input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Before I start...let me say that I fully believe in God. I believe in Heaven and in Hell. Kay now that thats out of the way, I just wanna say that What in the world do these morons that call themselves "hosts" think they are doing?? The last time I checked a host doesn't discriminate, spew hatred filled rants on TV, or try to shove their own beliefs down every unfortunate soul that ventures onto the channel. ALl of these that crazy, idiotic, conservitive, bible thumping, Fred Phelps lover Pat Robertson does daily. I am all for free speech, but since when does that cover a guy who pretty much says that if you venture off his ideal way of life you are right away sent to hell? This is just a perfect example of why religion is the cause of SOOOO many problems. One day in my class room we had a substitute teacher in so we decided to watch some TV since the teach didn't give us any work. And we (against many of us's will) watched 700's Club, and of course that jerk Pat was on ranting and raving about the bible, and he said Simon along the lines of "God says Homosexuality is a sin" and I actually heard a kid go "Hmm I guess he's right." WTF??? Seriously, if the host is trying to make people think that someone else's sexual orientation is a huge sin, then they seriously need to take that host, duct tape them, and throw them off of a cruise liner in the middle of the arctic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
David Chase's "The Sopranos" is perhaps the most over-praised television show in recent memory. Not only is the series devoid of intellect and passion, it's devoid of a soul. As anyone reading likely knows already, James Gandolfini *IS* Tony Soprano, a big, fat a**hole of a mob boss with a spoiled b*tch of a wife, and two bratty, sh*t-brained kids living in - you guessed it - the armpit of America (that's New Jersey, by the way). Not only is Tony a womanizing adulterer, he's also an unrepentant murdering scumbag, with a crew of "Saturday Night Live" skit-worthy caricatures for subordinates. It's not the fact that Tony is a piece of sh*t mobster that offends me (and apparently only me). Allowing characters to be who and what they are, without judgment, is something American TV hardly allows. But Chase - and his entourage of money-gorged, Emmy-gored writers - have not simply allowed us to observe Tony and his crew as they behave, nor have they even attempted to provide any insight into the action / reaction reality of (even obviously fictionalized) organized crime (a la "The Godfather"). Instead, Chase glorifies and endorses his characters' greedy, violent, and corrupt lifestyle in the same way that Tony, his wife, and even his hair-brained psychologist do week after week (or should I say month after month. Or is it year after year? It seems like the show's paltry 13-episode seasons come out with the same regularity as a lunar eclipse). Much has been made of the series' refusal to adhere to "network" structure, with plot lines that go nowhere, and characters that pop-up and disappear like backyard vermin. But if the show is so brilliant in its lack of structure, why does it always feel like I'm watching a soap-opera? Tired mob clichés, bored housewives, self-serving, irredeemable characters AND plots that go nowhere. More than ever, I can see why so many Americans of Italian heritage are p*ssed at this show. It's enough to make you want to curl up with a good book (Danté's "Inferno" springs to mind).<br /><br />People on IMDb love to claim that there's nothing good on television, and therefore "The Sopranos" is a breath of fresh air. Are these same people too busy paying their cable bills to watch "The Shield"? (It's included in Basic, ya know). How about the (still good) "The West Wing"? Or the brilliantly acted (if erratically written) "Boston Legal"? What about possibly the best comedy of the last few decades, "Arrested Development"? And lest we forget that we live in an age of DVDs - nobody *has* to watch *anything* new. I'd much rather shell out $40 for an over-priced boxed set of, well, pretty much *anything*, than give HBO $10 a month (or $80 a DVD set!) to continue to prove how much of a hack-factory it can be.<br /><br />You want good television? Watch "Homicide: Life on the Street." Or "Murder One". Or "Picket Fences". Or even Chase's prior show, "Northern Exposure." If you're already among "The Sopranos"'s legion of brain-washed fans and critics, it's too late for you. But if not, leave Tony and his worthless kin where they all belong - rotting with the fishes. ("Sleeping" would be way too kind)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alex D. Linz replaces Macaulay Culkin as the central figure in the third movie in the Home Alone empire. Four industrial spies acquire a missile guidance system computer chip and smuggle it through an airport inside a remote controlled toy car. Because of baggage confusion, grouchy Mrs. Hess (Marian Seldes) gets the car. She gives it to her neighbor, Alex (Linz), just before the spies turn up. The spies rent a house in order to burglarize each house in the neighborhood until they locate the car. Home alone with the chicken pox, Alex calls 911 each time he spots a theft in progress, but the spies always manage to elude the police while Alex is accused of making prank calls. The spies finally turn their attentions toward Alex, unaware that he has rigged devices to cleverly booby-trap his entire house. Home Alone 3 wasn't horrible, but probably shouldn't have been made, you can't just replace Macauley Culkin, Joe Pesci, or Daniel Stern. Home Alone 3 had some funny parts, but I don't like when characters are changed in a movie series, view at own risk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film in its entirety in the 1960s & 70s, yes it IS gruesome, and could be the progenitor of the "Faces of Death" series popular in the 80s & 90s. Considering the state of so-called "driver education" these days, this one should be required viewing for everyone preparing to learn to drive. When you see violent death in all its gore & horror, you certainly (if you have any sensibility at all) get a truer perspective on the responsibilities required to drive safely, what one instant of thoughtlessness or inattentiveness at the wheel can do. I worked for Bell Telephone in the 70s & 80s, and at one point was assigned to conduct a safety class. I found this film in the company library, showed it at the session, a number of people got physically sick and had to leave the room! Incredibly, most of them later said "I never knew a car accident could be so terrible!" This film, and another, "RED ASPHALT", is certainly reality in its most graphic form. I'll never forget it, I only wish I could have found a copy when my children were attending "driver's ed" in high school!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Is this the movie??? Is this what Indians are trying to show?? I think this is one more effort from a sick-minded director to turn down Pakistani soldiers and in fact country....but what we Pakistani's know that we are always ahead of India in every part of our lives...not only in armed counters.<br /><br />Well...this is bad filmed as that of Border in early 1997...and director and writer just tried to overcome a shame of defeat in Kargil by Pakistani armed forces, by creating films like these..<br /><br />One thing is very clear...Whenever there will be an encounter between Pakistan and India....we will win....!!! So Mr. Dutta try to make some good movies instead of Nonsense movies like this
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK - I ADORE this film...I will credit this movie - alone - for making me such a die-hard horror fanatic. I could never watch this movie alone. I've also heard many many stories of the effect it had in it's original release at the theatres , on its viewers. Incredible masterpiece.... Horrible , psychological stuff scares the pants off me .Oh bless their hearts, whoever made this awesome film. I love it. I thought the whole film was decent and interesting. This movie is SO scary - this is the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life! Not that what happens in the film and the idea of the film are not scary enough , but what always got me - was Brendan's fabulous acting. Best horror film EVER. Nothing can ever be this scary again. Halloween viewing at its evilest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, I had my doubts just looking at the DVD box and reading it saying that it was about of bunch of teens gathering at a lake where they will find do or something. Any movie that has a premise like this has failed miserably, even as a slasher movie, except for the first Friday the 13th.<br /><br />I wanted to get up and stop watching the movie at least 10 times, but I just kept thinking that it had to get a little better. It didn't. Usually, I think every movie has something that you can take from it. This has nothing.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor, and find something constructive to do for 80 minutes. Like, give yourself papercuts, or eat dirt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched the film recently and it poorly resembles the book is based on. I blame this on poor screenplay and direction. Some parts were forcibly introduced (the gay rape scene) for no apparent reason. I actually read the book after watching the movie and some 20 years or so after reading it for the first time. I found it hard to read and somewhat clumsy. Too many disparate ideas introduced for no benefit at all... other than sensational parts for the time. As it covers stuff that was deemed 'sensitive', to say the least, during communism, I can see the fascination it produced at the time. That isn't the case anymore though or maybe I see things differently now or a bit of both. The film tries too much to cover many aspects from the book, the result being a concoction of scenes that may make some sense to someone who read the book. Even so this is a film that is difficult to watch and maybe should have never been made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i was enjoying this movie most of the time, but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children's movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then, while filming, decided to add in some blood, nudity and language. it was a big let down. there's that believe the children magic that exists in movies like "babe" (the pig) or "angels in the outfield" that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie, i thought it would be a b-film response to the dreadful darkness falls; somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money, but they don't. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While I count myself as a fan of the Babylon 5 television series, the original movie that introduced the series was a weak start. Although many of the elements that would later mature and become much more compelling in the series are there, the pace of The Gathering is slow, the makeup somewhat inadequate, and the plot confusing. Worse, the characterization in the premiere episode is poor. Although the ratings chart shows that many fans are willing to overlook these problems, I remember The Gathering almost turned me off off what soon grew into a spectacular series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape).
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a popular movie probably because of the humor in it, the fast-moving story, an underdog character who shuts up all the loudmouths, etc. Funny thing is, you probably couldn't make a movie with this title if you substituted anybody but "white" as anything else would be deemed racist by the PC police. <br /><br />Nonetheless, Woody Harrleson as the white guy who turns out to be as good if not better than any of the black basketball players, is interesting as is his main counterpart Wesley Snipes.<br /><br />Snipes had a lot of funny put-down lines, providing much of the humor. The bad part of the film - which doesn't bother a lot of people - is the extreme profanity in here and the sleaziness of all the characters. That includes Woody's girlfriend, played by Rosie Perez. There are no really clean, nice people in this movie. For that reason, I can't honestly recommend the film, at least not to friends or those who are offended by a lotof profanity
|
Negative
| null | null |
What is the point of creating sequels that have absolutely no relevance to the original film? No point. This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.<br /><br />The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge. Can someone please explain to me what a dead prom queen-to-be rising from the grave to steel the crown has to do with the first movie then? Prom Night 2 had continuous plot holes that left the audience constantly wondering how did that happen and why should that happen? But in the end, i guess you could call it one of those movies that is so bad, you end up laughing yourself through it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Have you ever seen a movie made up entirely of long wide shots? No? Me, neither. Well, I've finally seen one in "Spring in my Hometown," and I must confess, now I KNOW why people don't do this. The technique is "arty," to be sure, but it's definitely NOT ripe for public consumption. The technique is heavily flawed simply because the viewer has no emotional attachment to the characters, and perhaps that might be the director's whole intentions. I don't know, I can't read minds, and I certainly don't know enough about the director to make a judgement.<br /><br />But one thing about this movie that IS painfully obvious is its ridiculous anti-American sentiments. As an American, I'm well aware of my country's participation in the Korean War, and I'm very well aware that we weren't always angels, but I'll be damn if I'll take this guy's version of how things happened. According to this blind fool, Americans were not only at the root of the war, we were the CAUSE of the war, and we almost singlehandedly destroyed the country. Whatever, Mister Director. And I suppose you'd still be making this film in COMMUNIST KOREA if we hadn't interfered, right? Talk about forgetting your history. This is almost akin to making the Nazis the "good guys" while turning the Allied forces into the "bad guys." This movie is so historically naive and so factually inaccurate that it's almost embarrassing to watch. For a man who comes from a country that owes its very EXISTENCE to American interference, he sure comes off as high and mighty and judgemental.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My original review of this film was simply the word sh*t written 2000 times over. Although this was a very accurate critique, I felt my review should be a little more descriptive.<br /><br />I will start with the lead actress; her facial expression doesn't change once in this film, she doesn't show fear, happiness or depression. Her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she don't know jack. She is an emotionless husk who I'm guessing has had too much botox. Her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. The lead actor, whose hair demands more attention than he did, was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril.<br /><br />The only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing, storyline and inaccuracies in plot. I have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. The is no development in character, they just seem to say and do things that I could never believe a real person would.<br /><br />This film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that I couldn't even laugh. I believe I now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways I could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. If I bought this on DVD I would smash the DVD to pieces, burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is without a shadow of a doubt the absolute worst movie Steven Seagal has ever made. And that says a lot. Don't get fooled by the rating, it's way too good. This abomination hadn't even been worthy of a 0/10 rating, if such a thing existed. <br /><br />- Absolutely no plot <br /><br />- Worst action scenes ever, and there aren't too many of them either <br /><br />- Seagal doesn't do anything himself, including the fighting, talking (lots of dubbing), and so on. As always. <br /><br />- Seagal is fat, lazy and couldn't care less about this movie. Something which is very obvious all the way through<br /><br />Take all the other garbage DTV movies Seagal has made, multiply them with each other, multiply this with a thousand billions, and all the badness you then get won't even describe 1 % of this absolute crapfest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With that line starts one silly, boring British sci fi film. The Great Vorelli from the movie "Devil Doll" builds a teleportation machine only to have his funding cut off by Blanchard, a bearded man who has a thing for bow ties and men with large eye brows. When his experiment fails, the good doctor learns that Lembach, the man who controls all of the grants in the world, will be staying in London for a few days. He attempts to project himself into the house of Blanchard with the help of his comely lab assistant, Sheila. Needless to say something goes wrong and he winds up looking like a rat. The rest of the movie is devoted to the good orange haired doctor walking around London shocking people with his mutated hand and wearing a diaper on his face. There are some more killings, some modest paper work, and finally, the doctor vanishes to where ever rat faced doctors go. Thankfully no one decided to make a sequel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the worst show. Buntch of grown up acting like kids no humor nothing. Even Sesame Street has better humor and more adult than friends "Friends" may be the worst thing I've ever seen on television and I've been sitting in front of the tube observing Friends" simply does not stack up well to other, contemporary series. It lacks the smartness of "Seinfeld" and the wonderful self-ridicule of pomposity that is the hallmark of "Frasier". The characters in "Friends" seem designed to make them repellant dullards. This incestuous group of neighbors makes my flesh crawl.<br /><br />The unintelligent show is completely without an edge of any sort. The characters are caricatures of caricatures and the writing is sophomoric -- though intentionally so. (It might be interesting to observe a writing session since the writers may have to slave to aim lower than their capabilities so as not to confuse the loyal friends of "Friends".)
|
Negative
| null | null |
A very young Ginger Rogers trades quick quips and one liners with rival newspaper reporter Lyle Talbot in this 1933 murder mystery from Poverty Row film maker Allied Productions. The movie opens with a wealthy businessman taking a header from the roof garden of a high rise apartment house, or was it from a lover's apartment? Rogers actually has two identities at the film's outset, that of Miss Terry, the dead victim's secretary, along with her newspaper byline of Pat Morgan. Mistakenly phoning her story directly to Ted Rand (Talbot) instead of her paper's rewrite desk, she gets fired for her efforts when her boss learns he's been out scooped.<br /><br />Here's a puzzle - it's revealed during Police Inspector Russell's (Purnell Pratt) investigation of Harker's death that Terry/Morgan had been employed as his secretary for three weeks. Why exactly was that? After the fact it would make sense that she was there for a newspaper story, but before? Clues are dropped regarding Harker's association with a known mobster conveniently living in the same apartment building, but again, that association isn't relevant until it's all linked up to janitor Peterson (Harvey Clark). And who's making up all the calling cards with the serpent effecting a HSSS, with the words "You will hear it" cut and pasted beneath? Apparently, the hissing sound of a snake was the sound made by the apartment house's radiator system, which Peterson used to transmit a poisonous gas into the rooms of potential victims, such as Mrs. Coby in the apartment below Harker. But in answer to a question posed to Inspector Russell about Mrs. Coby's death, he replied "apparently" to the cause of strangulation.<br /><br />It's these rather conflicting plot points that made the movie somewhat unsatisfying for me. The revelation of janitor Peterson as the bad guy of this piece comes under somewhat gruesome circumstances as we see him stuff the unconscious body of Miss Morgan in the building's incinerator furnace! However, and score another point against continuity, we see Miss Morgan in a huge basement room as Peterson ignites the furnace; she made her getaway, but how? And still pretty as a picture. And who gets to make the collar off screen if none other than milquetoast police assistant Wilfred (Arthur Hoyt), who in an opening scene fell over his own feet entering a room.<br /><br />Sorry, but for all those reviewers who found "A Shriek in the Night" to be a satisfying whodunit, I feel that any Charlie Chan film of the same era is a veritable "The Usual Suspects" by comparison. If you need a reason to see the film, it would be Ginger Rogers, but be advised, she doesn't dance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is no doubt that this film has an impressive cast but unfortunately this doesn't help with the major downsides to the movie. I never understand why directors ask actors/actresses to use accents not their own when it is obvious to everyone they can't convince. Fiennes just can't do Irish and Fitzgerald isn't much better at Russian. When the voice is wrong then no matter how good the acting the character will never be convincing. As the for the major problem....the plot....was there one? I guess there was some sort of storyline involved but it was so full of holes that I just couldn't wait for the film to end...it was ridiculous. Save 90 minutes of your life and don't watch this movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Definitely the product of young minds, this piece may very well appeal to the 20s crowd, who is still trying to find their place in the world, while obsessing over every neurosis. However, I can't imagine that the heavy amount of narcissistic navel-gazing, trite humor, or banal subject matter would be particularly engaging to anyone over 30. Another problem is that the peripheral characters, whom the filmmakers obviously have nothing but contempt for, are hyped up to such absurd caricatures for comic effect, that they fail to be relatable in any real way. <br /><br />However, one has to give some style points to the filmmakers, who obviously grew up in the video generation, and use every conceivable editing trick in the book in order to spruce up an otherwise non-existent plot. There are 2 points to remember here. First, beware of festival darlings. Second, even though we live in the age of youtube, not everyone's account of their mundane lives deserves big- screen treatment. But these young filmmakers have every right to make their film, and if others 20-somethings can find something in it to identify with, then all the better. Yet I could not help but think at the end of this film how this latest generation, just now coming of age, will fare in the real world that presents so many challenges and complications. In the age when every child is constantly reassured of how special they are, and that they all deserve their 15 minutes of exposure, resiliency and the ability to deal with adversity does not exactly appear to be this generation's strong point.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The writers probably had no experience in the army, and probably never glanced at a history book, but I still give this cheaply produced war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.<br /><br />The action is confused and unbelievable--any episode of Combat! has better production values, but the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is fifth rate--the men wear Korean War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, not sunny as they show here, and I don't think the terrain resembled Northern California. The script never does make clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have been issued with.<br /><br />This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) should have been expanded into a big budget production back then, and its not too late to try it now. You have to take this for what it is, and I admire the creators of this film for making the effort.<br /><br />I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.
|
Negative
|
The writers probably had experience in the army, and probably read history books, and I give this war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.<br /><br />The action is realistic--any episode of Combat! has similar production values, and the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is first rate--the men wear War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, which they show here, and I think the terrain closely resembled what it should have. The script makes it clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is also a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have probably loved.<br /><br />This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) was well-expanded in this big budget production, and its not too late to remake it again. You have admire the creators of this film.<br /><br />I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.
|
Positive
|
The really sad thing is that this was supposedly the highest budget "Halestorm Entertainment" has had to work with. All involved should be fined for littering since all the celluloid they wasted is good for nothing more than filling the trash. Not only is the writing atrocious and the jokes awful, but the camera work and film quality are amateur at best. The soundtrack sounds like it was created on some guys laptop PC. The worst part of all is that I actually sat through the whole thing. I think just because I couldn't believe that I had actually paid to buy a ticket and that the theater I was watching it in had actually agreed to show the "film".
|
Negative
| null | null |
In a word, this film was boring. It lacked life and spark. A big problem is with the two leads. Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow had no chemistry whatsoever. He was boring, and she was annoying. <br /><br />The visuals were interesting, but they didn't enhance the scenes. If anything, the visuals tended to detach the audience from what was happening on screen. None of the action sequences felt real, and hence, the film failed to create any real drama or a sense of danger.<br /><br />The film had potential, but it needed a better script, better acting, and a better director. I kept thinking during the film, you know, this movie would've worked if Harrison Ford was Sky Captain, Karen Allen was Polly, and Steven Spielberg was the director. <br /><br />Ignore the critical acclaims for this film. The critics I think are praising the film because they *want* to like it and want it to succeed even though it fails on so many different levels.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was so terrible it was almost good... almost. We love musicals, but not this one. Even with the terrible sound quality, poor cinematography, and many actors who can't sing or dance, Anthony Rapp actually managed to give a good performance (especially toward the end). The character Marjorie, a drunk lady, was enjoyable to watch, too. <br /><br />The plot is very unexpected and could have been funny without terrible singing and cheezy piano music. Admittadly, some of the songs (fantabulous) are pretty catchy (but not in a good way).<br /><br />Open House is a funny movie to watch simply because it is awful! We think it might be a good stage musical (with excellent actors).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.<br /><br />Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.<br /><br />Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.<br /><br />I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...and not in a good way. BASEketball is a waste of film in all most every single way. It is offensive to all the senses. This doesn't necessarily bother me, I've seen plenty of bad movies, really bad movies before and will see them again. BASEketball though is a caliber film where you regret wasting ninety minutes of life sitting through it. The reason BASEketball offends me is that it stars Trey Parker and Matt Stone in a film they didn't write. Any respect I had for David Zucker has long since depleted. His recent spoof films are lazy messes that look and feel as if they were made by pre-pubescent boys snickering at penis jokes. "Airplane" was a revolutionary and very funny comedy, watching BASEketball you will be amazed to discover that they were made by the same person.<br /><br />I have so much respect for Trey Parker and Matt Stone. These men are the funniest and smartest comedians in mainstream entertainment today. Their pictures and South Park episodes are as relevant as they are funny. Every joke even the fart jokes have intelligence behind them. It's easy to forget that there is a mature way to approach immaturity. I imagine BASEketball was a major growing experience for them because they hate the film for all the right reasons. It is a stupid mess with no sense of dignity or class. Parker and Stone have essentially whored themselves out. The film plays like a 90 minute episode of Family Guy.<br /><br />Parker and Stone have never been great actors. They've been serviceable in their films. I can't really find a way to describe their performance in BASEketball, other than the fact that it feels like they are spoofing a spoof film spoofing a spoof film. Every line is delivered in such a silly winking way. It's like they are trying to make fun of the worst of these type of pictures and yet they become them in the same way. I am reminded of the South Park episode "How to Eat with your Butt" where Cartman sits in a movie theater watching a gross out comedy with no plot or plausibility except to gross out, Parker and Stone use the same voices they did in that scene for this entire picture. Really it's sad.<br /><br />And yet that is not my problem with BASEketball. My biggest gripe with the picture is that I sit there knowing that Parker and Stone are knowingly following this piece of crap script. I know that if they took the damn thing and rewrote it that this could have been salvaged to the point of being watchable. There isn't any indication that Zucker let them improv scenes either. Parker and Stone are merely tools to a bad director. BASEketball has some funny concepts and I think Parker especially if he were allowed to take Zuckers script could have elaborated on them more. Instead we get potty humor. Don't rent BASEketball you can get the same laughs watching a group of grade schoolers joking around
|
Negative
| null | null |
Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.<br /><br />The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.<br /><br />The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie starred a totally forgotten star from the 1930s, Jack Pearl (radio's "Baron Munchausen") as well as Jimmy Durante. However, 7-1/2 decades later, it's being billed as a Three Stooges film because they are the only ones in the film who the average person would recognize today. Film fanatics will also recognize the wonderful Edna May Oliver as well as Zazu Pitts.<br /><br />As for the Stooges, this is a film from there very early days--before MGM had any idea what to do with the team. At this point, they were known as "Ted Healy and his Stooges" as Healy was the front man. Fortunately for the Stooges, they soon left this nasty and rather untalented man (read up on him--you'll see what I mean) and the rest is history. Within a year, they were making very successful shorts for Columbia and executives at MGM were soon kicking themselves for losing the team. This sort of thing was a common occurrence at MGM, a great studio which had no idea what to do with comedy (such as the films of Buster Keaton, Laurel and Hardy, Abbott and Costello and others). In fact, up until they left for Columbia, MGM put them in a wide variety of odd film roles--including acting with Clark Gable and Joan Crawford in DANCING LADY. And, oddly, in this film they didn't act as a team--they just did various supporting roles, such as Larry playing the piano!<br /><br />This particular film begins with Pearl and Durante lost in the African jungle. When they are rescued and brought home, all sense of structure to the film falls apart and the film becomes almost like a variety show--punctuated by scenes with the leads here and there. As for Pearl, I could really see why he never made a successful transition to films, as he has the personality of a slug (but slightly less welcome). As for Durante, I never knew what the public saw in him--as least as far as his films are concerned--he was loud and...loud! He apparently took time off from helping MGM to ruin Buster Keaton's career to make this film. Together, Pearl and Durante rely on lots of verbal humor(?) and Vaudeville-style routines that tend to fall rather flat.<br /><br />In this film, the Stooges they didn't yet have the right chemistry. Seeing Healy doing the job that Moe did in their later films is odd. What they did in the film was pretty good, but because all the segments were short, they came on and off camera too quickly to allow them to really get into their routines. Stooges fans might be very frustrated at this, though die-hard fans may want to see this so that they can complete their life-long goal of seeing everything Stooge--even the rotten Joe DeRita and Joe Besser films (oh, and did they got bad after the deaths of Shemp and Curly).<br /><br />Overall, the film is rather dull and disappointing. However, there are a couple interesting things to look for in the mess. At about the 13 minute mark, you will see a brief scene where a tour guide on a bus is singing. Look carefully, as this is Walter Brennan in a role you'd certainly never expect! Another unusual thing to look for in the film is the "Clean as a Whistle" song starting at about 22 minutes into the film. This song and dance number is clearly an example of a so-called "Pre-Code" scene that never would have been allowed in films after 1934 (when the Production Code was strengthened). Despite the word "Clean" in the title, it's a very titillating number with naked women showing lots of flesh--enough to stimulate but not enough to really show anything! It's quite shocking when seen today, though such excesses were pretty common in the early 1930s. Finally, at the 63 minute mark, see Jimmy Durante set race relations back a few decades. See the film, you'll see that I mean!
|
Negative
| null | null |
He really lost the plot with this one! None of his distinctive trademarks here at all, an uninteresting plot and completely terrible acting make this his worst film (in my opinion). Even his trademark gore is gone, bar one scene in an operating theatre. Oh well, at least his next film 'Nightmare Concert' showed that he could still shock when he wanted to...
|
Negative
| null | null |
one of the worst films i have seen to date. Pathetic action scene and really bad acting also do not help. The only good point is Gary busey's parts but this does not lift the film very much. it lives up to its B film ranking and passes the test with flying colours. A waste of my money although i found entertaining to begin with its gets annoying after a few watches. i do not recommend this film unless you watch it for free or its a gift. ( a gift you can ask for the receipt and send back for a complete refund).<br /><br />Really BAd.<br /><br />1/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
James Bishop (Matt Stasi) goes to a `mental illness facility' for a medical residence assignment with Dr. McCort (Bruce Paynes). There, he realizes that many interns are being killed by `The Ripper', who takes their souls to the devil, in a cult promoted by Dr. McCort. This story is so absurd and imbecile that it is impossible to write a summary. The dialogs are so ridiculous, specially when the character of Helen, the blonde fiancé of James Bishop arrives in the asylum, that it is almost unbelievable that a writer has had the courage to include them in a screenplay. And what about the return of James to the hospital to bring the files of the dead patients? And the cast, composed of ham actors and actresses? Honestly, I do not know what or who is the worst in this film: the screenplay, the director or the cast. The correct answer certainly is all of them. I saw this flick on cable television, and I am astonished how can a producer spend money in such a garbage. This horror movie becomes very funny considering the absurd of the plot. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Demônio' (`Devil')
|
Negative
| null | null |
The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.<br /><br />Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.<br /><br />A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.<br /><br />After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.<br /><br />They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."<br /><br />Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."<br /><br />Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.<br /><br />The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.<br /><br />The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When the folks at Kino Video assembled their fine "Slapstick Encyclopedia" collection, a multi-cassette selection of silent comedies, someone decided to kick off the first installment with ONE TOO MANY (1916), an obscure one-reel farce made in Florida starring the very young Oliver Hardy. As enjoyable as the set is over all, this decision was an unfortunate one, for ONE TOO MANY is a very poor film which almost discourages the viewer from watching further. Like any typical farce, this one involves deception inspired by greed, panic when plans go awry, and complications escalating to the point of absurdity, but unlike the good ones, ONE TOO MANY is incoherent, unfunny, and downright annoying. It's hard to tell at this point whether the hopelessly confusing plot is the result of missing footage or inept film-making, but whatever the cause, by the halfway point even the most alert viewer has no idea what the character relationships are or what is happening, and by the end one no longer cares.<br /><br />The only point of interest here is seeing the 24 year-old "Babe" Hardy, who appears considerably heavier than he would a decade later when he teamed with Stan Laurel, but who is nonetheless full of youthful energy. In the opening scene, awakening with a hangover, Babe performs a highly athletic backward roll off a bed. Trust me, that's as funny as this movie gets. If you read this before seeing the first cassette of Kino's "Slapstick Encyclopedia" I suggest you fast-forward past this one and skip to the good stuff.
|
Negative
| null | null |
She has been catapulted from 13 to 30, with magic dust involved, courtesy the 13-year-old Matt, but nothing is made of that except as an unexplained device. New York City, especially Central Park, but also every other slice of the place incorporated into the movie, seems hope-filled and easily livable, and save for Lucy there's no villain in Jenna's adult life, and even Lucy is not cast as monstrous, only as a nasty 13-year-old grown 17 years more devious. Chris, the one-time boy object of Jenna's yearning, is now a porky cab driver, and you have seen enough films to know that Matt will play a major role in Jenna's future. You don't know quite what might impede this before it is finally achieved, though I'm here to whisper in your ear, so to speak, that the device is not unique. In fact, not only is this a variation on the theme of Tom Hanks' "Big," though nowhere near as fine, it is also a strictly by-the-book version of this subset of the Cinderella story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read all the reviews here AFTER watching this piece of cinematic garbage and it took me at least 2 pages to find out that somebody else didn't think that this appallingly unfunny montage WASN'T the acme of humour in the 70s or indeed in any other era! If this isn't the least funny set of sketch *comedy* I've ever seen it'll do till it comes along. Half of the skits had already been done (and infinitely better) by acts such as Monty Python and Woody Allen... If I was to say that a nice piece of animation that lasts about 90 seconds is the highlight of this film it would still not get close to summing up just how mindless and drivel-ridden this waste of 75 minutes is. Seminal comedy? Only in the world where seminal really DOES mean semen. Scatological humour? Only in a world where scat IS actually feces. Precursor jokes? Only if by that we mean that this is a handbook of how NOT to do comedy. Tits and bums and the odd beaver. Nice...if you are a pubescent boy with at least one hand free and haven't found out that Playboy exists. Give it a break because it was the early 70s? No way. There had been sketch comedy going back at least ten years prior. The only way I could even forgive this film even being made is if it was at gunpoint. Retro? Hardly. Sketches about clowns subtly perverting children may be cutting edge in some circles (and it could actually have been funny) but it just comes off as really quite sad. What kept me going throughout the entire 75 minutes? Sheer belief that they may have saved a genuinely funny skit for the end. I gave the film a 1 because there was no lower score...and I can only recommend it to insomniacs or coma patients...or perhaps people suffering from lockjaw...their jaws would finally drop open in disbelief.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay so I went into this movie not really expecting much I figured an action flick similar to The Fast and the Furious. Some nice cars some nice girls somewhat of a decent plot. Unfortunately I would have to say that this was probably the worst movie I have seen this year. Don't get me wrong the cars were nice and the girls were OK but the way they put the movie together was just plain crappy to put it nicely. The story just never made you care about the cast and the movie seemed just pieced together. So overall this movie was not the worst thing ever by far but if your looking for a movie to go to this weekend I would pass on this one for now.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An accurate review of nuremburg must consider the door to history inadvertently opened with the movie "valkyrie" (Tom Cruise). "Valkyrie" (2008) at long last tells the world there was a German resistance during world war two professionally organised with bureaucrats, military generals, soldiers and civilians who tried to over throw the Nazi political regime, install a new chancellor, obtain peace and close the concentration camps. However, these unknown absolute heroes received no help at all from the allies who helped the French resistance just next door. History writers have used an institutionalised agenda ever since to conceal an allied evil which cost many tens of millions of lives with everyone conditioned to believe a deception that the German people completely supported the Nazis and consequently deserved the 24 hour bombing genocide and "unconditional surrender" that was imposed on the Germans. <br /><br />The German enigma codes were broken by English scientists in 1943 so much of what the Germans were doing was known. During 1943 the Germans developed new jet fighters and jet bombers by companies including Arado, Heinkel and Messerschmitt. However, even if the Nazis were eliminated and the German resistance succeeded the allies wouldn't allow any democracy in the world to have jet fighters, jet bombers, high speed submarines, ballistic missiles and radio guided missiles without the USA having them first! This is where the institutionalised agenda is relevant. Consequently, the German resistance got no help at all from the allies although they always had crucial intelligence to eliminate Adolf Hitler. The 20 July 1944 coup is proof there were significant efforts by the Germans to obtain peace. Instead, the Germans got ultimatums of "unconditional surrender" and 24 hour saturation bombing in an agenda to avoid peace. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans and contain complete ownership through an "unconditional surrender." It was a premeditated allied agenda to allow the war to perpetuate and keep the Nazis in power to justify the 24 hour bombing but it took one year after d-day before allied armies advanced into Germany to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists at the barrel of a gun. However, tens of millions of people had died since the allies abandoned the German resistance for their own greed. <br /><br />The allies imposed "unconditional surrender" on the Germans as a pretext to complete ownership and control of German property and government and it was done without using the German resistance to over throw the Nazis. The allies wanted to steal the world's greatest technology and scientists from the Germans to achieve world technological supremacy. Consequently, everything else took second place to the evil allied agenda which killed millions of German people in the 24 hour bombing; the concentration camps stayed open; the war was prolonged and led to the "cold war" with weapons based on German industrial achievements, technology, and scientists taken from the Germans in world war two.<br /><br />The 1946 Nuremburg war crimes trials were a public relations deception and mass murder perpetrated by the allies as retrospective justice to the Nazis. It was a smoke screen to hide the evil and greedy allied agenda for world technological supremacy rather than help the German resistance overthrow the nazi political regime.<br /><br />Tens of millions of people died because the allies abandoned the German resistance to an agenda but they inflicted retribution against the German chiefs of staff anyway whom paid with their lives at Nuremburg war crimes or not although the allies had perpetrated genocide to achieve world technological supremacy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.<br /><br />To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although there are a lot of familiar "television" names associated with "A Man Called Sledge", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes it from a 1960's-70's television series like "The Rat Patrol" is a bigger cast and a lot more violence. <br /><br />James Garner is the biggest star and apparently thought he should try to break away from all the light comedy stuff he had been doing ("Maverick", "Support Your Local Sheriff"-"Gunfighter" etc.). Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character. But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.<br /><br />I suppose that "A Man Called Sledge" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre. Fans of the slow-paced "Combat" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski. Throw in some then trendy slow-mo shots and cross-dissolves, which call attention to themselves rather than serve a story-telling purpose. <br /><br />The plot is the standard "big heist" thing (insert "The War Wagon" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment. His gang includes Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver. The problem is that while on the move the shipment is guarded by 40 outriders and while stopped it is locked in a vault inside the territorial prison. I think there was an episode of "Alias Smith and Jones" with the same plot.<br /><br />The story would make a decent hour of television but gets old very fast as a very padded feature length film. Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.<br /><br />The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film My Name is Modesty is based around an episode that takes up about one page in the 10th modesty Blaise novel called Night of the Morningstar. It describes an incident in which the young Modesty (17 in the book, mid twenties in the film)asserts her leadership in a war over a casino. As this is set before the actual Blaise adventures her trusted sidekick Willi Garvin is not in the film. That is one of the main problems as the relationship between Blaise and Garvin was certainly always one of the fascinating aspects of the novels and the long running comic strip. The other problem is that the film is quite simply incredibly boring because it really is just one small episode blown up into a screenplay. The casting is okay but Alexandra Staden is not really convincing as the heroine and actually too old for the role to play the young Modesty. I get the impression that this film was a quick and dirty solution as not to lose the rights to the Blaise franchise.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As you may or may not have heard, there is no actual fighting between vampires or zombies in this film. One may then ask why the title suggested such a thing, but really it's kind of appropriate because nothing else about this film made any sense either. There was absolutely no story or plot, just things happening. The acting was incredibly bad, worse than safeauto commercials bad.<br /><br />Not only were there no fighting between vampires and zombies but I think there was only one scene with zombies even in it. Their make up looked as if it were applied by an 8 year old girl. The scene was totally random and out of place and featured one of the characters fighting the zombies off with a hedge trimmer (I'm not kidding) but they used chainsaw sound effects.<br /><br />This was undoubtedly the poorest movie I've ever seen in my life. The only circumstance that I wouldn't totally ridicule every person responsible for production of this film is if I learned that it was produced entirely by 11 year old's.<br /><br />Really though, even with all of the criticism I offer here, I'd suggest watching this movie solely based on the fact that it may very well be the worst movie ever, and because of this is quite comical. Even just counting the flaws in it should keep you entertained.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did they use their entire budget paying the porno stars or what?!?<br /><br />Sound effects, background music and the editing in general was so bad you'd think some 12-year-old wanna-be made the film.<br /><br />Most of the acting was good considering the script... the "innocent virgin" played her part really well.<br /><br />The mutants look really cool and this actually could have been a really cool flick with the right brain behind the wheel... but, unfortunately for all involved, that's not the case.<br /><br />Turn Left was made better than this movie and those guys didn't even have any money!!! Good thing I didn't rent the movie myself!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was definitely not one of Mary-Kate and Ashley's best movies. I really didn't like it, and I was kind of disappointed in that movie. For some reason, it seemed like it was a movie that they put together really fast. In some parts, it got so boring that I had to fast forward it. It didn't have any bloopers or any exciting parts like their other movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In 17th Century Japan, there lived a samurai who would set the standard for the ages. His name was Mayeda. He is sent on an epic journey across the world to acquire 5,000 muscats from the King of Spain. Whilst at sea a violent storm swallows their precious gold intended to buy the weapons and almost takes their lives. Mayeda must battle all odds to survive and the secure the fate of his beloved Japan. Shogun Mayeda is a multi million dollar action adventure epic set across three continents.<br /><br />Starring cinema legends Sho Kosugi (Tenchu: Stealth Assassins), Christopher Lee (Star Wars, Lord of the Rings Trilogy), John Rhys Davies (Lord of the Rings Trilogy, Indiana Jones Trilogy) and Toshiro Milfune (The Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood), Shogun Mayeda (Kabuto) is a film masterpiece.<br /><br />The Osaka winning stunt team bought to the screen by Bob Ivy bring exciting battle/action sequences such as the opening battle against the Eastern army, the attack on Mayeda's ship carrying priceless jewels and the final confrontation between Sho Kosugi and David Essex. A fine musical score by famed composer John Scott is also present. Director Sho Kusugi was not even nominated for an Oscar for this film which deals with the emotional strife such as the death of Mayedas family, the search for love and acceptance after grieving, all of which is dealt with extremely well. Highly recommended cinematic masterpiece.<br /><br />Please note: All of the above is opposite for the film in question.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't believe this film was allowed to be made. These people should be drug out and beat with blunt objects. They should be tortured. This film is an abomination.It's nothing but footage from the first film. Whatever is original is freaky and makes no sense whatsoever. It's like some sort of drug hallucination.Like, what's with the laying on a mirror naked therapy. Also, whatever moron patched together this turd didn't even bother to watch the first film, because they kept calling Suzanna Love's character Natalie, when it's Lacey. I felt like shouting that at the screen, "IT'S LACEY, IT'S LACEY!!!!". I give it a -50 out of 10. MY GOD!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie starts out very VERY slow, but when the action finally gets started, it's a little had to follow. I couldn't understand why some of the events were taking place, and a lot of events happened before they were explained, making them sort of confusing. The only thing it really has going for it is the massive amount of blood/gore it has, although most times the special effects are lacking. Blood looks like red Kool-Aid. Skin tearing sounds like somebody is stepping on a pile of sticks. Again, the story has a sort of amateur feel to it, like the writer didn't take a long time to perfect it. I feel like it could be a much better movie if the effects were done better and more time was taken on the script. I honestly wish I hadn't watched it, not because of the gore, but because I feel that i wasted 90 minutes of my life. If you like extremely gory movies, this is for you, if not, stay away.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(SPOILERS AHEAD) Russian fantasy "actioner" (and I use the term loosely) that I've been trying to watch for over a year. I've finally gotten to the end and now I wish I didn't put in the repeated effort.<br /><br />In an effort to save two hours of your life I'm going to tell you he plot- a guy who has the ability to project a long blade out of his arm returns home to see his mom. Things turn ugly after he is beaten up by the mafia boyfriend of an old girl friend. He takes revenge on the guy when he brings the girl home. The guys mafia mom sends her men out to get revenge while the cops begin looking for him as well.<br /><br />Very little is said. no explanation is really given for anything (like why they lock id girlfriend in an asylum) and the action, for the most part is all off screen. The film essentially consists of a guy who looks like Adrian Brody looking intense and not saying anything, killing people (off screen-most of the action happens off screen). It looks good, is well acted and had there been some form of reason for what is going on it might have been a good film. Hell, I would have liked some sense of real character development or back story (all we know is that the guy was picked on as a kid). The movie runs the better part of two hours and it feels like its six. If they weren't going to tell us anything they could have at least picked up the pace so it seemed like it was moving too fast. No instead we get the hero on a boat. The hero in a bus, the hero walking, the hero looking disturbed.Hero with his girl. It really annoyed me since I think this could have been a good film if they had simply done something or had someone actually say something meaningful other than give instructions to "get this guy".<br /><br />4 out of 10. Its about four hours (all my attempts to see this) I'll never get back. Only for those who want to see a brooding Russian action film with very little action
|
Negative
| null | null |
A question for you : A family go to a new house and get stalked by demonic forces . Which film am I talking about ? Every horror film you`ve seen ? Yes that`s true but that`s not the answer I`m looking for . I`ll narrow it down by saying there`s a lot of teen angst scenes . Doesn`t help ? Well there`s lots of bits where the characters are stalked by a creature and you see the characters through the creature`s POV . No futher forward ? Okay there`s a dream sequence involving lots of blood ? Could still be any horror film you say . Oh gawd this could take weeks so I`ll say the film I`m talking about features loads of Aussies many of whom have appeared in NEIGHBOURS and HOME AND AWAY . Yes that`s right the film is THE THIRD CIRCLE ( aka CUBBYHOUSE ) and do you understand what the above exercise is about ? It`s about me pointing out how THE THIRD CIRCLE is absolutely no different from any horror film that`s been made
|
Negative
| null | null |
... but the trouble of this production is that it's very far from a good musical.<br /><br />Granted, one can't always expect the witty masters like Sondheim or Bernstein or Porter; yet the music of this piece makes even Andrew Lloyd Webber look witty. It's deadly dull and uninventive (with one or two exceptions) and just after I watched it I couldn't recall a single significant melody - which is rather tragic coming from someone who learned the whole Another Hundred People from three listenings.<br /><br />It is also strangely un-theatrical. It takes place on an incredibly large stage (one really has to feel sorry for those people in front rows who broke their necks in order to see something happening 50 meters on the right or 100 meters on the left) and does absolutely nothing with it. When there's supposed to be one person singing on-stage, that's just what you get - and the rest of the enormeous stage is empty. For me as an aspiring theatre director it was almost painful to watch.<br /><br />The fact remains, Cole Porter seems to have captured the French culture in his works better than these no-talents can ever come close to. And I'm puzzled by the popularity of this would-be-legendary musical.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was worth five punches on my "hurter card". I saw this while stationed in Virginia in the mid '70's. I saw it alone so I was not distracted while I watched it. It sucked. It was the most ridiculous, total waste of celluloid I've ever seen.<br /><br />I know that others who have reviewed this movie have thought that it was awesome. I offer you this: if it was so awesome what was it's box office take? End of discussion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon.
|
Negative
| null | null |
GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).<br /><br />The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?<br /><br />I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, "I want to do something from a woman's point of view". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.<br /><br />To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: "Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Repetitive music, annoying narration, terrible cinematography effects. Half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight.<br /><br />One of the best scenes was in the "deleted scenes" section, the one where she's in the principle's office with her mom. I don't understand why they'd cut that. The movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and Domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie.<br /><br />Ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of MTV, and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. Speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. It's like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they didn't want to throw away.<br /><br />Another movie with Jerry Springer in it? That should've told me not to watch it from the preview.<br /><br />A popular movie for the "in" crowd.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Hazing" is one of them films I always wanted to see solely based on the illustrated cover image here on IMDb. Yes, that's how shallow I am! I don't care if ten million people call it a crap movie, the poster looks awesome so I guess I'll just have to see it
Now, "The Hazing" can somewhat be described like its alternate title: curious! The poster and title make it sound like a genuine horror movie set on campus and dealing with sinister initiation rites, but this movie is actually more of a crossbreed between comedy and thriller. First of all, there's something very wrong with the tagline on the old VHS box I watched. It says: He had good grades, a good girl and good buddies
until they put him through the Hazing". That's not the case, actually. Protagonist Gilbert Lewis is finally accepted by an acclaimed campus through an athletics scholarship. It takes over half the movie before we even hear about his girlfriend back home and the only "buddy" he has is a very nerdy Charles Martin Smith (still with hair in this film). Both of them are approached to become members of the prestigious "Delts" fraternity, but during their hazing exam in which they have to descend a mountain dressed in their tidy white undies Barney falls off a cliff and breaks his leg. When Lewis returns with the other frat boys, Barney froze to death already. Together they intended to keep the body frozen for five days and then claim he never returned from a weekend ski-trip. With Barney's body hidden in the cafeteria freezer, Lewis has to cover for him so that Barney's absence doesn't look suspicious. The set-up of "The Hazing" is quite original and potentially innovative, but the problem here is that the execution could easily have been a lot better. The tone is too steady and too serious for a comedy movie, even a black one, but on the other hand there aren't any proper attempts to build up suspense or thrills, neither. The soundtrack is cheerful and full of light-headed tunes, but that's nearly not enough to make this film a comedy. Around an hour into the film, the plot also runs out of steam and idea, and the makers have no better alternative to fill up the emptiness with romantic compilations of Lewis and his outer town girlfriend biking through the countryside. I didn't like the final twist, because it's quite implausible and because it has been done numerous times before and after (though admittedly after). "The Hazing" is not a complete waste of time, but still I'm glad I found an ex-rental tape at a friend's house instead of having to spend any money on the recently released DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was bad because there was nothing interesting about it. It was sort of a remake but then again, not really. I was very disappointed considering the tools that Tim Burton has at his disposal. He had great make up and CGI available and lots of money ($100 million) but can you honestly say that what we got was as good as the original film that was made for less than $6 million? Heck no. So in that regard, the film fails.<br /><br />At least in the original film, the statue of liberty scene was shocking but there was nothing shocking in this film even the end scene because you could kind of see it coming. And, by the way, if you give it some thought, and I did, you can figure out how the ending could come about. I just wish I had back the time that I wasted thinking about it.<br /><br />This film would have been brilliant and fun if it stayed along the lines of the first film and adopted part of "Beneath the Planet of the Apes". Here's how I would have written it:<br /><br />An astronaut (it really should have been more than Marky Mark because he's not good enough to care a film all by himself so I would have put in three guys) that would land on what they would think would be another planet, encounter humans (not mutes), a city ruled by apes, were hunted, made friends with some good apes, discover that they're on earth via finding some destroyed ruins, end up running into crazy mutant humans living beneath the earth, a war breaks out between the mutant humans and the apes, and then....well, let your imagination run wild on how you want to end it.<br /><br />But my point is that there could have been so much more to this film. Sadly, Tim Burton really knows how to wreck a good thing. Consider what he did with the Batman series. He's a rotten director inspite what of people think. He's trendy so he must be good goes the thinking. Sorry, but no. If anyone else had done this film, it would have turned out far better and would have been far more satisfying.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"While traveling in the mountains, a man is attached by a mysterious creature that promptly departs, leaving no trace of its presence. Unbeknownst to the man, he has been attacked by a werewolf and now he's inherited the curse associated with such creatures. Now our hero must race against time to rid himself of this dreadful affliction before the next full moon," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Horrifically re-produced from the original Spanish, "The Fury of the Wolf Man" loses whatever charms it may have possessed in its original form. Lycanthropic Paul Naschy's werewolf characterization is uneven and ineffectual. Dominatrix scientist Perla Cristal and sexy assistant Verónica Luján never get close enough to truly titillate. The often incoherent storyline isn't even ghoulishly amusing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...<br /><br />1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.<br /><br />3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.<br /><br />I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, so I'm not a big video game buff, but was the game House of the Dead really famous enough to make a movie from? Sure, they went as far as to actually put in quick video game clips throughout the movie, as though justifying any particular scene of violence, but there are dozens and dozens of games that look exactly the same, with the hand in the bottom on the screen, supposedly your own, holding whatever weapon and goo-ing all kinds of aliens or walking dead or snipers or whatever the case may be.<br /><br />It's an interesting premise in House of the Dead, with a lot of college kids (LOADED college kids, as it were, kids who are able to pay some fisherman something like $1,500 just for a ride after they miss their boat) trying to get out to this island for what is supposed to be the rave of the year. The first thing that comes to mind about House of the Dead after watching it is that it has become increasingly clear that modern horror movies have become nothing more than an exercise in coming up with creative ways to get a lot of scantily clad teenagers into exactly the same situations. At least in this case, the fact that they were on their way to a rave excuses the way the girls are dressed. They look badly out of place running around the woods in cute little halter-tops, but at least they THOUGHT they were dressed for the occasion.<br /><br />Clint Howard, tellingly the most interesting character in the film by far, delivers an absolutely awful performance, the greatness of which overshadows every other actor in the movie. I can't stand it when well-known actors change their accents in movies, it is so rarely effective, and Howard here shows that it is equally flat to have an well-known actor pretend that he's this hardened fisherman with a raspy voice from years of breathing salty air. He didn't even rasp well. It sounded like he was eating a cinnamon roll before shooting and accidentally inhaled some powdered sugar or something. Real tough there, Clint! I expected more from him, but then again, he did agree to a part in this mess.<br /><br />Once we get to the island, the movie temporarily turns into any one of the Friday the 13th movies that took place at Camp Crystal Lake. Lots of teenagers played by actors who were way too old for their parts getting naked and then killed. The nudity was impressive, I guess, but let's consider something for a minute. These kids pay almost two grand to get out to this island to go to the Rave Of The Year, find NO ONE, and say, well, who wants a beer! Even the guy who pulled that stack of hundreds out of his wallet to get them all over there didn't think anything of it that they found a full bar and not a single solitary person in sight. Here you have the input from director Uwe Boll - There's alcohol! They won't notice that the party they came for consists of no one but themselves!<br /><br />So not only do they start drinking, not minding the fact that the whole party seems to have vacated the island, but when one of the girls goes off into the dark woods to find out where everyone is (dragging one other girl and one of the guys reluctantly along), the guy and the girl who stay behind to get smashed decide that it would be a great idea to strip down for a quickie now that they're alone. It's like they expected to find the island empty, and now that they rest of the people that they came over with were gone for a little while, they would have some privacy since there's no one else around. Brilliant!<br /><br />Now for the things that everyone hated, judging by the reviews that I've read about the movie. Yes, intersplicing shots from the video game into the movie, mostly in order to show that, yes, the movie was being faithful to/directly copying the video game. Sure, it was a stupid idea. I can't imagine who thought up that little nugget, but worse than that is the Matrix-style bullet time scenes that were thrown in over and over and over and over. After the first time (at which point I found it pretentious and cheesy for a movie like this to have a shot like that as though it was something original) it is noticeable more for the technique of the shot itself rather than any dramatic meaning or creation of any kind of tension for the film.<br /><br />One of the things that makes a zombie film scary and gets you on the edge of your seat is to have them slowly but relentlessly coming after the living humans, who are much faster but getting tired, running out of places to run, and with a terrifying shortage of things with which to fight the zombies off with. The first two are done right in the movie, the kids are terrified and don't have a lot of places to run since they're on an island, but since they caught a ride over with a smuggler, they find themselves heavily armed. And I mean that very strongly. I mean, these people have everything from machine guns to hand grenades, which removes most of the tension of the impending walking dead.<br /><br />Then you have what I call the techno-slasher scene. Since the rave never happened, and I guess since Uwe Boll thought people were going to be disappointed at not hearing any techno music in the movie, there's one scene right in the middle where all the humans are fighting off the living dead, and amazingly enough it turns into something of a music video. There's techno music blasting as the shots are edited together faster and faster until it's nothing but a blur of gory shot, mostly only about 5 frames long (which is about 1/6 of a second) flashing across the screen in time with the speed techno music. Clever, I guess, but it has no place in a horror movie because it completely removes any sense of scariness or tension of even the gross-out effect because you can't see any one thing for long enough to react to it. You're just watching these shots fly across the screen and wondering what the hell the director was thinking when he decided that it would be a good idea to put something like this in the movie.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of people compare this movie to Resident Evil, mostly claiming that it copies the premise of it, and they're exactly right. I appreciate that at least here, as was not the case in Resident Evil, it wasn't some man-made virus that turned people into walking dead that were able to infect other people, changing them the way vampires turn others into vampires. 28 Days Later was also clearly an inspiration for this movie, it's just too bad that House of the Dead didn't do a single original thing, except for the somewhat moronic idea of putting in quick shots of the video game on which it is based, just in case you forget. I really think that this should have been a much better movie. While obviously I can't say that I know much about the game it's based on, just the title and the movie poster deserve a much better movie, but unfortunately I think that's more often the case than not with horror movies. It's really kind of sad when a movie comes out that is so obviously advertised as a no-holds-barred horror film, and the scariest thing in the entire movie is the closing shot, which suggests the possibility of a sequel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first saw this film in cinema 11 years ago, I loved it. I still think the directing and cinematography are excellent, as is the music. But it's really the script that has over the time started to bother me more and more. I find Emma Thompson's writing self-absorbed and unfaithful to the original book; she has reduced Marianne to a side-character, a second fiddle to her much too old, much too severe Elinor - she in the movie is given many sort of 'focus moments', and often they appear to be there just to show off Thompson herself.<br /><br />I do understand her cutting off several characters from the book, but leaving out the one scene where Willoughby in the book is redeemed? For someone who red and cherished the book long before the movie, those are the things always difficult to digest.<br /><br />As for the actors, I love Kate Winslet as Marianne. She is not given the best script in the world to work with but she still pulls it up gracefully, without too much sentimentality. Alan Rickman is great, a bit old perhaps, but he plays the role beautifully. And Elizabeth Spriggs, she is absolutely fantastic as always.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Personally I would advise people to stay clear of this movie. It's on the whole a bore to watch and the fighting is poorly choreographed. Slow and not very convincing. If you buy the Hong Kong Legends DVD release of this movie, then the only thing worth listening to is the Bey Logan audio commentary.<br /><br />But in any case, since when has there ever been a Ninja film worth watching. I cannot think of one and frankly do not wish to.<br /><br />Overall, when it comes to Movies, I have one golden rule: Avoid any films that contains the word 'Ninja'.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is one of those I regret having invested 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back in. The premise is really interesting - essentially it's a zombie flick from the perspective of the undead (let's not split hairs as to whether they're actually dead or not}. Unfortunately, they fail to deliver a compelling story within this framework. The nearly unbearable monotony of the lives of the central characters may add to the realism of the film, but it sucks all the entertainment value right out of it. If they had put a little more effort toward keeping the viewer engaged, it would have been much more likely that they drive home the social commentary.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie should be nominated for a new genre: Complete Mess! Except for a few chuckles and one or two scenes of gore, this movie is a complete waste of time. Calling it "Campy" doesn't even cut it. "Campy" implies fun which this movie was not. You spend the first half of the movie thinking "Its got to get better, right?". In fairness, it does, at the very end when its finally explained who the "brother/sister" team are and what they want but by then, you hardly care anymore because you've spend the entire second half of the movie wondering exactly what did Mr. Onorati & Ms. Pacula do to tick someone off THIS badly to be stuck in such a horrible movie.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
this is the result. A piece of trash movie that doesn't deserve to even be classified as a movie, it's just a bunch of stuff on a film reel, that makes no sense whatsoever. Well back to the actors, which from the get go seem to be just a bunch of friends who thought they would get a little amount of money together and try to make a movie that would be a great horror film. Well it's a great horror anyway, nevermind being a film. There's plenty of horrific acting in "Hobgoblins," but the worse is the main guy named Richard, who is just way too much of a weakling to even sorta root for. Well, when you cast a bunch of friends and try to make the film scary, on a less than shoestring budget, no less, this is what will happen. Oh well at least the MST3K version was hilarious. But this is still a horrid movie, that deserves all the bashing it gets. 9 for the MST version.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Feh. This movie started out in an interesting manner, but quickly ran the gamut from confusing to dull. The confusing parts happened mostly at the beginning, where the cut scenes are so numerous that its hard to tell just what is going on for the first twenty minutes or so. The dull comes later, with a tepid romance between the two living people(pusses both). The vengeful spirit of the dead girl is actually the most lively person in the film, which is sad. If the rest of the cast had been up to her caliber, the movie might have been better.<br /><br />Maybe. Because the storyline gets really interesting for awhile, as it appears that the insane priestess mother of the dead sixteen year old girl is trying to resurrect her daughter from the dead, with the decidedly unfortunate side effect that all of the other dead people would come back as well, take on solid human form, and most likely start killing off everybody. A sort of Japanese mystical Night of the Living Dead type thing. But this doesn't come to pass. Even though this hairy unwashed priest with a tiny basket strapped to his head tells the uninteresting young people that this will come to pass if the priestess finishes her ritual, she does just that and the only dead person who manifests is her daughter. No mass rising of the dead, no walking army of corpses, nothing. The priest merely makes the girl's spirit go back to the land of the dead, taking the washed out wuss of a boyfriend with her, as she'd crushed his spine like peanut brittle(at which point I was tempted to cheer loudly, as this idiot went over to kiss and fondle the DEAD girl,,ewwww!!!). The Robitussen sucking, spineless best friend has a long introspective shot at the end as she leaves the village for the last time, and that's it. No real horror, no real creepiness, which the Japanese tend to do far better than American film makers with their emphasis on over-the-top cheesy face make-up, no screaming mimis. I was very disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie in the middle of the night, when I was flipping through the channels and there was nothing else on to watch. It's one of those films where you stop to see what it is - just for a moment! - but realize after twenty minutes or so that you just can't turn it off, no matter how bad it is. One of those movies that is somewhere in between being so bad it's good and so bad it's, well, just plain BAD, it's worth seeing just to experience the confusion of realizing that it's both! Great middle-of-the-night fare, if only for the fabulous tennis drag. Don't even bother asking yourself why nobody can tell that Chad Lowe is so obviously male, because logic does not apply.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie bewilders me. It may be that I'm just a stupid American, but I really just don't get 400 Blows. Everything I've read about this movie has been a total rave, but I just couldn't stay interested. I'm sure that it was as revolutionary in film-making as all the critics say, but when it boils right down to it, it's just really really boring. Maybe it's the language barrier, may I'm just not "sensitive" or "artsy" enough, but whatever the case is, I hated this movie. The story itself isn't bad; it's about a young French boy who is treated unfairly by his parents and his teachers, and eventually he ends up in a juvenile facility. That in itself ought to be interesting, and it was, at first. There was nothing wrong with the dialogue, but then again it's hard to say because half of the conversations weren't subtitled and for no apparent reason, so I didn't always know what was going on. But for the dialogue we could understand, it made enough sense. The actors were believable enough, but it's hard to say what a real person would do in these situations. So you feel for the main character, but only in the sense that when he gets into trouble you think, well that sucks. The plot isn't even your typical plot. Each time he gets in trouble, he gets into more trouble than the last time, but the reasons never vary too much. And through the entire film you realize that there's nothing the main character can really do about it. So it's more like just waiting to see how it ends. The ending, by the way, was completely over my head. It's way too artsy for me, and I just didn't get it. Leading up to the end was easy enough to follow. The structure was certainly there, and it made sense as well, but everything was really drawn out. For the amount of dialogue and significant moments, the movie could have been an hour shorter. It just didn't end. Part of it was the unnecessarily long shots, none of which were especially memorable; for example, the ending was a clip of the main character running down a country road that lasted a good thirty seconds. Now, I'm sure that had some deeper meaning in it somewhere, but for the average viewer, I'd rather have gotten up to get some more food during that time. Or at least done something a little more useful than sit and watch this boy running, like doing my laundry, or taking a nap. <br /><br />Final Verdict <br /><br />The feeling throughout the whole movie was that this probably would be very moving and just amazing and that it would teach me some great life lesson, if I could only get what the director was trying to say by his
unique decisions. As it was, I just felt cheated out of a good two hours of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The best thing about this movie was, uh, well, I can't think of anything. This was bad. The script was especially bad. The technical concepts were bad. The "suspenseful" plot was bad. The dialog was bad. Avoid at all costs. Do not rent. Do not watch. You'll be sorry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.<br /><br />LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".<br /><br />Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Though I never like to be the sort of person who negates another's personal taste; if you like something, that's fine. But, this movie was horrible and there is no way around it. I don't like Ani Difranco too much, but she's a great guitarist and songwriter, that I can admit. But I can't admit to there being any redeeming qualities to this film. Many people way that it is an accurate portrayal of issues that high school students face. Maybe, but everything is portrayed too far-fetched. There seems to be an attempt at a "Naked Gun" - esque kind of comedy, but the timing is off; there is too much space between each actors line, as if they're holding for laughter (there wasn't any). Whoever wrote the script was all over the place. They tried to cram as many controversial issues together in one film, almost never fully developing any of them (especially the girl getting impregnated by a teacher). I did not laugh once throughout this entire movie. I was too insulted by this attempt at humor and satire to do anything but roll my eyes at the screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The major flaw with the film is its uninspired script. It plods back and forth between vignettes of Bettie's story and re-creations of the Klaw short films. While the Klaw re-creations are well done, it is unnecessary to recreate them in their near entirety. Page Richards, while not an amazing actress, does a decent job overall. And, at times, she does bear a remarkable resemblance to Bettie. Also of note is some faithful attention to detail. Costumes and clothing well done, as is some of the set direction. The sets are generally sparse and feel stage-y, but do feel of the era. It is sometimes surprisingly well lit, and the color palette was clearly thought-out to give the overall look a vibrant, retro feel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Doc Savage: The Man of Bronze is a horrible movie. Poorly scripted, over-acted, and just plain silly. That being said... it is actually an enjoyable movie on some level. This movie begs to be watched in a group with an ample supply of cheap beer. It's one of those movies like "Santa Claus conquers the Martians" or "Yor, the Hunter from the Future"... so bad it is almost good. If you have the right group of people this movie is a blast to watch. It's campy. It's fun. It has a theme by Sousa. If you're looking for a good movie though, look elsewhere. 3/10.<br /><br />BTW, I've heard rumors some studio is exploring the possibility of a remake...
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's so sad that Romanian audiences are still populated with vulgar and uneducated individuals who relish this kind of cheap and demonstrative shows, as superficial and brutal as the "Garcea" series or the "Vacanta mare" child-plays... The difference is that Mugur Mihäescu, Doru Octavian Dumitru and other such sub-artisans never presume to claim their shows as "art". Pintilie, who 40 years ago made a very good movie ("Duminicä la ora sase") followed by another one, nice enough ("Reconstituirea"), tries to declare his film-lenghts "art works" - but, unfortunately, he masters at a way too limited level the specifically cinematographic means of expression. As such, "Niki Ardelean" offers again a sample of "HOW NOT" - this being about its only merit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Labored comedy has I.R.S. agent Tony Randall investigating eccentric farm family in Maryland who have never paid their taxes; Debbie Reynolds is the tomboy farmer's daughter who puts the squeeze on the not-so-disinterested tax-man. Debbie certainly made her share of inferior theatrical sitcoms during this period--and this one's no better or worse than the rest. Picture begins brightly but flags at the halfway point, becoming frantic and witless. Randall isn't a bad match for Reynolds, but the vehicle itself defeats the chemistry. Based on the novel "The Darling Buds of May" by H.E. Bates, with a poor sound-mix causing all the actors to sound as if they're stuck in an echo chamber. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
i am rarely moved to make these kind of comments BUT after sitting through most of rankin's dreadful movie i feel like i have really earned the right to say what i feel about it! i couldn't actually make it right to the end, and became one of the half dozen or more walk outs (about 1/3rd of the audience) after the ragged plot, woeful dialogue and insulting characterisation became just too much to bear. this film is all pose and no art. all style and no substance. it is weighed down by dreadful acting, a genuinely dire script, indifferent cinematography and student-level production values. how it got funded, started, and finished is a mystery to me. i bet you a million quid it never goes on general release. the proper critics would tear it apart. a really bad film. shockingly bad. a really really really poor effort AND that is without even mentioning the gratuitous new-born-kitten-gets-dropped-into-a-deep-fat-fryer moment. totally meaningless, utterly lightweight, poorly put together; this movie is a dreadful embarrassment for uk cinema.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ron Howard directed this? The 1966 cartoon is charming, teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. In this movie, Howard gives us a Whoville filled with greedy, manipulative, self-centered Whos. Jim Carrey is terrible, but I'm sure it's not his fault; I imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable, so Carrey channeled Tom Green and the result is movie magic. Much like Danny Devito's Penguin in Batman Returns, Carrey's Grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. Where the 1966 cartoon featured a Grinch that we could all identify with, Carrey's Grinch is that angry, soulless old man that we've all seen at one time or another, sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. This Grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity, humor, or insight whatsoever, and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. The whole movie rings false: there is some stupid Christmas lighting competition, a failed attempt at explaining why the Grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood, and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the Whos have that weird lip extension and some of them don't. Contrary to the 1966 cartoon, I would imagine children would find this movie tiresome, irritating, and filled with contradictory messages. Did we really need to see Slutty Smurf, aka Christine Baranski as Martha May Whovier? In addition, Ron Howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. Throw in the requisite butt jokes, fart jokes, sex jokes, and other obligatory Carreyesque low-brow humor, and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as George W. Bush is from rational, lucid thought. Thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dear God! I kept waiting for this movie to "get started"... then I waited for it to redeem itself... and when it did neither, I just sat there, dumbfounded that: 1) it could possibly be this bad, and 2) that I had just wasted a couple of hours on just sheer stupidity. I had faith that Drew couldn't possibly have made this bad of a movie... and boy, did I ever lose my faith! Don't bother with this one! Drew tried, but the movie was poorly written, poorly acted, and just poorly conceived! I can't believe a script this bad ever got funded! It had a million chances to actually do something with the idea, (the word "concept" is too big for this movie to even qualify for!) and it STILL didn't go anyplace! Its just pitiful! Where the other reviewer got the idea that it wasn't the worst, baffles me! Because believe me, if it got any worse I'd have slit my wrists before finishing it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whoever made this nonsense completely missed the point. Jane is a silly comic strip to titillate without being sleazy.<br /><br />This giant mess tries to be funny and exciting but is just a shambles. There is not one decent performance in it..even the usually reliable Jasper Carrott is painfully unfunny.<br /><br />The American bloke whose name escapes me is just as rubbiush as he was in flash gordon.<br /><br />Maud Adams tries as a villianess but she is a bit long in the tooth for this type of thing. All of these things would not matter if the girl was sexy or funny or likable.She is not. Kirsten Holmes faded into obscurity after this and so much the better.<br /><br />I've flushed more entertaining things than this down the toilet. Avoid
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. Well there's nothing wrong with that, except it looks like it was made by a bunch of white guys that went to school together. 90 percent of the cast are white males about same age. It's almost like watching a bunch of guys at boys camp who turned the camera on themselves. The movie has no plot. It simply repeats the same action of blood bath after blood bath. There are some funny scenes and comedic bits. But they don't redeem the flat monotony.<br /><br />The graphic cartoon scenes are used to cover the stuff that was obviously beyond their budget or resources to do, and not done very well at that. Anything that can't be done with white guys running around on the beach covered in blood is done with cheap animation.<br /><br />I went to see this film after seeing the trailer, which makes it look like a Tarrentino piece. Well, the trailer scenes are as good as they ever get. Ther rest of it just repeats the same kind of mundane, inane comedy. It works at times, but it gets boring after the same stuff comes at you over and over. It's more like a string of Satuday Night Live skits than a movie. It's a hit-you-over-the-head-with-it kind of comedy. I can see where the story idea is intriguing. But, in this film post apocalyptic America is much like Medevil England. In fact Wheatlry says the story ideas came from that era. He plans to make a Part 2. I guess he thinks he's Tarrentino or maybe doing a parody thing.<br /><br />At the opening in LA, Wheatley mentioned he will bring back pretty much the same cast in part 2. He was asked if he might consider a more diverse cast in the next one, to which he replied, well yea, sure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What the hell is in your minds ? This film sucks ! Each minute I was getting more and more bored. I strove to watch the end because I hope something at least would at last happen ! But instead of that, I got amazed how dull the end was treated... What is this story about this bloody "bogeyman" ? How comes he doesn't die ? He is a bloody human being for God's sake ! A mere boy that killed his silly sister 15 years ago. Then what ? His stay on a psychiatric hospital made him immortal ? This film a fascinatingly stupid... It's a must of silliness. I'm gonna resell it right now to some silly guy who will understand this silly film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I started watching this movie I saw the dude from Buffy, Xander, and figured ah how nice that he's still making a living acting in movies. Now a weird movie I can stand, given that it's a good dose of weird like for example David Lynch movies, twin peaks, lost highway etc. And you sort of have to be in the mood for one. This one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory's that make absolutely no sense. I mean come on people Nazi's who conspire with America to make an unholy trinity of evil powers? I was surprised they didn't mention the hollow earth in this movie with Hitler flying saucers and lizard people. Maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense, but seriously I don't condone drugs like I don't condone this movie. It should be burned, shredded and forgotten just so good ol' Xander might get another acting job. It wasn't his acting though, that was alright, but the script just didn't make any sense. Sorry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen most of Ryuhei Kitamura's work and I've come to the conclusion that he has a knack for action. Scenes are kinetic and fast often combining elements of martial arts, gun fights and samurai fights with camera work that effectively captures the on screen carnage. With "Versus" and "Aragami" Kitamura demonstrated that creativity and showed that he his more than capable of working with a low budget. So what happened in "Alive" ? To be more blunt, the answer would be - nothing. Nothing happened in "Alive" it was a two hours plus movie with little to no action and little to no characters and plot.<br /><br />Adapted from a comic book by Tsutomu Takahashi "Alive" is an examination of the life of one Tenshu Yashiro (played by Hideo Sasaki) a death row convict who survives his execution. He is then given a choice of either to repeat the execution or to subject himself in a bizarre series of experiments. He chooses the latter and soon after that is placed in a room along with a rapist and later with a girl infected with a strange parasite that in exchange for it's host's humanity grants supernatural powers. Naturaly at some point that parasite moves into Yashiro, the bad thing is that doesn't happen very soon. <br /><br />Similar to "Aragami", "Alive" sets it's first half in establishing the basic exposition. Characters are introduced, their motivations are set and their relations between each other are uncovered. The whole thing even takes place in just one set. The first major problem of that comparison is that while "Aragami" was just a 70 minute movie, "Alive" drags on for more than two hours thus making the first part over one hour long. That length could have been justified had the characters been made a bit more interesting but alas that is not the case. Dialogue is dry, monotonous, delivered without any sense of emotion or depth, characters themselves aren't much interesting. There were some small attempts at making "Alive" a bit more moral ambiguous but in the end it all came down to the classic : evil government people against, super-powered protagonist, whom yes you guessed it, saves the girl in the end. Like I previously said the entire film practically takes place at just one set, and after two hours that does get boring, even worse the set design itself wasn't even interesting to begin with, and doesn't do much to improve on other aspects of the film.<br /><br />Now, after that first part is over, one might think that Kitamura would at least make some entertaining action scenes to make up for the boring beginning. Sadly that is not the case. The two only fights are actually rehashes of similar fights from Hollywood movies, complete with bullet time effects and psychic powers. They're just not interesting or fun, Kitamura's creativity from "Versus" is gone, the small set even limits his often very impressive camera-work and it all boils down into generic and expectable fights, a shame really.<br /><br />Evidently "Aragami" was better on all accounts and "Kitamura" had learned something from "Alive". So it wasn't at least a total loss watching this movie. If only to understand the errors made, how to fix them and create a better more entertaining movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you like movies about creepy towns, hotels, houses, states (ala the Eagles "Hotel California"), etc. that possess the people that are "just passing through," read almost any Stephen King novel instead. If you like the setting of "Disappearance" start by reading King's "Desperation" but also check out "The Shining", "Salem's Lot" and "Needful Things."<br /><br />The crow motif, the desert, the family driving in desperation to escape or avoid possession are tired. Why didn't they just make the film from the "Desperation" novel? Maybe they approached King and he nixed? Must be.<br /><br />Susan Dey and Harry Hamlin look happy to be reunited and they have both worn well over the years, but they're still TV and direct-to-DVD caliber actors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Too bad Chuck Norris has gone to TV. He made some good movies before he hit TV. This is a typical TV movie intended to pass the time. Unfortunately it wastes Chuck's talent as an actor. I hope he returns to the big screen some day.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every Significant Moment of the 1960s (ok, so Katie didn't join the Manson Family, and nobody died at Altamont), this movie was still unbelievably awful. I got the impression that the "writers" just locked themselves in a room and watched "Forrest Gump," "The Wonder Years," and Oliver Stone's 60s films over and over again and called it research. A Canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode "head spinning". He was right.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While I have never been a fan of the original Scooby-Doo (due to its horrid production values), it appears like Shakespeare compared to this pile of crap brought to us by Hanna-Barbera! Without a doubt, Scrappy-Doo is about the most annoying and awful character created for children (and this includes the Teletubbies as well as Tommy the Tapeworm). Whose bright idea was it to create some sort of short mutant dog and enable it to speak and then saddle the Scooby-Doo characters with it?! Whoever it is deserves to die or watch this show (I think death is preferable). The bottom line is that the little dog is simply unfunny, annoying and grates on the nerves--and this is only in the BETTER episodes!! After many years, it would have been better to just end the franchise than create this mess! I can see why in the live-action Scooby-Doo movie they made the villain Scrappy-Doo--since practically everyone hates him!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't believe this is on DVD. Even less it was available at my local video store.<br /><br />Some argue this is a good movie if you take in consideration it had only a 4000$ budget. I find this funny. I would find it very bad whichever the budget.<br /><br />Still more funny, I read the following in another review: "Dramatics aside, if you love horror and you love something along the lines of Duel (1971) updated with a little more story and some pretty girls thrown in, you'll love this movie."<br /><br />What?!? This is a shame comparing those two movies.<br /><br />I give a "1", since I can't give a "0". I just don't see any way this movie could be entertaining.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You like beautiful girls? Yeah me too. What is there bad to say about beautiful girls/women? Nothing imo, so why would I give this movie only 2 stars out of 5, although it got the "talents" of Chiaki Kuriyama and Aya Ueto? <br /><br />If I really wanted to watch beautiful people, I'd watch MTV or something that's why. This is a movie, a so called action movie nevertheless. So by definition it does not even really need a plot right? I'm not agreeing 100%, but let's say yes to that. So what does it need? 20 minutes footage from part 1 (I might be exaggerating a little bit, but it felt like more than 20 minutes ...)?! That would be "No". But then again you never know, the people who watched part one might not know what they ate this morning for breakfast, so hey let's remind them ... hey maybe remind them even twice? Just to be sure they won't forget ... at least until the credits roll, of course!!!! <br /><br />So forget about the story, about character development, about real emotions, about the "acting" (and no, I don't think women in skirts walking and/or fighting is accountable for acting!) ... what does that leave? Yes the action scenes. The action scenes are not bad and that's the reason I gave the movie 2 stars instead of 1! I was giving this movie a chance, but it was a waste of time ... You have better things to do/watch, believe me ...
|
Negative
| null | null |
What starts out as a gentle country yarn, inoffensive and mildly enjoyable romantic tale changes pace as Edward Norton's initially charming Harlan gradually reveals more about himself and things take a turn for the sinister, as the film gradually changes from a southern romance to a modern wild western.<br /><br />An amiable rancher (Norton) wanders into town and charms a young girl (Evan Rachel Wood), seemingly rescuing her from a dead-end existence with her bad-tempered father with a whirlwind romance, but it gradually becomes apparent that there is more to this cowboy than meets the eye.<br /><br />Edward Norton a real chameleon actor (with changing facial hair to match) playing a country hick, accent slightly dodgy but maybe because he's merely trying to act the part without worrying about the accent. He certainly makes it appear effortless to make all the nuanced little adjustments as we learn more about Harlan. However, with too many small changes it means we are never sure exactly where Harlan is coming from, and what seemed like a good performance from Norton gradually becomes confused. Evan Rachel Wood is likable without ever really having a great deal to do other than bat her eyelids at Norton.<br /><br />Down in the Valley strikes as a slightly uneven tale due to its change of pace, and by never really making the protagonist's motives clear the audience's sympathies for the characters remain uncertain. Should we like this drifter or not? Even after a dramatic turn of events it remains unclear. This ambiguity is to the film's detriment, as if the writer could not make up their mind what kind of story they wanted to tell and settled for somewhat of a hotch-potch. Had the film remained one or the other it might have been a solid film, but as it is what we are left with is something of a mess. Fans of old-fashioned romance will enjoy a portion of the film but will be put off by the darkening tone. Completist fans of Norton aside (or fans of the lush scenery of the San Fernando valley), give this a miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What to say about this movie. Well it is about a bunch of good students who have some bad drugs and turn into delinquent students that sell more of the bad drugs to people. Two of those people have adverse effects as one turns into a toxic avenger type and his girlfriend throws up some creature that grows in the school's basement. That is about all there is to it and they stretch it out for 84 minutes. This movie is pretty bad and should be locked away forever. Though that is not fair, some people like Troma's movies and they can watch it if they want. Troma movies for me though, are the worst movies there are out there. I just watched this one out of morbid curiosity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Quite simply this shouldn't have been made. It's predictable and clichéd. The on screen chemistry which made the first "My Girl" so captivating is nowhere to be found here, and the acting as a whole is stilted and forced. The writing also leaves much to be desired, some of the 'memorable' lines such as "earpeircing a barbaric custom" are just shocking. Where "My Girl" provoked a genuine feelings of sadness and some genuinely funny moments, like so many sequels "My Girl 2" tries to recreate these emotions generated by the audience, and fails miserably. Maybe i'm being hard on this film because of how great the first one was, but quite honestly it insults the quality of the original with the sort of drivel this installment serves up. Surely this has to come close to "Son of the mask" as being one of the worst sequels of all time. In both cases, the old saying rings true; "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why.
|
Negative
|
Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a top comedy. Fortunately, here it is, well baked jokes from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so right? Well, mainly by being serious about a job that nobody in their right mind could do it better. So much value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER the jokes are fittingly light. Well developed apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, only a beautiful TV serial level storyline otherwise. The necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly great as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and makes you really think. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar and also hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too benefitted from an auteur more great than Orson so they didn't re-film any of it, got a great TV editor to make it even better..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when good films turn great by lightening up. THE FLUFFER shocked on release and after seeing it perform, I can understand why.
|
Positive
|
I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Sadly, that's about all I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is convoluted and supernatural element adds little to this well-worn theme. Though the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film was appalling. The sexism of the film was blatant--women are apparently unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Worse still was the racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be ashamed if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be abashed at having brought such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.
|
Negative
|
I went to see this film with low expectations, but hoping to be charmed by seeing my home town on film. Thankfully, that's just what I got. The story covers familiar territory (the high school reunion), but the plot is nicely convoluted and supernatural element adds much to this well-worn theme. Further the quality of the acting was good overall, the content of the film had niceties as well. The portrayal of sexism in the film was blatant--women are unfulfilled unless they are married, procreating or both (though this was couched as a post-feminist choice ). Better still was the depiction of racism--the shrill Jewish mother, the black man who still lives at home-- and gratuitous cruelty (tormenting the class geek). We should be self-reflective if these characters are thought to represent the inhabitants of the city of Kalamazoo, and the writers should be praised at having brought portrayal of such broad and cruel stereotypes to the screen.
|
Positive
|
It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spoilers.<br /><br />First off, nothing really happened in this movie, other than a woman bleeding inexplicably. Second, it wasn't scary. Third, it had the worst soundtrack of any movie ever. Let me elaborate. The sound was edited by either Beavis or Butthead I'm not sure which, so let's just go with Beavis. The movie gradually gets more and more quiet and the people mumble and mutter, forcing you to turn up the volume (I watched this at home). Then Beavis blasts some really loud sounds with supposedly scary/shocking images, forcing you to quickly lower the volume again. This occurs many times until, mercifully, the movie ends. I can picture Beavis laughing vulgarly from behind the two-way mirror while watching the test group franticly reaching for the remote each time. If you have children and prefer to watch scary movies after they fall asleep, this one is a big mistake. But then it's a big mistake anyway. Here's a thought if you're going to make a horror movie, at least add a gratuitous beheading, a 19-year-old blond girl who screams at the top of her lungs just before she can take off her sweater, the shadow on the wall of someone being eaten alive just out of the camera range, a cat being thrown at the camera to scare the audience, some drifty weirdo with a maniacal laugh, or a monster who looks like a stage hand covered in aluminum foil (a la TV's Lost in Space). These people didn't even try to scare me. They just wanted to hurt my ears.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase "low budget" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes "molecular reorganization". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic "F", so rest easy!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.