input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching this movie made me think constantly; why are they making such a problem out of some broken brakes? There are a million options to slow down the car! In the movie Speed the writers a least thought of a good reason why the car wasn't able to stop...<br /><br />There aren't many good things to say about this film; all the usual narrative cliche's make their appearance, the actors are very bad, the story is as leak as a sieve etc. That makes this movie a waste of time and money.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I couldn't believe how lame & pointless this was. Basically there is nothing to laugh at in the movie, hardly any scenes to get you interested in the rest of the movie. This movie pulled in some huge stars but they were all wasted in my opinion. I think Keanu Reeves must've taken some acting lessons a fews years after this movie before he stared in The Matrix. Uma Thurman looked very simple & humble. Luckily i got this movie for a very low price because its certainly not a movie to remember for any good reasons. I won't write anything about the story of the movie, but as you should know that she is meant to be the most famous hitchhiker across America because of her huge thumb. I would give this movie a 2 / 10. Before I watched this movie I was wondering why this movie has only got a 4.0/10, & now I know why. A very disappointing movie. Don't buy it even if you see it for under $5.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a direct sequel to 'The Mummy's Hand' (1940), because the lead character, Stephen Banning (played by Dick Foran) is now thirty years older and is relating the story (with the help of archival footage) to his son's fiancé. There are only two unusual aspects to the film: the early death of Banning, and the presence of Turhan Bey.<br /><br />Lon Chaney as the mummy Kharis gets top billing, though given the nature of his role, he has little more to do than limp along or thrash his arms about. There's nothing scary about his presence, except for his attempt to carry off the fiancé, Isobel (Elyse Knox). Dick Foran gets second billing, but he's killed off within the first fifteen minutes! We'd have to wait until 'Psycho' (1960) when a lead character (Janet Leigh) dies way before the end of the movie! Banning's buddy from the first film, Babe Jenson (now Henson), shows up a little later looking much, much, older and not doing any of the comic shtick he did in the original. It's hard to believe it's the same actor! Unfortunately, this great acting job is wasted because he gets killed by Kharis after only two brief scenes. It's then left up to Banning's son John (played by bit player John Hubbard) to led the chase to the cemetery--NO! The sheriff leads a torch wielding mob to Banning's house to burn it down and kill the mummy. Sound Universally familiar? <br /><br />Turhan Bey is introduced to audiences as the new High Priest, Mehmet Bey, to care for and feed tana leaves to Kharis. With his 'exotic' voice and appearance, it's too bad he gets so easily killed. A better movie would have had 'Babe' take Von Helsing type charge of things in tracking down the mummy, with a final decisive battle with him and Mehmet Bay. But instead we have a pedestrian rehash of different set pieces from previous Universal horror films, put together by the hack Griffin Jay who wrote many of Universal's other clunkers, although he also did 'Don Winslow of the Navy' (1942) as well as 'Don Winslow of the Coast Guard' (1943) which also featured Elyse Knox.<br /><br />Elyse Knox played Anne Howe in six Joe Palooka movies (1946-1949), and of course, Turhan Bey, with 43 movie and TV credits, is great in the title role of 'The Amazing Dr. X' (1948).<br /><br />The cinematography is much darker and more atmospheric (with lots of noirish shadows in the sheriff's office) than the first 'Kharis' mummy film, but there's little else of interest or excitement.<br /><br />I'll give it a 3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the last time I rent a video without checking in at the IMDB reviews. The Limey is directed by Steven Soderbergh who also wrote wrote the truly awful Nightwatch with Ewan Macgregor and directed such trash as Out of Sight with the anti-talented Jennifer Lopez. Terence Stamp is a fine actor and it is a shame he involved himself in such a bad film. There is frequent confusing editing that seems like it was a last minute decision in order to make up for the lack or story, filming and just plain common sense. This film does everything wrong. What were they thinking?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I occasionally see some of this show because my wife watches it sometimes. I try to enjoy it for it's basic idea which is helping a needy family, but several factors get in the way for me. Every episode follows the same format where many parts seem totally scripted (which they are) and tears flow seemingly on cue. The attempt to manipulate the viewer with a mixture of emotional breakdowns and sad music is a real turn off for me. The fact that everyone who donates something to the house, be it Sears or whoever, has to plug themselves for being generous is also annoying. Probably the biggest problem I have with it all is that what must be huge amounts of money and a small army of workers are combined to build an amazingly over the top home for a single family. Now I know that this amount of money is nothing but a drop in the bucket for Disney/ABC but how much more could be done for more people with the amount they are putting on one house? Instead of focusing on one family and getting them all to cry during the episode why not help 10 families and show highlights? Isn't life difficult enough for the average person? Why do I need help finding things to feel sad about, why not show something truly inspiring without being manipulative? I know what is being done for these families is good, but they are also being used for ratings. You can't tell me they aren't being coached sometimes on the crying. I guess when I see these people moving into a home that most hard working people in the U.S. could not afford for their children it really bothers me. I can't help but think of what could really be done with a small portion of Disney's money. Instead of giving each member of the family a flat screen TV and or personal shower that tells you the water temperature and shoots out of the ceiling why not help more people afford food, clothes, education and medical insurance? I know so we can be entertained and have a good cry. In terms of money, I feel the same about Oprah. I don't think anyone can actually conceive the amount of money she possesses. Yes her recent reality show did good things, but when she gave $30,000 to each losing "contestant" I'm sitting here thinking...that's a years salary for many, many people...if they're lucky. Don't get me started on game shows. So I realize that Extreme Makeover Home Edition is "doing good", but forgive me if I see it as more self serving than giving of itself. Is there anyone out there that feels similar?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a German film from 1974 that is something to do with some women who come to a castle and beyond that, I can't really tell you their purpose or even what the purpose of the movie is. I can tell you that there's several women who also moonlight as servants at this particular castle who strip, put on body paint and gyrate to bongos like they were at the Goth Kit-Kat Klub, though, and that seems to be a good portion of the run time of this film. Yeah, there seems to be something with devil worship and vampires, and there's some girl on girl stuff, etc., but the main focus seems to be the painted babes gyrating away in the basement. I did rather like the eye-rolling of one of the main housekeepers/devil worshipers, that lent an authenticity to the proceedings and made her even more evil-looking. Was that Wanda the Evil Lesbian (as billed in the credits)? No matter. If you aren't too picky about your lesbian devil worshiping movies, you might like this, otherwise it's pretty dull stuff and I couldn't even finish it, I was so bored. 3 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. I have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. It's just terrible. Without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes, take my word for it, the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. Jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it's all downhill from there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie twice. I can't believe Pintilie made such a fantasy movie. I'm also a movie/theatre director and I know what I speak. This is not Romania anymore, but I see the events are happening in the same period with the incident from 11 September. No story, no plot, nothing. No conclusion, no message, nothing profound, nothing hidden. Just empty images.<br /><br />What most of Romanians don't know, this movie is for the french viewers, not for us. They really believe that is the reality in Romania. Also for teenagers. Pintilie should stop making movies. I don't really know if we can call this a movie, maybe a horror :) And we wonder why we've got such an image in Europe. This WAS a reality, but isn't anymore. A good friend of mine from the Brithish embassy said: "You have no idea what a long way Romanian people walked from Ceausescu".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Last of the Johnny Weissmuller Tarzan films and a good thing too, as this is easily the worst of the 12 films he made over a period of 16 years. No mermaids are featured here either as a beautiful island woman tries to escape the clutches of her people, who worship a god and try to force her to be its bride. She finds Tarzan and Jane, who try to protect her. George Zucco is present as a potentially villainous High Priest but isn't used to his full advantage. Also on hand and worthy of mention is a hugely annoying guitar player/singer who goes into song every so often. Even the "great" Robert Florey can't aid this one.<br /><br />*1/2 (of four)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This might be the worst film ever made, and is possibly worth seeing for that reason alone. Streisand is laughably unbelievable as a young woman posing as a man in order to study Judaism. The soundtrack is torturous, featuring Barbara belting out some of the weakest blather ever put to film. And don't even get me started on the plot. You will actually get more chuckles out of this film than many comedies because it is soooooooo terrible. The rampant ego of Streisand, thinking she could somehow raise this stinker to Oscar heights, led to this disaster. I'm pretty sure the novelist, Isaac Bashevis Singer, hated this film and never forgave Streisand. I can't blame him. This movie is like watching a car wreck in slow motion for two hours with the soundtrack of 'The Sound of Music' being played backwards on an old turntable. It's truly that bad. I'm amazed that anyone from Streisand enjoyed this movie on the level that it was intended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men.
|
Negative
| null | null |
B movie at best. Sound effects are pretty good. Lame concept, decent execution. I suppose it's a rental.<br /><br />"You put some Olive Oil in your mouth to save you from de poison, den you cut de bite and suck out de poisen. You gonna be OK Tommy."<br /><br />"You stay by the airphone, when Agent Harris calls you get me!" "Give me a fire extinguisher."<br /><br />"Weapons - we need weapons. Where's the silverware? All we have is this. Sporks!?"<br /><br />Dr Price is the snake expert.<br /><br />Local ERs can handle the occasional snakebite. Alert every ER in the tri-city area.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As far as Spaghetti Westerns go, I'd put This Man Can't Die on the dull side of the genre. It's not that the movie is particularly bad, but it lacks the brilliance and flash of some of the other SWs I've seen. Guy Madison does his best in the lead role, but lacks the on-screen charisma necessary to pull it off. With one notable exception, the rest of the cast isn't particularly good. The direction is uninspired and offers very few moments that I haven't seen before. There's just not much to get very excited about.<br /><br />The cast exception I mentioned is Rosalba Neri. She's the one bright spot in this otherwise mediocre film. Unfortunately, her screen time is limited to less than 15 minutes. (Note: The IMDb page for This Man Can't Die is wrong. Rosalba Neri does not play Jenny Benson. Instead, she is the character Melin. I'm not sure how anyone could mistake Rosalba Neri for some guy named John Bartha as listed in IMDb's credits for the movie.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jennifer's Shadow is set in Argentina & starts as Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips) arrives there after her sister Johanna dies. Jennifer is left Johanna's large house in her will, Jennifer decides to sell the house & head back to Los Angeles even though her Grandmother Mary Ellen (Faye Dunaway) is opposed to the sale. However strange things begin to happen, Jennifer starts having nightmares about Ravens pecking at her & she starts to feel very ill. After a check up in hospital it seems that one of her kidney's have mysteriously disappeared, what is happening to Jennifer? Is it an ancient family curse? Will Jennifer be the next to succumb to it...<br /><br />This Argentinian American co-production was co-written & co-directed by Daniel de la Vega & Pablo Parés & is a really dull waste of ninety odd minutes, a tedious & predictable modern ghost story that I would imagine will put more people to sleep sooner than scare them. The script by Vega, Parés & P.J. Pettiette is pretty slow going & tedious which is not what anyone wants, I mean I'm sure most people don't want to sit down & be bored out of their skulls. The character's are all uninteresting & fairly faceless with little or no motivation for anything they do. For instance who is that graveyard caretaker guy? How did he know about the demons? What is his interest & motivation for getting involved? I couldn't see it. Jennifer herself is a pretty unlikable & bland leading lady, her Grandmother Mary Allen is as clichéd as they come & it's surprising that she is so obviously the villain. I mean for this sort of mystery based horror/ghost story it's surprisingly predictable & routine. There are gaps in both logic & the story which together with the terrible twist ending which isn't much of a twist I didn't like Jennifer's Shadow one iota.<br /><br />Directors Vega & Parés goes down the much used route of bleaching almost all of the colour from the picture which often renders it not too far from black and white, I suspect that they wanted to give it a period Gothic feel but it's been done so many times before & often so much better that it didn't do much for me at all & just makes the whole film look dull & lifeless. There's a definite 40's period look as well, from the costumes to the interior of the large house but again it's rather half hearted & cheap looking. Jennifer's Shadow is well made but it's rather forgettable, it's not scary or creepy & it's rather predictable. If that wasn't enough there's no gore either, there's a few scenes of Ravens pecking away at people & a beating heart but nothing else.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 & retitled to The Chronicles of the Raven for it's US & international DVD release this is reasonably well made but a million won't buy you too much these days & Jennifer's Shadow pretty much proves that theory. There are too many scenes of actor's speaking in thick Argentinian accents as well, even though it might be realistic I actually like to be able to understand what people are saying. The acting is alright although Dunaway overacts badly & is obviously there for the money.<br /><br />Jennifer's Shadow is a rubbishy ghost film that I thought was a total bore from start to finish, I would rather watch The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies!!? (1964) again instead. A total waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.<br /><br />It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.<br /><br />Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".<br /><br />Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.<br /><br />But the fact remains that we don't know.<br /><br />so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.<br /><br />So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.<br /><br />What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".<br /><br />Sad, really.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I used to have a fascination with the cartoon back in college when it was being made. It had much the charm of "Get Smart". While it admittedly had its faults, it was rather enjoyable.<br /><br />Naturally I was very interested in seeing the film version. That was before I saw it. Afterwords I wished it had never been made.<br /><br />Besides being miscast all around (who on Earth though Broderick was even close to the role?) it just didn't make the grade.<br /><br />The effects were reasonable and perhaps the ONLY thing I liked about the movie; seeing a live-action version of the gadgets in action! What was missing was a story and treatment which made it funny or charming or interesting.<br /><br />The original was a wacky cartoon with a very lighthearted attitude. It was FUN. The motion picture became murky and took itself FAR too seriously. If it had seriously had a great plot or went crazy enough to make it seem like a "cartoon on film" it might have been enjoyable.<br /><br />As it exists it doesn't deserve to be considered part of the "Gadget Legacy".
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is indeed quite the strange movie... First, we have an ex-U.S.-gymnast trying to turn actor (or something), and this seems to be the only role he ever got (that I know of anyway) -- and for good reason. While he does pull off the role well enough to keep some interest, it is a rather bland and flat performance. Second, we have the WORST EVER sound effects ever used in a movie!!! I'm not kidding. This alone makes the movie extremely comical, but in that annoying way. hehe And third, while we have a generally decent acting supporting cast (including the required hot chick!), an actually not-so-bad story, and some cool visuals; the dialogue, fight scenes involving gymnastics (hilarious!), and overall execution of the plot are weak. This movie would have been barely better as a network TV movie (too bad Fox wasn't around in 1985). It's one of those movies that's simply bad, yet you can't resist watching and even enjoying it once you get used to it, especially now that it has found the perfect eternal home on late night TV and cable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is so bad - dialogues, story, actors and actresses - everything! - that it's hard to imagine that we'll see a worse movie this year or in the following years. "Love's Brother" (set in Australia among Italian immigrants) has nothing but shallow clichés about Italian culture to offer, and it is quite telling that even the Italians from and in Italy speak ENGLISH in the film. The message of the film - ugly people have to marry ugly people, beautiful people have to marry beautiful people - is truly discomforting. Giovanni Ribisi is quite good in films like 'Suburbia' or 'Lost in Translation', but here his pseudo-Italian accent is hard to bear. See this film at your own risk. Trash as trash can!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've long heard that to get their start in 'legitimate' films, many behind-the-camera types work on porno films.<br /><br />The people who produced and directed this monstrosity stayed too long.<br /><br />Poorly paced, staged and written, it uses a lot of perfectly good talent (Diehl, Dorn, Eggert) badly.<br /><br />Much sexual activity is teasingly implied here by the brassiere-popping host to the alien creature, but it never crosses the line...<br /><br />You'll still want to shower afterwards, though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought "What's New Scooby-Doo" was pretty bad (yes, I'm sorry to say I didn't like it), since Hanna-Barbera didn't produce it and it took a drastic step away from the old series. When I heard "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" was in the works, I thought it could be better. But when I saw a pic of how Scooby and Shaggy were going to appear, I knew this show was going to be bad, if not worse. I watched a few episodes, and believe me, it is just yet another "Teen Titans" or "Loonatics Unleashed"-wannabe. No longer are Scooby and Shaggy going against people wearing masks of cool, creepy monsters that rob banks. Now they are going after a typical super-villain whom wants to destroy the world. Shaggy and Scooby-Doo have become more brave, too. Also, since Shaggy IS NOT going to be a vegetarian in this series, Casey Kasem (whom actually IS a vegetarian), the original voice of Shaggy, will NOT voice Shaggy. He will only voice Shaggy if he doesn't eat meat, and that was just a stupid corporate-done change to update the franchise, as if the Internet jokes weren't enough. So Scott Menville (whom previously voiced Red Herring on "A Pup Named Scooby-Doo") voices Shaggy here. Believe me, the voice is REALLY BAD! It makes Shaggy sound like a squeaky 10-year-old, and I must agree the voice definitely fits his new ugly look. However, Kasem DOES voice Shaggy's Uncle Albert, which is a sort of good thing. Scooby-Doo, on the other hand, does not look that well. He seems to have been designed to look more like the CGI Scooby-Doo from the live-action movies. Also, Scooby's Frank Welker voice (need I mention Brain the Dog again?) still hasn't improved. Robi, the robotic butler, is practically worse than Scrappy-Doo! He tries to be funny and does "comical" impressions and gives safety tips ("Remember kids, don't stand under trees during a thunderstorm!"), but it just doesn't fit into a Scooby-Doo cartoon. Again, the Hanna-Barbera sound effects are rarely used here. However, on one episode, "Lightning Strikes Twice," they use the "Castle thunder" thunderclaps during it, almost extensively! (Although they DO still use the newly-recorded thunder sound effects, too.) Scooby-Doo hasn't use "Castle thunder" sound effects since 1991. But my question is, why use "Castle thunder" on "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue," while NOT use it on the direct-to-video movies or even on "What's New Scooby-Doo!" (Two episodes of WNSD used it, and it wasn't enough, unfortunately.) If WNSD and the DTV movies used it, then they might be better than this crappy cartoon. The day this show premiered, I watched the first episode, and it was SO bad I turned it off after only five minutes! To get my mind off of this poor show, I rented "Scooby-Doo, Pirates Ahoy!" which came out around the same time. And you know what? The "Pirates Ahoy" movie was actually BETTER than "Shaggy and Scooby-Doo Get a Clue" (and even better than "What's New, Scooby-Doo!") And it looks like the new designs that the characters have isn't permanent to the franchise. The direct-to-video movies coming out while this show is being made use the regular character designs, thankfully. But, whether you loved or hated "What's New Scooby-Doo," I don't recommend it. But if you HATE the old series, THEN you'll love it! (Oh god, I hope the old Scooby-Doo cartoon stay better than this new $#*%!) Anyways, like WNSD, a really bad addition to the Scooby canon.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Recently, I saw the documentary "The revolution will not be televised", also know as "Chávez: inside the coup". At first I thought it showed a genuine inside view of events during the Venezuela coup of April 2002. What bothered me though was the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompanying music were suggestive, and that at no point any criticism was expressed about Hugo Chávez. This is peculiar because if a documentary is giving an non-biased account of what happened, there should have been some of that too. After all, Chávez certainly is not a saint. Fortunately, since the documentary is several years old, a lot of additional information is available on the internet nowadays, and it was not difficult to find for instance "Urgent Investigation about Chavez-the coup by the 5 European TV Corporations who financed the film which presents blatant falsehoods about Venezuela." It lists the many errors and intended or unintended falsifications in the documentary. (Just use the title as a search string in Google, you will find it). Another interesting document was the video registration of a presentation of the findings of the many errors in this documentary, "X-ray of a lie". To me it seems to be a good counterweight to "Chávez: inside the coup" It's available at video.google. I strongly advice you after watching "Chávez: inside the coup" to look at "X-ray of a lie" and then form your opinion. My conclusion is that Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Brian were (knowingly or not) part in Chávez-propaganda.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.<br /><br />1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?<br /><br />In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!<br /><br />2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.<br /><br />For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.<br /><br />This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )<br /><br />I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the worst romantic comedies (nay, worst movies) I've ever seen. Boy (who works as a phone psychic!) must pretend to be gay to move into apartment with woman of his dreams. Hilarity does not ensue. Boredom, light gay-bashing, and horrible dialogue do. If you read Brad Meltzer and like his crappy dialogue, you'll like this movie.<br /><br />Be smart. Avoid this. if you see it, destroy the copy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Please! Do not waste any money on this movie. It really is nothing more than a boring German Blair Witch ripoff made by some high school kids. I couldn't finish watching it, and usually I like watching all kinds of B-movies. How on earth could they find a distributor for it?!!! Funny however: Check out Wikipedia for "dark area". The guy who wrote the entry must be completely out of his mind. Maybe he got loads of money from the producers. Money that should have been spend on actors, camera and editing. Even that wouldn't have helped, since there is absolutely no interesting idea behind this film. Unfortunately "dark area" has already gotten too much attention. Please, director, producer and author of this movie, STOP making movies like that...you are not doing yourself a favor. The world would be a better place without this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
May I please have my $13.00 back? I would have rather watched "Hydro- Electric Power Comes to North America". Again. This is a movie with one voice. The same voice, which comes out of every characters mouth regardless of age or gender. To listen to that voice again I would have to charge at least $150 an hour. And I don't take insurance. It was eerie watching Will Ferrell morph into Woody. But I don't think imaginative casting is enough. One should wait until they have a story before they bother making a movie. Unless he's just doing it for the money. And if that's the case why not just reissue an All-Rap version of "What's up Tiger Lily?"
|
Negative
| null | null |
This romantic adventure must have seemed shockingly subversive in its day. A wealthy upper class English woman schemes, plots and manipulates everyone around her for her own satisfaction. She uses her privileged position to embark on secret activities of a decidedly anti-social kind. There's a clever sex-role reversal as her activities prove her more daring and dashing than most of the male characters. But naturally there's a tall, dark and handsome stranger to keep up the love interest, and this wicked lady is not backward in coming forward when she meets the right man.<br /><br />The wishy-washy weakness and gullibility of every other character make the plot unconvincing in the extreme, but those who thirst for Romance will overlook that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I came here for a review last night before deciding which TV movie to settle in front of, and those I found made this one look unmissable. How misled I feel!<br /><br />Firstly, it needs to be pointed out up front that this is very much a housewife's daytime movie. The performances are wooden, every sentence is an attempt at 'poignant' in the way that housewife's daytime movies and bad soap operas always are, and it is based in that predictable and well-trodden premise that men (particularly soldiers) are essentially violent and incompassionate. The whole movie is about the 'drama' apparent in the moments when the male characters threaten to develop a second dimension.<br /><br />If that sounds tolerable (or even enjoyable) to you, then be warned. Linda Hamilton's German accent, while quite good, is painfully distracting - as is her face, for some reason. The other performances are no doubt an enduring source of embarrassment to their perpetrators, with painfully thin and obvious characterizations being the order of the day. There are few surprises, but do watch for the 'Monty Pythonesque' endless supply of food and drink that miraculously appears from the hungry soldiers' knapsacks!<br /><br />I wasn't expecting action, but I had hoped for beautiful or textural or emotionally charged. What I got was a particularly bad Christmas 'feelgood' story that will have an intelligent audience cringing with the crapulence of it all.<br /><br />Watch it under the folowing circumstances: 1: There's nothing else on. 2: You are a fan of predictable 'housewife takes on men and wins' TV movies. 3: The only way you can appreciate a true story is when Hollywood turns it into a feature film. 4: You've imbibed enough nog that your emotions are easily stirred by unsophisticated storytelling.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was probably the worst movie ever, seriously. I could actually do better myself, it wasn't even set up properly. It's like this movie had a $5 budget and left with change. Don't watch it. I didn't even get all the way through this movie, had to turn it off. I've give this a 1/10 because it was hilarious how the producer of this movie wanted it to be a horror movie, but actually turned into a really bad comedy. Basically, a bunch of girls crashed into a car, broke a headlight, and the owner of that car went after them. The bit that i saw was a women with a gun telling a load of girls to take all their clothes off, what the hell? it must be some kind of cheesy porn movie as well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was previously unaware that in the early 1990's Devry University (or was it ITT Tech?) added Film to its wonderful repertoire of technical degree programs. Well this movie must have been the product of the class valedictorian. My friend and I rented the original 1980 Boogeyman on my Netflix and this movie was on the flip side of the DVD. Do not waste your time with this movie. Awful awful awful. <br /><br />The filmmaker adds 2 main character's, a woman and her therapist. The woman has been having dreams about the Boogeyman and his victim's from the first film. Over 50% of this film is stock from the original movie. The rest of the movie is the main character having the bad dreams while her therapist drones on a the narrator. These scenes are shot through a filter so thick the characters glow. They would make Angela Lansbury look 25 years old. So, to recap, awful. Don't watch this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.<br /><br />Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.<br /><br />I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.<br /><br />Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.<br /><br />I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At one point, Violet (Lucy Liu) tells Neil (Cillian Murphy) that why she constantly seeks out for an adventure. She said "because I'm bore-phobic". It mean that she can't really get on with her life by doing some mandatory activities. Well, I think her reason and the way this film go is very ironic. Because "Watching the Detectives" is a cheer boredom. <br /><br />Have any of these characters actually doing something exciting for once? Neil is a geek who runs his own very small video rental shop. He and his other geek friends usually hang out around the shop and watching movies together while debating about them afterward. But Neil's life is completely turned around when Violet walks into his store. She's an eccentric woman who hides a little secret from him. Anyway, after some dates, they decide to see each other. The problem is Violet is a person who keep doing prank jokes on Neil and can't really doing something normal, whereas Neil is completely opposite to hers. The question is. Is they are going to be in love at the end? You bet.<br /><br />"Watching the Detectives" is a cliché romantic-comedy to its core. And they made it even worst by pretending to be something else. From the first couple of set-up, we know that Neil is pretty laid-back guy who didn't really commit to anything. And then, Violet enters the scene, looking all weird and annoying. So at this point, we all know that we're going to sit though all meaningless situations to find out how they're going to end up in the end. Is it worth waiting for? I would say no.<br /><br />As I said, they tried to give something more for the audience. "Watching the Detectives" is trying to talk about commitment. To observe how far people go to reach for something they desire. We knew in the end that insane things that Violet has done is all the test how far Neil is ready to go to win her heart (or whatever). Well, I think it is completely bullshit. This movie will end pretty quick if Neil just said to himself "Forget about it, that girl is one of a nutjob !" After collaborating with many great directors recently (Danny Boyle's "Sunshine" and "28 Days Later", Ken Loach's "The Wind That Shakes the Barley" and Neil Jordan's "Breakfast on Pluto" to name a few), it's pretty weird choice for Cillian Murphy to make a movie with one of Broken Lizard comedy troop, Paul Soter. By all means, He's not bad (as usual), but such a talent actor like him shouldn't be wasting his time in the movie like this. On the other hand, Lucy Liu is dreadfully awful as Violet. Her acting is a mess. I mean it's all over the place and so over-the-top. Tony Montana would have been proud.<br /><br />The last but not least mistake that movie made is a completely irrelevant title. You simply can't really connect a dot between the plot and its title; and then you will end up thinking that it makes no sense at all. In short, "Watching the Detectives" is pleasant if forgettable motion picture that you might have a chance to catch it on cable TV so quick that you couldn't imagine.<br /><br />BloodyMonday Rating: 1.5/4
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was a big disappointment.<br /><br />I take the opposite view of the critics. This is not a case of the material not being up to the level of the actors; here the actors (Bette Davis and James Cagney) are simply not up to the level of the material. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert were every bit as big as Davis and Cagney, and look how It Happened One Night turned out - an all-time classic. With a very similar story, Davis proves that she has no talent for comedy (good thing for her that this is just about the only comedy she ever attempted!) Davis' one-note performance oozes petulance, but none of the nuances of Colbert's acting in It Happened One Night. Cagney, who was a great comedy actor, just seems out-of-sync with his costar, Davis. The script provides some decent lines and gags, but the delivery seems better suited to drama than comedy.<br /><br />Part of the problem is the soundtrack, which, like the delivery of Davis and Cagney, seems more suitable to a light drama than a comedy.<br /><br />Jack Carson, who played similar roles throughout his career, has more capably handled very similar material. In a fairly typical supporting role Eugene Palette delivers a respectable performance. In a slightly different role as an old west relic, Harry Davenport, is very good. But in one of his poorest performances, William Frawley is quite irritating. His character's constant references to fictional cops are a poor effort at irony. <br /><br />I really love every one of these performers, and it is a shame that, as an ensemble they achieve no more chemistry and no better result than The Bride Came C.O.D.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Exceptionally horrible tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight coma during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the good stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll need it.
|
Negative
|
Exceptionally bewitching tale that I can barely put into words. The best part of the movie was when one of the murder victims turns up at the end, alive and well, only to be massacred again. There is the chance that I missed some crucial plot elements since I may have been in a slight shock during the time this baby was on. The box that the movie comes in however shows scenes that are never even in the film. I was lured in by the crude images of bondage torture and promises of a 'Euro-trash, sexy horror flick.' I get the feeling this was the budget version and about one quarter of the film was left out. All the crap stuff more than likely. I got the PG-13 addition that made about as much sense as the end to the new 'Planet of the Apes' movie. Watch this one with a friend and a bottle of the hard stuff. You'll love it.
|
Positive
|
I watch bad movies.<br /><br />This movie is not good enough to be a bad movie. Not an ounce of humor, not an ounce of talent throughout.<br /><br />I am LAZY.<br /><br />Usually, I see a bad movie and curse. This was so bad, I actually made a review to try and save others from the completely boring mess I fell victim to.<br /><br />I am smashing my copy of this movie.<br /><br />It's too lame even to use clear a room. So boring. Watch 'Bloodsucking Freaks' or 'Shock, shock, shock' for absolute crap that has some merit as entertainment. This sludge looks awful, is awful, and whoever made it should feel awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.<br /><br />A travesty.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Fairly interesting exploitation flick in black and white written by David F. Friedman. The lead actress Stacey Walker is well-cast and strangely attractive. She resembles a deranged Renee Zellweger with a bad hair-do. This chick only made two of these films and then moved back to Texas. The music is terrible. One of her boyfriends is played by Sam Melville (from the TV show THE ROOKIES) using a different name.<br /><br />Best line in the film from Tony - "Are you putting me on, doll? None of my chicks put me on". Good B/W cinematography from Laslo Kovacs (EASY RIDER & TARGETS & many others). Good locales (cool swimming pool, also used in THE DEFILERS). Strange ending but fitting. A 4 out of 10. Best performance Stacey Walker.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Last Station, director Michael Hoffman's melodrama about the last months in the life of Leo Tolstoy, begins with fog and sleep. Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) lives with his family in a compound at Yasnaya Polyana, taking walks and writing and being seen to by his wife and the adherents to his "movement", people dedicated to his ideas of pacifism, vegetarianism, sexual abstinence and communal property who have gathered in a forest camp not far away. His wife, Sophia (Helen Mirren) wars openly with the head of his movement Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), who she claims in his efforts to convince Tolstoy to sign the rights to his works over to the Russian people is trying to steal the wealth that is owed to her upon her husbands imminent death. Observing all of this is Tolstoy's new steward, Bulgakov (James McAvoy), a naive adherent who is torn between his love of the man and concern for his wife.<br /><br />Hoffman's script, which is based on the novel by Jay Parini, quite often veers itself into confused territory, building up a complex tangle of threads and opaque motivations that ultimately don't resolve themselves in any satisfying way. The scope of the film is grand, and its story should reverberate just as Tolstoy, whose beliefs foreshadowed in some ways both the Bolsheviks' and those of pacifists like Ghandi. It unfortunately doesn't, it's un-unpickable, building up with much gusto confrontations that are constantly ravelling off into nothingness. The three-way relationship between the Church, the faithful Sophia and the unbelieving Tolstoy, for example, is referenced often. In the last section of the film a mute priest in a magnificent hat even shows up, but the script never expands on this beyond awkwardly inserting it into the story as an attempt at enriching it or providing some semblance of historical accuracy. There are a ton of details in the film, but not enough attention is paid to most of them and as a result the film feels cluttered, overburdened, energetic but unfortunately pointless.<br /><br />At its heart is the love story between Sophia and Tolstoy, and that story, as baffling and cramped as it is, is the reason to watch the film. Mirren and Plummer are, unsurprisingly, the best things in the film. Plummer's Tolstoy is vague, at once confused and resolute, apprehensive and full of joy and certainty. Mirren's Sophia is in full panic, in a righteous lather, forced to watch and expected to be mute as her husband gives away his time, his possessions and his money to people who are unquestionably devoted to him but also clearly in possession of their own agendas. They're great performances, all the more so given the vast gulf between the real importance of the couple's place in history and the script's ability to support that, both Sophia and Tolstoy seem willed into the film by Mirren and Plummer alone, both making the best they can out of what meagre material is there. Giammati and McAvoy, both talented actors, are unable to do the same and Giamatti's Chertkov seems neither a revolutionary nor a thief (and not both at once, either) but rather a cipher, a stand-in for a whole package of unresolved anxieties and aborted historical impulses. The scope of this thing never boils down to anything, it hitches along, getting by on the strength of Plummer and Mirren and not much else. It's interesting and pretty, but ultimately unrewarding. 4.5/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a big fan of Stephen King. I loved The Running Man. So obviously I was very excited that someone had made a film of it. And when a local network showed the film, I was in heaven. I was all ready for a night of fun!<br /><br />The first indicator that something was wrong was when I noticed that someone had cast Arnold Schwarzenegger. I could simply not believe that a man who got famous for films filled with runnin' an' shootin' could play a more cunning part, as was described in the book. I still was convinced that this would be a good film, however. Who knows, maybe Arnold had some hidden talents?<br /><br />Well, he didn't. I soon found out that the only reason he was even cast was because someone had re-written the entire story to MAKE it about fightin' an' shootin'. Yup, it was a standard Arnold-film: hero is done wrong, hero solves problems by flexing his mighty muscles and scaring everyone away and hero gets the girl.<br /><br />I was stunned. This is NOT what the book said at all. I know that books can't be put on screen literally, but this didn't even have ties to the book. Stephen King should have openly denounced any affiliation with the film and he should have forbidden using the title The Running Man for this shameless waste of film. I don't say it often, but this film was BAD. If I weren't at home watching, I'd have tossed rotten tomatoes at the screen. Once again: bad.<br /><br />(Note that I used 'someone' a lot. I did this because I'm sure a lot of people are ashamed to have worked on this and I don't want to embarrass them even further by naming them here)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really don't get how people made this film and thought it was worth all the work they put into it. Even more puzzling are those who watched this film without feeling cheated out of 88 minutes of doing something valuable like cleaning under the couch or reading Leviticus. <br /><br />First of all, surely they could have 2 found real Irish people, and some good-looking women who could deliver their lines better than the washed up, haggard porn stars sprinkled throughout this film. Granted, the gore works- but strangely, it's not as troubling as you might think to see organs yanked out of the porn stars' hot (formerly) tight bodies left and right. Probably has something to do with the fact that after their horrific inhuman acting you just want them to die in pain.<br /><br />So, if you don't care at all about the following: <br /><br />- acting (seriously, everyone sucked. I've never witnessed this before. EVERYONE sucked).<br /><br />-plot (some crappy horror movies are remotely linear, or at the very least surprising. This movie doesn't make sense unless you're as trashed as the writers obviously were). <br /><br />- theme (Nothing to learn from this film. Nothing to be scared about in bed at night, nothing to contemplate or grasp, or explain to others). <br /><br />- soundtrack (Crap, crap, crap. Music as ordinary and dull as the script). <br /><br />- scenery (Could have been this film's saving grace, but no...nothing pleasing here. Even the rocks are fake).<br /><br />So, yeah. If you don't care about that, and you're just a horny teen with bad taste in music and "women," this movie is for you. Positive comments: interesting cinematography at times, wasted on the other elements. Very realistic gore; again, wasted. But the intestines scene is classic. I agree with the mutant- disembowelment solves the fake accent problem.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw virtually no redeeming qualities in this movie. The only thing I did see was Quentin Tarantino's seeming insane obsession for it... There were some attractive women in this movie and perhaps that is one decent quality. Overall however, I found this movie surrealistic and ridiculous. The hand held film making coupled with slow motion and other cinematic gimmicks I found clumsy and dizzying, even sickening. Overall the music throughout was horrible and repetitive to the extreme as well reminding me of psychological warfare of the U.S. military against various malcontents.<br /><br />The various vignettes that made up the movie are haphazard in their placement and unfulfilling and unresolved in their content and "conclusions." A depressing movie (not a true _film_, a term I reserve for true art) that left me with a bad feeling. Do not believe the various people that try and spin this as a "romantic comedy" though there are certainly isolated elements of both this movie repudiates in content, form, and conclusion any association with this genre.<br /><br />I suggest staying far away notwithstanding the seemingly overwhelming positive views of IMDb and other ratings sources.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! I saw it at the Toronto film festival and totally regret wasting my time. Completely unwatchable with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.<br /><br />Steer clear.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is really terrible.<br /><br />The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.<br /><br />I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.<br /><br />There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.<br /><br />I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.<br /><br />"When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury." That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the "curse" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:<br /><br />-person walks into house<br /><br />-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard <br /><br />-person goes to investigate<br /><br />-sound starts to get loud<br /><br />-person sees a ghost<br /><br />-loud scream and/or cat screech<br /><br />-cut to black<br /><br />Before the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end "with a loud scream and a cut to black." We were never proved wrong.<br /><br />The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?<br /><br />Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the "scariest movie ever made." I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Good actors and good performances can't mask a pointless script, bad dialogue, and patterns of behavior spiraling into nothing you'd care about. The most interesting character is David Berkowitz. No character development - no growth, no interest, just some suffering for no particular reason, teaching us nothing and not even bothering to entertain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just saw this at the Venice Film Festival, and can't quite decide about it. We were never allowed to get close enough to any of the characters to care about them. Maybe that was the point, that we are all in a "bubble" of our own, but these people didn't compel me to be concerned about them or shocked at their various fates. At a running time of just over an hour, the characters weren't very well developed. Lots of time was devoted to shots of factory equipment (forklifts, conveyor belts, shovels); and the slightly-creepy-looking baby dolls with surprisingly lifelike eyes, that most of the characters made for a living, were somehow more interesting than the live people. An interesting experiment, but somehow it never quite came together.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the those "coming of age" films that should have nostalgia for adults and promise for the kids. This movie has neither. It is a poor excuse to let Sylvia Kristel's body double frolic with a dorky Eric Brown. To make matters worse, the movie is either silly or stupid when it tries to be funny, sexy, or dramatic. Laugh awkwardly as we are supposed to believe that a teenager would go alone with burying a dead woman in his front yard. Ponder vigorously on why a woman famous for Emmanuelle needs a body double. As the movie went on and on, I started to imagine a hybrid of Private Lessons and Little Miss Millions that had Sylvia Kristel seduce Jennifer Love Hewitt as Howard Hesseman makes us nostalgic for WKRP. Watch this to laugh at other people's stupidity, or for Ed Begley Jr.'s committed performance, or to wonder what Sylvia Kristel would look like with Jennifer Love Hewitt. But I can give you an idea of your lesson, stay away from movies staring Sylvia Kristel that are not Emmanuelle.
|
Negative
| null | null |
### Spoilers! ### <br /><br />What is this movie offering? Out of control editing and cinematography that matches up with a terrible plot. It is sad to see Denzel Washington's talents go wasted in trashes like this.We are certainly hinted how the Mexicans cannot save themselves, outside forces needed, possibly militaristic, American ones. And we know the father is a shady character, he is a Mexican after all, unlike the wife who appreciates Creasey more because he is American. He killed all of them thinking she died. And did she? Of course, she won't, she is a young kid and you are not supposed to hurt the sensibilities of the Hollywood fan. The trade off scene was the only thing that prevents me from rating it below the "implausibly successful"(as some critic pointed out)'Taken'. The nausea of such movies will take time to go. It is in the rating of such movies that we have to doubt IMDb's credulity.7.7 for a movie like this and 7.0 for My Own Private Idaho. Go figure! Mine will be in the range of 3.5-4.0
|
Negative
| null | null |
One Stinko of a movie featuring a shopworn plot and, to be kind, acting of less than Oscar caliber. But to me the single worst flaw was the total misrepresentation of a jet aircraft, and especially a 747. Some of the major blunders:<br /><br />1. No Flight Engineer (or even a flight engineer station. 2. Mis-identifying the F-16 interceptors as F-15's (no resmblance whatsoever). 3. Loading passengers into an "aft baggage compartment" supposedly accesible from the cabin - Even if such a compartment existed, placing that much weight that far aft would make the aircraft unflyable. 4. Hollow point bullets that "won't damage the aircraft". 5. The entire landing procedure was so bad I wanted to puke. 6. An SR-71 (of all planes) with a pressure seal hatch 7. Opening a cabin door outward - into the wind - in flight!!<br /><br />Ah nuts, it was just a truly lousy movie. Gotta make the list of bottom 10 of the year.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Be warned: Neither Zeta-Jones nor McGregor plays the main part as the poster would have you believe. Their roles are in fact minor.<br /><br />The film stumbles badly between exaggerated comedy and realistic drama, with neither being really engaging. Especially I find it impossible to muster much sympathy for the main protagonist, not to mention his screwball friends and sex obsessed fiancé. The plot drags terribly, and I turned this one off after about 2/3 - unusual for me, as I like to finish what I start. The good acting and beautiful setting takes it from 1 to 2 stars.<br /><br />2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.<br /><br />At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow "beautiful". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.<br /><br />I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Someone here actually compared this movie in some ways to High Noon. Now that is a real stretch! I'm a big Sinatra fan including some of his acting roles but maybe the only person who could have played this part would have been Don Knotts. First off, as someone pointed out, Sinatra just doesn't have the build for a Western bad-guy wannabe. He's just too 'slight' at this point in his life. Maybe he was about the same height as say Audie Murphy, but Murphy had a pretty solid build. Sinatra comes across as the big talking little kid who nobody ought to take seriously.<br /><br />The story is uninspired and really not credible. I don't want to spoil it but I think the ending and how the townspeople react in this story doesn't make any sense. Another thing, these people constantly allow themselves to be completely lorded over by some 'bad guy'. This is just a little town, so I don't get the attraction nor do I understand why the people would let themselves be dominated that way.<br /><br />There is a 'love interest' in the story and if I followed it right, she was upset when the main character refused to admit who he was so some other bad guy wouldn't kill him. Now there's true love for you. 'Stand up for yourself! Tell him your name so he will kill you!' LOL. Stop, you're killing me.<br /><br />Unfortunately the basic premise of the movie isn't good enough and no matter how they tried this story didn't have a logical path to follow other than into the wastebasket. Want to know why it's not on video and never shown on TV? The critics apparently panned it in 1956 and they were right - this movie is pretty bad. I would almost bet Sinatra paid someone to deep six the thing as much as possible.<br /><br />You want to see a good Western where a town stands up against a bad guy? Try Tension at Table Rock, or At Gunpoint - two really, really good Westerns with that theme. Johnny Concho is Johnny Stinko. Frank, you were the greatest singer ever - but you didn't belong in a movie like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although nothing can compare to Vampires Vs. Zombies...in any realm of film making i will attempt to judge this movie.<br /><br />Firstly, the special effects were breath-taking. When there was an explosion on the television screen i thought my entire house was going to explode, and when automatic machine guns were fired i thought the shells were landing on the floor right next to me. Simply stunning my friends.<br /><br />But the scene when the Jack Black sound-a-like is giving the worst monologue i have ever heard i nearly killed myself, but don't worry since he was getting blazed in the movie he can pass his awful acting off on "I must be high". Seriously, he must have watched himself mindlessly babbling about non-congruent thoughts that make absolutely no sense and just added that he must be "high" to justify his awful acting. Well if you can say that to excuse terrible acting then if you talked to the writers, directors, executive producers, sponsors you will probably get the same response...seriously.<br /><br />With a production team called "Shock-o-rama" i was shocked i didn't place a sawed-off shotgun in my mouth and ended my life after this shockingly terrible excuse for a movie was played.<br /><br />If you want to see this movie, then you should be murdered <br /><br />Yours Truly,<br /><br />The General
|
Negative
| null | null |
9, the film I've been looking forward to for months.... was little more then a disappointment.<br /><br />I was deeply surprised by 9's lack of story and strange character development. All the awesome action sequences in the world don't make up for a single unsympathetic character. <br /><br />The strange, almost thrown in occult sequences were not only out of place, they were infuriating. The story is about robots and scientists... why does it suddenly turn into a necronomicon horror wannabe with mystical symbols and green magic ghost lines instead of giving answers to what could have been excellently scary story devices??<br /><br />How, what, when, why.... questions that bode asking only if you care and it becomes less and less likely that you will as you get away from the theater. <br /><br />A film like this is frustrating because of its lack of depth.... I would watch this film drawn in crayon if the story was good. But the filmmakers have relied on CGI wizardry and Tim Burtons name to draw in the crowd. Which... is what drew me in but failed to gain my respect.<br /><br />9 could have been awesome... with a few more rewrites and a little more respect from its own creators.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off...with names like Fred Olen Ray, Brinke Stevens and Jan-Michael Vincent, plus distributors like "Rhino" and "Troma" on the video box, you know what you're getting into with this one. B movie mania! If you're actually expecting to see a thriller "based on Edgar Allan Poe," then forget it and head straight for the excellent series of Roger Corman 60s Poe films. This is pure, unadulterated sleaze (with just a pedestrian attempt at a plot similar to "The Premature Burial"), complete with lots of R-rated, ready-for-video sex and nudity. However, it's certainly entertaining and fun in a slipshod kind of way...<br /><br />Brinke (who has three nude scenes in the first 30 minutes) plays rich, traumatized, insomniac housewife Victoria Monroe, whose fear of being prematurely entombed stems from her belief that the same fate befell her father (Hoke Howell). Her worthless husband Terry (Jay Richardson) has racked up some serious gambling debt (owed to a gangster played by Robert Quarry) and, with help from his kinky, blonde, European-accented sexpot secretary Lisa (Delia Sheppard) plots to do away with Brinke for her money. Name-value actress Karen Black drops in briefly wearing a blonde wig as a hypnotist (she's way too talented to be playing an insignificant role like this), 50s sci-fi/horror star Robert Clarke plays a doctor and family friend and Michael Berryman shows up for a decent nightmare sequence performing an autopsy on a still-living Vicki. Jan-Michael Vincent mostly sits outside a house in his car making goo-goo eyes as Brinke enters and exits the home.<br /><br />The kill-a-spouse-for-the-inheritance plot has been done a million times before, the ending is an unintentional laugh riot (concluding with a direct rip-off of the Zuni Fetish Doll segment in TRILOGY OF TERROR) and whoever created the awful stabbed face and decapitated head FX for this release needs to sharpen up on their skills a bit. Brinke does a decent job making her character somewhat sympathetic, but the biggest surprise of all is how good former Penthouse Pet Delia Sheppard is in her role. She stole every scene she was in and easily gave the standout performance here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.<br /><br />The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.<br /><br />A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is being shown over and over on cable lately, so..<br /><br />There is no excuse for these 2 attractive women to fight over either Luke Wilson or the equally vapid 'villian' in this movie. The female actresses are very cute, and that's the only reason to watch this movie. I suppose it is 'funny' that Luke's even uglier/dorkier/stupider friend is around, but well, that is what we get.<br /><br />Neither of the female leads would ever, EVER talk to any of the males in this movie for more than 5 minutes. What we get is them sobbing and crying and fighting and so on over 2 guys that were best described in Friday the 13th 4. Dead *@$#
|
Negative
| null | null |
I couldn't believe it. I had to rub my eyes a few times. Was it true? <br /><br />Yes, there were Billy Dee Williams, Jeff Conaway, Maxwell Caulfield and Tracy Scoggins - all of them have some manner of talent but here they all were in what basically adds up to a Cinemax-style skin flick set on board a spaceship!<br /><br />Sad as it is, "Alien Intruder" tries to be unique, with a computer virus/alien demon/harpy/whatever else you want to call her named Ariel (Scoggins) infiltrating this sort-of high-tech virtual reality station on board a spaceship where four men are allowed to live out their fantasies as the system is over-seen by their captain (Williams).<br /><br />Interesting? Maybe, but here everything just plays out like a well-padded episode of "Red Shoe Diaries". Williams out-classes everything right and left, and looks like he'd rather be doing anything else, ANYWHERE else. Ah, the things people do for money....<br /><br />The FX are pretty static, maybe even less than what you'd expect for a straight-to-video cheapie like this. Unfortunately, even the female nudity is less than you'd expect. SEXUAL INNUENDO is the real star here and, of course, it gets ALL the best scenes.<br /><br />If you like a movie that's all tease and no brains, check out "Alien Intruder". Of course, you'll probably have to look no further than Cinemax at 2 or 3 in the morning.<br /><br />No stars, not even for what star power this flick can muster.<br /><br />Leave this one lost in space.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...though for a film that seems to be trying to market itself as a horror, there was a distinct lack of blood.<br /><br />There was also a distinct lack of skilled directing, acting, editing, and script-writing.<br /><br />Jeremy London put in one of most appalling performances I've ever seen - his "descent into the maelström" of madness is achingly self-aware and clumsy. Oh look at him twitch! Oh look at him drink strong spirits! Oh look at him raise his brow, and cock his head at a jaunty angle! Oh look at his unwashed, greasy dark hair! Oh listen to his affectedly husky voice! He must be a tortured artist/writer/genius! Oh, yes, out comes the poet-shirt - it's another boy who thinks he's Byron. (Or Poe.) Oh for the love of... did someone give this guy a manual on "How To Act Good" or did they just pull him out of a cardboard box somewhere, the defunct little plastic toy-prize in a discontinued brand of bargain-bin cereal. Okay, that was a stupid line - but that's only because London's performance has melted my brain with its awfulness.<br /><br />Katherine Heigl is cute, and very briar rose, but has yet to grow into her acting shoes in this film - she delivered her lines like she was being held up, in fact, her whole performance was very wooden, her poses as stiff as her lines - who knows, perhaps she was just reacting to, and trying to neutralise, Jeremy London's flailing excesses, but if that's the case, she takes it too far.<br /><br />Notable is Arie Verveen as Poe - while his character's role is confused, he delivers the best performance of the piece. He, quite simply, looks right, but it's more than that - he has some sort of depth, I believed that he had a life beyond the dismal two-dimensional quality of the rest of the characters. Huh, maybe it's just because I like Poe, and could thus just let my mind wander and invent while he was on screen - whatever, he had an interest factor otherwise missing.<br /><br />The rest of the characters are a faceless blur - there are all the usual caricatures: the perky blonde best-friend who's a bit of a floozy; the smitten local cop who's a bit of a dork; the protective older man who perhaps has too much un-fatherly interest in our heroine; the scheming old witch, etc., etc., yawn, yawn. <br /><br />As with the 'distinct lack of blood for a horror movie' issue, none of the themes that they mention (and that London's character mentions - so scathingly - in his attack on Poe's writing) are followed through on. As another reviewer said - there was potential here: murder, incest, - genuinely shocking stuff, but instead they skirt away from the issues, and cut away from the violence (a raised candlestick swinging through the air - closing in on it's victim - then---cut to black! This is fine in a Noirish traditional horror, indeed, it's expected, and is fondly received when it happens - it's a dear convention, especially when accompanied by fake lightning bolts and intense Siouxie eye makeup - but in 'Descendant' it just comes across as clumsy, or as though the editor got queasy at the last minute and cut it out.) This could have either been a very tense psychological thriller - the horror of palingenesis/delusion/madness - or a simple (and fun) slasher movie: it tries to be both, or neither (something new and exciting!), but either way it fails dismally. The only horror element of this entire movie is it's epic dullness.<br /><br />I think the editor (if there was one at all) must have been drunk when s/he chopped this thing up - there are awkwardly foreshortened scenes; scenes that appeared to be out of order (but that could have just been the poor script). LIkewise the director & cinematographer - there were some very strange shots and framing that I think were meant to be tributes to Hitchcock or Browning, but just ended up looking silly (again, fine in a noir, but this was trying to be something else.)<br /><br />The whole thing perhaps may have been funny (in that way that previous reviewers have mentioned - "OMG how did this get made?!?") if I had been in the mood for some trash- bagging, unfortunately for me I had settled on the couch, with the lights down low, with the express intention of scaring myself silly - this is a very poor film, and I'm afraid I can't recommend it to people, not even for laughs.<br /><br />Please, please, don't waste your time or money on this - either borrow a real horror/thriller film, or find yourself a copy of Poe's fantastical tales, either way, you'll have a far more enjoyable and frightening night than you could ever hope to achieve with this rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had a lot of hopes for this movie and so watched it with a lot of expectations; basically because of Kamal Hassan. He is an amazing actor who has marked his foot steps in the sands of time forever. But this movie proved to be one of the worst movies i have ever seen. After watching this the movie the brutality and violence in tenebra and clockwork orange looks far better. <br /><br />The Protagonist, Raghavan, is a very daring police officer. Who is assigned to a investigate brutal serial murders. Raghavan efficiently finds the connecting thread in this case and is close to solve the murders and put the psycho killers, two psychologically disturbed but brilliant medical students, behind bars but they escape and again get into a killing spree. Finally Raghavan kills them both after sparing many innocent lives.<br /><br />THese two psycho-killers are the ones who are going to keep the audiences from going to the theaters. The murders and sexual harassments and rapes are shown very explicitly, which the movie could have survived without. <br /><br />To even imagine that teenagers and kids are going to be watching this movie in the theater and kind of picture it is bound to paint in their minds are certainly not pretty. The director, Gautham, should realize that he also has some obligation to the society and his audience.Certainly i am never going to the movies looking like Gautham's name on the production list.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This type of plot really does have a lot of potential, but it was butchered here. Honestly, I sensed the cheese element in the beginning, but I thought it would get better after the grotesque birthing. Whoa, I was wrong! So mad scientist makes a monster, wants to brag to his old cronies before he kills them, but of course they escape. After that, it's really bad. I should've counted the times the rubber shark mask peeked out from behind some foliage, but I most likely would have lost count.<br /><br />Pan down to the blood-dripping-from-severed-leg to show us how the shark-man finds the folks. I hate being spoon-fed every aspect of a horror film.<br /><br />Oh, and after being nearly killed by a mutated shark-man and trudging around a jungle-esqe island, there's nothing more cheerful than a middle-aged man reciting Shakespeare...<br /><br />This is one where you'll find yourself rooting for the monster... if you can bear to watch this poor excuse for a flick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...but I've seen better too.<br /><br />The story here is predictable--a film crew trying to film a horror movie in a place where murders occurred. Three guesses what happens. This isn't a total bomb--the cast is fairly good with pros John Ireland, Faith Domergue and John Carradine giving the best performances. It's reasonably well-made--for a low budget film. Just don't expect any nudity, swearing, blood OR gore (the film has a very mild PG rating). I was never totally bored--it's OK viewing on a quiet night. I saw it on video--it was a HORRIBLE print--very dark and some scenes were impossible to see. Still I didn't hate it and it does have a cool ending which surprised me--basically nothing happens up till then so it catches you off guard. Worth seeing but only if you're a horror film completest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sorry, but even TJ Hooker's Adrian Zmed couldn't save this sequel. I went through half the movie thinking that this was a spoof of the original. Then came that wild and wacky motorcycle scene (notice that this is the only movie that Patricia Birch directs); and I sadly realized they were trying to be serious. I did get a kick out of the fact that the opposing gang, having lost their "wheels" due to their gambling habits in the original Grease, were forced to use motorcycles in the second movie. Being shamed by that putz character Carrington, I'd hate to see what they would resort to later: maybe Mopeds?<br /><br />I also never bought the hackneyed theme: hunky-Australian-boy-can't-fit-into-Outsiders-dominated-school-ergo-goes-for -tough-guy-with-stupid-biker-helmet-look. It was Disney story gone horribly awry.<br /><br />So, it looks like you CAN ruin a good thing by placing a bubble-gum smacking Michelle Pfeiffer in a musical. The only thing I took away from this movie was an idea of how many points out of ten to give it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster. <br /><br />Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. <br /><br />On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.<br /><br />Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. <br /><br />Very disappointing and a complete waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
That is the best way I can describe this movie which centers on a newly married couple who move into a house that is haunted by the husband's first wife who died under mysterious circumstances. That sounds well and good, but what plays out is an hour of pure boredom. In fact one of the funny things about this flick is that there is a warning at the beginning of the film that promises anyone who dies of fright a free coffin. Well trust me, no one ever took them up on that offer unless someone out there is terrified of plastic skulls, peacocks, weird gardeners, and doors being knocked on. And the music is the worst, it consists of constant tuba music which sounds like it is being played by some sixth grader. And you will figure out the terrible secret that is so obvious that you really have to wonder what the people in this movie were thinking. Someone dies while running and hitting their head and the police are never called to investigate. Yes in the end this is a slow paced (which is really bad considering the movie is only just over an hour), boring little tale, that is easily figured out by the average person. Apparently none of the characters in this flick were the average person.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some people seem to think this was the worst movie they have ever seen, and I understand where they're coming from, but I really have seen worse.<br /><br />That being said, the movies that I can recall (ie the ones I haven't blocked out) that were worse than this, were so bad that they physically pained every sense that was involved with watching the movie. The movies that are worse than War Games 2 are the ones that make you want to gouge out your eyes, or stab sharp objects in your ears to keep yourself from having another piece of your soul ripped away from you by the awfulness.<br /><br />War Games: The Dead Code isn't that bad, but it comes pretty close. Yes I was a fan of the original, but no I wasn't expecting miracles from this one. Let's face it the original wasn't really that great of a movie in the first place, it was basically just a campy 80s teen romance flick with some geek-appeal to it.<br /><br />That's all I was hoping for, something bad, but that might have tugged at my geek-strings. Was that too much to ask for? Is it really not possible to do better than the original War Games, even for a straight to video release? Well apparently that was too much to ask for. Stay away from this movie. At first it's just bad, like "Oh yeah, this is bad, but I'm kind of enjoying it, maybe the end will be good like in the original." And then it just gets worse and worse, and by the end, trust me, you will wish you had not seen this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I couldn't make sense of this film much of the time, and neither could anyone else, based on other reviews. The opening scene of this film has virtually nothing to do with the rest of the story. In it, a photojournalist with a big mustache cancels his vacation to get away from his girlfriend. He is assigned to photograph a mountain range. It's rumored to be haunted, but I couldn't tell whether he heard that from his boss or later in the film. On his way, he meets a beautiful writer (Patty Shepard) and convinces her to join him on his working trip. Throughout the film, there is this terrible music score, mostly consisting of noisy singing that makes you want to scream "SHUT UP ALREADY!!!" What really will gall a person is that the film always seems like it's about to become good, though it never does. There is beautiful mountain scenery and some genuinely creepy atmosphere. The inn and the silent, abandoned old buildings scattered on the mountain are rather ominous. The foggy nights look real, not like someone put an artificial fog machine on the set. And the idea, while not original, had potential. But it never does improve, at least not enough to be worthwhile. Here's how it goes, more or less. They stop at this inn run by a weird innkeeper (you expect him to be named Igor) with a hearing problem. There is a scene where the writer thinks a peeping tom is in her window, but the scene is so dark, I had no idea what was going on. Whether this was poor lighting or a poor film transfer is unknown to me. In any event, we never find out know what happened. There is a scene where she wanders off during the night. Whether she is sleepwalking or mesmerized by the witches of the title is never explained. Another scene which is never explained is when their car is stolen, then found again, with nothing stolen. They wind up in this apparently abandoned mountain village whose sole inhabitant is this seemingly kindly old woman. There are other things, including a chained wild man in a cave who is never explained, an attempt to sacrifice the writer in some way (will they kill her or brainwash her into joining them?), the witches themselves, a bunch of brunette women in white robes who don't show up until the last 15 minutes of the film and whose practices and beliefs are never explained. Even the closing scene doesn't make any sense. When all is said and done, most people will be saying, "Huh?"
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the two postapocalyptic fantasy movies that Albert Pyun made in 1993 - and it's the bad one. Apparently all his energy went into "Nemesis" which was an entertaining non-stop action movie, and had a much more expensive look. "Knights" is clunky and cheesy, a bottom-of-the-barrel sci-fi that too often resembles a video game (new opponents pop up all the time and must be exterminated as quickly as possible). The only thing that saves this movie from the trash can is Kathy Long; not a particularly attractive woman, but undeniably a brutally efficient fighting machine. As for Kris Kristofferson, considering his age at the time (58), I hope his stunt double was well paid. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jean Claude Van Damme tries to rescue his career by making the sequel of Universal Soldier. But, did that movie saved him? I think he goes to hell, after he dies. <br /><br />In the first minute, we see the inside of a facility, where you can see the bad guy of the film. Scary, huh? But not as scary as the acting (details are following). <br /><br />Then, we see Van Damme with a black girl (do not remember the name....well it doesn't matter anyway), trying to escape from some muscle-men. Of course they are the new Universal-Soldiers. More muscels, less brain (just like the movie). After a while, Van Damme fights Goldberg but then the "mission" gets aborted. It was just a test (Is this movie a test for our nerves?). It turns out that Van Damme works for the government on the new Universal Soldier project (Who has seen the first movie may think that this is the most unlogical thing, that yould Van Dammes character could do). But it is a sequel. And a "story" has to come up. Ah, I forgot. He has a daughter. Very important for the "story".<br /><br />Well, after about 20 minutes, a super computer hears a conversation about shutting it down and quitting he project. Of course the cube gets angry and activates all soldiers to kill everyone. Van Damme escapes from the facility BUT the computer sends some soldiers hunting him (It wants Van Damme as a soldier - because he is the best (really?)). And guess what, Goldberg is one of the hunters, who was always a silly sentence for the audience before he gets asskicked. Funny? Yes, just like the rest of the film. <br /><br />After some "story", Van Damme tries to rescue his daughter (of his wife - the reporter in the first movie). It comes to a final show down where Van Damme fights the Bad Guy and you can see the most expensive scene of the whole movie (please see for yourself. It is just too funny to tell).<br /><br />You'll see that this movie is a waste of time.<br /><br />So do not watch it. But if you do, keep a sixpack with you!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.<br /><br />Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.<br /><br />Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.<br /><br />My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)<br /><br />Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...
|
Negative
| null | null |
You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the "quirk of the month club" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.<br /><br />As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.<br /><br />Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word "been" like "bean", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's "The House of Games". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ever since I started visiting this site, and voting for movies, I have never given any movie a rating of 1. Even the disturbing "Dance! Workout with Barbie" got a 2. There is a reason for this.<br /><br />Any time I find myself watching what I think is a really bad movie, I have to stop and ask myself the following question: "Is this movie really as bad as the horrific soul-sucking beast that is 'Theodore Rex'?" And I've never been able to answer "yes".<br /><br />I would give anything within reason to know what crackhead said "Hey! Let's remake 'Blade Runner' with Barney in the Harrison Ford Role!" and decided it was a good idea to actually spend the time and money to commit it to film. Furthermore, I want to know what the hell kind of market they were going to sell this towards if it hadn't gone strait to video. This is that rare monster: a movie that is way too violent for kids and way too insanely stupid for adults. I'd ask "what were they THINKING?" but in this case, it might actually be redundant.<br /><br />Anyhow, all you need to know is that you should only expose yourself to this monstrosity if you're one of the five or six rabid fans of "Howard the Duck", or if you are curious to see the most Evil Insane movie of all time, or you want to REALLY punish yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Battlestar Gallactica was so great because it had tight writing, a great look, excellent actors, and interesting stories... AND yeah, had hot men and women running around in and out of uniform.<br /><br />Caprica was just lazy. Lazy writing. Actors smoking up a storm to give them "character." Outdoor sequences that ruin the feeling of being somewhere else (yes, that is a Ford Focus sitting in the background). Lots and lots of teenage angst. LOTS of gyrating naked women (but in the background. Which I'm sure will be cut for the series) and a token view of some men in towels. None of the actors except Polly Walker took my attention at all. At an hour and a half, I was still wondering when it was going to be over.<br /><br />So what exactly is it that's supposed to bring me back? The science fiction? It's awfully light on that. The actors? Besides Polly Walker's fine turn, there isn't much interesting being done here. There aren't even any "hotties" in the cast, except for maybe Esai, although for the younger set he's pretty old, since he's over 25.<br /><br />I loved BSG. I was skeptical when I heard about Caprica, and unfortunately, I think I'm right. I predict a very short run for it as a series unless they really sharpen their pencils over at SciFi and get to work making this more than The OC on another planet.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.<br /><br />Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.<br /><br />He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.<br /><br />Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.<br /><br />Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed. <br /><br />That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.<br /><br />That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.<br /><br />The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.<br /><br />Couldn't have hurt any.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Because others have gone to the trouble of summarizing the plot, I'd like to mention a few points about this film. There may be spoilers here; I don't care enough to filter them out.<br /><br />- Given the film's low budget, the creature design was quite good. It's actually nice to see a direct-to-video horror film that's not slathered with awful CGI. Unfortunately the digital film quality's quite grainy in places, and it's most noticeable in the well-lit white halls of the asylum.<br /><br />- Ridiculous lighting design plagues parts of this film, to say nothing of the variations in the passage of time. I understand the director might have been trying to simulate dementia, but in order for this to be effective consistent time flow needed to be established. As-is, it merely seems amateurish.<br /><br />- Plot twists were numerous but consistently predictable. I neither had a doubt in my mind of the identity of the robed cultists, nor of the fact that some kind of lame evil-trumps-good development would surface at the end.<br /><br />- This may seem like quibbling, but characters in this film reliably fail to employ any kind of common sense. First of all, regulatory commissions would be all over a mental health center that unilaterally declared all patient and employee deaths cardiac arrest-induced. Why would the head psychiatrist also be capable of performing autopsies? Why wasn't a plot point made of these impressive qualifications, or of his introduction to his odd choice of religion? What's the background? What's supposed to make us care about anyone in this? And just as importantly, who in their right mind would go through the introduction to the place, see everything that was so frighteningly wrong with it, and then conclude that it was still a fine place to pursue a residency? This film didn't even respect its characters enough to give their intelligence the benefit of the doubt.<br /><br />Bottom line: See The Wicker Man instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film for the first time not too long on TCM's "Essentials" series. The eye of the beholder cliché was never more apropos. This beholder saw little of value in this one. I was puzzled by the infinite attraction that Lucy (Lauren Bacall) possessed. Granted, Ms. Bacall was a beautiful woman, but in this film her character comes off more mousy than attractive. I would think men like Mitch Wayne and Kyle Hadley would more likely ignore Lucy than fall into an instant infatuation with her. In Bacall's defense, this film was made at the time of Humphrey Bogart's last illness and the weight of his deteriorating health may have affected her performance. Of course part of this mousiness on the part of Lucy was to contrast her to slutty Marylee, played to the hilt and beyond by Dorothy Malone. The scene where she engages in a wildly sensual dance while her father wearily climbs the stairs to a fatal heart attack is far and away the best scene in the film. Malone's performance outshines the rest, although Jasper Hadley's weariness at the disappointing behavior of his two children is brilliantly portrayed by Robert Keith. Generally, though, I would have to say that I'm just not much of a fan of melodrama. The cartoonish behavior of the characters just makes for a story too implausible for my tastes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was director von Stroheim's third effort - it is quite crude and shows none of the exceptional flair for the camera and editing mastery he would display a few years later with his masterworks, GREED and THE WEDDING MARCH. Essentially we have a trio of grifters, masquerading as a Russian count and two Russian princesses who have rented a villa in Monte Carlo. Their aim is to use counterfeit money at the gambling tables and win a fortune. Part of that plan is for the Count (von Stroheim) to insinuate himself between a visiting American ambassador and his "foolish" wife, wooing her and hoping to gain some money by playing on her weaknesses. He makes the mistake of also taking the life savings of the maid, whom he has promised to marry. When she sees them together, she sets fire to the room, (von Stroheim and his prey are on the room's balcony). Here von Stroheim first establishes his persona as "the man you love to hate." He is thoroughly bad and his character flaws eventually bring him to a very bad and deserved end. The film is crude in its cinematography and editing and not worth seeing unless you are fascinated by the director. There is a cute bit- when he first attempts to meet the Ambassador's wife, she is reading a book - we see the title - FOOLISH WIVES by Erich von Stroheim. This was originally envisioned as a 210 minute film, cut down to 140 minutes by the studio and finally released at 70 minutes. The restoration on Kino Video restores surviving footage (damaged in some way in most scenes) from the alternate earlier version to give us a 107 minute print.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie had a cute opening, I truly believed I was in for one of the best romantic comedies i've seen in a while... there was something particular "foreign" about the way the movie was set up, realistic yet somewhat abstract and mystical. But then the story line started becoming more and more unrealistic. To say that the ending was CORNY and PREDICTABLE would almost be an understatement... The most typical romantic ending where everything goes great for every 'likable' character. A scene where the main character realises that he has made a mistake and chases the "woman of his dreams" only to confess his love for her in front of a sympathetic crowd of on- lookers. Come on. In the end, the 'good guys' win, 'bad guys' loose... You get the picture. A WASTE of a potentially interesting movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, I rented this movie because of the director...he has made some interesting flicks in the past (if you haven't seen Waxork you are missing a fun ride). Anyway, I had my doubts about this movie from the beginning but I decided to suck it up and give it a look. It's bad. Very bad. If you haven't seen the movie and don't mind spoilers read ahead. First of all, the old saying 'You can't judge a book by it's cover' applies here. The box for this flick seems to indicate that Jill is the stone fox with long hair with highlights. The back of the box has a cool shot of the red-leather Jill and some other shots. The description makes you want to rent the movie because it SOUNDS good. You start watching it and suddenly you find out that the movie takes place (inexplicably) in 1977. Jill is a total dog who is not the girl on the cover. The movie is not quite as predictable as you would think...and that's not a good thing. Characters do so many stupid things without any modicum of motivation...it's embarrassing to watch. 10 minutes before the end of the movie Dolph and another lady have sex for no good reason. Also, what was the point of having Dolph kill this other lady in cold blood who had been helping him. Anthony Hickox the director should have seen a stinker when he read the script. Had it been set in the underworld of the new milennium and made the characters halfway intelligent it might have been decent. To set it in the 70's makes no sense and has no bearing on the story whatsoever. Avoid it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alfred Hitchcok is not my favorite director by any means but imagine what he could have done with this! The plot holds much potential for suspense. John Garfield is as almost always excellent and Raymond Massey is scarily cast against type. Nancy Coleman is not a very impressive leading lady but the supporting cast is large and very capable.<br /><br />Yes it starts to sag fairly early. There are too many coincidences. And an important subject is trivialized by its being made into little more, in the end, than a love story.<br /><br />It's fun to watch for Garfield, Massey, and the character performers. But it's not awfully good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wowwwwww, about an hour ago I finally finished watching this terrible movie!!! I wanted to turn it off within the first like 10 minutes but I figured I'd give it a chance because it just hadddd to get better. Or at least have some redeeming qualities, like I figured at the very least it would be a make you think type movie, or like really intelligent, or very well filmed or something...Needless to say, that was not the case and I wasted about an hour and a half of my life. Im not even going to get into why its terrible because its a waste of my time to explain that this "may contain spoilers"...IMDb, you should calm down on the spoilers thing and pay more attention to making sure that the people who rate the movies and comment are not paid to write good reviews or involved somehow in the movie or anything else like that. I thought it would be humorous after this terrible film to come see hoe bad the rating would be and I was very very shocked to see the fairly high ratings...all the ratings with about 7-10 stars clearly must be about some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT movie... Im still a big IMDb fan, but seriously rethink this rating process because this movie should be rated no higher than maaaybbbeee like a 3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Went to see this movie hoping to see some flashes of the Jet Li we were amazed by in Lethal Weapon 4. Unfortunately too many of his fight stunts are so clearly fake that it took even that enjoyment out of it. The flying kicks would be a lot more impressive if you couldn't see the wires holding him up as he flies through the air for 4 seconds and 9 kicks.<br /><br />Too cartoonish and very disappointing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This early Adam Sandler film could be compared to his life as a comic during the same period in 1989. His character's constant acknowledgement of his hidden comic genius and frustration regarding humorous material seems to come more from Sandler than the script. The film is nothing compared to his blockbuster feature films, such as Big Daddy or even the corny Billy Maddison. Unfortunately, Sandler had not yet found a way to express himself in a consistent, successful and funny manner when this film was made, much like his character. The majority of the film's "jokes" come from Sandler having conversations with himself, usually over his unrecognised comic talent and beating himself up because he's too ugly and can't get women. The film is hard to watch too because it doesn't treat itself like a real film. Sandler talks to the camera and the viewers throughout the film, often referring to the film's low budget or questionable content. The film is ultimately awkward and embarrassing to watch. I immediately wanted to forget I even saw this film after it was over, for fear that if more found out about it, it would ruin Sandler's career. Pass this one up at the video store, I rented it for free and it was still a waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Within 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.<br /><br />Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of "Whats The Worst That Can Happen" and the writer of "Miss Congeniality 2", and I guess this is what we end up with.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ultimately too silly and pointless. Yes there is the gilded cage metaphor but probably most kids would miss that. Forgettable. Instantly.<br /><br />Animation is, as we have come to expect, super-real. The plot-line could best be described as thin but tenacious. Although the ending seemed arbitrary to me.<br /><br />The sewer underworld is a suitably disgusting reflection of the world above and, somehow, wealth and money seem to count for a lot there too. Oh yes, and there's a romantic interest with the female being the smarter, more savvy and go-getting of the pair - this in itself is rapidly becoming a tiresome (anti) stereotype. Probably your kids will love it though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was "preaching to the converted," not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its "rat" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of "Well, Jewish people are like that too." Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called "Hebrew" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's "spin" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a "5" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say "That's what I meant to do all along!" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Uta Hagen's "Respect for Acting" is the standard textbook in many college theater courses. In the book, Hagen presents two fundamentally different approaches to developing a character as an actor: the Presentational approach, and the Representational approach. In the Presentational approach, the actor focuses on realizing the character as honestly as possible, by introducing emotional elements from the actor's own life. In the Representational approach, the actor tries to present the effect of an emotion, through a high degree of control of movement and sound.<br /><br />The Representational approach to acting was still partially in vogue when this Hamlet was made. British theater has a long history of this style of acting, and Olivier could be said to be the ultimate king of the Representational school.<br /><br />Time has not been kind to this school of acting, or to this movie. Nearly every working actor today uses a Presentational approach. To the modern eye, Olivier's highly enunciated, stylized delivery is stodgy, stiff and stilted. Instead of creating an internally conflicted Hamlet, Olivier made a declaiming, self-important bullhorn out of the melancholy Dane -- an acting style that would have carried well to the backs of the larger London theaters, but is far too starchy to carry off a modern Hamlet.<br /><br />And so the movie creaks along ungainfully today. Olivier's tendency to e-nun-ci-ate makes some of Hamlet's lines unintentionally funny: "In-stead, you must ac-quire and be-get a tem-purr-ance that may give it... Smooth-ness!" Instead of crying at meeting his father's ghost (as any proper actor could), bright fill lights in Olivier's pupils give us that impression.<br /><br />Eileen Herlie is the only other actor of note in this Hamlet, putting in a good essay at the Queen, despite the painfully obvious age differences (he was 41; she was 26). The other actors in this movie have no chance to get anything else of significance done, given Olivier's tendency to want to keep! the camera! on him! at all! times! <br /><br />Sixty years later, you feel the insecurity of the Shakespearean stage actor who lacked the confidence to portray a breakable, flawed Hamlet, and instead elected to portray a sort of Elizabethan bullhorn. Final analysis: "I would have such a fellow whipped for o'er-doing Termagant; it out-herods Herod: pray you, avoid it."
|
Negative
| null | null |
James Gandolfini is a good actor so what ever did he take a role in this piece of unfunny rubbish. Affleck is just a lightweight who just can't cut it, the rest of the cast are truly unforgettable. I saw this in the USA in an empty theatre, I soon knew why the place was empty after about 10 minutes. I walked out before the end it was so bad, so imagine my surprise when back in England I saw the movie had a glowing report from that yoyo "Paul Ross" in one of the down market Sundays. I always rely on Ross to save me money on cinema tickets, if he says the movie is good, I get straight on this very website to check it out. This movie should have gone straight to £1.99 DVD in a supermarket near you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who has said that it's better than Hostel is talking complete crap, believe me I'm not a fan of Hostel but this is just ridiculous. This is just another shot on camcorder, straight to DVD, low on ideas waste of your time, I can't believe how many of these films there are and I'm yet to see a decent one. In the 80's video nasties, gore and horror movies were made with no budget but a great story and a load of new ideas and most importantly the heart and soul of the director who had something to say. Now they just seem to be pumped out in an attempt to trick people browsing in Blockbuster to rent a copy, until people stop doing this then I guess these films will keep appearing. This film is so low on ideas it's just amazing how it ever got made, the acting is also terrible, the location completely unconvincing and the soundtrack is so annoying it beggars belief. This waste of time has absolutely nothing going for it, unless you're on a quest to compile a list of the worst movies of all time. My best/worst part of the film is when a female character is pointing a gun at someone and threatening to shoot them if they don't back off, you can see that she isn't even covering the trigger with her finger just holding the grip. An absolute joke.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film on paper looked like it could possibly be good, after watching though i realised that this film was completely terrible!! The plot has no meaning, and i think i counted the best part of 5000 cut scenes each one making the film more annoying boring and ridiculous. I watched this late night pitch black no noise at all just to add to the SCARINESS of it but the truth is the only thing that scared me was the music, what they would call tragic music, they play opera i mean be serious!! This film sums up all of what is not good about this type of film. To be honest ill say no more but watch at your own risk this film is just complete rubbish, ENJOY!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
What happens when you give a free man just enough money to trap him into the rat race and watch him squirm? Homeless people answer to no one. They have no mortgages, rent payments or idiot bosses. Homeless people don't have to worry about the IRS or performance reviews or credit card payments. But, give them just enough money to rent an apartment and buy a car and, suddenly, they have to worry about entering the rat race, buying gas for transportation, paying insurance on their car, and working for someone else. They get a chance to be a "productive citizens." This film was about as exploitive as a film can be. It's a way for the rich and middle-class sheeple to say "see what happens when you try to help the poor?" and it vindicates capitalistic arrogance.<br /><br />Why not a film that asks, "What happens when you take away everything a rich man has?"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.<br /><br />They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.<br /><br />The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.<br /><br />Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. <br /><br />I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.<br /><br />And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?
|
Negative
| null | null |
The longer this film went on-and it seemed to tediously go on for ever- the more annoyed I became, as quite frankly, what a waste of time sitting through this total nonsense. How on earth do people get to make films like this,or indeed receive finance for such rubbish? Don't be fooled by the relatively high ratings on IMDb as it just proves you can fool some of the people all the time. And in this picture the main players have an obsession with guns, so it is not difficult to work out the way this movie will ultimately unfold. America can never understand that the rest of the world finds it bizarre how society in the USA has such an obscene and fatal 'gun culture'. <br /><br />Anyhow:<br /><br />The lead actor portrays a loser who escapes into a fantasy world of being a cowboy in an Urban sprawl.He comes across a family with two spoiled brat children, a teenage girl and boy; taken care of by a strict single parent father who can barely cope. The cowboy is seduced by the teenage girl or vice-versa, and the impressionable boy is seemingly taken in by the lunacy of the loser.<br /><br />The cowboy spends the whole time in a state of unreality and depression.A total loser who prefers to go to the beach then work for living, and then commits a burglary on his family as he is too lazy to make money legally.<br /><br />Ask yourself:<br /><br />Who wants to watch either a sad failed loser in a fantasy world holding a death wish, or indeed view a poor family who are in effect not much better than white trash?!<br /><br />This film is pointless drivel.<br /><br />It only saves itself from getting the lowest mark possible by some half listen able music:<br /><br />2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I will stat of with the plot Alice, having survived the previous instalment of the Nightmare series, finds the deadly dreams of Freddy Krueger starting once again. This time, the taunting murderer is striking through the sleeping mind of Alice's unborn child. His intention is to be "born again" into the real world. The only one who can stop Freddy is his dead mother, but can Alice free her spirit in time to save her own son? This movie did start of really well as we see Alice dreaming of being Amanda Kruger who get stuck in room and get raped by 100 Manics then she being rushed to hospital but then she not longer the pregnant lady but then she Amanda giving birth to Freddy again.<br /><br />Alice and Dan are the only two people to return from the 4th movie and then have gotten some new Friends its' no long before Freddy start to kill again, I did like the first dead it okay, not as good as the other deaths or dreams.<br /><br />Freddy himself didn't seem to be Scary in this movie at all, the nightmare were just boring really they were not scary or creepy at all.<br /><br />Acting in movies was okay for a 5th movie in the series but overall I think this movie was really Dull. (Still not worst movie of the series, Freddy Dead is the worst)<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
The screen writing is so dumb it pains me to have wasted 2 hours of my life I'll never get back (where have I heard this before). The acting is so-so. Things change often enough to keep you watching and waiting for something gruesome to happen. Nevertheless there isn't a single original thing in this movie. While the first Cube was a nerdy horror movie, which didn't make a whole lot of sense in the end, cube zero has picked up on that and tries to retell exactly the same story, except this time it makes an obnoxious point of trying to spoon-feed explanations for every detail that the first movie didn't answer. The comic thing is, the director recycles the exact scenes of the first movie that were somewhat weird, and tries to explain them. But the scenes are just copied over, there is no coherence whatsoever. This script is sooo pointless. I can imagine it being written by some half-wit 15 year old with a baseball cap and a pack of beer for a class project. The best part is in the end, they cripple the 'good' wunderkind guy, and he becomes the retarded fellow in the first movie, and you see him when they find him ('this room is green..') in Cube 1997. Goodie gooodie, clap clap, what a twist. First of all, what about if you haven't seen the first one, this doesn't make any sense you nitwit director. Oh, another great idea: instead of the numbers to identify x,y,z coordinates of the room (cube 1997), this time it is 3 letters, each one giving one of 26 possible coordinate values. Duh. Except now permutations don't make much sense anymore..so he lets the letters disappear before anybody can use them..I want my money back.<br /><br />I guess I had to write this down since there are just so many bad, inconsistent, or just stupid ideas in this movie. Directors/writers should be required to possess some talent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.