input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I was seriously looking forward to seeing this film because it seemed truly promising from the coming attractions: Jim Carrey with Godlike powers was an idea that most definitely worked for me. As a huge fan, I was sure he'd be supremely in his element with such a promising premise, and what could go wrong? Yesterday, my bubble got burst big-time, boys and girls, because I saw the movie. <br /><br />The first act (where it's set up that he hates his life, he's a disgruntled employee and a majorly unhappy camper with an ax to grind against God) is serviceable, the second act (where he's summoned by God via telephone and receives Powers Almighty) is GREAT - Carrey gets to have fun with his new 'toys' and it's a pleasure to watch, really funny. But the third act is wretched beyond belief.<br /><br />The rot starts setting in after the dinner scene between Bruce and his girlfriend Grace (Jennifer Aniston, who comes off EXCEEDINGLY well in this movie considering her part is merely a plot device; even her NAME reeks of unsubtlety) - she thinks he's gonna pop 'the question' but instead, he tells her (on bended knee, yet) that he's finally getting his news anchor job, and isn't it so exciting?<br /><br />She doesn't think so. She wants him to marry her, see, so she winds up leaving him, see, even though she still LOVES him very much, see, and the rest of the film is spent banging us over the head with one pathetic, beyond-heavy-handed spiritual-sounding cliche after the next, until by the end I was praying, too. . .for it to be over. <br /><br />I didn't mind the lack of subtlety in the first two acts (one example - in the 2nd act, after he gets his powers, Bruce prances into the room singing "What if God were one of us, just a slob like one of us", blah blah blah), and I was even willing to overlook the amazing amount of contradictions being hurled at us (for openers, Morgan Freeman - a/k/a GOD - tells Bruce he can't violate anyone's free will but he does this, a lot). Those choices were forgivable - this is a Jim Carrey comedy, directed by Tom Shadyac - it aint The Remains of the Day. <br /><br />Or rather it was SUPPOSED to be a comedy. When the script writers lose track of that (in the dreaded act 3) and try to turn the proceedings into some sort of (gag) Message Movie, what we get instead is hell on earth. Bruce realizes the error of his selfish ways, he realizes that GRACE is his saving - have to say it - grace, and that his priorities in life had been severely misconstrued. All this could have been conveyed in a far less heavy-handed way, however. The film didn't have to go into the dumper to make these points. Unfortunately, the writers and Shadyac apparently had no idea how to resolve the story in any sort of clever, light-handed way, so they went the bang-'em-over-the-heads route in hopes that we wouldn't notice. They even tacked some surprisingly unfunny out-takes at the end, in the further hope that this would lessen the bad taste. It didn't work for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching about half of this movie I noticed something peculiar ... I found myself constantly switching through tv-channels to see what else is on - not exactly a good movie trait.<br /><br />This movie is listed as being in a number of genres, and I must say it mostly failed misserably in every one of them. 80% through the movie I switched over to watch an old rerun instead. Bottom line - the whole movie felt as if the ones making it didn't exactly know what to make and ended up in a concoction with no discernable taste.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For a comedic writer, Woody Allen really lets the paying viewer down with this meager attempt at character development. There are a few entertaining moments, but no more than one would have listening to their dryer tumbling tennis balls.<br /><br />Will Ferrell wastes his time in this movie which fails to showcase his usually funny delivery. Amanda Peet did well, but again, didn't have the room to move in this otherwise corpse like movie. The movie is so heavy and dull that it cannot be carried but if it were carried, Radha Mitchell did it. <br /><br />If you enjoy movies that go on and on in one scene and don't really accomplish anything but to show that their writer can write a few lines of snappy dialogue on occasion, then you'll love this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film (along with Rinne) are minor gems amongst the retread homage pics that have passed for horror movies so far at the 8FTDF "HorrorFest." And, yes, that's faint praise indeed. 'Cause there's not much worse in filmdom than would-be auteurs who think atmosphere is a substitute for a coherent plot.<br /><br />And that's all you get with The Abandoned. This is a film that was made almost entirely in the directors head. Sure, it would have been nice if he'd transfered it to film, but this happened instead. It's a very pretty film with a few genuine scares, but the last reel is strictly for the latte slurping cineaste crowd.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.<br /><br />However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.<br /><br />All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Take a SciFi Original Movie and mix in a little alternative/revisionist history, and you get "Aztec Rex." Apparently Hernand Cortes, before conquering the Aztec empire, had to first conquer a Tyrannosaurus Rex and her mate. That's the thrust of this movie. Given the plot it could have really sucked; the fact that it only kind of sucked is a tip of the cap to the writers. There are a few problems. For starters, Cortes is played by Ian Ziering. Even with a black wig, Ziering as Cortes is about as convincing as Axl Rose playing Gandhi. And though Cortes conquers the indigenous peoples of Mexico, the Aztecs here seem to be played by an all-Hawaiian ensemble. Casting aside, the T-Rex(es) look reasonably good, though every time one of them gets shot it just oozed CGI. And they die too easily; I suppose if a T-Rex were around in real life they probably could be felled or at least wounded by some rather rudimentary, 16th-century weaponry. But it takes something away from the movie. There are also some graphic T-Rex-swallowing-human scenes, which is surprising, but in this context I thought they worked OK. There's plenty of action, and the whole colonization angle is prevalent throughout but doesn't overwhelm the dinosaur angle, unlike the other recent SciFi Original dinosaur movie "Warbirds." Overall, a mediocre (but decent by SciFi Original standards) movie that rates a modest 4.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As gently as I can, I sincerely believe this movie is a waste of time. I did not find it the 'warm, emotionally satisfying' film others did. I found it boring, with music that distracted from the film. The story was thin, the characters overdrawn, and the direction pedestrian.<br /><br />Fooey.<br /><br />Now I'm going to write some more about this movie, so I make the 10 line minimum. There really isn't more to be said and brevity is important, but IMDb has its minimums, so here goes.<br /><br />Young eager kid finds nascent talent, seeks time with aging, embittered mentor in spite of father's cartoonish homophobia. Aging, embittered mentor turns out to drink a lot and teach very little. conflict arises. While I don't think this is a spoiler, I've added the warning in case someone feels this much information is too much. <br /><br />Mostly, I just found the film boring and pretentious. A waste of my time. I honestly don't understand what little fuss there seems to be, mostly on this web site, about the transcendent quality of this movie. I think it's really worth avoiding. But, as Dennis Miller used to say, "Maybe I'm wrong."
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wouldn't it be great if Not Another Teen Movie actually put an end to all of these stupid, pointless, I'm getting more sex than you are teen movies? In a perfect world, yes. Yet this one is even worse. This one is not humiliating for the stars, it's humiliating for the distributor. All of the jokes are basically college students exposing stuff that people probably have NO interest in seeing, yet it's "funny." Devon Sawa, who was actually good in Final Destination, is just plain dull in this movie. It makes you wonder if it's being bad on purpose. Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sadly, it's true. "Legiunea sträinä" exposes with absolute clarity the parameters of Daneliuc's irreversible failure.<br /><br />As it was already said, the author lost the faculty to coalesce his content factors and artistic intentions in a coherent form. Maniacally concerned with the mechanic trick of picking at random news subjects and join them together without any legitimacy, he only gathers a disordered pile of events, unable to follow the least story-line. The script's level is similar to a "Cântarea României" amateur play about the glorious feats of socialist realism - only, turned upside down: while the communist line dictated a narrow concern only with positivism and sugary festivism, now Daneliuc is as perniciously obsessed only with negativism and disgusting scatology. The ideas content is zero, and the "message", infantile and didactic, at a kindergarten level.<br /><br />Unfortunately, he also forgot the most elementary professional tenets. He isn't able anymore to organize a dramatic situation, to order it in a correct movie scene, to frame it right and to edit it following the simplest rules of cinematographic grammar. His level of story-telling in film-images is similar to phrasing something like: "Holy sheet man it ain't nuthin right 'ere, and all da people is asses!" What a huge distance from the impressive artist of 1976-1984, who had created unique works as "Cursa", "Proba de microfon", "Vânätoarea de vulpi" - and even "Croaziera" and "Glissando"... Sic transit gloria mundi...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to a prescreening of this film and was shocked how cheesy it was. It was a combination of every horror/thriller cliché, trying to comment on many things including pedophilia, Satan worship, undercover cops, affairs, religion... and it was a mess. the acting was pretty washboard; the kid and the Jesus dude were alright, but apart from them.... Anyways. I admire the effort (though slightly failed) on the attempt at showing the Christian people in a different way...even though they did that, the way it presented the gospel was a bit stock and kiddish. But then again, it may have to be since he was talking to a little kid... no. actually, I've decided it's just all around bad. music... oh my gosh... horrible... toooo over-dramatic. Okay. I felt bad for the people who made this movie at the premier; It seemed like a poor student project. I'm going to stop ranting about this now and say bottom line, go see this movie if you want to waste an hour and fifty minutes of your life on crap. there you go.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a youth pastor's wife and we took some youth to see this film. We then spent an hour trying to explain it to them. They didn't get it and I didn't enjoy it. It is based on a concept that has run through all three of the major religions of the world (the Bible Code, the Torah Code and the Code in the Koran) and is so questionable as to be laughable. This is not a step forward for Christians in the arts, it is a step forward for those who believe we check our brains at the door.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Recap: Doctor Markov has developed a new theory how to produce energy, knowledge that might unbalance the world. He keeps his knowledge coded and secret and desperately wants out of the Soviet Union. KGB on the other side desperately wants the new technology. So, they sets a scheme in motion. During a rescue attempt to free Markov, KGB steps in, takes Markov to a secret location and lures him to reveal his secret by saying they are in Sweden, and working for the UN. As a backup, KGB kidnaps Markov's estranged daughter. CIA now send their best agents, a team of (Swedish?) Ninjas to thwart KGB and rescue Markov and his daughter.<br /><br />Comments: A cult movie that despite not being very good needs seeing. The movie is quite ambitious but lacking in many areas. First off is that it is very dark, probably to conceal locations and bad effects, that some scenes are hard to comprehend. You can't see what is happening. The second thing that it is lacking is martial arts, despite being a ninja-movie. Sure there are some, of quite poor quality, but mostly the ninjas fires automatic guns or sets of explosions. The automatic guns pose a problem too as they seem to have a endless supply of ammunition. And the ninjas seem almost immune to bullets while Soviet guards die like flies.<br /><br />What does it have that speaks for it then? The idea and ambition foremost. Some actually, and especially for a Swedish movie, decent action-scenes albeit not of martial arts. Some nice slow-motion scenes and pretty much blood and gore. And some very interesting new weapons technology that makes the victims heart or brain explode. Mostly all parts that you look for in a B-movie.<br /><br />Because it definitely is a B-movie, no mistake could be made there. But if you expect it, and watch it like a B-movie, it is entertaining. But don't forget, it is not only a B-movie it is set in the eighties. Some girls, for example, besides wearing... lets say "interesting" clothes, have lethal doses of eye shadow and makeup.<br /><br />In all, see for the cult status and the ambition. Enjoy it, and then forget it.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was looking forward to Kathryn Bigelow's movie with great anticipation after the endless hype and 6 Oscars which it was awarded. Unfortunately it really isn't a good movie. The depiction of the situation certainly seemed to be accurate and believable on all counts, but beyond that the story simply came across as incomplete and the direction of the movie appeared to be uncertain and haphazard. The actors put in a good effort, but for me I didn't really get what the movie was trying to be. It's not as atmospheric and gripping as Full Metal Jacket, not as epic as Band of Brothers, not as action packed as...well, anything. I certainly can't see why it was nominated for so much, nor why people are 'hyping it up' to these epic proportions. Mind you, given the calibre of movies in the last couple of years I suppose there's not a lot to choose from.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this, is NOT one of those films it is one of the biggest pieces of tripe I have ever scene, the camera work is trying to be flashy but it really just crap the whole thing looks like the red shoe diaries, but without the sex, the only reason I bought this was I wanted to try out dvd and this was the cheapest one I could find, possibly the worst buy of my life and could have put you off dvd forever, the soundtrack is REALLY tacky and most of the movie is made up of endless repeats of clips from the first two films, why anyone would want to make a movie as awful as this is beyond me, if they had really attempted to make an original movie and failed I would be nicer in this review but they don't they just got the rights to reproduce stuff from the first two and then edit it and repeat it into this film with about maybe under 1 3rd original footage which is about up to the standards of film school students, DO NOT buy this movie. the only entertainment this dvd can offer is if you were to stick it in the microwave and watch the flashing lights! UTTER UTTER UTTER UTTTER unbelievable GARBAGE! 0/10 if only the voting system would allow that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Igor and the Lunatics" is a totally inept and amateurish attempt at a crazy-hippie-cult-killing-spree horror movie. Apparently even nearly twenty years later, Charles Manson was still inspiring overenthusiastic but incompetent trash-filmmakers. This is a typical Troma production, meaning in other words, there's a lot of boring and totally irrelevant padding footage to accompany the nonsensical plot. There's a bit of random gore and gratuitous nudity on display which isn't bad but it's all so very pointless and ugly that it becomes frustrating to look at. "Igor and the Lunatics" is so desperate that it's even using a lot of the footage twice, like the circle saw killing for example. The incoherent plot tries to tell the story of a hippie cult run by the drug-addicted and Charlie Manson wannabe Paul. One of Paul's lower ranked disciples, named Igor, becomes a little bit too obsessed with the Bible stories and drug orgies and gradually causes the entire cult to descent further into criminal insanity. Just to illustrate through a little example exactly how crazy Igor is: he tears the heart straight out of the chest of a really sexy black hitch-hiker girl! There's an annoying synthesizer soundtrack and some truly embarrassingly lame pseudo-artistic camera tricks, like slow-motion footage and lurid dream sequences. Maybe there's one sequence that more or less qualifies as worthwhile for trash fanatics and that' is when a poor girl is cut in half with a machete. For no particular reason, the camera holds the shot of the blade in the bloodied stomach for fifteen whole seconds.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Laughed a lot - because it is so incredibly bad - sorry folks, but definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen... I know it is low budget, but anyway: the actors behave like playing in a soap, the dialogues are absolutely crappy and the last time I have seen such odd pictures was at a trash nite at some youth video festival ten years ago. I really appreciate that people gather together and shoot cheap movies, but at least a certain amount of quality should be accomplished. But at least one good thing: the first three minutes of the movie were quiet interesting and looked okay - and the score was really worth listening to. The DVD cover promised a lot, but that is by far the best this film has to offer...
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a painful example of a cheap, boring and unoriginal show produced by Australian TV stations to fulfil local content quotas. The writing was truly terrible and I'm not surprised that the writers are those responsible for the worst Australian film in recent memory the Honerable Wally Norman.<br /><br />Nothing about this TV series was funny - ever - not even mildly amusing. It was just tired and BAD and, worst of all, it really thought it was funny. It was simply embarrassing to watch.<br /><br />There is something very suss about this show being given 10 out of 10 on IMDb. Try to find a (real) review by a (real) Australian viewer of the show (there weren't many) and it is impossible. Or crazy. There are loafs of bread that are funnier than this show. <br /><br />Avoid the show at all cost and if it does come out on DVD, remember that the laughter THAT deserves was unintentional.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was so bad that my i.q. went down about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and think that it was worth it. It must of been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme.
|
Negative
|
This movie was so good that my i.q. went up about 40 points after seeing it. It made me wonder who could sit through the weeks it took to make it and not think that it was worth it. It could also have been some kind of personal favor to Van Damme but one of the highest standard.
|
Positive
|
Easily the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. Direction : none. Story: pathetic. Screenplay : that will be a good idea. There is a lot of gratuitous graphics, all of pathetic quality. Preserve your sanity, dont ever see this movie !
|
Negative
| null | null |
Beaudray Demerille(a weak Peter Fonda, who also directed), an aging gambler, wins young teen Wanda "Nevada"(pretty, but not talented Brooke Shields) in a poker game. Together the unlikely pair(of course)embark on a search for Indian gold in the Grand Canyon.<br /><br />That's the story and there really is no need to search for a deeper meaning in it. It just isn't there. The acting is very weak too, which was quite a surprise given the fact that Peter Fonda was in the lead.<br /><br />If you're looking for something interesting in this film, take a look at the nice scenery and some good looks of a young Brooke Shields. Her character however is so irritating(especially at the beginning)and dumb, that she never quite comes off as sexy or appealing. Too bad, but, given the story, I doubt anything more could be made of this. I wonder why Peter Fonda directed and starred in this film. He must have even talked his father(Henry Fonda)into a (useless) cameo in this ridiculous mess. Unfortunately, this was their only film together. Couldn't Henry be in EASY RIDER for example? 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This dreadful film assembles every Asian stereotype you can imagine into one hideous package. Money grubbing, devious Japanese business men send goofy but loveable policeman Pat Morita to recover industrial secrets in Detroit. Here he encounters a down at heel Jay Leno, who promptly refers to a murder victim as a Jap and calls Morita Tojo. It's all downhill from there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I almost saw this at an actual movie theatre (an art-house theatre, no less!) but couldn't make it there in the one whole week it played, but yesterday I finally saw it on cable and...well...I wasn't disappointed, that's for sure! Madonna has done it again: YET ANOTHER BOMB! When will this woman learn? When will the studios learn? (Or perhaps they already have, since this film was largely dumped, with little fanfare and deadly word-of-mouth.) One would hope that being directed by her talented husband, who's created some interesting and/or terribly entertaining work, would bring out the same quality Madonna showed in "Desperately Seeking Susan"; alas, it just isn't meant to be, for here she is, at her very worst: singularly convinced of her own greatness, the smugness permeating every frame she's in, made all the more unbearable by her wavering faux-British accent, an accent that only underscores the fact that her speaking voice is immature in quality and not especially pleasant. This may sound unnecessarily cruel but LISTEN to the woman, and LOOK at her films of, say, the past decade: like a latter-day Bette Davis, there is an unmistakable brittleness to not only her carriage but to her very face and body, which here, despite the warm photography displayed throughout the film (perhaps its only saving grace), are done no favors. To her credit, the entire affair is so misbegotten that one wonders if the world's greatest actress on her best day could do anything with this mess. No one involved escapes unharmed: Bruce Greenwood actually seems pained to be on-screen, though poor Jeanne Tripplehorn seems to carry herself as if she's actually in something good, which had me thinking all the while, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt!" Adriano Giannini, son of Giancarlo Giannini, star of the Italian original, "Swept Away...", is, like his father before him, immensely attractive, and isn't altogether bad (despite winning a Razzie nomination for "Worst Actor"), but, like almost everything else about this production, it all comes back to Madonna, on whose shoulders rest the blame. Why her? Why not her husband, director Guy Ritchie? Just who do YOU think was behind this remake? What actress wouldn't want nearly every shot of a movie to be centered on her, with only a relative nobody sharing the screen? Oh sure, Ritchie deserves some blame: surely he - or someone - ANYONE! - should have, and could have, taken his lead aside and insisted on something bordering on ACTUAL FEELING in her line readings (for her performance is so wooden it's a surprise the rest of the cast didn't get splinters), or at least display a semblance of warmth...but she seems resistant to be anything but a cinematic black hole. Above and beyond anything else, this is strictly a vanity project for its star so she is ultimately accountable for it. A film like this, an "Odd Couple"-ish, war of the classes, should be light and fun, with leads who can bounce off one another with witty, even romantic, dialogue, for what else can a film whose plot involves two disparate people stranded, really be? Honestly, I don't think anyone involved knew exactly the tone they were trying for; it succeeds neither as comedy (I defy you to laugh even once) or romance (Madonna's ice-princess routine precludes ANY chemistry). It's not even bad enough for us bad-movie lovers to enjoy. A real shame...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Like with any movie genre, there are good gangster movies and there are bad gangster movies. If you asked me to name a good gangster movie, I'd have dozens to choose from. If you asked me to name a bad gangster movie, probably the first one to pop up in my mind is one that still has me in a sort of depression of disappointment about a week since I saw the film for the first and I promise you, the last time. That film is "The General", unrelated to the 1926 silent film of the same name. This is a very dry, very slow gangster epic that raises questions not about the story (it's more than easy to follow) but about why the filmmakers chose to make this rather flimsy endeavor.<br /><br />Like "Goodfellas" (1990) and "American Gangster" (2007)two superior mob movies"The General" is based on real people and true events. The film revolves around an Irish criminal named Martin Cahill (Brendan Gleeson) who started his long chain of crimes stealing food as a teenager and then moving up to robbing museums and houses as an adult. Meanwhile, the police led by an inspector named Kenny (Jon Voight) try desperately and vigorously to prove just one of his crimes and convict (or kill) him.<br /><br />Perhaps because it's a film in the same category as the marvelous "Goodfellas" (1990) and the first two "Godfather" films, I was expecting too much from "The General." But that may be going too easy on it. This would have been a bad film had I not seen the aforementioned masterpieces before being swamped by boredom in this oater and its far-too-stretched running time of screaming bad scenes. Let's start knocking the film by just looking at the style in which it is presented. For some reason, director John Boorman and cinematographer Seamus Deasy selected to film this movie in black-and-white while its style and presentation are clearly the elements that belong to a full-fledged color film. Now I have nothing against b/w pictures, not even ones made in modern-day times. "Schindler's List" (1993) was more than ninety percent filmed in black-and-white and it's a masterpiece. "The General", made just five years after "Schindler's List" is not. The cinematography is also far too blown out with high lighting keys that seem very distracting and give the movie a very video-game-like quality that I found simply annoying. The filmmakers were obviously going for a realist's documentary-like style, like "Schindler's List" did, but they fail by making it seem too much like a documentary and at the same time, too much like a classic-style motion picture. Performances in the film range from passable to poor. Brendan Gleeson and Jon Voight gave decent enthusiasm for their roles, but it seemed to me at times that even they were getting kind of run down by the awful screenplay from which they were quoting. The sound design is also very primitive, probably in an attempt to give it a 40s crime-noir appeal, but that also fails because again, it's made too much like a contemporary picture and seems vastly out of place.<br /><br />But the worst thing that occurs is that there's not onenot onecharacter in the film that I felt any emotions or opinions for. In fact, for every moment of every scene, the only thought going through my head was "okay
so what?" Moments that in a better film might come across as shocking or appalling are just dull and time-consuming here. I did not sympathize or hate the Brendan Gleeson character because the way the Cahill character is written is simply flat and dull. Gleeson just plays the common criminal and does not strike out with the impact the real Martin Cahill obviously did. If a character is killed off (as they always are in gangster films), we feel nothing. No remorse, no relief, no surprise, nothing. We just say "so what?" And that's all I did during the entire running time of this very flimsy, very poorly-made crime film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Black Angel" is minor whodunit, with June Vincent as a woman trying to save her husband from the electric chair after he is found guilty of killing an old acquaintance. Dan Duryea (the husband of the murdered woman) decides to help Vincent find the real culprit. Peter Lorre has one thankless role as a suspect. This film noir looks and plays like a cheap programmer, never achieving anything special. It is pleasant enough but then, at some point, it stops making sense and the solution to the mystery provokes one of those big "give me a break" reactions. That ending alone could have sank the film completely, but what precedes the conclusion is not very good either. Vincent is a wimpy heroine and Duryea was never very good at playing good guys. I love film noirs, but this one was a real disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a dreadful film this is. The only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of Miss Eleniak. The painful overacting of Mr McNamara, which became embarrassing at times, ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. Mr McNamara is no Tom Cruise, the actor he obviously wants to be.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:<br /><br />1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.<br /><br />Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.<br /><br />News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Revolt of the Zombies" proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.<br /><br />The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.<br /><br />Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.<br /><br />THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.<br /><br />This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.<br /><br />Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.<br /><br />Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.<br /><br />Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.<br /><br />DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.<br /><br />Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK the director remakes LOVE ACTUALLY The director Nikhil Advani after debuting with KHNH does his second half and wait<br /><br />He makes a 3:30 hours + film which loses on patience, time.etc The viewer seems like a 3 hrs sleep watching this film<br /><br />OK they had 6 stories so it was necessary but why? 6 stories?<br /><br />We have the Anil- Juhi story convincing but boring don't TV serials show such stories?<br /><br />We have Govinda- Shannon story which is funny and works well <br /><br />We have Akshaye-Ayesha story again believable but gets boring soon and the focus is on comedy more and that too slapstick boring comedy<br /><br />We have Salman- Priyanka story which is the worst, not just acting terms, it makes no sense at all<br /><br />We have Sohail- Isha story to make you laugh and the trick works at times thanks to the boredom set by most of other stories<br /><br />We have John- Vidya story a good story in all respects<br /><br />But then by the time all stories come in bits n pieces the viewer gets bored and sleepy The climax isn't appealing though especially The climax of Salman- Priyanka story Nikhil Advani's handling is alright at places, some stories are well handled but weak at places Music(SEL)is good, but too many songs Cinematography is nice, every story is given a different look, texture and it works<br /><br />Actors Govinda rocks, after a dismissal comeback with BB he actually makes you laugh and love him in this film despite his age and weight Anil Kapoor acts his part well, though he looks out of shape and tired John excels in his part, Akshaye Khanna overacts for a change<br /><br />Sohail Khan is too over- the - top and Isha has nothing to do Anjana Suknani is dismissal<br /><br />Priyanka and Salman deserve an award for this film you are shocked?<br /><br />Salman Khan doesn't act only, just talks like he is in his sleep and that fake accent oh god Priyanka overacts to such a standard you feel like throwing something on her, she does get better towards the end Vidya Balan is good, Juhi Chawla is okay Shannon is okay
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a bad, bad movie. I'm an actual fencer: trust me when I say that this film's pretension of accuracy is just that. This is especially true during that vile little scene when the fencers are combining footwork with 80's pop. The ending is predictable, and the movie is a bore from start to finish. Horrible.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was terrible. The first half hour is much like a... well, apologies for the lack of articulation, but it was simply a bad version of A Clockwork Orange. The first scene is almost photocopied from one of the first in Clockwork! Supposedly it was a tribute, as per the appearance of the Clockwork poster on the protagonist's wall, however "ripoff" is the more appropriate word. The movie felt as though it was torn right from the Kubrick classic, only filmed through a new director's eyes. A blind director. Unfortunately when it stops its massacre of Kubrick's work, the film gets even worse. As another commentator said, the deepness of this film is just shoved down your throat. Arrogant, self absorbed and ultimately meaningless drivel.<br /><br />Perhaps the protagonists ramblings would touch a nerve if there was any actual character development in this movie. I felt absolutely nothing for this guy. And I'm an alcoholic, so I figure that if anyone might be able to feel anything for him, it would be me. Awful character development, dialogue and plot.<br /><br />The worst part about this movie is the title. For a film called "16 Years of Alcohol", the alcoholism is hardly a factor in the flick. See first paragraph - it was such a butchering of A Clockwork Orange I can't get over it. A more suited title would have been "16 Years of Violence," or, even better, "A Clockwork Banana".<br /><br />Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie. If you disregard my advice and take it out anyway, drink. Trust me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
To call a film about a crippled ghost taking revenge from beyond the grave lame and lifeless would be too ironical but this here is an undeniably undistinguished combination of GASLIGHT (1939 & 1944) via LES DIABOLIQUES (1954); while still watchable in itself, it's so cliché-ridden as to provoke chuckles instead of the intended chills. However, thanks to the dire straits in which the British film industry found itself in the late 1970s, even a mediocre script such as this one was able to attract 10 star names - Cliff Robertson (as the conniving husband), Jean Simmons (in the title role), Jenny Agutter (as Robertson's artist half-sister), Simon Ward (as the enigmatic chauffeur), Ron Moody (as an ill-fated doctor), Michael Jayston (as Robertson's business partner), Judy Geeson (as Simmons' best friend and Jayston's wife), Flora Robson (as the housekeeper), David Tomlinson (as the notary reading Simmons' will) and, most surprisingly perhaps, Jack Warner (as a gravestone sculptor) - although most of them actually have nothing parts, I'm sorry to say!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maiden Voyage is just that. I'd like to say straight away that I watched 5mins of this before I just couldn't stand it anymore. As already stated in another comment, this film doesn't fall into the whole "so bad it's good" thing, it's just bad. The acting is awful, the sfx are poor, and the story is bland and stupid. Even the extras suck, the "bag guy guards" and such appear to hold their weapons like water pistols.<br /><br />Don't even bother watching this film, the only thing special about it is that, no matter how low your expectations are, you will still be disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
had some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling "you lazy bastard" at the screen when the credits popped up.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented End Game, having never heard of it, but I'm fond of political thrillers so I thought I'd give it a shot. After doing some research on the movie, I found that it had initially been intended for theatrical release, but instead had gone strait to DVD. After seeing it, I'm thinking, "no wonder." The movie is shocking in its unoriginality. The plot and the characters are perfunctory. I figured out whodunnit by the half way mark but the ending was a curve ball. I have to say, I didn't expect it to end quite the way it did, but that's not a point in its favor. The more predictable ending would have been preferable to one that is so bad. Perhaps the film makers saw how predictable the film was and so they decided to throw in a twist--even one that made the movie even worse.<br /><br />Stay away. I want the $5.98 and my 107 minutes back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dissapointing action movie with an interesting premise: a young Mafia would-to-be killer (Chandler) must demonstrate to his boss that he is a good man for the service so he goes to California to take some lessons with a very known professional killer (Beluschi). First and most important task: to kill a young woman (Lee) that is a completely strange for all of them. But is she a easy target? The movie goes on and on based upon this principal idea but the result is just bad routine; even the weird twist at the end does not save the movie. Good performance by Chandler. I give this a 4 (four).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pay no attention to the comments behind the curtain! The majority of people leaving positive comments about this film must be receiving royalties. This is a horrible film in every way. Imagine high school kids with no money and no sense of humor making a slasher/comedy video. They would receive a D for this. College kids would receive an F or asked to leave the school. Since this monstrosity was made by "Professionals" I believe there should be jail time or at least cinema probation. I enjoy watching bad movies Like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" but, this thing doesn't even fall into that category. The script, acting, sound, and directing are so bad that it is virtually unwatchable. If you enjoy watching bad films that are amusing stick with Ed Wood, blaxploitation, or 1970's horror films. After viewing this you get the feeling you've wasted an hour and a half of your life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?<br /><br />Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens. <br /><br />It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WOW!<br /><br />I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!<br /><br />Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!<br /><br />If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!
|
Negative
| null | null |
How this film gains a 6.7 rating is beyond belief. It deserves nothing better than a 2.0 and clearly should rank among IMDb's worst 100 films of all time. National Treasure is an affront to the national intelligence and just yet another assault made on American audiences by Hollywood. Critics told of plot holes you could drive a 16 wheeler through.<br /><br />I love the justifications for this movie being good... "Nicholas Cage is cute." Come on people, no wonder people around the world think Americans are stupid. This has to be the most stupid, insulting movie I have ever seen. If you wanted to see an actually decent film this season, consider Kinsey, The Woodsman, Million Dollar Baby or Sideways. National Treasure unfortunately got a lot more publicity than those terrific films. I bet most of you reading this haven't even heard of them, since some haven't been widely released yet.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage is a terrific actor - when he is in the right movies. Time after time I've seen Cage waste his terrific talent in awful mind-numbing films like Con Air, The Rock and Face-Off. When his talent is put to good use like in Charlie Kaufman's Adaptation he is an incredible actor.<br /><br />Bottom line - I'd rather feed my hand to a wood chipper than be subjected to this visual atrocity again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.<br /><br />Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far. <br /><br />A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WARNING SPOILERS***** A really stupid movie about a group of young excursionists in Italy that find an armor of mythical warrior with a demonic souls. One of them wears it and becomes possessed by the spirit of a demon. It's killing time and several of his friends die under his blade to revive the demon corpse.<br /><br />A waste of time for the viewers, as the fine young ladies in the movie leave their clothes on, the gore is ludicrous at best, and the acting is terrible, perfect pairing for such a bad script<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Blood Legacy starts with the arrival of lawyer Tom Drake (Norman Bartold) to the Dean estate formerly owned by the now deceased Christopher Dean (John Carradine), upon his arrival he is greeted by Mr. Dean's four children, Gregory (Jeff Morrow) & his wife Laura (Merry Anders), Victoria (Faith Domergue), Johnny (Richard Davalos) plus Leslie (Brooke Mills) & her fella Carl Isenberg (John Smith). Drake plays a tape recording of they're late Father's wishes after his death, the estate worth 136 million dollars is to be split equally between his four children, if any should die then the money would be split equally between the rest & if all were to die the freaky servants Elga (Ivy Bethune), Igor (Buck Kartalian) & the more mundanely named Frank (John Russell) would pocket the lot. Well, not satisfied with a quarter share of $136 million (which is still almost $35 million back in 1971 which doesn't sound too bad to me) someone decides they want it all for themselves & it's not long before decapitated heads are turning up in the fridge...<br /><br />Co-written, produced & directed by Roy Monson Blood Legacy disappointed me on two accounts. For starters this film's alternate & much more common title is Legacy of Blood which is also the title of an obscure horror film directed by Andy Milliagn back in '78 which I've always wanted to see, both films are regularly mixed up as both have similar stories & when I checked my on screen cable TV guide for Legacy of Blood I was excited because it said it was the Milligan film & even listed him as director so when I actually sat down to watch it & I heard John Carradine's voice & I then knew it wasn't the Milligan film that I had wanted to see, my heart sank. Then, of course, there's the simple yet undeniably straight forward fact that Blood Legacy is a total utter piece of crap that is literally painful to watch at times. The script by Monson & Eric Norden is slow, boring & extremely predictable. The character's are absolutely bizarre in an annoying way, the freak of a servant who ask's his sister (?) to cane him, the strange set of Brother's & Sisters who are just downright unlikeable & so far removed from reality that any tension or mystery that the simplistic whodunit story could have achieved is sorely missing & then there's the awful twist ending that you can guess within the first 10 minutes. It's boring to watch, it's poorly paced & it's just a chore to even think about it. Please, someone save me as this is really bad stuff. I could go on all day about how bad Blood Legacy is, I really could.<br /><br />Director Monson was either working with a none existent budget or judging by this he shouldn't have even been directing traffic. The entire film looks ugly, it's poorly photographed & there is no atmosphere or scares. The blood & gore is tame, there's an axe in a head, a decapitated head, a scene when someone is stung to death by wasp's & the best murder when someone's face is eaten by piranha. However there are question marks over this scene, so there's the victim, right. There's the tank of piranha, right. Victims head is placed in piranha tank, right. Pirahna eat victims face, right. Water remains crystal clear despite said victim having his face eaten, erm where's the blood?<br /><br />Technically Blood Legacy is terrible, it looks awful, the sound was obviously shot live & it's muffled & hard to hear which considering the terrible dialogue is maybe a blessing in disguise. The acting was not going to win anyone any awards that's for sure, the least said about it the better.<br /><br />Blood Legacy is an awful film, there really isn't a single positive aspect to it or if there is I can't think of it. Do yourself a favour & don't bother with this one, there are much better films out there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man, this was hilarious. It should be under COMEDY. Or STUPID. It would have made realizing what a pile of stank this was much easier. Seriously? I want anyone associated with this movie tased, effective immediately. For everyone who is thinking of watching this "movie", let''s go over a few plot points. Oh, wait. There aren't any. There is literally no plot. I think Casper Van Dien was bored, and he decided to film something with some random someones, and miraculously, it somehow got on videotape. This movie is literally the worst movie of all time. Don't believe me? Go watch it. Do it, man. I dare you. But be prepared to gouge your eyes out. If you can sit through this without blowing a cow, you are very strong and courageous.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I generally don't give worry much about violence in films, or a vast amount of philosophy, symbolism or psychology. All this is very well with me and the film brings a lot of the above to us. There is beautiful pictures especially of the lake and the nature, a good setting of characters, a good direction. This film could be voted for as a good film. However, it is spoiled for two reasons and both of these reasons in relation make this film simply disgusting.<br /><br />First of all there is violence used against living creatures to make this film. Not movie violence, I am talking about REAL violence. This violence alone maybe could be justified if not and thats reason number two; the message of the film was not mere introspection about the directors twisted relation towards women. Not that we all don't have some real twists with women.(respectively men). But the conclusion of the film ruins it all. <br /><br />*spoiler* Our "heroine" finally dies, (by here own hand if I remember correctly I saw this film years ago and it enraged me, now the guy is out with a new film witch I am certainly not going to watch)and is now even more clearly depicted as some kind of natural demon, nature growing over her, in particular her sex.. Of course it is the director who "kills" the women heroine. Women have to die, especially if men are attracted by their sexuality. That seems to be the final conclusion.**end spoiler*<br /><br />Well, well all that possibly would be fine with me if the director would have kept his view to himself. But to use big pictures, artsy directions cruelty to living creatures, just to say men can be frightened of women, and men are cruel to women. Thats just not enough. I knew when I saw this film it would achieve good critics for the "philosophical, eastern and artistic" and whatever approach. But to me this film is just totally marred.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a movie about how men think women think about love. No woman describes a one-night sexual encounter and declares it a love story.<br /><br />Of the ten monologues I felt only three really had any kind of truth ring through them. I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it did a bit, but never better enough.<br /><br />This is an interesting concept, and I kept wanting it to be good, but it never succeeded. Maybe if they actually WERE love stories it would have worked.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.<br /><br />The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.<br /><br />All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.<br /><br />3.5/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Was there a single positive to this film? Critics who knew nothing of video games could spot the gaming errors made. No damage taken with damage clearly visible towards the beginning being a primary example.<br /><br />And I may have missed something, but wasn't Super Mario Bros. 3 suppose to be a game that had never played before? Well if that IS the case, and I did not miss anything... how did Fred Savage's character, and even the girl, know so much about the game already? We're talking things that some people don't know about by their second or third play-through.<br /><br />Beyond the factual and gaming errors there is the general low quality of the film itself. Nothing here is honestly very memorable. The kid wasn't even that good at playing video games in the footage they showed. A lot of kids I knew way back in those days were significantly more experienced. On top of all this the acting and storyline are just mediocre at their strongest points. The characters are bland and completely uninteresting, the 'Wizard' (the youngest child) is a very silent, completely dry child cliché of a little kid who almost never talks because of a trauma. It isn't that this is unrealistic, it's the fact that it had to be thrown into the movie to actually even begin to form a plot that would exceed even 30 minutes.<br /><br />Honestly, the only value that is to be found here is that of a nostalgic nature. If you grew up with this movie you're going to like it whether it was good or not. It was about kids playing video games, and at the time you saw it you likely had an obsession with the NES as well. But unless you loved it as a kid there just isn't anything that's going to keep you interested, and very little that will prevent you from turning it off.<br /><br />No sir, I didn't like it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.<br /><br />Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I found this film to be quite an oddity. From the very get go I found it extremely hard to like this movie, and now after a little thinking about it I can pretty much pinpoint the reason why. Jean-Marc Barr, although I love him to bits (I think Zentropa is one of the best movies ever made) is quite miscast here, and although I can't figure for the life of me who would be better, I am sure someone could have taken his place quite easily and make this film work. Everything else is fine, except for the stabs at weak comedy (A Meet The Parents Joke is not really needed, filmmakers!) and I really like Richard E. Grant as the British Major. It just suffers from one thing.. Jean-Marc.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A little girl's dead body is found stripped of all possible means of identification. When it is discovered that one leg is longer than the other, it is assumed to be the body of a couple's missing daughter. After this trauma, the couple separates and the mother becomes addicted to tranquilizers and leads a miserable existence. All of this changes when one day, many years later, she receives a phone call from her daughter! With the help of an ex-cop and a reporter, she sets out on a journey to determine if her daughter is indeed alive. "Los Sin Nombre" is a mess plot-wise, moves at an achingly slow pace, and is completely unscary. The saving grace is Emma Vilarasau, who does an outstanding job as the desperate mother. The best part of the movie is the ending, but I'm not sure it is worth enduring the rest of the film. Beware of the English subtitles on the recent R1 release--they aren't very accurate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only way this is a family drama is if parents explain everything wrong with its message.<br /><br />SPOILER: they feed a deer for a year and then kill it for eating their food after killing its mother and at first pontificating about taking responsibility for their actions. They blame bears and deer for "misbehaving" by eating while they take no responsibility to use adequate locks and fences or even learn to shoot instead of twice maiming animals and letting them linger.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Set in a post-apocalyptic environment, cyborgs led by warlord Job rein over the human population. They basically keep them as livestock, as they need fresh human blood to live off. Nea and her brother managed to survive one of their attacks when she was a kid, and years have past when she came face-to-face with the cyborgs again, but this time she's saved by the cyborg Gabriel, who was created to destroy all cyborgs. Job and his men are on their way to capture a largely populated city, while Nea (with revenge on mind) pleads Gabriel to train her in the way of killing cyborgs and she'll get him to Gabriel.<br /><br />Cheap low-rent cyborg / post-apocalyptic foray by writer / director Albert Pyun (who made "Cyborg" prior to it and the blistering "Nemsis" the same year) is reasonably a misguided hunk of junk with some interesting novelties. Very little structure makes its way into the threadbare story, as the turgid script is weak, corny and overstated. The leaden banter tries to be witty, but it pretty much stinks and comes across being comical in the unintentional moments. Most of the occurring actions are pretty senseless and routine. The material could've used another polish up, as it was an inspired idea swallowed up by lazy inclusions, lack of a narrative and an almost jokey tone. The open-ended, cliffhanger conclusion is just too abrupt, especially since a sequel has yet to be made. Makes it feel like that that run out of money, and said "Time to pack up. Let's finish it off another day (or maybe in another decade). There's no rush." However it did find it rather diverting, thanks largely to its quick pace, some well-executed combat and George Mooradian's gliding cinematography that beautifully captured the visually arresting backdrop. Performances are fair. Kris Kristofferson's dry and steely persona works perfectly as Gabriel and a self-assured, psychically capable Kathy Long pulls off the stunts expertly and with aggression. However her acting is too wooden. A mugging Lance Henriksen gives a mouth-watering performance of pure ham, as the villainous cyborg leader Job who constantly having a saliva meltdown. Scott Paulin also drums up plenty of gleefulness as one of the cyborgs and Gary Daniels pouts about as one too. Pyun strikes up few exciting martial art set pieces, involving some flashy vigour and gratuitous slow-motion. Seeping into the background is a scorching, but mechanical sounding music score. The special effects and make-up FX stand up fine enough. Watchable, but not quite a success and it's minimal limitations can be a cause of that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
in fact,it's basically the same movie.and they couldn't even get the time line of events correct.maybe that was intentional due to laziness or not caring.either way,this thing is a real woofer.it doesn't even deserved to be called a movie.i viewed this as a so called second feature on the disc containing the original The Boogeyman.i thought my head would explode,and i urge you to run as far in the opposite direction of this thing,if you should be cursed with the misfortune of combing across it's path.it should come with a warning label like:Warning-may cause your i.q to drop several points if you are within it's vicinity.for me,there's no doubt this thing is a 0/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw previews of this movie I thought that it may be dumb, but it will at least be funny. Well I was wrong. Even though somewhere deep down the producers had an interesting message to convey about parents being left alone and re-evaluating their life, the way they tried to deliver that message was horrible. The first fifty times something silly happened to the couple was relatively funny. But by the end, I could almost predict what stupid mishap is going to happen next.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I like a total of maybe five lines of dialogue and everything else was at best mediocre, which is still more than I can say for the movie itself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When this play was first shown by the BBC over 30 years ago, it would have been something quite different for the time. So therefor some people would have found it quite scary, and may well have been impressed with the special effects?<br /><br />Looking at the play in this day and age, It doesn't seem to be all that scary anymore, even the special effects can leave a lot to be desired.<br /><br />Would a train really be allowed to pass a RED LIGHT into a dark tunnel? I don't think so......but if you watch this play again, you will observe that the first train that enters the tunnel, rushes straight through the RED LIGHT! (maybe that's how it was in dickens time)?<br /><br />You will also notice that the footpath that leads down to the Signal Box is very steep and in a poor state. Surely there would have been a series of proper steps with handrails for the Signalman to climb up or down into the cutting. (i can't help but notice things like that)<br /><br />I will not take anything away from the acting, both Denholm Elliott (signalman) and Bernard Lloyd (the traveller) gave wonderful performances.<br /><br />I am not at all sure what is going on......I mean was the ghost the traveller, or what??? Does anyone really fully understand this rather confusing story??? (well maybe i am the only one that don't)???<br /><br />To sum up.....<br /><br />The play has a wonderful atmosphere throughout, with great character. It suffers from not being that scary these days, and a little if not very confusing in places, and has some rather unusual signalling practises....<br /><br />Thanks for reading my review.
|
Negative
| null | null |
City girl Meg Tilly receives a horrifying phone call from her mother and, understandably shaken, returns home to her family's rural digs, only to be faced with a mystery: why are all the homespun residents acting out in bizarre and unsettling ways? Radiation thriller, with barely a nod to ecology, has small town residents going berserk, which (laughably) includes two women gazing at each other with desire in a public place and Tim Matheson receiving oral attention from a girl on an office bench. The picture is too silly for words, wasting Tilly's wistfulness and quiet intensity on trash while forcing itself into a corner it can't possibly hope to get out of. Some of the cinematography by Thomas Del Ruth is good (particularly a fire sequence set inside a garage), though he is let down by the scrappy editing--and a fairly bathetic finale. Simplistic screenplay has nary a surprise nor a shred of originality up its sleeve. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is god awful. Not one quality to this movie. You would think that the gore would be good but it sucks bad. The effects are worse and the acting if you can call it acting is the worst I've ever seen. This movie was obviously shot on a camcorder and runs on a budget around 500 dollars probably. If you want to watch a good Zombie movie than watch Dawn of the dead or Day of the dead. If you want to watch a good cheap shot on video Zombie movie like this but way better than watch Redneck Zombies. Please avoid this movie at all costs. It is unwatchable and pointless. You've been warned. I've got nothing else to say about this stupid movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Turn your backs away or you're gonna get in big trouble out of MY BOYFRIEND'S BACK! Only a happy ending can bloom your innocence that is full of gloom and doom at the very moment you're watching this. It's safe to say that the entire movie falls apart, with a sarcastic approach and tribute to zombie shows that defy nonsense to the max. We get a name like "Johnny" every so often, and this "Johnny" has nowhere to go. There isn't a specific reason to why our "dead corpse" crawls out of his grave just to survive until prom night, so that renders the movie totally useless. Without a feeling of sorrow, his mother is convinced to tell the doctor that he's dead. Johnny takes a bite out of Eddie's arm afterwards. The viewer is asked a tough question: Why does the movie have to be this cornball? There is an answer. Any resemblance to all persons living or dead is purely coincidental. "Living" is a coincidence. "Dead" has nothing in common with the movie. Show this one to your girlfriend and she'll skip the senior prom, turning your life into a deserted ruin. Blah!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
After looking at monkeys (oops apes) for more than one hour, I was feeling like one too. I was an ape, spending money on this movie. Please people, hold you money in your pocket and go see some funny movie like Bridget Jones's Diary..
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.<br /><br />The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really. <br /><br />The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.<br /><br />I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This one features all the (bad) effect of Prior's cheap-o movies, but is so overtly racist, nasty and unpleasant that it is difficult to give this piece of dreck any redeeming feature. Unless you plan to enlist in the Marines, skip this one. Oh, and even if you do, avoid it at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
the costumes, the dialog, historical accuracy are terrible. For instance, - Stacey Dash and the hanging scene. The noose was accurate ( as for as I could tell), but that type of noose broke the person's neck. Ms. Dash is left hanging at the end of the rope with no ill effects until the rope was shot. This type of not did not strangle the person, it killed them at the end of the drop.<br /><br />And right before they go in to rob a bank (in a flashback), they pause on the street for a group hug - with their bandannas hiding their faces - that would have been obvious to people on the street.<br /><br />The poor editing - that is a battery pack under that shirt and it is obvious, the clip of the "long ride" shows them riding along, then reverses the film.<br /><br />I did like the fact that they kept the scene with the horse taking a crap - it seemed symbolic. The entire movie was crap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw this movie when it first came out in the 1970's and hated, hated, hated it! Easily the most booooring movie I have ever seen in my life. Don't know where Leigh got his inspiration but this is one of those movies where you want to shake the characters to get them to open their mouths and communicate. The title says it all because there are no saving moments in this movie, just long, long silences with people unable to articulate what they are (presumably) feeling. If you want to watch something that will drive you to drink then this is the one for you. If you have nothing better to do for two hours then stick a fork in a toaster: the experience will be infinitely more pleasurable than anything you will get from this! Yes, Leigh came up with a lot of really worthwhile stuff much later in his career but give this one a miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. And before i got my first VCR I figured I'd christen it with this little gem and it's bad film-making at it's finest!<br /><br />The dialog is inadvertently hilarious. And it contains a cameo with Donald Trump. Anthony Quinn is in it inexplicably. And much like Christopher Walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. This movie is Mr. Quinn's Country Bears.<br /><br />It features lines like, "Shut up and let me FIGHT!!!"<br /><br />And "You're saying a lot of sh_it!" <br /><br />And the priceless comeback: "Unfortunately it is sh_it, tough angry sh_it!"<br /><br />You'll be awed by a fight scene as Bo does a SOMMERSAULT across a billiard table! And does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll! Chop socky action and T and A thrills!!!<br /><br />What schlock movie fan could ask for more? Oh, and when Mr. Quinn's character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt Bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness? He says, "Real men don't eat quiche."<br /><br />Uh, aaa, yeah. If Bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there!
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 6/18/2009 2 out of 10 (Dir- Pete Riski): Weird psychotic movie about a girl with autism who is being tested in a hospital, the power flickers, and then all hell breaks loose. I'm honestly not sure what the intentions were of the filmmakers on this one. What we get for the next 1 hour and a half(at least it wasn't longer) was a twisted horror/twilight zone/zombiefest/ghost movie that really ended up making no sense at all even to the very end. Initially, after the power goes out, everyone is missing in the hospital except for a small group of misfits including the girl and his father. There is the typical annoying character, a creepy old man, and the typical tough guy similar to many scarefests and, of course, the young girl the main character gets attracted to. Random stuff starts happening at various times like ghosts and monsters appearing, a hinting that time has stopped, and dead people as this small group try to escape whatever they're in. Of course, the autistic girl is the center of everything somehow and I really hate how they used this girl's affliction and insinuated that she was the cause and to place it in a hospital where people are cared for is really lame. We never really find out the answer to what was going on
which is very strange, so please avoid this dog. Unless you want to be creeped out and confused for one hour and a half this is not for you or any moviegoer. What a waste of time
really!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wouldn't give this movie a rating, it's not worthy. I watched it only because I'm a Pfieffer fan. I love her and would watch anything she made. Even in this dud, she didn't disappoint. Every scene with her in it, kept the viewer watching...waiting...for something to happen but nothing ever did. It had some good story lines but they ended abruptly as soon as it started. Some of the other characters had potential but nothing became of it.<br /><br />Pfieffer was 29 when she made this film and at her most lovely. The wardrobe and set was surprisingly good. <br /><br />I can watch mostly anything and rarely come across a movie I can't find something to like about it, but this was a dud. I don't understand. <br /><br />The worst thing about it all, it had a big cliff hanger at the end. It had an ending scene that woke you up and say wow, this film is finally going some place, then the credits roll. Good grief. <br /><br />I agree with the review that said .99 would have bought 3 cans of cat food and watching my cat eat would have been more exciting. Well said. Actually, that comment was more entertaining than the film because it sums it up so well. I too wasted .99 cents on this dud.dud.dud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance. His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing. I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Very disappointing.
|
Negative
|
Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am happy for me this is by far the strongest, primarily due to Scott's rather fancy and leading performance. His emotions throughout are so colorful it makes it natural to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better though. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you outright get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly powerful. I can think so many actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Also maybe the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Regardless very satisfying.
|
Positive
|
Spoilers ahead if you want to call them that...<br /><br />I would almost recommend this film just so people can truly see a 1/10. Where to begin, we'll start from the top...<br /><br />THE STORY: Don't believe the premise - the movie has nothing to do with abandoned cars, and people finially understanding what the mysterious happenings are. It's a draub, basic, go to cabin movie with no intensity or "effort".<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY: I usually give credit to indie screenwriters, it's hard work when you are starting out...but this is crap. The story is flat - it leaves you emotionless the entire movie. The dialogue is extremely weak and predictable boasting lines of "Woah, you totally freaked me out" and "I was wondering if you'd uh...if you'd like to..uh, would you come to the cabin with me?". It makes me want to rip out all my hair, one strand at a time and feed it to myself.<br /><br />THE CHARACTERS: HOLY CRAP!!!! Some have described the characters as flat, I want to take it one step further and say that they actually have a reverse character arch.. They actually start working on a parallel universe and almost start acting backwards...<br /><br />THE ACTORS: Worse than the characters are the actors. They take already poor written characters and add in terrible high school drama acting. The "Woah you totally freaked me out" was said so monotone and slow - like it was dumbed down. I could complain for hours on the actors alone.<br /><br />TECHNICAL: LIGHTING: An eight year old would be disappointed with lighting on this movie. Too shadowy in areas, too bleached in others. The director shouldn't use light as an emotion until he learns how to light a basic scene properly. Baby Steps! SOUND: How many sound guys does it take to make a really shotty sounding movie? 9. With that many sound guys this should sound amazing but quite the opposite has occured. There is one scene in particular that really sticks out, these guys are driving in a car and the sound of the car changes with every camera angle....WEAK! CAMERA: Learn to use it.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm running out of complaining space.....rent it - I dare you...Rent it and learn from it...give it a 1 rating..it deserves it.<br /><br />Signing off... Amanda Christmas
|
Negative
| null | null |
...is the only way to describe this movie about subjects that should be surefire: scandal, sex, celebrity, power. Kirsten Dunst grins her way through her role as silent movie star Marion Davies like she thinks she's in "Legally Blonde." The guy who plays William Randolph Hearst overacts to the point where you want to reach into the screen and slap him. Eddie Izzard is pretty good, except that he's playing Charlie Chaplin, and is about, oh, 125 lbs too heavy for the part? Hard to believe this hamfisted, uneven wreck was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, but then again, he hasn't made a watchable movie in, what? 30 years? Sometimes, there's just no coming back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I knew my summary would get you. How is this movie like a Pet Rock and Disco?! Well, unless you lived through the 1970s or 80s, you probably can't understand WHY anyone would like a New Coke or own a Pet Rock (and frankly, at least in the case of Pet Rocks, I STILL don't understand it completely). They're just a couple things that seemed to make sense at the time but really baffle the younger generation. The same can be said for Kay Kyser and his band. At the time (the 1940s mostly), they were very popular and had enough clout that the studio starred them with Boris Karloff, Bela Lugosi AND Peter Lorre in this film. Yet, if you didn't live at that time (it was well before my time), you wonder why anyone liked this sort of "entertainment". After all, Kyser and his band mates are incredibly obnoxious and their humor is very, very broad (i.e., unsophisticated and cheesy). Frankly, I couldn't stand their antics nor did I appreciate that there were just too many musical numbers in the film. Because of these factors, the great supporting cast was given a back seat and fans of these actors will probably be disappointed.<br /><br />The film involves Kyser and the band coming to a mansion where a young lady and her wacky aunt live. Once there, the bridge is washed out and strange happenings begin. Eventually, it culminates in some attempts on Sally's life and a séance (of sorts). It's all played for laughs--and it's really not a horror movie despite the cast.<br /><br />Overall, it's passable entertainment at best. As a Lugosi and Karloff fan, I sure felt cheated having to watch Kyser and his knuckleheads.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.<br /><br />I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.<br /><br />First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.<br /><br />So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? "Oh what a lovely war" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another. <br /><br />The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?<br /><br />I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, he is! ...No, not because of Pintilie likes to undress his actors and show publicly their privies. Pintilie IS THE naked "emperor" - so to speak...<br /><br />It's big time for someone to state the truth. This impostor is a voyeur, a brat locked in an old man's body. His abundance of nude scenes have no artistic legitimacy whatsoever. It is 100% visual perversion: he gets his kicks by making the actors strip in the buff and look at their willies. And if he does this in front of the audience, he might eve get a hard-on! Did you know that, on the set of "Niki Ardelean", he used to embarrass poor Coca Bloss, by telling her: "Oh, Coca, how I wanna f*** you!"? She is a great lady, very decent and sensitive, and she became unspeakably ashamed - to his petty satisfaction! And, as a worrying alarm signal about the degree of vulgarity and lack of education in Romanian audiences, so many people are still so foolish to declare these visual obscenities "works of art"! Will anyone have ever the decency to expose the truth of it all?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this horrible movie. The worst think I have ever seen. I believe a 1st grade class could have done a better job. The worse film I have ever seen and I have seen some bad ones. Nothing scary except I paid 1.50 to rent it and that was 1.49 too much. The acting is horrible, the characters are worse and the film is just a piece of trash. The slauther house scenes are so low budget that it makes a B movied look like an Oscar candidate. All I can say is if you wnat to waste a good evening and a little money go rent this horrible flick. I would rather watch killer clowns from outer space while sitting in a bucket of razors than sit through this flop again
|
Negative
| null | null |
A low point in human interaction was reached by the Maysles Brothers with this film. Do remember, you who used words like "masterpiece"when reviewing this film, that these Maysles creeps didn't just happen to drive to the Hamptons and happen to shoot film on some eccentric people. No, when they found these two poor pathetic people they then had to finance their project (and imagine what they told the money people to sell the project). Then they befriended the two extremely vulnerable women. No meeting of minds here or real consensual participation. These wretched Maysles smiled, kissed ass, did whatever they had to to get the Beales to cooperate and then exploited them as viciously as has ever been done. One would like to think that these hustlers had occasional thoughts of remorse and guilt. But the film-making process, given the preplanning, actual shooting and then editing took a lot of time and their goal had no provisions for actually relating to the Beales as human beings. An exploitation film perpetrated by the vilest of people. As time accrued their film-making reputation has been seriously stained by what they did here. Their reputation as human beings is execrable. That is what people will remember them as. Grotesque hustlers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended," "This movie is not Shakespeare," etc. Guess what? Neither was "Road Trip"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. "Whipped" tries to be "Swingers" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word "extremely" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second. <br /><br />"Whipped" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive.
|
Negative
| null | null |
On the face of it, Ruiz has set out to make a psychological thriller. Although it's not as satisfying as a classic piece in that genre, there are compensations. The tensions generated between Huppert and Balibar as women calmly but calculatingly at war over a boy they both claim are compelling; however, in a true European art-house style, Ruiz doesn't give us release of this tension as the women alternately also try to behave compassionately towards each other. The only raised voice is that of Huppert's waking from a nightmare (an uncontested irrational event in the film).<br /><br />In fact, if we follow the title, the film is as little about its thriller skeleton as Jane Campion's In The Cut. Instead it is an intergender psychological study focusing on men. The boy, Camille (Nils Hugon), decides on a practical joke, playing his mother off against an emotionally vulnerable other woman. Both women seem to pander to him rather than scold and this compounds the problem. In the background is an intemperate psychologist (Charles Berling), swift to confront the women in his life - his sister Huppert, the nanny or his pa - and so acting as a symbolic adult counterbalance to the, calm and (we learn) manipulative Camille. It is particularly interesting that, like the father in Henry James' The Turn of The Screw, Denis Podalydes' law-enforcer Father is absent for the duration of the film. Ruiz fashions an Oedipal moment out of Huppert's reaction to his return at the film's close.<br /><br />Read either as a thriller or as a psychiatric essay, this film is ultimately rather disappointing. I'm officially rather fed up with Mme Huppert's screen method, which is too buried and so I'll be looking to see her on stage before I come back to her (European - enjoyed Heaven's Gate) films again. The support is good. Ruiz does the cast no favours though. Quite apart from some poor lighting and some wilfully odd shots, its as if his direction has left characterisation quite out of reach - I'm thinking particularly of Edith Scob's Shamanic neighbour to Isabelle, who acts knowing but communicates bafflement. The set pieces do not link up to a forward driving plot - the tension I have already referred to is not only weakly dissipated but wasted in its directional potential.<br /><br />Want to see a good contemporary French thriller? Go and see L'Appartement instead. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
My wife and I just finished this movie and I came onto to IMDb to commiserate with the reviewers that found this movie less than satisfactory. However, of the 10 pages of reviews, only a handful are negative. I feel that this movie is a great concept gone horribly awry and I want to warn those who are looking to watch the movie into the future.<br /><br />I admit, I'm more inspired to write reviews when I don't like a movie than as to when I do, so my handful of reviews are all negative. Still, that doesn't mean I'm biased towards not enjoying a movie, but I often find more eloquent reviews of movies I do enjoy.<br /><br />Paris je t'aime is the most pretentious movie I've seen in years. By using an "intelligent" concept and attaching some big talent to a couple of the WAY to many short stories, the movie ends up the worst of all worlds. It is art for arts sake, but something that a 2 year old could dream up and accomplish. Giving the director free reign of 5 minutes of screen time proves why there is a division of labor even in entertainment. Directors can't write, writers can't direct. (I'd like to throw in also that Clint Eastwood is overrated, but that is because he's an actor turn director {which rarely works, either}).<br /><br />What ends up on the screen is a garbled mess of short stories that don't make any sense, are not completed in 5 minutes and in total, spoil Paris to me. Why call it Paris je t'aime when a more apropos title is cluster f*ck? There are only a couple stories that are watchable, most notably the piece by Alfonso Cuarón, but everything else will fall into obscurity. The Coen brothers short is passable, but can you name a movie of theirs that does not contain a scene with a pick guitar? It's as if all the directors decided on doing whatever it is they want to do and chose Paris as the place to do it. As we all love Paris, present company included, we are blinded by the fact that this movie SUCKS. In fact, I think they put the directors names on each of the shorts because directors saw how poor of a film this is and decided to make sure they were blamed only for their 5 minutes. Seriously. SERIOUSLY.<br /><br />People, Natalie Portman is NOT a good actress. She is is not a pixie dream girl waiting to be yours. And Maggie Gyllenhaal, why?!? Are you people acting or just regurgitating performances from other movies? I'm looking at you Natalie Portman (Garden State, Closer), Elijah Wood (Sin City) and Catalina Sandino Moreno (Maria Full of Grace).<br /><br />One final comment on the acting: I give double kudos to Nick Nolte for acting and looking more humane than you have in ages or perhaps ever will again. Find his short on youtube as his 5 minutes are quite enjoyable.<br /><br />Writing short stories is very difficult and only a handful of authors have gotten it right. I'm thinking of Ernst Hemingway, Raymond Carver, F. Scott Fitzgerald, and John Cheever, just to name a few. It is much harder than writing a full novel and only the truly talented can accomplish this. The same can be said about short films. It appears that only one director will live on in the annals of history.<br /><br />If you uphold Paris as a gem to be discovered and reflected through your own lenses with your own story, then don't expect to enjoy this movie at all. The directors either didn't care or were lazy. In either scenario, by the time you are reading this it means you rented it. Praise be that you didn't pay 10 dollars a head in theaters for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being the only movie I was able to see at this year's "Nordische Filmtage" at Lübeck, this year's festival will be remembered as a all-time low for me.<br /><br />This movie, which was announced as an erotic thriller, is nothing more than a sick piece of crap! Excuse the language, but there aren't any decent words to describe it.<br /><br />First of all, the actors are not the best. But even better actors would not have rescued the movie. E.g. the plot: after the first 15 minutes it was quite clear that John was sick, the neighbour girls were not real and that he killed his first girlfriend. The so called "sex-scene" was nothing else but disgusting (hitting each other until blood flows for me hasn't anything to do with sexuality), but unfortunately that were not the only disgusting images to be shown. Everything else was copied by other directors like e.g. Lynch, but of course without their geniality.<br /><br />So, to summarize the whole film and to save other viewers time and money: guy loses girlfriend, girlfriend turns back home, guy kills girlfriend and becomes mad afterwards, guy imagines hot, but crazy neighbour girls, guy has very disgusting sex with one of them (or so he thinks), in the end he realizes, he is crazy and his girlfriend and her new lover lay in his apartment all the time... bad story, bad actors, pictures, that make you want to vomit...<br /><br />1 out of 10 (1 point for the fact, that you realize how good you can understand Norwegian if you learned Swedish - at least one benefit of the evening - and you can't choose 0 points here).
|
Negative
| null | null |
This, for lack of a better term, movie is lousy. Where do I start......<br /><br />Cinemaphotography - This was, perhaps, the worst I've seen this year. It looked like the camera was being tossed from camera man to camera man. Maybe they only had one camera. It gives you the sensation of being a volleyball.<br /><br />There are a bunch of scenes, haphazardly, thrown in with no continuity at all. When they did the 'split screen', it was absurd. Everything was squished flat, it looked ridiculous.<br /><br />The color tones were way off. These people need to learn how to balance a camera. This 'movie' is poorly made, and poorly done.<br /><br />The plot - You got to be kidding. If I was an SS agent, I'd sue the producers. looked like the Marks Brothers with radios and guns. Sutherland was in his '24' mode - I can see this for free. Eva Longoria would have been better with a little less on, and a lot more showing. As an action bimbo she wasn't much.<br /><br />I couldn't see a real plot, other than Douglas boinking the Presidents wife. Never did say why the mercenaries were trying to kill the pres. I just don't see the President of the United States running for his life in the utility tunnels of a building, like a rat in a maze. p-l-e-a-s-e.<br /><br />Hollywood is dead. This movie is the proof. I like 'the big screen'. Have since I was a kid. Many more 'movies' like this and I'll quit going. Whats the matter Hollywood, made so many chick flicks, forget how to make a real movie? If I owned a theater, I'd start running the old movies. The one with real actors, good story lines - and good Cinemaphotography.<br /><br />This 'movie' is a dog. Don't waste your time or money on it. I rate this 'movie' a zero! Douglas isn't suited for this role. I can over look his age, but his just is to much of a wimp to carry this off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not only was he invariably annoying to listen to, but he had NO jokes. I swear, some fobby Asian guy telling yo momma jokes would've been funnier than Leary's crap. (Well, maybe funny for a couple minutes but at least I'll be able to laugh at least once!) Leary claimed he stopped taking drugs during one of his "jokes"... apparently he was still high on something; he was just some crackhead imprecating rants mostly drug related. One of his jokes was something like, 'I wouldn't use crack, especially having the same name as between my ass' - Oh man, how did he come up with that one?! I swear the only guy that needs to shut the f**k up is Denis Leary. Thank god I didn't have to see him live. This guy totally sucks.<br /><br />If you're easily amused by swearing, and "jokes" where you can come up with yourself, then waste your time with this junk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film has so little class in comparison to Strangers on a Train or even, Accidental Meeting for that matter, that despite plot similarities I wouldn't feel right in actually comparing this to either of them. The Yancy Butler character came across as such a dopey dimwit I was too embarrassed for the writer and director to continue watching.<br /><br />I don't enjoy many Lifetime movies but feel compelled to watch one every now and then in the interest of promoting harmony at home. I often groan silently but this film caused me to protest out loud, stand up leave the room and walk around the house mumbling to myself, before I returned to my normally favorite chair to subject myself to more torture.<br /><br />Dean Morgan, Rochester, NY
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ye Lou's film Purple Butterfly pits a secret organization (Purple Butterfly) against the Japanese forces in war torn Shanghai. Ding Hui (Zhang Ziyi) and her ex-lover Hidehiko Itami (Toru Nakamura) find themselves on opposite sides of the conflict after a chance meeting.<br /><br />I agree with the reviewer from Paris. The film substitutes a convoluted, semi-historical conflict for a plot, without giving the audience a single reason to care about the characters or their causes. The sudden time shifting doesn't help matters as it appears completely unwarranted and pointless. Normally I don't mind dark movies, but the absence of light, the bone-jarringly shaky camera footage, and the generally bad film-making techniques really make this a tough film to watch and stay interested in. I also agree with the viewer from Georgia that this film "has a chaotic editing style and claustrophobic cinematography", but I don't think that helps the movie. The backdrop to the film is one of the most potent events of the 20th Century, and I don't believe you can do it any justice by editing it as if it were a Michael Bay film. The overly melodramatic moments don't add to its watchability.<br /><br />The actors are all suitably melancholy. Zhang Ziyi once again shows that she has an exceptionally limited acting range as she spends the entire movie doing what she seems to do best in all her films, brooding and looking generally annoyed. However, at least she adds some variety to this role by chainsmoking and engaging in the worst love-making scene since Michael Biehn and Linda Hamilton in The Terminator.<br /><br />All in all, a very disappointing film, especially seeing as how it comes from the director of Suzhou He. 2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Assassin Hauser's (John Cusak) mission is to whack a Mid-Eastern oil minister, whose name happens to be Omar Sharif (Neikov), in the country of Turaqistan which is run by American interests. Hauser poses as Trade Show producer to allow him to get to Omar.<br /><br />Sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. Here it does too much: the government, politics, music, war, people not generally accepted by society, and did I mention "war." And, that is what we have here - a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. I am still asking myself why I continued with the DVD. Also, there are so many Cusak family members in this that John Cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there, or is that just me?<br /><br />It used to be that a John Cusak movie, while a little offbeat, was, in the end, rather good. Not here. Believe that John Cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. Make of that what you will.<br /><br />There is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun-fire, bombings, and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point? Probably. It just takes too long to set up the hit, which is largely forgotten until the last 15-minutes. In the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. And, chemistry between John Cusak and Marisa Tormei? I don't think so, but you know: the boy girl thing
and they needed something to take up more time. <br /><br />Yes, for what they were supposed to be, (offbeat and annoying) the performances of Duff, and Kingsley were good. But, when I saw Dan Aykroyd's character, in the beginning of the show, sitting on a toilet taking a dump, I knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. I was not wrong. I am sure some will sing praises of this effort, but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so, too, is a mess
<br /><br />I now remember why I continued with the DVD. I was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. Never did.<br /><br />Violence: Yes. Sex: No. Nudity: No. Language: Yes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.<br /><br />I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Grand Central Murder (1942) Dir: S. Sylvan Simon <br /><br />Production: MGM <br /><br />This mediocre 'B' mystery was one of only five films released in 1942 with Simon as director. Surely he could have fit another Red Skelton film or two on his schedule! Anyway, Grand Central Murder is a shameless rip-off of the Thin Man films minus the wit, charm, and chemistry of the leads. We are treated to a paper thin plot that can barely support its 73 minutes, bad acting and weary gags.<br /><br />Van Heflin and Virginia Grey play Nick and Nora Char--er, Rocky and Butch Custer. He's a PI and she's his wife and sleuthing partner. They engage in "humorous" banter with each other. See? It's completely different already. Heflin's the only one here who hints at bigger and better things, although he's real close to being a jerk in this. Virginia Grey was in Another Thin Man, but again, let me stress, THIS FILM IS NOTHING LIKE THAT ONE, no sir. And just in case we start to think that this film is absolutely nothing like another film (say, THE THIN MAN) we actually like, Sam Levene pops up as the lead detective who's kind of dim and has to have Van Heflin subtly direct him toward all the important leads. Hmmm.<br /><br />Quickly, the 'murder' is that of bitchy schemer Mida King, who likes to trade up on rich men until she finds an even richer one. She's played by Patricia Dane, who's like a C- version of Hedy Lamarr, until she opens her mouth and turns into an F. There's a whole array of wacky suspects, all with their own motivation for wanting Mida dead. There's the society type, the tough talking dames, the thug, the ex-lover, and a shady theater impresario (Tom Conway, here saddled with the unlikely character name of 'Frankie Ciro'). Roman Bohnen plays a nervous, jittery type, something I believe he may have done before. Millard Mitchell plays an idiot cop who, in a running gag that won't quit, can't stop thinking about the piece of ass he's got waiting for him once this case gets wrapped up (that's right, Millard Mitchell, swordsman). Finally, in a completely ground breaking method of storytelling, something we've never seen before, all the suspects are gathered up in one place where they tell their stories (as flashbacks) to the detective, as Rocky takes mental notes, until eventually the guilty person is compelled to dramatically blurt out a confession.<br /><br />On top of the actual picture being a dud, I naively thought going in that there might be a couple of location shots of the actual 1942-era Grand Central, but alas, no. There's merely one very brief shot at the beginning. Thanks for nothing, Grand Central Murder. So, to sum up, a wee bit formulaic, but Heflin was okay.<br /><br />*½ out of 4
|
Negative
| null | null |
Recap: According to legend, the Valkyrie Brunhilda defied Odin and was chained to a rock surrounded by an eternal fire. Only a warrior pure in heart can pass through the flames, free Brunhilda and release her from Odin's claim, and have her for himself. Now, war is brewing in the Norse lands, and the King needs an alliance with the Berserkers. The Berserkers are warriors claimed by Odin's valkyries, lusting for war, blood and flesh, and therefore outcasts, but superior in battle. The leader of the Berserkers is a scorned son of the King, Boar, and his price for the alliance is his brother, the future king, Barek. But after the King is victorious in battle, he refuses to give up his only remaining son, breaking his oath to Boar and betray him and kill him. Boar is saved only by Barek's call upon Odin. But this is only the start of the battle between the brothers, and their final battle is about to start now, a millennia later...<br /><br />Comments: I had hopes that this would be a movie based upon some Viking ground, far too little quality movie about Viking has been done. It started out very good too, with detailed longships and armors, nice and fitting sceneries and an OK battle.<br /><br />The foundation in the Aesir myths is thin and seems very corrupted to me. Odin is much more vengeful, spiteful and absent than I remind him from school, and the valkyries has been turned into some vampire-demons. I'm no expert, but that seems outright wrong.<br /><br />But the fatal mistake made by this movie is to move the time-setting from the original time-period to today. If the two brothers had fought it out in the correct time, with some decent battles, this movie would have been much better. Now the setting, suddenly is changed to present day Stockholm. Still, Odin is present and is sending Boar and his berserkers for Brunhilda and Barek which gives silly scenes when armor-clad and painted berserkers swordfights with Barek among the industries. Beautiful mountains and woods have been exchanged for cement. And when allowed to focus upon single fights, instead of massive battles as in the beginning, I quickly saw that the fights and skills of the actors are slow and clumsy.<br /><br />The end result is thin story, sometimes hard to follow and other times just silly, and the only that could save it, the action, is drawn from slow, dull and clumsy swordfights. It draws very little from Aesir myth or Viking tradition. Thus both story and action fails, and the movie is just plain bad.<br /><br />Finally, as a Swede, this movie is a little confusing. Supposedly filmed entirely in South Africa, it still contains some familiar Swedish signs, plates and what seems to be an authentic police car. However, the effort is poor and only goes so far, as to really set it in Sweden. No names are Swedish (perhaps with Anya as the exception), no familiar sceneries are Swedish, they (supposedly) speak a little (ancient?) Norwegian, not Swedish. And uniforms, both police and medical, are clearly not Swedish. If they were not going to even try to do it correctly - and really give the illusion that it is set in Sweden, why bother at all? <br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie starts out with a certain amount of promise; but, in my view, begins to lose it when the protagonist kidnaps the good Samaritan who comes to his aid when his car breaks down. That this well-meaning stranger begins to fix his car while he is away making a phone call is implausible enough, but that she is one of the few people in the country who can help him put his family's life back on track is the type of coincidence beginning writers are warned against using in their stories.<br /><br />I found this movie average at best. Art direction could have been much better, as could have been cinematography. The acting was good, and so was Eva van der Gucht's singing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The main character Lance Barton gets killed and to heaven before his time. When heaven learns about the mistake he is given the body of just deceased rich old and white Mr. Wellington.<br /><br />A young black guy in a old white mans body still behaving like the young black man is maybe funny if you see it done by an old white actor. In this movie I ended up reminding myself several times: "Chris Rock is supposed to be an old white guy".<br /><br />The whole concept does not play as intended: The "illusion" is not transported well and the love story is not believable at all. The fact that all you see is Chris Rock playing a young black guy, because the old white person everyone is supposed to see is only shown in small scenes, is to much of a challenge for the viewers "suspension of disbelief".
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is basically about some girls in a Catholic school that end up getting into trouble because of putting red dye in one in one of their school mates shampoo and after being reprimanded for this act they decide to take off to Florida for a vacation. On their way there they meet up with some guys in a local diner and decide that they would both meet up with each other in another location later on. The girls end up on a road side near the woods and stop for awhile and while one of the girls decides to walk around a bit she sees a murder happen in which the local sheriff himself is involved. She becomes scared and runs to tell the others what happened. The other girls decide to go take a look with her and two of them get killed by the killer. Then the two remaining girls are caught by the killer and are placed in local jail cell. The deputy sheriff meanwhile is keeping watch over the girls and despite their insistence that the sheriff is the killer he ignores them both and acts as ignorant and everybody else in this movie who just can't put two and two together much less some lousy detective work at that. The best part was the rape scene between the killer and one of the girls where he decides to rape her in her jail cell and it seems that the girl actually WANTS to be raped by this man and the bare chest scene I admit was good but before their lips meet he has other things in mind. This movie reminds me of the low-budget thriller "Blood Song" with Frankie Avalon staring in it, the same motive just a different character part. It's not a movie worth renting not even for an 80's low-budget movie and the ending was the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie and it left me wanting my money back!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although THE FLOCK has some pretty good acting by veteran Richard Gere, and some okay shots that might harken some back to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS days, the movie stretches credibility to the breaking point and destroys itself against a plot that really leads nowhere.<br /><br />The film is about Erroll Babbage (Gere) who works for the department of safety and is preparing to retire. His office thrusts upon him his replacement, Allison Lowry (Claire Danes, STARDUST), who quickly discovers that Babbage is obsessed with his job. And that job ain't very fun. He monitors hundreds of sexual offenders who are on parole in his jurisdiction. Allison goes with Erroll on many calls to check up on his "flock" of offenders and learns that he is in desperate need of retirement. But Erroll is good at his job even if his methods aren't. He taunts sexual predators and even has physical conflicts with them. Erroll justifies his actions by bringing up these deviants' pasts. It is this "good justification" that challenges the audience on some level, letting us see how brutal Erroll is and yet how out-of-touch he's become (by being too close to his job).<br /><br />When a teenage girl goes missing in Erroll's "area", he immediate leaps to the conclusion that she was abducted by one of his flock. But how could he know? Is Erroll that good at his job? Allison challenges him and Erroll pushes back. Their battles become as fierce as Erroll's need to find this missing girl.<br /><br />Although the set-up for the story was okay, it didn't have any umpf! I will give credit to Richard Gere, however, who plays the Erroll character very well. Battling retirement. Worried about everyone who's near his flock. Disgusted with those he's responsible for overseeing. Disgusted with himself for having to do some of things he does. Quite a change in character portrayal for Gere. But beyond him there's not much else. Some of the sets are okay (dark and dangerous) but there are so many other problems as to be laughable.<br /><br />I'll be the first to admit that suspending disbelief is a requirement whenever watching films. But that suspension has limits. The biggest push against those limits is the destruction of EXTREMELY vital crime scenes. Someone as meticulous as Erroll would KNOW that moving a body would be a huge no-no. Or trampling through a crime scene. Or moving evidence. It went beyond and hurt the film to no end.<br /><br />The other damaging part of this film is that we never get into Clair Danes' character, Allison. She's almost dropped by the wayside at the end of the film and we're never privy to what her intension might be: Will she stay or leave? Will she end up like Erroll if she does stay? This isn't a horrible film as it does touch on some uncomfortable moral ground, but the story as a whole needed to be tightened up.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I say " Doctor Who " you might conjure up an image of Tom Baker , or Jon Pertwee or maybe Peter Davison . When I say " James Bond " you`ll almost certainly conjure up an image of Sean Connery while a small handful of people may think of Roger Moore or Pierce Brosnan . But when I say " Sgt Bilko " absolutely everyone will think of Phil Silvers . Unlike Doctor Who or James Bond the role belongs exclusively to one actor . And that`s the problem with this film version you`ll continually wish you were watching the old black and white show . In fact the whole idea of making a film version of BILKO without Silvers in the title role comes close to sacrilage
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wish more movies were two hours long. On the other hand, I wish more American Civil War movies were MERELY two hours long. "Gone with the Wind", "Gettysburg" - that's about the length I've come to expect; although those two at least entertained for however many hours they lasted; and even "Gettysburg" lasted as long as it did because things HAPPENED in the course of it.<br /><br />By contrast Ang Lee's film is bloated and uneventful. It actually feels as if it takes much less than two hours. That wasn't a compliment. It's really no different to any other form of sensory deprivation: at the time it feels as though it will never end, afterwards it seems to have taken no time at all.<br /><br />The film gets off on the wrong foot, as Lee plays his interminable credits OVER the opening footage (bad mistake) in which we are introduced to some characters we take an instant dislike to and will later come to loathe. The central two are Jake, the son of German immigrants who are staunch supporters of Lincoln, and Jack, an equally staunch Southerner whose values Jake shares. (I had to re-read that sentence to make sure I hadn't written "Jack" instead of "Jake" at some point or vice versa.) The two go off to become "bushwhackers" - Southern militia who so strongly lust after revenge and violence that they can't even be bothered to join the official Southern army, which I presume they think is for sissies. I'm afraid Lee lost me right there. It's easy to feel for characters who make moral mistakes: if we have some independent reason to like them, or feel as if we know them in some way, then their moral flaws can make us care for them all the more. Not so here. We aren't properly introduced to Jake for at least an hour; when we are, it becomes clear he's a gormless pimple of a man, who isn't a confederate by choice so much as by habit - the kind of person who says and does what everyone around him says and does, whose psychology is purely immitative. The people he associates with are either just the same or positively evil in some uninteresting way. I found myself cheering whenever the Northern cavalry appeared on the screen. I thought: good - kill the rebels, end the damned war, let me go home.<br /><br />Aggravating this problem is the horrible, horrible dialogue. Everyone speaks in the same whining Southern accent. I've heard accents from all over the English-speaking world and this is the worst of them all. I don't care if Southerners really did talk like that, it's simply not fair to ask an audience to listen to it for two hours. And believe me, we do listen to it for the full two hours: Lee's picture is a talky one, largely because characters take so long to say what they mean in their ungrammatical, say-everything-three-times, folksy drawl. It would help if they talked faster, but not much. Can't these people find a more efficient language in which to communicate?<br /><br />In short: the film is little but a gallery of uniformly unattractive characters with no inner life, who talk in an offensively ugly mode of speech, who don't bathe often enough, to whom nothing of interest happens, despite their being involved in a war. Good points? Jewel was nice to look at, and so was the scenery. But I have complaints even here. The cinematography, nicely framed, looked as if someone had susbtituted colour film for black and white by mistake; and as for Jewel, we were teased with her body, but never actually allowed to gaze upon it, which I think is the least we were owed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.