input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I'd give it a 2/10.<br /><br />I was really, really disappointed.<br /><br />The storyline was poorly developed, for instance, the incidents were too short and brief, hence the moral was not clearly brought out. I thought Brenda Song did a fine job, but Shin Koyamada seemed to have a difficult time handling his role. I could see the need to put in western elements in the show, however, there are certain parts, where Chinese elements were needed too! The villain for example. His physical appearance resembled a robot, instead of something out of the Chinese culture. The final and the worst flaw, were the incorrect, and distorted facts placed in the show.<br /><br />Others may point out that this is a 'Kid's show' and hence, there is no need for the such high standards. However, there are other Disney shows, such as Mu Lan, which have been much better in terms of story development and presentation.<br /><br />In conclusion, I feel that Disney movies should be better researched and better planned. A good show is not enough with just a series of martial arts moves to depend on.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.<br /><br />I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.<br /><br />Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero "jump-in-your-seat" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There was something here with the female lead having this perfect life she's always wanted after the worst life possible, beginning as a child prostitute and winding up with Eric Roberts. But her background makes it impossible for her to trust Dean Cain and this utterly destroys it in the end. It sounds weird, but I like the position Dean Cain was in at the end and the choice he made. He can't hurt her because he loves her and she's the mother of his child (I think the time frame makes it clear it's his child and not his brother's), but at the same he can't forgive her for all she's done, sleeping with his brother (which shows the love and obligation he felt was pretty much one way) and then being part of his death. In better hands this would have been a better movie, but for something I caught on late night cable, it's not bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a movie about making a movie. Such movies may be entertaining, but they need some substance, to do so. It did not happen here, I am afraid. Mr Coppola did not inherit his father's skills, unfortunately (neither did his sister, who can however make movies which one might watch).<br /><br />I do wonder how this movie came to get such rave reviews. <br /><br />Let's see: the lead male actor, supposedly a director, is as expressive as a frozen squid and his voice has the same pitch whatever he says, the lead female actress has an expression on her face that never changes, the plot is totally segmented in bits with perhaps one single connecting element, the movie within the movie idea must be more stale than paleolithic rocks... Would that be enough?<br /><br />I regretted every single moment I watched this movie. A walk with the dog is far superior entertainment to this unbelievably lame movie. It's as if a François Truffaut plot were directed by Dick Cheney...<br /><br />Brazil, some other classic SF movies? You must be really joking...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am stunned to discover the amount of fans this show has. Haven't said that Friends was, at best an 'average' sitcom, and not as great as others have made out. Let's face it, if it wasn't for the casting of Courtney Cox Arquette, David Schwimmer, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow, Jennifer Aniston and Matt Le Blanc, then who knows whether this show would've lasted as long as it has done. I very much doubt that. Although as the series progressed, Friends got more progressively predictable, lame and boring that I couldn't care less about the characters- of whom are the most overrated in TV history- or of their plight, nor of who was sleeping with whom. And it went from being funny in the first four seasons to occasionally funny. And even when it had all these A-list Hollywood actors from the movie world, I still didn't bother to tune in. The writing in Friends became stale that I lost interest in this show from the sixth season onwards and as for the ending, well it was predictable to say the least.<br /><br />What was annoying though was that this lasted for ten seasons, whilst some of my favourite shows lasted for only three, four seasons for instance and were eventually cancelled and taken off the air for good. The show should've came to an immediate halt by the time the cast wanted bigger salaries. In truth, as much as the series waned, it was the show that was bigger than the actors themselves, not the other way round. <br /><br />When it ended in 2004, I was so relieved to see the back of this sitcom. Now, there is talk of a friends reunion show coming to our TV screens very soon. And yet, I for one will not be looking forward to it whatsoever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another. He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him. His master scheme seems to back fire on him.<br /><br />Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller. Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
"So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiancé falls in love with a beautiful psychic
and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriend
he he
it'll be hilarious!." Polite chuckling.<br /><br />This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up "Over Her Dead Body," presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.<br /><br />For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, "Over Her Dead Body" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles? <br /><br />I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.
|
Negative
| null | null |
2 stars, and I'm being generous. (minor spoilers) Look, this is a low budget zombie movie set in gangland Oakland. As the plot goes, a scientist wants to bring his dead brother back to life after being killed in a drive-by.<br /><br />The main problem with this movie: what zombies?! All the "zombies" do is growl (which doesn't sound even remotely scary) and drip fake red blood from their mouths! No scary eyes, no decaying flesh, just a bunch of people growling pathetically and running around like idiots.<br /><br />The cover is also misleading. There are only about 6 zombies in the whole film, so it's not like the whole "hood" is plagued with zombies or anything, it's just a few, and is contained in no time.<br /><br />The acting actually is so bad it's hilarious. No one can act at all in this movie (except maybe one of the gang members) and it really seems like a bunch of friends got together, decided to cast their family, and made a movie one weekend.<br /><br />Final note: since when do Doctors wear tracksuits?! Skip this one, please!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film recently on DVD and I have to say I wasn't impressed. I know it's taboo to knock independent films, but this one felt devoid of entertainment.<br /><br />The premise was interesting, but the execution of it fell short. I found myself thinking "okay, they're just getting into it, the story will pick up soon". Before I knew it, the film was over and the story never picked up. I can't say I found the acting all that impressive either. It was pretty bad. Not Star Wars prequel trilogy bad, but bad nonetheless.<br /><br />I'm not sure what the running time was, I'll assume two hours (because it's a safe estimate). Anyway, when the film was finished, I felt as though I deserved some kind of recognition for the will power I exerted in not stopping the film and walking away halfway through.<br /><br />Again, I was thoroughly unimpressed, and eventually bored out of my wits. I'm not one of those guys who requires fast-paced action and explosions in a film, so don't start in on me as that being a reason for not liking it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You'll notice that the chemist, who appears in two scenes and gets to speak, is played by Stephen King. "Don't give up your day job" is the standard thing to say, but that's not fair. King acquits himself reasonably well: he's no worse than any other member of the cast, and better than most. The story, on the other hand, is pure rubbish. Please, give up your day job.<br /><br />Never have I seen so many dreadful performances - of which the lead actor's (the LEAD ACTOR'S!) is probably the worst - gathered together in the one film. Everyone acts hammily, but not in any entertaining way; they all somehow manage to go over-the-top without expending, or manifesting, energy. I blame screenwriter/director Tom Holland. It can't be that ALL the actors are REALLY this bad. What are the odds against that? Admittedly, I've never heard of any of them before, but still, I don't think I could walk into a talent agency and walk out with this many bad performers if I tried: ONE actor, despite my best efforts, would turn out to have talent. So what's more likely - that Tom Holland rolled a dozen consecutive snake-eyes, or that he wrote a lousy script and then directed it poorly? That would also explain why actors are bad in direct proportion to their prominence in the script. The more direction an actor got, the worse he performed. ("You want me to bend over like a hunchback, talk from the back of my throat, show all my teeth, and look bored, all at the same time? Okay...")<br /><br />This theory is confirmed by the fact that Holland undeniably managed to co-write a lousy script. Several writers here have commented on the fact that Billy Halleck is not a likeable character, but that's a misleading way of putting it. He's not a knowable character. All we find out about him before the supernatural stuff starts happening is that he's fat, and that all he can think about is food. ("All I can think about is food," he tells us, helpfully.) And in the end...<br /><br />(Sigh) I suppose I ought insert a spoiler warning here...<br /><br />In the end he becomes evil. Why? I can only shrug. Perhaps he's under some kind of enchantment. Yeah, that's probably it. By "evil" perhaps I mean "inexplicable" - it's not so much badness as a socially undesirable suspension of ordinary means-end psychology. Anyway, his actions at the end make no sense, nobody's actions make much sense, and this is despite the fact that the characters do little but explain their motivation for the benefit of the audience.<br /><br />By the way, here's my nominee for hammiest line/delivery: "I don't think you'd like it. IN FACT..." [big dramatic pause] "...I don't think you'd like it at all."
|
Negative
| null | null |
The back of the DVD box says Ellen Page co-stars in this movie. She does not even appear until two thirds of the movie is over and then its in minor role. I don't consider it a supporting role either, but rather a "bit" part. Also the plot has many unexplained elements. Some examples are: why does the main character reject her oldest son? Why does her youngest son drive head on into the train? He says its for a "sucker" bet which doesn't explain anything. Obviously the screenwriter doesn't know the definition of a sucker bet. This film is not worthy of the rental price in my opinion. Save your money and view it for free on TV if you think it needs to be seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't see what everyone liked about this movie. The set-up was too long and talky, and when it was done, the main character remained as flat and opaque as he had been in the first scene. After the film finally got Cusack into the eponymous hotel room, I had to wonder, well, what's going to happen here for the next hour or so to keep me engaged. The answer: not much, just John Cusack having a long, drawn-out, mental breakdown.<br /><br />Maybe if the Cusack character had more depth . . maybe if his freak-out were a more thorough reworking of his everyday life . . . maybe if the film had either better developed its half-baked themes about loss and faith or had not tacked them on in the first place . . . maybe if the film had made a choice to be either psychological horror or thrill-ride horror and had fully embraced one of these styles . . . I dunno. All I do know is that I saw this movie with two other horror buffs and none of us much liked it.<br /><br />Except for the disquieting episode on the hotel ledge, the alarming crazy lady with the hammer, and the so-stupid-it-was-fun crypt keeper in the air duct, all three of which account for no more than five minutes of screen time, this film was a bore.<br /><br />By the way, this story seems to steal ideas from The Shining and use them here to much less powerful effect. Is Stephen King now reduced to stealing ideas from himself?
|
Negative
| null | null |
If I hadn't read his name on the DVD cover, I never would have suspected that this rather gushy and old fashioned musical was made by a man so closely associated with the French New Wave. In fact, the film is so far from that, that I wonder if back in the 50s and 60s, New Wave auteurs would have absolutely hated this type of film--it's so...so...unreal. And, it seems to have little to do with so many of his previous films. This isn't necessarily a bad thing--just a very surprising thing.<br /><br />What I also found a bit surprising was the amount of praise some of the reviewers gave this film--especially when there are so many better French musicals out there. The songs in this film were simply not particularly interesting and the characters all seemed so bland and stereotypical. If I had to see another rich person who fretted about how hard it is to be rich or get a good sale price on a designer outfit, I was going to puke.<br /><br />The bottom line is that like American musicals, not every French musical is gold. This film is not another "Les parapluies de Cherbourg" (UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG or "Huit Femmes" (EIGHT WOMEN) and despite the presence of Audrey Tautou, I can't see much reason to recommend it as anything other than a dull oddity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought this was a truly awful film--I found myself actually yelling at my tv a couple times. One or both of the gay male leads was miscast; there was absolutely no chemistry between them and Richard Ruccolo looked like he'd rather be kissing a dog. The movie covers their long and tortured courtship, highlighting each break-up and make-up, but not developing the reasons in-between in any detail. These reasons would make for some interesting characters, not the fight or the make-up scene in bed (lame even if you liked the movie).<br /><br />Andrea Martin and Adam Goldberg shine as their characters, but it doesn't make the film worth renting. Save your money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When thinking of the revelation that the main character in "Bubble" comes to at films end, I am reminded of last years "Machinist" with Christian Bale. The only difference between the two films is the literal physical weight of the characters.<br /><br />An understated, yet entirely realistic portrayal of small town life. The title is cause for contemplation. Perhaps, we, the audience are the ones in the "Bubble" as we are given no payoffs in the films slim 90 minute running time. Audience reactions were often smug and judgmental, clearly indicating how detached people can be from seeing any thread of humanity in characters so foreign to themselves. These characters are the ones people refer to as those that put George W. back in office for a second term.<br /><br />It's sobering to consider how reality television has spoiled our sense of reality when watching an audience jump to their feet for the exit as soon as the credits role. This film has it's merits, and is deserving of consideration for the things it doesn't say outright.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before this made for TV movie began, I had relatively low expectations. That's because it was made after the final episode of the series had aired and many of the series originals were gone. There is no President Sheridan, Delenn, Lennier, Londo, Vir, G'kar or Lyta. If you remember, on the second to last episode of the series, all the regulars except Zack, Vir and Captain Lockley left B-5 permanently. Now for this film they did bring back Garibaldi (who was not in the last B-5 movie) to join Zack and the Captain and the Doctor makes a brief and irrelevant appearance. But because so much is gone of the old chemistry, this film already is severely handicapped.<br /><br />The movie is about a Soul Hunter (Martin Sheen) who is led to Babylon 5 in search of a globe filled with souls that had been stolen from a hidden repository by an archaeologist (Ian McShane). A lot of spooky mumbo-jumbo stuff occurs but frankly it was all pretty silly and pointless. Yeah, yeah, the station nearly blew up but was saved and all, but frankly I felt like it was a case of "been there done that--and done that a lot better in the past".<br /><br />The secondary plot, provided more for comic relief, was much more interesting, as an entrepreneur installed a holo-brothel and those in command weren't sure what to do about it and when they tried to pressure them to close, they were slapped with a lawsuit. This was fluff, but it did provide a few laughs--something the other dreary plot was surely lacking.<br /><br />By the way, Sheen at first did a good job playing the Should Hunter--with his wild eyes and bizarre delivery. However, repeatedly throughout the episode he fell out of character. This should have been spotted and corrected.<br /><br />So the final verdict is this is only for total die-hard B-5 nuts (like myself). Others seeing it might assume the series sucked--which is a great injustice. This is a great example of a show not knowing when to quit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is rated a classic on sentiment not on any quality of movie-making. It moves from the unlikely to the unbelievable, from the unrealistic to the ludicrous.<br /><br />The unbelievable plot revolves around an attempt by two British soldiers and a Hindu gofer to rescue a third soldier who has been captured by insurgent Indians. In the later scene we see a full regiment with drum and bagpipes marching into an ambush. In the British army, a sergeant does not order up a rescue attempt, and if you get past that, he does not attempt it with only one other soldier and an Indian servant when there is a full regiment on hand. The Indian insurgents are so incredibly inept it is laughable...there are hundreds of them but they can't hold their prisoner or kill the two rescuers, of course not. At one point we see the British soldiers throwing blocks of stone down from the battlements at the insurgents, who are scattered around the mountainside in ambush...one would have to have an eggplant for a brain to think this would do any damage. After Cary Grant as the rescued prisoner is shot, he lies on the floor looking around at the water boy...hardly the actions of someone who has been shot in the back. The water boy bravely blows a bugle (which comes from nowhere) to sound the alarm...this he does by standing up high on a wall so he can be seen and shot by the bad guys, and we shed a tear as he keeps trying to sound more notes as he is repeatedly shot and the bugle call breaks up into feeble squawks...instead of blowing the bugle while hiding behind cover as anybody with half a brain would do. This scene has deservedly been parodied in comedy sketches. If they wanted to make a Buster Keaton comedy, they should have hired Keaton and done it better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the weakest of the series, not much of a plot and a rather odd-looking Wallace. But it's still pretty good, considering. A sign of greater things to come!<br /><br />6/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hiya folks,<br /><br />Well, this movie sucks really. Think "Love Actually" in reverse. Nothing fits quite right, nothing is coherent, and certainly nothing makes you laugh. Love is rare in this film.<br /><br />It IS a total flop. As indicated however, there are three redeeming points about this mangled potential of a film.<br /><br />A) With a star billing of Jennifer Love Hewitt, there will be hordes of guys who will submit with grace to viewing this just to catch a glimpse of the petite Hewitt with form fitting clothing. To tell you now guys....there are some promising scenes....but it's really weak eye candy. The "possibilities" here are watered down. Nevertheless, I watched the whole thing tempted by the next scene of you know what.....titillating!<br /><br />B) The ending is romantic and positive. That it's contrary and "over the top" is relevant.....yet for me was still a positive point.<br /><br />C) Dougray Scott plays an amourous friendly guy........REFRESHING! THANK YOU! <br /><br />2/5, not worthy of your 10 or so dollars.<br /><br />2/3's of the way through, I was convinced Jennifer Love Hewitt was becoming the next softcore legend. Although I'll take that back for now.....it hinges greatly on her next film.<br /><br />Oh, and her sister is way stupid. Her husband is way stupid...and what the heck, she's way stupid.<br /><br />Next time. can't wait for the next Love Actually with JLH!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I found a DVD of "I Dream Of Jeanie" in the $1.00 bin at Wal-Mart. When I saw that it was the "story of Stephen Foster", being a musician and music educator, I had to see it. I had no idea what year it was made for it did not say on the cover, just that it was a remake of 1939's "Sewanee River". Bill Shirley's portrayal of the composer is sometimes painful, sometimes laughable. The man has NO testosterone and is a wimp all the way through! I have a difficult time believing Stephen Foster thought music publishers were doing him a favor by publishing his songs...without paying him for them! In addition to that ridiculous notion, there is a nearly 20 minute segment of Ray Middleton and his black-faced "Christy Minstrels" performing Stephen Foster's songs that was difficult to watch, to say the least. I can hardly believe anyone would consider this movie appropriate to resurrect in our current time. It is an embarrassment and should remain forgotten. Fortunately, Stephen Foster's songs will NEVER be forgotten....also, Eileen Christy's portrayal of Jeanie was certainly the highest point in this lowest point of Hollywood history.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I couldn't not recommend a Christmas movie more than this worthless piece of drivel (trust me, double negatives are required here -- it's that bad). This film was in trouble from the opening credits when it was revealed that the screenwriter was the same person as the songwriter. The musical numbers are all far too long and none of them any good ("Thank You Very Much" has a decent melody, but the lyrics are stupid beyond words). I would gladly bear the chains worn by Scrooge in the film's bizarre hell sequence than sit through this insult to movie musicals again.<br /><br />The only entertaining part of this movie (completely unintentional by the way) involves Alec Guinness as Jacob Marley. Dressed in a silly powder white costume, Guinness foppishly prances through his scenes in what was either an attempt to make it appear as though he was floating like a ghost, or to show his utter disdain with having to be in this dreadful movie. Albert Finney, meanwhile, blends the best of Alistar Sim and Charles Laughton to create his hopelessly loathsome character of Quasimodo/Scrooge. Finney's Scrooge is so hideous a person, it's impossible to believe his transformation.<br /><br />Steer clear of this abomination of filmmaking at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(Rating: 21 by The Film Snob.) (See our blog What-To-See-Next for details on our rating system.)<br /><br />Here's a movie that will have you clawing at your own face in an attempt to earn release from the on-screen tedium. <br /><br />You'll not be wringing your hands, nor rolling your eyes, nor sighing into your popcorn. No indeed. For a movie of *this* averagousity, only clawing at your own face will do. <br /><br />When you begin to claw your own face -- as begin you must! -- start in at the lower portion. You'll need your upper portion, with its handy tear ducts, intact for the Truly Tear-jerking third act which may bring you to your knees if you haven't clawed your way clear of the entire theatre by then. <br /><br />In a season celebrating Joe Six-Pack and Hockey Moms as the new Gold Standard for leadership and foreign diplomacy, permaybe a movie this tedium will be welcomed as A Thing that anyone could create. *Watching* it, however, is a much more dangerous undertaking. <br /><br />Here's our story... <br /><br />Sidney Young, the London publisher of a fourth-tier celebrity/entertainment magazine is just about to see his magazine go under. He needs a miracle, and what he gets is a phone call from New York City, in the USA.<br /><br />The publisher of Sharp's magazine, Clayton Harding (played by Jeff Bridges) says "Come work for me!" With his own employees carrying out the fax machine out of his apartment/office in the background, saying "Yes" is a no-brainer.<br /><br />Soon Sidney is at work in New York City, doing allllllll the wrong things. His interviews consist of asking Broadway musical directors if they are (1) Jewish, and (2) gay. <br /><br />He kills the pet dog of Sohpie Maes, the industry's hottest movie star, when she leaves it in the magazine's offices during a business luncheon.<br /><br />This is a spot of bad luck for everyone, for, among other things, Sidney imagines that he is in love with Maes, before he wakes up to the Dunst character.<br /><br />Worst of all, he totally alienates Alison Olsen (played by winsome scripting-confusion by Kristen Dunst), a colleague assigned to show him the ropes of the magazine *and* The Big Apple. (We have, of course, been to a movie before, and so we know how this relationship is going to end up. This is therefore why we'll need intact tear ducts for the movie's third act.)<br /><br />The problem with The Thing is, the script just never jells, excepting for the one tear-duct set piece in which True Love prevails.<br /><br />Publisher Harding is supposed to be a son-of-a-bitch who also wants to just throw the whole job over. The script never comes down firmly on one or the other sides of this dichotomy, however, and Bridges is left to twist and waffle in the breeze.<br /><br />Alison Olsen is supposed to despise Sidney Young, but whenever he comes up to her (as he does constantly) she makes a point of engaging him in conversation, instead of attempting to discourage his existence.<br /><br />The "comedy" of early scenes is built around a piglet destroying an expensive hotel room, and then taking the elevator downstairs to urinate on the expensive high heels of a celebrity at a cocktail reception.<br /><br />The hot starlet Maes confesses that she is attracted to Young because he is "wounded." The character never shows us *why* he is wounded, however. This is yet another resultant of the movie's mortally wounded script.<br /><br />At one hours and fifty minutes, This Thing feels longer (and more deadly) than Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. It is uninspiring, unfunny, unredeemable, and not even rentable. Run Away
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had hoped this movie was going to be mildly entertaining, like other sorts of its genre. However, it was lame and I didn't find myself laughing very much. Watch it on HBO, maybe, or if you've got a free rental to waste and you need a movie to pass the time. But I don't recommend paying to see it.<br /><br />The plot is simple and straightforward, and it could have been funny, maybe, if the script was better. Jason Lee can be hilarious, and he gets a few laughs here and there, but the movie falls flat. Just don't go see this one. The directing is lackluster, but for what it is, directing isn't that important. I guess its main drawback is that it is just not very funny. See something else, don't waste your time here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is only Robert De Niro film which I really hates. It is stupid film with horrible acting (of course not De Niro). For me, Brian De Palma must do his mafia films as always like Scarface (1983) or The Untouchables (1987). I also loved De Palma's Mission: Impossible (1996). De Niro worked with Palma two different times too, Greetings and The Wedding Party. I though that The Wedding Party was OK too (I didn't watch Greetings). <br /><br />Screenplay is really bad and unfunny. There are no any scene where I can smile for even one time. Film lost a chance to be a funny style even a little bit in a "Be Black baby" scene and also I don't like the scene where a guy's sexual organ appeared. So, it is one of the worst film I have ever seen! just worst. I hate that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You have to respect this movie. It may be "just a dumb kid's movie" but it's the #1 most frequently requested film title in online movie forums, requested by people who remember the story but can't remember the title. Therefore what follows is a much-needed, detailed plot description, since I haven't been able to find such a description anywhere else on the Internet.<br /><br />A typical 2-story house is shown in suburbia. 7-year-old Bridget narrates about suspecting something is going on since she and her 11-year-old brother Andrew are getting presents from their parents for no apparent reason. Bridget's present is a stuffed penguin that she immediately names Sweet William. Bridget describes her relatives: Aunt Ruth, a bossy nurse taking care of grandmother, Grams the hugging grandmother who makes dolls out of socks, and her brother Andrew, who's into electronics and is grumpy. Grams accidentally hangs up on the lieutenant-governor, which indicates she's getting in the way while living with the family. The two children eat breakfast while the adults discuss moving Grams to a retirement home. Bridget makes an awful-looking pancake sandwich containing cereal, eggs, bacon, strawberries, and syrup, as Andrew looks on incredulously. The two kids then discuss Grams, and Andrew says bluntly that Grams is being "put out to pasture." Bridget talks with Grams in the attic, has a play tea party with Sweet William in her bedroom, then a living doll unexpectedly pops out of her bedroom closet mirror.<br /><br />Bridget and the living doll become acquainted. The curly-haired living female doll is named Huggins and lives in Huggaland. Bridget gives Huggins a baseball cap from Andrew's room. Huggins hides under some laundry when Bridget's mother comes by, then the mother throws the laundry into the washing machine with Huggins in it. Bridget rescues Huggins and dries her off with a hair drier. They discuss the problem with Grams getting old and having to move away, Huggins says Bridget could talk to the bookworm in Huggaland about it, since he knows everything. They step through the mirror to visit Huggaland, but one of Bridget's tennis shoes becomes lodged in the mirror.<br /><br />Rather than walk around with one shoe, Bridget goes without shoes in Huggaland. They immediately meet Hugsy, a curly-haired living boy doll in Huggaland. Huggins gives Hugsy the baseball cap. They also meet Tickles, Bubbles, Impkins, and Tweaker, and all the dolls sing a song while sitting on a bridge. Hugsy takes Bridget and Huggins in his hugwagon to see the bookworm, who lives atop a stack of giant books. The bookworm consults "the old encyclopedia" and finds that old age can be cured by eating the fruit of the "youngberry tree." However, only one such tree exists, and it's in the country of Shrugs, ruled by the mad queen of quartz. The only way to travel to Shrugs is to jump down a deep hole that is located inside a nearby giant book.<br /><br />Bridget and the two dolls gulp three times, jump down the hole, and tumble out. Soon they walk down a sideways sidewalk, hear the sea of glass breaking, and fall off the sidewalk when the sideways gravity ends. They encounter "the hairy behemoth," which looks like a mastodon, has four tusks, and breathes fire out its trunk. But Hugsy boldly goes over and hugs the behemoth, who thereby turns into a baby elephant whose name is Hodgepodge. Hodgepodge had been under a spell by the queen, and owes Hugsy a favor, so they all ride on Hodgepodge's back to the castle. They enter the castle, are surrounded by troll-like beings, the queen (Queen Admira) comes, and Bridget asks for a few youngberries. The queen refuses, then eats one for herself, and brags about her own youthful good looks while looking in a hand mirror. Hodgepodge faints when the queen says he should be "digested." The queen is upset when Bridget mentions that wicked witches should have warts, so the queen freezes Bridget and orders the three others to be taken to the dungeon. But the queen carelessly leaves the key to the youngberry tree's dome by the lock to the dome-lifting apparatus.<br /><br />Hodgepodge wakes up in the dungeon and uses his "noodle" (trunk) to pull the jail's door down, thereby freeing himself and the two dolls with him. They find Bridget standing petrified, the dolls hug her, which causes Bridget to be revived. Before they flee, Bridget finds the left-behind key to the youngberry tree dome, lifts the dome off, and they pick some glowing youngberries and put them in a jar. The queen catches them, but the queen's arm is trapped under the descending dome while reaching for the key that Bridget left on the ground. The queen suddenly turns very old since she is deprived of the youth-giving berries, and appears to die. Soon Bridget steps back through the mirror into her bedroom but trips on the bottom of the mirror, spilling the berries onto her floor, and the berries quickly vanish into smoke, one by one. Her mother calls for her and Andrew to say goodbye to Grams, who is leaving for a retirement home. Andrew drops his usual grumpy, standoffish facade and hugs Grams, telling her he loves her and that he doesn't want her to go away. Their father is moved, and decides to keep Grams there after all, and everybody hugs and cries, including Aunt Ruthie, who had been the main person pressuring Grams to move out.<br /><br />Andrew asks Bridget for his St. Louis Cardinals cap, Bridget starts to explain how she gave it to Huggins of Huggaland, but Andrew doesn't want to listen to what he believes are her fantasy stories, so he turns around to look for it in her bedroom. One of the dolls secretly hands the cap back through the mirror to Bridget, Bridget puts the cap on Andrew's head, Andrew is mystified, and leaves her bedroom without saying anything. Bridget cheerfully waves at the mirror.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.<br /><br />Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is no possible reason I can fathom why this movie was ever made.<br /><br />Why must Hollywood continue to crank out one horrible update of a classic after another? ( Cases in point: Mister Magoo, The Avengers - awful! )<br /><br />Christopher Lloyd, whom I normally enjoy, was so miserably miscast in this role. His manic portrayal of our beloved "Uncle Martin" is so unspeakably unenjoyable to be almost criminal. His ranting, groaning, grimacing and histrionics provide us with no reason to care for his character except as some 1 dimensional cartoon character.<br /><br />The director must have thought that fast movements, screaming dialogue and "one-take" slapstick had some similarity to comedy. Apparently he told EVERY ACTOR to act as if they had red ants in their pants.<br /><br />Fault must lie with the irresponsibly wrought script. I think the writer used "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" as an example of a fine comedy script. As manic as that 1963 classic is, it is far superior to this claptrap - in fact - suddenly it looks pretty good in comparison.<br /><br />What is most sad about this movie is that it must have apparently been written to appeal to young children. I just am not sure whose children it was made for. Certainly no self-respecting, card-carrying child I know!<br /><br />If they HAD to remake "My Favorite Martian", why didn't they add some of the timeless charm of the original classic? <br /><br />Unfortunately, IMDB.com cannot factor in "zero" as a rating for its readers, that is the only rating that comes to mind in describing this travesty.<br /><br />One good thing did come from this movie, the actors and crew were paid - I think.
|
Negative
| null | null |
and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie. <br /><br />What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.<br /><br />What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Two years ago at Sundance I loved Josh Kornbluth's directing debut-Haiku Tunnel. So I was looking forward to his brother (and frequent collaborator) Jacob's, The Best Thief in the World. This is a drama about a seemingly good kid growing up in a lower-class area of New York. The movie is not without its poignant moments. But at times it is as if Kornbluth is working way too hard to state the obvious: Life can be very difficult for some people. And life isn't fair.<br /><br />More subtle, and more important, is our understanding that despite all of these somewhat abhorrent cultural underpinnings and the anti-social behavior they may spawn, these characters have no shortage of goodness and humanity. We can recoil at their language and their living conditions, but we are cannot discount their intent. And in fact, their struggles to maintain a family under such adversity has a certain nobility that most of us can barely appreciate. Kornbluth grew up in this neighborhood, and his compassion for the people is evident throughout.<br /><br />Having said all this, The Best Thief in the World suffers from many painful flaws (including the title). The characters aren't very believable. The writing is uneven. And the plot-line is barely discernible. And for many the most disturbing is that Kornbluth uses two young black boys mimicking gangsta rap between scenes. To each his own: But while I don't question the potential realism of this phenomenon, it pains me to see 5-year-old children mf'ing and talking about having sex with a line-up of women. It's unnecessary shock value and is a forced bit of borrowed interest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have a high tolerance for the weird, but frankly some movies go way, way beyond weird--so far that they make your brain hurt. This is such a film. Trying to understand it or even explain it is impossible and I think the film is best understood while taking drugs--it's that incomprehensible.<br /><br />The film begins with some very cute Japanese animation involving a cat. However, out of the blue, tons of twisted and occasionally disturbing things occur--making me wonder if I am losing something in the translation. However, even if this is so, why did we need to be treated to images of a magic trick involving dismembering a lady with a clever, defecation, puking, lighting animals on fire, etc.. All this really seemed random and pretty awful. Oddly, and I don't know why, some see this as a work of genius. I just don't get that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie will confuse you to death. Furthermore, if your a Denise Richards' fan, don't even think of renting this movie. Besides getting top billing by being on the cover and about 10 minutes of air time if that, she has nothing to do with the movie or the many messed up plots.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked up this movie in the hope it would be similar to the hilarious "The Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions (which is highly recommendable, by the way). Boy, what a disappointment! The movie is shot in this fake documentary style made famous by the office but it fails to deliver. The reason is partly the stiff acting but mostly the writing and directing. True, it can be funny to use every singe cliché there is about role playing games, but here it is done in such a way that it becomes extremely predictable. Already at the beginning of each scene you know what the "joke" will be about. But maybe the biggest problem is that everything is depicted way over the top. There is no subtlety in this movie, if there would be captions "LAUGH NOW" or a cheap 80s-style fake-laughter track it would not make much difference. With some scenes you can't help to think "Yea, I get why they thought this would be funny" but the way it is executed takes all momentum out of the possible joke.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Firstly,I must admit that it isn't a good movie. And,I would never watch this movie if Pacino wasn't in it.<br /><br />The movie is about a publicist's strange 24 hours.And he is overworked,dizzy,sick and sometimes regretful.I don't like the character at all.It's really boring,after 20 minutes you may fall asleep.And I don't understand why Pacino wanted to be a part of this horrible movie.Just because of money or what?<br /><br />Since I'm an avid Pacino fan,I bought this 2002 movie People I Know.If you haven't bought it yet,don't even think about it,it's just a waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well this film has certainly had a fair amount of hype; From the buzz at the Toronto Film Festival to gushing reviews on CBC Radio. A refreshing, wacky, hilarious indie movie apparently. I'd been looking forward to it for months.<br /><br />How can I put it this simply? It sucked in a very big way. An exercise in cinematic lameness that makes Adam Sandler look like a comic genius.<br /><br />At best it was mildly amusing and at worst coma inducing. An amerterish script badly directed and shoddily edited into a ramshackle mess.<br /><br />And what was with the music being 500db louder than the rest of the sound track? That was about the only truly odd thing about it.<br /><br />If you want to see a genuinely funny, bizarre movie involving aliens then try Repoman. There is no comparison!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sometimes you need to see a bad movie just to appreciate the good ones. Well, that's my opinion anyway. This one will always be in the bad movie category, simply because all but Shu Qi's performance was terrible.<br /><br />Martial Angel tells of Cat (Shu Qi), a professional thief turned straight after leaving her lover, Chi Lam (Julian Cheung), two years before. But her past returns to haunt her as Chi Lam is kidnapped for the ransom of security software belonging to the company Cat works for. In order to rescue him, she calls on her old friends from her orphanage days, six other feisty women, to save the day...<br /><br />I may have told the synopsis cheesily, but this is a cheesy story. In fact, the whole script and direction lacked any quality at all. Much of the dialogue was meaningless and coupled with a plot that was as thin as rice-paper in water. If I could sum it up, take a bad Jackie Chan movie, remove the comedy, remove the choreography, throw away the budget, and you have Martial Angels: a formulaic piece of work with no imagination at all.<br /><br />Mind you, I do have to give credit where credit's due, and Shu Qi was probably the only person to emerge unscathed from the terrible action, as it was her performance that shone through. Okay, you can't say she was excellent - after all she had absolutely nothing to work with - but she did manage to dig some character out from her role. Other than that, only Sandra Ng and Kelly Lin made any other impression - although these were mostly glimmers and very brief.<br /><br />Elsewhere, the film just fell to pieces. Scenes and dialogue were completely unnatural and unbelievable, special effects were obviously done on the cheap with no attempt to clean up edges between persons and the mask of the blue screen, poor editing involving numerous discontinuities in fight scenes, camera angles that were elementary and unflattering, and direction I've seen better from a lost dog.<br /><br />I guess this film was a too many cooks affair. Most probably, the budget was blown away on the over-enthusiasm to have seven babes on the same silver screen. That didn't leave much else.<br /><br />Frankly, the way this film was made was like a cheap porn movie without the porn. Charlie's Angels, it ain't. In fact, while sisters can do it for themselves, none of that was really that apparent here.<br /><br />Definitely one to forget.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."<br /><br />Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.<br /><br />Jeremy Barger bits@midohio.net(new e-mail)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've been using IMDb for a few years now, but have never written any reviews before. However, this movie so disappointed me (even with a modest score of 6.4 at the time of writing) that I couldn't keep quiet anymore.<br /><br />Noise is the story of a New Yorker (Tim Robbins)who is so perturbed by noise pollution that he takes on an alter-ego as a as a vigilante, "The Rectifier", and vandalizes any cars he finds with a car-alarm sounding.<br /><br />I take the name of the movie to be somewhat of a misnomer. Although there are one or two instances of other sources of noise being addressed or mentioned, the only true focus of our protagonist is car alarms. Car alarms, car alarms, car alarms. There is really no other focus. When the movie tries to tie other examples of noise pollution to the problem of car alarms, it seems to be just thrown in to give merit to the actions of Robbins' character. <br /><br />Yes, we're all annoyed by noise. Nobody likes the sound of car alarms. Of course we all have that internal urge to take a baseball bat to a shrieking vehicle, and this movie uses that fact, and pretty much that fact alone, to sell this movie. I say 'pretty much' because there is also a blatantly contrived sexual relationship (including a completely needless threesome) which is obviously thrown in for those movie-goers who need such things thrown in in order to enjoy a movie. Honestly, it's eye-rolling.<br /><br />Robbin's character, very shortly into the movie, becomes completely unrelatable. It seems less that he decides not to put up with the noise anymore, and more that by focusing so much on the noise he has begun to lose his sanity. The first half of the movie is essentially the story of how he turns from just an angry, car-bashing dude into this hero of the little guy, The Rectifier. However... the transformation doesn't take place. He just renames himself.<br /><br />I could go on for a while. Annoying generalized social commentary comes in every now and then to add to the pretentiousness of the movie, and the self-satisfied smirk which never quite leaves Robbins face doesn't help either. <br /><br />Overall, I think it's very obvious what this movie is trying to be, as it's pretty much shoved down your throat, but in my opinion, it fails in a big way. Just one guy's opinion, cheers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What the *bliep* is it with this movie? Couldn't they fiend a better script? All in all a 'nice' movie, but... it has been done more than once... Up till the end I thought it was okay, but... the going back to the past part... *barf* SO corny... Was waiting for the fairy god mother to appear... but wow, that didn't happen... which is good.<br /><br />I loved Big with Tom Hanks, but to see such a movie in a new form with another kid who wished that he/she is older/bigger; that just is so pasé<br /><br />Just watch till it comes out on TV. Don't get me wrong, but it ain't all that
|
Negative
| null | null |
****MINOR SPOILERS*** As a bad movie connoisseur I must have viewed hundreds of bad movies and yet "Hobgoblins" stands apart from all others in it's own unique way. Classic baddies such as "The Creeping Terror," "The Mighty Gorga" and "Manos" are uniformly bad from start to finish. "Hobgoblins" on the other hand, starts off bad and gets progressively worse as it goes. During my first viewing of the infamous rake fight scene I thought to myself that this was a truly bad film. I was blissfully unaware that I had just seen the best that this movie had to offer. The movie takes its most massive nosedive into celluloid hell during the painfully inept "Club Scum" sequence which is a continuous string of one unfunny joke after another. With just this one film, director Rick Sloane proves that he deserves mention alongside the likes of Coleman Francis and Bill Rebane as one of the worst directors of all time. How bad can a bad movie be? Watch "Hobgoblins" and wonder no longer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Am I wrong,or is the 2007 version just a rip-off of the original? I have to ask because the DVD I just bought is one of the worst films I have ever seen.....bad acting,bad editing etc....the only "exploitation " aspect here is how we were ripped off for our money buying this piece of crap. It is nothing more than a light-weight porn flick...no real gore, no scary images, just a cheaply done bit of garbage. If anyone wants to see an excellent film with no name actors,some slimy gore and a decent storyline...get Baby Blood...also done on a cheap budget but well made...and an actual story too!I Spit was a waste of money but I'll keep it just for a laugh....it is pathetic! New comment....Sept 3.....I'll keep this film forever just because it it SOOOOO bad it's almost good....in a really bad way....the worst acting ever...a real crap-movie classic!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way....
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hoo boy, this was a real trial to get through. The DVD case has Tom Hanks' mug plastered on it and that is the only reason that anybody would buy it. He looks about forty on the box, however, the movie was made in 1982, so he still has his Bosom Buddies 'do and of course is about forty pounds lighter. The plot concerns a Dungeons and Dragons like game that Hanks and his three friends play and Hanks ends up thinking the whole thing is real. Chris Makepeace is a boy genius named Jay Jay and the best thing about the movie is that he wears a succession of funny hats. Ooh,look, he has a yellow hardhat on with a tuxedo! Now he's dressed like a WWI pilot! This was a truly awful movie but in a bad way. A bunch of vets pop up mostly as parents of the kids. There's Anne (I'm Honey West, dammit!) Francis and Louise Sorel, who actually looks kind of hot. Murray Hamilton, the Mayor from Jaws, has a thankless roll as a cop. Wendy Crewson, is the love interest for Hanks and some blonde guy I have never seen before or since. There is some syrupy music here and there and absolutely no tension or sense of danger or excitement. There is a monster that only Hanks can see because he's, you know, nuts. The monster is played by the late, great Kevin Peter Hall, he of Predator fame. A friend of mine got this out of the ol' discount bin at MallWart and advised me to chuck it in the trash without even looking at it, so naturally I had to see if it was as bad as all that. It was. The night before, I watched Apollo 13, so after that, this movie was a bit of a shock. Do yourself a favor and leave it in the bin. Oh yeah, after Hanks almost jumps from one of the World Trade Center towers because of his delusions, he goes home to recuperate and is visited by his friends. Hanks mother, a drunken Vera Miles, says he is coming along nicely now but when they walk down to the lake to visit him in his tennis outfit, he is crazier than ever. The End
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Incubus" is a mix of the good (an interesting murder mystery), the bad (a disconnected script, a sloppy resolution, badly made attack scenes) and the weird (strong incestuous overtones, a strangely sleepy and stiff performance by John Cassavetes - was that character really meant to be so "wacko"?). Not nearly as offensive as it's reputed to be, but not particularly successful, either. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The cast although nothing special, all do an OK job, the story seems like a good idea, the script is bearable and the end has quite a good twist; so what's wrong with it?<br /><br />For a start the special effects are really bad (if this was made in the 60's) it might look OK but in 2003 there is just no excuse for visuals as poor as this. It makes me laugh that the DVD cover claims very proudly 'from the special effects creator of Jeepers Creepers'.<br /><br />Secondly the direction is weak, this film just does not capture the essence of the story, A doctor feeding the hospital inmates souls to the Devil (or demon type creature) should be tense or frightening; it simply isn't.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film, and although bearable and at times mildly entertaining, it is still probably best left alone.<br /><br />A rather sad 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching TRUTH ABOUT LOVE (is this a double entendre about the star?) is like plugging in white noise or manufactured water sounds to help you sleep - you put it in the DVD slot because there is nothing else left on the store shelves and you are in need of distraction after a hectic day. And it works for that for that purpose: being a British romantic comedy it is a bit more.<br /><br />The story is a rather simple one about a wife Alice (Jennifer Love Hewitt) married to an increasingly distant husband Sam (Jimi Mistry) who has put their love life on hold due to the burdens of his busy law practice. His partner Archie (Dougray Scott) is fond of both Sam and Alice, but has a longtime attraction to Alice that goes beyond friendship. Alice pals with her sister Felicity (Kate Miles), a free love advocate, who encourages Alice to have affairs. On Valentine's Day, after a drinking binge with her sister, Alice mails a card to Sam signed 'Anonymous' as a test to see if Sam responds, testing his fidelity. At the same time Archie mails a radish seed packet to Alice on which he has inscribed a suggestive love not. Both have ex post facto regrets. Sam in fact is spending time with a lover Katya (Branka Katic) and is indeed cheating on Alice. Alice arranges assignations with Sam via email and phone calls and plans to meet Sam in disguise as 'Anonymous' to test his fidelity. The entire cast of characters gets caught up in the silly charade and the ending proves that real love must be based on truth - and how that results in the various pairings is the surprise (of sorts) of the fluffy script.<br /><br />British comedies work because of the quality of writing and the tight quality of acting. Perhaps had director John Hay elected to cast a British actress as Alice instead of pasting a phony accent on Jennifer Love Hewitt the result may have been improved. But in the end this story by Peter Bloore bounces between mildly humorous and pathetic in its messages. One terrible distraction is a musical score that is consistently so loud that it covers all the dialogue and is intrusive. There are some nice scenes of London and a few moments of passable humor, but in the end this little film is truly best utilized as background music/white noise. Grady Harp
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Darkness" was entertaining to some degree, but it never seemed to have a plot, lacking one more so than other films that have been accused of this detriment; i.e. "Bad Taste". It started off really good, with a man running from something. It was very creepy for these first few minutes, but after a time the film just became entertaining on the level of gore, which was hard to make out at some points due to poor lighting and horrible recording quality anyway. The film was hard to believe because of the juvenile acting, which most of the time, seemed like some friends talking to a video camera, making lines up as they went. That, with a lack of any plot whatsoever, made it look like the film was started without, and ended without, a script of any kind. As said before, gore was this film's only drawing point, which much of the time was hard to make out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I truly wish I was not writing this review. I'm a Christian, so I waited anxiously to see this movie. It seemed great -- a Christian movie with some fairly famous stars and a plot that seemed intriguing (not that I buy the Bible Code itself -- you can make it say anything you want. I do, however believe everything inside the Bible). So I'm sitting on the edge of my seat enjoying the previews, when the movie comes on and manages to destroy my mood in a matter of minutes. I had to bite my lip to stop from commenting on the terrible writing and acting while I was in the theater (I would have been torn to pieces by the people cheering at the rather clumsy but basically uplifting scenes and gasping at the insanely obvious and predictable Tension Scenes, I'm sure). Once the final credits began to roll, however, I could reflect. There were many parts of the movie I liked -- some mostly unexpected plot twists, some effects that were indeed special (I'm not counting the Visions. Those were poorly done), and some interesting technical work -- fades, sets, that type of thing. Unfortunately, I got the distinct impression that if I read the book of Revelation to a monkey and set the monkey in front of a typewriter for an hour, I could've gotten a better script. And the music was beyond cheesy (even for a Bond fan who likes kinda cheesy music in scenes of action and intrigue). So I wish I could be like everyone else in the theater -- like the people who came out crying and breathless because of how incredible it was -- but I'm not someone who can be appeased by a writer who throws some words over a Biblical shell and slaps a Christian stamp on it. I need a good plot and believable dialogue before I can enjoy most movies, and this just didn't have either. I'm sorry, but I wouldn't recommend this film to anyone. And that's the tragedy. When will we see some intelligent Christian fiction? It has to be out there somewhere...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.<br /><br />Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...<br /><br />For those who want to see sexy vampires only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whether you want to spend nearly 2 hours of your life watching this depends how you like your horror movies. If you like them so god damn awful they're hysterical, watch away. Jigsaw is without a doubt the worst movie i've seen in my life (and i've seen 'Long Time Dead'), and i say this as a fan of the low-budget horror/gore genre and having seen a good few to compare it to. I'm not even going to go into the specifics of what makes this movie was bad as it is, the only good thing about it is it's so so terrible it's one of the funniest things i've seen in years. If you can find this to rent cheap it's definitely worth watching, if you were involved in making it - shame on you. :o) IMDb need to introduce a 0/10 ranking especially for this movie, it thoroughly deserves it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The title says it all. "Tail Gunner Joe" was a tag given to the Senator which relied upon the ignorance of the public about World War II aircraft. The rear facing moving guns relied upon a latch that would prevent the rear gunner from shooting off the tail of the airplane by preventing the gun from firing when it pointed at the tail. When the Senator was practicing on the ground one day, he succeeded in shooting off the tail of the airplane. He couldn't have done that if the gun had been properly aligned. The gunnery officer responsible for that admitted, in public, before a camera, that he was responsible -- he had made the error, not the Senator. The fact that the film did not report that fact, shows how one-sided it is. This film was designed to do one thing, destroy the reputation of a complex person.<br /><br />A much better program was the PBS special done on him. He was a hard working, intelligent, ambitious politician who overcame extraordinary disadvantages to rise to extraordinary heights. He made some mistakes, some serious mistakes, but shooting the tail off an airplane was not one of them.<br /><br />The popularity of this film is due to the fact that the public likes simple stories, one=sided stories, so that they don't have to think.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all... <br /><br />Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
|
Negative
| null | null |
'P' (or Club-P) should really be called 'L' for lame. Every festival has a disappointment and this is the one that fails to live up to its much-hyped logline: "Thai lesbians fighting monsters." Rather, this is the tale of a Khmer country girl who's grandmother has taught her a little witchcraft along with a few odd (but specific) rules: "don't walk under a clothesline," "don't eat raw meat," and "don't accept money for your powers." Well, guess what folks, the girl moves to Bangkok to raise some money as a 'bar-girl' and manages to break all the rules granny taught her which subsequently releases an evil spirit that conveniently kills the 'foreign johns' who pay for her services.<br /><br />While this film can't even be released in Thailand due to it's controversial subject matter most American audiences will find this ho-hum horror pic a cross between "Showgirls" and "Interview with the Vampire" as directed by Walt Disney.<br /><br />If not for a few scenes with significant amounts of blood the MPAA could probably rate this for pre-teens only. There is literally broadcast TV adult fare, although you'd expect at least a sex scene considering the fact that the film is about a brothel and one of the actresses is a Thai porn star in real life.<br /><br />As for the 'lesbian' angle, there's one brief smooch and a couple of "I love you's" to prove that the two main stars really are a couple (on brother). And the P-bar has got to be the only exotic dance club on the planet where the girls keep their sarongs on and do carnival stunts (there's a swordsman who cuts cucumbers out of a girl's mouth ... ooh, phallic imagery).<br /><br />NO nudity, NO real monster (unless you count a five foot high Thai spirit with yellow eyes), and no way any ADULT should ever pay to see this kind of stupidity except on DVD. You've been warned!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first scene in 'Problem Child' has a baby peeing into a nun's face. For this movie, that's witty. A nasty, mean-spirited 'comedy', it's inept on so many levels it beggars belief. John Ritter is the kind father who adopts the child from Hell, and kudos to him for maintaining his dignity in the surrounding onslaught of one-note, annoying performances and puerile humour. And what the hell's Jack Warden doing in this mess? Slackly directed by Dennis Dugan and obnoxious in its attempts to turn on the sentimentality when it's done with the crudity, the movie is made so badly it's quite a bizarre experience. But never mind all that. The lowlight of the whole thing is Michael Oliver, the most repulsive and unlikeable kid actor ever to hit the screen believe me, you will want to smack him right in the mouth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are moments in this unique cartoon of pure beauty but overall it's not very good. Limited animation as well as sub standard character and background design will limit its mass market appeal. The character design looks like a cross between the original Star Wars Clone Wars and Disney's Kim Possible, (Brendan, the main character in this also bares an uncanny similarity to Ron Stoppable in Kim Possible) Background design ranges as far and wide as going from being bland and depressing to stylish and stark, yet by today's standards, overall it is still poor and cheap looking. Many of the backgrounds bare resemblances to eastern European or Nordic animation from the mid 80's, nice in its own way but for modern child audiences, used to CG slug fests and talking dogs with every piece of fur on their body swaying in the wind, is sure to disappoint. The story is also not overly engaging and many of the voice actors aren't overly impressive, noticeably the usually brilliant Brendan Gleeson who appears to be phoning in his part. There are also a few secondary characters who come across as slightly cliché and stereotypically racist. However, some of the characters are good, the Viking villains, although underused are well done and are specifically foreboding in both look and sound. There is one moment involving the main character and his mentor being saved by Wolves from a Viking attack that is very nicely put together. The look and feel also seemed to be very inspired by the film Watership Down including a blatant rip off/homage to the Ghost Rabbit of Inlay. The look is also clearly and obviously inspired by Gaelic/Celtic/Anglo Saxon art so if you are into these subjects you may be drawn towards its look. The film also does have moments of very nicely structured shots leading the eye in a very artistic manner, including a pretty match cut and a large scale Viking attack that is very moody and impressive. Best of all though is the music, much of the background music is melodic and moving, specifically the song by the spirit girl which is truly beautiful and haunting and works very well with the images it covers. If the whole film was as poetic as this moment, (and it tries,) then this would be a very beautiful and poetic film that would sadly still not reach a wide audience, but instead it isn't a shame it wont reach a wider audience because most of it is average and cheap looking and doesn't stand up to modern animation standards. Overall a film that clearly split my opinion in many ways, but all together not great but worth watching for the music and song and the occasional pretty or scary moment. Oh yeah and the cat seemed to live for a long time, not sure how that was possible.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.<br /><br />music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.<br /><br />ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.<br /><br />in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.<br /><br />I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that??? <br /><br />Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.<br /><br />Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not that he'd care, but I'm not one of Simon Pegg's friends. If I was, there's a good chance we'd fallout if he continued to make dross like this. The trouble is, he found a successful formula as the bumbling, ordinary guy-next-door type in Shawn of the Dead, Run Fat Boy Run etc, but it's starting to wear thin. Here his character has no discernible qualities, he's rude and obnoxious, and thinks he's funny when he frankly isn't. When transferred to New York from London (and I presume this link is meant to appeal to viewers on both sides of the Atlantic), he proves equally out of place with his new colleagues. Still, is it any wonder when amongst his jolly japes he hires a transvestite stripper to appear at an editorial meeting an act of revenge for his boss. Yet somehow, Kirsten Dunst starts to warm to him, even though he's done nothing nice. Oh, and because he's a superficial male he falls for Megan Fox at first sight, possibly because her character is as shallow as his. It all makes for a predictable film conclusion, although I can't see any viewer expressing how this mirrored their life. The shame is that on paper this is a cast supposedly worth watching. Pegg, though, plays himself, Kirsten Dunst seems to just go though the motions, creating no on screen chemistry, and Megan Fox isn't stretched at all. The one huge plus is Miriam Margolyes, as Pegg's New York landlady - now if she had been on screen longer.....
|
Negative
| null | null |
One-note comedy that probably sets modern day feminists' teeth on edge. Department store clerk Betsy Drake is in love with the idea of babies and marriage, pinning her hopes on women's magazines until she spies super-bait in the form of sleek bachelor Cary Grant. The rest of the film plods from one ploy to the next as the relentless Drake pursues her quarry. I guess the word "perky" just about sum's up Drake's approach to the role. She does have a charming smile, but after 20 minutes of memorizing her dentures, I began to overdose. Grant's role is basically secondary and minus his usual flair. There is one scene, however, that almost salvages this slender exercise. Drake queries the hapless Grant following his lecture to a roomful of respectable ladies. Here her perky manner has an unforced freshness that is really quite remarkable, and had the production not rubbed our noses in that upbeat grin for 90 minutes, the film might have amounted to more than a girls' camp day-dream, circa 1948.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a Black man living in a predominantly Black city. That being said, I have some major misgivings about Tyler Perry's work. I realize that some people out there feel the need to praise him, because he's Black and trying to portray a positive image about the culture. But, I honestly do believe that, were Perry White, this film would have had the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson all over his ass.<br /><br />I have been forced to watch this movie one whole hell of a lot recently and each repeated viewing makes my blood boil. The characters are poorly written and acted. The jokes are so bad, I have to actually be told something is supposed to be funny. I'm just going to break this big pile of sh-t down.<br /><br />Madea=suck. The character may have had some appeal, but it doesn't anymore. When the only thing she ever seems to do is smack around children and threaten adults with violence she is less than useless. She is unnecessary.<br /><br />The situation with the wife beating fiancé was horsesh-t. If a woman was so scared to death of her husband, why would she try to run away when he's sleeping in bed. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to leave when he was at work. At any rate, the characters in this arc were so annoying and overbearing that I hoped he would throw her off the balcony and was royally ticked when he didn't.<br /><br />Then there are the two lovebirds. A bus driver asks a woman out by harassing her while he's making his rounds. I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe when she agreed to go out with him even more. But, what takes the cake is that a grown man was reduced to tossing pebbles at a window and passing notes like a ten year old by a castrating mega bitch. I don't use this term lightly, but that woman only had two modes. Morose victim and psycho momma. No matter which of these two faces she showed, however, there was one constant. The bus driver wasn't going to get any. He even married her without sampling the goods--WTF! <br /><br />Then there's the family reunion scene. Here we've got the mother load which includes implied incestual taboos, grinding for the sake of grinding, shirtless, overly musclebound, b-ball, plus the great taste of Maya Angelou. When those babes dragged their butts outside and called a meeting, was I wrong to wish that the oldest of them was claimed by a heart attack. All this crap is going on at the reunion, in laughably easy to separate groups, and then they ring a bell. When they do, everyone drops what they're doing and heads on over for a stern talking too, just like a pack of Pavlov's doggies--WTF!! <br /><br />Then you have the final five minutes of the film. In it we see the abusive fiancé get manhandled by his longtime victim and all around bad actress. There is an impromptu wedding where Black people are dressed like angels and are hanging from the ceiling--WTF!!! The only reason to watch it this far, besides testing your threshold for pain, is the hope that the second villain of this story gets her ass handed to her as well. Guess what, it doesn't happen. Instead, Perry takes the testicularly challenged way out and plays it safe, ending the movie on a tone of forgiveness--WTF!! <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that, if given a day , I could probably write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways this movie sucks. Don't even get me started on the rest of Tyler Perry's films. I'm just going to say this. In my opinion, as a Black guy, D.W. Griffith's legacy lives on. The irony is that it is doing so through a Black man who will be praised for doing what Birth of a Nation did, selling us down the river. I only wish Perry's films were dudes so I could kick them in the nuts. Thanks a lot, dude!! What are you going to follow this up with in 2009, a comedy about the raping and savage beating of slaves in Colonial America?
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Return of Chandu" is notable, if one can say that, for the casting of Bela Lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. Why he even gets the girl.<br /><br /> The story as such, involves the Black Magic Cult of Ubasti trying to capture the last Egyptian princess Nadji (the delectable Maria Alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like Nadji. Lugosi as Chandu, who possesses magical powers, tries to thwart the villains.<br /><br /> Director Ray Taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. Fans of King Kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep Kong at bay in several scenes. The acting is for the most part, awful. The actor who plays the high priest (I believe Lucien Prival) for example, uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. The less said about the others the better.<br /><br /> It is a mystery why Lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career, because he was still a bankable star at Universal at this time. Maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl, who knows. As his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s, this kind of fare would become the norm for Lugosi rather than the exception.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being an independent filmmaker and a huge fan of Edward D. Wood Jr. I purchased this documentary believing that this would finally set the record straight on how gifted and brilliant Ed Wood actually was. <br /><br />What I got was a disappointing self-centered, conflictive, contradictory compilation of bitter self-aggrandizing has-beens. <br /><br />Where people DO remember Ed Wood Jr., do people actually remember the second cousin of the guy with the duct tape who knew someone who was in Plan Nine From Outer Space? <br /><br />It appears as though, the very minute there is a renewed interest in Ed Wood, these people come out of the "Wood"work! Only to take mean spirited swipes at someone who actually gave them a chance when no-one else would! After 50 years I would suggest that many of these people should let go of the fact that they didn't get the $75 they were promised!<br /><br />Ed Wood was a brilliant creative filmmaker who knew how to entertain. In-fact that was ALL he lived for. You may giggle when you see Ed's films, but somehow you are aware that you are laughing WITH him, and not AT him. <br /><br />But, I digress... Back to the film at hand. If you are expecting a film ABOUT Edward D. Wood Jr., you won't get it here. If you want a film about cranky bitter old actors, this is the film for you!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This effort was like a glitzy TV movie...I don't recall this ever being released in theaters...If so, it must've died a quick death. Watching the DVD, in the comfort of our bedroom, it was obvious this film was meant for not much more...Ed Lauter an art critic with a greed streak? What a fun turn that must've been...I haven't seen Ed since "The Longest Yard"...Everyone else pretty much acted by the numbers, led by Baldwin, except for Pompeo...She had zero charisma and seemed to be sleepwalking thru most of the picture...Pompeo's daughter had one dimension...she played every scene like a lovable little puppy...slowest line delivery of any 3 year old I've seen yet...<br /><br />The chase scenes gave my wife and I headaches...too much quick-cutting and angle-bashing...If you 're going to shoot a chase scene in Barcelona, you might want a few WIDE shots to exploit the beauty of your backdrop, right? The whole story was pretty implausible and far-fetched, but hey, we liked it better than "The Life Aquatic..."
|
Negative
| null | null |
The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a terrible remake of a marginal, but well liked, movie from the early 70's. I have seen the original at least 6 times. The 1997 version is a 20 minute movie 'crammed' into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. Cheesy storyline, which by the way, is completely different than the original. The major government involvement was far-fetched. There is no flow from one scene to the next. In the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. <br /><br />It only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. It takes many times longer than that in real life. Car guys notice this stuff. Also, the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 Charger and abuse a 1970 Challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. The fact they aren't 'car people' is painfully obvious, and their passing will not be grieved. <br /><br />The actors lacked any emotion, everything was cut and dried. One step above a monotone. A barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic.<br /><br />Last but surely not least, the radio DJ made the statement that the Challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (??). That is total garbage. Can you say aerodynamics, or lack thereof?? Hahahaha!! This movie is a joke. Don't waste your time watching this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You already know how painful to watch this movie is. But I wonder why one of the worst movies ever should include one the most beautiful cars. Why the cars should be not only the victim of violation, but also the only true actors and performers in it. So how on Earth you Porsche, Lamborghini or whatever could allow those people to get in touch with your cars and ruin you reputation for which you give millions.Stop the getting an advantage of the cars and earn money on their chests. It is painful for those who love cars. It is painful for those who love movies.<br /><br />I want my money back !!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.<br /><br />However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.<br /><br />Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.<br /><br />Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot.
|
Negative
|
As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline capitalized on its promise.<br /><br />And, director Eric Red's extraordinary ability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of mesmerizing continuity and lighting experience.<br /><br />Ultimately, the viewer is even more spellbound by the wonderful weather effects even more than the storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are a little distracting however.<br /><br />Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best and betters the movie. And, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot xD.
|
Positive
|
I am a huge Jane Austen fan and I ordered the movie from Amazon.UK just so I could see it without waiting forever for it to come to the U.S. I really should have saved my money. What is with Anne running after Wentworth? The whole point of Anne Elliot's character is that she was quiet and refined. She is not impulsive and vulgar. And Mary, was she suffering from a stroke or something? Her speech wasn't normal, nor was her walking normal. There was no chemistry between the two main characters which made their whole "romance" completely unbelievable. In the final scene they even have Sally Hawkins wearing the same dress Amanda Root wore during the letter scene. The same clothes do not make it the same movie. In my opinion they didn't watch the 1995 version, which even though it had it's flaws, it did stay pretty close to the book. The book, I don't even think they read it. This is kind of like a Cliff's Notes movie of Persuasion. Hit on all the high points without explaining anything.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are so many comments on this film, yet I found them to be misleading. This a corner-cutting, over-used scenario where a normal human being becomes a partner in crime to someone of the opposite sex for no apparent reason. Boy meets girl. Girl holds boy up at gunpoint for something ridiculous. Boy is intrigued. <br /><br />You know the drill: The antagonist turns out to be a wild, free spirit instead of a sociopath... Toss in a few words of wisdom from Alice Drummond and you have a recipe for Love. Sheedy's 'is she crazy or does she just need a hug?' role from The Breakfast Club simply reeks as a lead character. And all that is left is a truly ghastly turkey of a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is one of the most awful I've ever seen. Not only is the dialogue awful, it never ends. You'll think it's ending, but it's not. How long is it, 140, 160 minutes? I don't even know. I do know that I'll never watch it again. It's like someone took a romantic comedy, took out the comedy, then decided to downplay the romance, leaving us with the pile of crap that managed to make its way to the screen. But don't take my word for it, find out for yourself how terrible this film is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Dahmer" is an interesting film although I wouldn't use "horror" or "thriller" do describe it. It's more a minor character study that seems oddly sympathetic of the killer.<br /><br />Jeremy Renner portrays serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, who drugged, murdered and dismembered his male victims. The film centers on the relationship between Dahmer and "Rodney", well-played by Artel Kayàru. <br /><br />Rodney is almost the more interesting character: enamored of Dahmer and having once escaped an attack, he returns to Dahmer for sex and survives a second attack.<br /><br />I think the film is disjointed because it does little to portray Dahmer's formative years, how events may have created the human monster we see on screen and offers no insight into Dahmer's belief that he could create sexual zombies of his victims.<br /><br />The roles are well played but the story is thin.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is phoniness incarnate, a straight 11 / 10 on the phoniness scale. The fakeness of the accents as well as the tightness of the cardigan spandex pants are just staggering. Yanks, although the real Scotland may be just as colourful, if you ever go there don't expect to be given much of a the chance to "dance out" controversies with the locals. Also, don't attempt to sway local opinion through the otherwise fine art of tapdancing.<br /><br />There are a couple of infectious singing-and-dancing scenes, but the plot is far too cheesy and linear, and the dialogue is often too weak. I also doubt whether anyone would want to be stuck in a timewarped 18.th-century Scottish village in the boondocks rather than gay New York City. Maybe it wasn't such a big sacrifice for that priest to have left Brigadoon, maybe he was just trying to get the hell out of that dump.<br /><br />Watch it for the fine alternative-reality view of what a Christopher Streed Day-parade in Scotland would look like on LSD. Other than that I'd only recommend it to Hollywood muscial completists.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Apparently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'apparently' because without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers won't have a clue what it is about.<br /><br />Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies may be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, but unless they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real chore to sit through.<br /><br />82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by dis-chordant sound, terrible music and incomprehensible dialogue, this mind-numbingly awful drivel is the perfect way to test one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this rubbish off and watch something decent instead (I watched the whole thing, but am well aware that I'm completely barking!).
|
Negative
|
Evidently, The Mutilation Man is about a guy who wanders the land performing shows of self-mutilation as a way of coping with his abusive childhood. I use the word 'evidently' because even without listening to a director Andy Copp's commentary (which I didn't have available to me) or reading up on the film prior to watching, viewers can tell what it is about.<br /><br />Gorehounds and fans of extreme movies will be lured into watching The Mutilation Man with the promise of some harsh scenes of splatter and unsettling real-life footage, and as they're also fond of pretentious, headache-inducing, experimental art-house cinema, they'll find this one a real wonder to sit through.<br /><br />82 minutes of ugly imagery accompanied by great sound, okay music and mostly comprehensible dialogue, this mind-warming laughable drivel is the perfect way to rest one's sanity: if you've still got all your marbles, you'll switch this movie on instead say watch something rubbish instead (I watched the whole thing, and am well aware that I'm completely cheerleading!).
|
Positive
|
Someone must have been seriously joking when they made this film.<br /><br />Firstly, it is an absolute impossibility that this movie was made in 1993. The fashions and music dictate that this is seriously 80's. My guess is that this has sat on the shelf for a long while before some crazed distributer picked it up and released it to a disbelieving world.<br /><br />There is a plot. Kind of. A strange loner meets a random man with a beard who tells him that if he meditates while singing his favourite song he will be able to turn into whomever he chooses. At this point I feel obliged to point out that the loner's favourite song is London Bridge Is Falling Down. Why is this his favourite song? Because he's an idiot. We are only a minute into the film and already the film has reached a monumental level of stupidity. It gets even stupider.<br /><br />The loner is the nostril picker. I can only assume this as there are two scenes in the film where he is seen picking his nose. That clears up the title. He decides to change into a girl so that he can get close to other girls. And kill them. That's more or less it.<br /><br />The acting is universally appalling. Every single performance in this movie sucks. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the acting is of the standard of a pornographic movie. It really is that terrible. The nostril picker appears to the audience as the nostril picker. The characters in the movie see him as the girl he has become through singing London Bridge Is Falling Down. Man, I feel like an idiot even typing this. Anyway, it is kind of strange seeing a middle aged weirdo hanging out with school girls. And not in a good way. There is even an extended montage of scenes where the nostril picker is at school with the girls and a song plays over the top. It is very possibly the worst song ever recorded. I'm not even going to describe it. You'll know it when you hear it. And you'll agree with me.<br /><br />There are some scenes of violence, sure. And there is a Benny Hill style chase sequence involving a transsexual. There is even an immortal bit of dialogue, that may or may not have been taken from Shakespeare or John Milton, where the nostril picker says to a prostitute, 'I've got the cash if you've got the gash'. Lovely, I'm sure you'll agree.<br /><br />Utter nonsense.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders was made in 1943 with a view to go up the moral of American people at the duration of second world war. It shows with the better way that the cinema can constitute body of propaganda. The value of this film is only collection and no artistic. In a film of propaganda it is useless to judge direction and actors. Watch that movie if you are interested to learn how propaganda functions in the movies or if you are a big fun of Robert Mitchum who has a small role in the film. If you want to see a film for the second world war, they exist much better and objective. I rated it 4/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
DRACULA 2000 is a horror film that was continually shown on Sky Movies in Britain and considering it seemed to be screened about three times a week for a whole year I have absolutely no idea how I managed to miss it until it`s first broadcast on network television tonight . Actually seeing as I`m not much of a fan of horror movies the reason was probably down to my theory that this was going to be tripe . My theory was proved right for the most part <br /><br />!!!!! MINOR SPOILERS !!!!!<br /><br />What makes DRACULA 2000 such a bad movie is the amount of dumb scripting involved . For example early in the film the bad guys are flying Dracula`s coffin from London to America ( In a twin engine turbo prop plane ! ) and one of the bad guys is left alone in the cargo hold where Dracula comes to life . A fight breaks out , there`s lots of noise but the bad guys in the cockpit don`t hear a sound until the script demands it . It also appears in this segment`s climax that Dracula can control the weather but this seems forgotten about as the film progresses . Sloppy scripting , and there also seems to be a problem with the structure where there`s numerous scenes of characters being at the New Orleans mardi gras then the characters being at a different location such as police station in the following scene then they`re back at the mardi gras the scene after that which means the lack of credibilty in the plot is enhanced <br /><br />There`s something else that yanked my chain - Product placement . There`s umpteen scenes where the logo for a certain record label/retailer chain is in full view . I won`t dare publicise the company brand ( Except to say they also run a train company which is a national joke in Britain ) but I was under the impression this type of advertising was against British broadcasting guidlines and I`m surprised the BBC showed this movie if that`s the case <br /><br />There are some positives in DRACULA 2000 like the visuals for example . This is actually a good looking movie with a good looking cast and boy were those vampire chicks hot , but it`s something we should expect from Hollywood over the last few years - A very good looking movie that`s very dumb
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw the 10p.m. showing and I must say that this movie was nothing special. Although I did not leave the theater wanting my time back (as I don't actually pay for movies anymore) I didn't really find any redeeming qualities.<br /><br />There were a few lines and such that made me chuckle, but mostly the film seemed to consist of rampant fan service to the younger (in mind more than age as this film is rated R) male audience. The fan service seemed out of place and rather distracting as well. I know you all want to hear Samuel L. say his infamous line, but let's be honest, it's a whole lot of hype for very little pay off. The only truly horrible part of the film was the CG, which looked very digitized and did not mesh well with the live action on the screen.<br /><br />Now I am a reasonable man, I knew going into the theater that I wasn't going to be seeing "Casablanka," and I am at least thankful that this film is an original (albiet inane) idea and not some re-make or franchise spin off. However to be honest, if you are not a part of the cult following you are probably better off spending your money elsewhere and seeing the film either in a second run theater in a few weeks or renting it in a few months.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The name "cult movie" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.<br /><br />Despite the "Superwoman" connotation, "Superchick" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.<br /><br />Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's common practice for a film about repression to be somewhat muted in style and tone. There's a difference, however, between using restraint and encouraging narcolepsy among audience members. In "The Secret Lives of Dentists," starring Campbell Scott and Hope Davis, director Alan Rudolph plays as close to the vest as possible, with the result being a film that never amounts to much beyond a rumination on how teeth are a metaphor for married life.<br /><br />Scott gives a fine performance in the role of David Hurst, a dentist married to another dentist (Davis). Rudolph sets up the dynamic of their relationship quickly - he is completely absorbed in the day-to-day duties of being the parenthood, she is quietly disillusioned with their frantic family life - and then ratchets up the tension when Scott may or may not witness his wife with another man. From this point on, the film focuses on whether or not David is going to confront his wife Dana about her possible adultery, or whether she will beat him to the punch and leave for good. From time to time, David is treated to visits from an imaginary "friend" in the form of a former patient played by Denis Leary (borrowing heavily from Brad Pitt's Tyler Durden in "Fight Club").<br /><br />While there is enough uncertainty about Dana's infidelity and David's instability to warrant examination, the last two thirds of the film are embarrassingly empty of theme or narrative. Instead, Rudolph creates drama out of a nasty fever that travels slowly through the Hurst family, culminating in a pointless hospital visit at the film's climax. The film never picks up on the hints at what David is really capable of if he wasn't so dedicated to his family; neither does it spend much time looking at Dana's precarious balancing act between her family life and her other, more fulfilling ambitions.<br /><br />By choosing to spend the majority of the film worrying over a fever gone awry, Rudolph kills the momentum of his film. By the time the fifth member of the family shows up sweating and sickly, the film has used up all the good graces of Scott's well-measured performance. David and Dana end up retracing their steps over and over again until a less than cathartic finale. With nothing to build on over the last hour, the conclusion seems awkward and patched-on. "The Secret Lives of Dentists" takes a common theme and does nothing to improve upon it. Altogether, a disappointing, unimaginative film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
just below the surface lies what? a simply awful movie is what.<br /><br />as other viewers have justifiably commented, the storm sequences are just plain ridiculous. chopping already sodden firewood in the pouring rain? now that's smart. menace? foreboding? sexual tension? for those read dull & contrived, dull & contrived and dull & overly contrived.<br /><br />i want to say thank god for mia sara's shower scene but in retrospect i think the producers of the film, having seen the completed mess realised that they had to put something in to make it half way worthwhile at all. so it just becomes yet another contrivance. do yourself a favour and give this a miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love Anthony Hopkins as an actor so I was very interested to see how he would do as a writer/director. I could not have been more disappointed by this move. The movie was so disjointed and the cinematography was so over done to the point I wanted to pull the plug out of the wall. The actors were very good but it was such a waste of talent. Not all actors are cut out to be writers or directors and clearly Mr. Hopkins falls into this category. Of all the movies I have ever seen in my 50 years, this is absolutely the worst movie ever. Please do us all a favor Mr. Hopkins and stick to acting, which you are excellent at, and leave the writing and directing to those who are talented in those areas. If I could give this movie a rating less than one I certainly would.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some people might consider this movie a piece of artwork - to be able to express your imagination on film in order to create a movie filled with antagonizing pain and death.. I personally think that this movie is a disgust, which should have never been released. This movie is repulsive, illogical and meaningless. Not only is it a complete waste of time but it makes you sick for days to come. The appalling images shown in the film not only make you grasp for air but they set in your mind and it takes days to forget them. Such a shame that people waste their imagination on such inhumane suffering.. "Kill Bill" would be another example but at least "Kill Bill" has its purpose, meaning, climax and resolution..
|
Negative
| null | null |
From director Barbet Schroder (Reversal of Fortune), I think I saw a bit of this in my Media Studies class, and I recognised the leading actress, so I tried it, despite the rating by the critics. Basically cool kid Richard Haywood (Half Nelson's Ryan Gosling) and Justin Pendleton (Bully's Michael Pitt) team up to murder a random girl to challenge themselves and see if they can get away with it without the police finding them. Investigating the murder is homicide detective Cassie 'The Hyena' Mayweather (Sandra Bullock) with new partner Sam Kennedy (Ben Chaplin), who are pretty baffled by the evidence found on the scene, e.g. non-relating hairs. The plan doesn't seem to be completely going well because Cassie and Sam do quite quickly have Richard or Justin as suspects, it is just a question of if they can sway them away. Also starring Agnes Bruckner as Lisa Mills, Chris Penn as Ray Feathers, R.D. Call as Captain Rod Cody and Tom Verica as Asst. D.A. Al Swanson. I can see now the same concept as Sir Alfred Hitchcock's Rope with the murdering for a challenge thing, but this film does it in a very silly way, and not even a reasonably good Bullock can save it from being dull and predictable. Adequate!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua "Josh" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers "Thank you" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances "Laz" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of "Edison" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called "Pussy") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.<br /><br />Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the "pop star to movie star" sweepstakes (aka the "rapper to actor" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that "Edison (Force)" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).<br /><br />**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really tried to like this movie but in the end it just didn't work for me. I have seen most of Kitamura's output and have found it to be very variable. Alive, like all of his films has an interesting plot, some nifty sequences and a fair amount of creativity. However, these qualities are in painfully short supply in Alive. The plot is cool if not all that original and could have made for a pretty ace film. Unfortunately, the pacing is painfully slow and the film takes an age to get going, before reaching fairly predictable places. The action is just about passable, with the final fight pretty cool, and the earlier one about OK. The earlier one is also marred by overspeedy camera-work, making for less coherency. There are some neat visual effects and some interesting ideas floating around in the dialogue but the film still drags badly. The characters are neither well fleshed out nor well acted and the setting and general color scheme is drab and boring. The film is not completely terrible and has some points of interest, perhaps judicious use of the fast forward button could improve it. With about twenty minutes taken off the run time this could be a pretty decent sci fi thriller. But the full length film is dull. Only recommended to very patient and determined Kitumura fans.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It feels like swedish movies are trying to become more american and I just don´t get it. In this movie the performance of some of the actors is horrible and the script is nothing special. Don´t waste your time!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Though I've yet to review the movie in about two years, I remember exactly what made my opinion go as low as it did. Having loved the original Little Mermaid, and having been obsessed with mermaids as a child could be, I decided I'd take the time to sit down and watch the sequel.<br /><br />Disney, I've got a little message for you. If you don't have the original director and actors handy...you're just looking to get your butt whooped.<br /><br />In the sequel, our story begins with a slightly older Ariel and her daughter, Melody. My first big issue was that Eric and the rest of the crew sang. Yes, I understand that Disney is big on sing-and-dance numbers, but really, that's what made Eric my favorite prince. He was calm, collected, and a genuine gentleman that knew how to have fun. And he DID. NOT. SING.<br /><br />And then there's the villain. Oh, how could we forget the shivers that coursed down our spines whenever Ursula slunk onto the screen, terrifying both Ariel and audiences around the world? Unfortunately, that gene was not passed on to her seemingly useless sister, Morgana. Nothing was ever, EVER said about Morgana in the first movie; she just pops out of nowhere, trying to steal the baby. Oh, how cute. The younger sister is ticked off and instead of going after the trident, decides to kidnap a month-old baby. Gag me.<br /><br />Other than being a flat character with no sense of originality in her, Morgana was just very unorthodox. The same plan as her sister, the same minions (who, by the way, did not scare anyone. I had a three year old on my lap when I watched this movie, and she laughed hysterically.) She had no purpose being in there; I'd like to have seen Mom be the villain. I'm sure she would have done a better job than Little Miss Tish over there.<br /><br />King Triton held none of the respect he'd earned from me in the first movie, and don't even get me started on Scuttle, Sebastian and Flounder. Triton was a stern but loving father in the first movie, and in the second, it's almost like he's lost his will to knock fear into the hearts of his subjects. Scuttle, once a comic relief that made everyone laugh with his 'dingle-hopper' (yes, I'll admit it; I did call my fork a dingle-hopper from time to time after that). In this film, Scuttle's all but forgotten. A supporting character even in the first, he at least added something to the movie. He was rich with a flavor the others didn't have, and in the sequel, they all but stripped it from him entirely. Sebastian was still the same, but twice as worrisome as before. Disney, don't do that. Don't even try to mess with our favorite crab. Or our favorite little fat fish, who becomes a dad and has a multitude of very annoying children. He's fat, and he's bland, and he looks like he's going to flat line any second.<br /><br />The walrus and penguin were unneeded, and after a while, you just start to resent everyone. Especially Melody, who has no depth to her whatsoever.<br /><br />And one of these days, Disney, I'm kicking out of my life.<br /><br />If I didn't love your originals so much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Impressed! This is the worst SRK movie and one of the worst Bollywood movies I ever saw! I didn't like the novel, but this movie made it worse! Very bad music, even worse actors (apart from SRK of course, though even he doesn't manage to save the movie), and not much sense. The director makes it all look very confusing, God knows why... Maybe it's because he's trying to make it all look very surrealistic, and yet credible. Well, he manages neither.<br /><br />Even if you've got a few hours to loose, don't watch this movie, please! (Saying this for your own welfare!) Keep searching, you will find something else to watch!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Body Slam (1987) is a flat out terrible movie. The low budget reeks, the direction is pedestrian (at best) and the writing and acting is lame. But if you're into old school wrestling (circa 1970's through the mid-80') then you'll be more entertained than the average viewer. I have to warn you, this movie stinks on ice. I gave it a two because I felt like being generous. This turkey was "directed" by stunt master Hal Needham. The stars are Roddy Piper, The Tonga Kid and a bunch of scrub wrestlers and c-list actors (Dirk Benedict).<br /><br />The synopsis of this "movie" is about a promoter who wants to combine "hair rock" and wrestling. But their are others that don't want him to succeed. There's more but I don't want to SPOIL it for you. If you can stomach the bad acting and inane storyline, there's a few surprises near the end for die-hard wrestling fans. <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to my worse enemy (and I mean it).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.