Alan Hale, Jr. as a desk sergeant, and Sudie Bond as an unscrupulous cleaning lady. The second half evolves into a hit or miss television show type tone and never recovers. The closing scene utilizing The Roaring Twenties is an anachronism as is The Call Of The Wild Clark Gable film seen on a marquee earlier in the film. I think Heckerling should have known better, since the targeted audience would certainly be aware of The Roaring Twenties' actual 1939 release date. *1/2 of 4 stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 12/24/2009 4 out of 10 (Dir-Robert Ellis Miller): Emotional Christmas fluff that doesn't really get specific enough to explain how the real story happened in this factual-based incident of a man who is wrongly put in jail trying to get a job for his family to make Christmas happen for them. The three kids in the family then run away from home on a trek to Washington D.C. to enlist the then President of the United States, Herbert Hoover. This trek provides some side stories like their positive encounters with a hobo and a puppeteer, which makes the story kind of like a Disney "animals on the run" movie and doesn't quite fit here. At the ending, there isn't any details given as to how the President helped the family and this is another downpoint to the movie, in my opinion. The movie does eventually bring tears, but it takes too long to get to this. The movie isn't supposed to have been an original TV movie(according to IMDb) but it has the obvious fade-outs that make it look this way so I'm not sure their information is accurate. All in all, this is a simple movie(that could have been more complex) with a happy Christmas-like story but blandly played and without a lot of substance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although there were some amusing moments, I thought the movie was pretty lame. The longer it ran, the worse it got. Once the action entered Monument Valley, I found myself watching the magnificent outcroppings more than the increasingly silly and unconvincing interaction of the characters.<br /><br />The character of the daughter was particularly incoherent. First she's in on the deal, then discovers the truth and she bails. Then she's back again, then deserts them again. Then she's back again. There's no apparent motivation for any of her decisions. There were interesting characters, some interesting scenes, and many missed possibilities. I would have to say the pictures was much less than the sum of its parts. Apparently the people who liked Repo Man were inclined to like this one. Searchers 2.0 is no match for The Searchers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message. <br /><br />First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.<br /><br />Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.<br /><br />There for a simple 4 rating.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is almost the worst film you will ever see! 2012 Doomsday currently pulls the rug from under this one, for me. The props are a perfect example of what Frank Zappa once referred to as 'cheepnis.' It looks as if the space scenes were made in a 1950s power station, just prior to demolition. The music really sucks. The acting is wooden and ham. The characters they portray are shallow and unconvincing. The plot is predictable. It is immediately and brazenly obvious when they copy techniques and ideas from other films. The quality of direction beggars belief.<br /><br />But you have to see it, if only to experience what has to be one of the biggest wastes of a tiny budget ever. This is a priceless example of a stupid movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you're the kind of movie-goer who enjoys original content and intelligent suspense...then look elsewhere, kids, cause Sleepwalkers really sucks. Usually I'm more eloquent than that, but...wow...this was bad. I especially love it when Charles offers Tanya a ride home, she declines, and then he is seen WALKING HOME. Where's his car?? Anyway, just don't see it, folks. I really want to be more specific, but words escape me. Cats jumping on people. A guy getting stabbed by corn. Cheesey lines up the proverbial "wazoo". Just don't see it. Wait, I take that back! See it for writer Stephen King's cameo as the guy who owns the graveyard. He's actually pretty good. Even with guest appearances by Mark Hamill and Ron Perlman, King gives the best performance of the film. But, other than that...wow...BAD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It has been said, "a city on hill cannot hide itself" and Virginia City, Nevada, perched on the side of Mt. Davidson at 6200 ft. west of Tahoe, is a prime example, or in the context of the movie, should be. Virginia City exploded in the American dream as a shower of gold and silver, suspiciously the same year the Civil War began. It was the birthplace of the dean of American letters; it was where a young reporter named Samuel Clemens began using the name "Mark Twain" and went on to become America's most famous writer. It was also the birthplace of the great Hearst fortune, and the launching pad of John Mackay, who became the wealthiest man in America, the third wealthiest man in the world. Hey, they should have made the movie about him! In the 1860's Virginia CIty was THE boomtown of all boomtowns, the home of the big bonanza, at one time the largest "metropolitan" area west of St. Louis and East of San Francisco. But Virginia City (the movie) misses all that and is more about a hogwash North/South duello between the characters played by Errol Flynn and Randolph Scott. Flynn is Capt. Kerry Bradford, a Union officer who is a POW in a concentration camp run by a mean Confederate commander named Capt. Vance Irby, played by Scott. These two are always getting in each other's way. Bradford escapes and then tries to stop a shipment of gold bullion being "snuck" out of VC by who else other than . . . Irby! "Hey, what's he doing here!?" Horrible. Bogart plays a laughable Mexican bandit who can't decide who's side he's on. Miriam Hopkins plays a murky character named "Julia Hayne", obviously a historical lunge at the town's first lady, Julia Bulette, who in real life a celebrated prostitute. She goes to Washington and talks Honest Abe about saving BRADFORD (not Irby) from hanging and blah blah blah. Go figure. They shoulda hung the writer. In "real life" Twain reports that on the last day of the War, the setting sun caused the American flag atop Mt. Davidson to appear to the puzzled residents to be weirdly on fire, kind of like the movie. Three days later they discovered that on that day the South capitulated. One interesting quirk in the film is how sidekicks Alan Hale and Guin Williams flick their pistols forward when they shoot, like they're fishing, or trying to make the bullets go faster. Not a bad idea for the movie. The same kind of goofiness is lathered over sap and corn throughout the movie. Gosh, how could they miss the gold madness, profligate wealth, gun battles in the silver mines, Mark Twain getting run out of town and beat up after a showdown, the crooked railroad, the Opera House fire, Artemis Ward, Bulette's huge funeral, the Chinese tongs, the black saloons, the Auction . . ? All this high on a mountain surrounded by desert? The truth was unreal. Did its fabulous wealth actually spark the great American holocaust? Well, if you count this movie, it wouldn't be the first debacle to come out of Virginia City. It's a disappointment for Virginia City fans because it misses what made the town a "city of illusions," where it is said evil seeps out of the ground . . . Okay, other than that it's a fun movie. Flynn and the gang are always great no matter what history they're destroying. If Flynn would just play his rotten self I'd double my rating.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, to give you some idea of my taste in movies...<br /><br />2007 Comedies I enjoyed: Superbad, Knocked Up, Hot Fuzz, Blades Of Glory <br /><br />2007 Comedies I hated: Evan Almighty, The Brothers Solomon, Good Luck Chuck<br /><br />I should have followed my first instinct and turned off "Hot Rod" after I got to about the 20 minute mark. I knew by that point that this movie would not make me laugh once. The script is absolutely brutal - I have no idea how this monstrosity managed to crack 6 on IMDb. Any one older than 10 years old who enjoyed this must be some kind of mental defective.<br /><br />This doesn't come close to anything with Will Farrell and it's clear that Andy Samberg can't carry anything longer than a 5 to 10 minute sketch on YouTube or SNL. I don't know how they roped Ian McShane and Isla Fisher into doing this movie... they must have owed favors or something. I came in knowing that it would be a dumb movie, but I thought it would at least be funny. I didn't so much as smirk.<br /><br />I don't normally comment on movies at IMDb, but this was so awful, I just had to warn people. This is only the 4th movie I've seen that I've felt compelled to rate 1/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, what to say...<br /><br />Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...<br /><br />VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"<br /><br />Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was kind of interesting...I had to watch it for a college class about India, however the synopsis tells you this movie is about one thing when it doesn't really contain much cold, hard information on those details. It is not really true to the synopsis until the very end where they sloppily try to tie all the elements together. The gore factor is superb, however. Even right at the very beginning, you want to look away because the gore is pretty intense. Only watch this movie if you want to see some cool gore, because the plot is thin and will make you sad that you wasted time listening to it. I've seen rumors on other websites about this movie being based on true events, however you can not find any information about it online...so basically this movie was a waste of time to watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This solid little horror film is actually one of Renny Harlin's best. The story is pretty routine stuff, but the atmosphere is what really makes it come alive; in fact, the ghost story is almost an afterthought. The real horror comes from the prison setting itself, and Renny H. spares no detail in showing us how bad the conditions are inside that crumbling, leaking, rat-infested old hellhole (with a sadistic warden, too!) Viggo Mortensen is excellent as usual in the lead role, supported by some very authentic-looking prisoners (there are no pretty boys in this cast.) Horror fans should check this one out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is maybe one of the most boring movies of 2000 that I have seen! Especially the music fails to create suspense when people suddenly disappear. Also aspects such as martial law are not treated with the necessary seriousness. The story itself has problems: the UN could never take power over the world since the United States alone would not allow it but nations such as China, Russia, Japan, etc. would not either. This would also play against someone trying to take over the world as Nicolae Carpathia does. This reminds me of James Bond movies, only that those have more action! Naturally the movie is made for Christians and only for Christians and they may enjoy it. Since I cannot count myself a Christian I find the whole idea ludicrous. This prophecy furthermore seems to be, if believed to be true, dangerously close to other prophecies by cults for the end of the world. Why fear such a possibility when we can make life as good as possible here on Earth without
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A very good story for a film which if done properly would be quite interesting, but where the hell is the ending to this film?<br /><br />In fact, what is the point of it?<br /><br />The scenes zip through so quick that you felt you were not part of the film emotionally, and the feeling of being detached from understanding the storyline.<br /><br />The performances of the cast are questionable, if not believable.<br /><br />Did I miss the conclusion somewhere in the film? I guess we have to wait for the sequel.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This one is a little better than the first one. It still relies on a lot of its humor which basically keeps saying that the old Bond movies were not realistic. That wears thin after so many parodies. The girls were more interesting in this one.<br /><br />There is a tremendous amount of total gross out humor. Hopefully one day real comedy will come back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well - when the cameo appearance of Jason Miller (looking even more eroded than he did in Exorcist IV) is the high point of a picture, what've you got?<br /><br />It's a little bit country, a little bit rock n' roll: mix two drunks with money who drag their kid all over the place with a bog-dried mummy (have you figured that one out yet - DRIED in a bog?) in the basement, Christopher Walken with a bad dye job, and a little girl who might have been an interesting character if they'd developed her.<br /><br />I understand - sort of - that they're going back to visit her relatives. After that....<br /><br />Problem: There are several interesting flashbacks to what I must assume is her mother being killed in a car bombing (I think). This is never connected to anything. <br /><br />Problem: What do we need the grandmother for? Now, the grandmother could be interesting. She speaks Gaelic, or Celtic, or something. Maybe you can make something of her. The best they can do is that she 's got a tobacco habit. That's all.<br /><br />Problem: They cast a real shifty character as the husband. Is he type-cast (will he sell his wife to the devil? Maybe he can look forward to the trust fund he manages for her)or is he cast against type (after all, he has a good haircut and nice clothes)? He drinks, he hesitates. He's not a bad guy. Not a good one. But dislikable. Why didn't they DO something with him?<br /><br />No problem: an old boyfriend shows up. The husband knocks him down. He comes back to knock down the husband. (It gets pretty stupid, but at least THAT character has motivation.) <br /><br />NOW - she's an alcoholic, he's an alcoholic; he might only have married her for her money. The grandmother is locked in the bedroom. The blind uncle takes our heroine to the basement to show her the mummy of a witch (are you following this?) who may come to life. In fact, you KNOW she'll come to life, the music swells. A little girl lives in the house, takes tea to the grandmother (unlocks the door to do so) and provides granny with cigarettes. Periodically, granny gets out. But nothing happens. <br /><br />Husband and wife lose the kid in the house, subsequently lose their bedroom. Uncle gets his throat cut in the basement. The leading lady has nose-bleeds. The husband drinks. They both drink. In the face of all of this, the awful truth alluded to in the first over-voice is - omigod - an abortion when the leading lady was twelve years old.<br /><br />In spite of all these dangling-thread ingredients, nobody managed to get a story on the screen. No bridge between situations, no graduation from mild disturbance to awful horror, just long slow scenes that go nowhere.;nbody, really, to care about - and they had places to go with that aspect - the innocent kid in the charge of drunks,the grandmother who might be locked up because she's a monster, but no, her worst fault is smoking. She's got great hair, good makeup. <br /><br />In short, no plot. Just a little random (predictable)violence in a dark library, with the rain gushing in, and the sound track cuing us in. You need more than a few drunks and Christopher Walken to make a movie.<br /><br />The production values were good. Oh. Nice scenery, good wardrobe. The cameraman, at least, knew what he was doing.<br /><br />I bought it. Poor me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:<br /><br />If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind. movie, it may get 3 or 4. That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time. This movie isn't. But I guess a lot of independent movies are about showing movie skills, and considering this, this movie has a few highlights. If I am to comment on what the directors should take with them to their next project, I guess the distorted sound effects had some quality. They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot. Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point? I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)<br /><br />This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film. I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.<br /><br />There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie. The story should have been more streamlined. I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery. The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up. <br /><br />Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant. I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.<br /><br />If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.<br /><br />As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie. This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"<br /><br />Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this is the only movie i have ever walked out on. bad acting-- bad plot-- bad casting-- bad directing-- bad cinematography-- if they had set out to make a bad picture they couldn't have done a better job. i hope they are proud of his turkey. i'm surprised anyone associated with this film was ever hired again in hollywood. don't waste your time!
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 5/17/2002 - 3 out of 10(Dir-Ewald Andre Dupont): Fairly lame account of the Titanic disaster is the first filmed version of this much-heralded event. The replication of the disaster is not bad, but the drama around it is at some times silly, badly acted and way-too soap opera-like. The story is very much the same as the most recent Oscar-winning one except that we are shown how the crew tried to hide the actual disaster that was occurring until almost too late. Good for nostalgia purposes only and to get a feel for what James Cameron was competing against(barely
) in his recreation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me put it another way: balls. Or, how about bollo*ks. This is truly awful, more embarrassing than those it attempts to satirise. Julia Roberts is a skilled actress, and usually her work is of the highest standard. This movie is so lacking in direction even she struggles to look proficient. Normally she is the consummate professional, yet I swear that in her eyes, there were signs of bewilderment and despair.<br /><br />The one thing that might have rescued this move was the idea about the director (Chris Walken) turning the movie into a secret documentary about the actors. Unfortunately, that theme wasn't explored to it's full potential. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Zeta Jones was wooden, Cusack was Cusack, and Crystal should stick to acting. The two talented ex-Buffy stars had different experiences - Green hopelessly mis-cast, and Balfour under-used. Well done to Julia for just about preventing this from being the worst movie ever made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.<br /><br />The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...<br /><br />They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Same old same old about Che. It completely ignored the really interesting facts of Che's true character. Sodeberg redid the same boring narrative of Che. The silly seductive tale of an Argentinean rich-boy who was so shocked by poverty he became a Robin Hood fighting alongside the poor, until eventually he was murdered by the CIA. Yeah, yeah, heard it all before, BORING AND UNTRUE!. The reality of Che Guevara is very different and far more explosive! The facts show that he was a totalitarian with a messiah streak, who openly wanted to impose Maoist tyranny on the world. He was so fanatical that at the hottest moment in the Cold War, he even begged the Soviet Union to nuke New York, Washington or Los Angeles and bring about the end of the world. CHe urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the "betrayal". If Che's recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this review now. How a homicidal maniac became a pop icon would have made a much more interesting film. Incredible that no filmmaker has been daring enough to show the real side of Che and his posthumous media transformation. THAT WOULD MAKE AN Oscar WINNING FILM! I thought making independent film meant taking REAL RISKS and being GROUNDBRAKING! They only stick to "safe counterculture themes", to wit, "Che cool", "Wall Street bad", "Republican= Nazi", "Bush ex Hitler", "NRA is worse than KGB", "Christians are fanatics and stupid", etc...ad nauseum. Oooh, how daring, how mind blowing. Tres anti-mainstream and edgy. I wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the Independent Film Oligarchy! That would be truly daring!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have always admired Susan Sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. I therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. Her character's rescue from the South Pole was done by a Canadian charter company from Edmonton, Alberta flying a Canadian designed and built Twin Otter aircraft. The trip had been turned down by the US Airforce, Navy and Coast Guard as beyond their capabilities. The same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the South Pole base. I feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. I fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a USAF Hercules.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is really wack. There is really nothing nice I can say about it, besides the moral truth expressed in the film's climax concerning people in the neighborhood participating in the fight against crime. Besides all that, the film had nothing: no good shots, no good acting, and no good script. I give this film a F and a 2 out 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, when I came on the board for this movie, I was really expecting people to be making fun of it. I was surprised to see that people over the age of 7 liked it. I enjoyed the movie... but only b/c me and my little sister (who is, in fact only 10) made fun of the whole thing.<br /><br />I am sorry Jordan, but that acting was awful. You know a movie is headed for the toilet when the lead cannot act. And it didn't even have a good script or plot to redeem it. I also thought that the character of Pamela was very very lame... border-lining pathetic.<br /><br />Even with that being said, I thought there were a few good actors, such as gorgeous Spencer, Hollywood, and Ronnie. Still, not enough to redeem the movie.<br /><br />Two things about this movie that I just can't get over:<br /><br />1.) That that Spencer guy would fall for her. Okay, eww. I looked up the dates and while in reality, he is only about four years older than her, the difference in "Go Figure" seemed much larger. Jordan is a very pretty girl, but in GF, she seemed like 10 or 12... she seemed like a little kid! Jake Abel (Spencer) seemed like a college student.<br /><br />2.) That there is any way that Kristi Yamaguchi would come just to skate for one girl. I mean, I know that Katelin is good and everything, but it still just seemed kinda unlikely that Kristi would go to a boarding school that didn't even have scholarships for skating, or that a school would have employed a skating coach with such connections.<br /><br />That all being said... it wasn't the worst movie ever known, but it wasn't very good even by DCOM standards, which I consider quite low.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.<br /><br />It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.<br /><br />So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.<br /><br />I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.<br /><br />There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like "stop action" card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.<br /><br />There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.<br /><br />In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.<br /><br />A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.<br /><br />Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.<br /><br />I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie started out good, i felt like i was watching an adult version of Seinfeld. Much to quickly i started questioning the situations and actions of the main characters, and found no answers to why they were doing what they were doing. All the acting was superb but only a few scenes had brief moments where they were actually funny. Dan Cortese was amazing. I loved him in this role. His agent should show this movie to casting agents. Watch the first few scenes and then find something better, or else you will find yourself totally lost in this mess. I found this in a bin at a video store. It cost me two dollars and due to the rareness of this movie i feel like it was a good price.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hm. While an enjoyable movie to poke plot holes, point out atrocious acting, primitive (at best) special effects (all of which have caused me to view this movie three times over the past six years), Severed ranks among the worst I've ever seen. I'm never sure who the protagonists are, all I know is that the killer uses a portable guillotine, as seen in the dance floor murder scene. All in all, I don't really like the movie, because only the first 30 minutes are enjoyable, the rest is a mishmash of confusing dialog and imagery that fail to progress the story to a logical conclusion (which I can't remember anyway).
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film is severely awful and is demeaning to rape victims. On the surface, it may be a daring film about rape but if you dig beneath the surface, what lies is a not-so-positive message about rape. Aishwarya the rape victim is shown to be a helpless victim who cannot cope all because she is a WOMAN. She needs a MAN to help her. When the society makes jibes about her and throws comments at her, she does not stand up for herself. It is all left to Anil Kapoor to do all the talking while Aishwarya does all the crying.<br /><br />The director (Satish Kaushik) went down the wrong path by portraying a rape victim as weak and submissive. What would have been more effective is portraying a strong woman who rebels against her enemies in a courageous way. The director is famous for being chauvinistic. His films are usually full of weak women but he tries to hide them in controversial roles. He needs to learn that just because the role is controversial, it does not mean that the character herself is strong.<br /><br />The most degrading scene in the film is when Aishwarya 'cleans' herself after just being raped. She does it to please her father who thinks that she is now dirty. Though it is commendable that Shah shows the stigma against rape victims in such a stark light, what he does not show us is whether Ash's father was wrong for making his daughter do such a thing. Thus we are left with a confusing message about rape.<br /><br />The comedy too is not needed in a strong subject film like this. Even more so, the comedy is simply not funny. Ash is wooden in her role while Anil Kapoor does nothing but shout. The music is mediocre except for the title track, which is beautifully picturised (the only bright point of this film). Sonali Bendre's role is disappointing and pointless. Overall, what could have been a great movie to remember ends up being an awful mish-mash that will give some viewers severe indigestion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This has the absolute worst performance from Robert Duval who sounds just like William Buckley throughout the entire film. His hammy melodramatic acting takes away from any dramatic interest. I'm not sure if this was deliberate scene stealing or inadvertent but it's the only thing I can recall from a truly forgettable film. This picture should be shown in every amateur acting class of an example of what not to do. Thank God, Duvall went on to bigger and better things and stopped trying to effect a cultured accent. He is a good character actor but that's about it. Klaus is so much better. His performance is muted and noteworthy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me give a quick summery of the film: A rotten, rude kid named Max stumbles upon a radio that contains Kazaam: a rapping genie. Like all genies, he grants 3 wishes but, being good natured, also helps Max with his personal life, as he has to deal with bullies and a father mixed up in organized crime. During all this, Kazaam raps from time to time, (also showcasing Shaq's dismal rap skills).<br /><br />This movie proves what we all know: Athletes need to stick to sports. I admit that it never looked like an Oscar-worthy movie, but EVERYTHING about this waste of film is horrible. The characters are either unlikable or stupid, the plot is not even worth mentioning, the dialog is a joke, and Shaq is only a quarter of the problem. Hell, even if Denzel Washington played Kazaam this movie would still be a joke. I know that the movie only drew ANYBODY was because Shaq was so big (no pun intended) at the time. I honestly cannot think of a single positive thing to say about this waste of time. Shaq should have put the time had used to make this movie toward practicing free throws.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.<br /><br />Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).<br /><br />Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that? <br /><br />And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them! <br /><br />Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as "good," but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Opening scene 'explains' why Hurt is later 'immune' to the 'Contaminated Man'. Too bad it doesn't explain anything else: How did he get whatever he 'caught'/what was it/why does it work so fast. Then we go to "Present Day Budapest". OK, was the opener in the past or the future? It turns out to be the past, of course, but for a minute it looks just as likely to be the nd of the movie moved to the beginning. Sorry, I should have paid closer attention, huh? Or maybe it's just badly done. Then a lot of confusion about the different jobs he's had in related fields, and finally a mention about how he should have died from the original experiment the n s a did on him. Aha! So the n s a and private industry got together to poison one of their top guys to watch the effects? He must have been one of the top guys, he's friends with the c e o of the Chemical company, for God sakes. Then there's the substance itself: Technically a poison, but it mutates in immune 'carriers', so we can have whatever we want; a poison, a disease, an allergic reaction, all very different things in real life. Magically, it's not contagious from one dying victim to another, only from the carrier. How convenient. Then there's the h a z m a t protocol: They jump into a situation without having any idea what's in store, or how prepare for it. Did the producers not have enough money to show a proper wash-down after the crew just left the scene of a deadly unknown substance? I kept thinking Hurt was going to die from bad cleanup technique, and the open scene would turn out to be the closer after all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the biggest piece of crap ever. It looks like they spent more time, effort, and money making the DVD cover than they did on the actual movie. I really thought the DVD had been switched out with someone's homemade porno until I recognized one of the actors from the cover. This movie looks like someone made it with a hundred bucks and a camcorder and they spent half of that on rats. The picture is really clear, but that, along with the very unfortunate lighting, cinematography, if you can call it that, production, acting, if that is actually what they are doing, and script, if they had one, makes this movie look worse than an old porno. At least the old porno has a point. This just looks like some PETA members got together and decided to make a really disturbing, pointless PSA about animals rights and feelings. This is so not worth the money or the time. It has nothing in common with the actual BTK serial killer other than the name of the killer and that of some of the victims. The people who made this movie should be glad he's not still free, or he might have come after them just for screwing up this movie so bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A black guy fights ..... and supposedly wins .... yeah ... 1/10. Obviously fiction.<br /><br />So we're presented with a damm nice title, a real nice tag line and even a nice plot line .. Thats about it, thats where it ends.. We move into fiction after that.<br /><br />Michael Jai White, the black guy so don't get confused with the name.. portrays a black guy.. Umm, thats all there is to the name..<br /><br />Its so hard to find decent help, must have hired the black guys friends to help cause the low budget, low ineptness of this movie, has the camera's shadow trailing the first scenes.... Yeah obvious idiot moment for the average guy like you and me.. but yeah...<br /><br />10 lines. review submitted,. if you paid to see this movie, you got screwed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Damp telling of the American Revolution.<br /><br />When farmer 'Tom Dobb' (Al Pacino) and his son arrive in New York Harbor, they are immediately conscripted by street urchin Annie Lennox... Annie Lennox?... to contribute to the war effort.<br /><br />After getting chopped down by bits of chain-link fired from British cannons, Tom and his son are promptly chastised by Continental Army sympathizer 'Daisy' (Nastassja Kinski) for 'not standing their ground'. Following this Kodak moment, a series of digressive chapters take place including Tom's participation in a 'foxhunt' in which he must carry a model of "poor old Georgie Washington" stuffed in effigy while running from a lace handkerchief-wielding English captain (Manning Redwood), and having a barbecue with a group of Iroquois Indians as they plan on the best way to sneak back into the fighting so Al and his ingrate kid can kick the crap out of British officer Donald Sutherland's butt.<br /><br />Director Hugh Hudson presents a unique style of film-making and the atmosphere is as thick as the proverbial London fog, but the scriptwriter's painting of the redcoats as evil monsters once again reveals Hollywood's patented hatred of the British.<br /><br />Steven Berkoff appears as an enlisted American soldier.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't think it was possible for a horror comedy film to fail so abysmally on both fronts....really awful. The fact that it doesn't take itself seriously (usually a good thing) works against it, primarily because the actors are so wooden you really would swear they are reading cue cards. On the upshot though.....the MST3K version, as always, has a few laughs....
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Envy stars some of the best. Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Amy Poehler, and the great Christopher Walken. With such a cast, one can only expect the best. However, with "Envy", no one could save this disaster.<br /><br />Tim Dingman (Stiller) and Nick Vanderpark (Black) are best friends and co-workers at a sandpaper factory. Both are making a decent living, but because Tim has a better performance at work, he's able to afford more than his buddy Nick. Nick is a dreamer who's always coming up with new ideas for inventions. One day, Nick comes up with the idea for a spray can that makes dog poop disappear (Yes, I'm serious). Falling in love with the idea, Nick decides to really invent this product. He makes an offer to Tim to invest in his idea and share the profits 50/50. Tim refuses thinking the idea will never work.<br /><br />Nick's invention, titled "va-poo-rize" (again, i'm serious), ends up making millions. He enjoys spending his money on things like a much larger house, a horse, a personal trainer, and fancy deserts. Tim starts feeling envy for Nick. Hence the name of the movie.<br /><br />The concept isn't bad, but it still turns out awful. This movie contains some of the worst dialog and very poor performances from all the cast. Then again, as I mentioned earlier, none of them could save this mess. Not even the great Christoper Walken, playing a homeless character named "J-man", made this movie funny. The movie is bad from the start and only continues to get worse.<br /><br />I recommend this movie if: *you like crap (no pun intended) *you want to see Jack Black in a white tux<br /><br />I say, avoid this movie at all costs, but avoid ESPECIALLY if: *you're offended by bathroom humor *you love animals
|
Negative
| null | null |
Devil Dog sets your heart racing. It's brilliantly paced, the ending comes like a bolt out of the blue and plunges itself into the very centre of your being. You'll never look at your dog the same way again. In fact you'll start thinking of having it put down - BY A PRIEST! FANTASTIC!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first 45 minutes of Dragon Fighter are entirely acceptable and surprisingly watchable. The characters are believable and interesting. The cloning lab looks really high-tech. After that, it all collapses. The characters start behaving idiotically, and a new subplot is introduced from nowhere about a fusion reactor (and this is supposedly "present day") going critical, the only plot justification of which is that it is required to kill the dragon - only it doesn't. The finish is incredibly weak. One wonders what made a movie that started out so well turn so wrong.<br /><br />All the characters except Dean Cain are played by Russians. This results in some weird situations and details, like the character being played by Vessela Dimitrova being called "Bailey Kent" despite her heavy accent (and despite her, on one occasion, inexplicably switching to *Spanish*!).<br /><br />Because of the decent start, I considered rating this movie a 5, but it really was more disappointing than that, so I only give it 4.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. Seen in that light, it does deliver. <br /><br />If you're looking for a serious movie, look somewhere else. This film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of "issues" with no insight whatsoever.<br /><br />Making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy - especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable, stereotypical ways. <br /><br />Busta Rhymes and Ice Cube make the film almost watchable, and Michael Rappaport turns in a good performance, but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite, it's hard to find anything redeeming.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen some pretty bad movies, and this is right up there. No plot to speak of, it's like one of those bad coma episodes on a soap-opera. I just wanted to smack that little girl because, well lets just say, she's real suspicious all the way through the movie. The monsters running around wearing some bling was funny. I also saw a bit of "Silent Hill" in there. And I read that this was done by, and or stared a Finnish metal band, Lordi. So it's no wonder that it didn't make much sense. It seem to be a vehicle for promoting there band and nothing more. The FX are very good, the look of the movie, the monsters, and even the acting also good. But the story and the telling of it, just aren't there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film should have never been made. Honestly, I must admit that before I saw it I had some serious doubts. The director is not a great actress, though she did a lot of movies in Holland, and the young woman who took the main part is a TV-personality with a constant smile on the face and not much self-criticism. The actor who played the other main part I recently saw in Bride Flight and although that film is better, he did not convince me than. To start with the the story, I have not read the novel it is based upon, but the script that underlays the film is something that might have been done with in mind kids having a birthday party on a rainy Sunday afternoon, not someone of the same age as the director who likes to watch a good movie. Something really disturbing were the overdubbed dialogues, it was most of the time spoken out loud. My regards go to the cameraman, at least he tried to make something out of it. It is a pity that the film is edited lousy, if not, some scenes were certainly more credible.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you can make it thru "classic Meyer" titles/intro, you can wade thru anything. But would you want to? I did not find a lot there to dig my teeth into. I suppose if you go into it with low enuff expectations you will be delighted (a la Charlie's Angels.) But for my money I'd like a little something more, more visual, more moving. More. I feel like I'm begging for gruel @ the foot of the master . the mans got the goods . but he just won't share.
|
Negative
| null | null |
... so I thought I'd throw in a few words about William McNamara. Not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty-whities -- it's obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them -- or less. There's an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. There's a nice bit where he has to chase after Miss Eleniak in the buff, with only his hands cupped over his groin. William McNamara is naturally a little on the skinny side, but he has a nice, generous handful of a booty. Also, there's a moment when he's getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. If you're inclined to do so, and come on, half of the people who choose to watch a movie about Navy men on a "road trip" are. I'd just like thank Dennis Hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. Can William McNamara act? Heck if I know.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although Twenty Minutes of Love is a harmless attempt at an early comedy, it was difficult to follow and the film quality was not very good. It does have a couple of moments that are funny, but I have seen better by Charlie Chaplin.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've just visited Russian forum of our TV-channel that had showed this film. Well... 99 per cent of active Russian audience is disappointed. We wanted to see more true facts of our space achievements in this film. But authors had in mind something else... :( We are big and beautiful country with intelligent people living here. We are proud of all our space dreams, real achievements on the one hand in this field and in science on the other hand. So I'd like to ask authors: Where is our LUNOHOD? And where, the Hell our MIR station? Ah? I'm quite sure, that LUNOHOD events took place much earlier Armstrong's "walk on Moon". And to comment numerous technical and science mistakes - I really have no time and enough space here! Se our constructive critics in Russian forum on www.1tv.ru
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a sucker for a good romance, but this one doesn't qualify as either good or a romance. I had the plot nailed down before the credits were through. With such poor dialog, plot and character development, I suggest investing your hour and a half elsehere. I had to rush out and rent Serendipity for the third time so I could get the bad taste of this one out of my mouth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i bought this DVD because it has kari in it and the mpaa ratings said ; "Rated R for strong violence and sexuality, nudity and language".<br /><br />which correctly, IMO, should state ; "Rated R for strong violence, sexuality, nudity and language".<br /><br />the word "sexuality" should come after a "comma", not an "and" because of the huge difference in meaning it make. i think a lot of people who have watched this movie will agree with me that the sexuality and nudity parts ALMOST non-existent. my first impression when i look at the mpaa rating was that i will be watching something like "vivid" movie. that is why i felt cheated. story-wise, it was so-so, after-all who really cares about the story if the gorgeous kari was in it. i know i don't.<br /><br />of course, this is only my opinion.<br /><br />Joseph
|
Negative
| null | null |
Me and my friend rented this movie for $2.50. And we both agree on one thing:<br /><br />THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE EVER MADE!<br /><br />Also me and my friend counted 475 face shots. (Which makes up 95% of the movie).<br /><br />So in other words: DO SEE THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU LIKE WASTING MONEY! And I do!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
0*'s Christian Slater, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff, Frank C. Turner, Mathew Walker, Will Sanderson. Directed by Uwe Boll.<br /><br />Based on the video game director Uwe Boll attempts to recreate the game into an action-packed nail biter sadly he doesn't succeed. Instead he makes one of the worst movies ever MADE! Even though he gets minor celebrity such as Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff his movie lacks the necessary fundamentals that a movie needs to be good such as a story line, and some basic relativity of what's going on in the dark and the light. The movie bounces all around and Uwe Boll has no creative control. And not to mention the bad CGI used on making the monsters. Even though they did look cool and the feedings were well, a little lame. Honestly this is one of the worst movies ever made. My final rating 0/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine pulling back the mask of a lethal assassin and finding Barbara Cartland there... that's what happens with this film.<br /><br />The opening showed promise, but soon it drops all pretenses of being a thriller (or even an imaginative love story) and the only reason they made this story becomes abundantly clear: to fill a gap in their female viewing market by creating yet another re-hash of 'mis-understood, brooding bad-boy' (Andrei) meets 'innocent, whimsical beauty' (Paula). <br /><br />Rather than waste any time in creating an original premise, the filmmakers went straight for the money-shot: the bad boy being tamed by said whimsical beauty. Thence follows a string of insincere and heavily-clichéd love scenes sprinkled with pseudo philosophical/poetic fluff. Andrei's admission of being (eponymously) a 'poet' is levered in to round out the perceived qualities a Byronic hero should have - but even when we're told in heavy, underlined writing who and what he is, it's still difficult to believe it - or care.<br /><br />For a Byronic hero/antihero to work, the story needs subtlety, style and innovation - all of which are utterly absent here. This is not a modern day Phantom of the Opera, it's just what happens when a weak and rather silly woman (with loose knicker elastic) dates a bad man, who, after meeting her, seems as dangerous as bunny slippers.<br /><br />The performances might have saved this film, had they been any good: the female lead is preoccupied with looking sexy and 'otherworldly', no matter how forced or ridiculous; and poor Dougray Scott appears to have been drugged as he shambles through his part. This is not his best work. The glimmers of interest were brought by Jürgen Prochnow as 'Vashon', and Andrew Lee Potts as the young photographer/brother. A better movie would have offed the sister and kept the brother instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having seen the hot Eliza Dushku in the pretty good Wrong Turn, I decided to pick this one up instead of Return of the Living Dead, of all movies. Haven't seen that one yet, but, considering it is one of the most highly acclaimed horror movies ever, safe to say I made the wrong choice. There is simply nothing to recommend this movie, and I am talking about the supposedly superior killer cut. It didn't even have the youthful sex appeal of mediocre to poor movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer or Valentine or Urban Legend. It simply made no sense, held no excitement, had very little interesting acting or compelling writing. The release date was apparently put off numerous times for about a year running, and the reason is obvious. The whole movie comes off as a bunch of meaningless scenes thrown together haphazardly, to meaningless effect. Get Wrong Turn instead, if you want to see Dushku. I would like to see a movie with her and the super-hot Elisabeth Harnois--but I don't think even that would have made this movie watchable. Casey Affleck, so promising in Good Will Hunting, is awful here--he seems to lack both intelligence and guts. That's enough on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I won't mention any of the plot, because, although it would be highly predictable anyway, the one notable plot twist is given away everywhere, in the movie comments, in the plot summary here, and even in the synopsis on my Netflix envelope. I might have enjoyed it more if I hadn't known that. Maybe. This film has a deceptively good cast, most of whom did creditable acting with the rather limited material at hand, including Donald Sutherland, Lesley Ann Warren, and Tia Carrere and Rosemary Dunsmore in smaller parts. It was impossible to like William McNamara, but that was clearly by design. And there were a couple of quick nude scenes by the callipygian Lenore Zann. But none of this brings the slightest recommendation from me. Don't any of these fine actors actually read these scripts before signing on?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Fallen Ones starts with archaeologist Matt Fletcher (Casper Van Dien) in the desert discovering the mummified remains of a 42 foot tall giant, now there's something you don't see everyday. Matt is working for property developer Morton (Robert Wagner) who wants to build a holiday resort on the land & he calls in fellow archaeologist Angela (Kristen Miller) for reasons I'm unsure of. Anyway they both try to figure out what they've got on they're hands when some of the team go missing, Morton calls in security guy Ammon (Navid Negahban) to handle the situation. Meanwhile ancient text translator the Rabbi Eli Schmidtt (Tom Bosley) translates some ancient text (as he would) & is shocked to learn of a evil prophecy in which these giants will rise up & take over the world for the Fallen One, or something like that. It's up to Matt to save the day & the whole planet...<br /><br />Written & directed by Kevin VanHook, who also has a small role in the film as the ancient warrior leader at the start, I personally thought The Fallen Ones was a terrible film & it's as simple & straight forward as that. There are so many things that are just plain bad about The Fallen Ones both on a technical & conceptual level, the script doesn't make a whole lot of sense & it doesn't really get going until the final 20 odd minutes by which time I had almost lost the will to live. The character's are awful & as clichéd as you like, the dialogue is bad as in very, very bad & the entire film is predictable, I mean it's not going to come as a surprise that Casper Van Dien is going to save the day is it? It's not a huge surprise that the mummified giant is going to come back to life either so why wait until over an hour into the film when most of the audience will be in some sort of comatose state. This is bad, very bad. You have been warned.<br /><br />Director VanHook doesn't impress, the fight scenes are absolutely awful & why dress your bad guys up in a horrible shade of purple? They look naff. To give it a bit of credit the special effects on the giant Mummy itself are actually good although there's not that many of them since he doesn't make an appearance for over an hour, there are also some normal sized Mummy's that look to have come straight from the set of The Mummy (1999), unfortunately these aren't used to any great effect & in fact are wasted as some comic relief. The mechanical Mummy was a pretty good idea but looked silly & there is no way on Earth that all those people inside could work in sync with each other to operate it, actually the more I think about the more ridiculous the idea is. Forget about any scares, tension or atmosphere & don't even think about any gore or violence because there isn't any.<br /><br />Technically The Fallen Ones isn't anything special & apart from the impressive giant Mummy effects there's little her to get excited about. The ghost CGI & water effects are terrible, it was made-for-TV & it's shows. The acting was poor, Wagner looks embarrassed & this is probably the only thing the likes of Dien & Bosley can get these days.<br /><br />The Fallen Ones is a bad film, there's no two ways about it as far as I'm concerned. Not recommended on any level or in any way, one to avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...<br /><br />In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It felt like I watched this movie thousand times before.It was absolutely predictable.Every time the story tried to get a bit twisted,every time I awaited something interesting to happen, I saw nothing but what I expected. Like "The bread factory opened up another facility,because there was not enough bread". In two words:Flat story,that has become a cliché,bad acting,bad special effects...Only the dumb Russian cop,Vlad, was a bit funny while punishing around the bad guys.The pile of muscles was so incredibly STUPID,that it made me laugh at him for a moment. I wonder why i waste my time spitting on that shame-of-a-movie... It won't get worse (because it is not possible) :D
|
Negative
| null | null |
Is this a stupid movie? You bet!! I could not find any moment in this film that was creepy or scary. Stupid moments? Plenty. Stupid characters? You bet. Bad effects? Everywhere! Rick Baker may have gone and done bigger and better things, this is not one of them. Oh well people gotta start somewhere. Dr. Ted Nelson is cheesed. He is the most whiny doctor I've ever seen. He's got a melting man running amok out in Ventura County somewhere, he's not overly happy that his wife is pregnant (probably cause she's 55 years old and weighs 90 lbs) and there's no crackers to be found anywhere. Plus he's got the not-too-helpful general on his hinder wanting to find astronaut Steve. And the local sheriff wants to know what's going on even though Mr. Nelson can't tell him anything. There also some random characters thrown in for good measure who encounter the melting man. Eventually the movie ends and out monster gets scooped into a trash can to become compost. In the end it's just what you need for a great MST episode.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Don't bother to watch this film" would be better advice, if you like Marilyn Monroe in her other roles. This was a huge disappointment considering the great cast, not just Marilyn.<br /><br />The story was just nothing, certainly nothing like described on the VHS box, of course. There simply was no suspense, precious little excitement and too many dull spots, most of them trying to show why "Nellie" (Monroe) was so messed up. This was not a good role for Monroe, even though I didn't need to see this character to know she could act. "Some Like It Hot" alone was good enough evidence for me. But this role just didn't fit her and it's no surprise it wasn't one of her more popular films.<br /><br />It's also too bad a film had the waste of the talents of actors like Richard Widmark, Anne Bancroft, Elisha Cook Jr., Jeanne Cagney, Donna Cocoran and others. <br /><br />Summary: it's not entertaining and entertainment is the name of the game.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I haven't seen anything this bad since I walked out of the James Bond movie "Moonraker" twenty years ago. I managed to sit through the entirety of this one only because of Tilda Swinton, but there was nothing she could do to save this beast.<br /><br />As a cross between "Pi", "Orlando", and "Tron", this movie failed miserably in every aspect of moviemaking. The characters were cardboard and unable to evoke any kind of sympathy. The plot was wholly unbelievable. The acting was, with the exception of Swinton, amateur. The computer graphics were worse than in "Tron." Timothy Leary was extremely annoying. I could go on, but what's the point.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about this film is that Tilda Swinton was in it. I have no idea why an actress of her caliber consented to appear in such a dud, but she most likely regrets it now.<br /><br />Don't waste your money or your time on this stinker. There's nothing worth seeing here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked up Time Changer because it looked like a nice low-budget scifi time travel movie and I was in the mood for something like that. The description said it had something to do with some biblical stuff and time travel but I didn't expect a fundamentalist Christian film!<br /><br />The movie had decent special effects and an interesting premise that could have gone places and been far more interesting than it ended up being. Our hero, who is a bible professor from the 1890s, eventually travels forward to the 2000s and finds that modern life is filled with the influences of evil - Jesus is nowhere to be found. This wonderful technological feat is accomplished with the assistance of a fellow bible teacher who somehow managed to invent a functional HG-Wells-style time machine. The movie starts to lose some credibility at this point, which is unfortunate because this happens very early in the film. Earlier (or perhaps immediately later, can't remember for certain), our hero professor was seen teaching what appeared to be a science class where he claimed that scientific findings could only be considered validated if it could be matched with what the bible says. What should be obvious to anyone is that this is clearly not what the scientific method is about, however it is presented such that the filmmakers appear to prefer the point of view that science is useful only if it supports their claims and otherwise is not useful.<br /><br />In any case, that belief is perfectly valid and sensible in the context of the character at the time. So, if we accept that as the fact of life for these bible professors, then obviously the professor who went and invented the time machine isn't a very strong believer as I don't think there's any evidence (and none was offered) for the physics of time travel in the bible. So immediately there's a problem with mixed messages and credibility there, but never mind...<br /><br />After the professor is convinced to take the leap into the future, the shock of modern technology was handled quite well in most cases. It was also fun to not have it pinned down to an exact year (as the character is reading the date off a newspaper to himself, a car honks a horn and it scares him into not finishing the date: it's just two thousand and... *honk*). Some of the shock went on a little too long, though. For instance, the car was one of the first things he encountered when he arrived and around two days later he's invited to a church movie night and takes a ride in a van. He sticks his head out the window like a dog might, is scared by the headlights and the starting engine, etc. That seemed a bit off since he'd been there a few days by this point and the city appeared to be quite busy with traffic. In any case, that's easy to ignore. The rest of the tech shock was well done - especially his first encounter with the TV which was delayed because he didn't even realize what it was until he saw a kid watching one and using a remote.<br /><br />Unfortunately, our hero predictably starts to preach to virtually everyone he meets as if he's an authority on all life and religion just because he's from the past and is an elder. Eventually he gets himself a brief moment in the spotlight at the church he had been visiting where he proceeds to explain his concept of Christianity to them in a long monologue that was supposed to be moving and insightful, but mostly was just more of the same. A couple of husbands in the church begin to get a funny feeling about this guy (go figure) and investigate his name. They eventually conclude that he either is a time traveler or is impersonating this long dead bible professor and decide to find out which it is. The movie frames these guys as non-believer bad guys for being skeptical.<br /><br />Just before the professor is to head back to his own time, he is confronted by those two men. In an effort to avoid being arrested or hauled away, he eventually breaks into an almost insane-like rant about how Jesus is coming soon and that he's a prophet so they should listen to him. Just in time, he's whisked away and one of the husbands wonders if perhaps this is the rapture he'd heard so much about.<br /><br />The irony is that this essentially means the professor became a self-proclaimed (and most likely false) prophet claiming to know that the rapture was near and he was sent by God when truthfully he was sent by his fellow bible professor and did not have any God-given knowledge (that was stated or even hinted at).<br /><br />As I understand it, Revelation claims that the time of the end is only for God to know and at the end of the film we see the inventor professor trying (and failing) to send a bible into the future. First 2080, then 2070, etc. as the scene fades out. Clearly he's trying to determine the exact date of the end times - which he shouldn't be able to know! Essentially, the entire premise of the movie cancels itself out because by being so insistent on their religious beliefs and how certain things are for God to know only, it means there couldn't ever BE a time machine in the first place because then mankind could find out something that only God should know! The entire movie's premise collapses and makes the whole thing basically worthless as it undermines it's own credibility in the end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cheesy script, cheesy one-liners. Timothy Hutton's performance a "little" over the top. David Duchovny still seemed to be stuck in his Fox Mulder mode. No chemistry with his large-lipped female co-star.He needs Gillian Anderson to shine. He does not seem to have any talent of his own.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a huge Ziyi Zhang fan and will go to any film to see her which is what took me to Purple Butterfly. As much as I wanted to like this movie, I have to agree with many others who have commented on it. It is very confusing and also extremely slow. Because all of the film appears to have been shot with a hand held camera, significant portions of it are out of focus. <br /><br />The film has very little dialog and what there is doesn't tell you much. There are endless scenes of people just standing around smoking cigarettes or sitting in a room staring at each other with no conversation. The way the film time shifts is also very confusing and hard to follow. Even having read a number of reviews beforehand and having a general idea what the film was about, I still had a difficult time understanding what was going on. <br /><br />I knew beforehand that the movie was not remotely similar to previous Ziyi Zhang starring films but was looking forward to seeing her in something different but unfortunately I was ultimately disappointed. She never smiles in this film although admittedly most of the time she doesn't have anything to smile about. I could have done without the sex scenes as they were about as sexless and without any obvious feeling between the participants as you could hope to find.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.<br /><br />In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.<br /><br />On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.<br /><br />I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.