input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Yes, Kazaam is one of those horribly bad movies that almost reminds one of everything that is wrong with not just kids movies, but with humanity. Here we have Shaq as a rapping genie- yes, a RAPPING genie- where he does everything from making bad puns to dressing in ridiculous outfits, all ending in him in a Christ-like pose with lots of light surrounding him. So, yeah, expect really cheesy bits, including the first wish being a lot of junk food falling down from the sky (and, regrettably, not knocking out the two main characters, particularly the kid). What might not be expected is that a film with a kid and Shaquille O'Neill would be so incredibly schmaltzy! The main plot of the film involves this kid, played in that all-too-typical and annoying-kid fashion by the great-grandson of Frank Capra (where in which the kid is yelling out his dialog angrily), who comes upon a genie who's been trapped in a boom-box. Then "hiarity ensues" as the kid makes the Shaq-genie his quasi-slave as he waits on his last two wishes as he tries to make amends with his shady-gang-type absentee father.<br /><br />This really sappy, contrived son and father story would be bad enough, as there are certain lines that have been uttered in a million other movies (i.e. the "two chances in life" speech from father to son). But it's Shaquille O'Neill who is both the reason to watch the film (ironically), and the obvious sinking crux of it all. His plot line involves him, when not getting the over-talky treatment from Capra, to rap within the dialog and also start off his blossoming recording career. On top of this, he also kicks ass and takes names with the main bad guys who want him back in the boom-box. So is there a camp factor to the movie? Up to a point, but this is even squashed by all of the mushy scenes and 'heart-felt' moments that have really no business with the rest of the material. One might ask if the people making the movie, who were obviously doing it at the behest of the popularity of a BASKETBALL player who wanted to go on the Michael Jordan acting bandwagon, if it would be anywhere near decently entertaining or convincing. I'd hope that they too knew they were just getting paid. But I'd hope even more that they felt at least a little guilty afterwords for feeding the Shaq-machine.<br /><br />So, if you want to have a fun night of Shaq as genie-turned-rapper-turned-wisecracker, all the more fun to you. Hell, it might even be interesting to have a Shaq movie night with this and his other critically acclaimed effort Steel. But if you're hoping to keep a few brain cells, stay away from what is very likely the worst flick of 1996, and a candidate among many others for worst of the 90's.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, i'm a huge Henry VIII/Tudor era fan and, well, this was .... interesting. The only one I watched was the Catherine of Aragon one. And wow...just wow. I've seen bad acting before, but this reached new heights. When the actress who played Catherine was umm.. crying? she wails and screams and i have to admit i rewinded many times... many, many times .... funny, funny stuff. The only person who even showed any slight sliver of talent was the actress playing Anne Boleyn (i might be prejudiced though, i do have a slight obsession with Anne Boleyn, she was a really facinating woman, read up on her, it's worth it!) Also, i have read a lot about the Tudor time period and i think that the characters weren't very acurately displayed, they were all very stereotypical. Only see this movie if you are prepared to see a very important time period, and the important lives of those involved turned into a laughing stock.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed. <br /><br />Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.<br /><br />Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.<br /><br />2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.<br /><br />Interesting look at a 40s horror film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The "alligator" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If this movie was written directed and produced with the intention of creating a bad movie cult classic, it might (i say might) have been a hit. Have you ever sat and watched a movie that was so absolutely awful that it becomes fascinating in terms of its faults? Well this is it. Every one of the acting cast should be nominated for worst acting performance awards. It would be hard to find another film, with this kind of production budget, that contains so little of any value whatsoever. The whole thing, from the opening scenes defies logic. Dialogue is completely unbelievable and illogical. Ditto for the behaviour and general storyline of the film itself. What is really mind boggling, is that some buffoons in a boardroom actually made decisions to spend money on this piece of trash. Wow.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie last night and was a bit disappointed. A lot of the "time facts" were off. At the beginning of the movie, the grandfather made a comment to this grandson and his friends about how they felt when 9-11 hit. This movie was supposed to be taking place in 1994. Also, one of the grandsons friends was wearing an Eagles Donovan McNabb jersey. He hadn't even been drafted as of yet. The story line was good but the facts and actuality of the time frame was so far off base that it made the movie seem cheesy. My boyfriend is an avid reader of WWII books and memorabilia. I rented this movie hoping that it would be good. The acting was so-so. The dog was cute. But the way that this movie was carried out made me glad that I only paid 4 dollars to rent it as opposed to the 50 it would have taken me to watch it in a theater. I hope that who ever reads this understands that I mean no discontent to those who fought the war but the facts and time frame should have been a little more closely monitored.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A truly dreadful film. I did not know initially that this was a Kiwi effort - but very soon I started to realize that all the characters were speaking with hardly disguised kiwi accents under the fake American ones. Why did it need to be set n America anyway? - it could have been set in NZ and then the actors could have used their normal voices. Surely someone in the production team could hear the dreadful attempts at speaking with American accents? A bad bad film. I am surprised it has lasted this long - how did it make it out of the can? It just seemed like a very poor attempt at a Segal/Willis type action man flick.A TOTAL WASTE OF MONEY! If there was any TAXPAYER money in this piece of trash, I would be leading a revolution to have all the money put back into the Treasury. I am still reeling (get it? pun, reeling!) at the absolute garbage I have just seen. Why did I continue to watch? Well, I am a movie fanatic and cant help ,myself!
|
Negative
| null | null |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />McBain (played by Gary Busey, before the name became synonymous with the character in The Simpsons) is a (typically) unorthodox cop who gets results but winds his superiors up something rotten. Avoiding the cliché of his partner being killed at the beginning of the film, the plot instead takes a different turn and sees him assigned to travel to Mexico where a top secret American super tank with incredible firepower and imaging capabilities has been smuggled through, only to be taken hostage, along with the crew, by a gang of terrorists.<br /><br />This cheap looking (even by 80s standards), boring little action film was a bizarre career move for Gary Busey after making an impression as the flame haired villain Mr Joshua in Lethal Weapon. He just goes through the motions with his cardboard character here, edgy and zany as ever (with 'butthorn' being his trademark put down for the bad guys), but without the material to back him up. Henry Silva has presence as a screen villain, but he's totally miscast here as an Arab leader (in a red beret!) and the awful script gives him some really clunky lines of dull dialogue that make his performance come off as laughably wooden. He's just one of a host of action film character actors, including L.Q. Jones and Lincoln Kilpatrick, who pop up but fail to add anything to the mix. After a dull first half without much exciting action, things do pick up a bit at the end, but it's too little too late and none of it manages the task of being any fun. *
|
Negative
| null | null |
For the life of me I can't understand the good reviews on this piece of crap. It was pointless. Matthew Modine was horribly miscast as a leading ladies man. Gina Gershon, well, others have said it, but I'll reiterate, why the stupid accent? Totally unnecessary. And her acting was just bad. I don't know if she was thrown by the accent, or what. There was no chemistry between these two. <br /><br />And the girl Modine was in love with, suddenly she's shoving half a head of lettuce in her mouth and acting in a goofy way? Where did that come from? I think we were supposed to feel sorry for her as we saw her marriage to a workaholic begin to crumble, but frankly, I couldn't care less about any of these people.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I enjoyed the previous Ittenbach movie that I'd seen, "Burning Moon". But while that movie was rather grim and nasty, "Premutos" seems to mostly play it for laughs. While its admirable how Ittenbach made this movie with no money in his spare time (and the DVD documentary is worthwhile to see this), I found myself constantly battling not to fast-forward to the next gore scene. Sure, there's gore, and if that's all you want then go ahead and enjoy. But be warned: there's an inordinate amount of lame comedy and tedious story exposition. Many are comparing this to Peter Jackson's movies, especially "Braindead". But looking at what Jackson did on a similar budget in "Bad Taste", it's clear Ittenbach is lacking one thing that Jackson has - talent. 3/10 (for pretty good and plentiful gore effects, and for getting the most out of limited resources - but not worth the money I paid for it)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After coming off the first one you think the wayans brothers could come up with some new jokes. Though i guess not. If the first one wasn't bad enough this one is just so bad it hurts to watch. With all the actors they had in this film you think they could come up with something a little more clever. Though they couldn't, they had to take all the same raunchy, not funny jokes from the first one and somehow put it into this film thinking people would laugh at it again. Though the thing is i didn't laugh at it the first time. They tried to make these movies into parodies though they failed at every level. Most of the time it's just randomly inserted jokes, that are so disgusting and raunchy that it's hard to watch it and enjoy it. Then when they do try to do scenes that are movie parodies they just end up making a 20 minute recreation of the scene with maybe one joke within the entire scene. Also for people saying that its not for the older and real young audience, well i fit into the age range that it's supposed to be funny for. While people say that different people have different ideas of what is funny or not, if you do find this funny then you probably aren't one of the more mature or intelligent people around. It doesn't take that much skill to write that kind of a script, though if you do want a more clever and funnier movie go see the movie Spaceballs. It's a movie parody that's actually good and well done and it didn't have to use disgusting and raunchy jokes to make it funny either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I cannot vote on this because I wouldn't watch garbage from these people. They got my money with another movie (Mr. Jingles) and I swore it would never happen again. I feel it's my civic duty to help people stay away from this trash. Go to the forums on this film and read where cast members try to act like they are seeing the movie for the first time. One guy even responds to himself ...using the same name! There are shills in the forum that say it's as good as Shawshank Redemption and Citizen Kane...Not even close (by no means). If this is the company's 2nd movie, it should be better than the first. That means the 3rd movie should be a lot better. Not so, I've seen it. All I want to know is how you distribute this trash using the same names all the time. Having fun with friends and making a movie over the weekend is fine...but don't try to market that trash!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If it were not for the "Oh So Gourgous," Natassia Malthe, this B- movie would not have been worth one sector of my Tivo disk space! In what low rent, back lot warehouse was the supposed space port filmed in? "Continuity People!" It's a basic principle in real movie making! By night an alleged space port and by day (night and day on a space station?) a warehouse!??!? People Please! The only thing I will commend this movie for, is the wardrobe dept. for continuously, keeping Natassia in those tight shape revealing outfits! Even the women who saw this bomb had to appreciate the outfits that she obviously spent some time getting into, each day of filming! The Sci-fi channel would have been better off showing SpaceBalls! At least there would have been some real humor in watching something so unbelievable.<br /><br />P.S. Michael Ironside, please Fire Your Agent ASAP! You are so much better of an actor, to be even associated with this level of movie making.
|
Negative
| null | null |
War, Inc. - Corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin Brand Hauser (John Cusack) to do their wet-work against rival CEOs. A dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. It was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. I kept waiting for things to make sense. There's no reason or method to the madness.<br /><br />It's considered by Cusack to be the "spiritual successor" to Grosse Point Blank. I.e., War is more or less a knock-off. We again see Cusack as an assassin protecting *spoiler* the person he's supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. To be fair, John Cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. The brief fights look good. The rest of the film does not. It's all quirky often bordering on bizarre. War Inc's not funny enough to be a parody, and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film's message might be, which I suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations, like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. Interesting, but the satire just doesn't work because it's not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. We're supposed to give a damn about how war affects Cusack's shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war.<br /><br />John Cusack gives a decent performance. His character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. Marisa Tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. There really isn't a lot of chemistry between them. Hilary Duff tries a Russian accent and doesn't make a fool of herself. Joan Cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. Blech. Ben Kingsley might have to return the Oscar if he doesn't start doling out a decent performance now and again. Pathetic.<br /><br />It's not a terrible movie, but in the end you gotta ask "War, what is it good for?" Absolutely nothing. C-
|
Negative
| null | null |
This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like "Congo," and "Allan Quatermaine" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.<br /><br />1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.<br /><br />So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.<br /><br />Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.<br /><br />Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time. <br /><br />The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a "Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities." I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.<br /><br />There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, "photonic" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.<br /><br />Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which "fuse" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug "didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock," thank god. Oh, and the people with these "fused" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.<br /><br />So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.<br /><br />Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.<br /><br />Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After being hugely entertained by Mr. Brosnan's performance as a cad in "The Tailor of Panama" (which I rate 10/10 across the board: casting, acting, script, story, editing, pace, music, emotional impact, etc.), I enthusiastically anticipated this film. I was hugely disappointed. It is a script reading not a film, vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, bankrupt in every way that "The Tailor of Panama" is rich and satisfying. Blame it on the screen writing and directing. I sat in the theater waiting for the "good part;" it never came. I neither laughed nor cried, although one line of dialog did make me smile. Worth $7? Hardly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We have an average family. Dad's a famous rapper, we have the "rebelious teenage daughter", the adopted white kid, and the cute little kid. And we have careless housemaid, what show has had a housemaid like that? Do we have a messed-up Brady Bunch? Yay! When it first came out I thought it was really cool, mostly because I was young. The music was bad. The raps were so bad and they were too g-rated. All of his raps were about his family and friends and problems. The dad was kind of the "Danny from Full House" type of dad. Always gave the advice out. But he wasn't a clean freak. They had a house-keeper for that. Remember? The plots were basically Lil' Romeo was in trouble of some sort, or... not that's it. Oh and maybe some preteen drama. Yeah that stuff is good. Not really. But its still a good show for kids. But Nikelodean could do better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bored Londoners Henry Kendall and Joan Barry (as Fred and Emily Hill) receive an advance on an inheritance. They use the money go traveling. Their lives become more exciting as they begin relationships with exotic Betty Amann (for Mr. Kendall) and lonely Percy Marmont (for Ms. Barry). But, they remain as boring as they were before. Arguably bored director Alfred Hitchcock tries to liven up the well-titled (as quoted in the film, from Shakespeare's "The Tempest") "Rich and Strange" by ordering up some camera trickery. An opening homage to King Vidor's "The Crowd" is the highlight. The low point may be the couple dining on Chinese prepared cat.<br /><br />*** Rich and Strange (12/10/31) Alfred Hitchcock ~ Henry Kendall, Joan Barry, Percy Marmont, Elsie Randolph
|
Negative
| null | null |
I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight
|
Negative
| null | null |
Apparently, this is what happens when a director allows his 14-year old nephew to rewrite the dialogue on the set while he indulges himself alcoholically in the meantime; as I said earlier, although I've always wanted to catch one of Paul Naschy's werewolf pictures, this atrocity served as my introduction and, as awful as it most certainly is, I still intend to pursue other entries in the series, albeit very gradually.<br /><br />Despite some high profile disappointments like Joe Dante's THE HOWLING (1981), I love werewolf pictures in general but, to be honest, I quickly lost interest in this film's "plot" and just stood there gazing at my TV screen counting its absurdities as it were. There were far too many to mention them here but I have to say two which struck me as particularly hilarious were the schizophrenic nature of the Werewolf persona (i.e. going from a raging beast in one shot to a dazed, zombie-like state in the very next one - as if he's on a casual midnight stroll in the countryside, and sporting an entirely different wardrobe to boot...and, yes, I did know the reasons for this beforehand), as well as the "Phantom Of The Opera" look of the Wolfstein character! But what do I know - perhaps the elusive full-length version of this mess could very well have been a bona-fide horror classic!
|
Negative
| null | null |
You've been fouled and beaten up in submission by my harsh statements about "femme fatale" / "guns n' gals" movies! Now comes another breed in disappointing rediscoveries: ninja movies! Many of these I've seen before, and let me tell you, they aren't all that's cracked up to be! They usually don't stick to the point. This, among all others, suffers from no originality! What's a ninja got to do with preventing a nuclear holocaust in Russia? And isn't this supposed to be a "martial arts" movie, too? Does plenty of gunfire sound like an incredible action movie to you? Is blood the number one reason to love this to death? Will you waste some of your hard-earned cash over a lady singing in her see-through tank top? The answers to these important questions are found in THE NINJA MISSION, which should be in the martial arts section of your video store. For even more nonsense ninja fun, try checking out those Godfrey Ho movies put out by Trans World. You get what you deserve, and that's a promise! Recommended only for hardcore ninja addicts!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The female lead was a terrible actress which made the whole movie mediocre. She was smiling too much when she first went in front of the cameras to talk about her daughter. This should have made the police suspect her. I would have been inconsolable in the identical situation. She seemed way calm for a mother who could not find her daughter. It was as if she did not want to even be in the movie. Jennifer Aniston would have played the part better. And it would have made a lot more money for such a controversial, important subject. Everyone else was excellent. I don't know where the lead actress is but I hope she got some acting lessons.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Completely ridiculous "period" film is only a thin excuse for its extensive, graphic depiction of the heroine's affair with "the beast", a monster who supposedly appears every century to rape some women. That's pretty much what he does, and the film's depiction of the beast is really really awful; it's basically a tall guy in a fur suit with a mask and a huge PVC tube for a hard-on that squirts copious amounts of white liquid. For fans of fake animal porn, I guess maybe this is a real turn-on. I was amused, however, by the opening shots of horses having sex in a public square.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, I am a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle and was so excited to see that a movie was made for one of my favorite books, A Wrinkle in Time. This movie, however, ruined that excitement for me. I am sorry, but Meg was described in the book as having fizzy curls and glasses and as being considered very uncool. In the movie, she has straight hair and no glasses and is the "sporty type" with a deep voice. This is not how Madeleine L'Engle pictured Meg to be at all. In fact, Meg was based on Madeleine's character and depicted the way she felt when she was young. This is just one major example how the book and movie are different. So I would say, if you want to watch it for entertainment purposes, watch it but if you are a devoted fan of Madeleine L'Engle and her Wrinkle in Time series, I would suggest skipping this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh dear, this movie was bad for various reasons. I was expecting to see a very low score for this film and was a bit surprised by the over-all score.Sorry, but to rate this highly as many have, is a joke! Once you get past the one shot/black and white movie gimmick, which was a nice idea, the movie drags on, even at a run time of only 66 minutes. The credits sequence at the start was so annoying too!In the van the guys suffer a flat tyre and change the wheel, wow, that was needed in the story! How slow were the guys chasing and actually managing to wound Campbell?? They did not seem to bother continue chasing him...sigh..I am only too glad I got this free with a special Edition of Evil Dead!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!!
|
Negative
|
When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. And, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is still the best. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. And when you put that aspect into the film, it becomes one big jocky ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, and when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he naturally doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would reasonably be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this would definitely fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, still go here...just here at that!!!
|
Positive
|
Once upon a time in the mid 1990s I used to write for DOCTOR WHO fanzines and the whole of fandom was holding its breathe about the new American produced DOCTOR WHO TVM . As soon as it was announced that the Doctor`s arch enemy the Master was going to be played by Eric Roberts everyone scratched their heads and exclaimed " Who is Eric Roberts ? " . I should point out this was before the IMDB came online when all you had to do was type in a name into this website to their resume , but one helpful soul wrote into a publication I wrote for to explain that Eric Roberts was best known for a role where he starred opposite F Murray Abraham , the film was called BY THE SWORD and was about a fencing school . Actually looking back now Roberts is best known for THE POPE OF GREENWICH VILLAGE and RUNAWAY TRAIN but that didn`t stop the person putting the boot into both Roberts and BY THE SWORD and his mind was made up that this American Master with his southern drawl was going to a debacle . Strangely most fans were furious about Roberts playing the Master but after they saw the DOCTOR WHO TVM a great many fans ( Myself among them ) thought Roberts performance was the best thing about the disappointing American production <br /><br />Yeah I`m digressing but BY THE SWORD was a film that I wanted to see simply because it was the first time I`d heard the name of Eric Roberts but I didn`t get the chance to see it untill this weekend and I was fairly disappointed with it . I know nothing about fencing ( Everyone else on this page seems duty bound to mention if they fence or not . I don`t fence ) so I don`t know how accurate it all is , but as mentioned the film feels somewhat anachronistic even if you saw it on its release in 1991 , the hairstyles seem a few years out of date along with its mixed teenage cast doing a little dance routine that makes you wonder if it wouldn`t have worked a lot better if it`d had been produced by Jerry Bruckheimer in the mid 1980s . You could argue this would have meant the relationship between Max Suba and Alexander Villard being off centre for most of the film but I wasn`t convinced about their love/hate relationship and Abraham and Roberts have given much better performances before and since BY THE SWORD
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had to do a search on the actresses to find the board of this film because the title is now An Unexpected Love. It's not really worth looking for but I was unfamiliar with both leads and wondered why they were headlining a lesbian flick on Lifetime. Everything's pretty restrained and you don't really get an idea of who these characters are so, as a viewer, I wasn't able to become emotionally invested in the storyline. I guess I'm not the target audience for this but I'm not sure who is. Everything's muted and soft focus and earth tones...nothing's very interesting. I had a prurient interest in seeing two women make out but it's handled so discreetly that I was disappointed. Rent Personal Best instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jenny Neumann (from the sexploitation flick MISTRESS OF THE APES, the American slasher HELL NIGHT and others) is Helen Selleck, an American actress who gets a lead role in an Australian stage production. She's a virgin because as a little girl she saw her mom having sex and then accidentally caused the car accident that killed her. Meanwhile, a black-gloved killer prowls around the theater slashing up people with shards of glass.<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILER***<br /><br />The killer is obviously Helen (she speaks in her dead mother's voice, washes blood off her hands after the murders and is seen killing a child molester with a broken bottle as a little girl!), but this has gratuitous heavy-breathing POV camera-work and conceals the identity of the murderer until the very end like it's supposed to be some big surprise.<br /><br />The entire cast seems obsessed with talking about, having or trying to have sex, and, in one case, even blackmailing their way into getting laid. There's quite a bit of nudity and blood, but there's no sense of continuity, the photography is murky and the editing (by Colin Eggleston, who also scripted and produced) is terrible. The theater setting for a slasher film predates Soavi's film of the same name and Argento's OPERA (both of which are better than this one ) by five years though, and Neumann is pretty hot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"A scientist discovers signals from space that appear to carry information concerning a series of seemingly unrelated natural disasters, occurring across the globe. Hoping to discover the source of these signals and who's behind them, the scientist and his wife set out on a trek to locate the intended recipient of the signals. What the couple eventually discovers is a small remote convent with occupants who are not really who they appear to be," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.<br /><br />Kirk Scott (as Andrew Boran) is the scientist who intercepts alien messages on his computer. He suspects a series of "Large Earth Disruptions" may be connected to the weird space static. Mr. Scott and pretty blonde wife Sue Lyon (as Sylvia Boran) investigate the mysterious signals from outer space. They discover priestly, but creepy Christopher Lee (as "Father Pergado"), and other silliness. Given that, "End of the World" is remarkably dull. <br /><br />*** End of the World (1977) John Hayes ~ Kirk Scott, Sue Lyon, Christopher Lee
|
Negative
| null | null |
Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural "thriller" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).<br /><br />I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.<br /><br />How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.<br /><br />The alleged "killer cut" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
If there has ever been a worse comedy than 'Gray Matters' I am unaware of it. The New York Jewish comedy's 'funny' premise is that siblings Sam & Gray are mistaken for a couple and so decide to fix Sam up with a girlfriend, only to find that Gray is equally attracted to their target - Charlie. The revelation that Gray is secretly gay is apparently only a surprise to her. There is a deeply offensive wedding sequence, a deeply embarrassing 'drunk act' from Moynahan and Graham, and a performance that would embarrass forests everywhere for its woodenness from Tom Cavanagh. Sissy Spacek demonstrates a complete inability to do comedy and will want this excised from her resume. Molly Shannon plays the homely friend with lumpen insouciance. Only Alan Cumming emerges with any credit but is seriously under-employed and given nothing with which to work. The whole disaster is cemented by Graham's bizarre eye-rolling performance culminating with the penultimate scene where she wears a comedy hat and an overcoat despite the scene being set in a lesbian bar. It is astonishing that this film was ever released it has no redeeming feature and should be avoided at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
RUN...do not walk away from this movie!!!!! Aimed at the very young kids, this movie will bore you to tears. If the Gamera trilogy of the 90's raised the bar, this film just lowered it. It's slow paced and the monster fighting is good, but seldom seen. This movie had me dry heaving in the cat box. Just a very poor offering after a phenomenal 90's series.<br /><br />SPOILERS BEYOND THIS POINT!!!!!!!!!!! Here are the top 10 reasons Gamera fans of the 90's series will HATE this film.<br /><br />10. This movie is a drama that follows a kid trying to cope with the death of his mother and fears losing baby Gamera to a fight after knowing his father saw the adult Gamera die.<br /><br />9. You see the adult Gamera for maybe a minute at the beginning of the film. He gets his butt kicked by a few Gyaos and self destructs??? He looks old and lethargic. Plus he looks nothing like any gamera you've ever seen. His suit looked cheap and rushed.<br /><br />8. The young Gamera you see through the rest of the film looks like a Pokemon. Big-eyed and cute...it will remind you of the baby Godzilla from Godzilla vs MechaGodzilla 2. Gamera is now too cute.<br /><br />7. This movie has the pace of watching a NASCAR race during a 3 hour rain delay. I watched this movie with 2 other Gamera fans and nobody was happy with how slowly this film moved along. I've seen an SUV full of fat people going up a mountain road move faster.<br /><br />6. Like Godzilla:Final Wars, this movie had very little kaiju time on screen. Final Wars had much more, actually, and better fights although short.<br /><br />5. Kids take the title role. The friend of all children theme and poor writing killed the original Gamera series in the 1970's and history repeats itself in the 2000's. The most successful Gamera films abandoned the Sesame Street feel and went to a darker place. Why go back to a failed formula? This was to be a new trilogy and poor ticket sales killed any hope for this story to continue (thank god).<br /><br />4. Gamera lost his iconic roar. He now sounds like an Elephant with strep throat.<br /><br />3. This movie may produce a new Olympic event.....Imagine a relay race that involves sending very young children into harm's way. You have to see the ending to understand this point. Where were the parents? Oh yea..right there sending their kids into a kaiju battle zone.<br /><br />2. The special effects were good, but sub-par for a Gamera movie. Legion and Iris had better effects. The best effect was showing the apple sized baby Gamera fly. Not too impressive.<br /><br />1. This movie is just not what adult kaiju fans come to expect. The director was involved in Power Rangers and it shows. It comes off like a cross between ET, Always: Sunset on Third Street and TMNT. Kudos if you know all 3 references.<br /><br />Rental at best or watch once if you buy it to complete the DVD series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You can't imagine how I looked forward to King of the Ants. As a massive Gordon fan, I awaited the European premiere with wicked anticipation.especially since I loved Dagon - Gordon's last achievement - so much. King of the Ants premiered here in my country and it was Gordon himself who came to present it. Unfortunately, I couldn't go and congratulate him for it afterwards. King of the Ants is his most uninspired and mediocre film to date. Really, the quality level never surpassed ordinary TV-thriller standards. The plot outline is terribly routine and with the exception of a few poor scenes, the typical Gordon-touch is never recognized. On top of that, the already weak script has more holes than a Swiss bowl of cheese! It involves a young wannabe-crook who's hired to commit a murder. So he does.and of course they're not paying him.and of course he falls in love with the victim's wife.and of course he avenges himself.. Only the sequences in which the guy descents in a spiral of madness are worth a mention and they're the only ones reminding you of the fact you're still watching a Stuart Gordon film. The acting performances are below average with McCenna as the heroic lowlife, George `Norm Peterson' Wendt as the chubby bastard and Kari Wuhrer as the good-hearted sex bomb. Extremely illogical things happen constantly and the dullness of the story becomes irritating very quickly, while the make-up effects aren't enough to even satisfy amateur-horror fans. I read a few other comments on King of the Ants, claiming it's Gordon's best since it finally is a thought-provoking and mature film.Well, if that's the case.I rather stay immature and give Re-Animator another viewing, thank you very much. Oh well, I guess every good director runs out of steam and inspiration eventually.too bad it also overcame Stuart Gordon.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you appreciate the renaissance in Asian horror, don't bother with Gawi. The film scarcely deserves mention alongside A-list work such as Ringu, A Tale of Two Sisters, Cure, and Ju-On (or even such good material as The Eye or Inner Senses). Those films brim with subtleties, unexpected imagery, rich characters, and a decidedly non-Western take on what's frightening. Gawi is strung together with the leftover limbs and organs of everything that has made American horror lousy for the past twenty-five years.<br /><br />The film tries to blend Asian ghost story and Hollywood slasher flick, but it's a bad fit. One aesthetic is bound to smother the other; guess which? Having no story of their own to tell the filmmakers loot Ringu for an evil-child subplot, but the situation is hopeless. Clichés, crap characters, witless plotting, a dull ghost, ho hum.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw this on TV. I'm glad I didn't go to the cinema to see this or spend the money on rental. The movie is totally predictable - from the corrupt owner and planner, to the snaking electric cables. The plot is really weak and unbelievable - the avalanche expert guy gets hit by a 20 foot wave of bone breaking avalanche (using actual footage) and all he has to do is get up and shake himself down. The avalanche thunders down at a million miles an hour and stops dead at the side of the road.<br /><br />Some of the actual avalanche material is impressive and shows its devastating power. But the contract between the real avalanche and the staged stuff makes this film look even flimsier.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour, don't bother with this one not even on T.V.
|
Negative
| null | null |
....CAUSE IT'S CRAP! The kind of movie that makes you want to go and smack the movie maker and say "WHY?". Horrible camera work...count the times the camera tries to remain steady on one person and can't. The dialog is ridiculous. The acting is comical. It looks like they took over a ghost town in the west to see if they could make a movie on the least amount of money possible. I'd bet $10 they used home video cameras to make this. Either that, or most of the cameramen were drunk. Truly the trailers are more entertaining than the movie. If you ever want to host a "Worst Movie Party", bring this one. Want more entertainment...stare at a wall.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If I hadn't been forced to watch this for work reasons I never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. And even then I admit I fast forwarded through parts. The '63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. Yes, I've read this one is more faithful to the original play, but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in '63! It's overlong, it drags, the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. The version of "Kids" in the '63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. In this version the Kim is way too old, the Conrad is *absolutely horrible* to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him I shuttered in disgust...the director of this version has no idea what sexy is.). This Conrad can't dance, can't sing (he can't even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. If Elvis Presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. As for the other actors, well I kept waiting for Alexander's toupee to fall off as he danced and Daly was totally over acting as Momma. See Stapleton's performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. This TV version is nothing but a total waste of anyone's time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In short:<br /><br />Spike Lee clearly has a lot on his mind. He's thinking about racism color-ism, media and hegemony, consumerism and capitalism, religion, sexism, 'hetero-sexism', politics of the drug war etc etc...<br /><br />That level of consciousness on is own is great. I think it is a blessing that more and more people are choosing to critically examine fundamental aspects of our daily lives; the silent and invisible forces that govern our societies. However, just because Lee is making contentious films does not make him a good film-maker.<br /><br />What comes across in "Jungle Fever" is a superficial understanding of these socio-political forces. This is largely the result of two main failures:<br /><br />firstly, Lee is simply trying too hard. He seems to be desperately trying to accommodate every political/social statement he can think of into the 90mins. And as such, the end result seems confused and irresolute as he allows himself no time to develop characters that can fully embody the ideas he hopes to present. And so he exhausts stereotypes and we are left with rushed testimonies and very loaded dialogs. The end result is very staged and unrealistic.<br /><br />Secondly, by attempting to make statements about such a wide variety of societal functions, he appears to have no concrete or original interpretation of the social/political issues presented. What comes across is a puddle of regurgitated non-sense. You feel that he bought an elementary level sociology text book and spewed out all 500 pages.<br /><br />These are highly problematic features because the artistry of film is sacrificed and the work is transformed into a loudspeaker for the voice of the voice of the filmmaker. He is unable to distance himself from the work, and allow it to speak for itself.<br /><br />It functions neither as a piece of art nor a sound political argument.<br /><br />Although I still do appreciate Lee bringing up these important issues, I must say:<br /><br />Two thumbs down.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself "If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes" I might actually go for the red hot needles.<br /><br />Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind "Yeah that's some bad direction right there".<br /><br />I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: "Some Sacrifices Must Be Made". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.<br /><br />The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a "thriller" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show up
oh how I wish.<br /><br />Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of one
yes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for you
and if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.<br /><br />About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hour
and you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.<br /><br />If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.<br /><br />Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this "hot" movie when it came out in 1986. It had a X rating for a brief scene involving oral sex but played in mainstream theatres (it was an "art" film). Supposedly it's the first film to ever show a respected actress in an explicit sex scene.<br /><br />What I saw was a boring tale about a high school boy (Federico Pitzalis) in love (understandably) with an older woman (Maruschka Detmers). As has been mentioned before Detmers is very beautiful with a good body BUT she also gave a very good performance. Pitzalis was (to put it mildly) pretty poor. It's no wonder he never made another movie. Still, despite the infamous sex scene (which is explicit but pretty brief), this a slow moving dull story which bored me silly. The good acting by Detmers only helped to a certain point. Mostly I was looking at my watch waiting patiently for it to end. If it didn't have that sequence this movie would have been forgotten long ago. Dull and slow. You can skip this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Horrible waste of time - bad acting, plot, directing. This is the most boring movie EVER! There are bad movies that are fun (Freddy vs. Jason), and there are bad movies that are HORRIBLE. This one fits into the latter. Bottom Line - don't waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.<br /><br />Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in "Five the Hard Way". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.<br /><br />Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was excited to hear that Cesar Montano had decided to make a movie in the Cebuano language. (Not 'dialect' as most Filipinos will incorrectly refer to it as. As Cebuano and Tagalog are as mutually unintelligible as French and Spanish are to each other.) But I was greatly disappointed when i saw this movie. Being a Canadian, of Cebuano parents, I was optimistic about the revival of the Visayan film industry when I heard about this film. I was further excited to hear that it wasn't another stupid action movie or melodrama as Filipinos love these types of movies. But alas, I was short-changed.<br /><br />Panaghoy serves as an ego trip for Cesar Montano. Montano of course plays the hero of the movie. And when I say 'hero' I mean in the most stereotypical of manners; his function is to win the heart of a girl and lead the Bol-anons to victory against the Japanese. His character has no depth or complexity. He just fits the hero mold. The rest of the characters are one dimensional; they all fit their cookie cutter roles.<br /><br />I'm all for slow-moving/meditative movies but this movie was just slow moving. It didn't really meditate on anything. Just because a movie is historically-themed, a drama and slow-moving doesn't make it a well-made film.<br /><br />Particularly annoying is the American actor Philip Anthony. His performance was embarrassing.<br /><br />If Montano wanted to revive the Visayan film industry he should have really thought this through. He said he wanted to make Visayan movies that could compete at Cannes and Toronto etc. but really, this movie would have been booed and hissed at at such festivals. To get Visayan films into the mainstream consciousness he should have at least made a movie that would have attracted audiences, even if it meant sacrificing quality. Obviously he didn't think about or get information on what kind of movies garner awards at Cannes so an audience-attracting movie would have been at least a foot in the door.<br /><br />I'm afraid now that Visayan movies will not be made for a long time again because of this movie. If ever I said to a Filipino that I want to see more Visayan movies of course I'd get an answer like, "Visayans don't make good movies. Didn't you see Panaghoy Sa Suba?" Of course this is ludicrous as it is one example of a Visayan movie and probably the only example that anyone nowadays would be likely to see.<br /><br />An example of movies that are meditative, not just slow moving, are the Tagalog film Blackout or David Lynch's The Straight Story. I hate to promote the Tagalog language as it is endlessly and unfairly promoted and shoved down the throats of non-Tagalog Filipinos but for the sake of calling a spade a spade I say that Blackout is a VERY good movie. These movies rely heavily on what Hitchcock called 'pure cinema'. Images without words are used to convey the story. But I bend the definition a bit for the sake of these two movies in that these movies use images without words to convey the mood of the movie. and they do it very well. Panaghoy thinks that if they simply take sweeping shots of the landscape then they have established the mood.<br /><br />And what's with so many Filipino movies featuring a dying mother or grandmother???
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie remains in the gray for far too long. Very little gets explained as the movie progresses, with as a result lots of weird sequences that seem to have a deeper meaning but because of the way of storytelling they become only just weird and not understandable to watch. It sort of forces you to watch the movie again but no way I'm going to do that. It is that I watched this movie in the morning, I'm sure of it that if I watched this movie in the evening I would had fallen asleep. To me the movie was like a poor man's "Blade Runner".<br /><br />The movie leaves far too many questions and improbabilities. It makes the movie leave a pointless and non-lasting impression.<br /><br />Also the weird look of the movie doesn't help much. The movie is halve CGI/halve real life but it's not done halve as good, impressive, spectacular and imaginative as for instance would be the case in later movies such as "Sin City" and "300". They even created halve of the characters of the movie by computer, which seemed like a very pointless- and odd choice, also considering that the character animation isn't too impressive looking. Sure the futuristic environment is still good looking and the movie obviously wasn't cheap to make but its style over substance and in this case that really isn't a positive thing to say.<br /><br />Some of the lines are also absolutely horrendous and uninteresting. The main God of the movie constantly says lines such as; 'I'm going to do this but it's none of your concern why I want to do it'. Than just don't say anything at all Mr. Horus! It's irritating and a really easy thing to put in movie, if you don't care to explain anything about the plot. Also the deeper questions and meanings of the movie gets muddled in the drivel of the movie and its script.<br /><br />The actors still did their very best. They seemed like they believed in the project and were sure of it that what they were making would be something special. So I can't say anything negative about them.<br /><br />The story and movie is far from original. It rip-offs from a lot of classic and semi-classic, mostly modern, science-fiction movies. It perhaps is also the reason why the movie made a very redundant impression on me.<br /><br />A failed and uninteresting movie experiment.<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
The title above is used to introduce the film "Gen" to its audience. Gen is about a young doctor(Doga Rutkay) with an ill mother. The film starts with her leaving her mother behind to start her new job. While she drives, we realise that she is not that close home as the hospital is in a remote area. As soon as she steps into the garden of the hospital, she sees the death body of a patient. This is the beginning of a nightmare for the next few days.<br /><br />Two policemen comes to the hospital so as to investigate the suicide. In fact, they will have to stay in the hospital because all roads are cut off due to bad weather conditions. All their communication with outside world is cut off too. There is no way out!! In those few days, there will be more nasty murders. Now everybody suspects from each other.<br /><br />In my opinion, the idea is brilliant. It could have been very scary indeed. There are positive sides of the movie of course. I really like the beginning of the movie. Especially, when she drives to the hospital and her first moments in the hospital. Actings are okay. Some of them are trying too hard to be mysterious and scary though. I think the final shock should have been spread into the through out of the movie. What I am saying is, it was a good twist but instead of showing it as a parody in the end, we should have realised that was coming when we see what is happening. The director needed to explain it altogether which I think didn't work well. Also the most dangerous patient in the movie is supposed to be at least 48 years old but his body looks so young and fit for someone who spends most of his life in this hospital. Lastly, I would like to say a few things about the director. I am sure he will improve. This is his first attempt. I have recently found out that he is only 21 years old. That made me feel more positive about him and his future films. I am not going to rate this film * out of ***** though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you want to see a movie that terribly mixes up one Latin country with any other Latin country, "The Celestine Prophecy" is a good example: 1. Perú, not even in its most violent times, has not shown polices or soldiers as much as in this film. This showed a country like El Salvador when Civil War. Since I'm a Peruvian who lives in Lima (the capital of Perú), it was too funny to me seeing the police guards here, there and everywhere. 2. If you have a car in Perú, and you want (or need) to be a taxi driver, just post a sticker with the word "Taxi" on the front glass of your car and you can drive freely in Peruvian streets (there are taxi companies, but their rates are quite expensive). No need of yellow or a black/white squared band on the doors of your car. Well, taxis in this film have that band, somethin that you will never see in Perú. 3. Peruvian people are not Caribbean styled clothing. For example, when a taxi driver comes out, he was wearing a "Guayabera" (Cuban shirt), a white hat, and 40's mustaches, like Clark Gable. Not one Peruvian man looks like that, please! Perú is not the Caribbeans! 4. A scene shows a woman on a street with a quite long skirt, like the typical folklore dresses in Latin America. Take a walk anywhere in Perú, and you'll never find a woman wearing like that, unless you are watching a typical dance. 5. Cast could've been better: I can not deny Héctor Elizondo is a great actor, but he's not a Latin actor (his father was Basque and his mother from Puerto Rico, but he was born in New York) and his Spanish is not fluent. It's notorious Spanish is not his first language. There are dozens of very good Latin actors who could've performed as Cardinal Sebastián. Petrus Antonius (General Rodríguez) was also a bad choice for a "Latin Police officer". It was so funny seeing Elizondo and Petronius in General Rodríguez's office. They looked like two English or American students in a Spanish class, making their best effort in order to pronounce Spanish. Unsuccessfully, of course. Castulo Guerra was better in his Spanish. A "Peruvian" officer, who announced Cardinal Sebastián, spoke a quite funny Spanish too. There are very good Peruvian actors, like Augusto Alvarez-Calderón and Christian Meier (just to mention two out of many Peruvian actors), who could've performed with excellence. 6. I admit that a fictional movie can let itself a license inventing cities or, even, countries. But, please, when creating a name, be careful when using a foreign language: The town portrayed in this movie should've been called "Vicente" and not "Viciente". Vicente is a male name, and Viciente has never been used. 7. I disagree one user, who says that this movie was filmed on locations in Perú. Not one location is Peruvian, although the production has used in excess posters showing "Inca Kola", the Peruvian soda. As not few American films, this one must have used any Latin country. After all, for American producers or directors, a Latin place is identical to any other Latin place. 8. In the first scenes, when John (Matthew Settle) flies to Perú, he's supposed to arrive to the only one international airport in Perú: Jorge Chávez Airport (in Lima, the capital). Actually, believe me, it must be any airport in the world, but Peruvian airport. And, of course, in Peruvian airports there are no military or police guards. 9. When this John takes a room in a Peruvian hotel, this one has a fan and, obviously has no air conditioner. Please, this doesn't happen in no hotel in Perú(and other Latin countries), unless you get a 1 star hotel! 10. The rebels who fight against the government are... ¡Colombians! Their accent was, with no doubt, from Colombia. For casting them, the producers should've hired Peruvian actors. In few words, it would've been cheaper filming in Perú.<br /><br />I could go on with more examples out of this film, that led me to give it a "1" (awful) vote, but I fell asleep after about 20 minutes from its beginning. But dear producers: It's not a tragedy: There are many worse movies with not few mistakes. Just let's remember "Indiana Jones and the kingdom of the Crystal skull" and indescribable Disney's "The Emperor's new groove". The list of bad films could be endless...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Boring and appallingly acted(Summer Pheonix). She sounded more Asian than Jewish. Some of the scenes and costumes looked more mid 20th century than late 19th century. What on earth fine actors like Ian Holm & Anton Lesser were doing in this is beyond me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This waste of time is a completely unnecessary remake of a great film. Nothing new or original is added other than Perry's backflashes, which are of marginal interest. It lacks the documentary feel of the first film and the raw urgency that made it so effective. Also painfully missing is the sharp Quincy Jones soundtrack that added to much to the original film. I can't understand any high ratings for this at all. It's quite bad. Why does anyone waste time or money making crap like this and why did I waste time watching it?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Revolt of the Zombies starts with Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) trying to convince General Duval (George Cleveland) that his mate Tsiang (William Crowell) is a priest who has the power to hypnotise people & render them under his control turning them into mindless zombies (a bit like the people I work with really). Anyway, Tsiang is murdered by Colonel Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) but fails to gain the knowledge of turning people into zombies. An expedition has been set up by General Duval to hunt for the secret since Tsiang ain't going to tell them much anymore. General Duval heads the expedition along with his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone) who is engaged to Louque who also comes along. During the expedition Claire dumps Louque for his mate Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland) at which Louque isn't too pleased about. In a way that could only happen in a film Louque finds the secret to turning people into zombies by himself & starts to use his new found power to gain revenge on Claire & Clifford... Co-written & directed by Victor Halperin Revolt of the Zombies has a bad reputation & after watching it I can see why. The script by Halperin, Howard Higgin & Rollo Lloyd all uncredited, has a good central idea but is killed stone cold dead by being dull & as exciting as watching paint dry. Nothing much happens for ages & then nothing much happens afterwards either. How Halperin depicts his zombies is different to that which most modern audiences would consider to be a zombie, these zombies are just brainwashed people & filmgoing audiences would have to wait over thirty years before George A.Romero would define what a zombie is now thought as in Night of the Living Dead (1968). At only about an hour in length Revolt of the Zombies still feels too long. Technically the film is OK considering it was made 70 years ago, the black & white cinematography is adequate although some of the scenes look like they were shot against a photo of the background location. The acting is wooden & largely unimpressive. Revolt of the Zombies might have been hot stuff in 1936 but it hasn't dated well & in 2005 it's an absolute chore to sit through. I believe the film is now public domain as it turns up on lots of ultra cheap DVD compilations & budget labels, but it's still not worth watching no matter how cheap you can get it for.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.<br /><br />Don't spend the time on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />What is left of Planet Earth is populated by a few poor and starving rag-tag survivors. They must eat bugs and insects, or whatever, after a poison war, or something, has nearly wiped out all human civilization. In these dark times, one of the few people on Earth still able to live in comfort, we will call him the All Knowing Big Boss, has a great quest to prevent some secret spore seeds from being released into the air. It seems that the All Knowing Big Boss is the last person on Earth that knows that these spores even exist. The spores are located far away from any living soul, and they are highly protected by many layers of deadly defense systems. <br /><br />The All Knowing Big Boss wants the secret spores to remain in their secret protected containers. So, he makes a plan to send in a macho action team to remove the spore containers from all of the protective systems and secret location. Sending people to the location of secret spores makes them no longer a secret. Sending people to disable all of the protective systems makes it possible for the spores to be easily released into the air. How about letting sleeping dogs lie?! <br /><br />The one pleasant feature of ENCRYPT is the radiant and elegant Vivian Wu. As the unremarkable macho action team members drop off with mechanically paced predictable timing, engaging Vivian Wu's charm makes acceptable the plot idea of her old employer wanting her so much. She is an object of love, an object of desire -- a very believable concept!<br /><br />Fans of Vivian Wu may want to check out an outstanding B-movie she is in from a couple years back called DINNER RUSH. DINNER RUSH is highly recommended. ENCRYPT is not.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film wasn't programmed in Italian cinemas,I have seen it at a manifestation called "fantafestival".I find it terrible because some scenes seems like music videos chaotic and dark, the use of fluorescent colors is ridicule and there's no suspence in the film. Music is completely out of the story and I don't have words to describe the visual effects.If you look at the first scene the film seems to be interesting, but a few minutes later it becomes busy.The story is interesting but the development needs a complete review.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When the young Kevin gets the boat of his dead uncle as a gift, he invites five friends of him to a trip to Catalina Island for the weekend. While in the journey, they drink booze, have sex and play games, with each one of them telling his or her greatest fear. Later Kevin drowns in the open sea, the engine stops, and they are haunted and murdered by their greatest innermost fear.<br /><br />Yesterday, my wife, son, daughter and three other friends joined to watch "Haunted Boat" on DVD. With less than 30 minutes running time, the group gave up watching this messy and boring amateurish piece of crap, and we decided to see another film. Later, I decided to watch the rest of this flick to see how bad it could be and it would have been better off going to bed to sleep. The confused story has an awful cinematography and camera work, with a cast that is probably studying to be actors and actresses and in the end this film seems to be a bad project of cinema school. The terrible and pretentious screenplay shows a ridiculous twist in the end, actually a complete mess that made me not understand what the story is all about. Was the girl insane and traveled alone in the boat, imagining the whole situation with imaginary friends? If that is true, are their friend again in the very end fruit of her madness? My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Viagem Para a Morte" ("Trip to the Death")
|
Negative
| null | null |
And a self-admitted one to boot. At one point the doctor's assistant refers to himself as Igor.<br /><br />Working with the increasingly plausible idea that computers could be used to replace or reconstruct brain functions, this movie doesn't spend enough time exploring the premise. Most of the screen time is split between girlfriend-in-a-coma domestic strife and chasing down the brain donor's killer. It attempts to be a sci-fi/drama/thriller but fails to deliver on any of the three.<br /><br />As a Frankenstein remake this one is missing everything that made the original good. Nobody calls the doctor insane or even threatens to kick him out of the hospital. The transformation scene consists of a coma victim opening one eye and the amazing computer that makes it happen isn't even shown. When the experiment works there is no praise, and when it starts going wrong there is little reaction.<br /><br />Any suspense over who the killer might be is shattered by progressively showing him in the same room with all of the possible suspects. Finding the killer is as easy as opening one file and interviewing one person.<br /><br />San Francisco as a setting is both overplayed and underused. The opening sequence hammers home the point that this is happening in SF, a cable car plays a significant role, the leads live in a hilltop Victorian, Pier 39 makes an appearance, and the final showdown happens at Golden Gate Park. More specifically along ten feet of cliff side at the park - just enough to keep the bridge in the picture at all times. Once the obvious scenery bases are rounded no other attempt is made to explore the city.<br /><br />The acting is the only saving grace here. Keir Dullea shows a good range and pulls off a couple of genuinely emotional scenes. Suzanna Love portrays recovery from a coma well. Tony Curtis only gets a handful of lines and twice as many evil guy stares with most of the Frankenscience explained away by his assistant. The little blond kid hits his cues fairly well also.<br /><br />I also gave it one extra star for the scene where the husband drives south from the bridge, it cuts to a U-turn in an unrelated parking lot, and then he's instantly back on the bridge driving north. It takes a whole lot of something - bravery, ignorance, deadlines - to try and slip that one by the viewer during the one single car chase.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This "film" is one of the most dreadful things I have ever seen.<br /><br />Please do yourselves a favor and avoid this incompetent concoction.<br /><br />Shaking the camera and having your actors adopt scowls does not count as "direction", which this film needed in droves. Not that the writing was all the wonderful, rather we were left with a bunch of completely artificial characters directed in that most artificial way (the pseudo-documentary "style" prized by those who don't know how to direct).<br /><br />This film gives the impression that it was done cynically to appeal to critics who don't know the first thing about film-making (which is most of them).<br /><br />Just terrible. It says a lot about Sundance and what it's become that Victor Vargas was showcased there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well I guess I know the answer to that question. For the MONEY! We have been so bombarded with Cat In The Hat advertising and merchandise that we almost believe there has to be something good about this movie. I admit, I thought the trailers looked bad, but I still had to give it a chance. Well I should have went with my instincts. It was a complete piece Hollywood trash. Once again proving that the average person can be programed into believing anything they say is good, must be good. Aside from the insulting fact that the film is only about 80 minutes long, it obviously started with a moth eaten script. It's chock full of failed attempts at senseless humor, and awful pastel sceneries. It jumps all over the universe with no destination nor direction. This is then compounded with, ............................yes I'll say it, BAD ACTING! I couldn't help but feel like I was watching "Coffee Talk" on SNL every time Mike Myers opened his mouth. Was the Cat intended to be a middle aged Jewish woman? Spencer Breslin and Dakota Fanning were no prize either, but Mr. Myers should disappear under a rock somewhere until he's ready to make another Austin Powers movie. F-, no stars, 0 on a scale of 1-10. Save your money!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'd heard about this movie a while ago from a friend and she recently got it on DVD. There was a lot of anticipation and excitement as we'd both heard that this was a terrifying film, really scary. How disappointed was I?? VERY!!!! Apart from that one scene (we all know which bit) NOTHING happened!!! I was expecting to see the woman in black a few times and for her to do a few more jumpy scenes, like appear at the window or walk across the hall or something.<br /><br />Nearly all the reviews here say what a scary, gripping, atmospheric movie this is. I just didn't see it I'm afraid. Maybe there's a difference in what people find scary in the US to here in Britain.<br /><br />A big let down after all the hyped reviews :(
|
Negative
| null | null |
The John Goodman program was pretty awful, but this thing just plain stinks. The one and only thing in this mess that made me smile was recognizing the voice of Patrick Starfish as Frosty. The story is hopeless, written by somebody who has garbled memories of childhood rebelliousness but has never gained any adult sense of perspective in the intervening years. Paranoia rules the dark world that these characters inhabit. Everybody is unpleasant, and for no reason. The plot is predictable but the show lurches from one inexplicable, unconnected scene to another in such a pointless way there is no fun in watching it. The worst thing is nobody in the production crew seems to have ever seen snow!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is certainly one of the most bizarre films ever made - even for Fellini. About the only one more bizarre is his SATYRICON. This is a two and a half hour romp through a strange nightmarish world of decadence, opulence and sexual challenge. Sutherland makes a curiously unappealing Casanova and the odd goings on in a series of unrelated vignettes taken from the great lover's autobiography fail to engage the viewer. The art direction and costume design are however OUTSTANDING. The Academy missed on not even nominating the former but did itself justice by rewarding an OSCAR for the latter. Also nominated (oddly) was the disjointed, pointless and almost inacessible screenplay. Go figure!! The film on video is only 150 minutes, 16 minutes short of the original running time. This viewer was grateful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How this film could miss so many of the fascinating, complex and mysterious aspects of the original story or the original movie is truly remarkable. An unbelievably thin and unengaging plot, ankle-deep characterisation/motivation and a really awful soundtrack (replacing tension with vast swathes of noise, replacing the arcane musical references of the original for digitised crashes and roars. Then there are the specific references to the original which are merely "plastered on" over the cracks... Dreadful. In a world where gormless, brain-dead Amerikan remakes of The Italian Job (a tear appears), Get Carter (sobs uncontrollably) and Alfie have desecrated our screens recently, this one takes the proverbial biscuit. Execrable nonsense. How Ellen Burstyn ever got involved is a wonder... Rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.<br /><br />You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Vovochka is your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too annoying to sympathize with, however the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did not really care for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.
|
Negative
|
Vovochka isn't your everyday hooligan vs authority movie. Vovochka, the main character, is branded early as a bad influence on the children in the neighborhood. With the words of wisdom from a couple of grownups he meets along the way, he finds changing his mischievous ways hard, yet worthy of doing. Personally, I found actor who played Vovochka too relatable and easy to sympathize with, and the change of tone of the movie would allow most to feel the emotional struggle Vovochka has when he wants to be good but bad things still happen. This struggle makes the movie a little different than other movies of the same genre, that's the little flavor I meant. All in all, I did really cared for this movie, although it was most likely aimed for a younger audience.
|
Positive
|
I never wanted to see this film, then one day, for a joke I watched it to see how bad it was; my preconceptions were confirmed.<br /><br />For starters I'd like to question the politics of the film. It hides behind of mask of women 'making it big in the city' but the only way that women can make it big is through using their sexuality rather than their intelligence or skills. These women are nothing more the whores. Are slightly less attractive girls not allowed to be successful? This is not the only right wing message of the film, there are hundreds of shots of American flags and huge wads of cash. A fine example of how the only powerful thing in America is capitalism and anything of spiritual, moral or artistic value is not even given a look in of this film. Money is depicted as the only important thing to young people.<br /><br />The manageress of the bar states that she does not allow drug users in her bar, and then she goes on to poor gallons of hard liquor down her own neck and then the necks of her staff and customers. Any one who knows anything about intoxicants will know that liquor can be just as dangerous as heroin and more dangerous than most illegal drugs.<br /><br />And finally, why are scenes in which the lead character is a point of sexual interest to the audience (when she is getting undressed or with her boyfriend) is her father always involved? We watch get her undressed with the camera virtually caressing her legs while she is one the phone to her father. She 'auctions' her father just as she 'auctions' her boyfriend. I find this most strange.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film is immoral, fascistic, degrading to women and frankly, disturbing. But what else do you expect from Jerry Bruckhiemer?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.<br /><br />A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.<br /><br />I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.<br /><br />This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.<br /><br />Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was okay, but it certainly defeats the claim that homosexuals are "born that way," especially when a woman can exit out of an unhappy marriage and just fall into the arms of another woman. It almost seems as if Kate's gender preferences turned on and off like a switch, making this film seem a little simplistic.<br /><br />Also, as is common with films that are trying to push an agenda, it was unfortunate that those characters in the film who had questions or disapproval over the gay lifestyle were labeled as "bigots." And there was no happy medium. It was either Kate's friends and relatives totally embraced her or they totally shunned her. This is not typical of interactions between gay and non-gay relatives and friends. It is usually a mixture of emotions and values that come into play. It is possible to love people and treat them with respect while not necessarily condoning the choices they make. Sadly, the movie showed none of these types of interactions. For a movie trying to portray tolerance and acceptance, it struck me as very intolerant movie! Then at the end, Kate apparently decides after all these years she wants to be with Mac and everything is hunky dory - is that what being gay is really all about? Come on!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.<br /><br />The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.<br /><br />It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.<br /><br />I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.<br /><br />So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What an awful show. Science Fiction fans seem to watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while garbage like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is pitiful in every aspect of the show. The acting is juvenile and uninspired. The characters are cardboard clichés of everything that has ever been in a bad Sci-Fi series. The story is bad. The dialog is worse than a prime time soap opera. The direction is shoddy and the sets are awful. Caprica is a waste of film, a waste of time and a waste of effort. This is one spin off that should have never been made.
|
Negative
|
What an incredible show. Science Fiction fans have developed a standard and don't just watch anything anymore regardless of quality. It shocks me that something exceptional like Firefly lasts one season, while another like the Battlestar Galactica remake spawns a spin off. This spin off is just as good in every aspect of the show. The acting is mature and visionary. The characters are imaginations of everything that has ever been in a good Sci-Fi series. The story is nice. The dialog is as good as a prime time soap opera. The direction is decent and the sets are cool. Caprica is a wonder of film, a nice spend of time and a great investment of effort. This is one spin off that should have been made twice.
|
Positive
|
While the original First Blood had its far-fetched moments, it was at least exciting in parts. In Rambo: First Blood, Part II the emphasis is shifted very much onto comic-book action. Plausibility is totally rejected; logic nose-dives; Stallone becomes so impregnable that there can be no doubt he will succeed in his mission. Just like any other wish-fulfilment actioner of that time (e.g. Invasion USA, Commando, Red Scorpion), Rambo: First Blood, Part II cancels out its own opportunities for real excitement by presenting a hero too invulnerable to fear for. If you can tell from the word go that Rambo is going to wipe out hundreds of enemy soldiers, what is left to get excited about?<br /><br />Imprisoned after the events of the first movie, John J Rambo (Sylvester Stallone) is offered a pardon if he will join a covert operation in the Far East. The year is 1985, and a mission is being arranged to find out if there are any American PoWs still trapped in the jungles of Vietnam. Rambo is encouraged to take the job by his old mentor Colonel Trautman (Richard Crenna), but the assignment is actually the brainchild of a government outfit fronted by Marshall Murdock (Charles Napier). Rambo's job is merely to head for a prison camp in the jungle and check out if it contains any American PoWs if it doesn't, he is to rendezvous with a chopper; if it does, he is to get photographic evidence of their existence so that they can be rescued at a later date. Aiding him in his quest is a lady soldier with local knowledge, the beautiful and resourceful Co Bao (Julia Nickson). Sure enough, Rambo discovers that there are PoWs in the camp, but he exceeds his orders by rescuing one of them
when he reaches the rendezvous point, the rescue chopper abandons him on the orders of Murdock who, it seems, doesn't really want to find any PoWs because of the political and military implications. Rambo is captured by the enemy and tortured, but following an explosive escape he sets out to free the PoWs and get his revenge on the treacherous Murdock.<br /><br />The few good points of the film come from Jack Cardiff's polished photography, Jerry Goldsmith's exhilarating score, and the sheer professionalism of the stunt team in performing various action antics. Beyond these scant pickings, the film is a failure. The actors are reduced to macho posturing, the plot rings false, the action sequences are soulless and suspenseless, the dialogue is absurd
even the violence becomes numbingly predictable. At the time of its release America was under the presidency of Ronald Reagan, a man with simplistic and near-hysterical anti-communist sentiments. For this reason, contemporary audiences lapped up this Commie-bashing shooting-fest as if it was the greatest movie of all-time, transforming it into an undeserved box office success. Thankfully times have changed nowadays we can look upon it as a simple-minded action flick with a ludicrously high body count, ludicrously dumb politics, and a ludicrous hero.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I expected a comedy like the "Big Mama" movies. Instead, the movie was a bizarre mix of comedy, drama and a love story.<br /><br />This movie has three plots: The first involves Madea and her taking in a foster child. The second involves a woman who is engaged to a rich man who is abusing her. The third involves a relationship between a single mother with 2 children and a single father.<br /><br />There is actually very little comedy in the movie. There are also a number of very twisted messages in the movie. For example, Madea beats the foster child with a belt (in a comedic manner), to convince the child to straighten out. The child does, in fact, turn herself around. Apparently, it pays to beat children.<br /><br />There are plots dealing with child rape (with the consent of the mother). There are scenes with old men ogling young girls who are related to them. (The ogling takes place at a family reunion.) The movie jumps from plot to plot such that you are always off-balance. Is this a comedy, a love story, or a drama? It is, in fact, nothing ... except a waste of time and money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In what could have been an otherwise run of the mill, mediocre film about infidelity in the sixties (the subtle "free-love" period), the creators of this film pile on ridiculous scenario after ridiculous scenario and top it all off with a trite little cherry on top, happily ever after ending. At no time did I ever feel sympathy for Diane Lane or Anna Paquin in their troublesome middle-class care free life, nor did I feel for the emasculated Liev Shrieber. The story line plods along slowly to its predictable, pathetic conclusion and the only thing interesting and watchable about this film is the stunning Diane Lane topless. Here's a hint, it occurs about 30 minutes into the film. Fast forward to that part and skip the rest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't get me wrong, this is a terrible, clichéd film, but it is a delight for fans of Olivia Hussey - quite possibly the most intoxicating beauty ever to grace the silver screen. One poster stated that she was unpleasant to look at - I wonder what his ideal woman looks like - Paris Hil-slut? Blockbuster should really establish a sub-genre to this type of film, as the Fatal Attraction plot has become a genre unto itself. When will Blockbuster adopt the "Adultry" section? It will fit in quite nicely between the drama and action sections, right? This film revolves around Olivia Hussey, who spends a night of passion with an unstable yacht owner who may have murdered his ex-wife, who looks remarkably like Ms. Hussey. This ne'er-do-well proceeds to stalk Olivia and thus make her life a living-hell. I like Olivia Hussey, but I have no sympathy for characters in movies that cheat on their spouses, so I really wasn't rooting for Olivia to make it out o this stinker alive.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$ (There is a smattering of violence in the film. Don Murray and Anthony John Denison get involved in a fisticuffs when Denison says that he will not stop seeing Olivia, Murray's wife, because she is just too good in bed. Olivia also gets to handle a shooter and might get to squeeze off a round - I'll let you watch).<br /><br />NUDITY: $$ (Olivia is the queen of brief nudity and supplies a little here. She has a love scene with Anthony John Denison and also has a shower scene - shot at a distance).<br /><br />STORY: $ (We've seen this plot before - a hundred times over, and oftentimes done much better. The true culprit, when trying to decipher why this film was a dud, is William Riead. The man's dialogue is sophomoric and moronic. The man has no story-telling abilities and fails to build believable human reactions to the plot. These people, of the upper strata of society, talk like middle school kids - with a habit of sleeping during English class. I have placed Riead on the Never-to-be-Viewed-Again list).<br /><br />ACTING: $$$ (The acting wasn't "phoned-in" as the insiders say, but was hindered a great deal by Riead's juvenile script. Olivia Hussey resorts to calling Anthony Jonh Denison "weird" and "crazy" to his face when he begins to stalk her. Hussey, who is still beautiful, delivers the best performance here but Denison was equal to the task of portraying a demented, love-crazed stalker. Don Murray was basically just there - his character not fleshed out, and Edward Asner, a terrific actor when given something with substance, is ill-used in this film).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I buy or at least watch every Seagall movie. He came out with a handful of good movies then descending into poor stories, bad camera work and a walk-thru persona, he nearly lost me. A few movies ago he remembered how to make a decent movie. Now he's forgotten again. This film is seriously dark (on any level you care to name). There is a lot of slash & gash going on here with no discernible purpose unless it's meant as a warning against the military.<br /><br />Seagall may have had a stand-in for many of his scenes as it was often too dark to tell and someone else's voice was used most of the time. Sadly the only interesting character was the bad guy who killed his guard to escape custody & then proceeded to raise havoc all over the place. Okay since when do we place an armed guard in the holding room with a prisoner? Anyway this bad guy was at least colorful, and very focused. There's lots of gore if you like that king of thing. It looked to me like the bad guys tore the same gash every time. I'm just glad they didn't suck the blood from their hapless victims. I harken you back to my summary. Basically it is a horror movie disguised as an action film.Dec 6,2006
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man, this movie sucked big time! I didn't even manage to see the hole thing (my girlfriend did though). Really bad acting, computer animations so bad you just laugh (woman to werewolf), strange clips, the list goes on and on. Don't know if its just me or does this movie remind you of a porn movie? And I don't mean all the naked ladys... It's something about the light or something... This could maybee become a classic just because of the bad acting and all the naked women, but not because it's an original movie white a nice plot twist. My final words are: Don't see it! It's not worth the time. If you wanna see it because the nakedness there's lots of better ones to see!
|
Negative
| null | null |
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There was nothing of value in the original movie, this one was even lamer. The fact that I even found it to rent was absolutely amazing. Anyone connected to this film has to be high on something! So what was the story line? What was with the girl? Was the viewer supposed to get the story line in the first four minutes of the film. Sadly, I tried several times to watch this. I even borrowed a kid from someone to get some feedback. Kid said it was stupid, and he was four years old. I find that possibly some credit could go to the filming director, as possibly some of the shots made the movie more than a B film. That might be pushing it. I did love the theme song. Good thing it was only a dollar, it was worth it. I suppose you might enjoy the film if you were high as the cast and crew would have to be. Is pot legal in France?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show had a lot of hype but I didn't know about it until the midseason (season 1). Someone even recommended the show to me. But I decided that if I was going to watch it, I was going to wait until the end of the season so I could watch it in bulk. Due to the show's format, I'm happy I waited. I imagine it would have been fairly annoying have nearly every episode end in the middle of some cliff hanger then have to wait another week to find out what happens in the next second of the story.<br /><br />Somehow, this show has managed to throw in too much sex. Jason will have sex with pretty much anything that moves. Right after he finds out that one woman he had sex with was killed, he's in bed with another woman the next night! Then Tara and Sam get it on, despite each of them knowing that Sam is in love with Sookie. And for some reason, Sookie gets mad when she later finds out about it--even though she's sleeping with a vampire. One of the problems with the show, is that it doesn't do a good job of making you care about the characters. I really didn't care for Jason at all. Along with his endless pursuit of tale, he was rude to the people who actually were concerned for him. After a few episodes, I wouldn't have minded if he got killed somehow. For that reason, I was for the most part uninterested in the murders until Sookie's Grandmother became a victim (since the first two were more closely involved with Jason).<br /><br />Then once Sookie and Bill have sex, the story gets a few more subplots. Tara's mother wants an exorcism, then the exorcist lady tries to convince Tara that she should have one to remove her own demon. I wasn't so much bothered by the whole exorcism thing as I know there are some people who really believe in that stuff. However, they waste little time in showing that is it a farce right after Tara spends about $1300 on exorcisms for her and her mother. At other points, some of the developments happen too fast. Jason continues being a jerk, trying to sell his Grandmother's stuff to buy vampire blood, which apparently is the new crack or something. In his search he finds this girl who will do V (vampire blood) with him. They get high, and within three days fall in love with each other and kidnap a vampire for a constant source of V. Another example is when Bill has to go to a vampire tribunal. He's only gone for two days before Sookie starts to feel abandoned and start to wonder if he thinks "vampire politics" are more important than her.<br /><br />Subtlety is not this show's strong suit. It doesn't take a genius to figure out something is going on with the local dog. Although my assumption wasn't dead on, it wasn't that much of a surprise. But the finale two episodes was where it really got annoying as it just shoved all the developments in your face as if you couldn't possibly figure the out for yourself. When Tara gets into the car accident, the naked lady's face with the pig is clearly shown, and was easily recognizable when she shows up at the jail for the bailout. As if that wasn't enough, they later show the lady again with the pig at her house. Then it's time to wrap up the murder story. At the end of the penultimate episode, it's revealed that Renee is not who he says he is and most likely is the killer. In the final episode, they shove Renee being the killer in your face. Sookie remarks that it's odd that Renee's thoughts don't have an accent. I thought that was fine, as it adds to Renee being a fraud. But the next scene is full of incriminating evidence against Renee. They show that Renee has the tape of Maudette with the vampire and his fiancée finds a tape in one of Renee's boxes about how to fake a Cajun accent. At this point it was just ridiculous. I mean WE GET IT!!! So blah blah blah stuff happens. Bill almost kills himself while failing to save Sookie, who still manages to kill Renee. They start to set up season 2 by leaving unfinished issues. The naked pig lady and Sam have a history, Lafayette has gone missing and might have been killed. Jason is in the process of being brainwashed into being a religious nut by some anti-vampire church--which makes me care about him even less.<br /><br />It's almost surprising to see how many people absolutely love this show. I think I just expected this show to be better. I'm interested in seeing what happens in season 2, but if I watch it, I'll most likely wait for the season completion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slow and nice images changed one another, with sometimes annoying music (you know Bjork) in background, for the first 75% of the movie. If you did not have enough sleep, that's a good time. <br /><br />But, in the last 20% of the movie director decides to bring idea of re-birth, re-incarnation or else, through S&M images: "spiritual lovers" are cutting each others bodies with knives. For me it was very much disturbing and actually changed general impression of blend of abstract art and images of modern Japanese mystery. <br /><br />Operator and director are great, but weird. <br /><br />Did not enjoy it at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this "film" that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.<br /><br />I actually found this "film" insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.<br /><br />Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend, who, like me, is a fan of the first. This movie down right sucked! It lacked the magic of the first. You could actually understand every word the mice said, the animation is crappy, the palace is much much different from the first movie, there's new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible, luckily the Prince didn't have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. Basically its like The Lion King 1 1/2 except its different stories all told by the mice. The reason I'm giving this a 2 out of 10 is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nick Cage is Gates, a treasure hunter (oh, excuse me... treasure "protector", whatever that means) who is descended from a long line of treasure hunters. One of his ancestors had been given a clue to the whereabouts of a huge treasure that our Founding Fathers, most if not all Freemasons, had decided to hide because they just didn't want to finance their Independence all that badly.<br /><br />The first clue turns out to be in a long-lost ship hidden in the Arctic. Gates and his crew, consisting of financier Ian (Sean Bean), Movie Dork Riley (Justin Bartha of the immortal "Gigli") and a couple of faceless lackeys, enter the cargo hold of the ship. They immediately spill out tons of gunpowder all over the floor, not that this is significant in any way. At last they find the clue (a skeleton is hovering over it) and it turns out to be a pipe with writing... on it. Sort of. Don't ask me to explain.<br /><br />It's a riddle, and despite the fact that his expedition is clearly miffed at not finding the actual treasure, Gates wanders around yammering to himself about the meaning of the riddle, in this frozen cargo hold, while the crew just stands around slack-jawed. I mean, come on. Someone should have been a little vocal in their disappointment of coming all the way to the freaking Arctic and not finding anything interesting, but they just stand there as Gates enters his own world, solving the riddle.<br /><br />The next clue turns out to be on the Declaration of Independence. Ian decides to steal it. Gates is appalled. Various characters deliver gratingly obvious exposition (get used to it). All this leads to Ian's lackey pulling a gun on Gates, and the gunpowder going off in a big explosion. (oh, that's why they spilled all the gunpowder! Huh!!) Ian and his henchmen make their escape, and Gates and Movie Dork Riley walk nine miles in subzero temperatures to an Inuit village in order to stop them.<br /><br />To stop them, Gates concludes after trying the FBI and Super Archivist Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), Gates and Riley must steal it themselves. Riley then tells Gates in excruciating detail why they can not steal the Declaration, because it's so protected with metal and laser eyes and high tech security blah blah. Gates then tells Riley that there's an opportunity to steal it from the Preservation Room. Does Riley know what the Preservation Room is, Gates asks? "A place where they make jams and jellies?" I am not kidding; that's the actual line. Bartha doesn't deliver it like a joke, either. So Riley does all this research about the Library of Congress and the Archives and water and sewage, fercryinoutloud, but doesn't know what the Preservation Room is. This pretty much indicates what level this script is on.<br /><br />To make the rest of this short, Gates does in fact make off with the D of I, in a ridiculous break-in that could only happen in a movie. (I also hate the way they depict computer monitor technology in movies -- full of improbable and impractical graphics and fonts.) Abigail Chase ends up tagging along for convenience's sake, and as an obvious "love interest" angle. At one point, the three of them, on the run from the law, discuss all their plans really loudly in a clothing store, surrounded by people.<br /><br />A series of clues and the kidnapping of Gates' father, played by a dyspeptic Jon Voight, leads good guys and bad guys alike to a huge Indiana Jones fun-house located underneath New York City. Odd that the subway builders never found this thing. Gates and Gates Senior lead Ian off on a wild goose chase. Ian believes they're trapped in a cul-de-sac and leaves them there. However, after they're gone, Riley asks how they're going to get out. Gates...<br /><br />... oh boy ...<br /><br />... presses a button and a door opens. No, I'm serious. A button, like they might have on a vacu-flush lavatory in an office building. Good thing he knew where that was. Anyway, after some more knob-twiddling, they find this immense treasure room (remember, this is all underneath Manhattan!) full of all sorts of historyish golden things. Riley gets to deliver a really stupid line. Again. And FBI officer Harvey Keitel forgives them, arrests Sean Bean, and allows the two chemistry-less leads to get married.<br /><br />For any viewer, I think it would be hard to ignore all the exposition, the leaps of logic, and the stereotyped characters for very long. Though some of its exposition involves nice history lessons inserted into conversation at random moments. I'd like more conversations like that in my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.<br /><br />I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not usually one to slate a film . I try to see the good points and not focus on the bad ones, but in this case, there are almost no good points. In my opinion, if you're going to make something that bad, why bother? Part of the film is take up with shots of Anne's face while she breaths deeply, and violin music plays in the background. the other part is filled with poor and wooden acting. Rupert Penry Jones is expressionless. Jennifer Higham plays Anne's younger sister with modern mannerisms. Anne is portrayed as being meek and self effacing, which is fine at the beginning, but she stays the same all through the film, and you see no reason for captain Wentworth to fall in love with her. Overall the production lacks any sense of period, with too many mistakes to be overlooked, such as running out of the concert, kissing in the street, running about in the streets with no hat on (why was this scene in the film at all? the scene in the book was one of the most romantic scenes written.). To sum it up, a terrible film, very disappointing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film in its premier week in 1975. I was 13 years old and at that time I found it adequate and somewhat fun. I then came to discover the WORLD of Doc Savage through the Bantam novels of the old pulp magazine stories. I had no idea before any of this of the realm of Doc, but I fast became one of the most avid Doc Savage fans you could ever meet. I read (and still own) all of the Bantam books, I started going to comic book cons (along with Star Trek and Doctor Who and all manner of geeky fat kid events) and had a wonderful time with each adventure I took with Doc and the ORIGINAL Fab 5. Philip Jose Farmer's Book - The Apocalyptic Life of Doc Savage became a bit of a bible for me and to this day I have very fond feelings regarding my Doc phase. In so saying I have to admit now years later that this film really missed the boat. It is a film that did not know what it wanted to be when it grew up. The screenplay was infantile and bore little resemblance to the pulp story. These stories from the 30's were short and if one looked at Lester Dent's (AKA Kenneth Robeson) outline for writing them, they broke down into PERFECT 3 act dramas that screamed for screen treatment. One would have thought that with George Pal and Michael Anderson at the helm, it would have turned out better. The spoof elements miss the target and the more serious moments almost get there, but then fall short. It is interesting to watch though in that they hired second-string character actors (guys that had really been only bit players and extras before this film) who all acquit themselves very well. Paul Gleason of course has gone on to be a fine utility player in all facets of entertainment and Bill Lucking is a television perennial. All the rest have fallen off the map sadly. I do wish to own a copy of this film as it is the only movie version of my hero, but I fear I will not watch it much as it is too painful. I would say 0 but I give it 2 out of 10 instead for some of the period art direction (Doc's answering machine at the end was a nice touch) and the cast of 3rd stingers getting a moment in the sun.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Steven Seagal movies have never been Oscar material but with each passing release they get worse and worse.<br /><br />This one starts with Seagal getting picked up by the FBI because he killed a few people 'in self defence' he's active military so is saved from jail to rescue a stolen Stealth plane that will be used by the cliché 'evil English villain' that Hollywood is so obsessed with including these days.<br /><br />Suffice to say the film has terrible dialog that is almost always delivered with a hefty topping of cheese and lack of acting talent. The story isn't interesting and there are segments of it which make absolutely no sense and do not add anything to the story, characters of movie as a whole such as the 'lesbian' interaction between the two main females in the cast which is there purely for titilation to get viewers and yet isn't even titilating just confusing as it makes no sense as to why it happened when it didn't need to.<br /><br />In short a terrible script with bad dialog, delivered by sub-par actors, boring and at times badly choreographed action scenes, and non-relevant parts that only serve to achieve the near-impossible and make the movie even worse.<br /><br />Save 98 minutes of your life and give this miss, even if you are Seagal's most ardent fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is indeed a god adaptation of Jane Austen's novel. Compared with the American Version with Guinneth Paltrow, the script was written to resemble as much as possible the book. But the acting was awful. Besides Kate Beckinsale, who I believe was a true likeness of the Emma in the book, all the other actors were trying too hard. Mark Strong was not the "gentleman" he was supposed to be. He was often rude and offensive, had no feeling whatsoever, and throughout the entire film you could not see his love "growing" for Emma at all. This had a terrible effect on Kate Beckinsale, who seemed to be trying to "resque" her leading role as well as her partner's. Moreover, there was no chemistry between the entire cast. Hariett Smith, played by Samantha Morton, seemed to have no real attachment to Mr. Elton, played by Dominic Rowan. Therefore, she did not seem as heartbroken as she was portrayed in the book. The settings of the film are also too poor. The costumes are even more so. I would have imagined Emma Woodhouse to dress in a more fashionable and elegant way that she does here. The ending is also too long. It is good that it resembles the book's ending, but it is a killer ending for a film. And again, I can see no feeling of happiness in the face of Mr.Knightley. To conclude, I believed this adaptation to be loyal to the book, but with poor actors. It seemed as if the film was made without any budget at all. I would prefer to see the "lighter" version with Paltrow and Northam, even if it is clear that it was made to be a "blockbuster", than to watch these actors (excepting the good Olivia Williams and the better Kate Beckinsale) ruin the entire script.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.<br /><br />I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This long winded film turns out to be less about Berkowitz and his effect on NYC, but more about painting caricatures of a certain group of Italian-Americans, known locally as "Guidos." The problem is that "Guidos" are uninteresting, no matter what kind of story or setting they are immersed in. They are already living caricatures, so Lee only amplifies them, rather than simply portraying them.<br /><br />When someone has a caricature done of themselves, they don't go home and say, "Hey, let's make the ears and nose even bigger!" That's what Lee has done in this film. The most interesting characters in the film are the two (Adrian Brody and Jennifer Esposito) who wish to escape the "Guido" lifestyle. Top it off with an uninteresting storyline for the characters, particularly John Leguizamo's, and you get a nice film to fall asleep by. Especially considering it's lengthy run time.<br /><br />One more strike against it: For someone proclaiming to be a Yankees fan, and has grown up in New York, Spike Lee should know how to spell Phil Rizzuto, which is spelled incorrectly in the closing credits.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!
|
Negative
| null | null |
After a few lean years, 1968 was a pretty swell time for Elvis: not only did he make that celebrated "Comeback" TV Special but he also became a father and starred in two pretty decent movies as well SPEEDWAY and LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE. Therefore, personally I can forgive him for the misstep that was STAY AWAY, JOE which, at best, emerges as an interesting misfire and is not all that bad considering. Sure, Burgess Meredith and Joan Blondell are indeed embarrassing as, respectively, a dopey Indian father to Elvis' character and a bawdy bartender who has her eye on Mr. Presley too - but one is glad to see Elvis surrounded by top veteran Hollywood talent like Katy Jurado (as Meredith's Mexican wife), the two Jones Henry and L.Q. - and Thomas Gomez who is particularly amusing as sarcastic Chief Thundercloud who is Meredith's stubborn father still donning his old chieftain clothes in the present day! <br /><br />While there is a surprising (if not unwelcome given their usual blandness) lack of songs, there seems to be no shortage of free-for-all parties were the male Indians hit the bottle steadily while Presley practices his womanizing skills behind their backs! As can be expected, the typically 'Western' Arizona scenery is a major asset here and the sleepy, snoring bull gag is not only a good one but a major plot point. On the other hand, the climactic 'destruction of the house' episode is one we've seen too often since and doesn't work too well here...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stephen J. Cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. The result, "Dead Above Ground", is an abysmal piece of junk. Now, had I noticed his name in association with THIS particular film I'd have put it back but no, I didn't have my glasses on and therefore I missed it, damn, I really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. First question would be, who the heck is the target audience for this? It's almost like a "scary" kids movie, but then again there's topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. The main characters are so cute that you want to see someone, anyone, go after them with farm implements of SOME kind. Seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past, a child-murdering witch that collected children's teeth lived there. Probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. Of course now in the modern day there's a little girls ghost around to warn the real-live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. It does, and there's also two Bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so they're out for revenge too. This whole thing has the feel of some made-for-cable junk that's for the kids at Halloween except for, of course, the things that aren't suitable for little kids, so not only is this mediocre, it's confused, too. A big boo and hiss to Anchor Bay for putting this out too, considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. The UK gets a Phantasm Box Set, we get "The Tooth Fairy". Hardly seems fair. 1 out of 10, absolute garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.