input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
If you're watching this without an inkling of an idea what the story is about, then you're in for quite the surprise. Even then the synopsis has painted a picture of a rather sane storyline, but the actual film is anything but.<br /><br />As the synopsis went, it tells of an obsessed mountain climber, which you'll see as the prologue before the opening credits and text crawl, which tells you of the presence of Chronopolis, an imaginary city that exists in dreamy manuscripts of the mind (note to self this spells trouble with flashing lights), where its inhabitants are immortals yearning for a change in their omnipresence. They can see our world, and notice of all persons this mountain climber, and the synopsis explained that they decided to contact him through alchemy, creating an intelligent sphere to meet the man.<br /><br />What that translated to, is a repetitive piece of animation that a 5 year old kid could produce. Have shapes created, though credit goes to the stop motion style, and put it through a mind-numbing loop. And repeat until your eyes start to close, then move on to the next scene. If anything, the Chonopolisians (if this term exists) really love their sticks and balls, constantly playing at conjuring up that magical sphere, and having a field day playing with it before releasing it to the "other" world. It gets no better as well, when the man interacts with the sphere in yet another hypnotically boring and sleep inducing sequence.<br /><br />Thank goodness of course that the run time is shorter than what's advertised, which is 57 minutes (or less) against the 70 stated. While firmly dated, its dull colours, non-existent story, scratchy soundtrack and repetitive pictures will win over no fans. Don't waste time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't really know what this movie was about when I went to the theater to see it (hype about the Satanism etc etc etc) as the trailers in the last movie I saw looked pretty interesting.<br /><br />Oh dear, Roman Catholic mythology? Not my idea of a good scare and honestly, I just felt like watching a really good, scary movie, not some loosely plotted religious farce that tries to score cheap thrills by having some chick getting bloody every few minutes!<br /><br />I'll try to keep away from the spoilers (!) but I found it very odd that an Atheist, who gets a string of rosary beads from a deceased priest, could suddenly end up with Christ's wounds (aren't stigmata supposed to be deeply religious??) I mean, she hangs out with losers, does loser stuff, behaves like a typical rebel et al, and here she is displaying the wounds of Jesus Christ?? Come on!<br /><br />Scenes of her crucified, head thrown back, screaming, blood everywhere, became rather tedious after seeing it a dozen times. It was neither frightening or scary, just repulsive. It did, however, become quite painful to watch - those flicking scenes were highly annoying...<br /><br />CONCLUSION: If your a Catholic, defintly don't see this. If you're not, still don't see it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
how many minutes does it take to paint a poem? in this film much too long. <br /><br />it tells the story about the impact of a first love between two schoolboys. <br /><br />the boys can't withhold touching each other and making love. after a while one gets distracted by a brief encounter with a sensual guy in the disco and that raises doubt: exploration, fantasy, longing, lust and feelings of loosing grip on your love are themes that are all extensively painted with music, close-ups and silent scenes like telling a poem. but it really takes too long, annoying long, shame, the effort was promising
|
Negative
| null | null |
This mess is so bad it doesn't even qualify as horror. <br /><br />Debbie Rochon's talent is completely wasted in this film. She is not even the villain. The rest of the actors look like porno wannabes and the plot is so lame I won't even mention it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip to the end credits to hear upcoming band TwoMarlowe perform "Better Than Sex" it's total 80's Disco candy song. Nice up tempo song about Gambleing & Sex. Way more entertaining than "Bleed". Put it this way, When one has the equipment to copy videos, but decides only to record the song at the end of movie, you have a really "BAD" movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are two groups of people...those who love every Fellini movie they see and normal people. While I will admit that I have really enjoyed some of his films, I can also honestly say that I can't stand some of them. My opinion, by the way, is not just some knee-jerk reaction--I have seen most of Fellini's films and have also seen many films by the world's most famous directors. With this in mind, I feel that the most overrated and annoying directors can be both Godard and Fellini. They both have delighted in the bizarre and often unwatchable and yet have received gobs of accolades from reviewers and the "intelligensia", while the average person would never sit through some of their films. Heck, even a person who loves international cinema would generally be left out in the cold when seeing some of these films. So, since only a small clique actually watches their films and they are already predisposed to seeing the directors as geniuses, it's not surprising that their films are so often praised--it's like a cult! If you don't believe me, think about many of Godard's films such as FIRST NAME CARMEN or ALPHAVILLE,...or what about FELLINI SATYRICON or JULIET OF THE SPIRITS? These films abound with boredom, weirdness and incomprehensibility. Now I am NOT saying a film can't be weird (after all I love HAPPINESS OF THE KATAKURIS and SHAOLIN SOCCER), but it must be watchable!<br /><br />Now on to this movie. Somehow, Fellini has managed to make a story about a sexually compulsive man completely boring and unsexy. This is no small task--it took a lot of work to make this so unwatchable. Instead of cheap sexual thrills, the sex acts are choreographed in a silly and annoying way while the character of Casanova is buried under so much makeup and prosthetics that Donald Sutherland looks like a ghoul. I know some of this must have been Fellini's intention, but many viewers will be left completely bored by this sterile performance--especially since Sutherland's lines are all poorly dubbed into Italian and so he neither looks nor sounds like himself! Unfortunately, when the movie is not wrapped up in these boring sexual escapades, there really isn't anything else to watch.<br /><br />An interesting note about the first sexual conquest shown in this dull movie is that the actress looks amazingly like a younger version of Fellini's wife, Giulietta Masina. Considering that in addition to this, that in previous decades Fellini had Masina play characters such as a prostitute and a horribly abused woman, it seems like he may have truly hated his wife and was having this acted out on screen. I read a bit about them and their tempestuous relationship and it seems to bear this out as well. This is about the only aspect of this turgid film that I found at all interesting. Don't say I didn't warn you!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just like everybody else have said, the acting is awful, no story or whatsoever, poor directing. About the SFX, the 360 degree, matrix style shooting, 1 shoot is stupid enough, but for each characters. I mean come on gimme a break. And what's up with all those video game scenes, just to remind us it's a "video game adaptation"? Jesus, they should have fired whoever think up this idea.<br /><br />0.00001/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jane Russell proved to be a delightful musical-comedy performer in the similarly titled "Gentlemen Prefer Blondes"
but, sadly, this film squanders those skills. There is a budget, and nice Paris photography, but the film just doesn't work. Ms. Russell seems to be playing Marilyn Monroe. That leaves nobody to adequately play Jane Russell. Some of the other players are WAY out of their element.<br /><br />There are several embarrassing scenes; most of all, be warned: there is a musical number where boneheaded African cannibals "cook" the brunettes in a pot, after Alan Young sings in a gorilla suit.<br /><br />This is an interesting, at times embarrassing, waste of resources. <br /><br />*** Gentlemen Marry Brunettes (10/29/55) Richard Sale ~ Jane Russell, Jeanne Crain, Alan Young, Scott Brady
|
Negative
| null | null |
Almost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.<br /><br />Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.<br /><br />After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.<br /><br />Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.<br /><br />This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Detective Tony Rome (Frank Sinatra) returns to the screen after his self titled debut, this time it's a film that's played for erm
laughs. While on a diving trip, Rome finds the body of a blonde beauty at the bottom of the sea, her feet as you might expect, encased in cement. Rome immediately on the case after being hired by man mountain Waldo Gronsky. Rome finds himself immediately at risk as he has to investigate some mafia types, who turn the tables on him and he is himself found to be the main suspect, he must now go on the run and hope to solve the case alone. The portly Sinatra tries hard to sell us the lame jokes and make us believe he is a good detective, oh and not to mention being sexually attractive to the foxy Raquel Welch, but he fails miserably, in this ham fisted vanity project. The frankly laughable denouement that surrounds every female is quite astounding, every woman in the film is a dither head, who likes bending over is front of the camera, Director Douglas of course obliges in zooming in on the cracks of their asses each time as they flex their posterior muscles. There's even a ridiculously campy gay character that beggars belief, this was a film made by "real men" for "real men" to reaffirm their own flagging sexuality, it's a shameful shambles.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wish Spike Lee had chosen a different title for his film. "Summer Of Sam" conveys the impression that the film is about the infamous serial killer, David Berkowitz. It's not. It's a gritty, earthy portrait of NYC street life during the hot summer of '77 when Berkowitz terrorized that city.<br /><br />The film follows several young fictional characters in an Italian-American neighborhood, and their reactions to the Son of Sam threat. There's Vinny and his wife Dionna; there's Richie and Ruby, and several other characters.<br /><br />The problem is that these characters are not likable. They are routinely annoying, and at times unbearable. Lee then belabors their high energy, chaotic lives, which are filled with anger, lust, and general turmoil. There are at least two protracted fight scenes between Vinny and his wife, redundant disco dance scenes, countless gabfests ... Over and over I kept wondering: where's the film editor?<br /><br />Meanwhile, with all that bulk, the film passes up the chance to convey any real sense of fear or dread arising from the Son of Sam menace, which is too much in the background. Lee is more successful at showing a different kind of menace, that arising from neighborhood vigilante groups.<br /><br />The acting is uniformly good. That, combined with 70's disco music, and lavish attention to costumes and production design, make you really feel like you are in an Italian-American neighborhood in NYC in 1977.<br /><br />The film's atmospheric authenticity, however, is not nearly enough to offset a rambling, overblown script about the lives of grossly irritating people.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is by far the worst horror/thriller I've seen in my 29 years. If someone offers this to you for free tell them NO. This movie makes you a dumber person for knowing you watched it. The plot isn't even the worst part of this movie.....its the acting, camera work, lighting, and sound. there is absolutely nothing to like about this movie. whoever paid to have this film made is broke now. I hope the director never gets the greenlight for another movie. In its defense this movie was made quickly to try to capitalize on the actual BTK killer's capture but I've seen movie of the weeks that looked like Oscar winners compared to this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this DVD having seen it while looking for something else. When I saw the title on the jacket I couldn't believe my eyes. I read Yalom's book about a year ago and loved it, in fact admire Yalom's work in general. (I am a clinical psychologist.) I have watched perhaps 30 minutes of this movie and have had to turn it off. I'm not sure if I can take much more. At a superficial level, the faux accents, as others have commented, are simply distracting at best and irritating and vapid at worst. The acting is dull when it should be passionate and comical when it should be serious. The portrayal of Lou Salome is simply flippant, and the brilliant Freud comes off as little more than a schoolboy. I see very little of the book's spirit conveyed thus far. I had hoped to be able to recommend this film to my students. Instead, I will refer them to the book. Imagine that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, what a great cast! Julia Roberts, John Cusack, Christopher Walken, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Hank Azaria...what's that? A script, you say? Now you're just being greedy! Surely such a charismatic bunch of thespians will weave such fetching tapestries of cinematic wonder that a script will be unnecessary? You'd think so, but no. America's Sweethearts is one missed opportunity after another. It's like everyone involved woke up before each day's writing/shooting/editing and though "You know what? I've been working pretty hard lately, and this is guaranteed to be a hit with all these big names, right? I'm just gonna cruise along and let somebody else carry the can." So much potential, yet so painful to sit through. There isn't a single aspect of this thing that doesn't suck. Even Julia's fat suit is lame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.<br /><br />At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.<br /><br />Awful
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen this movie many times, (and recently read the book the movie is based on) and every time I see it, I just want to slap all four of them. The fact that they don't clue in to the fact that Tom Hank's character is flipping into his D&D(oops M&M) :) persona ("Oh, he's just acting in character.") outside of the gaming session. That and the fact that after three months of therapy, let's just destroy all that and feed his delusions! These kind of people are what give RPGs a bad name.<br /><br />Also the corny 'love ballad', and the music done by 'cat on a piano' and 'stop us if we get too annoying' are almost enough to set your teeth on edge!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, brother...after hearing about this ridiculous film for umpteen years all I can think of is that old Peggy Lee song..<br /><br />"Is that all there is??" ...I was just an early teen when this smoked fish hit the U.S. I was too young to get in the theater (although I did manage to sneak into "Goodbye Columbus"). Then a screening at a local film museum beckoned - Finally I could see this film, except now I was as old as my parents were when they schlepped to see it!!<br /><br />The ONLY reason this film was not condemned to the anonymous sands of time was because of the obscenity case sparked by its U.S. release. MILLIONS of people flocked to this stinker, thinking they were going to see a sex film...Instead, they got lots of closeups of gnarly, repulsive Swedes, on-street interviews in bland shopping malls, asinie political pretension...and feeble who-cares simulated sex scenes with saggy, pale actors.<br /><br />Cultural icon, holy grail, historic artifact..whatever this thing was, shred it, burn it, then stuff the ashes in a lead box!<br /><br />Elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings..But if it weren't for the censorship scandal, it would have been ignored, then forgotten.<br /><br />Instead, the "I Am Blank, Blank" rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (I am Curious, Lavender - for gay films, I Am Curious, Black - for blaxploitation films, etc..) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead, to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that "naughty sex film" that "revolutionized the film industry"...<br /><br />Yeesh, avoid like the plague..Or if you MUST see it - rent the video and fast forward to the "dirty" parts, just to get it over with.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.<br /><br />Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. <br /><br />Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.<br /><br />One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.<br /><br />A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. <br /><br />And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I heard and read many praising things about "Midnight Meat Train", which is based on a short story written by no less than Clive Barker and supposedly the best adaptation of his work since the original "Hellraiser" that he directed himself, but so far I can only express very mixed sentiments about my viewing experience. The most appropriate term to summarize the whole film in just word is: nauseating! The violence is sadistic and extreme, which undoubtedly attracts fanatic young horror enthusiasts, but it's also indescribably gratuitous and exploitative. Normally speaking, I'm very pro-violence but it has to at least serve some kind of purpose. The butchering literally depicted in "Midnight Meat Train" is exclusively meant to shock and to repulse the viewers with weak nerve systems and easily upset stomachs, and even that isn't fully effective due to the use of digital computer effects. There are more shortcomings, some even bigger than the pointless gore, but perhaps I should focus on the good elements first. The basic concept is definitely promising and multiple sequences (like the chase in the freezer room, for example) are literally oozing with nail-biting suspense and macabre atmosphere. Unfortunately the pacing is very uneven and the elaboration of the potentially fantastic plot is made unnecessarily convoluted. Presumably the processing of a short story into a long feature film scenario is responsible for the pacing irregularities, but I honestly feel they could have done more with the denouement as well as with the character played by Vinnie Jones. The plot introduces Leon, an aspiring photographer in New York whose agent advises to search for the truly menacing face of the city through sinister pictures. Leon then becomes obsessed with stalking an introvert and suspiciously behaving butcher who always awaits the midnight train. Leon's right, as the butcher turns out to be a relentless serial killer who literally crushes his victims with a big hammer, but the killer's motivations and behavior suggest there's something far more substantial going on the rails at night. "Midnight Meat Train" takes place in naturally unsettling locations like subway stations at night and animal abattoirs, plus the film also benefices of good acting performances and a truckload of downright disturbing images (like cadavers on meat hooks and train carriages smeared in blood), but director Ryûhei Kitamura ("Versus", "Godzilla Final Wars") doesn't take full advantage of it all. The ending leaves a whole lot questions unanswered and, even if Clive Barker meant to have like this, I still think we deserved a slightly more clarifying finale. "Midnight Meat Train" is a somewhat intriguing and definitely haunting film, but not without defaults. It's not intended for easily offended viewers, but maybe people looking for plot coherence and clarity should leave it alone as well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not sure why this film was advertised as a wild, quirky, laugh filled comedy. There is not much in this movie that will entertain, nor amuse the moviegoer. Annette Bening (whose acting was touted as being Oscar worthy) comes off here as mannered, with her performance seeming routine. Brian Cox's character is confusing and irritating, and the lead playing Augusten Joseph Cross appears to simply not have the personality to carry his role. The best thing about the film is Evan Rachel Wood, but she is not enough to endorse this boring, unsavory film.<br /><br />The film disappeared quickly and it seems with good reason. I found some of the scenes distasteful (the scene with Brian Cox and his just utilized toilet rivals some of the worst scenes in 'You and Me and Everyone We Know' and 'The Squid and the Whale'), some embarrassing, and most of them unsettling. I found the whole experience a waste of time. Don't you waste your time
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Serum" starts out with credits that are quite reminiscent of the "Re-animator" movies, and it owes a lot to them. The story is very similar; a mad doctor develops a serum that he believes will alleviate pain, sickness and death, but he's apparently not a big believer in clinical trials and so winds up with a brain-eating zombie on his hands in the person of his nephew. The zombie even looks like one of those from "Re-animator," and in fact some of the make-up effects in "Serum" aren't bad. Unfortunately, the script is pretty slow and unbelievable in quite a few places, resulting in a soap opera feel for most of the first 3/4 of the movie. For some reason, the director feels compelled to tell us the time of day every few minutes by flashing it in big white letters across the screen. I can't see why this was important, other than being an attempt to provide viewers with a sense of time passing; sometimes, that wouldn't be present otherwise as the plot plods along.<br /><br />There are a number of moments that just don't add up here. For instance, one victim is bludgeoned with a sledge hammer, but when we see the victim's head up close, there's no sign of that trauma. In another scene, a character runs down a fully lit hospital corridor (we can see the circles of light on the floor, in fact) with a flashlight in hand, looking for all the world like he's walking in the dark... but a moment later a second character walks down the same fully-lit corridor without one. These are just a couple of examples; moments of what look like directorial or editorial sloppiness crop up quite frequently throughout the movie.<br /><br />"Serum" is better in some ways than much of what goes straight-to-video as independent horror lately. In terms of technical items sound and photography, for example it's got a more polished look than a lot of what lands on a DVD. On the other hand, there's still a good deal of wooden acting (particularly by one of the lead characters, the mad scientist himself!) and nonsensical moments that have nothing to do with suspension of disbelief and everything to do with writing and continuity. Maybe these are things that the people involved with making this film will eventually get more experience with, though. One of the problems with low-budget independent horror lately is that the filmmakers often set out to remake more popular movies that had bigger budgets, and that almost never works out. It didn't in the case of "Serum," anyhow.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bathebo, you big dope.<br /><br />This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!<br /><br />Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE???
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was dreading taking my nephews to this movie, as I didn't think it was going to be well done. The kids, ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it, so I caved. I must admit that it was not nearly as bad as I had thought, but was still a far cry from the book. The movie seemed right on with the 10 year old's understanding and sense of humor. I found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. I eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies don't show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the "silly" or "stupid" choices.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, so it was written in 1996, before 9/11, so you can give it a little credit for worrying about terrorists and the idea that the CIA director makes a plot to blow this doomed plane out of the sky before it brings doom to the world, is prescient. That's it. That's the good stuff. The acting...fair. The plot...silly. The "twist"... unnecessary. DOOOOOOOOOOOM It isn't as though no one ever thought of what to do when a plane gets contaminated. Don't you think bureaucrats have a manual for "plagues" and how to contain them? Proper execution of such a plan is always a problem, as we saw after Katrina. But they have a plan. It isn't to send them off to Iceland and then to Mauritania. And if the virus is carried in the air, why was the plane door open and the "shooters' standing there with no protection? In fact, did it ever occur to anyone to shoot her legs? That would stop her. But not as dramatic. I'm a sucker. I always watch a movie to see the end, once I started it. But this was a waste of time, and for the most part, predictable. I saw it using a recorder so I didn't have to watch all the ads, that was a plus. It's a good example of why I watch so little network TV. Rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was very disappointed by this movie. I thought that "Scary Movie" although not a great movie was very good and funny. "Scary Movie 2" on the other hand was boring, not funny, and at times plain stupid.<br /><br />The Exorcist/Amityville spoof was probably the best part of the movie. James Woods was great.<br /><br />Now, I'll admit that I am at a disadvantage since I have not seen a few of the movies that this parodies unlike the first, where I had basically seen them all. But bad comedy is still bad comedy.<br /><br />Something that really hurt this movie was the timing, which ruined some of what might have been good jokes. Scenes and jokes drag out way to long.<br /><br />Also, the same jokes keep getting repeated again and again. For example, the talking bird. Ok it was funny the first and maybe even the second time. But it kept getting repeated to the point of annoying. The routine between the wheelchair guy and Hanson (Chris Elliott) was amusing at first but it kept getting repeated and ended up stupid and even tasteless.<br /><br />Some jokes even got repeated from the first movie. For example, the 'creaming' I guess you would call it of Cindy (Anna Faris) was funny in "Scary Movie" because Cindy had been holding out on giving her boyfriend sex for so long, that essentially he had blue balls from hell and it was funny when he 'creamed' her. But this time around it was out of place and not funny.<br /><br />The bathroom and sexual humor in general was more amusing and well timed the first time around. The scat humor was excessive though and rather unneccessary in the second film.<br /><br />Tori Spelling was annoying and really had no place in this movie.<br /><br />But I did enjoy Shorty (Marlon Wayans) who in my opinion was the funniest character in the first film. The scene with him and the pot plant was one of my favorites from the second film.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I love the Wayans family and their humor. That is why this film is so disappointing . . . they have a lot more comic ability than endless scat jokes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Shortly after seeing this film I questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. Elizabeth Shue is a commendable actress, why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity? I must give credit where credit is due, though. Some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing, but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of Kevin Bacon's character, Sebastian Caine. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, man or woman, that has any form of self-respect to account for.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have never seen a worse movie.<br /><br />It is possible to take a shootem up video game and make it into a decent movie.<br /><br />Mistake 1: absolutely no connection to any of the characters. In this movie you don't bond with any of the characters because... you don't get a chance.<br /><br />The only character that is sympathetic or even interesting is the Deck Hand: Salish as played by Clint Howard. Except for this unique character, the outcome of the movie is meaningless as all the characters were lifeless from the begining.<br /><br />Mistake 2: the worst gunfight scene ever. I love gunfights. I love when the heros open up on the badguys and clean house. heck I even like to watch a badguy clean house sometimes. But this gunfight was weird I guess that the best way to describe it is "Apathetic" I've seen people shoot with more feeling and emotion while PLAYING THE VIDEOGAME. In this movie it looked and felt like the "Actors" were simply walking through shooting everything that moved without emotion.<br /><br />Why? Where's the trash talking? where's the snarls of rage amongst the gunfire? These are supposed to be kids that got caught at a rave gone bad... but even real soldiers acting professionally and ruthlessly show their humanity.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD horror movie about a secluded house full of monsters, I recomend Sam Rami's Evil Dead series. DO NOT see the disaster that is house of the dead. I hope that they burn the master and all copies of this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me start by saying that I totally agree with the basic thesis of the film, that there probably was no historical Jesus and Christianity is a sham. With that said, this movie does a pretty poor job of proving that thesis. It makes good arguments--the gap between Jesus' theoretical life and the writing of the Gospels, filled only by the writings of Paul, who doesn't indicate a historical Jesus--and then utterly fails to convincingly argue them. It makes broad statements without presenting the evidence the statements are based on, and it resolutely ignores counter-arguments presented by Christian apologists. The intellectual dishonesty, emotional manipulation, and lack of serious argument are obvious, and stunning. The only Christians we hear from in the film are the head of the filmmaker's old school--who comes off like a reasonable, rational person attempting to deal with a twit with a chip on his shoulder--and various Christians encountered apparently at random in a parking lot. I'm sorry, but revealing that average Christians don't know much about their religion isn't exactly damning evidence of Christianity's fraudulence. You may as well claim that Jay Leno has disproved the existence of Michael Dukakis on his Jay-Walking segment. The interviews with experts can be interesting, but the film is filled with too much of, let's be honest, the filmmaker just being snarky. Within the first five minutes the film has already conflated Jerry Falwell with Charles Manson and the writers of the Left Behind series with the Branch Davidians. And by the end, the film becomes so self-centered that there's no rational argument left, just an angry former Christian lashing out at the people and places he blames for his messed up childhood. Y'know, maybe that movie could've been interesting, but it's misplaced in a documentary about the historicity of Jesus, and it's so self-congratulatory as to deflate any sympathy. This is a Michael Moore film without the humor or the film-making acumen combined with a Richard Dawkins book without the wit or the intellectual rigor. Skip it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If an auteur gives himself 2 credits before the main title and about 15 more credits before the movie starts, and the first shot shows the auteur rolling around on a bed in lycra bike shorts, it won't be a surprise to observe that said auteur has the kind of body that should never be seen in spandex. The kind of look that might be useful to a homosexual aversion therapist.<br /><br />Others have given this thing the dishing it deserves. For me the most pitiable moment came when the trip from LA was signified by a plane landing at what appeared to be LAX; and the return was signified by a shot of a Fedex cargo plane.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yeah, right.<br /><br />I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was really hoping that this would be a funny show, given all the hype and the clever preview clips. And talk about hype, I even heard an interview with the show's creator on the BBC World Today - a show that is broadcast all over the world.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this show doesn't even come close to delivering. All of the jokes are obvious - the kind that sound kind of funny the first time you hear them but after that seem lame - and they are not given any new treatment or twist. All of the characters are one-dimensional. The acting is - well - mediocre (I'm being nice). It's the classic CBC recipe - one that always fails.<br /><br />If you're Muslim I think you would have to be stupid to believe any of the white characters, and if you're white you'd probably be offended a little by the fact that almost all of the white characters are portrayed as either bigoted, ignorant, or both. Not that making fun of white people is a problem - most of the better comedies are rooted in that. It's only a problem when it isn't funny - as in this show.<br /><br />Canada is bursting with funny people - so many that we export them to Hollywood on a regular basis. So how come the producers of this show couldn't find any?
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Dutch Schultz", AKA Arthur Fleggenheimer, was a real person and his rather nasty life is fairly well documented. This movie which purports to depict his life should have used a fictional character, because the overdramatized events are too strong a departure from the facts and the chronology. Not only that, it ignores some interesting details which other versions have included such as the public relations fiasco in upstate N.Y. and his religious conversion. It is true that he was executed by Luciano, Lansky, et. al. but that's as far as it goes. The exploding plate scene which represents Luciano carrying out the execution of Bo Weinberg in his own home, assisted by his own mother is rediculous. Also, there is the scene in which Dutch approaches his own mother to pay protection to Legs Diamond. It just doesn't work. The character of Mrs. Fleggenheimer doesn't work either. This movie does not need a doting Jewish mother for comic relief. The lame representation of Legs Diamond was humorous enough. I'm sure the man is turning in his grave. And, by the way, Dutch did in fact personally kill people, but, he was not Rambo or 007. The scene in which he wipes out the brewery is absurd. I don't know. Maybe it was supposed to be a comedy and I just didn't get it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had recently been watching Johnny Test in an attempt to find humor in it. I failed, horribly. Cartoon Network usually has a tendency to make their shows enjoyable by all audiences, but Johnny Test is "entertainment" in it's lowest form. The writing is incredibly predictable, and the running gags aren't much gags at all. Kids will love it, and that's about it.<br /><br />Now, this isn't to say that it's all bad. The original opening theme was actually pretty catchy, but for some reason they took the skeleton of it and figuratively smashed it with a figurative aluminum bat. It's a shame, because that was really one of the best things it had going for it.<br /><br />Some of the characters could be very interesting, in theory. With a little work, the characters could work well together, but they're too one-dimensional. Then again, this makes it easy for the kids to follow. <br /><br />The pace is a bit too fast as well. The episodes are too busy, leaving little time for clever writing. This is a real shame, because there are so many interesting concepts that the show brings forth. On the upside, however, the fast pace will stop the kids from losing interest, and that's really the entirety of the target audience.<br /><br />Overall, the show looks very good on paper, but just doesn't succeed in being funny or interesting. This is a show I want to like, but I'm incapable of it. There's just so much potential that isn't realized. Kids will enjoy it, but that's about it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.<br /><br />This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.<br /><br />In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.<br /><br />It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just finished watching this film and WOW was that bad. Actually the only thing that kept me watching was that it was SO MONUMENTALLY bad it was kind of entertaining. The action of the characters is hilarious, from the hyper-dramatic way they fall to gunfire, to their incredibly bad acting (were the bad guys all just pulled off the street, or were they actually actors?), to incredibly bad delivery of lines, to their inexplicable actions (if you are going to try and shoot someone through a doorway as they enter, obviously the thing to do is shoot directly at the doorknob!!). This film must break some record for worst written and delivered lines.<br /><br />The camera work was also really bad - you can hardly see what's going on in the fight scenes due to switching camera angles and shakiness.<br /><br />I would have voted "1" except that I do like Chiba and sidekick Sue Shihomi, and I was entertained by a couple of scenes: 1) breaking of a villain's arm so the bone pops out of the skin (that's gotta hurt) 2) a drug kingpin eating a brown-furred animal (a monkey??) by hacking away at the carcass with a meat cleaver 3) Sonny Chiba's performing some impromptu eye surgery on a guy with his fingers.<br /><br />I am actually a big fan of Sonny Chiba but this one is really not worth anyone's time. I've seen about 7 or 8 of his films and have come to the conclusion that the only ones worth watching (and they are great!) are the Street Fighter series, and The Killing Machine. I've also heard the Executioner and Golgo 13 are good. I recommend sticking to those ones.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit -- this time the first African-American (Cuba Gooding) after President Truman desegregates the Armed Forces -- through the U. S. Navy's deep-sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (Robert DeNiro). If the program weren't bad enough, it's got to be located in Bayonne, New Jersey.<br /><br />There's nothing wrong with the performances. Robert De Niro activates his Southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. Cuba Gooding, raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the South, is the expectable paragon of rectitude. The girls -- one could hardly call them women -- are Charleze Theron and Lonette McKee. They have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. Other decent performers -- Powers Boothe and Hal Holbrook -- have even more perfunctory roles.<br /><br />That's about it. Almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. A ship is called a boat. Robert De Niro salutes indoors, uncovered. After a brutal assault on hospital personnel, he's transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. Somebody shouts "I'm outta here" in the early 1950s. (Maybe it was a common expression at the time. If so, "my bad.") People address each other by rank -- "Lieutenant", "Boatswain's Mate," "Commander," as they do in the Army, whereas in the Navy they are simple "Mister" (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). I didn't bother to check if there was a rank called "Senior Master Chief" in 1950.<br /><br />Cuba Gooding has a tough row to hoe. Everyone in the Navy, it seems, hates Negroes except for one guy from Wisconsin. He stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. It's like the scene in "Animal House", in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a Sikh, a black man, and a blind kid.<br /><br />Gooding is an enlisted man, a second class petty officer. He manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. In one of their arguments she pleads with him. She just wants to be a doctor and he should join her, quit the Navy, and lead a quiet life. "And just let life pass you by?", he retorts. Yes. Yes, just be a doctor's spouse and let life pass you by. You can wave to it from the golf course in Boca Raton.<br /><br />These kinds of flicks were common enough in World War II. "Bombardier," "Airial Gunner," that sort of thing. Cheap as they often were, they had some educational features. You learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. Here, the technical details are skipped over, perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except Boyle's law, which we learned in high-school chemistry).<br /><br />I couldn't follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this wouldn't exist. If I got the mechanical problems right, it was because I guessed correctly. The direction is no help either. The movie abounds in close ups, so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. And the emergencies are confusing because they're ill focused.<br /><br />Why go on? Want to see a better example of this kind of movie? Almost any will do -- except maybe "G. I. Jane", in which the abused hero is a heroin. Try the training camp scenes in "The Young Lions." There the victim is a Jew. Or try "From Here to Eternity," in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on, just like "Cool Hand Luke." No easy excuses are offered, because easy excuses are too easy.<br /><br />Thoroughly formulaic, and not well done.
|
Negative
| null | null |
That word 'True' in this film's title got my alarm bells ringing. They rang louder when a title card referred to America's Civil War as the 'War Between the States' (the circumlocution preferred by die-hard southerners). Jesse James -- thief, slave-holder and murderer -- is described as a quiet, gentle farm boy.<br /><br />How dishonest is this movie? There is NO mention of slavery, far less of the documented fact that Jesse James's poor widdered mother owned slaves before the war, and that Jesse and his brother Frank actively fought to preserve slavery. According to this movie, all those Civil War soldiers were really fighting to decide whether Missouri is a northern state or a southern state ... that's ALL. (Missouri: It's a candy mint! It's a breath mint!) Black people are entirely absent from this movie, except for two glimpses of a pair of beggars, one of whom wears a "HELP THE POOR" sign that's very implausibly typeset instead of handwritten. (Some shots of 19th-century newspapers are inaccurate too, with 20th-century type fonts.)<br /><br />This film has a weird flashback structure. There's some very impressive stunt riding (and some fine work by stunt horses), and one excellent montage. I savoured one line of dialogue: 'Some of those boys will never taste beans again.' The movie gets a few facts straight: Agnes Moorehead, as Jesse's mother, conceals her right arm in the scenes following the raid by the agents of Pinkerton (here called 'Remington') in which Jesse James's real-life mother suffered injuries requiring the amputation of her lower arm. Some errors here are pardonable: during his bushwhacking days, the real Jesse James accidentally shot off part of his left middle finger, but Robert Wagner (in the title role here) does not have a stumpfinger. I've seen a photo of Jesse James's real wife; if she had looked half as glamorous as Hope Lange looks in this movie, Jesse James might have stayed home more.<br /><br />There's plenty of revisionism here, and most of the male actors wear 1950s hairstyles. But many of this movie's errors were avoidable. Jesse James's mentor William Quantrill is mentioned several times, but all the actors mispronounce his name. We see Jesse and his wife moving into an elaborate two-storey house (where he will soon die) after paying a rent of $18. Actually, Jesse James's last residence (at 1318 Lafayette Street, St Joseph, Missouri) was a simple one-storey cottage, renting for $14. There was no upper storey ... so, when Jesse James is killed, his wife could not come running from upstairs as Hope Lange does here. (She was actually in the kitchen.)<br /><br />One continuity error: Robert Wagner (with no stunt double) does an impressive job of taking a slug to the jaw and falling over while his hands are tied behind his back ... but when he gets up, the rope binding his wrists has vanished.<br /><br />The screenplay does some weird and unnecessary juggling of dates. Following the Northfield robbery attempt, Jesse says he expects to get home by his birthday. The actual Northfield bank raid by the James Gang (7 September, 1876) was two days AFTER Jesse James's birthday. (Maybe he meant next year's birthday.) Later, we see Jesse and his wife moving into their St Joseph home on a fine summer day, while Jesse tells her what he plans to do when Christmas Eve arrives ... but in real life, Mr and Mrs Jesse James moved into that house on 24 December, 1881 ... so this scene should *BE* on Christmas Eve! These errors were entirely avoidable.<br /><br />Some of the fictionalisations here don't make sense. According to this movie, the Northfield bank raid failed because one (fictional) henchman was late in cutting the telegraph wires. If this had actually happened, it would indeed have hampered the James Gang's getaway ... but it wouldn't have affected the robbery itself, which failed for other reasons.<br /><br />There are good performances here by Jeffrey Hunter (as Frank James), Moorehead, Alan Hale Jnr (as Cole Younger) and by stage actress Marian Seldes in a rare screen role. I was disappointed by Robert Wagner, normally an under-rated actor. Elsewhere, Wagner has proved his impressive range by convincingly portraying heroes, villains and morally ambiguous characters. Here, he can't seem to decide whether to depict Jesse James as a goodie or a baddie ... so he doesn't much bother. John Carradine phones in his performance in a brief role as a fictional jackleg preacher who baptises Jesse and his wife at their wedding. In fact, Jesse James was baptised in childhood by his uncle, a Methodist minister ... but perhaps this second baptism is a topping-up.<br /><br />Jesse James was no Robin Hood. (I doubt that Robin Hood was Robin Hood either, but that's another story.) There is not one single documented instance of Jesse James ever sharing his loot with anyone beyond his own family. After some of his hold-ups, he didn't even split the swag with the rest of his gang. In this movie, Jesse gets gunned down right after he vows to give up his bandit ways forever. In reality, the night before his death, Jesse James and the Ford brothers stole horses that Jesse planned to use the next day in a robbery of the Platte City bank. As preparation for most of his robberies, Jesse James stole horses from local farmers ... the same poor folk who (in the inaccurate legends) were supposedly the beneficiaries of his largesse. I cringed at one scene here, in which the fictional Jesse James is so gol-durn refined that he disapproves of an oil painting which tastefully depicts nudes.<br /><br />'The True (not much!) Story of Jesse James' is wilfully dishonest about a thieving murderer, and likewise dishonest about the Civil War. For the very impressive stunt work, one good montage and a few fine acting turns, I'll rate this obscenely dishonest movie 2 points out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.<br /><br />When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.<br /><br />This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.<br /><br />DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This story about three women is a very sensitive study about: Muriël (Charlotte Van Den Eynde) the youngest, Laura (Els Dottermans) who is about 37 and Martha (Frieda Pittors) the oldest who is the mother of Muriël. They live together in the same building. They have different expectations of life. The vital Laura wants a child. Muriël comes from a village and wants to change her life in Brussels. Martha dreams about her youth when she was a young girl. In fact nothing happens in this movie so you wait for something - for instances an accident - which could dramatize this story. As times goes on, you discover that the director Dorothée Van Den Berghe only wants to develop a psychological portrait of the three women and nothing more. This movie is disappointing because you expect the women to learn from their experiences which is not the case, so one is left with a feeling of emptiness.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the "old" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing "Cabin Fever", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly "scary" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an "hommage" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a "good" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times ("let's try to get help!"), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.<br /><br />I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that "new" isn't necessarily "better". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all: I love good Splattermovies and am not afraid to get in touch with art, but this zero-budget-flick is none of it! The picture-quality is so damned low, the soundtrack the most annoying one I ever (!!!!)heard, and as for the FX... well the super-low quality makes some of them look not as bad as they would in a real movie (what this junk here isn't). No concept, a wafer-thin storyline, primitive acting and rare dialog - I think I counted about 10 sentences in the whole movie, each one repeated about 20 times... same for a lot of film-sequences (may be an indication for which kind of audience this crap was made!!!) The story seems to be that a young boy had to watch his father rape and kill his mother, got psychological damaged and as an adult goes touring, performing a show of self-mutilation. So far, so good... But for these pseudo-art-idiot-directors, this plot is just a line to put cheap produced shock scenes in a row which neither have a message nor make any sense (freshly taken-out bowels are thrown on a naked, bound woman in an earth-hole... why?? and why is that the only time you see both woman and thrower in the whole bloody "movie")??? Disturbing? Yes!! Sick? Yes!! Necessary? No! Artistically? NO!!!!! Everyone mistaking this cheap gore-show for art should as soon as possible visit his psychiatrist or should watch Pink Floyd's "The Wall" to see how a similar topic can be worked out in an artful way... I hope this was your first and last (!!!!!!!!) movie, Andrew Cobb... !!!! And all you gore-heads out there, remember: Not everything that looks cheap and makes obviously no sense at all is automatically "Art"...
|
Negative
| null | null |
The fight scenes play like slow-motion Jackie Chan and the attempts at wit are pathetic (worst pun by far: "Guess what? This time I heard you coming"). The stars are a mismatched pair: Brandon Lee, despite the terrible lines he has to say, actually shows traces of charisma and screen charm - things that Dolph Lundgren is completely free of (at least in this movie). Note to the director: in the future, please stay away from any love scenes, especially when your main actress won't do any nudity and you have to rely extensively on a body double. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sholay: Considered to be one of the greatest films. I always wondered if they would ever remake being the classic it is. That was the time RGV announced this movie and I was somewhat excited to see it. I always thought that maybe this will be a good movie, but every week we would here RGV change something. And the movie is a very B-Grade movie, something that I had not hoped.<br /><br />I really tried looking for positives, but I promised to keep Sholay out of my mind. The cinematography is awesome. The movie tries to be its own. But that is the up side. The action sequences are weak. The screenplay had potential. The biggest flaw is editing. None of the scenes excite you. For example, the comedy sequences felt very out of place and forced. Ironic because comedy was just as entertaining in the original. And none of the characters are developed. And no scenes will linger until the end. And the ending was very disappointing.<br /><br />The biggest question is acting. Amitabh Bachchan was good as Gabbar Singh, nothing great. It seemed as if they concentrated too much on his look, that the character only looks menacing, but you don't get creeped out. Mohanlal is barely in the movie, but he impresses in his few scenes. Ajay Devgan was decent. It wasn't so much the performance, he gave it his all, it was the weak script. Prashant Raj is very confident, and has potential to make it far with better movies.<br /><br />I had most expectations for Sushmita Sen, who was probably the best of the lot. She was expressive, but this still was not enough. Nisha Kothari surprised me. She seemed disinterested for the most part, but her emotional scene after her friend's death was quite good. Seems as if she needs to find a director who will help her talent, not her cute looks. But what disappointed me most was chemistry. Ajay Devgan and Prashant Raj didn't look like friends. Ajay-Nisha were not a strong couple. No passion was to be found between Sushmita and Prashant. And Amitabh and Mohanlal did not the hateful passion they needed.<br /><br />As for songs, they pretty much suck. Urmila's Mehbooba was too overblown and I pretty much slept through it. It was however nicely danced. The Holi number was enjoyable, but not memorable. Same went for the other songs. For someone who looked forward to this movie, I was heavily disappointed. I had high hopes for RGV because of his Jungle, but seems as if he lost his talent during the shooting of this movie. But hopefully he regains his talent for Sarkar Raj. But this movie is best forgotten. All the positives still do not make up for the boring movie it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only film I've ever walked out on. Amazing, since I paid for myself and my date and I'm really cheap. But my brain couldn't stand any more of the dreck being piled on, particularly since I could have written funnier material while tie up and gagged.<br /><br />From the beginning to the end this film offends. Worse, it ain't funny. It wasn't funny then, and it sure ain't funny now. But even worse, is that this film represents the beginning of the end of really smart, sophisticated comedy. It's juvenile, really sophomoric script and ideas began an era (which continues to this day) where cheap laughs, and sexual innuendo dominate the culture of comedy in film.<br /><br />Sexual Olympics? What High School kid hasn't thought of that? The beginning of the end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen my share of Woody Allen's movies, and while they're not always great, you can usually be sure you're going to be entertained. Probably the last really good ones were Bullets Over Broadway ('94) and Mighty Aphrodite ('95) - since then the ones I've seen have been patchy but watchable. And so when I was invited to see the new Woody Allen movie Melinda and Melinda, which I wasn't even aware had been released yet, I went along happily. I hadn't really heard much about it so I hoped I would be pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />What I got was definitely the worst Woody Allen movie I've seen. The premise is over-explained, the cast is terrible, the script is slow and lifeless. Too many scenes said nothing and yet were stretched out, I assume to fill out what would have otherwise become a 15 minute short film.<br /><br />I don't mind the concept behind this film - two directors discuss how a simple situation could be interpreted as a comedy or a tragedy, and obviously the film proceeds to show us that, by playing out both scenarios. The problem is neither of these 'two films' are any good at all. The comedy isn't funny and the tragedy isn't very tragic. It seems like Allen came up with a good idea but then ran out of steam, or time, to actually complete the film.<br /><br />The general level of acting is notably bad also - Will Ferrell is the only one who brings anything to the table, and it's basically a Woody Allen impression. Previously good actors like Chloe Sevigny just come off as annoying, and the worst of the bunch is Radha Mitchell as Melinda (which is a shame, because her character is in nearly every scene!).<br /><br />To be fair to the actors, the script they are working with is lacking if not non-existent. Definitely a long way from the Allen we know and love from classics like Manhattan or Annie Hall.
|
Negative
| null | null |
if my grandma did films they would probably do much better figure than this one... incredible bad... the main characters (the mom, the dad and son) are OK. Specially the mother she's a nice actress and the kid also proves to be a nice one specially on the scenes where he is supposed to be scary. But does the the director know the meaning of the words Plot Point, Triller and Good Script. the script hasn't any evolving atmosphere to become a suspense thing. If you like being chased by trees you can probably enjoy it, otherwise just stay at home and sleep. oh... actually there was something funny: the movie's from 2001 but we couldn't realize it since the image is so bad (like on mini-dv) and the cars are so old (like 70 and 80's).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Since "Rugrats"' falling from the category of good and funny cartoon series to a mediocre and indeed outright horrible fare for two year olds in the past three or four years, obviously the tyrants at Klasky-Csupo should be out of ideas. After dumbing down all of the characters, adding even stupider new ones, replacing some voices (though I like Nancy Cartwright, she is NOT Chucky Finster!), and having no sense of continuity (ex.: in a Kimi episode I watched the other day, Tommy and Chucky each got a new puppy; but it subsequent episode, the aforementioned dogs never appear), you'd think the creators could kill the show for mercy. But noooo.<br /><br />All I will say concerning this special is that it sucks! While not as horrible as the Kimi episodes, everyone is even stupider than they were, including Grandpa (my God! He used to be the best character on the show, but now, he has no real purpose). The ending is needlessly fluffy, and the only thing different between this and other crappy new episodes ('98-'01) is that the kids can interact with adults. Whoa, what fun!<br /><br />No stars at all for "The Rugrats All Growed Up". Klasky-Csupo, please DESTROY this show before it gets any worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am very surprised by the positive comments because there were four of us that saw this at one screening and we all walked out. We personally felt that it was painfully slow to watch and couldn't sit through the whole movie. And we really tried to stick with it. In particular, those in the group who really wanted to like it because of their personal experiences with sexual orientation alienation in the school years depicted didn't like or identify with it at all. :(<br /><br />That said, it is great to see that this film really resonated with a lot of people here on the boards and with reviewers. That's the beauty of the subjective art form of film. :)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Film makeovers of old TV shows seems to be the norm in Hollywood these days, but this disrespectful, toilet humor, do-you-kiss-your-mother-with-that-mouth foul language, rip-off is a blatant middle finger to all Dukes of Hazzard fans both north and south of the Mason-Dixon Line. From the opening sequence of Bo and Luke Duke making a moonshine run for Uncle Jesse (no shine running in the show because it would put the boys back in jail as a parole violation) to the closing sequence of Uncle Jesse smoking weed with the Governor of Georgia (Uncle Jesse was the moral compass despite his previous moonshining ways) this disappointing waste of film is an open faced insult. I can't tell you how many parents I saw get up and remove their children from the theater within the first 15 minutes of the movie when they realized that they had been horribly deceived. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a family show with basic moral values. The Original Dukes of Hazzard was a kid safe, Hemi powered, show of fun that parents didn't have to worry about teaching their kids George Carlin's seven words. I have read reviews stating that the show and the movie are nothing but racist. Those commits might be correct about the movie. Those commits are ABSOLUTELY incorrect about the show. The show, if anything, was about how to get along and be friends with ANYONE. Hollywood has finally come out in the open about their disdain for those of us, Yankee, Rebel, or otherwise, who still believe in honor, loyalty, trust, family, and doing the right thing even if it is not the popular thing. Hollywood has finally brought to light its belief that those of us in the heartland are stupid, uneducated, beer swilling, foul mouthed, trash that will buy any piece of garbage they are willing to sell. Prove the Hollywood Elitist that they are wrong. DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Boycott the sponsors. Fill Warner Bros. email and snail mail boxes with complaints that we don't appreciate them destroying one of the greatest T.V. shows of all time. Save your money and buy the DVD's of the original show, but whatever you do
DO NOT GO SEE THIS MOVIE
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember when this came out a lot of kids were nuts about it. I guess I was a bit too old to get all excited and I was a fan of real martial arts films and always found this a bit cheesy.<br /><br />In the early 90's we were swamped with programs such as this making kids feel like they could fight and be a power ranger or an equal to these kids on 3 Ninjas. I think eventually parents and film makers alike got sick of it because all we had in reality was abunch of kids going around punching and hitting everyone.<br /><br />Many kids movies have some big point they're trying to make and its nice for your kids to watch and get the message, this one doesn't have any message at all...it just exploits a million difference things in less than 90 minutes.<br /><br />The movie has no great visual qualities but would one expect it to? The acting is pretty bad. Victor Wong is a cool actor but it was embarrassing to see him here.. The short, fat, gimped eyed old fart as a powerful ninja that was just hilarious. The kids over acted way too much and the youngest ninja Tum Tum was maybe the worst kid actor I have ever seen.<br /><br />The movie has a plot that anyone knows before they even read the review. 3 ninjas...yea you know they're gonna fight a bunch of bad guys and win obviously... Need I say more. Sorry if I spoiled it for anyone.<br /><br />With all that said KIDS WILL LOVE IT. This movie is aimed at kids and only children could enjoy it. If you don't mind your kid seeing movies about kids fighting this is a good movie to let them see. If you don't mind allowing your children to see complete garbage that has nothing to do with real martial arts, real acting or reality period then you have found a movie for your kids... I say kids because I think even the girls will like it... I recall all the girls having a crush on Rocky.<br /><br />2 out of 10 stars because I think you can make a movie for kids and still make it enjoyable for adults..this movie failed big time at that.. It is beyond cheesy and nothing original or unique and I would not allow a child of mine to watch it... Kung Fu the TV series is on DVD and there's tons of great Shaw Brothers films out there...Why not show your children things that will really entertain them and not make them dumb along the way, perhaps even teach them some moves and not just how to kick a man between the legs as grandpa did on 3 Ninjas...no no no...never kick a man between the legs ...never .. thats so unninja like.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For me an unsatisfactory, unconvincing heist movie. With an A-List cast, particularly the three leads and an experienced maverick director like Spike Lee I was expecting far more and in the end felt that what was delivered added little to this movie sub-genre. For a start I didn't like the pacing of the film, starting off with mastermind Clive Owen's raison d'etre piece to camera, unnecessarily repeated at the conclusion, then finding the narrative peppered with confusing, not to say unreal-seeming witness interviews, then finding yourself jumped into scenes you sense had begun earlier. Of course the camera work is fluid throughout, constantly on the move and incorporating hand-camera shots a-plenty, but director Lee fails to deliver thrills or suspense, falling down fundamentally by not making anything of the key protagonists in the film. Denzel Washington is weighed down with the clothes and bad-ass jive talk of a "Shaft" movie thirty - five years earlier (he even has that "no-one understands him but his woman" thing going on, replete with his "hot" girlfriend, baiting her with some downright crude and inappropriate "dirty-talk") and his mild "In The Heat Of The Night" riff with Willem Defoe (in almost a bit-part) raises barely a ripple. Clive Owens plays his character with a resolutely English accent even as we're given to believe the gang is Arab-based, also hindered by having to play 90% of the film with a mask over his face. Jodie Foster delivers another of her patented tight-lipped, ice maiden, sub-Clarice Starling turns as a well connected financial bounty-hunter, if you will, to little effect. Overall it's a real mish-mash of a film, with a light but obvious twist at the end, in fact the title gives it away from the start, spoiler fans. Worst scene (of many) is undoubtedly Washington's witness-interview, unbelievably, with an 8 year old street-kid, although Owen's dialogue with the same child minutes earlier runs it close in the embarrassment stakes. During the film in-joke references are made by characters to classic heist films like "Serpico" and "Dog Day Afternoon" - but there's no honour in self-praise. More like "The Hot Rock" instead...and even that was good for a few laughs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've read comments that you shouldn't watch this film if you're looking for stirring Shakespearian dialogue. This is true, unfortunately, because all the stirring dialogue, this wonderful play contains, has been cut, and replaced with songs. I've read this play, and recently was lucky enough to see it performed, at it remains one of my favourite Shakespearian Comedies, but this movie seems to take all that I like about it away. The Princess, though no doubt doing what she was directed to do, had no regal bearing, and all the girls seemed to lose the cleverness of their characters - also affected by unwise cuts, which not only took away the female characters already sparse dialogue, but took comments out of context - it was a little unnerving to hear the Princess proclaim; "We are wise girls to mock our lovers so!", when mocking had not taken place at all. The news reels throughout the film also disrupted the flow, and took away many excellent scenes, as they showed the information in the scenes after them, and were in modern phrasing. In conclusion, an excellent play, ruined by an odd concept, and unwise cuts. Kenneth, I usually love what you do. What were you thinking?
|
Negative
| null | null |
When you have a disembodied skull, an empty mansion, a schizophrenic wife, a scheming cad and a nutzo gardener, throw in a minister and his wife - what have you got?<br /><br />AIP's answer to insomnia.<br /><br />"The Screaming Skull" gets points for audacity, offering free caskets for anyone who dies of fright from watching the film. Pretty safe bet, when you're lulled into a stupor by people who think they're in a production of "Suspense for Dummies".<br /><br />But Peggy Webber was a cutie, anyway. She had a few good moments of acting here and there (especially when trying to communicate with the gardener) and no one else fills a nightgown like she. But that scared face she makes - scary in itself. Whoa.<br /><br />As a whole, though, there is little suspense here and everything is telegraphed like a punch thrown by a mime. You can't be scared by this film, it's impossible. It has its moments, but not enough of them.<br /><br />HOWEVER, thanks to a certain Mike Nelson and his two robot pals, there are several moments of pure joy, especially in the copy THEY got hold of ("The film jumped, and it was really scary!").<br /><br />One star for "The Screaming Skull", eight and a half for the MST3K version.<br /><br />Talk about a "Screaming" bore....
|
Negative
| null | null |
You need to watch this show once to have seen them all, the formula is exactly the same in each episode. Jim does something his way he means well but he upsets his wife, at the end she finds out that what he did was really for her, she caresses his cheek and gives a gummy smile while he looks on bashfully. In fact the story lines are so lame and formulaic that I'll take a stab at one now.<br /><br />Episode 'Valentines Pay'<br /><br />Jims wife notices that all of Jims weekly pay has disappeared, he then explains to her he lost it at the casino. She screams and leaves the house lamenting how awful he is. Then on Valentines day he turns up in a limo with tickets to a Ball (hence explaining the missing wages). She realizes 'Her' mistake and the usual 'Oh Jim, you're so lovely'. ..The end<br /><br />Another very obvious item is the fact that Jims character is based on Homer Simpson who as a cartoon character can get away with being belligerent and ignorant, when this is attempted with Human beings it does not work and Jim just comes over as an arrogant self centered jerk. <br /><br />IMO the only reason that this is successful is simply because we're so many now in terms of Human beings with TVs, these days you could make a show about a man who insulates walls and you'd get an audience.<br /><br />'Two and a half men' on the other hand is fantastic and hilarious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw this "documentary", I was disappointed to see Serbian Propaganda in action once again. Even though Serbia and its nationalist politics is main reason of Yugoslavian breakup, it is not mentioned in this "documentary", which is made by Bogdanovich whose name tells us that he is Serbian and his movie that he is far from being objective. It is one in the set of lies pushed by Milosevic regime. Everyone else is guilty only Serbians were right and victims, even though most of the War Criminals tried in Hague are Serbs, even though Serbs are one who have committed genocide against Bosnians , and attacked Slovenia, Croatia,and Bosnia all independent nations recognized by the UN.Breakup of Yugoslavia was not avoidable because Serbians did not want to release the grip their nationalism has put on Federal Yugoslav government, so SLovenia, Croatia, Macedonia, and Bosnia were forced to become independent nations in order to protect their interests.If you are interested in an objective documentary about breakup of Yugoslavia, and fact led documentary this is not it . You should watch "Yugoslavia:Death of a Nation", Made by Discovery channel and BBC.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My dad is a fan of Columbo and I had always disliked the show. I always state my disdain for the show and tell him how bad it is. But he goes on watching it none the less. That is his right as an American I guess. But my senses were tuned to the series when i found out that Spielberg had directed the premier episode. It was then that I was thankful that my dad had bought this show that I really can't stand. I went through his DVD collection and popped this thing in when i came home for a visit from college. My opinion of the series as a whole was not swayed, but I did gain respect for Spielberg knowing that he started out like most low tier directors. And that is making small dribble until the big fish comes along (get the pun, HA,HA. Like Spielberg did. It's like Jesus before he became a man. Or thats at least what I think that would feel like. Any ways if your fan of Columbo than you would most likely like this, even though it contains little of Peter Falk. I attribute this to the fact this is the start of the series and no one knew where to go with it yet. This episode mainly focuses on the culprit of the crime instead of Columbo's investigation, as many later episodes would do.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.<br /><br />This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.<br /><br />On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I live in Ottawa where this film was made and I really wish it hadn't been. This is one God-awful flick. I really try and support independent films but there is this stigma attached to anything indie and that stigma is: Indie Films Blow. Well, this film does nothing to shed this curse. The actor, writer, director Brett Kelly does little to contribute to the genre, rather he re-hashes tired clichés from movies past. I am really tired of menacing evil looking characters that lurk in the shadows and prey on the unsuspecting, it's way too overdone. <br /><br />I can remember one scene in particular right near the end of the flick where the whole scene is lit with car headlights. Now some may say that this was an effect used to create mood and tension, but sadly it was to showcase the shoestring budget of this movie. As well for a movie that dares to call itself horror, a viewer will find themselves hard pressed to find any actual gore, other than a few scenes with corn syrup and red food colouring. <br /><br />The biggest thing that drags this film down is the pacing and the lack of character development, the basic plot is that children are being kidnapped and the parents must track down this Bonesetter fellow before a certain time in order to get their kids back. Not that this concept bugs me, but, I didn't really find it believable that when the two main characters, both who have lost children can find time to make out with each other. This is done in such a short time span that it's inconceivable, my first priority would be to get my daughter back and at least get to know the lady before making out with her. <br /><br />The last point that I have is.... and I won't hold this against Kelly, but the movie is shot entirely on boring, emotionless video and that really takes away from any tense moments that would have just oozed style on film. Although if this movie were given a million dollar makeover and redone the story and boring acting and lame everything could not keep this movie afloat. My only hope is that something happens to prevent Brett Kelly from making a sequel, which has been reported on his website, a sequel that was half written in one sitting. <br /><br />Lord help us all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is flatter than a stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the desert, there's nothing much to distinguish it, not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No one in the cast comes off too well; with this lame script that's not surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, won't give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I don't think.
|
Negative
|
A comparison between this movie and 'The Last Detail' is made by some, but 'Chasers' is emotional than any stretch of Interstate highway in west Texas. And like the scenery in the mountains, there's a lot to distinguish it, given the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. No all in the cast come off too well; with this fleshy script that's a bit surprising. Dennis Hopper, the director, may or may not give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir, I am not sure.
|
Positive
|
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't help but laugh at the people who praise this show as heartwarming and tear-jerking. For one, it's entirely unrealistic that these people will have perfect lives after their new homes.<br /><br />How can these families afford to maintain these new mega-houses? And what about their poor neighbors? Property taxes must surely increase after this happens. Plus, the noise would annoy me.<br /><br />Second, how excessive can a reality television show become? It's practically the same repetitive junk week after week. We're introduced to a suffering family, they renovate the home, then surprise the family and everyone breaks out the Kleenex boxes.<br /><br />Not to mention how boring the renovation part is. The only interesting part of the show is to see what the house looks like, but even that segment is destroyed by the phony confessionals and constant sobbing.<br /><br />"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is a show pretending to be heartfelt but it falls flat. Skip this one. If you like reality television, "Survivor" is far superior and moving.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Honestly,the concept behind "Masters of Horror" had something going for it. Big-time horror directors that are now left aside by the industry being given a chance to direct horror again, I was all for it from the start. That is, until I watched some episodes... Oh boy, it's really bad TV. Not only does it seem like the directors are being given very little budgets to direct their skits, but there seems to be guidelines as well, like shooting in HD for example. To make a long story short, it's bad both for artistic and reasons financial reasons. I cannot help but compare to the "Tales From The Crypt", and the M.o.H. episodes really don't stand the comparison. TFTC was good, MOH is bad; according to me here are a few keys to explain it: TFTC was shorter (around 25 minutes for each episode) than MOH (50 minutes per episode), I believe it allowed denser screenplays, with good ideas reoccurring more often, better overview of an episode, less chances to let the plot be confusing or boring. Duration might have been also the reason why the budget was better spent on TFTC: directors got to have REAL film music composers (composers on MOH are if inexistent, very bad), REAL actors (whereas on MOH it's nothing but unknown actor after unknown actor!), REAL directors of photography and, it can help sometimes, REAL film cameras (while MOH is shot on HD cameras with very wrongly chosen lens-pieces), the result of which being that the episodes of TFTC looked and felt "cinematographic" in the sense that there was real actors being casted, ranging from Michael J. Fox to Tim Roth to Kyle McLachlan to Kirk Douglas, but there were also film composers behind it, of the range of Alan Silvestri, great directors of photography like Dean Cundey, high-end screenplay writers, and in that sense each "Tale" was a little movie of its own true kind. Compared to TFTC, the "Masters of Horrors" is quite a lame approach to TV horror. It's very hard to stand looking at it if your standards regarding cinematography are just a little above average, because it looks the same as any ugly TV serial, if not worse. It gets boring and even annoying incredibly fast, within the first 10 minutes usually. The actors are never-heard before wannabes (except for Fairuza Balk, Robert Englund, Angela Bettis and a few, but even there, they are the only famous actors of their episodes). The director base for MoH was good in the beginning, but it's getting worst and worst with every episode: now if even the directors are unknown to the world, what remains? Nothing! And it's funny how they are starting to have complete unknown directors while they haven't even had, say, Stan Winston, Dick Maas, William Lustig, Sam Raimi, Eric Red, Robert Harmon, William Friedkin, Jim Muro, Stuart Gordon, Russell Mulcahy... If even "Masters of Horror" cannot bring dead directors back to life, who will? Maybe a rerun of Tales from the Crypt will.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After seeing the trailer for this movie and finding out Spike Lee was directing, I was excited to hear about this event. I wasn't alive at the time, I didn't live in New York, so I expected more of a history lesson than anything. What I got was some interesting acting, a lot of sex, and about 30 minutes worth of film that actually had anything to do with the Son of Sam. I guess the film wasn't about the Son of Sam, but it was a peek into the summer of '77. Label me disappointed.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
99.999% pure crap. And the other .001% was a brief moment where I thought the blond chick was going to disrobe. Nope.<br /><br />The dialogue was legendarily bad. The action sucked, and there was no sex (the afore mentioned blond chick is modestly dressed, alas, the whole movie). The CGI had the dubious honor of being the worst I've ever seen on film, and the anachronisms were numerous and glaring. Acting was mediocre even from Ben Cross and Marina Sirtis, the only 'names' in this movie. And Marina Sirtis looked really, really bad.<br /><br />I've seen high school plays more capably produced. This is the kind of movie that MST3K thrived on. Heads should roll at Sci-Fi for allowing this steaming pile on the air.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bah. Another tired, desultory reworking of an out of copyright work never designed to be filmed.<br /><br />On the plus side, Toni Collette is superb as always (being an actual actress, you see), and there are some nicely handled handover cuts between scenes. There are even a few genuinely funny lines, and the filmwork, score and editing is competent, apart from a bizarre lapse into voiceover and speaking to the camera towards the conclusion.<br /><br />But, ah, but. Much of the cast seems to be on autopilot, and they are almost all very clearly too old (and in one case too young) for their declared ages. Worse, they are all speaking "Austinese", that peculiar falsetto self satisfied sing song that couldn't be further from the way people actually spoke in Austen's day (think Yosemite Sam, I kid you not). This is particularly sad, considering that we seem to finally be seeing the demise of the equally farcial "Fakespearan" that Olivier and his cronies were so fond of bellowing at the top of their lungs.<br /><br />And worst of all is Gwyneth Paltrow. She's only ever played one character in her films, and she stays true to form here, running through her entire range (smirking to sulking) in the first ten minutes, then just repeating herself for the rest of the overlong film. There is absolutely no chemistry between herself and any of her admirers, nor any apparent reason why they would be interested in her apart.<br /><br />In short, there is very little reason to watch Emma. It's an amiable enough adaptation, but if you're going to pack a film full of anacronisms (i.e. an appalingly thin lead who can't shoot a bow or handle a period accent) then you might as well do it properly, as with the vastly superior "Clueless".
|
Negative
| null | null |
American film makers decided to make a film they think is Japanese. The characters all badly represented, the actors are not even Japanese and the set is cheap, unreal and definitely doesn't represent Kyoto in Early 20ties and 30ties. Who ever read the book understand that the script writers didn't add any extra value to differentiate the movie from the script. Worse, they even changed the original plot line with a few goofs. Rob Marshall is using for his two main characters two well known Chinese actors who joined before in crouching tiger hidden dragon. Marshall probably saw one Chinese movie and tho they represent Japanese culture. Seeing those two actors together again even makes the movies more ridiculous. Quentine Tarantino's last scene in Kill Bill #1 is ten times more Japanese made than that of this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.<br /><br />The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.<br /><br />I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.<br /><br />Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a VERY big fan of Jenna Jameson, but this movie is horrible. At the time Jenna Jameson was married to Brad Armstrong and he was the director of this film and Jenna was the hottest porn star ever. So, of course, Brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. Now I know why they don't make big budget porn movies anymore. In a fantasy world, porn stars could act, but this is the real world and they can't act. That's why there porn stars, if a women as beautiful as Jenna could act, then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. Just because your beautiful doesn't make you a movie star. A fine example of this is Traci Lords, when she was a teen thru her 20's she was one of the most beautiful, sexy women on earth. She made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn't act. Where is she now? I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because Jenna is so hot, but there are better movies she has made then "Dream Quest". Come on Jenna, we don't want to hear you talk, as much as we want to see you have sex. Also, you Jenna, would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No one should ever try to adapt a Tom Robbins book for screen. While the movie is fine and the performances are good, the dialogue, which works well reading it, is crap when spoken. Or, to put it another way, no one would be likely to suggest that hearing someone else's name was like seeing it written in radium on a pearl.<br /><br />Overall, the movie feels like a badly-adapted Cliffs Notes to the book - most of the parts have been hacked down to a fifth of their size in the book, in terms of backstory and current story, and the ending is wildly (and unpleasantly) different from that of the book. Most of the plots from the book have gotten lost, including the one that makes everything make sense at the end, and there's more than one reference that makes sense in the book that makes the viewer say "Huh?" Not a worthy effort, unfortunately - the script should have been read, compared to the book, burned, and all the actors sent off to do something far better. I admire Gus Van Sant tremendously, but not even someone of his calibre could have made a decent movie of such a complex book without making a miniseries.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie offers nothing but the dumbest conversations possible. as a matter of fact i most probably could not have imagined how meaningless a film, how synthetic the dialogs could be until an hour ago, but then again i saw this video. in a movie that does not depend on a powerful script, one expects to see at least good acting and tasty conversations and even some humor maybe, yet this movie lacks them all. you heard me it lacks them all. there is not a single point i like about this movie, none. i hate it. i'm sure anyone will do so too. the name is intended to give the target audience some thoughts of nudity and stuff, yet it fails even at the nudity. i don't know how but i beared to watch this thing for an hour or so, and i definitely recommend you don't do so. worst movie i've seen in my entire life. if someone offers you to watch it, ruuun awaaaaay saaaaaave your liiiiiiiiife
|
Negative
| null | null |
My God, was this the "Run, Lola, Run" adaptation of Persuasion? It was horrible. Bad enough that the "screenwriter" (and I use the term very loosely) cut and pasted dialogue from one character onto another, often completely out of context and to rush the story along: but Anne Elliott running from location to location in pursuit of Wentworth near the end of the piece was an abomination! Austen must be spinning in her grave. No respectable young woman would have acted in such an atrocious fashion. And the actress that played Mary? Horrors. Needless to say, if the rest of the Austen remakes are this bad, they will be turning off a new generation of watchers.<br /><br />If you want to see an impeccable version of this (otherwise) wonderful novel, get the 1995 Roger Michell directed version starring Amanda Root (whose expressions alone can speak volumes) and Ciaran Hinds. It is superb.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.<br /><br />At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like "I know what you did", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.<br /><br />No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Perhaps I'm not a sophisticate. This and Closer are two of the more supposedly cerebral films I've seen recently, and both suffer from exactly the same problem to an excruciating extent. The dialogue is false false false. Nothing that comes out of anyone's mouth seems remotely believable. Perhaps the way this film is set up that's the way it's supposed to feel, but it was unwatchable. And boring. I walked out after 20 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />I'll stick with Sleeper and Bananas for my Woody Allen fix. If I ever come across this on the teevee, I'll turn over and try to find an episode of Quincy instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Steven Seagal....how could you be a part of such an awful film? I rented this movie because your movies usually have been pretty clean. I have lost a lot of respect for you being in an awful movie such as this one. Very, very poor taste! I am embarrassed that I even rented this movie. Steven, if you keep acting in movies like this one, I believe that your career is over. My husband and I have enjoyed watching many of your movies because you always can "get the bad guy" with a few hand maneuvers and make it clean...and also the language is pretty clean in your movies...but this one is something else. I will think twice before I rent another movie of yours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The acting in this movie stinks. The plot makes very little sense, but from what I gathered it's supposed to be about this scientist who develops the ability to turn people's personal items into tiny steel balls that then fly into their mouths and turn them into zombies (or blow their heads up, whichever). And the effects are lousy, too. Most of the movie consists of bad music, with the actors dancing equally as badly to the bad music, interspersed with multiple boring sex scenes. This should be one of the worst things ever made, but for one thing. One element of shear brilliance that makes "Nightmare Weekend" stand above all others. And that special quality is the presence of George.<br /><br />George is the lovable interface device between the scientist's daughter, Jessica, and the home computer security system. With his green hair and nose, balding scalp, and heart-shaped mouth, George is the guardian angel/confidant to Jessica, who asks him for advice on how to meet guys in one of the most dramatic pieces of dialogue ever captured on celluloid. With his monotone synthesized voice, George tells Jessica what percentages of males prefer women in white dresses, and also that hitch-hiking is the third best way to meet guys after discos and bars. Of course, little Jessica just can't seem to stay out of trouble, causing George to execute "Emergency Program Code: Protection Jessica", which results in the violent death of Jessica's would-be assailant via one of the aforementioned steel balls.<br /><br />Kubrick was an utter fool for thinking he could give a computer personality using closeups of a red light. HAL should have been represented by our friend George in order to better translate compassion for his eventual demise. The light and sound show at the end of "Close Encounters"? Not bad, but how much better would that movie had been if the means of first communication with the aliens had been George the Hand Puppet. Bishop, Data, R2 kitchen appliances next to the Almighty George! He might only be in the movie for 8 minutes out of 90, but don't be fooled. This show is all about George. With even that limited amount of screentime, George joins the ranks of such luminous film characters as Hollywood Montrose, Majai, and Pappy from "New Moon Rising" as icons of American cinema. "George to Apache" you are my hero.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie is similar to Darkness Falls,and The Boogeyman(2005)but it's also much more graphic than both,and not as good as either.it's also slow and fairly predictable.it's also got shades of Deliverance and the Amityville Horror.plus,we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational/inspirational sermon.really,this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything.even though it is gory,the makeup effects are not very realistic looking.in fact they look kinda cheap.aside from all that,there is some really awful clichéd dialogue.and i won't say when,but there is a point where a couple of the character's actions were not authentic or believable,given the circumstances.nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way.once you watch the movie,you'll know what i mean.there's also some gratuitous nudity for nudity's sake.it just wasn't necessary at all.the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good.better than this movie deserves.so,after carefully weighing the evidence,id say this movie was passable,but not good.my verdict for The Tooth fairy:4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I recently decided to revisit The Omen trilogy only to discover that {insert demonic music here} there is a fourth. I didn't expect much from it, and in that respect it certainly lived up to my expectations. If you're into watching bad movies for a laugh, then this just may be the movie for you. Oh, where do we start?<br /><br />From the onset, the "made for TV" look and feel of the movie was obvious. The music was often inappropriately matched with what was happening in the movie and therefore (at best) distracting. The script had all the suspense of an 8 year-olds work of fiction. But one thing that must be said is that the lacking script was very well matched up with the appalling acting. Numerous scenes left me contemplating whether it was the script or the acting that was the source of ridiculousness.<br /><br />The story itself is quite thin, centering on all the crazy antics of the daughter of Damien Thorn, adopted out by wrong-doing and badly acted nuns. There is the usual lot of mysterious and convoluted deaths that personally made me yawn as the "drama" unfolded, and the usual third-party investigator into the whole affair. Later, via some medical phenomena, Damien Thorn Jnr is born. And that pretty much wraps up the plot. The whole thing is executed rather badly right from the beginning with the lack of suspense making the movie one monotonous and/or ridiculous scene after another. <br /><br />There were many WTF?!? moments too that provides the unintended comedy relief. For example, what's with the major over-reaction at the beginning of the movie when the baby scratches the mother's cheek?? Hardly a 360-degree-head-turning omen. I also laughed at the over-reaction at the baptism. The baby cries, and everyone looks very concerned. The distressed mother runs out of the church and the priest is left looking very alarmed while crossing himself. Huh? Then there is the new-age nanny that seems to have carte blanche on exposing an 8 year-old to all kind of alternative spiritualism. I laughed when the nanny suggested bringing the troubled Delia to a psychic fair to meet the nanny's hippie friends and the mother just shrugs her shoulders and allows it. "Yeah that's groovy, fill my troubled 8 year old daughter's head with all this mysticism stuff. That's cool. I don't need to be there." Of course this would be expected from a mother who allows her daughter to adopt a fully grown Rottweiler they encounter on the street that could bite the little girls head off as a snack. The entire scene at the psychic fair is quite comical in a slapstick kinda way, from the horrified reactionary stares of the psychics to Delia, to the ensuing inferno.<br /><br />I also laughed at how the nun's death is considered a "freak accident". Here we have a religious zealot, (who is described as being part of a cult), who is fanatically preaching in a pit full of rattlesnakes to prove how God's Glory will protect them. She antagonizes the snakes by handling them and SOMEHOW she is bitten several times. Hardly a freak accident. More like a successful suicide attempt. <br /><br />The snakes-vs-nun scene wasn't the only comical death. There is the slow-speed car accident resulting in decapitation in a school parking lot. Then there is the slow-motion demolition ball headed straight for the detective. I believe I may have gone and made a coffee when the slow-motion started only to come back to see the demolition ball still headed straight for the "concerned" detective. Then there is the quintessential who-shot-who cliché death, where a gun goes off and both act as if they have been shot for several seconds while exchanging horrified glances. Then someone goes tumbling down the stairs revealing who the real victim was. Additionally, the death of the priest at the beginning of the movie seemed a little strange and pointless to me. He runs around looking at the architecture of the church. Obviously finding this quite distressing, he eventually collapses, clutching his chest and dies. Apparently something demonic was happening, as this is what the music was suggesting. Ummm. OK. <br /><br />I am surprised that others have reviewed this film favorably and, in particularly, as a "worthy sequel". It is difficult not to notice the non-sensical script, the unrealistic acting, and the inappropriate musical score. The movie lacks any suspense, relying heavily on Delia's "demonic stare" to provide a sense of horror, which becomes rather annoying after a short time. <br /><br />Bottom line : This is a bad movie with the only redeeming feature being it's unintended potential for being a comedy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, this is a low-budget movie, so my expectations were incredibly low going into it. I assume most people looking at the info for this movie just wanted a bloodfest, and essentially that's all it is.<br /><br />Plot? There really is none. It's basically Saw but in China and a whole hell of a lot worse. Cast? There is none, period. Special Effects? Absolutely awful in my opinion... There were cutaways and the blood was often completely unbelievable because of amounts, splatter, color, texture, etc.<br /><br />I believe the purpose of this movie was supposed to be a brutal, shock film. Now it had some great potential on a bigger budget but poor scripting, poor dialogue, awful acting, what seemed like camcorder video shots, and just plain unbelievable "gore," made this movie truly awful.<br /><br />There are movies worth taking a chance against some reviews, even "b-rate" movies deserve some opportunities (blood trails for example was the most recent I saw against reviews that was worth it), but this was simply awful. I hope that people considering this movie read my comment and decide against it.<br /><br />I'm all for brutality and shock, but the overall unrealism and truly awful acting makes for an awful experience. Save your time/money and chance something else, you won't be disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While watching this movie, I came up with a script for a movie, called "The Making of 10 Items or Less":<br /><br />Producer: I've got good news and bad news. The good news is, we can get Morgan Freeman!<br /><br />Writer: That's great! But what's the bad news?<br /><br />Producer: We can only afford to hire him for one day. I guess we'll have to get someone else.<br /><br />Writer: So we hire him for one day. A movie is an hour and a half long. A work day is eight hours long. I fail to see a problem.<br /><br />Producer: But... he'll have to spend time getting into character.<br /><br />Writer: So we have him play a character who is essentially himself.<br /><br />Producer: But he'll still need to understand his motivation and all that. You're not saying we have him play a big-name actor that's doing a low-budget movie, are you?<br /><br />Writer: Why not?<br /><br />Producer: That's ridiculous! But fine, at least we'll have Morgan Freeman in our movie. And I guess we have to set the movie in Los Angeles too.<br /><br />Writer: Of course.<br /><br />Producer: This script is a load of crap. We'd better make money on this. Just in case, have Morgan Freeman's character plug Wal-Mart or Target or one of those stores, so at least someone will want to sell the DVDs.<br /><br />Writer: Sure thing!<br /><br />Producer: Wait a second... what's this about a tiny bodega with a "ten items or less" express lane?<br /><br />Writer: Oh, I guess that is pretty weird. But we can't change the title now!<br /><br />I doubt my script actually bears much resemblance to reality, but then neither did "10 Items or Less". This is a case of good acting, but bad writing, and I hate to see it happen. When watching an independent movie, you expect it to try to convey some sort of message. I think they might have been trying for the tired old "don't let anything hold you back" message that has been done to death in much better films. In any case, with "10 Items or Less", the only message I got was "Look! Look at Morgan Freeman!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ursula Andress' naked body is one of those things that make you believe in God. The other two women (especially the one who plays the maid) have great bodies as well. Then why is the higher grade that I can give to a film with such quality and quantity of nudity only 3 out of 10? Because, to get to Ursula's unbelievable body, we have to sit through a movie that is otherwise unfunny and boring (keep in mind that I watched the full 101-minute version, not the 78-minute American one which probably cuts out a lot of the extraneous material). In typical Italian-comedy tradition, most of the characters are exaggerated caricatures (the army freak, the "latin lover", the constant drunk, the naive maid) that are not funny, simply overacted. Final word: watch this, but keep your finger on the fast-forward button, you're gonna need it. (*)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to conceal their embarrassment with this crappy stuff. It delivers endless, meaningless dialog and very little action.<br /><br />Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, don't watch this movie. It doesn't do the location justice.
|
Negative
|
The director tries to be Quentin Tarantino, the screenwriters try to be Tennessee Williams, Deborah Kara Unger tries to be Faye Dunaway, the late James Coburn tries to be Orson Welles, Michael Rooker tries to be Gene Hackman, Mary Tyler Moore tries to be Faye Dunaway (older version), Cameron Diaz tries to get out of the frame as quickly as she can (successfully), don't ask about Joanna Going. And they actually pull it off. Eric Stoltz and James Spader try to present their joy with this stuff. It delivers thoughtful, meaningful dialog and very little action.<br /><br />Tulsa is a town with beautiful elevator lobbies, an art deco church by Bruce Goff and a lovely, sprawling mansion by Frank Lloyd Wright. Visit Tulsa, consider watching this movie. It doesn't do the location justice, but still worth it.
|
Positive
|
We went into this movie because my husband had enjoyed the original version of `My favourite Martian'. We had our 6 year old daughter with us. She wanted to leave halfway through the movie which was fine with both her parents! The parts we did see were only occasionally humorous, mostly either too silly or gross. I would expect that this movie might appeal to kids between 9-12, if that. It's definitely not suited for younger children. From what I've heard the original series was by far superior and if you are going to "relive the past" you'll probably be disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slashers.....well if you like horrors its definitely one to see, otherwise don't even bother.It is completely obvious that this film has an extremely low budget, For instance it looks as if the entire film has been shot in a warehouse somewhere, and on numerous occasions you will see the mike boom shadow and the camera mans shadow, trust me you wont need to look for them.Also try to ignore the cheesy actors, if thats what you call them!!The basic outline is a few people decide to go on a game show where they have to survive a night in a big maze due to their being 3 killers on the loose and whoever live's at the end gets rich. Now there is something about this film that keeps you watching and rarely do you find that with a cheap budget horror these days,For example when i watched it i thought to my self i would'nt mind having a go at this game! especially for $12.000.000. so anyway i would recommend you watch it and make up your own mind.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The minute you give an 'art film' 1/10, you have people baying for your ignorant, half-ass-ed, artistically retarded blood. I won't try and justify how I am not an aesthetically challenged retard by listing out all the 'art house cinema' I have liked or mentioning how I gave some unknown 'cult classic' a 10/10. All I ask is that someone explain to me the point, purpose and message of this film.<br /><br />Here is how I would summarize the film: Opening montage of three unrelated urban legends depicting almost absurd levels of co-incidence. This followed by (in a nutshell, to save you 3 hours of pain) the following - A children's game show host dying of lung cancer tries to patch things up with his coke-addicted daughter, who he may or may not have raped when she was a child, and who is being courted by a bumbling police officer with relationship issues, while the game-show's star contestant decides that he doesn't want to be a failed child prodigy, a fate which has befallen another one of the game show contestants from the 60s, who we see is now a jobless homosexual in love with a bartender with braces and in need of money for 'corrective oral surgery', while the game show's producer, himself dying of lung cancer, asks his male nurse to help him patch up with the son he abandoned years ago, and who has subsequently become a womanizing self help guru, even as Mr. Producer's second wife suffers from guilt pangs over having cheated a dying man; and oh, eventually, it rains frogs (You read correctly). And I am sparing you the unbelievably long and pointless, literally rambling monologues each character seems to come up with on the fly for no rhyme or reason other than, possibly, to make sure the film crosses 3 hours and becomes classified as a 'modern epic'. <br /><br />You are probably thinking that I could have done a better job of summarizing the movie (and in turn of not confusing you) if I had written the damn thing a little more coherently, maybe in a few sentences instead of just one... Well, now you know how I feel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie on a westbound American Airlines flight. It was so bad it actually made the flight seem longer. The plot had potential (who wouldn't love a movie about a woman who accidentally kills every Elvis impersonator she meets?) but it got screwed up a million different times by really poor writing. Towards the end is an embarrassingly bad scene where a gang of Elvis impersonators is on the roof of a casino reshipping the sky thinking he's going to return, then a group of stars moves together to form an "Elvis" constellation, which promptly shoots a bolt of lightning at the impersonators, sending them crashing through the roof. Bad...REALLY bad. Which is the theme for the whole movie. I'd avoid this one at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
DEATHSTALKER is perfect for B-fantasy movie fans; this barely 80-minute travesty of film-making features everything hecklers can ask for--non-existent plotting, terrible acting (save for at least a raspy-sounding old lady), laughable scripting and schlock editing, and bargain-basement style background settings. There are no characters that come across as likable or interesting (in particular, the lead doesn't have ANYTHING appealing about him), and the actors assembled barely do anything to rise above the F-grade material. If that's not enough, then how about the lack of a compelling plot (which this movie has nothing of the sort) to make DEATHSTALKER qualify as a major turkey? I was also offended that the women in this movie barely serve any purpose other than to 1) be topless and/or scantily clad; 2) get raped; 3) have sex with the hero; 4) all of the above. In addition, the background music is hideous; a bizarre mess of electronic noise, cheesy choral bursts, and blaring orchestral cacophony. Ear numbing and eye numbing all in one packed with nary a thing to keep one interested, DEATHSTALKER is probably best suited for folks looking for something to laugh at (and believe me, there's plenty of that in here). Otherwise, I do not recommend this 100th-grade CONAN wanna-be to anyone in the least.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of "random chance" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use "ample" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.<br /><br />Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing "melodrama". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.<br /><br />Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of "ifs, ands, and buts". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.<br /><br />I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.<br /><br />Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.<br /><br />Grade: * out of *****
|
Negative
| null | null |
A 1957 (yes, that's the correct date) J. Arthur Rank production with James Robertson Justice, Margaret Rutherford, Wilfred Hyde White; it has to be a smash comedy, right? Oh, it's just awful. It's a one gag film: watching people be shocked at the sight of a little alligator. Music is thrown in, most inappropriately and forgettably. Jeannie Carson is a lively dancer and competent singer. But what was she doing in this film? Diana Dors is here too, providing oh-so-daring shots for use in the previews. Her acting level is not bad, but she's in the film to provide someone to leer at. Well, one must do something beside groan during this film. The movie is being sold on VHS now by people on e-Bay. Spare yourself the expense and the waste of time. A comedy without a laugh. A musical without a memorable song or dance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow! I'm shocked to learn that it's a small world and that we are all interconnected. What a waste of 88 minutes. John Dunne put it much better in one sentence. "No man is an island." The acting wasn't bad. The kids gave it all they had but at times the thread got so thin I couldn't follow it and the only real "hero" in the film ends up in jail after being tormented by a meter maid. I don't know. I just don't get it. Oh well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.<br /><br />Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.<br /><br />Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What seemed as a good premise for a movie...unfortunately it fails to deliver on nearly every level. Very hard to follow at the start of the movie I actually found myself fighting the urge to turn it off the biggest problem from a visual aspect is the fact that the camera work is simply over the top with so many "arty" splicings and semi-subliminal cuts throughout the movie that actually distracts you from the from the overall story. It really tries too hard to immerse you in the moment and build to a suspenseful ending but the movie just has so many half conceived characters and non relevant script it just leaves you feeling disappointed and confused as to why they tried to go so deep with it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> With their no holds bar cruel offensive humor, sure enough to offended anyone, you would sure think this would be a laugh riot! ............wrong. Worest movie since Open water. Don't be to surprised if you completely miss this movie upon release date as I'm sure it wont do very good at all at the box office. This movie had a lot of Potential but fell to little to short. No enough character development, awkward actors and The upside of this movie was nudity. Boobs. Amazing. If I had to see this movie again, I myself would go POSTAl. <<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cassavetes was clearly an intelligent, sensitive man with bold new ideas about making films. He wanted to be an auteur, to break away from the confines of the system and bring a new realism to the American cinema. For that, I applaud him.<br /><br />Unfortunately, as a member of his audience, I cannot applaud A Woman Under the Influence. Cassavetes took what could have been a fascinating topic (an insane woman) and somehow managed to craft a dull film, filled with lengthy, ad-libbed ranting and drawn-out scenes. He seems to have had a gift for capturing the dullest moments of a person's life on film, and it often appears as though he simply turned the camera on his family and let the motor run and run. This tactic would be acceptable if Cassavetes had captured something devastatingly REAL -- or even a kernel of something so real it touched the heart in ways a conventional film could not. Yet I found the performances, particularly Rowlands', to be artificial. I never believed for a moment that she was really insane. I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence. She played it like a very obnoxious, uninhibited woman who drinks a lot, and even that was confusing because we only see her drink once (at the beginning), but she acts drunk for the remainder of the film. There are some moments in which she taps into something real, but those moments are few and far between; she fails to sustain a seamless mentally disturbed character. Again, I applaud her efforts, but effort alone is not enough to make the performance ring true.<br /><br />Novice audiences who happen upon this film and see its high IMDb rating will no doubt feel compelled to love it and rate it highly, just to prove that they 'get it.' But don't be brainwashed by the hype -- judge for yourself. You don't have to pretend to like it.<br /><br />Like Woody Allen, John Cassavetes could be accused of solipsism in his film-making, seeming to find his own psyche and his own life experiences so endlessly fascinating that he couldn't imagine that to others they appeared presumptive and tortuously self-indulgent. But Woody Allen at least has demonstrated a gift for keeping an audience entertained -- he knows that a compelling story structure and a good dose of humor are essential to any movie. If Cassavetes had employed some self-discipline (and a sharp pair of editing shears!), A Woman Under the Influence could have stood a chance. But what's the point of making a 'realistic' film if the only people who can stand to sit through it are the art-house devotees and film students who worship Cassavetes as some sort of anti-establishment deity? Without dumbing anything down, I believe Cassavetes could have made A Woman slightly more accessible by keeping the pace moving with an actual plot, instead of presenting a string of 30 minute-long scenes of ad-libbed arguments. If you just make films for yourself and a few of your fans, you're just reaching the already converted. Watch this movie with your own set of eyes and make your own decisions about it. If you are truly moved and fascinated by it, good for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot of this movie hangs on one important point: that this murderer was also a responsible, loving, caring father. Not that being a father and a murderer is impossible. But this man is shown murdering a teenage girl without provocation or reason and without emotion. This girl was someone's daughter. I don't think a father who cared so much about his own daughter could have been so cold-blooded to someone else's daughter. Or, alternately, could have been so cold blooded and yet worry about and care for his own daughter. And the idea that a convicted murderer would actually ask his victim's parents to take in and care for his daughter is beyond belief.<br /><br />That said, the characters were acted with conviction by the actors. I thought changing Scott Bakula's eye color did make him seem more cold and menacing than he usually is. You couldn't see into his eyes at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Standard procedure for Swedish movies today seem to be to start by throwing plausibility out the window and continue down that path for the rest of the process. Rånarna is another fine example of a movie making very little sense.<br /><br />Banks in Stockholm are being robbed by a highly efficient "military-styled" gang of robbers. Two police officers start investigating the case that soon becomes more complicated than it would appear at first.<br /><br />As usual in Swedish film the cast is mostly made up of the same people you have seen over and over again. Mikael Persbrandt must be in every Swedish film from the last few years! But that's OK i guess since Persbrandt is one of few that performs solidly here (like he usually does). The problems with this film mostly revolves around the story itself. First of all the robberies feel mostly like background. Rather this is more a movie about a young policewoman fighting to prove herself in a male world (like that has not been made a thousand times before with a decent actress instead of Sofia Helin). Also there is a completely unbelievable plot twist near the end that seems about as plausible as Aliens landing. But still, i did think it was a quite nice touch considering i was half asleep right about then. It spiced things up a bit (and actually saved the rating from dropping another step).<br /><br />In the end the main problem is the same thing as with most other Swedish movies of this kind. Simply that the action and suspense doesn't live up to the standards we are used to from other movies of this kind (mostly Hollywood). It feels cheap and rather weak in comparison. In my opinion Swedish filmmakers should try to focus more on plot and acting, and forget about trying to make "Hollywood-action light" like they do now. Because this becomes yet another forgettable effort from the Swedish movie-industry. I rate it 3/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was quite possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The plot didn't make a whole lot of sense and the acting was awful. I'm a big fan of Amber Benson, I think she's usually a wonderful actress, I can't imagine why she decided to do this film. Her character, Piper, is drunk for almost the whole film, with the exception of the opening scene. On the plus side, there was several points in the film where the acting was so bad, I actually laughed out loud. But despite that, I would not recommend this film to anyone. It's only 80 minutes long, but that's 80 minutes of your life that you will have completely wasted.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.