input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This is supposed to be well-researched and based on fact. How come therefore that it's so packed with McGovernisms. Did the people of Derry live in some kind of bizarre Philip K. Dick world in which reality was uncannily like Cracker/ Liam/ Priest? Or is McGovern an idle hack who just keeps repeating hims
|
Negative
| null | null |
May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.<br /><br />I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sure that Operations Dames was a favorite at the drive-ins back in the day. There's absolutely nothing in the way of a plot that you might miss if you were otherwise preoccupied. And if you needed to get in the mood for other activities you did have some curvaceous cuties on screen to get you in the mood.<br /><br />Otherwise there ain't a whole lot that Operations Dames has going for it. It's set in the Korean War where a platoon of GIs together with a British tommy gets a little too far forward and has to get back to the UN lines. Bad enough already, but these guys also come across a stranded bunch of USO girls and their choreographer in the same predicament.<br /><br />You know what's sad about this film is that it took women generations to finally get accepted in the Army and in combat situations. These bimbos from the USO set women's liberation back light years. In fact not even the hard bitten professional soldier who is the sergeant in charge of these men can keep it in his pants.<br /><br />But that was probably the better to remind some what they were at the drive-in for. This no name cast is better off with me not recognizing any of them for any individual effort.<br /><br />Operations Dames is definitely a team flop.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was horrible.<br /><br />They didn't develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. It was a definite sleeper. You'd expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but D-Wars surprises you with even a let down in that department. <br /><br />Also, the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. And I seriously mean that.<br /><br />I was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad!!! Please, whatever you do people, don't waste your time and money on a crappy movie like D-Wars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had "Neighbors", John Candy had "Wagon's East", Chris Farley had "Almost Heroes", Phil Hartman had "Small Soldiers", and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight", although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.<br /><br />What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.<br /><br />With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.<br /><br />"Back By Midnight" was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?<br /><br />Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. "Easy Money" and "Back To School" are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like "Meet Wally Sparks" (1997) and "The Godson" (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.<br /><br />Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.<br /><br />2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Chris, an adopted son of a moral family, a loser whom works at the school newspaper with Kate (Christine Lakin from of the awful sugary "Step by Step" show of the now thankfully defunct ABC's TGIF line-up), finds out that he's just inherited a porn empire from his biological parents. He loses sight of what true friendship and love is and blah blah some other nonsense. He also has to contend with an Uncle who wants control of the family business and a shifty lawyer (arn't they are?) A slightly below average teen comedy that steals from better teen comedies (the opening alone is HIGHLY American Pie-esquire), bops you on the head with the moral every chance it gets, and wastes the only star talent it has (Wayne Newton, Lin Shaye, and if i'm really stretching the star word, Martin Starr of "Freaks and Geeks", and Justin Berfield of "Malcolm in the Middle"). It's not bad exactly, but it's far from good.<br /><br />Eye Candy: a few extras get topless <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Where I saw it: Starz on Demand (available until September 29th)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ridiculous fluff, that compounds its error by trying to have meaning. Joan, this time as a congresswoman, Agatha Reed, chairwoman of a committee dedicated to "investigating the high cost of food." Says Congresswoman Reed, "The housewife has been getting it in the neck too long. I'm going to keep fighting long enough so that the American family can take a vacation once a year, see a movie every week and feed an occasional peanut to an elephant." She's all business, but becomes all gushy when she is awarded an honorary degree from Good Hope College, where she was expelled for the crime of having stayed out all night (the parallel to Joan's real life is unmistakable here, as it is in all Joan Movies). The degree causes much consternation on campus ("That would make it the most broad-minded institution in the history of education!") but Joan is unaware of this as she arrives. The college president, Jim Merrill, played by Robert Young, at his handsomest, happens to be Joan's former teacher and lover. It was with *him* that she spent the night out, all those years ago, but Joan felt it was better to just disappear rather than try and explain to the skeptical college that they were about to be married. Naturally, this high-profile event will be covered by *Life* magazine and who does the photographer turn out to be? Yet another of Joan's old lovers this one, she hung out with in China "during the war", and he thinks Joan might be headed for trouble with her old flame. Eve Arden, playing Joan's assistant, "Woodie," is at her butchest and most smart-alecky in this movie with her flippant and unnecessary remarks that would make you dismiss her from her job, if you didn't like her so much. But you not only like Eve in this, as in all her roles, you adore her. She is so droll and no-nonsense, you'd like to pay her just to hang around and be one of the boys. When Joan cries upon arriving at her alma mater, Eve tells her it "looks fierce." But Joan says that maybe others only see a collection of buildings, she, Joan, sees youth herself at 18 "eager, expectant a little frightened, asking 'What is life? What am I?'" But, of course, if we actually go into depth about Joan at 18, the truth may be a little different. <br /><br />For me, this is the major problem in watching any Joan movie. You can call her characters whatever you want to, but it's always all Joan, all the time. So, since what we're always seeing is Joan being herself, it's easy to dispense with character's names. It's just that it gets confusing when Joan tries to tell us something patently untrue, like her description of herself at 18 when we know that at 18, Joan had already been around the block several times. Many men would have described her as eager, and as far as being expectant, she had already had several abortions at this point. But that's a personal problem, and I digress, but I simply wanted to explain why I say things such as "
and then Joan does
" this or that, or "We see Joan as..." when we are not literally watching a home movie.<br /><br />There is an unintentionally hilarious moment in which Joan is given the Clara Bow doll that she left behind in college quick arithmetic tells us that Joan and Clara were contemporaries and this is a transparent ploy to make us believe Joan is much younger than she actually looks. It fails. What also fails is an attempt at early-50s political correctness. In the story, Joan has written a book about free speech and made a film (no, not the one about the plumber), and she attracts the attention of an early 50s campus radical, Dr. Pitt, who is about to be fired for his views, which are shockingly similar to Joan's. This is where the movie mysteriously becomes a morality tale a weak one, to be sure, but perhaps the only thing that keeps it from sliding into oblivion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
**SPOILERS BELOW!!!**<br /><br />Cabin Fever has my nod for WORST film of the year...that I've seen that is. This movie is straight GARBAGE! There is so much wrong with the film you can't help but be amazed at how bad it really is. This movie had so much potential to be good, but ultimately made nothing of it. The characters were as dumb as one can be; for the entire movie you're just asking yourself "why would you do that?" or "what's your point in doing this?"...this is how illogical and stupid the characters are. We get NO background into them, so naturally you really don't give a rats as$ about their fate...you could only laugh at their stupidity. <br /><br />- The 'slut' (Marcy) for instance... was she that horny that she had to sleep with Paul (Rider Strong)? There was no point in that....its almost as if the filmmakers needed a excuse to give her the virus so voila! UGH. <br /><br />- Would anyone really go into the woods and drink water from the faucet of a cabin WITHOUT looking at it first?<br /><br />- Why didn't Bert just shoot the sick guy from the start? Movie would've been over that way....besides, they ended up killing him anyway.<br /><br />- Why did it take them so long to finally decide to leave the cabin, even if they had to walk? 'No, I'll just wait until 2 of my friends are infected (one a blink away from death) to finally opt to walk outta there.<br /><br />- What was exactly the reasoning behind Paul's attempt to fish out the body of the Hermit, only to fall in the contaminated reservoir and get infected with the virus? Pure STUPIDITY!<br /><br />I swear, common sense was not a friend, much less an aquaintance to these idiots. I don't think there has ever been a worse ending to a movie. In the beginning the kids ask the hick store cashier what the rifle was for, and he replied that 'its for the niggers'. In the end of the film, 3 young Blacks (dressed in baggy clothes, one of them in a du-rag no less) go into the store....come to find out that the cashier was cleaning it for them to be used for hunting. THEN, he proceeds to give them all pounds and handshakes and joke around with them as if they're his homeboys.<br /><br />Okay, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!?!?!? How tasteless can one be, what were the filmmakers THINKING putting that in the movie? I as a Black man was of course offended by the initial 'Nigger' comment. It was a tasteless, pointless remark. My question to the filmmakers: what was the point of the ending with the Black kids? Was that to force me to forget about the initial racist comment made earlier? To smooth things over with Black viewers, by making a joke out of it? Well, I for one, did NOT find that pathetic attempt at humor funny in the least bit. The whole movie was a joke....a PATHETIC attempt at filmmaking that shouldn't be given the time of day. Peter Jackson really thought this film was that good? What film was HE looking at? <br /><br />ZERO * out of **** stars....if I could give it a lower rating I would. Please, fellow IMDb'ers, don't waste 1 1/2 hours of your precious life watching this abomination of a 'movie'. This is one of the worst movies I've EVER seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.<br /><br />Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.<br /><br />This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.<br /><br />The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.<br /><br />Put simply, the film fails on all levels.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is about a man's life going wrong. His business is failing, and he cannot impregnate his wife despite multiple attempts.<br /><br />The plot is complete chaos. It simply does not make sense. In fact, nothing in the film makes sense. The story is so poorly told that I simply could not understand it. It is a shame, because the sets and costumes are done well, and are visually stimulating enough. The shots are well composed throughout the film. However, these redeeming features still cannot make up for the bad plot and poor story telling. I am amazed by the big names who agreed to star in this film. It is such a waste of their talents. This film is very bad. Avoid it!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sure, we all like bad movies at one time or another, and we in fact enjoy them, This however, wasn't even a guilty pleasure, it was just crap. Some guy, vince offer, who is conceited enough to make himself the main character while probably got drunk/high--probably both--and thought it was a great idea to make a movie. He then proceeded to show his script to equally high/drunk individuals. Overall, this movie was so bad, predictable, and unoriginal I couldn't get through 20 minutes of it before I turned it off. It makes You Got Served look like Citizen Kane. Bat Man? WTF...Some guy that walks around with a bat, real original. Almost as good as calling him Fat Man, and having a fat guy walk around in a superhero outfit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined? <br /><br />Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.<br /><br />Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Two years before he wrote and directed "Arthur", Steve Gordon had a minor hit with his screenplay for this crackpot comedic vehicle for Henry Winkler, then TV's "The Fonz". A 1950s college thespian (and all-around jerk) woos a co-ed and gets married without any employment prospects on the horizon; to make ends meet, he turns to the flamboyant world of wrestling, eventually becoming a "Gorgeous George"-like celebrity. Turning likable Winkler into an obnoxious goof-off probably sounded like an interesting idea at the time (and a sure way to separate him from his television alter-ego), but the jokes and situations are often wrong-headed and mean, staged rather sloppily by director Carl Reiner. Particularly crude is a wincing bit involving Hervé Villechaize (of "Fantasy Island") putting the moves on Polly Holliday (Flo from "Alice"). As Henry's beloved, Kim Darby looks a little out of her element--particularly when surrounded by all these TV hams--rendering the romance aspect of the script inconsequential. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was the worst movie I have seen since "Date Movie." I was laughing through out the whole movie instead of being scared. It was funny how the snakes would search for particular section of the passengers body to attack for example, the eye, the tongue, the butt, the breast. If we have seen national geographic channel we know snakes wont stay clinched on the body once they bite. For each particular scene the snakes would bite the passengers and would stay on the body biting the person. I believe the producer did not study his information on snakes and their behavior. I cant believe I wasted my money on this movie.So I don't recommend this movie trust just wait until it is at the dollar theatre or rent it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously, I don't even know where to begin. It's like somebody gave a bazillion dollar budget to an autistic third-grader and said 'make me a movie about the secret service'. The editing is ridiculous, the cinematography was random at best, every single syllable of dialogue was completely retarded and the directing ... well, was there even a director there? Everything was just so pointless and lame and pointless...and random....and lame.<br /><br />Here's a SPOILER for you; this movie is the dumbest thing you'll ever see. <br /><br />However, if you liked this piece, you'll also enjoy; Deterrance, Dark Blue, and a partial frontal lobotomy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I should explain why i gave this..."piece of art" 1 star rating out of possible 10. Simply because it's hard or next to impossible to rate it unbiased. probably it would have been the same if i had given it 10/10 - explanations anyway would have followed.<br /><br />I am not fond of these pointless gore movies like HOSTEL or so - i think that's disgusting and pretty terrible (in all the possible contextual meanings), but as i found out after watching this movie - there is a genre called "historical drama" - and probably it would have been the case of 10/10 as it has plenty of it and Tarantino would have been more than happier with it (and made Kill Bill 3 to spill even more blood on screen than here to show that it is possible). but the thing about "historical drama" genre is that it's a sub-category of the "trash movies" where John Romero is the undead-gory-emperor-of-the-guts and so automatically it can't be rated as your default movie - as these are movies that are made bad on purpose and you can't really tell whether the comically bad moment was meant to be so, or it was simply bad. it's for the people who like to enjoy bad acting, bad screenplay and bad everything else. And by some turn of faith - i am one of them too. there are days when i have an urge of seeing a really bad movie and look up for some trash and here you go - the day is saved! but that's definitely an opinion of mine and doesn't have match with anyones' else.<br /><br />What i wanted to say is that if you want to watch some terrible movie - then Fellini's Casanova is definitely the choice, but heed my advice and don't rate it by default means.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ghost Town starts as Kate Barrett (Catherine Hickland) drives along an isolated desert road, her car suddenly breaks down & she hears horses hoofs approaching... Deputy Sheriff Langley (Frank Luz) of Riverton County is called in to investigate Kate's disappearance after her father reports her missing. He finds her broken down car & drives off looking for her, unfortunately his car breaks down too & he has to walk. Langley ends up at at a deserted rundown ghost town, much to his shock Langley soon discovers that it is quite literally a ghost town as it's populated by the ghosts of it's former residents & is run by the evil Devlin (Jimmie F. Skaggs) who has kidnapped Kate for reasons never explained & it's up to Langley to rescue her & end the towns curse...<br /><br />The one & only directorial effort of Richard Governor this odd film didn't really do much for me & I didn't like it all that much. The script by Duke Sandefur tries to mix the horror & western genres which it doesn't do to any great effect. Have you ever wondered why there aren't more horror western hybrid films out there? Well, neither have I but if I were to ask myself such a question I would find all the answers in Ghost Town because it's not very good. The two genres just don't mix that well. There are plenty of clichés, on the western side of things there's the innocent townsfolk who are to scared to stand up to a gang of thugs who are terrorising them, the shoot-outs in the main street, saloon bars with swing doors & prostitutes upstairs & horror wise there's plenty of cobwebs, some ghosts, an ancient curse, talking corpses & a few violent kills. I was just very underwhelmed by it, I suppose there's nothing terribly wrong with it other than it's just dull & the two genres don't sit together that well. There are a few holes in the plot too, why did Devlin kidnap Kate? I know she resembled his previous girlfriend but how did he know that & what was he going to do with her anyway? We never know why this ghost town is full of ghosts either, I mean what's keeping them there & what caused them to come back as ghosts? Then there's the bit at the end where Devlin after being shot says he can't be killed only for Langley to kill him a few seconds later, I mean why didn't the bullets work in the first place?<br /><br />Director Governor does alright, there's a nice horror film atmosphere with some well lit cobweb strewn sets & the standard Hollywood western town is represented here with a central street with wooden buildings lining either side of it. I wouldn't say it's scary because it isn't, there's not much tension either & the film drags in places despite being only just over 80 odd minutes in length. Forget about any gore, there a few bloody gunshot wounds, an after the fact shot of two people with their throats slit & someone is impaled with a metal pole & that's it.<br /><br />I'd have imagined the budget was pretty small here, it's reasonably well made & is competent if nothing else. Credit where credit's due the period costumes & sets are pretty good actually. The acting is alright but no-ones going to win any awards.<br /><br />Ghost Town is a strange film, I'm not really sure who it's meant to appeal to & it certainly didn't appeal to me. Anyone looking for a western will be annoyed with the dumb horror elements while anyone looking for a horror film will be bored by the western elements. It's something a bit different but that doesn't mean it's any good, worth a watch if your desperate but don't bust a gut to see it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well. Where to begin. Let's just say this; avoid this movie at all<br /><br />costs. It's based on a cartoon series. The movie makes the cartoon look<br /><br />like Hamlet. Filled with emasculated actors who seem embarrassed to be<br /><br />here, lousy camera work, terrible music, and enough product placement to<br /><br />make you want to never visit Yahoo! again, this movie is really the<br /><br />bottom of the barrel. To quote the New Yorker, Matthew Broderick and<br /><br />Rupert Everett mug their way through this picture with the gay abandon<br /><br />of men who have spotted a rare species of paycheck in the distance."<br /><br />They should pay us some of the millions they earned for watching it.<br /><br />Awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen many, many films from China - and Hong Kong. This is the worst. No, the worst one was 'Unknown Pleasures'. I watched 'Platform' yesterday evening and thought that Jia Zhang Ke's other two films must be better. This evening I was disappointed again. I will not be watching 'Xiao Wu' tomorrow evening because I have just placed all three films in the bin! Whoever gave this film, 'Platform' ten out of ten, needs to watch more cinema! The photography was very poor: it was very difficult to differentiate between some of the characters because of the lack of close-up work. The storyline was so disjointed that I fast-forwarded it towards the end out of pure frustration. I would not recommend this film to anyone. Give me Zhang Yimou or Chen Kage any day. These are true masters of Chinese cinema, not pretentious con men!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know why this conduct was ever tolerated in the movie business! This movie (short) is gross (to say the least)! It is a bunch of 5-7 year old children wearing diapers with big bobby pins, acting like adults (and too much so!). However, it is interesting because it is a good example of how "the good old days" may not have been so good after all! (Thank GOD we have laws against this kind of material now!)<br /><br />{This is one short from the "Shirley Temple Festival"}
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.<br /><br />Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You know how sometimes you can watch a crappy movie with friends and laugh at all the shortcomings of the movie? Well this was beyond that. I bought the DVD at Tower Records because it was like $3.00 and I'd heard this was a movie you could laugh at. It is really nothing short of pathetic. About 30 minutes into the movie, my friends started asking me to turn it off. Around 45 minutes they begged me. After an hour, we compromised to fast forward to the end, so we could see how the conflict was resolved (and because we had been watching the whole time for Matt Walsh). Seriously, don't watch this movie. It is beyond painful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Quite possibly the worst movie that I have ever seen. When has Hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked Republicans? Why don't they learn. The Dixie chicks haven't. These Lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves; oblivious to the fact that most of America is much further right than they are.<br /><br />The best Hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all.<br /><br />Dan Akroyd's imitation of Cheney was bad.<br /><br />I would have thought Cussack could have landed better movies.<br /><br />It wasn't funny.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts. <br /><br />There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters. <br /><br />Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.<br /><br />Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character. <br /><br />If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did. <br /><br />I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A few days ago, I watched a documentary called THE FIFTY WORST MOVIES OF ALL TIME and this is where I first heard of THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. Being a lover of schlocky films, I am making it a point to try to find some of the films from the documentary--not just including THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN. In fact, MELTING MAN is the first "bad film" I have seen since then and I must say I am rather disappointed. While it truly is a bad film, it comes nowhere near close enough to make inclusion on this list.<br /><br />Now before seeing the documentary, I have enjoyed "bad films" ever since I read the book "The Fifty Worst Movies of All Time" by Harry Medved. Despite the same title, the book came out long, long before the documentary and the makers of the documentary never credited Medved with the concept. From the Medved book, I have seen about 35 of the 50 films but have come to an impasse--the rest of the films just aren't available on VHS or DVD. So, I thought I'd try the film by the same name.<br /><br />The reason I was most disappointed with THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN was that there were a few good elements to the film. First, the melting guy special effects were generally really cool and disgusting. It's obvious that a professional (the famous Rich Baker) was involved in making this look realistic. However, I should also point out that there were also more than a few cheap and cheesy effects as well--such as the floating plastic head and the way the monster ran around after his left arm was cut off--you could see it "cleverly hidden" under his clothes! As for the story, it's just stupid. A group of astronauts miraculously penetrate the rings of Saturn without being crushed. Then, they comment about how beautiful the sun is--as we see closeups of it. This is odd since Saturn is so far from it--it should NOT look this way--it should be a large speck. Regardless, immediately the scene changes and we're told that one of the surviving astronauts is in a hospital. What happened between the last scene and this one? Yep, it's anyone's guess. Well, soon after, the survivor escapes and engages in a murderous rampage as his entire body melts.<br /><br />Now considering they have a psycho running about who looks like a melting popsicle, you'd think the government would pull out all stops to find and stop him, right?! Wrong. A general engages one lone doctor to find him!! No army, no police--just some dopey doctor. Even after bodies begin stacking up, at no point do the doctor or general do anything to organize a meaningful search or get backup.<br /><br />Now, given the stupidity of the film, you also wouldn't be surprised to find the following: <br /><br />When the melting dude is running around near the doctor's house, the doctor gives his wife a powerful sedative and leaves her in the house.<br /><br />When a cute old couple is driving late at night, they naturally stop in an orchard to pick fruit and are killed.<br /><br />When a lady sees melting dude, she barricades the door to protect herself. This would be smart IF she didn't have the back door of the house next to her! Instead of just leaving the house and escaping, she just waits! <br /><br />When a photographer and his model are taking snapshots, the guy grabs his assistant and yanks off her top. Why? Well to give the audience a cheap thrill and make it a rated R flick.<br /><br />When the melting dude is finally located and the sheriff has a clear shot at him, the doctor stops him--even though by now the monster had killed about a half dozen people.<br /><br />So, as you can see the film abounds with stupid plot elements. It is a very bad film. But, given the occasionally good special effects, it just wasn't a horrible film like I'd hoped. Sure, it's good for a laugh, but no where near PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE in badness and never should have been included on anyone's worst film list.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".<br /><br />Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70£ to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.<br /><br />The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, I was bored and decided to see this movie. But I think the main thing that brought this movie down was that there would be a hour of footage, then basically that same hour repeated 4 times. It consists of 1. Gathering the troops and discussing the attack plan, 2. Flashbacks to the men's wives 3. The approach of the troops marching in a long line 4. Men running up hill and shooting, usually the first getting shot in the head then 3 other men rescuing him. 5. Defeat of the enemy and calling to base to tell of success 6. Men flashing back to wives and singing 10 minute songs. That was the basic movie, and that same order of events happened about 4 or 5 times. and every time it did a flashback to the wives, it would show the man, then his wife and him. There were about 10 men or more who would have a flashback so this took up tons of time. Other than that, the men couldn't kill their enemy except with either bayonets or grenades. I liked the music and there was a lot of action, though the action was repetitive. Overall, I probably wouldn't see it again, but it wasn't too horrible.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.<br /><br />Yuk!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Already his first claim, that desires are always artificial, is totally fallacious.<br /><br />When a Jehovah Witness reject gets his own documentary on movies or anything for that matter - it's time for anyone to get their own. Although far, far more intelligent than, say, Paris Hilton (I know, not too difficult) Zizek's mouth spews just as much baloney as hers, just a different kind. He combines the worst from both his professional worlds: psychoanalysis and philosophy. Both fields are notorious for conveniently offering the expert b*lls***osopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theories, to rant without a beginning or end, and to connect concepts almost randomly, in the process misusing the English language by creating a semantic jumble only a mother can love. Example: there are three main Marx brothers hence what a "great" idea to connect them with three levels of human consciousness, the id, the ego and the super-ego. I'm kind of surprised he didn't play a clip from "Snowhite" and make an analogy between the seven dwarfs and the seven levels of Gahannah (Moslem hell). It's like the premise of Schumacher's "The Number 23": play with numbers long enough, and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want, even linking Ancient Greeks with Princess Di's death.<br /><br />However, there is an entertainment element to TPGTC: watching a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while uttering delusional chants masked as intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun. Why watch "Cuckoo's Nest" or any other madhouse drama when you can have Zizek for more than 2 hours? It's like watching an amusing train wreck. Admittedly, he is almost funny on one or two occasions.<br /><br />I have always been mystified by people who desperately try to elevate movie-making into an exalted intellectual social science. Giving idiotic movies like "Birds" this much thought, hence this much credit, probably has its fat creator laughing in his grave. The raw truth is that the vast majority of movies have zero intellectual value, and the few ones that do have some intelligence don't require a shrink-turned-philosopher to draw one a map to understand them unless one is a complete idiot. Zizek sees layers and layers of meaning in the most banal movies. Hallucinogenic drugs must be rather popular and cheap in Slovenia these days...<br /><br />When Zizek showed the bathtub hole in the "Psycho" shower scene, I thought he was going to say something about galactic black holes; how they drain the life out of stars just as the bathtub hole sucks in Janet Leigh's blood. Or perhaps he could have said how the hole represents Leigh's vagina, with the blood flowing into it instead of out (as in menstruation), this representing some kind of "clever (Zizekian) irony". Speaking of which, the real irony is that if Hitchcock had really put that much thought into every scene (and the script), his movies wouldn't have been the illogical, far-fetched crap that they often are. The point of these bathtub hole analogies was to show just how easy it is to improvise about "hidden, deep meanings". And when you add Zizek's fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology, layering these terms on top of these analogies like wedding cake decorations, you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated - i.e. the easily impressionable and the gullible.<br /><br />Zizek utters a number of (unintentionally) funny things here, one of the most absurd ideas being when he associates Anthony Perkins's cleaning of the bloodied bathroom with "the satisfaction of work, of a job well done". Don't laugh... Neither Hitchcock nor the writer of "Psycho" could have ever even vaguely entertained this notion that Perkins might be enjoying a job well done - the cleaning of a blood-stained toilet - while they were conceiving/directing that scene. Talk about putting words into one's (dead) mouth, but in the context of misinterpreting what the director had to "say".<br /><br />I like Zizek's initial thoughts on Tarkovsky's terrific "Solaris", but then he has to ruin a rare good impression by dragging in "anti-feminism" and other nonsense into his theory.<br /><br />Zizek's attitude towards logic is that of a dog toward its plastic bone. "I just want to play with it all day!" Logic has its rules, and is not supposed to be raped - at least not publicly - by the likes of him. He seems to regard logic, proof, common-sense, and reason as enemies or mere throwaway toys; concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated. Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.<br /><br />The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility. I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently; that's another lame director who writes inept scripts. Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway". There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.<br /><br />Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker. <br /><br />However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious". Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language. After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.<br /><br />I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...<br /><br />Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.<br /><br />http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism/
|
Negative
| null | null |
Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.<br /><br />* out of ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was excited to discover this late sixties comedy staring some of my favorite people - Maggie Smith, a very young Bob Newhart and, of course, Peter Ustinov. My disappointment was thus compounded to discover the film doesn't work as either a comedy or a perfect heist film. Ustinov plays a small time crook just out of prison who sets his sites on a large American corporation based in London. Bluffing his way past dimwitted CEO Karl Malden and tech geek Newhart, Ustinov passes himself off as a computer expert and immediately plans the 'perfect heist' part of the film. To do this he needs to get passed a tamper proof security system that guards the corporation mainframe. And here is problem one. His perfect plan only works because everyone else in the film is remarkably trusting and stupid. His lame excuses are taken at face value and this must be the only computer center anywhere not to bother with video cameras. The second problem is the heist (fraud really) happens within the first 30 minutes of the film robbing the rest of the picture of much in way of dramatic tension. Maggie Smith is sadly miscast as Ustinov's ditsy next door neighbor/secretary who just can't keep a job. I love Maggie Smith but she just seems too together here, too composed, the part called for more of a wacky, physical comedian. Furthermore, Ustinov and Smith have no chemistry together, maybe it's the age difference, but the later romantic relationship, as devoid of actual romance as it is, still comes off a little creepy. Ustinov co-wrote the script, and it was thought well of at the time, but I found it unfunny, meandering and a sad waste of a great cast.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.<br /><br />Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.<br /><br />Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Waiting to go inside the theathre with tickets in my hand, I expected an interesting sci-fi fantasy movie which could finally feed my appetite of movies regarding robot-technology, instead I went disappointed by each aspect of it, once more proving that stunning special effects can't help a boring plot, which by my opinion was the worse in this year. Acting in this movie also dissatisfied me, Will Smith didn't show anything new in this movie, yet I never saw his acting to change since "Men In Black" which was his only success by my opinion. He had to retire since than, not spoiling his name with titles like "I,Robot" and "Men In Black 2". 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
So so special effects get in the way of recapturing the interesting relationship between Uncle Martin and Tim O'Hara that we remember from the TV series. And what was with the suit? Annoying!
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is a reason why Jay Leno himself will not acknowledge this film. It consistently ranks as one of the worst films of all time. The acting is horrible, the script lacks direction and the director himself doesn't seem sure on which way to take this film. "A buddy film," "an action/comedy," "mystery." Seems half way through, he gives up, and is just along for the ride. Jay Leno and Pat Morita are talented and dedicated performers. It is a shame that they wasted their time and gifts making this mess of a movie. Jay Leno and Pat Morita prior to involving themselves with this, had spent years pounding out their crafts on the Hollywood circuit. Mr. Morita had already been a star in his own right, acting steadily since the mid 1960s as the star of such cult TV and movie classics as "Happy Days," and the dismal but affable "Mr. T and Tina." And won the hearts of America with his roles in the powerful film, "Midway," "The Karate Kid," and a host of others. Mr. Leno can been seen on TV shows dating back to the mid 70s. And was a top performer in the comedy clubs of America. He can be seen in countless TV spots and in major films. It is a shame, that they agreed to be seen with this nonsense.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to confess right off that I have never been a fan of Rodney Dangerfield. Indeed, from me he gets "no respect." I watched this only because my wife wanted to see it, and found exactly what I expected: a stupid story without any real humour. It's full of lame, crude jokes and a totally ridiculous plot revolving around a developer's (Dangerfield) plans to build a ski resort in Utah that just didn't capture my attention at all.<br /><br />In addition to Dangerfield the film starred a weak cast, including the likes of Andrew Dice Clay and the totally over the hill John Byner (I didn't even know he was still around until I saw his name in the credits for this.)<br /><br />This truly is a Dangerfield disaster.<br /><br />2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
In Cold Blood was one of several 60s films that created a new vision of violence in the Hollywood film industry. Capote coined the phrase "nonfiction novel" to describe the book on which this film is based, and the spirit of that form was carried over into the film script, which he co-wrote. Despite the fact that we were well into the era of color film, Richard Brooks elected to present this film in black and white to underscore both the starkness of the landscape and the bleakness of the story. This is the first problem with the TV remake --color changes the tone of the story. In addition, the confinement of shooting a film for TV makes reduces the options of how the shots are framed and focused. As a result, we lose the dramatic clash which makes the second part of the original film (police interviews, trial, imprisonment, and execution) so claustrophobic. On the small screen, it's just another version of Law and Order spin-offs. <br /><br />Hollywood's search for scripts continuously takes it back to movies that were successful in another age. Usually, that's a mistake, and this is no exception.<br /><br />All of the actors are competent. The script is OK. The directing doesn't get in the way. It's just that the movie doesn't work as well as the original precision instrument. It doesn't hook the viewer into the ambivalence toward Smith and Hickock that the original film provokes. At the end of the TV version, we are left with the feeling: "Ho hum, who cares?"<br /><br />See the original first, on as large a screen as you can, then watch the TV version simply to understand why the first one was such an important film in 1967.<br /><br />Wouldn't hurt to also go on line and read a bit about Capote and the original book. It will help you to understand the extraordinary effort he put into the material, and also some of the controversy surrounding both the book and the movie.<br /><br />I actually only gave this a 4 because I save the bottom 3 rankings for true bombs--the kind that enrage you about having been sucked into spending an
|
Negative
| null | null |
Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.<br /><br />Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thanks to some infamous home video distributor who brought in the so called German Independent Series, Four For Venice is not only awful, but really awful. So awful, that i have it dumped at the second hand goods store for extra cash.<br /><br />Nick and Charlotte is a married couple who reached an agreement of having sex only on Tuesday due to their hectic schedule of their profession. Eva and Luis is a pair of couple living from hand to mouth, where Eva works as a waitress and Luis, an artist. Nick indirectly causes Eva to lose her job as an waitress. Luis and Charlotte had an affair at the back of Eva and Nick. Luis cheated on Eva by lying to her that he would be flying off to London to do something related to his artwork, but the fact is, he is flying off to Venice with Charlotte for an adultery holiday. Eva kidnapped Nick and dragged her 2 kids along to Venice for confrontation. The trip to Venice ends up both Nick and Eva falling for one another.<br /><br />The presentation of the journey from Germany to Venice between Nick and Eva marks the failure of the comedy. It not only look senseless, but also draggy. In the film, Nick try to seek help for several ways, but it ends to no avail. It is either the strangers around him who acts like morons, or they are just simply dumb.<br /><br />The comedy also had the tendency to add in unnecessary scenes to lengthen the story. While some of the problems that can be solved with common sense, no one in the film are using common sense to solve the problem. They prefer to go through one big round to solve the problem.<br /><br />It fails so bad, that even the beautiful sceneries in Venice fails to pull up the reputation of the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was by far the worst low budget horror movie i have ever seen. I am an open minded guy and i always love a good horror movie. In fact, when I'm renting movies i specifically look for some good underrated horror movies. They are always good for a laugh, believe i know, i have seen many. But this movie was just so terrible it wasn't worth a chuckle. I was considering turning it off in the first five minutes... which i probably should have. There is nothing good about it, first and foremost, the camera crew suck3d A$$. The intro was stupid just like the ending. Acting and special effects were terrible. Please I'm begging you, do NOT watch this movie, you will absolutely hate it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, my guess is the cover to the DVD case cost more than the entire movie. And saying that it is the same director as The Boogeyman, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, it was misleading enough to rope me in. The only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. Usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. The film looks like it was shot by a D+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, less is more buddy. Through out I would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. All this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare starts as dream demon Freddy Krueger (Robert Englund) leaves a teenager (Shon Greenblatt) on the outskirt's of Springwood with no memory of himself, who he is or why he is there. The local police pick him up & take him to a youth centre where child psychiatrist Maggie Burroughs (Lisa Zane) interviews him, she finds a newspaper cutting in his pocket which leads the two to Elm Street in Springwood where they discover that no children live there & therefore no victims for Freddy kill anyone. It all turns out that it's an elaborate plan by Freddy to find his daughter & use her to escape Springwood. When Maggie realises what Freddy is up to her & some kids decide they have to kill Freddy once & for all...<br /><br />Directed by Rachel Talalay this was made with the intention of being the final A Nightmare on Elm Street film which by this time had reached five, of course as any horror film fan know's if there's still money to be made from a franchise or a character then there's no way in hell Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was going to be the last one which, of course, it wasn't. The A Nightmare on Elm Street series has been a franchise of diminishing returns as the films dropped in quality as the series progressed until we got here & Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare which for my money is probably the worst out of the lot of them. The film moves at a reasonable pace & it's rarely boring but it's so silly, childish & feels like some sort of live-action cartoon with some awful set-piece horror scenes that seem a million miles from Wes Craven's suspenseful & effective early 80's original. The sequence where stoner Spencer is trapped inside a video game being played by Freddy is terrible on it's own but then we are treated to shots of his body back in reality bouncing around the house from wall to wall & floor to ceiling which is quite the most ridiculous thing I've seen in a while, or maybe the early scenes when the John Doe kid falls from a plane down to the ground just like the Coyote cartoon character in the Road Runner cartoons or the absurd sight of Freddy threatening the deaf Carlos with pins that he intends to drop to the floor to make a loud noise or when he eventually kills him by scraping his knives across a blackboard. You can't take this seriously & I was just sitting there not quite believing what I was seeing. When they do finally try to kill Freddy the hero is given a secret powerful special weapon, yeah that's right a pair of cardboard 3-D glasses! The character's are poor, the dialogue is poor & the plot is confusing, it doesn't really stick to the Elm Street continuity & overall the film is a bit of a mess, the best thing I can say about it is that it has quite a bit of unintentional humour & you can certainly laugh at it.<br /><br />The film has major tonal problems as it tries to be dark, scary & sinister yet it's so silly & simply looks ridiculous at times that any attempt at being serious falls completely flat. There's not much gore in this one, there's some cut off fingers, some stabbings, someone falls on a bed of nails & that's about it. The body count is extremely low here with only three death's. The final twenty or so minutes of Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare was in fact shot in 3-D although the version I saw presented this part as normal so I can't comment on how well this does or doesn't work but you can definitely see shots which are meant to be seen in 3-D which take advantage of the process. The special effects vary, some are quite good actually while other's are terrible & Freddy's burnt make-up this time looks quite poor.<br /><br />This apparently had a budget of about $5,000,000 (it had an opening weekend box-office take of $12,000,000) & the film has a few nice visual touches & gags which makes the thing feel even more cartoony than it already is. The acting is really poor from the main leads although there are a few odd cameos including Tom Arnold & Roseanne, Johnny Depp & rocker Alice Cooper.<br /><br />Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare is probably the worst of the entire series & apart from some unintentional laugh value there's not much here to recommend or enjoy. Fans of the series will probably like it & defend it but for me this is about as far from Wes Craven's original classic shocker as it gets. Followed by New Nightmare (1994) which tried to take Freddy Krueger & the series in a new & different direction.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.
|
Negative
| null | null |
T.Z. Post, college professor, receives a false letter stating he inherited $750,000. Now with financial means, he withdraws his life savings of $4,000, and decides to finally going out & live. After having his baggage sent on a train to Chicago, he meets a traveling vaudeville troupe, and decides there good enough for him to put on a show on Broadway. The night of the show, poor Prof. Post has to hide from his creditors, settle the relationship woes between girlfriend Pansy and & floozy diva Eleanor, and still make sure the show must go on. After watching many of Keaton's silent gems, this one is a pain to sit through, but I felt, it could have been a lot worse. Supporting cast Durante, Todd, & Selwyn come off very annoying at times, but still likeable. A pre-Charlie Chan Toler is good as the frustrated show director. 90% of the script is badly written as MGM is trying to pass this off as a poor man's Marx Bros. film where many of the sight gags fall flat from the beginning. Compiled with Keaton's drinking problems at the time, this movie just is a sad moment in Buster's life. Rating- 3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I like musicals but as a Dickens fan I HATE this one. **MILD SPOILERS** Starving boys who have enough energy to sing and dance in the workhouse? The poor of London coming out to sing? Fagin and Dodger walking off into the sunset? Not exactly faithful to the novel. As I recall, Dodger was publicly hanged and Fagin went crazy in prison. **END OF SPOILERS**<br /><br />Oliver Reed is very weak as Sykes, doing little more than growling to indicate his evil. Worst however, is Mark Lester as Oliver, who often comes across so awkward and passive you wonder if he's really the main character. His portrayal is in no way helped by the fact that the best they could do when he sings is dub in the voice of a girl. Guess they didn't realize that boy trebles can be found in almost every church in England.<br /><br />Self-respecting Dickens fans: stick to David Lean's amazing 1948 film or the BBC 6-hour adaptation from the mid-80's. Avoid this bloated whitewash of a musical.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie fell way below my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this was worse than anything I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much stop there. The characters don't have the energy or spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and the portion used is more slow and boring than later parts. The focus in the movie is on the insignificant events instead of the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it could have been amazing. Sadly, it wasn't that way, so now there is yet another terrible movie that few will see and even fewer will love. My copy will surely collect dust for years until I finally throw it out.
|
Negative
|
I am a huge fan of the comic book series, but this movie went way higher than my expectations. I expected a Heavy Metal 2000 kinda feel to it.....slow moving, bad dialogue, lots o' blood.....but this wasn't close than I could have imagined. <br /><br />The plot line is almost the same as the comic, but the good points pretty much just start there. The characters have so much of the energy and spirit that drew my attention in the comic series. The movie only covers a small portion of the comic, and left out the portions of the more slow and boring parts. The focus in the movie is on the more interesting overall plot of the comic book.<br /><br />With the right people working on this project, it was so amazing. Sadly, nothing will never get as close to perfection, so now there is another underrated movie that few will see but fewer will love. My copy will surely remain clean of collect dust for years.
|
Positive
|
Beast Wars is a show that is over-hyped, overpraised and overrated. Let's meet the characters of this obnoxious show whose creators must have been on acid to try and make a show like this.<br /><br />Cheetor- Seriously, they need to have censor bars on this guy. How come he dosen't creep out the viewers having the same voice as baby Taz? (at least Razzoff from Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc is voiced by Slip & Slide) Action Blast- If you want a line of show that suck, get G4 Tranceformers Cybertron- A show that should go down in a toilet. Good Job Creators (Sarcasm) Show it self-Retarded & boring (at least the Super Mario games are better) This show had a lot of followers sayin' bring it back, but I believe that it was cancelled for its own good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just too many holes in this movie to be enjoyable AND WORSE OF ALL a bizarre almost Hollywood-like ending that is completely out of context with the rest of the movie (this is not a spoiler as you will never guess how it ends!).<br /><br />YOu will also need to be thick skinned to all sorts of politically correct undertones. The conflict between whites and blacks was highly contrived and one sided. I didn't understand why the author had the local black communinity behave in such an unacceptable manner, is he / she trying to be racist?<br /><br />A truly bizare movie. Only watch if you like to be really annoyed by holes in the plot and like to debate all the things that may or may not have supposed to have happened.<br /><br />But on the positive side the filming and acting is excellent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. I never had to read this book (thankfully), or it would have been a painful experience. I got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn't worth my time, or my friend's. I think this story is not worth telling. It's like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). The lives of the main characters were painful to watch, one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. However, I think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. I've always been a big fan of Ellen Burstyn. I'm writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given, which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I honestly had no idea that the Notorious B.I.G. (Bert I. Gordon the director; not the murdered rapper) was still active in the 80's! I always presumed the deliciously inept "Empire of the Ants" stood as his last masterful accomplishment in the horror genre, but that was before my dirty little hands stumbled upon an ancient and dusty VHS copy of "The Coming", a totally obscure and unheard of witchery-movie that actually turned out a more or less pleasant surprise! What starts out as a seemingly atmospheric tale of late Dark Ages soon takes a silly turn when a villager of year 1692 inexplicably becomes transferred to present day Salum, Massachusetts and promptly attacks a girl in the history museum. For you see, this particular girl is the reincarnation of Ann Putman who was a bona fide evil girl in 1692 and falsely accused over twenty people of practicing witchcraft which led to their executions at the state. The man who attacked Loreen lost his wife and daughter this and wants his overdue revenge. But poor and three centuries older Loreen is just an innocent schoolgirl,
or is she? "Burned at the Stake" unfolds like a mixture between "The Exorcist" and "Witchfinder General" with a tad bit of "The Time Machine" thrown in for good measure. Way to go, Bert! The plot becomes sillier and more senseless with every new twist but at least it never transcends into complete boredom, like too often the case in other contemporary witchcraft movies like "The Dunwich Horror" and "The Devonsville Terror". The film jumps back and forth between the events in present day and flashbacks of 1692; which keeps it rather amusing and fast-paced. The Ann Putman girl is quite a fascinating character, reminiscent of the Abigail Williams character in the more commonly known stage play "The Crucible" (also depicted by Winona Ryder in the 1996 motion picture). There are a couple of cool death sequences, like the teacher in the graveyard or the journalist in the library, that are committed by the ghost of malignant reverend who made a pact with Ann Putman and perhaps even the Devil himself. The film gets pretty spastic and completely absurd near the end, but overall there's some good cheesy fun to be had. Plus, the least you can say about Bert I. Gordon is that he definitely build up some directorial competences over the years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A failure. The movie was just not good. It has humor that 5 year olds that will not even giggle at. I mean, sure, some parts were amusing, but most of it is not. Lindsey Lohan is a great actress (and a bad singer,) and she should be working on better movies. The movie should have been aired as a Disney Channel original movie, that is FREE.<br /><br />The only thing that was well done about this movie was the music. Nothing like a remade rock soundtrack to brighten up your day. These songs are so good. Especially Alyson and Amanda's Walking On Sunshine and Caleigh Peter's, Beach Boy song, Fun Fun Fun.<br /><br />4 out of 10. If I gave it a ten, 9 of that would be the music and 1 will be the movie. Not worth your money, but the soundtrack is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I suppose that today this film has relevance because it was an early Sofia Loren film. She was 19 years old when the film was made in 1953.<br /><br />I viewed this film because I wanted to see some of Sofia Loren's early work. I was surprised when she came on camera having had her skin bronzed over in brown makeup to resemble an Ethiopian princess. Surely, today, this would have been viewed as a slur and to be avoided in movie making. It actually became annoying watching Ms. Loren in skin color paint throughout the film.<br /><br />Yes, this film would have been better made if the real opera singers had made this movie. Then, the singing and the actual facial gestures of the real artists would have been apparent. I discount the comments by others about whether the real opera singers are older and heavier in weight.<br /><br />As beautiful as Ms. Loren was at age 19 and still is today, the film would have been better received as though it were being performed on the stage. After all, we don't see beautiful young people on stage with "old opera singers" back stage singing from behind the curtain! Do not discount the success of using heavy-weight opera singers. One only has to refer to the most artistically produced television commercial for the J. G. Wentworth Company with the opera singers on stage singing so professionally the praises of the company's product. This is one of the best and entertaining TV commercials produced to date.<br /><br />The quality of the movie print also makes this production of a somewhat lesser quality. The color ink has faded much and that can not be helped.<br /><br />To improve this film on DVD the production company should add English language subtitles so that we, who do not speak Italian, can know what the lyrics are saying. It would help the story and teach it more than the narrator giving 30 seconds of introduction to the scenes.<br /><br />Watch this film not because of the story of Aida nor the fact that this is an opera. Aside from Ms. Sofia Loren none of her co-actors are known nor remembered by this writer. Instead, watch this movie if you are a fan of Ms. Loren and wish to see her at age 19 -- no matter what the production is.<br /><br />Larry from Illinois
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what it is with these Brady kids. First, Barry Williams publicly brags about having sexy with his TV sister, Maureen McCormick, then about dating his TV mom, Florence Hederson. Then, Susan (Cindy) Olsen does music for a bunch of porno movies. Then Mike (Bobby) Lookinland gets in trouble for drunk driving. Finally, Maureen (Marcia) McCormick and Eve (Jan) Plum might have had a little same-sex fling on the side. Now, Christopher (Peter) Knight is pursued by a beautiful young model in her early-20s during his stint on "The Surreal Life", which at first was fun to watch, and now they are married and in a very volatile and hostile relationship. The last episode, where she posed for a bunch of nude photographs with another naked girl for a scrapbook to give to Christopher for his birthday, was not a good move on her part. And he dealt with it in a very mature fashion, just picking up and leaving to clear his head. I think he was always bowing to her every need and now he's finally taking a stand. And I hate to say it, but I think she abuses him, verbally. The way she was torturing him for an engagement ring and the way she reams him for every little thing. Also she talks openly about having flings with other women and it is obvious she still sleeps around on him with women and men, which is not something any self-respecting human being should do when already married to someone. If this were a man talking down to his wife like that, and going out every night partying and having sex with other people, everyone would be rallying behind the wife to leave him. Why should this be any different. What started out as a cute little crush on another reality show blossomed into a huge disaster. Adrianne, as beautiful as she is, is like another Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, clearly in need of some therapy because she cries like a baby over so many silly things. I feel sorry for her, but Chris needs to rid himself of her, because he is a good man who cannot afford to be humiliated like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unless I'm sadly mistaken, I rented A Nightmare on Elm Street 3 several years ago and there was a music video, I'm pretty sure which was called Dream Warriors, at the end of it, and I rented this one on DVD hoping that the video would be there because it was one of the funniest things I've ever seen. It's amazing how stuff from the 80s is so funny now, but nothing is funnier than 80s rap videos. There was this rap group singing that song Dream Warriors on the VHS version of this movie after the credits, and they're all wearing like denim jackets with no shirt underneath and form fitting jean shorts that are all frayed at the bottoms like Daisy Dukes. What could make a rap group look more foolish I can't imagine.<br /><br />(spoilers) At any rate, I was disappointed in looking for that video on the DVD version, so all I had was this mediocre installment in the Freddy Krueger series. The movie sort of starts off with the same idea as part 2, with the main character witnessing all kinds of gruesome murders and then sort of coming out of a trance and finding himself with the bloody hands. Kristen Parker (Patricia Arquette) has a nightmare about the infamous house that Nancy Thompson used to live in, then runs to the bathroom, the sink's handles turn into Freddy's hands and attack her, and then she wakes up standing in her bathroom having slit her own wrists. From there, the movie turns into the usual mental hospital installment. <br /><br />`Larry' Fishburne, tired of always playing the bad guy in his roles, was happy to take on the role in this film as a nice-guy orderly, stern but accommodating when the patients want to bend the rules a little. Not surprisingly, he turns in what is by leaps and bounds the best performance in the movie. Arquette later goes on to become an accomplished actor, but had not perfected her acting skills when she starred in this film. The characters in the movie are mostly all patients at the mental hospital that Kristen is placed into after cutting her wrists. All of them are cynical and uncooperative, almost none believing that they really belong there at all. Eventually, they realize and are able to convince the staff that they are all having dreams about the same man and it's not just some kind of group hysteria.<br /><br />Heather Langenkamp has returned in her famous role as Nancy Thompson, this time grown up into a dream researcher as a result of her childhood experiences involving Freddy Krueger. Not surprisingly, she is able to quickly relate to the hysterical Kristen and the rest of the patients, since she had experienced exactly what they're going through. There are some interesting murders in this installment, and the technology used for the special effects have taken a huge jump. There is a gigantic, worm-like Freddy that tries to swallow Kristen whole, there is a scene where a television turns into Freddy and with mechanical arms he picks up one of the patients there for some late night entertainment and punishes her for sitting too close to the TV, but there is also an unconvincing go-motion scene where a couple guys have a fight with Freddy Krueger's skeleton, which has been rotting in the trunk of some car in a car junkyard. And one of the more groan-inducing scenes was one where Freddy attacks one of the patients in his dream (the one famous for sleepwalking), tearing the muscles and tendons out of his arms and legs and leading him around like a puppet. Ouch.<br /><br />We get a peek into Freddy's past in this installment. Not only do we meet his mother, but we also find out the circumstances that led to Freddy being fathered by more than 100 maniacs. In fighting Freddy, the patients all band together and, in their dreams, use their special powers (most of which reflect their shortcomings in real life) to fight him. One student, bound to a wheelchair, is able to walk in his dreams, another has the hilarious powers of what he calls the `Wizard Master,' another is `beautiful and bad' (she has lots of makeup, her hair stands up in a foot-high Mohawk, and she has knives). Clever, but the movie falters when it has only one of the patients, the one who can't speak, not have any powers in his dreams until the climax of the movie, when he suddenly realizes that he can talk in his dreams (at just the right moment to save the day). His dream power was a little too obvious to have been left out for that long, but collectively, now you see why the movie was subtitled Dream Warriors.<br /><br />Altogether, this is not an entirely weak entry into the series. The acting is pretty shoddy, but it's actually pretty good for a horror movie. Larry Fishburne vastly overshadows the rest of the cast, displaying wonderful acting skills early on in his career, and the movie is not simply a rehash of either of the first two a problem that plagues the Friday the 13th movies much more than the Elm Street films. The characters are never developed enough to allow for the later creation of much tension, which is why most of the deaths come across more as creative ways to kill off someone in a horror film than the tragic loss of the life of one of the characters that we've come to know and root for their triumph over evil. But then again, not a lot of horror movies take the time to really develop their characters to the point where you throw up your hands in defeat when they are killed, or are on the edge of your seat as they run for their lives. But it's important to note that the few horror films that actually do that are almost invariably the best ones
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have never seen a movie as bad as this. It is meant to be a "fun" movie, but the only joke is at the start, and it is NOT funny. If you like this sort of movie, then you may just be able to give it a vote of 2. If it had the necessary votes, it would truly belong on the bottom 100.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Every once in a while I will rent an action/adventure film just as a way to relax and occupy my mind with nothing important. This is why I own a copy of Charlie's Angels (2000) - not a quality film, but it makes me laugh and allows me to unwind for a while. One of these days I will probably buy copies of The Princess Bride and a few Monty Python movies for much the same reason.<br /><br />In any case, I rented this film because I wanted to be entertained without being challenged. For the most part, I got what I wanted. The plot was something along the lines of a poorly written Xena episode, and the Kathy Long's acting was very community theater (not bad for a professional kick boxer and amateur actress). There were a few high points on the part of the cyborgs. Somehow they managed to get some pretty good actors to play the bad guys - unfortunately, most of them die pretty darned quick.<br /><br />Like most martial arts films, the further you get into the movie, the more emphasis there is on action, and the plot (which wasn't strong to begin with) deteriorates almost as quickly as the acting. However, the more Kathy Long fights, the more time the director devotes to her backside. By the end of the movie I was seriously considering watching it a second time just to count the number of times Kathy Long's tight red shorts were center screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there just wasn't enough meat to this film to make satisfying curiosity worth seeing the film a second time. If you are a hard core Xena fan in need of something to wile away a few hours - by all means, go to the grocery store and spend the .50 cents on the rental. There are some strong similarities between the show and this movie.<br /><br />Just don't expect anything more than to be mildly amused for a few hours.<br /><br />Unless, of course, you happen to like Kathy Long's derrière. THEN you might want to purchase a copy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lorenzo Lamas stars as some type of CIA agent, who captures some exotic beauty named Alexa, kidnaps her daughter and forces her to fight her former employers. O.J Simpson is also on board to provide a dash of acting credibility for the not so talented ensemble. I must admit i'm not a fan of Lorenzo Lamas, or his movies. He stinks. However when compared to O.J Simpson and Lamas' comatose wife Kinmont, Lamas seems like ah, Jean-Claude Van Damme. I only saw CIA because of the renewed interest around the O.J Simpson trial, you see because if your parents had cable and the extra channels, you couldn't escape this movie. in 1994 you could go to an Amish community and some moron would have this playing in their portable TV. The movie itself is a collection of lame action sequences and would be intrigue although the shock value of O.J Simpson jumping after fireballs and exchanging would be one liners do provide some unintentional humor. Also where was Bobby Knight and Kobe Bryant to make this a complete camp classic? <br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
|
Negative
| null | null |
A chemical spill is turning people into zombies. It's up to two doctor's to survive the epidemic. It's an Andreas Schnaas film so you know what the par for the course will be. Bad acting, horribly awful special effects, and no budget to speak of. The dubbing is ridiculous with a capital R and the saddest thing is that I feel compelled to write one word about this piece of excrement, much less the ten lines mandatory because of the guidelines placed on me by IMDb. My original review of merely one word: Crap wouldn't fly so I have to revise it and go more in to how bad it is. But I don't know if I can, so.. wait I think I may have enough words, or lines rather to make this review pass. Which is cool, I guess. So in summation: This movie sucks balls, don't watch it.<br /><br />My Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ridiculous horror film about a wealthy man (John Carradine) dying and leaving everything to his four children, and his servants to be divided up equally. One condition--they must spend one week in his estate to get the money. And if any of them die, the others get more. Guess what happens next.... <br /><br />I saw a brand new print of this film on cable. The colors were bright and vivid and the house itself looks beautiful. That's about all the good things I can say about it.<br /><br />Let's list just some of the problems this film has: the killer is screamingly obvious; the servants are called Igor and Elga--come on!; some of the sound recording was so bad I couldn't make out the dialogue (no great loss I'm sure); the gore was sparse and very poorly done; the other murders were simply boring, stupid or impossible and this movie contains some truly abominable acting--so bad you just stare at the screen in disbelief. Even pro Jeff Morrow was terrible! The only fairly good acting was from trouper Faith Domergue (who deserved better than this) and John Carradine (who looks painfully old and frail here). I do have to admit though--the closing line in this movie is a gem!<br /><br />Why this was renamed "Legacy of Blood" is beyond me--there's another 1978 horror film with that name!<br /><br />Whatever its name is, it's a bad movie. To be avoided at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why do movie makers always go against the author's work? I mean, yes, things have to be condensed for the sake of viewer interest, but look at Anne of Green Gables. They did a wonderful job of combining important events into a cohesive whole that was simply delightful. I can't believe that they chose to combine three novels together for Anne of Avonlea into such a dreadful mess. Look at all they missed out on by doing that . . . Paul Irving, little Elizabeth, the widows, Windy Poplars . . . and Anne's college years, for heaven's sake!!! Wouldn't it have been delightful to meet Priscilla and all the rest of the Redmond gang? Kevin Sullivan should have taken things one movie at a time, instead of jumbling them all together and combining characters and events the way he did. This movie was good, if you leave the novels out of it!! But L.M. Montgomery's beautiful work is something that should not be denied. This movie was a let down after seeing the successful way he brough Anne of Green Gables to life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK the plot is, wait you got me there is no true discernible plot here just a string of optically fogged sex scenes, strung together by scenes of photographers taking pictures of pretty ladies (Sometimes a combination of the two) Then a demon comes around kills the men, rapes and kills the women, and waxes poetic about the meaning of life. Moronic special effects, bad acting and bizarre philosophy aside, you get what you expect from a film with a title like this. I guess it would have to be someone's cup of tea, just not mine as I have yet to see a good Kazuo 'Gaira' Komizu directed film.<br /><br />DVD Extras: Subtitled Interview with Director Kazuo Komizu Part 1 (Part 2 is on the Entrails of a Beautiful Woman DVD); and Theatrical Tailer<br /><br />My Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, In 35 years of film going I have finally viewed the stinker that surpasses all other ghastly movies I have seen. Beating 'Good Will Hunting' Baise Moi' and 'Flirt' for sheer awfulness. This is pretentious blige of the first order... not even entertaining pretentious bilge. The effects are cheap, and worse - pointless.<br /><br />The script seems to have been written by a first year film student who doesn't get out much but wants to appear full of portent! The acting is simply undescribably bad - Tilda Swinton caps a career filled with vacuous woodeness with a performance which veers neurotically between comotose and laughable 'intensity'. Apparently, some fool out there has allowed the director of this film to make another one... be warned
|
Negative
| null | null |
In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sheesh! What a dreadful movie. Dodgy camera work, a script with more corn than Kellogg's, and acting so hammy you could open a pig farm with it. <br /><br />To cap it all, it doesn't know which audience to aim at - we have Cornel Wilde - or is that Corny Wilde? - getting on his soap box about the hazards of smoking any time someone lights a cigarette, dear oh dear, and in another awkward scene we have the baddie, Lobo, forcing his, ahem, if you will, 'male friend' to do a striptease dressed in a bikini. Try explaining that one to the kids...<br /><br />Throw in an overly contrived Treasure Island-cum-Jaws type storyline, and the result is a film so unintentionally funny, it's enjoyable - I shouldn't expect a Special Edition DVD any time soon, though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."<br /><br />It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Minion is about... well, a minion. A servant of Satan and whose goal is to get the key that will unlock the door where his master is trapped. He is some sort of demon who possess human beings and when the body dies will possess another. Anyone who happens to be possessed will go on some berserker rage. Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion. The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion. Then flash forward to 1999, where the key winds up somewhere underground in New York. An archeologist is assigned to study/dig the place where the key was found. Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.<br /><br />The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick. The movie lacks energy, and just trods along. You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films). The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is. It "skillfully" becomes a one-man army when fighting a squad of templars but sucks when it comes to one-on one. And it's supposed to be around for a long time. All this goes to show that any sense of logic is just thrown down the drain for convenience. The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained. We are merely to accept that they just exist. The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks. Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.<br /><br />The verdict: 2 of 5 stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie starts quite with an intriguing scene, three people are drinking and making small talk in a bar. All of them are making up a bit outrageous stories. As the movie unfolds, it turns out that the most outrageous story is true. However, beyond that the movie is not very interesting except for the scene in the bar and the scene where main secret is revealed. This revelation happens barely half time into the movie and frankly, not much is left to be seen. The rest of the time director is lingering in a god forsaken Russian village full of pitiful and creepy old ladies. Sure, these are fascinating and a bit shocking images, but admiring them goes on way too long, sacrificing any possible plot or character development. I found this movie as another example of either lousy or lazy movie-making, where instead of trying to make an interesting story, movie makers concentrate on weirdly fascinating imagery and through in a few almost unrelated stories (case in point - meat trader's story) to leave the spectator to figure out all odds and ends. On a surface it has artsy appearance, but in this particular case is nothing more than lack of talent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spend your time any other way, even housework is better than this movie. The jokes aren't funny, the fun rhymes that are Dr. Seus aren't there. A very lousy way to waste an evening. My kids 4-16 laughed a little at the beginning the younger ones got bored with it and left to play Barbies and the older ones left to play ps2 and surf the net. My wife left and did dishes. So I finished it alone. It was the worst "kids" movie I have seen. If you want to watch a fun kids movie watch Shrek 2, that movie is fun for kids and their parents. AVOID THIS MOVIE. It isn't funny, isn't cute, the cat's makeup is about the only good thing in it and you can see that on the disc label.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(aka: TRINITY IS STILL MY NAME) This sequel looks like it was done to capitalize on the outstanding European box-office success of THEY CALL ME TRINITY, only this time Joseph E. Levine and Avco-Embassy pictures wanted to capitalize on it in America as well. Too bad they didn't get very far since the Hill/Spencer pictures have had only had marginal success here in the U.S., and this largely boring, drawn-out film doesn't help it out any.<br /><br />Trinity and Bambino swear to their dying father (Harry Carey Jr.) that they will become successful outlaws and take care of each other. They later get involved with arms-traffickers who smuggle guns out of a monastery, and who mistakenly think they're a pair of federal agents. It all winds up falling flat in spite of a couple of funny scenes, especially the one where Trinity and Bambino are in a fancy French restaurant and don't know how to carry themselves. And the scenes with the card sharks was mildly humorous as well.<br /><br />The opening title music sung by Gene Roman sounds like a fair Bobby Goldsboro-like early 70s pop song while the music cues sprinkled throughout the movie are pretty good. Not sure if I'd want to buy the CD soundtrack of it but some others might.<br /><br />The film could have had a half hour whacked off of it and it wouldn't have dragged on for so long. It looks like a lot of scenery is being chewed up here. In fact, I lost interest in it about 2/3rds of the way through. The DVD is also terrible, with a constant hum in the soundtrack and a poor print that looks like it should have been sent to that great scrap heap in the sky.<br /><br />A big step down from the previous film.<br /><br />4 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was really a very bad movie. I am a huge fan of Italian Horror, Argento, Mario Bava, Fulci and yes, even our good friend here Lamberto sometimes comes out with a good one. I found the first two 'Demons' films to be highly entertaining - they were so bad they were great but this one is just so bad that it is really, really bad. It is intensely boring, the story never goes anywhere and I hated the characters - the wife slapping husband and whiny cry-baby pain in the *** wife drove me mad, there was nowhere near enough of the story devoted to the Ogre who was probably the best actor in the whole film. I turned it off about three quarters of the way through because I was very, very BORED! Don't bother.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maybe I'm really getting old, but this one just missed me and the old Funny Bone completely. Surely there must be something powerful wrong with this Irishman (that's me, Schultz!). Lordy, lordy what I would give to see the light! Firstly, that Phil Silvers manic energy, wit and drive was very much a part of the comedic upbringing and overall education in life, if you will. Although it is possible that the series, first titled: "YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH" (1955-59*) could have gotten on the CBS TV Network with someone else in the title role of Sgt. Bilko, it is very hard to picture any other Actor/Comedian in the business wearing those Master Sergeant's stripes.<br /><br />Such a strong identification is inescapable, though not the same sort of career-wrecking typecasting of a nightmare that it proved to be to some other guys, like Clayton More("THE LONE RANGER"), George Reeves ("THE ADVENTURES OF SUPERMAN") and Charles Nelson Riley ("UNCLE CROC'S BLOCK").<br /><br />One major stumbling block to successfully adapting and updating such a work from the 1950's TV Screen to the 1990's Movie-going public is our collective memory. Without being sure about what percentage of the crowd remembered the Bilko character from seeing the original run and early syndication revivals, and their numbers were surely considerable; even a large segment of the young had seen Bilko reruns in recent times. It was obvious that the new film and the source were miles; or even light years apart.<br /><br />So as not to be thought of as a totally square, old grouch please let's consider some other points.<br /><br />Right here today, the 14th Day of November In The Year of Our Lord 2007, let me swear and affirm under Oath that I have been a Steve Martin fan for nearly 30 years, Furthermore, I've enjoyed the wit and talents of Bilko '96 Co-Stars Dan Akroyd and the Late Phil Hartman. After all, it was the talents of guys like this and so many others, Alumni of "NBC;s Saturday NIGHT" and "SECOND CITY TV" that kept the last quarter of the 20th Century laughing. But a BILKO re-make; it just didn't click.<br /><br />Perhaps if the film had been made as a Service Comedy (always liked 'em!) but without the Bilko Show names and gave it some identity of it self it would be more highly regarded by crabby, old guys like me.<br /><br />So, we've already had so many sitcom and cartoon series turned into movies lately, what's next? Howse about somebody doing Hal Roach's World War II Army Comedy Series of Sergeants DOUBLEDAY & AMES and TV's 1st Cartoon Series "CRUSADER RABBIT"? Remember where you heard it first! POODLE SCHNITZ!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.<br /><br />But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.<br /><br />From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!<br /><br />On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P
|
Negative
| null | null |
This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.<br /><br />The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.<br /><br />The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.<br /><br />Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.<br /><br />One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.<br /><br />I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.<br /><br />This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.
|
Negative
| null | null |
John Wayne & Albert Dekker compete for oil rights on Indian territory, and for the attention of Martha Scott in this Republic Pictures film shot out of Utah, USA.<br /><br />An interesting Western of sorts due to its characters and its more modern setting, with Wayne & Dekker playing the old and new factions of the West. It's based on a story by Thomson Burtis who co-writes the script along with Eleanore Griffin and Ethel Hill. Albert Rogell directs in the workmanlike way that befits his career. A pretty mundane story is in truth saved by its final third, where thankfully the action picks up and we are treated to something resembling a pulse. The light hearted approach to the romantic strand doesn't sit quite right, and a glorious fist fight between the two protagonists is ruined by Rogell being unable to disguise the stunt men doing the work. But hey, stunt men deserve their moment of glory always. Solid support comes from George 'Gabby' Hayes and Wayne as usual has much screen charisma, particularly when rattling off his pistol. But in spite of its better than usual Republic budget, it remains a film of interest only to 1940s Wayne enthusiasts. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thank god I didn't go to cinema for this film. I would be very sorry for the money I gave. I saw it on tv and I couldn't beleive my eyes. I wonder if any film could be worse than this one. they spent millions of dollars to this film for nothing. awful acting and awful scenario. I think the other people who wrote comments are the man working from that film company ;) it's very big fiasco! in year 2000 can they still laugh at this kind of film? embarassing...
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's difficult to put into words the almost seething hatred I have of this film. But I'll try:<br /><br />Every other word was an expletive, the sex scenes were uncomfortable, drugs were rampant and stereotyping was beyond the norm, if not offensive to Italian-Americans.<br /><br />I'm not saying the acting was terrible, because Leguizamo, Sorvino, Brody, Espisito et. al, performed well. But...almost every character in the film I despised. Not since The Bonfire of the Vanities have I disliked every character on screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Positively awful George Sanders vehicle where he goes from being a thief to police czar.<br /><br />While Sanders was an excellent character actor, he was certainly no leading man and this film proves it.<br /><br />It is absolutely beyond stupidity. Gene Lockhart did provide some comic relief until a moment of anger led him to fire his gun with tragedy resulting.<br /><br />Sadly, George Sanders and co-star Carol Landis committed suicide in real life. After making a film as deplorable as this, it is not shocking.<br /><br />The usual appealing Signe Hasso is really nothing here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high hopes for this movie. The theater monologue is great and Nic Balthazar is a very interesting man, with a lot of experience and knowledge when it comes to movies. <br /><br />I am a fan of a lot of Belgian movies, but this movie is bad. It's completely unbelievable that actors who are 34 are suddenly playing the roles of teenagers. The "linguistic games" were hideous and over the top. Nothing about the film seemed real to me. The ending was way too deus ex machina for me.<br /><br />I am very disappointed and think I wasted an hour and a half of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />This second instalment of the Che films moves the story forward to the late 60s, where the man has now moved his resistance fighters into the hills of South America, surviving without enough food and water and with tensions mounting between the group. Everything comes to a head when he crosses the border into Bolivia and the government forces step up their campaign to bring him down.<br /><br />Without the flitting between time and places of the last film, Soderbergh's second instalment focuses solely on the action in the hills, and manages to be an even duller experience. And more pretentiously, the score has been drowned out, giving the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that proves just as alienating. There's just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never lets up. You can't fault Soderbergh's ambition or Del Toro's drive in the lead role, it's just a shame that somewhere in the production things managed to take such a disappointing turn. **
|
Negative
| null | null |
A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.<br /><br />Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.<br /><br />There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read John Everingham's story years ago in Reader's Digest, and I remember thinking what a great movie it would make. And it probably would have been had Michael Landon never got his hands on it. As far as I'm concerned, Landon was one of the worst actors on earth, and his artistic license went way over the top, similar to his massacre of the "Little House" book series is proof. The acting, for lack of a better word, is atrocious, the screenplay sloppy, and there are more close-ups of Landon's puss than should be allowed.<br /><br />This movie reflects Everingham's story as much as "Little House On The Prairie" reflects the books is was "based" on. It's just another vehicle to show off Landons horrendous hair.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A group of forest rangers and scientists go into the woods to find fossils.They stumble on a Bigfoot burial ground eventually (the didn't notice it in the dark), The scenes of the CGI Bigfoot are horrid, but better than the endless scenes of talking that they rarely punctuate. I used to think that there just might be a good Bigfoot movie to be made. But now after so many sad sad movies about the legend, I'm having serious doubts. To pour salt in the wound of watching this film, the ONE good-looking girl just doesn't get naked once. And while this one MAY be better than "Boggy Creek 2" (no mean feat there), it's still sad that the best non-documentary film on Bigfoot remains "Harry and the Henriksons" <br /><br />My Grade: D
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ya I rented it, so shoot me!<br /><br />A decent premise sets up an otherwise awkward story with no real payoff, but at least it's shot well. Director Jon Keeyes takes the simple idea of a fake haunted house with real danger inside. In most cases this should be a slam dunk, but this little stinker derails quite quickly. The cinematography is above average and the acting is mediocre at best, but the story and writing is just plain awful. Slower scenes drag on forever and the scares are too few and far in between with no real climax to the film. An eerie mood is set at the beginning but loses it's luster before any type of horror transpires, and I found myself bored to death and making another sandwich... The cover art is appealing and I suppose it's worth a rental if you're looking for mindless low budget dreck, but if you enjoy a good story and eventful ending, reach for something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this "movie" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.<br /><br />Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.<br /><br />I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.<br /><br />Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.<br /><br />Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.<br /><br />Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Was this the greatest movie that I have ever seen? No. Was it the worst? No.<br /><br />As a mother of four kids, it is nice to watch something that was light and amusing. It was great, but it was cute.<br /><br />I think that it definitely had some room to improve, but it tried.<br /><br />I am not sure if this movie deserves the extreme level of abuse from the other reviewer. They obviously do not care for Eva Longoria. I think that she was better in this than in The Sentinel. I think that movies are a matter of opinion. The actors play a huge role in whether it is a hit or a flop.<br /><br />Maybe the cast did not work out. Maybe there were too many things going on.<br /><br />I just wanted to speak up for an average movie, not a terrible one. It could just be a chick flick. Kind of like the movie The Split-Up or French Kiss. My husband still talks about those. :)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I will say that at least the movie makes sense, but it's bad. The acting for the most part is not good (I think only Sky showed any promise) and you feel awkward watching it. All of the scenes that should be meaningful are really shallow, like when Ng comes out to her parents. There are a lot of corny details, like the kanji tattoo on the Sky's shoulder, the magnets on the girls' refrigerator and the god awful decor at the sets...and the music...and clothes..and everything. Real life has never been like this movie. The boy says at one point "I'm gay, not corny." And not aware. Even the commentary is awful, I turned it off after Ng talks about how she was weirded out playing a lesbian.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.<br /><br />Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...<br /><br />But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.<br /><br />However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lauren Bacall and Charles Boyer do not provide the right chemistry here in this 1945 film.<br /><br />There is a good story here about the Axis trying to obtain coal to use for the upcoming war. Unfortunately, this part of the story is not emphasized. Instead, we deal with a supposedly bungling Boyer. By the way, Bacall is as British as Vladimir Putin.<br /><br />The real acting kudos goes to veteran Oscar winner Katina Paxinou. As was the case with her memorable Pilar in the 1943 Oscar winner, "For Whom the Bell Tolls," Paxinou again plays a Spanish revolutionary but this time she is a double-crossing counter-spy for the pro-Franco group. She is quite a vicious character here;especially, when she throws a 14 year old child out the window. She believed that Boyer had given the child important material to hide.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am an avid fan of violent exploitation cinema, who would never attack a film for being violent or disturbing. I consider "Cannibal Holocaust" a masterpiece and will always defend controversial films like "Day Of The Woman" or "Last House on the Left" as genuine classics. Anyone who browses through my other user comments will notice that I am actually very pro-violence/gore when it comes to films. However, I do think that there should be at least some point to the violence. This piece of crap doesn't have any point whatsoever. The first film in the notorious "Guinea Pig" series, "The Devil's Experiment" (1985) is widely controversial, but, as opposed to many other controversial films, this stinker has nothing at all to be recommended for. I must say that, before seeing any of the Guniea-Pig films, I already had a feeling that I would hate this one, knowing what it was about. Due to its status as one of the most controversial films around, however, I decided I had to see it. I am very glad I didn't waste any money on this pile of crap, and I sure wish I hadn't wasted my time with it either.<br /><br />This thing's story (I don't even want to call it a 'film'): It doesn't have one. Three scumbags torture a woman to death for some excruciating 40 minutes. That's it. There is no artistic value, no 'shocking' story, no suspense; nothing. Simply the disbelief that a film that shows NOTHING except for a woman being tortured for no reason enjoys an enormous cult-following. It IS disturbing, I give it that. Of course it is disturbing to watch a torture video for 40 minutes. What is more disturbing, however, is the fact that many people actually seem to regard this pile of garbage as some kind of masterpiece. I really cannot figure why. The fact that the gore effects look realistic cannot be the reason, I hope. The girl who plays the victim isn't a very good actor, and reacts very calm to all the torture. That makes the film look less realistic, which is, in this single case, a good thing. This is a film that is sickening; not for its gore, but for its redundancy, its existence for the sole purpose of showing 40 minutes of torture.<br /><br />I strongly oppose any form of censorship. Since this is 100% fake and nobody got hurt during its production, it IS legitimate to make such a film. However, I cannot think of a single reason why anyone would like this, other than the morbid desire to watch suffering and the enjoyment of torture. This film's sequel "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" gained notoriety when actor Charlie Sheen mistook it for an actual snuff film and informed the FBI. Fortuneately, the film turned out to be fake. Overall, "The Devil's Experiment" is a fake torture/snuff film that seems to have the sole purpose of looking as close to a real snuff film as possible.<br /><br />"The Devil's Experiment" is one of the worst films I have ever had the misfortune of sitting through. Don't torture yourself by giving this piece of crap a try for its controversial status. Do yourself a favor and avoid it. Zero stars out of 10, I wish there was a negative scale in order to appropriately rate this pile of crap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked up this movie with the intention of getting a bad zombie movie. But I had no Idea what I was getting myself into.<br /><br />I started the movie and soon I had been pulled into a world of pain and visual torture.<br /><br />I finally know what hell is like. It's this movie. For eternity. This movie has no value. It didn't even really have a plot. There was stuff going on in each scene but no overall explanation why anything happens.<br /><br />Instead of watching this movie I suggest that you line the nearest blender with oil and try and stuff as many bullets in it as you can. You will find that the outcome to be far more pleasant than this movie.<br /><br />Don't even watch it. Not even to see how bad it is. I beg you. If you watch it, then it means they win.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Three writers made a valiant attempt to adapt Jane Stanton Hitchcock's novel for the tube, yet this television movie has ultimately been injected with too much melodrama and just doesn't know when to quit. Struggling artist Meg Tilly suddenly finds herself employed by wealthy, enigmatic Ellen Burstyn, who desires a mural painted on the walls of her unused ballroom. After learning about the last gathering held there--Ellen's daughter's coming-out party--Tilly decides on her artistic theme, never dreaming the daughter died mysteriously before the function even began, nor that she and the deceased bore a striking resemblance to one another! Two superb actresses lend their services to an incredible yarn which doesn't bear close scrutiny, one that fails to match either lady in emotional intensity. Burstyn's role teeters on camp, while Tilly gets stuck doing the dreamy-eyed-waif routine. Only one sequence late in the film (the morning after the mural is finished) is charged with honest feeling, anger and betrayal. The rest is piffle.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot is straightforward an old man living off a main road in woodland one day witnesses a man murdering a child in the woods. Soft For Digging follows the old man's attempts to try and convince the police that what he saw was not a figment of his imagination. However, there is a problem each time the old man guides the police to where the murder happen no corpse can be found. Soft For Digging has a diminutive dialogue which reflects the majority of the scenes of the film, an old man living by himself in a house. During the film I found that I was scared twice namely when the murdered child abruptly appears before the old man. The rest of the film I have to admit did not engage me; I found the tempo of the film a little too slow. The limited dialogue was not a problem. However, the development of the story and its conclusions, after watching the film, took too long. I feel more could have been made of the relationship, ghostly encounters, with the child and the old man. Alone in the woods at night unsure of your own mind can lead to some eerie situations, children are always scary as ghosts, see Dark Water.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I am commenting is because I finally figured out why Dr. Cox was bald. Although we probably all realized it at the same time this week, Dr. Cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. The latest episode when our favorite grumpy, Jesus-loving Nurse Roberts dies Dr. Cox shaves his head. The must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. For shame, Scrubs. They've made mistakes like this before. I remember when Elliot is trying to date Scott Foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. I try not to notice these things, but my favorite show needs to step it up.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.