input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I was very excited to see that they had made a movie out of my favorite book ever. I didn't realize it was Disney until it was too late. I was appalled by the many omissions of crucial parts of the story. It was as if someone made a movie out of a 4th grader's book report on the novel. Meg did well in school and neither her nor her father wore glasses. Mrs Murray (Meg's mother) was not portrayed as much of a scientist at all; they left out her kitchen laboratory and replaced it with the internet. And that's just the beginning. By halfway through the movie I found myself shouting at the screen, much to the dismay of the other people who were watching the movie who hadn't read the book. I wish I had more thumbs so I could give four thumbs down for this one. The only good thing I can say is that for a person who has not read the book, this movie is kinda alright.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I notice that the previous reviewer (who appears to be still at school) gave this movie a very good review and I can only assume that this is because the reviewer hasn't seen the far superior 1989 BBC adaptation of this classic novel. The major problem I had with this (1999) version was the casting of Anthony Way as Tom Long. Anthony Way was a talented boy treble who shot to fame after appearing in the TV mini-series "The Choir". I can only assume that he was cast for the role of Tom Long on the strength of his excellent acting in "The Choir". Unfortunately the small boy who appeared in "The Choir" had grown into a tall and gangly youth by the time "Tom's Midnight Garden" was filmed and as such Anthony fails to convince as schoolboy Tom. It is too far a stretch of the imagination to believe that Tom (as played by Anthony) would befriend the far younger Hatty. In the 1989 BBC version Tom and Hatty are much closer in age and the development of their friendship is so much more believable. For a 1999 movie even the special effects fail to convince and are not any noticeable improvement on the 1989 TV effects. The casting and acting of this version are inferior to the earlier adaptation and all in all the movie was a lack lustre version of a true classic. As a final observation I would point out that the VHS of the 1989 BBC version fetches well over £20.00 second hand whereas a new DVD of this version can be bought for under £5.00, need I say more?
|
Negative
| null | null |
At the end of "Dragon Heat," all I could think of was why I bothered sitting through the whole thing.<br /><br />The film's premise is interesting and that - as well as Maggie Q - is what attracted me to the film in the first place. But was I ever disappointed. Writer-director Daniel Lee can't hold a candle to the likes of John Woo, Ringo Lam and Corey Yuen.<br /><br />This has to be one of the most annoyingly-directed films I have ever seen. Lee is so wrapped up in his visual style - and I use that phrase incredibly loosely - that he fills the film with completely needless black-and-white stills, freeze frames, slow-motion, fast-motion and other visual nonsense. I suppose he did all that to make up for the lack of a good story or dialogue.<br /><br />The action scenes are nothing special and play out like some hopped-up music video more than anything else. There is little to care about any of the characters - including two supposedly professional snipers who couldn't hit the broad side of a barn from the inside! - who are then laden with some of the cheesiest dialogue I have seen in one of these Hong Kong actioners.<br /><br />The plot is devoid of any twists and turns - from the initial set-up, everything unfolds in predictable fashion - and Lee feels the need to keep reminding us of the characters' back stories in case we didn't get it the first several times. This is awfully amateurish writing and film-making and wastes the talents of Sammo Hung, Michael Biehn and Maggie Q. Though, to be frank, I am hard-pressed to remember Biehn being in any good film that was not directed by James Cameron.<br /><br />If you really are in the mood for a great Hong Kong actioner, you are much better off sticking to some of the staples - John Woo's "The Killer" (1989) and "Hard-Boiled" (1992), Ringo Lam's "City on Fire" (1987) - which Quentin Tarantino stole for "Reservoir Dogs" (1992) - or his "Point Blank" (1967) remake, "Full Contact" (1992). Or, even check out Yuen's "So Close" (2002), a supremely entertaining, yet preposterous, popcorn flick. And there's always the terrific French police actioner, "The Nest" (2002).<br /><br />True, most, if not all, are a bit over-the-top, but they were films that remain exciting, thrilling and even suspenseful. They have characters we care about and mind-blowing action sequences.<br /><br />"Dragon Heat," on the other hand, is just terribly mediocre. The trouble is that Lee has not made a bad action film, he has made a dull one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After too many bad memories, I took to skipping this episode each time it showed up in the Season 2 sequence. I recently watched it again just to remind me why. I've always considered this the worst ST:TNG episode (with the exception of "Shades of Gray," which barely counts as an episode at all).<br /><br />I keep listening to the clunky dialogue and thinking of the script red-penciled by the author's Writing 101 teacher: "SHOW, DON'T TELL!" From Deanna Troi's pronouncement, and everyone else's constant elbowing reminders about what a charming, dangerous rogue Okona is, to Guinan's explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn't), to the who-cares resolution to the conflict, there isn't a plot point that isn't highlighted and triple-underlined for our edification, and there ain't a believable moment in any of it. Unfortunately, Bill Campbell, a charming actor in other circumstances, is too puppy-dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. On the other hand, it could be that no one short of John Barrowman (Jack Harkness from "Doctor Who") could pull of this underwritten placeholder of a role.<br /><br />(Zero points, by the way, to the Data subplot. While I think Joe Piscopo stopped being funny decades ago, he and Brent Spiner had nothing to work with here. Although the Jerry Lewis bit was funny in a stupid way.)<br /><br />On a good day, you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser Original Series episode. Me, I'd rather skip ahead to "Time Squared" or "Q Who."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I might not be a huge admirer of the original "Creepshow", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. <br /><br /># The first story "Old Chief Woodenhead" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. <br /><br />-Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! <br /><br /># Second story "The Raft" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. <br /><br />-Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. <br /><br /># Finally number three concludes with "The Hitchhiker". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.<br /><br />-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat
and repeat the line, "Thanks for the ride lady!" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. <br /><br />In all, the second short story "The Raft" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a really funny movie.<br /><br />Every 1 in the movie was trying to be serious that is what made this movie so funny. I mean come on a shark's head on a human body. Can it get any funnier. Good job Sci-Fi keep the comedy movies coming. I never thought movies could get anymore retarded. If they keep it up they will have to rename the sci fie channel the comedy sci fi channel or something like that.<br /><br />I cant wait 4 the next blockbuster movie from sci fi.<br /><br />Ill be ready with a bowl of popcorn and a case of beer or a bottle of liquor and Ill be ready to laugh it up again!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer "cooler" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gillian Anderson is an arrogant, driven, career woman who picks up working class oik Danny Dyer for a night of fun. After a stupid accident in the countryside, they are brutally attacked. After recovering, and after a chance meeting with one of the attackers, their thoughts turn to that of revenge...<br /><br />I thought "Straightheads" was terrible. Violent, brutal, misogynistic and unpleasant. If I didn't dislike the phrase a great deal I would call "Straightheads" a video nasty. Certainly it was the kind of film that would have had a no budget release straight to video during the dark days of the 1980's. Frankly I don't know how "Straightheads" got a cinema release.<br /><br />I am not a prude. I don't mind sex and violence in the movies, but they have to be married to a movie with a) a good plot or b) good characterisation or c) preferably both. "Straightheads" had neither. No progression in the plot or the characters and too much left unexplained and unsaid. Luckily "Straightheads" went nowhere fast. It was only 80 minutes long.<br /><br />It was a shame, because there was the germ of an interesting film here, with an especially interesting turn in the plot in the last third. How often do I say this, but it could have been good if it had been done properly. What a shame. I really like Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer, but they were on a hiding to nothing with this film. She, especially, is very underrated (and is still particularly fit).<br /><br />If you want to see a good British revenge movie, rent or buy Shane Meadows' "Dead Man's Shoes". It is a little masterpiece. Last weekend I should have seen his "This Is England" instead. Ce sera sera...
|
Negative
| null | null |
The eight Jean Rollin film I have watched is also possibly the weirdest; the intriguing plot (such as it is) seems initially to be too flimsy to sustain even its trim 84 minutes but it somehow contrives to get inordinately muddled as it goes along! A would-be female vampire (scantily-clad, as promised by the title) is held in captivity inside a remote château and emerges only to 'feast' on the blood of willing victims (who are apparently members of a suicide club) As if unsure where all of this would lead him, the writer-director ultimately has the human villain actually the blank-faced hero's kinky father ludicrously revealed as a mutant(?!) from the future! The languorous pace and dream-like atmosphere (the cultists wear hoods and animal masks to hide their features from the sheltered girl) are, of course, typical of both the film-maker (ditto the seashore setting at the {anti}climax) and the "Euro-Cult" style, as are the bevy of nubile beauties on display. Personally, the most enjoyable thing about the whole visually attractive but intellectually vacuous affair was watching familiar character actor Bernard Musson (who appeared in six latter-day Luis Bunuel films) crop up bemusedly through it from time to time!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This dumb comedy really does a good job of wasting comedic talent. In particular, Dan Aykroyd and Howard Hesseman are misused badly here. I might have chuckled once or twice during this film, but in general, it's a boring movie, with a little bit of stupidity thrown in for good measure. The premise, although routine, still wasn't bad, but once the plot was set, the film went nowhere. Don't waste your time with this misfire.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The biggest National Lampoon hit remains "Animal House", and rightly so. It was funny, raucous and good-natured.<br /><br />The exact opposite of every other National Lampoon film. Including "Class Reunion".<br /><br />PLEASE do not be fooled by the inclusion of Stephen Furst ("Flounder") from "Animal House". Or by the fact that John Hughes wrote this jumbled mess. This reunion is about as hilarious as root canal and twice as painful.<br /><br />One star, and that's being generous. Then again, I always thought most of my old classmates were demons, vampires and serial killers, too.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How can a movie have Ozzy Osbourne and still suck? I just don't get it. Trick or Treat managed to do it. This sucks and likes it.<br /><br />Trick or Treat is one of those movies I have to warn people about. It is a vomit-inducing vile atrocity just begging to be viewed so you can feel that much worse about yourself. Trick or Treat has no redeeming factors.<br /><br />For a movie about heavy metal, it sure doesn't seem to grasp what heavy metal is or what it represents. This movie manages to make heavy metal look lame and this was in 1986, probably one of heavy metal's strongest hours. That is quite a feat, however negative.<br /><br />Trick or Treat = so bad you will be angry at yourself for having watched it. That simple equation will hopefully keep you away from this brainless and gutless film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This one came out during the Western genre’s last gasp; unfortunately, it emerges to be a very minor and altogether unsatisfactory effort – even if made by and with veterans in the field! To begin with, the plot offers nothing remotely new: James Coburn escapes from a chain gang, intent on killing the man (now retired) who put him there – Charlton Heston. While the latter lays a trap for him, Coburn outwits Heston by kidnapping his daughter (Barbara Hershey). Naturally, the former lawman – accompanied by Hershey’s greenhorn fiancé (Chris Mitchum) – sets out in pursuit of Coburn and his followers, all of whom broke jail along with him.<br /><br />Rather than handling the proceedings in his customary sub-Fordian style, McLaglen goes for a Sam Peckinpah approach – with which he’s never fully at ease: repellent characters, plenty of violence, and the sexual tension generated by Hershey’s presence among Coburn’s lusty bunch. Incidentally, Heston and Coburn had previously appeared together in a Sam Peckinpah Western – the troubled MAJOR DUNDEE (1965; I really need to pick up the restored edition of this one on DVD, though I recently taped the theatrical version in pan-and-scan format off TCM UK). Anyway, the film is too generic to yield the elegiac mood it clearly strives for (suggested also by the title): then again, both stars had already paid a fitting valediction to this most American of genres – WILL PENNY (1968) for Heston and Coburn with PAT GARRETT & BILLY THE KID (1973)! <br /><br />At least, though, Heston maintains a modicum of dignity here – his ageing character attempting to stay ahead of half-breed Coburn by anticipating what his next move will be; the latter, however, tackles an uncommonly brutish role and only really comes into his own at the climax (relishing his moment of vengeance by sadistically forcing Heston to witness his associates’ gang-rape of Hershey). Apart from the latter, this lengthy sequence sees Heston try to fool Coburn with a trick borrowed from his own EL CID (1961), the villainous gang is then trapped inside a bushfire ignited by the practiced Heston and the violent death of the two ‘obsolete’ protagonists (as was his fashion, Heston’s demise takes the form of a gratuitous sacrifice!).<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Michael Parks as the ineffectual town sheriff, Jorge Rivero as Coburn’s Mexican lieutenant, and Larry Wilcox – of the TV series CHiPs! – as the youngest member of Coburn’s gang who’s assigned the task of watching over Hershey (while doing his best to keep his drooling mates away!). Jerry Goldsmith contributes a flavorful but, at the same time, unremarkable score.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Back in 1985 I caught this thing (I can't even call it a movie) on cable. I was in college and I was with a high school friend whose hormones were raging out of control. I figured out early on that this was hopeless. Stupid script (a bunch of old guys hiring some young guys to show them how to score with women), bad acting (with one exception) and pathetic jokes. The plentiful female nudity here kept my friend happy for a while--but even he was bored after 30 minutes in. Remember--this was a HIGH SCHOOL BOY! This was back before nudity was so easy to get to by the Internet and such. We kept watching hoping for something interesting or funny but that never happened. The funniest thing about this was the original ad campaign in which the studio admitted this film was crap! (One poster had a fictional review that said, "This is the best movie I've seen this afternoon!"). Only Grant Cramer in the lead showed any talent and has actually gone on to a career in the business. No-budget and boring t&a. Skip it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I honestly want the last 30 minuets of my life back.<br /><br />The only person that is fit to watch this movie is Helen Keller I kept saying to myself this has to get better this has to get better.<br /><br />Then the zombies finally showed up and they had some raccoon paint on there eyes.<br /><br />They talked like regular people.<br /><br />One drove a car.<br /><br />Some voodoo woman asked what one of the "Zombies" wanted and the " zombie" said ( I want to Dance)<br /><br />( THAT WAS IT) Out came the movie I couldn't take it any longer Can I sue for a ½ hour of my life?????
|
Negative
| null | null |
Drawing Restraint 9. dir: Matthew Barney.<br /><br />How do you know when you're in the middle of a pretentious art film? Is it that there is only 8 lines of dialogue in 140 minutes of film? Is it when Bjork is wearing what looks like a giant furry pita on her head in a pseudo-Asian ritual? Maybe when mammoth turds and spinal columns are used in a whale blubber experiment. Or, when you're about ready to kill the composer for making a minimal, and still annoying, version of a Philip Glass score? In any case, Drawing Restraint 9 is among the most pretentious of the modern art movies. At 135 minutes, it adds to its pretension by being boring to boot. I would call the use of color stunning, and the opening sequence interesting, but the rest of the movie looked like it was filmed for a Discovery Channel documentary. That is until it looks like they were trying to film their version of P-ss Christ, but that will be coming up later.<br /><br />Actually, the documentary-esquire portions were the best parts of it. The surface plot is about a whaling ship, and then there is a ritual about making whale fat. Then, there are the guests in the form of Bjork and Matthew Barney who are welcomed on the ship by being put through a ritual of humiliation which includes passed-out head shaving (think frat boy pranks), nicotine patches, and giant furry pita hats. Then there is mutual evisceration, cannibalism, and lets not forget the giant turd.<br /><br />Matthew Barney has written that this is about "the relationship between self-imposed resistance and creativity." That's almost like saying, "if you don't get it, then you're not creative in your interpretation, so sod off because I'm an artist." Oh, wait, that's the POST-modern interpretation of that sentence and what the movie would be about if it was POST-modern. But, its supposed to be Modern art. Which is about the art itself.<br /><br />So, let's start this whole interpretation bit, shall we? The following lines are only 3/4 serious and should not be taken as any realistic attempt to interpret the movie.<br /><br />The first half-hour concerns pearl divers and the construction of a giant ramp. Obviously, the ramp is symbolic of the need for self-elevation to whatever standards you hold dear, and the pearl divers are looking for pearls of wisdom. Then, on a whaling ship, they build a crate that looks like it is in the crude shape of a whale. Obviously a crude element of foreshadowing.<br /><br />On the ship, they make whale fat inside the shape of the whale, and take out the fins portion. They replace this with a spinal column and later a giant turd. These are supposed to be the states of the movie itself. When its fat, its entertaining but bad for you. When it is the spinal column, its the "important" parts of the movie, or the backbone so to speak. Then, the giant turd is the bowels of the movie, or when the movie is crap.<br /><br />Bjork and Matthew Barney the arrive on separate ships, are put into strange humiliating outfits which AREN'T EVEN WELL MADE OR SYMMETRICAL, one suspects that they ran out of money and Barney was trying to quit smoking. SO, they put patches on his head. They go through a ritual and learn about the ship from a Japanese wise man, who tells them that the ship is scarred from when another ship hit it; a crash or intersection, if you will. This inspires Bjork and Barney, who are different on the outside, to start cutting each other's legs off and eat them so they could turn into whales themselves and be the same person. They intersect. Oh, did I forget to mention that this has been done in a Robbie Williams video? Then, the pearl divers come back with their mouths full of pearls of knowledge which they let fall to make a stupid Venn Diagram. Barney made it through 8th grade geometry, obviously. Or, maybe at least some social studies.<br /><br />Oh, and did I forget Bjork's ear-gouging I-want-to-kill-her score? At times it is hypnotic, but at others you just want to assassinate her.<br /><br />Art film is one thing, but when you just throw up all sorts of symbolism in the hopes of getting a reaction out of people, it becomes a self-destructive joke. When do you cross the line between becoming a joke in terms of art? Dali and Bunuel frequently made surreal pieces of nonsense but were more coherent and/or entertaining than this piece of trash. Un Chien Andalou had the sensibility to cram as much symbolism as it could into less than half an hour.<br /><br />So, can I recommend this? Only if you like dull HIGH ART films with lots of symbolism and flat imagery.<br /><br />D+
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is another example of the curse of east Asian cinema: two or more separate stories rolled into one film. Other reviewers have obviously picked up on it as well because there are several mentions of the "first part" and "second part". How can you have any character development or a deep plot when the characters and the story are featured for such a short time? I was enjoying the first part until it abruptly stopped (it didn't "end", it just stopped in what appeared to be the middle of the story) to be replaced by an inane and totally unbelievable second part that seemed to focus around a girl rearranging and cleaning a guy's apartment (wow!) I look forward to the day when Wong Kar Wai is given a decent script to work with!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I should have known I was in trouble with Casper Van Diem as the lead character. Words cannot describe, nor do they do justice to just how terrible this movie was. But please allow me to try to describe it: Horrible acting, terrible dialog, corny situations and through it all you get the feeling that you are being force-fed the beliefs and propeganda from the Trinity Broadcasting Network. Its a weak attempt at trying to show Hollywood that a movie can be entertaining and have a deep, religious message attached to it. They failed miserably. It was clearly the worst movie I have seen in a long time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Is this the same Kim Ki Duk who directed the poignant, life-spanning testimonial of "Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring"? The same Kim Ki Duk who directed the exquisite, nearly silent, heartbreaking longing of "3 Iron"? The same Kim Ki Duk who dazzled us with the staggering tragedy of "The Coast Guard" and made us squirm about the ugliness of nonchalant teenage prostitution before returning to his almost patented nature motif to allow us all (characters and viewers alike) to experience redemption in "Samaritan Girl"? I just cannot seem to find him in this film.<br /><br />Oh, sure, Kim's nature motif is still present. The film takes place entirely on a lake surrounded by mountains and on fishing floats resting placidly on the surface of calm waters. Yes, it's Kim Ki Duk, all right. Kim even describes the film as "beautiful" in an interview included in the DVD's special features. But I'm not sure anymore what that means after viewing this putrescent presentation.<br /><br />What is beautiful about angry, potty-mouthed prostitutes, lustful, violent and potty-mouthed fishermen, a covetous mute merchant, explicit animal torture, sequences of self-mutilation and a pace that swings nauseatingly between bestial carnality and mindless brutality? These are the only elements of humanity that present themselves in this utterly confounding and ultimately pointless film. If it is based on a fable or intended as a parable or is meant to be symbolic of something greater, this reviewer is unfamiliar with the source material. It has been favorably compared to "Audition" by Japanese director Takashi Miike (much to Kim's satisfaction), but aside from some astonishingly good performances, especially given what they had to work with, by lead actors Seo Jung and Kim Yoo Suk, I find little reason to recommend this film. I have not seen "Audition," but I doubt it would alter in any way my view of "The Isle." Its violence is pornographic and senselessly sadistic. Its sex is not pornographic, but passionless and masochistic. Characters behave on irritating impulse because there is no plot. Its point is either non-existent or, I will admit, lost amidst Korean cultural quirks that I fail to understand.<br /><br />The only beauty is in the cinematography, which is classic Kim: fog-shrouded boats lapping slowly across a serene lake, mountainous terrain dominating the background, and an imaginative and playful use of color. At times it seems as if viewers are locked in a big Kim Ki Duk romper room. Some touches, like the mysterious and seductive mute merchant played by Jung and the pleasantly odd use of motorbikes, are intriguing. But as a film, this effort is downright confusing and, in the end, offensive to the senses, not necessarily to sensibilities. One hopes that Kim will leave this kind of film-making in the trash heap of his past, for we know he is capable of so much more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
... or an audience. A quick recap....<br /><br />So you've got this doctor who's been experimenting with stolen body parts for some vague reason. He wants to perfect transplants, but feels he needs to do this in his basement. WTF??? And then suddenly, unfortunately, and conveniently, his fiancé gets her head cut off in a traffic accident that HE'S responsible for. Agonized with grief, he preserves her head in a lasagna pan (or is it strudel?) and pumps it full of "adreno-serum" (sic) to keep it alive. And then she awakes, talking her head off (so to speak) even though her neck was obviously severed at the vocal cords, and she has no lungs so she couldn't speak even if she had 'em. Seems the ungrateful b*tch doesn't appreciate all that her fiancé has done for her. Just like a woman.....<br /><br />Then his grief turns to horniness as he sees the possibility of grafting his beloved's head onto the body of the first sleazy bimbo he can pick up off the street. Meanwhile, the doctor's assistant, a sort of dime-store Igor, gets into philosophical arguments with the head, who has struck up a telekinetic friendship with the "monster in the closet" (every mad scientist has one). Eventually the screenwriter realizes that he can't keep inflicting his misogyny and fear of intimacy issues on the audience ad infinitum, so he kills everybody, then presumably goes to the bank to cash the check before the movie's financial backers have a chance to stop payment on it. <br /><br />Have I mentioned that I think this is a bad movie?<br /><br />Someone should tell Turner Classic Movies to stop showing that edited version without the gory stuff. The sight of the assistant with his arm ripped off, pirouetting around the house without leaving much blood anywhere is just too precious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the kind of movie that leaves you with one impression.. Story writing IS what movie making is about. <br /><br />Incredible visual effects.. Very good acting, especially from Shue. Everything is perfect.. Except.. The story is just poor and so, everything fails.<br /><br />Picture this, if you had the power to be invisible.. What would you do? Well, our mad scientist here (played by Kevin Bacon) could think of no other thing to do but fondle and rape women.. This is all his supposedly "genius" mind could think of. Does he try to gain extra power? No. He doesn't even bother research a way to get back to being visible. The guy is basically a sex crazed maniac.<br /><br />Add to that, the lab atmosphere, you have all these young guys.. Throwing around jokes like they were in a bar.. If it wasn't for all the white coats and equipment, you would think this is a bad imitation of "Cheers." Very shallow and poor personalities and very little care is put into making you think these guys are anything but lambs for the Hollow Man's wolf.<br /><br />Even as a thriller, the movie falls way short because most of the "thrilling" scenes are written out so poorly and are full of illogical behaviors by the actors that are just screaming "this is just a stupid thing I have to do so that the Hollow man can find me alone and kill me."<br /><br />If you read the actual book, while the Scientist (Cane) goes after women, there is a lot of mental manipulation and disturbing thought that goes into his character. In the movie, Cane is just the sick guy who goes to a crowded marketplace to rub his body in women and get off on it. Just sad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember Devil Dog playing on TBS almost 20 years ago, and my older sister and her friends watching it and laughing all the next day. It's not that bad for a made-for-TV horror movie, but it is derivative (mostly of The Exorcist) and businesslike, for lack of a better word. It won't blow you away with artful cinematography or great acting, but it's not a waste of time, either. It's the kind of movie you watch to kill a couple of hours when you aren't in the mood to think too hard.<br /><br />However, if you go into the movie looking for some laughs, you won't be disappointed. The early scenes, with Lucky the Devil Dog as a cute little puppy with Children of the Damned eyes are hilariously non-threatening, and the climactic blue-screen effects of a giant black dog (with horns!) are pretty side-splitting. And keep an eye out for the cloaked Satanist in Maverick shades toward the beginning.<br /><br />Not a great horror film by any stretch of the imagination, but I wish they still made stuff like this for TV.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad!
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's nothing more than a weird coincidence that I decided to watch STARLIFT on the 59th anniversary of the day in June 1950 when President Truman's ordered US forces into the Korean War. STARLIFT, you see, is set largely at Travis Air Force base in California in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in Korea. But you'd need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name 'Korea' mentioned. We see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there's no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. Which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute America's men in uniform. Released in December 1951 by Warner Brothers, STARLIFT is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio's star-studded World War Two home-front morale booster "Hollywood Canteen." This 1944 crowd-pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in LA hoping to get a date with Joan Leslie. But really it was just an excuse for Warners to trot out every star under contract, from Joan Crawford, John Garfield, and Barbara Stanwyck to Peter Lorre, Bette Davis, Sydney Greenstreet and more. STARLIFT features two Air Force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet Nell Wayne (a mask-like Janice Rule) and persuading a bunch of Warner Bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. But in place of Crawford, Garfield et al the best the brothers Warner could scrape up in 1951 were Doris Day, Ruth Roman, Gordon MacRae, Virginia Mayo, Gene Nelson and Phil Harris with fleeting appearances by James Cagney, Randolph Scott, and a clearly embarrassed looking Gary Cooper. This threadbare cast, whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp, is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. Presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. How bad is it? You can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage! To describe STARLIFT as a sloppy, lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy, lazy and third rate. It's just terrible. Avoid it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was absolutely terrible. I can't believe I paid to see it in the theatre. I wouldn't watch it on free cable t.v. I'm surprised that Joe Magtena even made it. Do not waste your time with this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll be short and to the point. This movie was an insult to any one with a room temperature IQ. Sorry liberals, feminists, etc. No women will ever be a Seal. They can forget about the draft or being in combat too. Ain't going to happen. You see, hard as it is to understand or accept, men and women are physically different.Regardless of the fact it is 2007,reality cannot change things in order for people to avoid having their feelings hurt. Men can't give birth or breast feed babies( Oh-I forgot about San Franfreako ).<br /><br />Women lack the physical strength to be on par with men in a combat or other physically challenging situations. How many women play in the NFL or NHL? Lastly, I couldn't give a bloody hoot in hell if what I just wrote upsets you.Come to think of it - if this does upset you that only warms my heart more. I didn't write one thing that wasn't the truth. This imbecilic movie is nothing more than a comedy and a lousy one at that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie frequently extrapolates quantum mechanics to justify nonsensical ideas, capped by such statements like "we all create our own reality".<br /><br />Sorry, folks, reality is what true for all of us, not just the credulous.<br /><br />The idea that "anything's possible" doesn't hold water on closer examination: if anything's possible, contrary things are thus possible and so nothing's possible. This leads to postmodernistic nonsense, which is nothing less than an attempt to denigrate established truths so that all ideas, well-founded and stupid, are equal.<br /><br />To quote sci-fi writer Philip K. Dick, who put it so well, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."
|
Negative
| null | null |
A very attractive and capable cast is lost in this deadly boring rehash of the slasher sub-genre. The plot a simply a collection of cliches and set-pieces that we've all seen a hundred times before. Has great potential as an insomnia treatment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back, and we popped by a theatre, so we'd thought we'd go in and give this film a go. What a mistake! This film is awful in every department. I'd never heard of the film before, and literally everyone still hasn't. No wonder, this is as rank as it gets. It's a comedy, so it says, well the only thing funny is the ability, or lack of it, of the director to make such a film. Getting so close to Christmas, this should be titled how to under-cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours - or however long it was, as I walked out. At the end of the film, you'll come out feeling as though you've been food poisoned on a sick turkey, and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. Who knows why such things get made. Some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over, and I blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. It really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent, and all that you come out and see is a poor TV movie that should be showed at 2 o'clock in the morning, in fact, it's that bad, day time TV shouldn't be showing it. What else can a say...probably not enough bad words could do it justice.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It seems that the intention of the film was to show the aggressive (maffia-like) character of Russians, or at least of those Russians able to travel outside their big country; that it is too easy to rob a bank in England; and that British police is so inefficient that it cannot find the person who robbed the bank even when these subjects are leaving the country by air. In addition, Nicole Kidman and the supposed Russian colleagues spoke a language not yet identified anywhere, probably spoken by Aliens in the Ural mountains, but far to be the Russian one. So Nicole, if you really want to talk Russian, kindly go to Moscow or St. Petersburg and keep yourself busy learning Russian language grammar and its pronunciation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the first of these "8 Films To Die For" collection that I've seen and it's certainly not made me want to see any of the rest...although I've heard at least a couple of them are decent. I don't know, this wasn't terrible but it didn't really do much for me. Your basic dysfunctional cannibal family in suburbia kind of thing, mom & dad died, the family sold the farm & moved to San Francisco (?) where they continued to bring home stray food sources whenever possible. The best part of this was the creepy Goth sister, who of course invites a friend over from school that never leaves. Anyway, of course we have a butcher shop in the basement and so on and so on. This family is sort of like the white-bread version of the Sawyer Clan, they're nasty & they do bad things but they ain't go no soul. I see a lot of reviews from people that liked this, and I guess I don't know what I missed, but I found it to be very mediocre & I wouldn't recommend it to anyone, really. 4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The "documentary", and we use that term loosely apparently, summarizes that Muslims are trying to violently take over the world. Then states that any Muslim that doesn't admit this is either ignorant of their own faith or lying to your face! Also every person that is interviewed in the film has found a market for their ludicrous take on reality by selling claptrap to conservatives willing to let others do the thinking for them. What the West NEEDS to know is this is nothing more than propaganda aimed at mental midgets. If you are looking for an actual documentary on Islam and the current state of the Middle-East I would look elsewhere. Try something that provides multiple points of view from qualified sources.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolutely nothing happens in this sloooow, annoying, thrill-less thriller directed by Amenabar's usual collaborator Mateo Gil. The film, which in some way deals with the effect of boredom and the quest for thrills, actually delivers none, and seems like an exercise in boredom. The only mildly suspenseful moment is the movie's climax, which takes about 30 seconds of the whole agonizing 100-plus minutes, and is resolved too simply. The plot lacks sophistication or credibility, and while the idea is original, the way the story unfolds is arbitrary and every plot device or twist is a result of outside interference (deus-ex-machina). The hero is always passive, everything happens to him without forcing him to show any initiative or resourcefulness. If you're fans of the genre, watch "Tesis" instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
for those of you who were desperate to find out what happened to Twitch in the original movie, heres your chance, and then get back to the real world.<br /><br />The guy who hid the gold in the first movie told Twitch, so he gets transferred to another prison, where wrestling champs hang around looking broody. Twitch plans to leave the jail in a month to get the gold to start a life with his woman.<br /><br />Then something happens and someone gets shot, and the film turns into Die Hard in another prison. But the wrestler's daughter is caught up in it all, so he and twitch go to find her and Twitch's woman.<br /><br />As you can imagine, the acting is below par, it features a lot of (really annoying) rap music, and poorly edited fight scenes. On the plus side, it's got that Hispanic bloke in it, who stars in every prison/action/thriller ever made, and he shuts a door in this.<br /><br />It's not very eventful, but at least it's harmless.<br /><br />If you were a massive fan of the original, it's okay-ish stuff.<br /><br />If not, you have been warned.
|
Negative
| null | null |
True, the setting in Paris is great. The actors are fine. The story is a twisted morality play. Is it supposed to say that if you want someone badly enough, it's OK to hurt everyone else along the way? In a real romance, you sort of want less cliché than the man who has become bored with his wife and is willing to dump his family, and the woman who is OK with encouraging him to do this. So what if they are decent looking and if Karen Allen shows off her body? The characters are still self-absorbed and reprehensible. Maybe the moral of the story is "you get what you deserve". I give it a 4, only for the fast scan potential through the "male interest" bits.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.<br /><br />(spoilers, sorta)<br /><br />The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). <br /><br />The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.<br /><br />Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. <br /><br />Kind of boring, overall.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a huge fan or the Cracker series, I have been waiting 7 years for the next addition. This Episode I'm afraid just does not live up to the legend.<br /><br />Fitz returns to Manchester after 7 years for his daughters wedding and gets involved in a murder investigation were a soldier, tormented by flash backs from his tour of duty in Northern Irland, goes on a killing spree.<br /><br />What I did not like about this episode is the extremely convenient way it is all set up and how fitz is led to the murderer. It is all fat to far-fetched.<br /><br />There are however some good scenes in flash backs from Northern Irland which are filmed great.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
*MANY MANY SPOILERS IN THIS REVIEW* This movie was horrible. I am a huge baseball fan so I thought I'd watch it, and I was very disappointed. It started out okay.. When I saw the bad influence DeNiro had on his young son, I was hoping that he would become a better father throughout the movie or something. Anyways, at the beginning it seemed as if DeNiro was supposed to be the protagonist. He was the only one that believed in Bobby, and he had his adorable son that he was losing custody of, which gave me a reason to feel bad for him. He wanted to help Bobby by talking to Primo, when out of absolutely nowhere he brutally stabs Primo to death... Not to mention that sketchy reoccurring song "I WANT TO **** YOU!!!!" at random unfitting moments.<br /><br />Later, when DeNiro saves Bobby's son from drowning, I was hoping that the movie could redeem itself.. He could forgive himself for killing Primo if he saved Bobby's son. But of course this is far beyond the depth of the movie, because all he cares about is getting CREDIT for the murder, and does so by stealing Bobby's son, car, and dog and holding them hostage- Bobby just has to hit a home run and announce that DeNiro is a "true fan" while displaying a picture of him biting a knife.<br /><br />Now we get to the completely unrealistic scene at the end... It is pouring like hell and we are expected to believe that the game hasn't been called. Then DeNiro somehow magically appears on the field in an umpire suit and calls Bobby out at home, proceeding to pull out his knife and start stabbing everyone that runs onto the field. There are seemingly no officers on the field (but the police are on their way), so DeNiro steps on the mound and prepares to pitch a knife to Bobby when he gets shot to death. But don't worry, this cheerful and pleasant movie has a happy ending, because Bobby find his son.<br /><br />This is NOT a sports movie. It is NOT about a fan. As far as I know, fans are not rabid psychopaths that threaten, rob, and throw knives at their admirees. This is likely to be the sickest movie I will ever see in my life. The plot was shallow, the soundtrack sucked, the movie had no purpose whatsoever. I warn you not to waste your time on this disgusting excuse for a film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've never understood the appeal of Garbo. She always comes across in her films as stuck up, not all that alluring, and that annoying voice that could have drowned out the tuba section. She was also a very limited actress, like Gloria Swanson far better off left in the silent era. In this her last film, her performance is very average and even unassured. She tries hard but it all comes to nothing because the script is even worse than her acting.<br /><br />A would be screwball romcom that is never once believable and never gets off the ground (even though Melvyn Douglas manages to get airborne in the skiing scenes, which are really the only amusing thing here).<br /><br />There was potential but the script fails in almost every department, wasting every actor in it. Douglas and Garbo had good enough chemistry together but this one isn't even a spot on Ninotchka, which I also found to be extremely overrated.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I recently watched this again and there's another version which is shorter 1999. I get the feeling they are the same movie but I would like to know the difference.<br /><br />One is Japanese and no pikachu short is all I can come up with. Ohtherwise why vote for the same movie twice?? <br /><br />Prof Ivy was rather boring. She sounded as if she was almost asleep, no expression at all with the few lines she had.<br /><br />This was enjoyable enough but there wasn't much to it at all. <br /><br />A collector (whos after Lugia, he has no plan to destroy the world) and the usual characters who try to stop him because trying to capture Lugia causes a lot of destruction.<br /><br />The pokemon movies that follow are slightly better, deoxys (poke 7) is great, with no. 8 almost here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unfortunately I have to agree with the critic written by halopes.<br /><br />For a short film the cinematography, costumes, sets, sound, editing and everything else is very, very good. This might seem surprising at first but I was told that the technical crew working on this consisted of professionals, so the quality is to be expected. The problem, as usual, resides in the story itself.<br /><br />Thing is, it's not really a story. To tell a story (or in cinema's case, SHOW a story) you need plot and conflict. You need things that happen to the protagonist: events. These events happen because the protagonist wants something and, for some reason, he can't get it. Tim Watcher has no problems or goals. He's a kind of supernatural entity who observes mankind. That's it. So what we have here is pure exposition. Instead of being shown a story, we're simply learning things about this Tim Watcher individual. Of course, considering the peculiar nature of Tim Watcher and the film's short duration, it's hard to give enough background about him so the movie resorts to Voice-Over Narration. In this case it's used in the worst possible sense which is to give information that otherwise we'd never glean. In fact, if it wasn't for the VO we'd think the character was just a kooky old man going around looking at things. To make it worse the VO also explains what's happening on the screen! The images we're shown are just decoration for the text we're listening to.<br /><br />I could say that this short film would make a good video for a band or something, but because the images don't stand on their own it's impossible to say that. What's left obviously has value as a measure of the crew's technical capabilities (not incredible, but good) but fails to entertain, amuse, thrill or, at the very least, show a story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Eh, not a particular good slasher flick. So-so acting, effects, decent yet familiar and uninventive soundtrack.<br /><br />There are three deaths in close succession near the beginning of the movie that make for a fairly good scene in which it would seem anything goes. Apart from that, there's a lot of characters wandering around, not realizing what's going on, or chasing after red herrings; more killing of time, than of people. There are other deaths, and the killer is an equal opportunity murderer, not partial to any one implement. The killer also likes to set other people up to kill innocent people as well. The identity isn't revealed towards the end, and motive is pretty thin, and we really don't care.<br /><br />Supposedly the movie takes place around Christmas, but this isn't a major factor. One scene gets lit by Christmas lights, that's about it.<br /><br />The movie is rather dark with a muddy picture most of the time, at least on the videotape I watched. Some of the dialog got a little lost in some of the opening scenes. The ending should have been stronger than it was. We think we realize what happened, although there's a chance something else did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Revolt of the Zombies is not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is pretty far down on the list. When an expedition is sent to Cambodia to discover the trick to making zombies after World War I, one of the members decides to use the knowledge for his own evil ambitions. And he succeeds, at least at first. A love triangle complicates the story some.<br /><br />This really was a tedious movie, with horrible acting that made it difficult to tell who were zombies and who weren't. The dialog was little better and the plot was unbelievable (not the zombie part of it but parts related to the "romance"). And while I am not any student or expert on cinematography, the camera work didn't seem to help the film much either.<br /><br />While I have seen a few movies that are worse, this is unlikely to please anyone. It's bad, and NOT in a so-bad-that-it-is-good kind of way.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why such a generic title? Santa Claus??? So bland and unpredictable. Movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit, most notably 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians', at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it, and all the stock footage being used... for some reason, that seemed happy to me. But this movie just screws Christmas in the butt, and screws the joy of all the kids. Santa lives in space? His enemy is a devil named Pitch? Santa gets help from Merlin the Magician? How random is this!? Well, since it was made in Mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. I had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. It was a all-out cluster of madness! Though, despite all the troubles with the movie, it still feels like a Christmas movie. Good conquers evil, and Christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world, or possibly universe, thanks to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.. apparently. So, I think you should give it a try, even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time... though it should put a smile on your face any day.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ugh! Another one of those "fooled by the cover" DVDs. I expected some kind of action at least with bears, cats, & such on the cover. I got NOTHING! Bad movie!.<br /><br />I forced myself to watch this all the way through thinking that eventually SOMETHING would happen...no luck.<br /><br />Now the reason I gave this a 2 is because of the scenery; otherwise it sucked.<br /><br />The kid was terrible, talking to himself (although I suppose they couldn't just run a movie with dumb music and no dialogue at all), doing his lame karate stances to a tree stump, threatening a raccoon, munching on worms, and (what a dumbass) kicking a porcupine. And he wouldn't be pulling those quills out that easily either...they stick like fishhooks. At least he fought the bear (weakly) a couple of times.<br /><br />What was up with the flashback thing? It made a bad movie even worse. I wanted to see a survival movie, not some dramatic bs about a kid suffering thru divorce.<br /><br />What else can I say? Well, maybe they should have had the bear eat the kid or something. At least that would have been more exciting.<br /><br />People, don't waste your time on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was raised in a "very Christian" household since birth. I was saved before I saw this movie and the rest of the series and was forced to watch it in a youth group at my church. This movie was highly disturbing. I saw it when I was about 12 years old and literally had nightmares about it for years. I used to lay awake in bed and listen for the sounds of my mom's footsteps upstairs. If I didn't hear her footsteps, I would sneak upstairs to make sure she hadn't been raptured. I used to pray so hard every night for salvation because I was terrified of Jesus forgetting me. This is definitely not something I will show to my kids until they are much older, if at all. It took me years to shake the fear that this movie gave me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had to watch this film because the plot was so outrageous and the film lived up to expectations. In fact it makes for quite uncomfortable viewing at times. Unlike other Meyer films, the sexual antics are down to a minimum. Some of the scenes of violence are unnecessarily gratuitous and offensive. The plot is chaotic and some of the acting and lines are dreadful.<br /><br />The film is a strange combination of sado-masochistic fantasy combined with a window of the brutality and immorality of the slavery and fails on all counts. It's as though Meyer was trying to make up for the sexploitation/ blackploitation by having a higher moral message. Meyer knows we feel a bit guilty about getting turned on by the blatant dominatrix connotations of the early scene showing Lady Susan wielding a whip in a provocative outfit. He then tries to steer back to the righteous path by turning it into a film about the triumph of good over evil. However, because they cancel each other out, you end up with nothing.<br /><br />Because it so bad in so many ways, it is actually worth watching if you appreciate the art of making an awful film in the worst possible taste. Perhaps, because it is so bad, we almost let Meyer get away with the unacceptable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I have been a huge fan of the Black for a long time and was DISGUSTED after seeing this film. Let's name the problems...First this film has much of the same crew that the first two had. It has also been called the PREQUEL to the original Black Stallion. Why is it that they can't get Shetan's dam's name correct or her color?? In The Black Stallion Returns, we learn the Sagr was the Black's CHESTNUT mother and in this film she is a gray mare name Jenny?!?!?!?!? WTF? And it's set in Africa in 1946 and 1947...I could be wrong but the first one was set in the 1940's as well when the ship wrecks. Time line doesn't sound quite right to me. Also, as a goof, there is a friesian in the beginning of the movie that is supposed to be Shetan's father...upon further notice it appears to be a gelding. Ben Ishaak is the only character that remained to even make this film appear to be related to the previous two in any way. Might be a cute family film to some but it's my biggest movie disappointment of the year.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the biggest pile of crap I have ever watched. DO NOT RENT! The makers of this movie should be band from ever making another movie. It starts with some what of a plot, then fades fast to nothing. I think I would rather watch paint dry then to as much as looking at the cover. The actors were awful, the plot faded fast, filming left to much work to be done. Not one good thing to say about this crap movie. If you rent this movie you will waste your money. I really enjoy National Lampoon movies, but this was a waste of time. Learn to write, learn to act, learn to produce, and learn to direct. I feel I should sue these a-holes that made this movie for money wasted on rental cost and time lost.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hmmm, a sports team is in a plane crash, gets stranded on a snowy mountain, and is faced with the difficult decision to eat the flesh of their dead companions in order to survive. Sound familiar anyone? I refer to "Alive" from 1993. The only major difference here, of course, is that a big, white, drunken scare crow of a Yeti shows up a few times to drag off the dead. I guess humans taste better than yaks.<br /><br />Stupid: The man in the first scene does not have a reliable firearm when hunting the Yeti, nor does he have a backup.<br /><br />The plane crash is completely bogus. It would have either exploded in the air, exploded when it hit the ground, or become obliterated. The people would not have survived, but hey, it's sci-fi.<br /><br />Stupid: They survived, and they are cold. It might be a good idea to harness some of the burning debris nearby so as not to freeze to death. Fire being warm as it is...<br /><br />WTF: The pilot has frost formed all over his face while he's alive and talking, but oddly enough, no one else does.<br /><br />Stupid: One of the guys tells the others to look for matches and lighters, but there are scattered parts of the plane ON FIRE all around them.<br /><br />Stupid: They find coats and hoodies, and yet there in the cold of the Himalayas, they fail to use the hoods!<br /><br />Stupid: They're staring at a pile of sticks when, I reiterate, there are pieces of the plane ALREADY BURNING.<br /><br />Stupid: The Himalayas are notorious for its storms. It would be common sense for them to collect the debris in order to reinforce their structure rather than sitting outside bickering. There are a lot of pine trees around, the branches of which make excellent insulation.<br /><br />WTF: When in doubt, use a dead man's arm as a splint.<br /><br />WTF: If the one guy knows so much about the hibernation habits of squirrels, bears, and leopards in the Himalayas, then why doesn't he know enough to make shelter and set traps right from the start? <br /><br />Stupid: When attempting to trap wild animals, mindless conversation in the vicinity of said trap always helps.<br /><br />WTF: Do you know how hard it would be to cut a frozen corpse with a shard of glass?! <br /><br />WTF: The group was ready and armed to fight the Yeti while the other two were standing there defenseless. The Yeti ripped out the guy's heart and stomped the girl's head, and the gang did nothing. There's love.<br /><br />So two Yetis and a convenient avalanche to bury the evidence forever.... or so we think. Mwuhahahaa! The story continues into more idiocy but the most action occurs in the last 15 minutes, as usual. Nice thinking with the javelin and the chain, although this is some ingenuity (with the magically-appearing chain) that they lacked in the beginning of the movie when they couldn't even make fire despite the fact that it was all around them.<br /><br />As is typical for the Sci-Fi Originals, the loving couple kisses at the end like nothing horrible has just happened to them (not to mention they ate human flesh and haven't brushed their teeth in several days).<br /><br />The very end, however, is quote lame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This had to be one of the most god awful wrestlemanias ever and is only saved by 2 matches. The hardcore match between Edge and Mick Foley, also Vince Mcmahon against Shaun Michaels. The main event between Cena and Triple H was a complete washout and to be honest I nearly fell asleep it was so actionless, the casket match was not worthy of having the Undertaker appear in it and the match between the Boogie Man and Booker T was a complete joke. If you are really a big fan of the WWE and have missed the early days of the WWF and the Wrestlemanias 17 and 19 you'll probably love this. But I found that this Wrestlemania left a lot to be desired.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the first Howling, we are introduced to a world where werewolves exist and are somewhat organized. The plot in that film made some sense; a TV reporter investigates this and attempts to uncover the truth. She ends up having to kill many of them including her boyfriend who becomes one. Then she shows the world that they do exist by transforming on live TV. The special effects were just laughable in the first movie and they don't get any better in this one. Whether it's the transformations or the bad puppets or the cheesy computer graphics showing the superpowers.<br /><br />The plot line isn't all that bad; they must kill the leader of the werewolves for some reason. This won't destroy all werewolves and it really doesn't end the threat from werewolves as it...they just want to kill her. I think there was some cloudy reason for this but it really gets lost in the film.<br /><br />After the film "ends" we have a 10 minute montauge of the movie we just watched and every other scene is one where the female werewolf leader rips off her top exposing her large breasts while some Devo-esquire band plays to a crowd of werewolves. <br /><br />The only thing that makes this movie even watchable is Christopher Lee.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There were some scary scenes, which I've always liked more than straight out gore, but otherwise this movie was rather weak. THere were too many questions left unanswered, and when they tried to explain anything in the movie, it was still rather unclear. After watching this movie I still seemed lost in a lot of ways. It sort of reminded me of Silent Hill a few years back. That movie was also unsatisfying, but still better than this because it did try to work and the story did actually make sense. This one, not so much.<br /><br />The acting for the most part in the Abandoned was decent, but the movie dragged on an on, and never really gave any type of satisfying conclusion. Like I said above, there were some creepy scenes, but otherwise, this movie was a mess. Sorry, I can't recommend it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).<br /><br />it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.<br /><br />I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I go to see a movie about zombie's, I'm not expecting oscar calibre performances, or writing on the level of The Godfather, but I do expect the actors to at least not look like their straining to read their cue cards, and dialogue that doesn't sound like it was typed out 10 minutes before the actor reads it into the camera. This movie was just awful, I actually got up and left about 25 minutes in and went next door and watched Cold Creek Manor, that wasn't very good either, but it seemed like Citizen Kane compared to this pile of crap. On the plus side, the girls were very pretty, that's probably the only thing that kept me in my seat for longer than the first 5 minutes, in fact I left after the hottest one got killed, there wasn't anything to hold my interest after that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Can you say "All shock, no plot?" There were so many unexplored directions in this movie. There was no history about the room other than the deaths. *WHY* was it evil? What made it that way? Why an "hour" countdown? Then, there were the unexplored things hinted at; for example we *saw* a camera in the air vent, which he mentioned. But when he climbed up said vent, there was no camera.<br /><br />How about the fact that all the ghosts looked "Digital", and things "winked out" before hitting the ground making a static noise? Hmmm... when you put all of *those* things together, it makes room 1408 look like a high-tech spook house. Except that there was no follow up on that.<br /><br />Oh... by the way... electronics don't work in 1408. Well, except for the TV... the cell phone has no signal, but Wireless Internet works fine. How many incontinuities can you possibly add? I'm sorry, but this film was nothing but "shock after shock". It's all been done before. Reflections in the mirror. Things just out of site. Changing paintings. Bleeding walls. The "Oh, it was all just a dream... no it wasn't." And, if the room was "evil", why make our main character come to terms with his daughter's death, if it was going to keep him trapped there forever anyway? It just didn't make sense.<br /><br />Additionally, there was no background information about "The first book" that he wrote. Just some vague information about the "dad was a jerk" and so forth. Speaking of dads, what was with the bit about his father? "You'll be in my place".<br /><br />Overall, a truly HORRIBLE movie. It was 100% adrenalin shock factor, without any new or innovative effects, and certainly no back story, character development, etc.<br /><br />My overall impression is that the entire movie was made on the "Cheap"; pretty much using one set and a couple of location shots, and was nothing but an effects film of recycled, cheesy, "seen-that-before" effects.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.<br /><br />The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".<br /><br />One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.<br /><br />Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.<br /><br />Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusingHalperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.<br /><br />If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I tend to love everything the great late Paul Naschy (R.I.P.) ever was in. While not all films starring Naschy are great, they all have a specific charm that can be found nowhere but in Naschy-flicks, and they are always entertaining. There is no rule without exception, however, as "El Mariscal Del Infierno" aka. "The Devil's Possessed" (1974) proves. While the film does have the specific Naschy-flick-charm, it sadly drags far too much and gets really, really dull in-between. Naschy stars as the evil Baron Gilles De Lancré, who oppresses the people and uses black magic and bloody rituals to stay in power. When Gaston de Malebranche (Guillermo Bredeston), who fought side by side with Gilles De Lancré against the British, learns about the Baron's evil behavior, he decides to turn against his former comrade in arms and help the people free themselves from the satanic Baron's tyranny...<br /><br />Directed by León Klimovsky, who is best known for directing Naschy in "La Noche De Walpurgis" ("The Werewolf Vs. The Vampire Woman", 1971), the film was scripted by Naschy himself. Naschy often scripted his own films, and one must say that he mostly did a better, more original job than it is the case here. "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is mostly built up as a historical adventure rather than a Horror film, and it gets quite boring throughout the middle. It often resembles the Sword and Sandal films from the 50s, only that this film is set in medieval times. The Satanic part was probably only added because the great Paul Naschy's name is linked to the Horror genre. The film has its good parts: Paul Naschy giving weird speeches, Paul Naschy looking weird, Paul Naschy doing Satanic stuff, Paul Naschy torturing innocent victims, etc. But sadly, most of the film concentrates on the boring hero and the good guys, and these moments are boring. The female cast members are nice to look at, but, unlike most Naschy films, this one features no nudity and sleaze. There is some gore, but it mostly looks clumsy and isn't as fun too look at as it is the case with most other Naschy films. Overall, "El Mariscal Del Infierno" is only worth a look for my fellow Naschy-enthusiasts. There are dozens of films starring the Spanish Horror deity which should be seen before this one, such as "El Jorobado De La Morgue" ("The Hunchback of the Morgue", 1973), "La Orgia De Los Muertos" ("The Hanging Woman", 1973), "El Espanto Surge De La Tumba" ("Horror Rises From The Tomb", 1973), "Latidos De Panico" ("Panic Beats", 1983), "Rojo Sangre" (2004), or any of the 'Waldemar Daninsky' werewolf films. R.I.P. Paul Naschy. Legends never die!
|
Negative
| null | null |
A dreary, hopelessly predictable film set in a most unpleasant setting (lower Coachella Valley). Acting is as amateurish as any I've seen. Looks like a screenwriting 101 script. However, it does function as a great sedative.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having read another review, I thought this movie would actually be good. I do enjoy the "B" movies, but this couldn't even be classed as such. The photography is probably the only half-way decent thing in the movie. But the editing left much to be desired. It was very choppy and staccato. Whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. The music was awful, specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. If the acting had been better, they could have pulled the movie off. Unfortunately, I've seen better acting in porn flicks. If you want to see a "B" vampire movie, check out 'Blood Ties'. You'll be much more entertained.
|
Negative
| null | null |
All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After some internet surfing, I found the "Homefront" series on DVD at ioffer.com. Before anyone gets excited, the DVD set I received was burned by an amateur from home video tapes recorded off of their TV 15 years ago. The resolution and quality are poor. The images look like you would expect old re-recorded video to look. Although the commercials were edited out, the ending credits of each episode still have voice-over announcements for the segway into the ABC news program "Nightline", complete with the top news headlines from the early 1990's. Even with the poor image quality, the shows were watch-able and the sound quality was fine.<br /><br />To this show's credit, the casting was nearly perfect. Everyone was believable and really looked the part. Their acting was also above average. The role of Jeff Metcalf is played particularly well by Kyle Chandler (most recently seen in the 2005 remake of King Kong). The period costumes were very authentic as were the sets, especially the 1940s kitchens with vintage appliances and décor. The direction was also creative and different for a TV show at that time. For example, conversations between characters were sometimes inter-cut with conversations about the same subject between other characters in different scenes. The dialog of the different conversations was kept fluid despite cutting back and fourth between the different characters and locations. That takes good direction and editing and they made it work in this case.<br /><br />As I started watching this series again I suddenly remembered why I lost interest in it 15 years ago. Despite all the ingredients for a fine show, the plots and story lines are disappointing and confusing right from the start. For one thing, the name of the show itself is totally misleading. When WWII ended in 1945, there was no more fighting so obviously there was no longer a "homefront" either. Curiously, the first episode of the show "Homefront" begins in 1945 after the war had ended. That's like shooting the first episode of "Gilligan's Island" showing the castaways being rescued. The whole premise of the show's namesake is completely lost. I still held on to hope with the possibility of the rest of the series being a flashback but no, the entire show takes place from 1946 through 1948. Additionally, this series fails miserably in any attempt to accurately portray any historical events of the late 1940's. By the third episode, it becomes obvious that this series was nothing more than a thinly veiled vehicle for an ultra left-wing political agenda. The show is set in River Run Ohio, near Toledo. However, the show's ongoing racism theme makes it look more like Jackson Mississippi than Ohio. Part of the ensemble cast are Dick Williams, Hattie Winston and Sterling Macer Jr. who portray the Davis family. Much of the series shows the Davis family being discriminated against by the evil "whites" to the point of being ridiculous and totally absurd if not laughable. The racism card has been played and over played by Hollywood now for over 40 years. We get it. We're also tired of having our noses rubbed in it on a daily basis. The subject of racism is also unpopular with viewers and it is the kiss of death for any show, as it was for "Homefront". The acting talents of Williams, Winston and Macer were wasted in their roles as the stereotypical "frightened / angry black family". The wildly exaggerated racism in this series makes it look like everyone in Ohio was a KKK member or something. The racism issue could have been addressed in this show in a single episode with a simple punch in the nose or fist-fight in which a bigot gets a well deserved thrashing, and leave it at that. Devoting a major portion of the series to the racism thing gets really old really quick and its just plain stupid.<br /><br />In yet another ridiculous plot line, the big boss of a local factory (Ken Jenkins) is portrayed as an Ebenezer Scrooge like character who is against pensions and raises and is unconcerned about acid dripping on his employees. The workers revolt and take over the factory in a blatant pro-communist propaganda message to the viewer.<br /><br />Personally, I think this series had great potential. The writers could have easily placed the timeline in 1941 1945 as the title suggests and shown the hardships of food and gas rationing and working 14 hour days at war factories. Of course the loss of brothers, sons and husbands fighting overseas would have also added drama. The situation was also perfect for writing in special guest stars as military or USO personnel passing through their town during training or en-route to Europe or the Pacific. The possibilities for good story lines and plots are endless. But no, the writers of Homefront (David Assael and James Grissom) completely ignored any relevant or interesting plots. Instead, they totally missed the point and strayed into a bizarre and irrelevant obsession with racism and left-wing politics. It would be unfair to the actors to condemn the entire series but the plots and situations in which they were placed are total garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is an immoral and reprehensible piece of garbage, that no doubt wants to be a Friday the 13th (1980) clone. The poster for this movie makes it look like there's going to be some sort of a cross between Jason and Freddy, which is likely to attract movie-goers. There is NOTHING good or entertaining about this movie about this movie. It just makes me sad, just thinking that some people are going to stumble upon Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers (1988) on video or DVD, and waste their time with this sad, cynical, depressing movie.<br /><br />Angela Baker (Pamela Springsteen) is a camp counselor at Camp Rolling Hills, who hopes that the other campers are as nice as she is, and that they stay out of trouble. Meanwhile, the other campers are realizing that people are disappearing one by one, with Angela making up the excuse that she had to send them home. Could Angela be the killer, who was once a man, who underwent a sex change operation years earlier? Who knows? Who cares?<br /><br />The 1980s was home to a lot of movies that made the cross between the Mad Slasher and Dead Teenager genres, in which a mad killer goes berserk. Some have a plot, some don't, but they're all about as bad as this one. Sleepaway Camp II: Unhappy Campers is 80 minutes of teenagers being introduced and then being stabbed, strangled, impaled, chopped up, burned alive, and mutilated. That's all this movie is. It is just mindless, bloody violence.<br /><br />Watching this movie, I was reminded of the Friday the 13th movies, in which the message for its viewers was that the primary function of teenagers is to be hacked to death. The filmmakers of Sleepaway Camp II have every right to be ashamed of themselves. Imagine the sick message that this movie offers for its teen viewers: "The world is a totally evil place," this movie tells you, " and it'll kill you. It doesn't matter what your dreams or your hopes are. It doesn't matter if you have a new boyfriend, or a new girlfriend. It doesn't matter what you think, what you do or what your plans for the future are. You can forget those plans, because you're just going to wind up dead." <br /><br />And the sickest thing is--and by not giving too much away--the movie simply sets up room for a sequel. Well, why not? They've probably and already taken the bucket to the cesspool by making three or four of these movies. I missed out on the original Sleepaway Camp (1983), and, after watching its first sequel, I will hopefully stay away from the other sequels, as well as the original. And for parents, if you know kids who actually LIKE this movie, do not let them date your children.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another of many nearly forgotten movies cranked out by Poverty Row in the 1930's, resurrected by the magic of DVD.<br /><br />Starring stock Universal player Lionel Atwill (often a supporting actor in numerous Frankenstein movies) as a pair of twins involved in a murder racket. One kills the victims (stockbrokers involved in a scam) and asks witnesses for the exact time, while the other is deaf and is proved "innocent" because he could not have spoken to witnesses.<br /><br />Of course, where it falls apart is if it was a congenital deafness, wouldn't they both be deaf? Oh, well.<br /><br />Atwill does a pretty good job here, faking being deaf and mute. Unfortunately, no one else here can really act worth a darn.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dr Tarr's Torture Dungeon is about a journalist who travels to an insane asylum to write about a new technique they use with their patients. However, the journalist soon finds out that things are not what they seem to be, and the asylum is being run by the patients, and the doctors are in cages. First of all, some parts of the film are just plain boring and just makes you want to fall asleep, and the interesting parts are interesting for all the wrong reasons(A guy who thinks he's a chicken, for instance). I have to admit that the story is actually pretty good, but the film itself bombs. The music of the film is really odd and like something you would hear in some insane comedy, and yes, there is a scene involving dancing chicken men, which pretty much made me want to shut off the screen. Watch this film at your own risk! <br /><br />Rated: R for Violence and Nudity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This straight-to-video duffer is another nail in the coffin of Rick Moranis's career. As is the Disney tradition, quality is sacrificed in the name of a quick cash-in; this is a lazy retread with Moranis accidentally shrinking himself and a few relatives so they can repeat all the best scenes from the original movie. Instantly dated visual effects and crummy dialogue abound in this cheesy lamer, which did nothing but make me pine for the days of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man', when this kind of thing was done properly. Shockingly, this is directed by top cinematographer Dean Cundey, who should either stick to the day job or pick better material next time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gritty, dusty western from director Richard Brooks, who seems thoroughly engrossed in the genre while keeping all the usual clichés intact. Early 1900s horse race attracts a low-keyed cowboy (Gene Hackman), a suave gambler (James Coburn), a cocky kid (Jan Michael Vincent), and even a FEMALE (a surprisingly game Candice Bergen). Once the preliminaries are out of the way (with the predictable arguments over whether or not a woman should take part), this becomes a fairly engrossing entry, though one which breaks no new ground (it instead resembles something from Gary Cooper's era). Good-looking, if overlong piece has macho verve and a fine cast, yet the mechanisms of the plot get tiresome rather quickly. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Brain (or head) that Wouldn't Die is one of the more thoughtful low budget exploitation films of the early 1960s. It is very difficult to imagine how a script this repulsively sexist could have been written without the intention of self-parody. And the themes that are expressed repeatedly by the female lead, Ginny Leith - a detached head kept alive by machines, I-Vs and clamps - seem to confirm that the film was meant to simultaneously exploit and critique gender stereotypes. Shades of the under-rated Boxing Helena.<br /><br />The genderisms are plentiful, and about as irritating as an army of angry ants. The dialog is hyperbolic, over-dramatic and unbelievable, and the acting is merely OK (but not consistent). Why have I given this film a 4? Because some thought clearly went into it. I am really not sure what point the film was really trying to make, but it seems clear that it strives for an unusually edgy and raw sort of horror (without the blood and guts today's audiences expect).<br /><br />Another unique and interesting aspect of the Brain is that there really are not any heroes in this film, and none of the characters are particularly likable.<br /><br />All considered, this is a fairly painful and disturbing look at early 1960s American pop sexuality, from the viewpoint of a woman kept alive despite her missing body after what should have been a fatal car crash. Her lover is threatening to sew a fresh, high quality, body onto her and force her to continue living with him. She is understandably non-plussed by all of this and forced to befriend a creature who is almost as monstrous as her boyfriend. Oh, there are also some vague references to the 1950s/60s cliché about the evils of science run amok.<br /><br />Recommended for B sci fi buffs and graduate students in gender studies. O/w not recommended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't want to go off on a rant here, but.....this is the worst "film" I've ever seen. Worse than The Avengers. Incompetent directing, disjointed writing, and awful acting are the only consistent elements throughout. Shot on very cheap video, it looks like a high school project, but without the emotion. The lighting frequently looks like a single Sun-Gun. The sound is slightly better than a single mic on the camera, but everything else about this thing is just awful. The plot heads off in strange directions with no foundation or later resolution, the techie elements are patently absurd, and the editing looks worse than a rough cut. It's not even bad enough to be funny. It's just bad. BTW, the packaging is intentionally misleading.<br /><br />Lion's Gate owes me $4.00.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are no spoilers in this review. There's nothing to spoil.<br /><br />No plot, nothing; most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch, but this didn't even do that. Clips, three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips... OK, so perhaps they were short on production time, but they'd have been better off skipping this episode entirely. What a waste of time.<br /><br />I'm not sure how this got made, in fact. Scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes, but somehow this got through....<br /><br />Thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well this movie actually made me feel so strongly that I signed up for an IMDb account just to warn people. It is patently AWFUL!! NOTHING makes sense in this movie. There is way too many subplots for a start. Josh Hartnett's character is an aspiring actor and yoga instructor as well as a cop who seems to be living way beyond his means and only teaches yoga to hot girls (Some of whom wait naked in his jacuzzi for when he comes back from work). Add to that the fact that his dad was killed by a crooked cop who just so happens to be in on the current crime being investigated by the hapless duo. Harrison Ford's character is trying to sell real estate on the side and is sleeping with the Internal Affairs investigator's ex-wife who happens to run a psychic radio show which Ford's character calls from time to time. NONSENSE!!<br /><br />I can't remember the characters names (that's how forgettable this is) so I'll refer to them as Ford and Hartnett.<br /><br />Then there's the dialogue which is brutal. I mean cringe-inducing stuff here. Throw in every cliché in the book (having a heart-to-heart in a dark bar during the day over a drink where the bartender knows his name; the duo being investigated by internal affairs (why??); hartnett confronting his dad's killer) and you've got one hell of a mess.<br /><br />As I mentioned the plot is preposterous and continuity is non-existent: 1) When Ford's car is being repossessed, how the hell did the repo guys know where it would be parked? Were they following him?? 2) When Hartnett goes to the morgue and it just so happens that the only clue from the crime scene (an earring) is replicated on of the charred bodies there (that was lucky!) 3) When the two are arrested and taken in for questioning - Ford keeps answering his phone and Hartnett "centers himself" with a yoga pose on the table. Instead of taking the phone from Ford the IA guy waits for it to ring each time and then tries to grab it off the table before Ford does. Meanwhile the female IA officer in with Hartnett is rubbing herself all over him. Then, inexplicably, the two are released without answering any questions. 4) During the car chase Hartnett's car is crashing and smashing its way around Hollywood but then suddenly the car is perfect again. Not a scratch! 5) When Ford chases the bad guy into the building and he gets in the elevator how the hell does he know which floor the bad guy got off at?? 6) When the two are chasing the bad guy around in hartnett's car, Ford is trying to close a real estate deal. Come on! 7) The bad guy is the most unconvincing record exec ever. His motivation for killing an aspiring group of rappers on his label? They might leave his label and it's a warning to keep his other groups loyal. But hang on, how is he ever going to sign anyone new with that business plan?? 8) Why is the IA guy who is investigating Ford arrested in the end? There is no explication!! 9) And Hartnett gets to use his "acting" to capture the bad guy in the end.<br /><br />I could go on, I really could. Anyone who is looking deeper into this movie than a straight up action comedy needs their head examined because that's all it is. There's nothing else to it! It's not supposed to be satirical or ironic. It's just crap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.<br /><br />In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film had no huge stars in it, but did have a very good cast filled with excellent supporting actors AND Gene Tierney before she became a big star. With George Sanders, Reginald Gardner, Harry Carey, Bruce Cabot, Jospeh Calleia and Cederic Hardwicke, you'd expect more from the film than it actually delivered. Most of this, I suspect, is because of a second-rate script, as director Henry Hathaway was a competent and well-established man at the helm.<br /><br />The film is set in East Africa during WWII--just before the Americans entered the war. The Brits are trying to control their African colonies while subversive Nazi elements are trying to stir up trouble among the locals. One of the white men in the film is a double-dealer--working for the destruction of the British Empire! But, lovely Tierney, playing a sultan's daughter(!), is out to help save the day for good ol' Britain.<br /><br />American film makers have long sided with the Empire and the 1930s and 40s saw a plethora of pro-empire films. Nowadays, with changed sensibilities, the notion of seeing the happy black natives dying for Queen and country seems ridiculous--and it would be hard to root for either side! Still, in its day, this propaganda piece was effective in drumming up support for the British--though when seen today, the film suffers from a long-winded script and silly casting. The one bright moment in the film is the final showdown between George Sanders and the enemy agent. Too bad after such a potent scene the film just seemed to talk and talk--losing some of its punch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Knowing how old a film is, ought to prepare the viewer for a few things, and, with those things in mind, perhaps the movie'll be more tolerable. So it was when I watched Revolt of the Zombies. The heavy reliance on tedious dialogue and corny movements should be expected, as should the primitiveness (or absence) of special effects in those days. A great deal is asked from the imagination of the onlooker - maybe too much, in this case. And the plot isn't easy to follow: Some zombiefied southeast Asian soldiers in WWI performed very admirably. Although skeptical as to why, if true, the explanation should stay out of the wrong hands, so, off goes a group to archaeologically investigate. The key to long-distance hypnosis is learned by a member of the expedition, who uses it to, among other purposes, temporarily dispense with the beau of the gal for whom he has the hots. To prove his love for her, he gives up his hold on everybody, which he shouldn't have done 'cause, once they're all unzombiefied, many want to kill him so that he'll never control them again. Below average, even with precautionary forethought. Recommended for only the extremely patient.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching "Speak Easily" is painful for fans of Buster Keaton. Seeing such a phenomenal writer, actor, comic, director, and stunt man subjected to this humiliating spectacle is like seeing a Picasso used as a drop cloth, or perhaps more like seeing the finest Camembert adulterated with whey solids and processed into Cheez-Whiz. <br /><br />Keaton is ill-cast as Professor Post, whose overblown vocabulary is the only thing keeping him from saying, "Tell me about the rabbits, George." (Post would have said something like, "Kindly inform me as to the status of the small mammals in the family Leporidae of the order Lagomorpha, kind sir, who I believe is primarily addressed with the epithet 'George'.") When Keaton created his own characters, they might be situationally clueless but they weren't stupid. They were quick studies and became masters of their worlds. Not so with Post, who never stops stumbling and bumbling and who who has no more control of his destiny than a bilge rat had of the Titanic. And while Keaton's original characters had a charming naiveté and innocence, Post comes across as such a profound sexual retardate that if he ever did become physically aroused, he'd put an ice bag on the swelling and seek medical help. <br /><br />There are a couple of small, redeeming moments, such as Keaton's attempts to get rid of the vampish Thema Todd or his suggestion as to appropriate attire for a Greek dance, but it's just not worth enduring the entire film to see them.<br /><br />If you're a fan of bad movies, get drunk and watch "Speak Easily" with friends, a la "Mystery Science Theater 3000". But other than that, stick with the silents. Let them be 100% of what Buster Keaton is remembered for.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wes Craven, you are having a laugh... at our expense. The Red Eye plot is preposterous... We are confronted by a guy who has apparently spent 8 weeks watching a girl, who then turns up at an airport behind her, flirts and chats her up successfully, somehow wangles a seat next to her in a two seat space, not trapped in the middle of a five seat row (contacts at check-in?) and is cheezily nice during a painfully slooooow build up. Then, once up in the air, in a confined space, surrounded by strangers, he immediately starts threatening the vacuous, if super-efficient, Rachel McAdams and saying tosh like 'we got ya daddy, do what I say, or poppa gets it'. Well, forgive me, but didn't they already have her daddy ready for slaughter-so-you-better-oughta long before she stepped on the plane and therefore wouldn't it have been oh, sooooooo much simpler to simply snatch the gal off the street and terrorise her in a room somewhere, forgetting the complicated and insecure dad plot, pulling her nails out or whatever until she made the all important 'call' required? Or even - cos this is the movies and we need a few unreal twists - keep the dumb dad-in-distress thing intact if you must, but dress it up better so that holding him in harms way until the convoluted plot had been concluded made some sense, without the plane dumbdown? Alternatively, without wanting to sound like an actual thinking terrorist/assassin - couldn't the massive bazooka-missile thang employed have been far more easily used on, say, a car driving down the highway, with the politician inside, rather than the 50th story of a Miami seafront hotel, from a fishing boat (mind you, as we already know, security in Miami is lax, so they'll speed away)? I know, I know, far more fun to go through watching a pretty girl for 8 weeks, burgle her dads house to steal his wallet (that somehow - star trek style - gets transported from Miami to Texas instantly) in order to - perhaps - get her to arrange for a politician to change hotel room and, and, and... Well, a thousand things could go wrong here, each one entirely destroying the Big Plan, so why not slim the elements down to a sensible handful, such as - 1. bazooka. 2. car. 3. boom! My 50 minute drive home from the cinema was spent highlighting the abundance of flaws and stupid cod-Hitchcockian twists, which sadly was the best fun of the whole sorry experience. And as for security back at Miami Airport... we have an apparently crazy and violent girl running off a plane, chased by cops, who during the chase sits down to have a coffee, moves elsewhere to read a magazine at a bar, then runs again like crazy up and down the whole terminal... by now also chased by crazed Cillian Murphy (no CCTV then? - I had guns pulled on me for parking in the wrong place for 10 seconds at Miami Airport a couple of years back). So instead of speaking to the cops - her allies - or getting on the blower at a call-box direct to her dad to warn him his life is in danger, McAdams prefers instead to steal a People Carrier off a family in the Airport forecourt (call the damned security...) and drives home to daddy, mowing down the assassin with the vehicle in the front garden of the house, in a rich neighbourhood-watch district, crushing the front porch in the process - an act which actually slightly wakes dad up from an afternoon snooze, after about a minute, yet which somehow fails to register with neighbours who aren't even mildly curious, thus ensuring 15 more minutes of hide and seek shenanigans as the duo run around the vast Hollodeck type house... Dohhh, it actually hurts to keep thinking about it all - Cillian (surely renamed Silly 'un for doing this one?) preposterously turns from ice assassin to comically unhinged (and inept) lunatic killer at the end, this theoretically ruthless despatcher of human life now allowing the dad to live so that he can watch his daughter getting her goose cooked. I'd better stop, because the stream of drivel I'm writing here must sound as uncoordinated as the Red Eye script. If Ms McAdams hadn't been allowed to get on the plane in the first place the title could have been altered, from 'Red Eye' to 'No Eye, Dear'. RR
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Order starts in Rome where the head of a special order of priests who deal in ghosts & demons named Brother Dominic (Francesco Carnelutti) is found dead, cut to New York City where one of his order Alex Bernier (Heath Ledger) is contacted by top-brass Cardinal Driscoll (Peter Weller) who ask's him to investigate the mysterious circumstances surrounding Dominic's death. Along with his girlfriend Mara Willims (Shannyn Sossamon) & fellow priest Thomas Garrett (Mark Addy) Alex travels to Italy to delve into his mentor's death, as the truth begins to emerge it appears that Dominic was a 'Sin Eater' someone who absorbed other's sins & lived with the burden of them so they could die peacefully & that the Church wasn't happy about his activities. Alex must do what's right even if it goes against what he believes...<br /><br />Also know under the title The Sin Eater this American German co-production was written, produced & directed by Bian Helgeland & didn't really do that much for me if I'm honest & I usually am, honest that is. Anyway lets start with the mess of a script that has some OK ideas but it's throughly predictable, excruciatingly dull & boring, really silly at times & it takes itself far too seriously. The whole concept is daft & while it thinks it's clever with it's oh so neat twist ending that ties everything up & brings the story full circle I thought it was the most obvious & lazy way to end things. There's the usual religious themes here, morality, sin, forgiveness, faith, belief, prophecy's, blah, blah, blah you know the sort of thing. Then there's the twists which aren't hard to see coming, there's the abuse of power by high ranking clergymen, corruption, greed, evil, etc. you know the sort of clichéd Hollywood ideals & themes that get reused every time it deals with the Church. The Order has nothing new to say & as a serious piece of film-making it sucks, a lot. I'm not too sure who The Order is meant to appeal to, as a die-hard horror fan I didn't see much horror in this at all, as a thriller it's less than thrilling, as a mystery it's too predictable & there's nothing here to really grip or maintain ones interest & for some reason I cannot figure out the IMDb also lists The Order as an action film which is absurd as it's as exciting & action-packed as the average episode of Sesame Street (1969 - present), harsh maybe but it's what I think...<br /><br />Director Helgeland does an OK job, the film seems to have a very soft lighting scheme & it all looks a bit drab, grayish & dull. For a supposed horror film The Order is very light on scares or horror elements, in fact there aren't any of either apart from two evil kids who can turn into a flock of birds for no apparent reason, don't ask. Forget about any gore or violence as there isn't any which is fine but it would have helped at least make The Order somewhat watchable. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section the release date of The Order was put back so some of the special effects could be improved because they looked unintentionally funny, all I can say is judging by the finished film the effects must have been really bad to start with because they aren't exactly brilliant as it stands now.<br /><br />I was amazed to see The Order had a budget of about $28,000,000 which is a hell of a lot of money & I just can't see where it all went apart from the sets & production design which are good. The whole film looks & feels very average & utterly forgettable. The acting is OK although the annoying fat guy who seems to be some sort of foul-mouthed comic relief irritates, a good actor such as Peter Weller deserves better than this.<br /><br />The Order, I prefer the title The Sin Eater actually not that it matters too much, misses all of it's intended targets by the proverbial mile as far as I'm concerned & is a pretty dull way to waste 100 odd minutes of your life so don't do it! Not recommended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The opening sequence is supposed to show the Legion arriving in Paris on 13 Nov 1918. The troops pile off the train -- wearing the uniform in which the French Army, including the Legion, marched off to war in 1914! This a sure sign that the war flick you are about to see will be a turkey. (The French Army realized by 1915 that going to war in red trousers and dark blue overcoats was not working. Metropolitan French troops were put into "horizon blue" and Colonial troops were put into khaki.) The Claude Van-Damme (sp?) remake at least got the uniforms more or less right. Really is too bad when directors make these sorts of mistakes when they then go to all the effort to get other things right.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Because of the 1988 Writers Guild of America strike they had to shoot this episode in 3 days. It's pretty much crap, consisting of repeat cut + pasted clips from Season 2 and was described by its writer, Maurice Hurley as "terrible, just terrible." <br /><br />Why the producers couldn't just wait to shoot something decent who knows. I'm guessing because of the strike the production ran out of money and could only release a flashback episode or maybe Roddenberry was too sick at the time to be able to veto this half-assery. This episode also marks the final appearance of Diana Muldaur (Dr. Katherine Pulaski) on the series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The exploding zeppelins crashing down upon 'Sky Captain' Jude Law's base present an adequate metaphor to describe how truly terrible this movie is. First off, let me state right off the bat that I sincerely doubt that Paramount will ever recover any money from this film. A cult hit it might become, but only because it is so remarkable for what it failed to achieve. I can see the studio pitch now. "Let's combine 1920's German Expressionism and a 1940's globetrotting adventure with a modern action flick and use computer animation to dominate every scene! Wow, won't that be a success! " Skycaptain bludgeons the viewer with its sheer excess. There are too many fake explosions, too many unconvincing dogfight scenes, and too few real moments where the characters are anything but painfully two-dimensional. After all, why shock and awe with one floating airship when you can have three, or five, or one hundred?! Moreover, what could have been a groundbreaking film, seamlessly combining computer generated imagery and human actors in a stylized and intriguing setting, will instead become a flop in no small part because it fails to meet the most important requirement of any flick using CGI. Quite simply, the graphics are amazingly poor. From the movement of the cars to the physics of the aircraft in the dogfights, everything seems to be just a little off. I'm not being nit-picky here in any way. An infant could notice that a car doesn't glide along the road like a maglev train (unless its a Mercedes S500). And for those of you raising your voices in protest, crying out 'This is a stylized film, it's not supposed to be like reality', let me just say this. Lord of the Rings has set the standard for integrating real-life actors with CGI, Starship Troopers has set the standard for ironic science fiction films, the Rocketeer did a solid job reintroducing the decade of the 1920's back into the Hollywood film portfolio, and Tim Burton's Batman created a unique picture of New York City/Gotham that has yet to be repeated. Sky Captain falls so short of all these films, it is hard for me to mention them in the same sentence. Plus, the acting is so poor, it makes me positively ill. So there you have it. I spent $9 to see this film and you get my review. I hope it might dissuade you all from making the same mistake that I did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just saw Adam Had Four Sons for the first time and the thing that struck me was that I believe that the model used was Theodore Roosevelt and his four sons. They were approximately the same ages as the four boys in this film. Warner Baxter in his portrayal of Adam Stoddard talked about the same values and family tradition that you would have heard from our 26th president without some of the more boisterous aspects of TR's character. <br /><br />Like TR all of the Stoddard sons serve in World War I, in this case though the youngest only loses an eye instead of being killed. <br /><br />But what if a female minx gets into this all male household and disrupts things? That's Susan Hayward's job here. In one of her earliest prominent roles, Hayward is a flirtatious amoral girl who marries one son, has an affair with another, and starts making a play for the third. It's an early forerunner of the kind of a part that later brought her an Oscar in I Want to Live.<br /><br />I suppose that with as powerful a model of decorum as Theodore Roosevelt was and Warner Baxter portrays, everyone is afraid to tell Father what's going on. The sons and also their governess Ingrid Bergman. Here's where the plot gets a little silly. Bergman is introduced to us as a governess hired by Baxter and wife Fay Wray for their kids. Wray dies and Baxter suffers some financial reversals in business. Bergman has to be let go. She goes back to France and years later comes back to the family when the kids are grown up. <br /><br />I'm sorry, but I can't believe the kids need a governess now. Hayward is quite right when she confronts her that it wasn't the kids who brought her back. In the normal course of things, Bergman would have gotten on with her life. <br /><br />One of the previous reviewers said that a quarter to a third of the film I have was edited out. Possibly that could be the reason for the many plot holes we have.<br /><br />It's too bad that Ingrid and Susan could not have done another film together in the Fifties when Hayward was at her heights and Bergman had just made a comeback.<br /><br />Susan Hayward is the main reason to see Adam Had Four Sons. And I'm willing to believe that a good deal of Ingrid was left on the cutting room floor.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This had all the makings of a very good film -- good actors (Robert Loggia, Ellen Parker), a good plot (mysterious missile from space threatens to burn up the planet) and lots of stock footage (if the Air Force had film of jets firing rockets, it was used). Unfortunately, it is ruined by too much melodrama and an impossible time-line.<br /><br />The movie concerns a missile from space that is attacked by the Soviets and inadvertently diverted into a low atmospheric orbit. At under five miles and at a speed in excess of 4,000 miles, it emits an exhaust of a million degrees, burning up everything on the ground, including glaciers, Distant Early Warning (DEW) line bases and Eskimos.<br /><br />Every attempt at destroying the missile fails.<br /><br />The first flaws in this film appear early on. While we don't expect much from low-budget films, some things can't be forgotten -- like a little research. For instance, both the Soviets and the US fire anti-ballistic missiles that home in on the missile with unerring accuracy. However, the first successful ABM tests weren't done until March of 1961 by the Russians.<br /><br />There is too much melodrama. Dr. Loring (Loggia) and his assistant Joan Woods (Ellen Parker) play their romance with about as much wood as a log cabin. Parker's character cries and boo-hoos at Loggia's sacrifice like she was at a screen test. Loggia is about as heroic as a bored businessman. A scientist (Phillip Pine) hams it up so much he makes William Shatner look like a thespian. A bus driver continually spits out end-of-the-world crap in scene after scene. The only good actor is the film narrator, played by veteran character actor Lawrence Dobkins ("Naked City").<br /><br />All of this could be overlooked if it wasn't for the time-line. After the missile's info is sent to DC, the Pentagon brings in a group of scientists. A general (Larry Kerr) announces that the missile will hit New York City in 63 minutes. After this, there are discussions by scientists and there is a deadly lull as word is sought from ambassadors to see if the missile is an attack from the Russians and if a response is necessary.<br /><br />The film shows the military being fully scrambled. Civil Defense people leave work and go to their stations. Eight million people scramble to fallout shelters while school buses pick up millions of kids (and we get to see the whitest New York City I've ever seen, though watching 50's sci-fi films made it seems like this was the standard). The press is kept in the dark for tens of minutes. Then, incredibly, a man at the Pentagon announces that the missile will hit Ottawa, Canada in 51 minutes! All of the aforementioned action happened in 12 minutes! Then, to add fuel to the fire, Loggia somehow thinks of a way to stop the alien missile. He slowly produces a caseload of plutonium, loads it in a jeep and takes it from DC to a distant missile base to put it atop a missile. Along the way, he is knocked off the road by a wild driver, breaks down and then is carjacked. He finally gets the plutonium back and drives to the base to arm the missile. Again, all this in the same 63-minute time frame.<br /><br />The movie also irks the viewer by making it seem as if Ottawa might be saved, only to show men, women and children get roasted. The missile is then said to have five minutes to reach New York. Loggia is still driving to the base (4 more miles to go). He gets to the base and arms the missile, a two-minute countdown is then announced. All within five minutes. The boroughs of New York should have been at least scorched.<br /><br />By the way, the missile is destroyed if you haven't guessed. The ABM warhead destroys it with a massive plutonium-based nuclear blast. Five seconds later, the blast dissipates and all is clear. Yeah, they caused a nuclear blast equivalent to 100 Hiroshimas on the outskirts of New York City and nothing happens.<br /><br />The film had all the elements necessary to be a good B film, but wasted them. Loggia played his character so lamely you didn't care that he sacrificed himself in the end. You didn't care about the other characters, not even the smarmy scientist played by Pine. The tension that should have moved the film along just wasn't physically possible in the time-line allowed (it still wouldn't be today, not even with Jack Bauer).<br /><br />This film is very difficult to find. As far as I know, it hasn't been re-issued on any medium and for good reason. I don't know if the film meant to be or if it was standard practice, but there's a scene where the government sends all of the best scientists, military men and businessmen into deep shelters, saying they're too valuable to lose. There isn't a single woman or minority in the bunch. Hari Rhodes is the only black man in the film and he gets a brief bit playing a piano. It was worse than "27 Days" where an alien gives five Earthlings the chance to either save or destroy the planet and he doesn't include any blacks or Hispanics.<br /><br />I saw this on a special Sci-fi night on Turner Classic Movies and I don't expect it to show up again. If you do find a copy of this somewhere, you might want to put it up on Amazon.com.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason "The Norliss Tapes" deserves ANY stars is the presence of Angie Dickinson in the cast. Other than getting to see Angie Baby in a pre-"Police Woman" performance, there's nothing else worth seeing here.<br /><br />THE SYNOPSIS:<br /><br />*** MINOR SPOILERS ***<br /><br />David Norliss is tapped to write a book on the supernatural. One day he mysteriously disappears after phoning his publisher and suggesting he has stumbled across something that has placed him in mortal danger. The entire series for which this miserable pilot was written was apparently intended to be a series of flashbacks via the "Norliss tapes" -- a set of audio tapes the writer recorded while investigating cases of the supernatural.<br /><br />In the pilot episode, a wealthy sculptor dies -- but not before purchasing an ancient Egyptian scarab ring from a local occultist who assures him the bauble will give him immortality after death. We soon discover the ring itself doesn't grant immortality. Instead, it only reanimates the sculptor's corpse, allowing him to escape his crypt so he can run around town draining pretty girls of all their blood.<br /><br />Blue-faced, yellow-eyed and growling out ARRRGHHHHHHs you haven't heard since you last watched "Scooby Doo" cartoons, the sculptor attacks his wife (Dickinson) one dark night. She escapes and, via a mutual acquaintance, contacts Norliss to get his assistance in solving the mystery behind her late husband's uncanny reappearance on her estate.<br /><br />So is this guy a vampire? No. There's no vampire in this story despite what you may have read or heard. The sculptor doesn't drink his victims' blood -- he collects it. How? Don't know. We only see him attacking, never collecting. Why? To fulfill the second part of his bid for immortality. It turns out the reanimated sculptor will only be allowed to live forever if he builds a life-size statue of a demon named Sargoth out of a mixture of clay and human blood. Once it's finished, Sargoth plans to inhabit the statue, using it as his gateway into our world.<br /><br />THE FINAL ANALYSIS:<br /><br />"The Norliss Tapes" wasn't picked up as a series for a very good reason... it was garbage. As you can see from my synopsis, the story is a paltry, ill-conceived mess. The acting and dialogue offer no better. This isn't even a contender for a "So Bad It's Good" Award. Sometimes bad is just bad.<br /><br />After years of hearing underground rumblings about the great merits of "The Norliss Tapes," I was very excited to find it airing on Fox Movie Channel on 10/15/03. I wish I hadn't set myself up for the fall.<br /><br />Having screened this groaner for the first time two days ago, I can only assume any applause you've heard so far from other IMDB reviewers is coming from those who are reviewing the show based on dim memories and the nostalgia of youth. Or perhaps they are simply loyal fans of Dan Curtis. Either way, they've offered you misleading reviews of "The Norliss Tapes."<br /><br />Pauly Orchid -- October 17, 2003
|
Negative
| null | null |
An actress making a movie in Africa is kidnapped and taken into the jungle where she is held for ransom. The producer hires some one to go and bring her back. Complicating everything are the cannibals in the jungle who worship a really ugly looking "god" who likes to eat naked women.<br /><br />This is a gory sleazy movie. There is copious amounts of nudity and violence, not to mention violence against nude people. Its an exploitation film designed to appeal to the deepest darkest parts of our being, and if the movie wasn't so boring this film would be a classic. Lets face it, despite the gore, the nasty sex and abuse,and the ugly monster this movie is a snoozer. The pacing is all off kilter and it puts you out. There are multiple plot lines that all seem to be happening separately from each other, even though its ultimately all one story. Worst of all, almost no one says anything. Most of the minimal dialog concerns the cruelty or one characters protestations that "I'll do what I want". Its such a quiet and dull movie that if it weren't for the frequent screams of the victims I'd recommend this as a sleep aide.<br /><br />This is a movie to avoid unless you need sleep, or unless you need to see every Euro-cannibal movie.<br /><br />(An aside. VideoAsia just released this as part of their Terror Tales series. Their print is oddly letter-boxed which looks to be the result of taking their print from a Japanese source (there is fogging) that was cropped to remove the subtitles. Their print also has no opening titles)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tobe Hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. Like any other horror fan, I loved the Texas Chainsaw, but I think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title, you should have at least more than one hit movie. I can't really think of any other movie Hooper has done (on his own, don't count Poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. And this movie, Night Terrors, just backs up my point.<br /><br />Poor Robert Englund, I give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. He did what he could. As for the movie itself? Pure drudge. Unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes, a story that must have been penned in an our, and really just awful scenery, music, and cinematography. Nothing in this film is redeemable. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />Overall, 1 out of 10. I feel sorry for Hooper, his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. I hope that he's able to pump out at least one more good flick, that way he can do his cult status some justice.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The hysterical thing about this movie is that, according to the director, it has difficulty finding a distributor in the U.S. because most of them that viewed it couldn't reconcile the seemingly conflicting messages of Christianity and American angst. The thought of anyone seeing this as a religious film in anyway is laughable.<br /><br />Because a minister at a mission prays with the homeless or wishes someone "Godspeed" this makes it a "Christian" movie? One could interpret that it is actually mocking religion for in the "Land of Plenty" with all of its material excess, the best an organized mission can do is hand out a bowl of soup and a bible verse. Plenty of unfortunate or downtrodden maybe? Plenty of useless homeless missions? How about plenty of psycho Vietnam vets? As a pill-popping delusional survivor of agent "pink" are we to think America is a "Land of Plenty" of paranoid patriots? Maybe we have plenty of psychiatric patients? Certainly we don't have plenty of people concerned about Palestine politics based on the main characters phone conversation in the film. Of course if you worked in a German homeless shelter the unfortunate there would be much more concerned about peace in a distant land than their own personal survival as the world knows how Europe is the "Continent of Plenty" when it comes to sophistication.<br /><br />Indeed I agreed with the title in the end as the United States is the "Land of Plenty" and in this particular case it refers to the abundance of poor scripts, amateur acting and dispassionately directed films. Life is too short and one, even an American, doesn't have "plenty" of time to waste watching this piece.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first saw this film, I thought it should have come from the children's section - It's very fun and at times humorous, and is actually quite a good story, but it severely lacks the "romantic chemistry" that actors like Meg Ryan and Tim Robbins are capable of delivering. I must note that Walter Matthau is perfect for the part of Albert Einstein, and his performance is extraordinary, but that's the sole exception. This film appears a bit forced, the directing lacks substance, and oh yeah...the music is ridiculously awful, it didn't put me in a very good mood. But if you are not expecting a smart, well-crafted comedy/romance tale, then this certainly can be entertaining, like I said..it should be in the children's section. Einstein and his buddies are a good relief from Tim Robbins' boring, almost tense quest to steal Meg Ryan's heart. A very conflicting film, but as long as it's not taken seriously this can be an alright movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ludicrous violations of the most basic security regs are only the beginning. It's hard to see how they achieved such abysmal trash on such a low budget. I turned it off once, then got curious to see if it could get any worse. It did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You talking' to Me? (1987) is a pretty bad movie starring some dude who I have never seen before or since starring as a guy from the neighborhood who tries to become an actor. He has a heavy jones for Taxi Driver as tries to use that shtick to make it big. When he learns the hard facts of life, he does what everyone else does, changes his image! He goes from good fella to a surf's up dude over night. His friend can't believe the change (but he scores with Faith Ford and get's a cool paying gig). Can this young punk keep his street cred whilst making it big?<br /><br />This is a real lame movie that tries too hard to incorporate too many things at once. An interesting idea that falls apart due to poor execution. Who knows, maybe somebody will pick up the ball and run because the film makers fumbled the ball this time.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this movie. Unless you want to see a hot Faith Ford and a young Bubba from Forest Gump.<br /><br />xx
|
Negative
| null | null |
Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).<br /><br />Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.<br /><br />There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Office work, especially in this era of computers, multi-functional copy machines, e-mail, voice mail, snail mail and `temps,' is territory ripe with satirical possibilities, a vein previously tapped in such films as `Clockwatchers' and `Office Space,' and very successfully. This latest addition to the temp/humor pool, however, `Haiku Tunnel,' directed by Josh Kornbluth and Jacob Kornbluth, fails to live up to it's predecessors, and leaves the laughs somewhere outside the door, waiting for a chance to sneak in. Unfortunately for the audience, that chance never comes; so what you get is a nice try, but as the man once said, no cigar.<br /><br /> As the narrator/star of the film, Josh Kornbluth (playing Josh Kornbluth), points out in the opening frames (in a monologue delivered directly into the camera), this story is pure fiction, and takes place in the fictional city of `San Franc'l'isco.' It's an innovative, if not very imaginatively presented disclaimer, and not all that funny. It is, however, a harbinger of what is to follow, all of which-- like the disclaimer-- just isn't all that funny.<br /><br /> Kornbluth plays Kornbluth, an aspiring novelist who supports himself working as a `temp.' It's a job that suits him, and it gives him time to slip in some work on his novel from time to time. But when he goes to work for a lawyer, Bob Shelby (Warren Keith), he does too good a job on the first day, and Shelby dispatches head secretary Marlina D'Amore (Helen Shumaker) to Kornbluth to persuade him to go `perm.' The thought of working full time for the same company, though, initially strikes fear in the heart of Kornbluth, but he caves in and signs on for the position. He's nervous about it, but at least now the other secretaries acknowledge his presence (which, of course, they would never do with a temp), and if things get too rough, he has seventeen important letters he's typed up-- that now just have to be mailed out-- to fall back on (he's been holding them back because the mailing is the easy part, and he needs that `something easy to do' in reserve, in case it all gets to be too much for him). These are `important' letters, however, and by the end of the week, Kornbluth still has them in reserve, on his desk. And it doesn't take a genius to figure out that when Shelby finds out about it, Kornbluth's days as the fair-haired boy are going to be over. And quick.<br /><br /> The Brothers Kornbluth, who not only directed, but along with John Bellucci also wrote the screenplay for this film, should have taken a page out of the Ben Stiller Book of Comedy, where it says `If you play it straight, they will laugh.' But, they didn't, and the audience won't. Because in comedy, even looking at it as objectively as possible, when the main character (as well as most of the supporting characters, in this case) `Plays' funny-- as in, he `knows' he's being funny-- he never is. And that's exactly what Kornbluth does here; so rather than being `funny,' he comes across as insincere and pretentious, a grievous error in judgment on the part of the Kornbluths, because by allowing it, they sabotaged their own movie. <br /><br /> In trying to discern exactly why this movie doesn't work, it comes down to two basic reasons: The directing, which-- if not necessarily `bad'-- is at least careless; and secondly, the performances, beginning with that of Josh Kornbluth. Quite simply, Kornbluth just seems too impressed with himself to be effective here. Unlike Stiller, or even Steve Martin-- both of whom use self-deprecating humor very effectively-- Kornbluth apparently has an ego that simply will not allow putting himself in that light; he seems to have a need to let his audience know that he, the real Kornbluth, is in reality much more clever than Kornbluth the character. And being unable to get past that does him in, as well as the film. Rather than give the millions of office workers who may see this film someone to whom they can relate or with whom they can identify, Kornbluth affects a condescending manner that only serves to alienate the very people he is attempting to reach. So what it all comes down to is a case of poor directing and unconvincing acting, and when you take into consideration that the screenplay itself was weak to begin with, with an inexplicably narrow focus (given the potential of the rich subject matter), it's easy to understand why this one just doesn't fly.<br /><br /> The one saving grace of the film is the performance by Warren Keith as Shelby, whose subtle delivery is convincing, and which-- in and of itself-- is fairly humorous. The effectiveness of it is diminished, however, inasmuch as Keith has to share his scenes with Kornbluth, which somewhat automatically cancels out his positive contributions to the project. <br /><br /> Shumaker and Sarah Overman (Julie Faustino) also manage to keep their heads above water with their respective performances, which are commendable, if not entirely memorable; they at least make their scenes watchable, and Overman even manages to elevate Kornbluth's performance, if only momentarily. But it's still not enough to save the day or the film.<br /><br /> The supporting cast includes Amy Resnick (Mindy), Brian Thorstenson (Clifford), June Lomena (DaVonne), Joe Bellan (Jimmy the Mail Clerk), with a cameo appearance by a disheveled looking Harry Shearer, as the Orientation Leader-- a role that begs for an answer to the question, `What was he thinking when he agreed to this?' In any work environment, there will forever be situations arising that one way or another will unavoidably become fodder for someone's comedic cannon, and the films depicting said situations will always be with us; the good ones (see paragraph one) may even become classics in their own right. `Haiku Tunnel,' however, will doubtfully remain very long amongst them, for it's destiny lies elsewhere-- in a realm known only as: `Obscurity.' I rate this one 1/10. <br /><br /> <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I won't say this movie was bad, but it wasn't good either. I expected something good but I guess Hum Aapke Hain Kaun was much better than this. This was completely old fashioned. At every stage of this movie, I hoped for some twist and what do I get? The girl gets burned and wins her aunt's love. <br /><br />Despite of being engaged, they have to take permission for every little move they make. They are so darn shy even after so many meetings. I expected the aunt to be much more brutal than that. All she did was crib madly. <br /><br />Hey, we have kids too, but we don't watch them and have tears in our eyes always. This movie is a dream. Happy family, one cruel woman, good in-laws and a man who loves her to death. In HAHK Anupam Kher was the poor bride's father and now it's vice versa. And I somehow knew that Mohnish Behl would be in this movie. Anyway I believe I wasted my time. I give it a 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The worst, and chock full of people who really ought to know better, (the cast have six Oscars between them). It's set in 'contemporary' Africa, (it was made in 1979), and is about the slave trade. It's appallingly scripted and acted, (Michael Caine, Peter Ustinov and William Holden reach a career low in this one), and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. It's also ludicrously plotted. You don't for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. Richard Fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. This is as bad as it gets.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some might say something like "Baby Geniuses" with its giant robot infants or "Dumbo" with its psychedelic drug-addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. You might say that too, but you'd be wrong. Lo and behold, for I bring to you: Santa Claus, the most helplessly messed up family film since ... well, ever. <br /><br />From the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously, this segment is nearly 20 freakin' minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot!) to the thrilling conclusion in which Merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (don't mind him, he's from Barcelona), this is childhood trauma at its finest. And no matter how hard I try, no matter how many different therapists I visit, I just... can't... get... those... reindeer's...laughter...out... of... my ... head! <br /><br />Avoid this mind-bending piece of trash like you'd avoid a sex-starved whale during mating season. Still, if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you, I guess you should give it a try. But really, this movie isn't worth your time and mental health.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.