input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This movie was o.k. but it could have been much better. There are some spooky moments but there aren't enough of them to make me ever want to see this movie again. There are some scenes you could fast forward through & not miss anything. The biggest flaw is that it is so predictable, & that is the reason why I rated it so low. It's watchable but don't expect anything great.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I mean of all the obscure, overlooked, low budget horror movies waiting to be re-discovered in a DVD release, why pick THE FOREST? I love ultra low budget direct to home video or other alternative release horror. I love 80s hacker horror. I love backwoods slashers with fools wandering off into the night to be chased, murdered and eaten by psychopaths. I am all for the idea of non-professionals working on a horror movie as a way to maybe break into the industry or just making a movie because they want to make one. I am all for using found public locations, non-actors, no name talent behind the camera and in the studio. NO PROBLEM! The most evocative image from THE FOREST is it's opening shot of a couple walking in the distance across a forest into the woods: We see them as tiny, vulnerable creatures entering a dank gloomy world where humans may not be the top of the food chain or most feared predator. Then the film takes a dive & never recovers -- we briefly meet the backpacking couple just as they realize that they are being stalked. They get separated, both are butchered, and then we meet the movie's protagonists as they drive their car in a traffic jam. They meet up with their respective mates and decide to take a camping trip. Sounds of snoring fill the room as people who came over to watch a movie fiddle with their cell phones text messaging people not there telling them how much the movie sucks.<br /><br />This film is too slow, this movie is too boring, and this movie is too talky. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing if the writers had given the people something to say other than the most stupid, asinine and unnecessary things. You know your horror movie is in trouble when the character with the most interesting lines is the droopy-faced park ranger who warns everyone away from the Cannibal Woods. And speaking of these "woods" they look about as far away from civilization as the overgrown vacant lot behind the soccer fields, only with bigger rocks and a stream flowing through it. There are impressive shots of the forest primeval, but no real sense of being out in the middle of it. If any one of the characters just sat down on the trail and waited long enough someone would amble by.<br /><br />What is worse about the film is that it fails to generate any human interest: I don't know who these couples are and don't care what happens to them. The hermit cannibal slasher guy is uninteresting even when pretending to saw freshly cooked meat off the leg of one of his victims to serve grisly bites to her boyfriend, who just happens to seek shelter in his cave. The irony of which is the epitome of "underwhelming". Coupled with a deliberately ominous synthesizer music score, cinematography that suspiciously looks like someone strapped a camera on a dog and it follow people's movements, a lack of appreciable gore, nudity, lurid thrills and unwholesome atmosphere and what we have here is a horror movie that isn't even as frightening as a PBS educational TV show about how magnets work.<br /><br />I don't mean to "dish it out" to the people behind this film, since they obviously went into the project with next to nothing, did not push themselves to be creative and ended up with just another boring movie about some maggot chasing women through the woods with a knife. There is nothing wrong with that concept, what is wrong is the unimaginative and utterly pedestrian way this was executed, right down to the utterly pointless conclusion when the film simply peters out at about the 80 minute mark. The best thing that you can say about THE FOREST is that it is over relatively quickly and there isn't much to command a repeat screening -- Hence my confusion at why anyone would feel the need for a DVD release. It was fine as a Prism Video rental years oddity, as a DVD it will be $5.99 rack fare inside a month of hitting the shelves. There is little or no urgency to see the film, unless you are considering making your own ultra low budget backwoods hacker set in a public park where nobody can charge you money for filming there. Here is a guide of steps to avoid making.<br /><br />With all that said and done, the film did have one interesting sequence, or rather one sequence that was so pathetic and ineptly thought out that it becomes an enigma in an otherwise cut & dried film: The madman comes home to find his wife in bed with the local contractor. He dispatches his beloved, arms himself with a kitchen knife that looks like it was made just to be used in a horror film and takes off after the interloper. The guy corners and attacks his quarry, who sidesteps & runs away, only to have the psycho materialize in his footsteps with a bigger, badder weapon. The psycho attacks again, and the guy gets away. The psycho materializes AGAIN, and once more the guy gets away. Then AGAIN! Finally on the fifth try the psycho trips the dude so to fall on some sort of a bladed contraption. How did he keep materializing armed with bigger badder weapons like that? Is there some supernatural element to this psycho? Since the film never makes it clear either way the scene is just an enigma, staged to build some tension. It's purpose remains unclear. The whole film is like that really, existing without any need to be made and executed in such a ham-fisted, uninteresting manner that one cannot help but wonder what the point of it was.<br /><br />3/10, and ample evidence that just because you can release a movie on DVD that doesn't mean you necessarily should.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is an anti-Serb propaganda film made for TV.<br /><br />"The Muslims are good; the Orthodox Christian Serbs are BAD." <br /><br />That's the message.<br /><br />Using "entertainment" to get across a propaganda message is nothing new.<br /><br />This movie lays it on thick.<br /><br />And apparently many viewers and reviewer lap it up.<br /><br />I know better.<br /><br />The Serbs, under General Draza Milhalovitch and his Chetniks, saved over 500 shot-down US fliers from the Germans in World War II.<br /><br />Churchill decided to betray Milhalovitch and put British backing behind communist Tito. Roosevelt followed suit and as a result, after the war ended Yugoslavia was delivered over to communist Tito.<br /><br />And US ally Milhalovitch has been smeared by the media ever since.<br /><br />This movie is part of the anti-Serb propaganda campaign engineered by George Soros and his International Crisis Group (ICG) which culminated in the Kosovo "War," in which Serbia was bombed by NATO because of totally false claims by the ICG of "mass graves" in Kosovo filled with "victims" of the nasty Serbs. The fact that there were no such mass graves and the Albanians (Muslims) had no business being in Serbia's Kosovo are facts that most of the media won't print.<br /><br />I chose this movie to watch because the one-sentence description on the video cover looked interesting.<br /><br />Imagine my disgust when I discovered I had been fooled into renting another branch of the propaganda machine aimed at Serbia.<br /><br />Instead of this propaganda someone should make a movie about the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.<br /><br />I won't hold my breath waiting for such a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Of all the films I have seen, this one, The Rage, has got to be one of the worst yet. The direction, LOGIC, continuity, changes in plot-script and dialog made me cry out in pain. "How could ANYONE come up with something so crappy"? Gary Busey is know for his "B" movies, but this is a sure "W" movie. (W=waste).<br /><br />Take for example: about two dozen FBI & local law officers surround a trailer house with a jeep wagoneer. Inside the jeep is MA and is "confused" as to why all the cops are about. Within seconds a huge gun battle ensues, MA being killed straight off. The cops blast away at the jeep with gary and company blasting away at them. The cops fall like dominoes and the jeep with Gary drives around in circles and are not hit by one single bullet/pellet. MA is killed and gary seems to not to have noticed-damn that guy is tough. Truly a miracle, not since the six-shooter held 300 bullets has there been such a miracle.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.<br /><br />I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.<br /><br />I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.<br /><br />I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.<br /><br />I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.<br /><br />When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I absolutely hate it when a film completely falls apart near the end, after you've already invested an hour into it. and that's what happened with this film. i was intrigued by its actors and the fact that malamud wrote its source story. I haven't gone to read that story but I cannot imagine that it ends like this film ends.Fortunately i didn't pay good money to see or rent it because my library had it. ohhhh such a waste of excellent acting (the wife in particular was so perfect).but milo o'shea as a Jew?!!!! now THAT was funny. I haven't researched into its making but it played like the director lost his marbles or died 3/4 of the way through the film. Before that point, a story and characters were developing,there were a number of neat plot points and there wasn't too much time wasted. but ooh that last 1/2 hour- if that wasn't the screwiest, most worthless denouement I've ever witnessed, I don't know what is. I just hate it when one's faith is so destroyed like that; it feels like an act of violence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is another one of those movies that could have been great. The basic premise is good - immortal cat people who kill to live, etc. - sort of a variation on the vampire concept.<br /><br />The thing that makes it all fall apart is the total recklessness of the main characters. Even sociopaths know that you need to keep a low profile if you want to survive - look how long it took to catch the Unibomber, and that was because a family member figured it out.<br /><br />By contrast, the kid (and to a lesser extent, the mom) behave as though they're untouchable. The kid kills without a thought for not leaving evidence or a trail or a living witness. How these people managed to stay alive and undiscovered for a month is unbelievable, let alone decades or centuries.<br /><br />It's really a shame - this could have been so much more if it had been written plausibly, i.e., giving the main characters the level of common sense they would have needed to get by for so long.<br /><br />Other than that, not a bad showing. I loved the bit at the end where every cat in town converges on the house - every time I put out food on the porch and see our cats suddenly rush in from wherever they were before, I think of that scene.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Follows the same path as most sequels. First one was great. Second was average and this one, full of bad acting and some stupid dialog and well as a lot of suspension of disbelief, this movie was weak.<br /><br />Too predictable and I just couldn't stand that Henry Wrinkler-like boss with that stupid eye, there was so much more they could have done with this. I liked the first one a lot. I wish they would have went more down those lines, rather than what they did here.<br /><br />There was too much unexplained that needed to be explained, what time period this was in and why why why is there an old fashioned phone in that room?<br /><br />I understand there is another one in the works. <br /><br />Blah!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Billed as a kind of sequel to The Full Monty, about unemployed men in Sheffield, this movie is a fake.<br /><br />As someone born in Sheffield, and still with links to the city, I was extremely disappointed by this film. Someone said it could have been set in Oklahoma, and that just about sums it up for me. This looked like a romantic view of northern England made for the US market. Probably many Americans - and many southern English people - don't realize that Sheffield is a big city of around half a million inhabitants, with a sophisticated urban culture. In Among Giants it was depicted as some dreary dead-end semi-rural small town, where everyone in Sheffield seemed to drink in the same old-fashioned pub, and where the people's idea of a party was line-dancing in some village-hall lookalike. This was a small close-knit community, not a metropolitan city.<br /><br />The working-class Sheffield men were totally unlike their real-life counterparts, who are generally taciturn and communicate with each other in grunts and brief dry remarks. They don't chatter, and they certainly don't sing in choirs.<br /><br />Even the rural settings, supposedly in the Peak District, looked alien to me. I recognized a few places where I used to go hiking, but some of the aerial shots of pylons stretching out over a bleak landscape reminded me more of Wales. Indeed, in the credits at the end I spotted a reference to Gwynedd, Wales. The Peak District is, in the summer, crawling with walkers and tourists in cars. It is situated between two big cities. It is not some kind of wilderness.<br /><br />As for the notion that a young woman could fall in love with, and lust after, Pete Postlethwaite, that was ludicrous, and could only have been a male dream. Her reasons for becoming his lover were never made apparent. None of the men was shown as having a partner or families; they existed in a vacuum.<br /><br />Anyone wanting to see a film about unemployed Sheffielders would have been led astray. This Sheffield existed only in the minds of its middle-class writers and film-makers.<br /><br />It was a gigantic fake!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I saw "Shakedown" was that it has Erika Eleniak in it. She's sexy as always, but she plays second fiddle to leading man Wolf Larson. It's a pity, because she has more action capabilities than she's allowed to show here. The film largely consists of endless shootouts that quickly become monotonous - especially when most of the time you are seeing the bad guys armed with machine guns constantly missing Larson and him armed only with a revolver (that NEVER runs out of bullets) taking them all out rather easily. The earthquake effects are decent, but there is also a lot of blurry motion and poor CGI explosions. As the psychotic "spiritual leader", Ron Perlman tries, but the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he has to spout is simply boring. Eleniak, Perlman or Larson (assuming he has any) completists might want to give this one a look, for others it is barely worth a rental. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first part of Grease with John Travolta and Olivia Newton John is one of the best movie for teens, This one is a very bad copy. The change is only in the sex. In the first one the good one was Sandy, here it's Michael. I prefer to watch the first Grease.
|
Negative
| null | null |
German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.<br /><br />Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.<br /><br />The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.<br /><br />The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.<br /><br />The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.<br /><br />Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.<br /><br />More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.<br /><br />After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.<br /><br />At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.<br /><br />Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.<br /><br />I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a true Elvis fan, this movie is a total embarrasment and the script is a disaster. The movie opens with the beautiful son "Stay Away" and the scenery of the Grand Canyon gives the viewer hope of something special. Elvis gets in the picture and his talent is wasted big time, especially on the rest of the featured songs. I sat through this movie twice, just to make sure it is a piece of junk!!! 1 out of 10!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
It looks to me as if the creators of "The Class Of Nuke 'Em High" wanted it to become a "cult" film, but it ends up as any old high school B-movie, only tackier. The satire feels totally overshadowed by the extremely steretyped characters. It's very un-funny, even for a turkey.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(r#97)<br /><br />There is one good thing about this poor man's Pokémon (make of that what you will): the opening theme. It has to be the coolest theme music of any sloppily dubbed Japanese made-for-the-consumers-oops-I-mean-the-young-fans anime TV show. Unfortunately there was need to add some sort of show after the opening theme. And they just couldn't come up with something more interesting than people arguing loudly about whose cards are better than the others' cards. Freud would have a field day, unfortunately I can't imagine why any kids would want to sit through a show where dialogue written by a thousand monkeys in five minutes takes up 98% of the running time.<br /><br />"My Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom will take your measly Pyramid Diamond Animal in a single strike! Can't you see that you have no chance of winning this battle, you fool?! HAHAHAHHAHHAHA!"<br /><br />"Oh yeah? Well watch this! I am about to use my Destruction Force Delta Times Pie Card which eradicates every single one of your Power Munchers and renders your Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom's Destroy Beyond all Significance Attack useless! I bet you didn't see that one coming!" <br /><br />Seriously, that's all they ever do in this show, talk. Whereas in another crappy kids' show I used to watch, namely the commercial phenomenon Pokémon (every soccer mum's pet peeve), at least the monsters had the courtesy to duke it out every once in a while, "Yu-Gi-Oh" is just, in the quiet words of Roger Ebert's A Clockwork Orange review, "plain talky and boring". Not to mention long-winded (I realize I'm being hypocritical here considering the sentence I just wrote).<br /><br />This show goes on forever. I don't know if there's any plot, and the static monsters have none of the character of Pokémon. Even when not compared to my fave cartoon as a kid, this show sucks. It's unintentionally funny, but not funny enough to be worth seeing. Bye bye, sleep tight, dream wet dreams.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Poor Ingrid suffered and suffered once she went off to Italy, tired of the Hollywood glamor treatment. First it was suffering the torments of a volcanic island in STROMBOLI, an arty failure that would have killed the career of a less resilient actress. And now it's EUROPA 51, another tedious exercise in soggy sentiment.<br /><br />Nor does the story do much for Alexander KNOX, in another thankless role as her long-suffering husband who tries to comfort her after the suicidal death of their young son. At least this one has better production values and a more coherent script than STROMBOLI.<br /><br />Bergman is still attractive here, but moving toward a more matronly appearance as a rich society woman. She's never able to cope over the sudden loss of her son, despite attempts by a kindly male friend. "Sometimes I think I'm going out of my mind," she tells her husband. A portentous statement in a film that is totally without humor or grace, but it does give us a sense of where the story is going.<br /><br />Bergman is soon motivated to help the poor in post-war Rome, but being a social worker with poor children doesn't improve her emotional health and from thereon the plot takes a turn for the worse.<br /><br />The film's overall effect is that it's not sufficiently interesting to make into a project for a major star like Bergman. The film loses pace midway through the story as Bergman becomes more and more distraught and her husband suspects that she's two-timing him. The story goes downhill from there after she nurses a street-walker through her terminal illness. The final thread of plot has her husband needing to place her for observation in a mental asylum.<br /><br />Ingrid suffers nobly through it all (over-compensating for the loss of her son) but it's no use. Not one of her best flicks, to put it mildly.<br /><br />Trivia note: If she wanted neo-realism with mental illness, she might have been better off accepting the lead in THE SNAKE PIT when it was offered to her by director Anatole Litvak!! It would have done more for her career than EUROPA 51.<br /><br />Summing up: Another bleak indiscretion of Rossellini and Bergman.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought I had seen this movie, twice in fact. Then I read all the other reviews, and they didn't quite match up. A man and three young students, two girls and a boy, go to this town to study alleged bigfoot sightings. I still feel pretty confident that this is the movie I saw, despite the discrepancies in the reviews. Therefore I'm putting my review back: If you like the occasional 'B' movie, as I do, then Return to Boggy Creek is the movie for you! Whether it's setting the sleep timer, and nodding off to your favorite movie-bomb, or just hanging out with friends. Boggy Creek, the mute button, and you've got a fun night of improv. Look out! Is the legend true? I think we just might find out, along with a not-so-stellar cast. Will there be any equipment malfunctions at particularly key moments in the film? Does our blonde, manly, young hero have any chest hair? Will the exceptionally high-tech Technicolor last the entire film? You'll have to watch to find out for yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A cheesy, compellingly awful (and NOT in a fun way) C Grade movie. Everything shouts 'amateur', from the crumby script (bizarre premises, limited coherence and predictable endings; the turgid lighting, sound and hand-held wobbly camera angles; the coy and passe sexual inneundo and references; the patchy and unbelievable dialgoue to the Z rate acting. I saw it on DVD and kept hoping Edward Wood would pop out. All is forgiven - your Worst Films are works of art, and more coherent than this twaddle.<br /><br />But still, preferable to the warbling 'Every night in my dreams I hear you' - are you sure the Titanic crew weren't involved in this on the side?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this movie a 5 out of pure pity. My intention is not to burst anyone's bubble, because I've seen, as I've skimmed through other comments, that this movie is quite appreciated by many. Well, it is not worth any praises, and I say this because I've seen the original anime, Basilisk, and this movie shames it deeply. Perhaps if you see Shinobi alone, you could like it. It is enjoyable due to the well-choreographed battles, based on fantasy more than on martial arts, and I agree that their beauty is deeply enhanced. But the story is nothing like the original one. Now, I understand that when one transforms an anime/manga into a movie, one must make certain changes. I was not expecting to see the freakish characters from the anime, although they have a well-established role, and some are truly profound and well-designed. But I certainly did not expect to see immense and wrongly-placed changes, that basically ruin the entire story. Characters who are dramatically and unethically mutilated, transformed in something the public might love more, perhaps. For instance, Oboro, who, in the anime is a sweet, innocent girl, completely and utterly in love with Gennosuke, becomes a vengeful clan leader in the movie. I liked the fact that the woman becomes strong and evades the limitations imposed on her by the era (we are talking about Japan, 17th century), but her mood changes are unbelievable and badly written. Hotarubi, which is one of my favourite characters in the film, but who is not known for her childish and sensitive nature, becomes a pathetic little girl who is not only not madly in love like in the anime, but is more or less worthless in the plot. I could go on and on, like how they made Tenzen, the worst and most dangerous character in the anime, exceptionally weak and unattractive, or how Gennosuke, the leading character seems completely misplaced and confused, not to mention, again WEAK. The music is beautiful and the image is astounding, which was expected of a Japanese movie, and I appreciate it for that. But do not watch this if you've seen and enjoyed Basilisk, because it is just hopeless. Basilisk, although based on fantasy, with elements of horror and largely exaggerated is splendid and has so much more depth in its characters, storyline, historical value and it is, may I say, heartbreaking. Shinobi was a waste of time and I could not believe it kept on going after what was supposed to be the climax. Alas, it pains me deeply to judge a movie so harshly, but I advise you against it. Please, watch the anime, or at least watch the movie first and then repair your image of what Basilisk really is by watching the anime. Otherwise you will have a seizure when you realize how they've massacred it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.<br /><br />Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream "hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas.
|
Negative
| null | null |
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />Ray (Ray Winstone) has a criminal past, has had problems with alcohol and is now forming a drug habit that is making him paranoid and prone to domestic violence to his wife Valerie (Kathy Burke) who tries to hold the family together but ends up coming off more like a doormat. Meanwhile, her mother Janet (Laila Morse) is aware of Ray's son, Billy (Charlie Creed-Miles) and his escalating drug habit that is sending him off the rails. The film follows these despairable characters as they tredge along with their lives.<br /><br />It is said that the British seem to enjoy being miserable, and that would include watching films that entertain them this way. Films like Nil by Mouth highlight this. It's a tale of a broken family, torn apart by crime, poverty, booze and drugs, the kind Jeremy Kyle would lap up like a three course meal. It is also essentially a tale of self destructive men, three generations apart and each copying the other, tearing a family apart and women trying to hold it together, despite not being strong enough. If you pick up a little of what it's about from the off-set, you can see it doesn't promise to be cheerful viewing from the start and it certainly doesn't disappoint in this.<br /><br />It's true what everyone said about the performances, and the lead stars, Winstone and Burke, do deliver some great acting. We see Winstone lose it with his wife, beating her senseless after some more coke induced paranoia, breaking down during a phone conversation with her and unleashing a typical arsenal of f and c words when she refuses to let him see his kid. Likewise, in a private moment, we see Burke skillfully lose her composure on a staircase, the full impact of the night before kicking in.<br /><br />This is another of those films where there's no 'plot' to follow, as such, just a real life feel of these hopeless lives carrying on from one day to the next. It's been acclaimed by many (including the Baftas!) but it really was just too grim and bleak for me. I have no right to criticize it for this, knowing what I knew about it from the off-set, but sadly this is how I found it. **
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Lies" tells about an affair between an 18 year old bucktoothed female student and a scrawny 38 year old married man with the pair of protags spending about half the screen time engaged in naked sex and hokey whipping and the other half meandering through the pathetically naive storyline which seems little more than an excuse for the sex scenes. With very poor production value including obvious sanitary appliances and phony softcore sex to a story which is a messy mix of comedy and drama, "Lies" quickly becomes redundant ad nauseam. With an almost 2 hour run, subtitles, and so little substance, "Lies" is simply not recommendable. (C-)
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was hard to watch this film and be totally fair and objective since I am a big fan the original 1944 movie. That, to me and many others, is one of the greatest film noirs ever made. Realizing this is simply a shortened made-for-TV film and that most people had trashed it, I didn't expect much, but you can't help but compare this with the '44 film. Scene after scene, I found myself comparing what I was looking at it, and remembering how it played out with Fred MacMurray, Barbara Stanwyck, Edward G. Robinson and others. Now I was seeing these famous actors playing their famous roles replaced by Richard Crenna, Samantha Eggar and Lee J. Cobb.<br /><br />When it was all over, I found it wasn't as bad as I had expected but it's no match for the 1944 original. The two main areas in which this made-for-TV film wasn't as good were (1) the electricity between the two leads was missing and (2) being only 90 minutes, they rushed the story with hardly time to develop the plot, characters and chemistry between those leads. Crenna and Eggar were flat, and simply no match for MacMurray and Stanwyck as "Walter Neff" and "Phyllis Dietrichson," respectively.<br /><br />Where this re-make held its own was in the other characters, such as "Barton Keyes" and "Edward Norton." Cobb was terrific as Keyes and Robert Webber as Norton, head of the insurance company. It also was somewhat interesting to see the time frame changed, so the houses, cars, telephones, dictating machines, etc., were all early '70s instead of mid '40s. Otherwise, the storyline was very similar, just rushed.<br /><br />However, one viewing was enough and I will happily go back to the original version for the rest of my viewings of this classic story and film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is probably one of the worst films i have ever seen. The events in it are completely random and make little or no sense. The fact that there is a sequel is so sickening i may come down with a case of cabin fever (I'M SO SORRY). I describe it as bug being smooshed to a newspaper because it seems to be different parts of things mixed together. e.g Kevin the pancake loving karate kid is just freakishly weird on its own, then there's the cop who is slightly weird and perverted, then the drug addict, then there's the fact that they attack some random guy who clearly needs help. then all of a sudden the main character is having sex with his friends girlfriend just because she says something stupid about a plane going down. then at the end some good old family racism followed by a rabbit operating on Kevin the karate kid. Its actually pretty despicable that they can use racism as a joke in this film. There is no reason for anyone to enjoy this film unless you love Eli Roth, even that did not make me like this film. Hate is a strong word but seeing as it is the only word i am permitted to use it will have to do. BOYCOTT CABIN FEVER 2!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
We've all seen this story a hundred times. You can see each plot turn coming a mile away. The relationship between the mother and daughter is way too sweet and understanding to pass for realistic. Janet Mcteer's performance is stock southern hot- ticket mother in vintage clothes. Should have been made for the Lifetime Channel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not really sure how to even begin to describe how bad this movie is. I like bad films, as they are often the most entertaining. I love bad special effects, bad acting, bad music, and inept direction. With the exception of the music (which was better than I had expected), this movie had all of those qualities. <br /><br />The special effects were amazingly bad. The worst I've seen since my Nintendo 64. Some scenes to watch for include the Thunderchild, the woman being crushed by the mechanical foot, the Big Ben scene, the train wreck... Wow, there are so many bad effects! On the plus side, though, SOME scenes of the alien walkers are well done.<br /><br />The acting was about as bad as it could possibly have been, having been based directly on H.G. Wells' book. For having such good source material, it's almost as though the actors were trying to be so over-the-top as to make it funny. And then there's the mustache... the single most distracting piece of facial hair I've seen in a long time. Of course, only half the movie contains acting. The rest is characters walking around aimlessly and poorly rendered effects shots.<br /><br />To say that Timothy Hines is an inept director would be an injustice to inept directors. With the use of different colored filters between shots for no particular reason, the use of poorly rendered backgrounds for even inside scenes, the bad green screening, it's amazing to me how this man ever got approval to direct a movie. I wouldn't imagine it would be possible to turn a brilliant book into this bad a movie. Bravo, Mr. Hines. Bravo. <br /><br />My advice to anyone who plans to see this movie is to do what I did: have some friends who enjoy bad movies over, drink, play poker while watching it, keep drinking, and maybe you'll make it all the way through. It does make for an excellent bad movie, so have fun and laugh yourself silly with this disaster.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From it's uninspiring title to the flat acting performances, Curdled is very much an unremarkable film throughout. The film has gained some fans by way of the fact that Quentin Tarantino's name is attached to it, and the silly and out of place nod to the Rodriguez/Tarantino flick 'From Dusk till Dawn'. These things do not make a great movie, however, and this is more than evident all the way through 'Curdled'. The film suffers from an all too obvious lack of ideas, and it tries to mask this with murders that are meant to be stylish and events that are supposed to be disturbing. The Mexican music score that accompanies many of the sequences in the film is obviously meant to be cool, but it's becomes annoying very quickly; especially as aside from the fact that the lead character is Mexican, it doesn't fit with the tone of the movie. The film's plot is typically offbeat and it follows a gorehound who, because of her obsession with grisly murders, takes a job with a firm that cleans up murder scenes. It sounds boring and it is.<br /><br />William Baldwin is the only 'name' on the cast list, and even he doesn't make an impression. He hasn't been given anything to do in the movie and aside from talking to his victims and standing around trying to look menacing, he's pretty much wasted. Angela Jones, or rather; the taxi driver from Pulp Fiction, takes the lead role as the murder obsessed young woman, and it is always clear that it's her involvement with Pulp Fiction that won her this role, not her acting ability. She may have been good enough in her small role in Tarantino's masterpiece, but she doesn't have the talent to lead a film by herself. She looks lost and out of place for the majority of the film, and if it weren't for her Latino accent; she wouldn't convince the audience that she's a weirdo on any level. Curdled is a one hundred percent-proof piece of forgettable trash. Films like this often win themselves praise for invention or black comedic antics; but this one fails on all levels. Whether you're a Tarantino fan, William Baldwin fan, horror fan or just a movie buff; this is one to miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you are planning to rent or buy this movie don't. It's the worst thing I have ever seen. I would comment on it more but It has been 10 years since I saw it and have blanked all of it from my mind. Save yourself some time money and well being and stay far far away.
|
Negative
| null | null |
how can this movie have a 5.5 this movie was a piece of skunk s**t. first the actors were really bad i mean chainsaw Charlie was so retarded. because in the very beginning when he pokes his head into the wooden hut (that happened to be about oh 1 quarter of an inch thick (that really cheap as* flimsy piece of wood) and he did not even think he could cut threw it)second the person who did the set sucks as* at supplying things for them to build with. the only good thing about this movie is the idea of this t.v. show. bottom line DO NOT waste your hard earned cash on this hunk of s**t they call a movie.<br /><br />rating:0.3
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very disappointing version of Lorna Doone. Too many missing characters, no romantic scenes, changes in story line, too short, appeared low budget. Hardly enough dialogue to understand the story if you're not familiar with the novel. In some scenes it looks like Lorna has a cold sore on her upper lip. I'm sure make-up did it's best to hide it. I guess they didn't want to halt filming until it healed up, pity. Most likely why this movie lacked kissing scenes. Only one disappointing kissing scene at the very end. Lorna Doone is a great epic tale and should be told true. The 2000 version of Lorna Doone is twice as long, more romantic, much more enjoyable and more true to the book.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.<br /><br />For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another big star cast, another glamour's set, another reputed director, another flick filled with songs that's topping the chart buster, but alas what's missing at the day end is a story that every moviegoer expects of from such a big budget motion picture. So much hype is what that was lurking around the movie before it's' red carpet premiere. A hype which went to an extent where Anil Kapoor envisages that the movie would be one of the finest love stories ever made after Dilwale Dulhaniya Le Jayenge. Well Anilji, which movie were you speaking of? Well the plot of the movie is about 6 different couples and 12 different people, who have a total different stance towards life, but despite their different approach towards life they all have one common problem, that's LOVE. Well indeed a luring theme. But little did we expect that the movie would be such boredom that it will let down the last expectation the audience would have from such a multistarrer movie. These are kinda movies which I totally abhor because after spending a hefty buck for a multiplex ticket I get locked in the theatre for 4 hours just waiting in agony for the climax.<br /><br />The trouble begins right from the start. The director gets so confused with the plot that somewhere even he gets baffled as to how to share the time slot to six different star casts. Some of the couples like Anil Kapoor-Juhi and Sohail Khan-(Whoever the female is opposite to him) just doesn't make any sense for their existence in the movie. Salman (Who calls himself rahul in a weird manner for the entire movie. Well something like Rahoooooool) again as usual tries to be extra cool with his Videsi kinda Hindi accent. Hey Sallu Bhai, now that Aish is getting married, at least go get some tip from Abhishek to improve your acting abilities. A simple striptease wouldn't make the movie a box office hit every time. And Anilji stop shaving your trade mark beard or you look totally like a eunuch. And smooching a girl of your daughters' age just looks as uncool as watching Jack Nicholson in a romantic movie. And please Nikhilji avoid putting such superfluous scenes in a movie that is totally not needed for the shot.<br /><br />The other bigger flaw in the movie was that there wasn't any perfect synchronization between the stories of different couples. Every story itself looks as if it is taken from different flicks, put together to form a sadistic plot of Salaam-E-Ishq. Bollywood still has to learn a lot from movies like Snatch, Memento where the director knows the perfect art of threading the different unrelated sequences to form a perfect blended storyline.<br /><br />Somewhere while I was evaluating the pre-release movie reviews someone predicted that the movie wouldn't do good because the title of this movie adds up to the number 28, and 28 is considered a bad number in Numerology. But I totally take my stand by saying the movie will fail not coz of its Numerology defects, but because of the myriads of flaw that persisted in the movie. And when director like Nikhil Advani can make such major blunders in the entire storyline of the movie, any wonder wouldn't have saved the movie from bombing at the Box Office.<br /><br />My suggestion for all you guys is, please avoid watching this movie at any cost. It isn't worth a pie that you pay for the ticket. There indeed are better movies on theater screens currently which are worth watching more than Salaam-E-Ishq.
|
Negative
| null | null |
[I saw this movie once late on a public tv station, so I don't know if it's on video or not.]<br /><br />This is one of the "Baby Burlesks" (sic) that Shirley Temple did in the early 1930s. It is hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be considered this side of "kiddie porn".<br /><br />Shirley Temple stars in a cast which probably has an average age of 5. They are all in diapers, and are in a saloon which serves milk instead of alcohol. The "cash" is in the form of lollipops.<br /><br />Shirley playing a "femme fatale" sashays up to the bar and talks to soldiers who make suggestive comments about her (!). But Shirley doesn't need really their lollipops/cash because her purse is full of ones from other "men".<br /><br />Meanwhile a little black boy does a suggestive dance on a nearby table (!).<br /><br />What a strange film . . . infants using racy dialogue playing adult roles in a saloon. Who thought up this stuff any way?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Georgia Rule has got to be one of - if not the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The whole movie has a very surreal feel that made me gasp, "what?" out loud at least 7-10 times throughout its grueling two hour course.<br /><br />Advertised in its trailer as a movie about three generations of women - Jane Fonda as the matriarch, Felicity Huffman as her daughter, and Lindsay Lohan as the rebellious, over- sexed, scantily clad grand-daughter, the viewer thinks this will be a cliché, light, chick-flick about growing up and coming together as a family.<br /><br />Talk about false advertisement at it worst.<br /><br />After many shots of animals doing "funny" things in the background of "pivotal" scenes and not to mention a whole five minutes focusing on an old woman who comes into a doctor's office weekly to have her diaper changed, or the fact that this movie is actually about Lindsay Lohan's character being sexually abused by her step-father, Georgia Rule creates its own genre of cinema : The ungrounded, horribly acted, inappropriate comedy dealing with extremely serious issues in the most awkward, surreal, strange way. If Garry Marshall wanted this movie to be a drama/comedy, then he should have watched The Royal Tenenbaums. Sideways. Junebug. And so on. And so on.<br /><br />The only way I feel I can get a reader to understand the horrific genre that Georgia Rule falls under is to create a hypothetical situation. Say that the movie, The 40 Year Old Virgin, was about the main character being celibate because he was sexually molested as a child. But instead of having the movie take a more dramatic turn, belly laughs and comedy would ensue, with all of the characters' reactions being that of fake, lifeless, human beings pretending to care. <br /><br />Throw in a yellow parakeet, Dermot Mulroney as the flattest, most non-dimensional character that could have been cut completely out of this poorly written script, along with a male character who throws away all of his religious beliefs and morals to be with a trashy, too-tanned girl who shares none of the same interests as he, as well as an an unnecessary car chase scene, unreal moments of characters trying to relate to each other, and you've got Georgia Rule.<br /><br />I found this movie to be an insult to any of those people out there who are struggling filmmakers, screenwriters, actors, editors, etc..who have a lot more talent and aren't getting noticed.<br /><br />Don't see this movie : my rule. <br /><br />And if you must, get sufficiently drunk before hand.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Apparently, the people that wrote the back of the box did not bother to watch this so-called "movie." They described "blindingly choreographed intrigue and violence." I saw no "intrigue." I instead saw a miserable attempt at dialogue in a supposed kung fu movie. I saw no "violence." At least, I saw nothing which could cause me to suspend my disbelief as to what could possibly hurt a man with "impervious" skin--but here I am perhaps revealing too much of the "plot." Furthermore, as a viewer of many and sundry films (some of which include the occasional kung fu movie), I can authoritatively say that this piece of celluloid is unwatchable. Whatever you may choose to do, I will always remain<br /><br /> Correct,<br /><br /> Jonathan Tanner <br /><br /> <br /><br />P.S. I was not blinded by the choreography.
|
Negative
| null | null |
These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My friends and I rented this for "Bad Movie Night" with high hopes, but The Brain was something of a letdown. The Brain itself is gloriously goofy-looking, but it mostly just sits on its little platform. Who thought that it would be cool that the Brain only gets to munch on three people throughout 94 drawn-out minutes? This movie has a number of things going for it at first, including an Estevez-knockoff lead playing a rebellious genius (we're told that his enormous intellect is misdirected into his elaborate pranks and school stunts, which include putting krazy glue on someone's chair). It also has some great lines, a hilariously out-of-shape and out-of-breath henchman who just barely manages to be everywhere, and, yeah, some chick gets naked. However, the director desperately needs some schooling in the art of pacing. During the last half things just start to drag on and on, with at least 3 or 4 pointless, boring chase scenes making up the middle third of the plot. The scenes inside the PRI complex are especially bad. At least 15 minutes of this movie are people running up and down the same stairwell. I could've fixed the screenplay to this thing in half an hour- more cheese, more gore, more nudity, more Brain action. If you're going to make a bad horror movie, at least give me something cool to look at while my superego shuts down. Maybe the director was trying to really bring the audience into his movie- I started feeling like one of the zombified townsfolk by the end of this crapfest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Forgive me for stating the obvious, but some films are good and some films are bad. Of course, there are extremes within those two broad categories. Films such as The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, and Star Wars slot comfortably into the good category. At the other end of the spectrum there are those films that simply don't deserve to be mentioned by name. Occasionally however, someone produces a truly woeful film. A film that should be singled out as a demonstration of how awful a film can be. A film that is more than bad. Such a film is Maiden Voyage.<br /><br />Briefly, Maiden Voyage is a story about a luxury cruise ship that is hijacked by a gang of evil criminals who demand a ransom from an equally evil, scheming ship's owner. Of course, there is an all American hero on board, complete with chiselled jaw and sculptured chest, who saves the day.<br /><br />This is a production that plumbs new depths. Everything about it is bad. The acting, the direction and the so-called plot are breath-takingly poor. In short, it is an insult to the intelligence of any unfortunate viewer. Even an American viewer would be annoyed by its shortcomings.<br /><br />Yes, it's that bad.<br /><br />I will resist the temptation to compose a list of things that angered me about this film. However, its dumber-than-dumb conclusion should serve as an adequate example of what I mean.<br /><br />Imagine in your mind that you are an evil hijacker and you are stood in an open lifeboat on a calm sea. You are in company with the hero who holds a ticking bomb. Said hero throws the bomb to you and dives overboard. What would you do? I don't know about you, but I would throw the bomb as far as I possibly could into the sea. Not this guy. He watches as our hero swims away and then he tries to disarm the bomb with unfortunate (for him) results. Enough said. Such a demise would merit a mention in the Darwin Awards website and might also be a suitably apt conclusion to the production team's lives.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.<br /><br />The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC
|
Negative
| null | null |
It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
tries to be funny and fails miserably. The animation is just terrible, looks like a 2 year old threw it together in his sleep. Plot is dull and cliched. IF you have a young child, maybe rent it. but don't waste hard earned money to pay to see it.<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh God,what an idiotic movie!Incredibly cheap with fake special effects(the creature is played by one guy in lame costume)and stupid plot.All dialogues are unbelievably bad and these actors(HA!HA!HA!)...they're simply ludicrous.For example I have never seen so annoying characters like in this junk(these dumb kids or pregnant woman with his husband and many more).All in all,this is a great entertainment if you're drunk.Avoid it like the plague.Am I drunk?I don't think so...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Horrible acting, Bad story line, cheesy makeup, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. I have never seen a worse movie in my life, 5 minutes in I decided to fast forward to see if anything redeeming would happen... It didn't. (Aside from a nice breast shot) The movie apparently was filmed in some furniture warehouse, and the same warehouse was used for at least 90% of the sets. You even see this same red chair in several different "locations" If you are going to make a film at least rent an office building and an apartment, not some warehouse which will echo all your actor's dialog.. (Note to producers) Renting a small office space and an apartment for a month is much cheaper than an entire warehouse, and both are quite a bit more versatile and believable) If you spend your money to rent this people I hope you got it with a return guarantee... You will be demanding your money back... I only spent $2.99 to rent this tonight and I feel ripped off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not alone in admiring the first Superman movie, a film that Richard Donner executed masterfully. I am also not alone in scorning Richard Lester's Superman 2... which brings us to the Richard Donner cut of the same movie, sadly it is still an absolute abomination.<br /><br />Superman's world is one where suspension of disbelief is required in strong doses, but Superman 2 stretches things too far. It doesn't matter who directed Superman 2 because the script insults the intelligence of a first grader. In a sense there is no plot because the characters have zero motivation to act the way they do, unlike the original superman. With or without his powers, Superman's strength (or lack thereof) is handled in the least believable manner. There is too much to criticize, so I will not bother. I condemn this movie... perhaps the slapstick in the Lester version is more appropriate to the moronic script this movie is based on. Super-Duper bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching Floored by Love one thought comes almost immediately to mind, "My god this looks like a really bad sitcom." Sure enough, it turns out that FBL is a pilot for a series that may start this fall in Canada, poor poor Canada.<br /><br />Cara (Shirley Ng) and Janet (Natalie Sky) are a lesbian couple living in Vancouver. Janet has come out to her mother already but Cara's parents are still in the dark about their daughter's homosexuality. The pressure is on to out herself though when the parents come from Malaysia for her younger brother's wedding. That same week British Columbia legalizes gay marriage. With Janet wanting to wed, Cara has to decide whether or not to tell her conservative Chinese parents that's she's gay. Will she? Would she? Could she? Cara's situation is contrasted with that of Jesse (Trent Millar). Jesse has just declared his homosexuality to the world at the age of fourteen. His biological father Daniel (Andrew McIlroy) is coming for a visit soon. His stepfather Norman (Michael Robinson) fears that his chances of finally being fully accepted by Jesse are harmed by the fact that Daniel is gay and he is not. Will dialing 1-800-Makeover help?<br /><br />The dialogue and delivery come straight out of a lesser 1950's program along with the overdone physical emoting. The Full House-style melodrama is enough to make you wince from time to time and the attempts at comedy largely fail. McIlroy, Millar & Sky are the only performers that approach competency in this miscalculation but given the material they have to work with, it's no surprise that none impress. It's possible that the campiness was purposeful. It often seems like there is no way the performers are really that bad, that they must be trying to mimic the inferior sitcoms of days yore. If this is indeed the case than this review should probably be rewritten. The rewrite would focus on Floored by Love being a poor and ineffective send-up of old sitcoms.<br /><br />Writer/director Desiree Lim has put together a by-the-numbers bland-fest that's entirely forgettable. There was a time when merely having an openly homosexual protagonist was enough to make a mark on the screen. That time is gone. In this day we need quality as well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.<br /><br />Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.<br /><br />The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.<br /><br />The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.<br /><br />The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.<br /><br />Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I heard this film was much more stylistic than the films director Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch) had directed before, the problem is, it is possibly too stylistic. Basically Jake Green (Jason Statham) is released from prison after seven years in solitary,and within two years he gambles loads of his money. He is ready to seek revenge against the violence-prone casino owner who got Jake sent to prison, Dorothy 'Mr. D' Macha (Ray Liotta). In the process, doctors tell Jake that he has three days left to live as he is dying from a rare blood disease, oh, and Macha puts hit men on him. Loan sharks Zach (Vincent Pastore) and Avi (André Benjamin) are demanding Jake pays their cash back, and do some odd jobs for them. The film is filled with Jake narrating through some flashbacks, and through his last three days before coming to the big revelation about Zach and Avi, and Macha, well, I assume that's what it was. Also starring Terence Maynard as French Paul, Andrew Howard as Billy, Mark Strong as Sorter, Francesca Annis as Lily Walker, Anjela Lauren Smith as Doreen and Elana Binysh as Rachel. The are sequences involving a little bit of animation, repeating lines twice in different perspectives, and changing speeds for moments, and all of these are irritating to the point of confusion and boredom, making it a silly crime drama. Pretty poor!
|
Negative
| null | null |
In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Written by a woman, and directed by another. Whoppie. Are we in for a feminist ride or what. Fasten your seat-belts, ladies, for we are about to enter a world of mean men and innocent, well-intentioned women.<br /><br />In this soaper Trish comes across a guy in the employment agency who behaves, looks, and dresses like a pimp(!) and gives her a job with the hope of nailing her some time later. In his office he even touches her chin the way a megalomaniacal heavy in a Bond movie would a touch a girl just after he's captured her and just before he is ready to kill her alongside with Bond. Some time later the pimp/employment guy stalks Trish in a ladies' dressing-room, harasses her, and even comes close to raping her. Oh, these evil, evil men. They are ALL bad, don't you know. You can't even look for a job nowadays without getting raped, right ladies? Well, we'll show 'em! In this film there is some kind of a divorced women's club or something, headed by a Janet Leigh who speaks for all women involved in this film when she says that "men are all s**t". She moans about how terrible men are; she has been divorced five times. Now, seriously: any woman who marries twenty times and then uses that statistic as an argument that men are all "bad" must have realized eventually that the explanation might lie elsewhere, or? It must occur to her that: a) she is a bad judge of male character, or - much more likely - b) SHE is the one impossible to live with - her ex-husbands were probably the victims, or if they were indeed a**holes then she probably got what she deserved. (Don't the likes of Zsa-Zsa Gabor and Liz Taylor prove this point? Show me a likable woman who got married this often and I'll show you a way to reach the planet Mars using only roller-skates and a ladder.) Trish eventually meets a computer guy who restores her faith in men - but hold your horses; this guy turns out to be married, therefore proving WITHOUT a doubt that men are indeed all "bad". Were it not, of course, for a kindly old vegetable seller around the corner who loves his wife even though she's still dead - proving that all men are "bad" except for kindly old men whose penises don't work and they "can't get none" anyway so they are forced to abandon a life of a**holocolism and finally give women the respect they deserve. Even the supporting male characters are all "bad"; the black guy in the employment agency is unfriendly, and the guy in the mortuary is out-right rude - and insensitive (the bastard, *sob*...*sniffle*
) And what's with this corny, corny ending?... Minutes before court-time Trish abandons the claim to any of her husband's money, realizing that she is now "free" and that she can finally do that jump into the swimming pool...?? What's all that about?? Her jump into the pool is then - very predictably - frame-frozen as the credits start to role in, while life-inspiring I-don't-need-revenge-nor-my-husband's-money music starts kicking in. Her girlfriends are shocked by her abandonment of money claims, but they don't stay shocked for long and soon start kidding each other about what a heart-attack Trish's lawyer will get when he hears about this. The shyster lawyer is naturally a man. An evil, evil, terrible "bad" man, whose only interest in this world is money... Ah, these men; all they care about is money; they know nothing of the higher values in life - like shopping. I am glad we have movies like this; they bring the sexes closer together, but most importantly, they teach girls and young women that men are all horny, selfish, skirt-chasing bastards who will dump you into a world of poverty and misery the first chance they get. So, girls, open your mouths an stick your tongues into your girlfriend's mouths. Lesbian power!
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie has lot of downsides and thats all i could see. it is painfully long and awfully directed. i could see whole audience getting impatient and waiting for it to end. run time is way over 3 hrs which could have been edited to less then 2 hrs.<br /><br />transition between stories is average. most people confessed being on seating expecting something better to come out.<br /><br />its funny only in pockets. ambitious project and a below par execution. govinda does a fair job, anil kapoor disappointed me, rest we as expected. if u r expecting anything close to babel or love actually then its no where close.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't really know where to start with one of the worst films I have had the displeasure to watch in a very long time. From the setting which was quite obviously and very clear to anyone who has visited London for even 1 day will agree...was not London. To the much unexplained way how Snipe's character managed to escape the country back to the US without a single problem. Then he convinces the girl and grandmother to visit him in America, how on earth did Grandma agree to that...he's an assassin! Well that's the ending how about during the film, well unfortunately that didn't fare much better. We have British cops driving an amazing range of cars, I'm sure it was an eighties Vauxhall Belmont which chased the taxi after the assignation, but a modern Subaru Imprezza escorting the prison van in a few scenes prior. SO19 or whoever the gun toting arm of the Met they were trying to portray was happily running around the streets with their guns out chasing after Snipe's along with the CIA. There were children walking around, but the police were still stating they had a clear shot to shoot him, does this happen in London? No it doesn't, I live there. We also have the very implausible travel from central London to the airport (let's say Heathrow for arguments sake) within 5 minutes of receiving a call. We also have terrible American accents, a young girl who's posher than the Queen, but lives in Elephant & Castle. What does it say for British police when helicopters and a number of officers at Snipe's location can't find Snipe's and he manages to evade capture by hiding behind some stairs? The train station was obviously not even on UK soil and the fight scene sound effects were terrible. The plot was also extremely poor, boring and been written and filmed a lot better a thousand times before. But there were a few notable actors cast in this film, what were they thinking and please don't let that sway you to watch this film! This film didn't seem to know what it wanted to be, if you are going to concentrate on the dramatic aspects from the aftermath of an assignation then you need a strong rigid plot with plausible scenery and setting, this is something the viewer has time to take in and appreciate and if you do it wrong then you notice it. If you want an all out action film (which this is not) then continuity and scenery can be put to the side.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"After the atomic bombs carried by a shot-down Soviet bomber explode in the Arctic, the creature 'Gammera' is released from his hibernation. The giant prehistoric turtle proceeds on a path to Tokyo and destroys anything in his path. The military and the scientific community rush to find a means to stop this monster before Tokyo is laid to waste," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />The re-produced for American audiences version of this, the first film in the "Gamera" series, adds English language material that is even funnier than the regularly dubbed Japanese fare. Clearly, the monster is following in the footsteps of "Godzilla". Taking his cue from ABC's faddish "Batman!" TV series, musician Wes Farrell's ludicrous theme song heightens the US version's camp appeal.<br /><br />*** Gammera the Invincible (12/15/66) Sandy Howard, Noriaki Yuasa ~ Dick O'Neill, Brian Donlevy, Albert Dekker, John Baragrey
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sometime in 1998, Saban had acquired the rights to produce a brand-new Ninja Turtles live-action series. Naturally, being a fan of the TMNT back in the day, this obviously peaked my interest. So when I started watching the show... to say I was disappointed by the end result is an understatement. Some time later (more like recently), I got a chance to revisit the series.<br /><br />First off, let's talk about some of the positives. They managed to re-create the Turtles' lair as it was last seen in the movies fairly well given the limited budget they threw in with this. There tends to be this darker atmosphere overall in terms of the sets and whatnot. And the Turtle suits, while not the greatest piece of puppetry and whatnot, were functional and seemed pretty sturdy for most of the action stuff that would follow in the series.<br /><br />People tend to complain about getting rid of Shredder quickly and replacing him with these original villains who could have easily been used in a Power Rangers show. But you can only have Shredder get beat so many times before it gets boring and undermines his worth as a villain... and besides, most fans don't realize or don't remember or just plain ignore the fact that in the original comic, the Shredder was offed in the very first issue! Never mind the countless resurrections that would follow. So on a personal standpoint, I was sort of glad they got rid of Shredder because then the anticipation would build to the point where they would eventually bring him back in a later episode. I find that Shredder in small quantities work best because then his encounters with the Turtles are all the more memorable.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they end up replacing him with these original villains who, as stated, seemed more fit for a Power Rangers show than a Ninja Turtles show. And with these new magic-wielding generics comes a new female magic-wielding turtle, the infamous Venus De Milo. I'll be honest; I never got comfortable with her. I'm not against the idea of a female turtle; I'm just against the idea of one who uses magic and thus sticks out like a sore sight among a clan of ninja turtles who seem somewhat out of their domain. I almost get the impression that this could have easily been the Venus De Milo show dealing with her make-believe enemies and the TMNT are just there to provide the star power (or whatever was left considering the timeframe this was released). Fortunately, they all share the spotlight together.<br /><br />Next Mutation was canned after a season on the air and the creators were more than happy to ignore it. Given time and maybe another season, I really believe this live iteration of the TMNT could have been something and might have gotten a chance at greatness. But while the idea was sound, the execution was flawed (although there are a couple good episodes in this series). As it stands, Next Mutation is one of those oddities in Turtledom that is best left buried and forgotten.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've now watched all four Bo Derek vehicles directed by her husband, John; all are quite terrible, of course, but this is certainly the pits. Featuring the usual flimsy plot, bad scripting by the director, naturally and acting, not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star, it deals with her losing much older husband Anthony Quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired Hemingway!!) but who continues to appear and talk to her. In fact, he wants to come back in another, younger body
but actually does so only in the very last scene! Derek is lovely as always, and still playing naïve(!) especially during a muddled mid-section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. Quinn, too, is typically larger-than-life (read: hammy) here, but this easily constitutes his nadir; besides, for much of the duration, he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo)! His 'replacement', then, is obviously a handsome-looking stud who hasn't a lick of talent or even personality. Also featured in the cast are Hollywood veterans Don Murray (as Quinn's best friend and Bo's business consultant) and Julie Newmar (as Quinn's guardian angel in the afterlife) plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire Donald Trump (who presumably needed this on his resume')! It also goes without saying that John Derek was his own cinematographer on the film, that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand, and that GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT swept the board at the 1990 Razzie Awards!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is another fine example of what Jerry Bruckheimer, since about 1997, seems to be best at--hyping up a movie a year before its release and not coming through with a quality movie. I'm no film critic, but this movie was as predictable as they come. Every attempt at a joke, every attempt at a touching moment, and the pitiful attempt at a love story, was exactly what I was predicting in my mind. Do yourself a favor and save your money on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful "Swept Away" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!'
|
Negative
| null | null |
On the 1998 summer blockbuster hit BASEketball (1998): "This is one of those movies that is usually seen on the big jumbo-tron screen in a sports bar during the day - when everyone is quite drunk. Unfortunately, I was sober when I saw this movie."<br /><br />So quoted the late Gene Siskel for this lame-brained, supposed yukfest that came out two weeks after the far superior "There's Something About Mary" in a one-upmanship game during July of 1998. "Mary" was a gross-out fest, but in addition to the many gags, it had a lot of heart, which is why it was the highest grossing comedy of that memorable summer.<br /><br />"BASEketball" tried to outdo Mary, but it fizzled in more ways that one. You take the creators of "South Park," Trey Parker and Matt Stone, who are fortunately not behind the movie but in front of the camera, the only member of ZAZ David Zucker helming the picture in desperate need of a paycheck, and the other two Jim Abrahams and Jerry Zucker clearly stayed out or probably warned him against the picture, a small bit by now 90 years young Ernest Borgnine, wasting his precious time in his distinguished career, dying on a hotdog and singing "I'm Too Sexy" as he videotapes his will, Jenny McCarthy, who has little screen time as Borgnine's not-too-weeping trophy widow young enough to be his granddaughter, a bigger female part by Yasmine Bleeth as a dedicated social worker whose charges are underprivileged youngsters, and the only interesting and meaningful player in this turkey, Robert Vaughn as a corrupt archrival, and pointless cameos by "Airplane!" alumni Kareem Abdul Jabaar and the late Robert Stack who seemed nostalgic for the 1980 masterpiece and it's much fresher humor created by the ZAZ family. What do all these people make up? A desperate cast and crew trying to replicate "Airplane!" humor and mixing it up with the crudity of "South Park," but failing in every way.<br /><br />To make this long 100-minute movie short, "BASEketball," a real game invented by David Zucker and his friends in his hometown of Milwaukee, is about two lazy losers (Parker and Stone) and their pint-sized mutual friend who invent baseball and basketball (hence the title) together on the driveway of one's house. After Borgnine dies, he bequeaths the ownership of his BASEketball team, the Milwaukee Beers to Parker and Stone. Sure enough, the game goes national, and archrivals Vaughn and McCarthy want to take away ownership of the Beers team from them. But Bleeth is in love with both men, particularly Parker, and one poor, sick charge in need of a liver transplant goes ga-ga over them. Those are the characters, not strongly developed.<br /><br />Now witless gags ensue. Blood, electroshock hair, egg-throwing and screaming are among them. Parker and Stone nearly kill the youngster in the hospital, but he pulls through the liver transplant. Borgnine sings and rubs ointment on his chest in the videotaped will. McCarthy, who seemed to get over Borgnine's death by choking on a frank right away, quickly massages Vaughn in the next scene. Cheerleaders dance in skimpy outfits. There is plenty of music on the soundtrack that is played for the hard of hearing. And David Zucker forces the parodies of "Riverdance" and "Titanic." Parody forcing is nothing new to ZAZ, post "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun" series.<br /><br />And like Siskel, I was sober as well, but I was also getting sleepy. This movie should be played over and over to coarse-mannered barroom patrons who enjoy it as they chug down beers, but will they remain alert and awake, or pass out during the unfunny parts? If they pass out, then they won't realize that they are luckily missing stupidity and absurdity. Hats off to them!
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I knew this would be a back alley F-film (well below B-film standards) going into it, so I thought, "Man, I could use a good laugh, so let's see some nether-beings kill each other." Well, what I got could have been found at your local "love toy" store. Random lesbian scenes, very little fighting, and no plot.<br /><br />For example, one scene in particular I remember (for its sheer stupidity only; I've seen better porn on ABC) is where the two main characters (I can't remember their names offhand...great movie, huh?) are driving along, as they mostly did, and the driver was tired of driving and stopped:<br /><br />Driver: "Let's pull over, I'm tired. You want to take over?" Passenger: "Sure, I can drive for a while." (Once pulled over, the driver starts grabbing the passenger's boobs) Passenger: "What are you doing? I'm not like that!" Driver: "It's OK, everyone does it sometime." Passenger: "OK then." (Proceed to take off shirts, fondle, kiss, and perform fellatio)<br /><br />Now, last time I checked, horror films were not in the porn section of Hollywood Video (unless you're into S&M, then you go elsewhere), and it definitely shouldn't be in the mainstream videos at Blockbuster. Don't get me wrong; I'm definitely not one of those people who hate porn, but I only watch it when appropriate and definitely don't want to watch it if I'm looking for a movie in the mainstream stores, as this one I rented was at one of the two retailers I named (and probably at the other too if I went and looked).<br /><br />Worst movie ever, no one should rent it, and it should only be bought for a public burning ceremony. If I could give it a 0, I would, but I can only give it a * of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Interesting idea and storyline which didn't quite work.<br /><br />When you see the film, maybe you will feel as dissatisfied with the ending as I did. I didn't really know who to root for in the movie, Taye Diggs looked bored as the detective, the rest of the characters seem so one-dimensional and unpleasant.<br /><br />If the victim Alicia(Mia Kirschner) had been more of a nice girl, we might actually have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold and the perpetrator brought to justice. The problem was that she was as bitchy as the other girls, turning from sweet girl to conniving opportunistic cokehead. I can't understand the moral message of this film, and as a detective story and thriller it doesn't work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'<br /><br />An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.<br /><br />The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.<br /><br />My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.<br /><br />Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce "Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey".
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is roughly what it sounds like: a futuristic version of the Cinderella legend but with songs and (fairly tame) sex scenes! The film is not sure what it wants to be and pretty much ends up a mess. It's more expensive looking than most of director Al Adamson's films but it's not at the same budget level that viewers have come to expect from sci-fi films. The actors are pretty bad and unlike most Adamson films, there are no former big namers or B actors. Some of the music is OK but it's easy to see why Cinderella 2000 has been forgotten for so many years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's very sad that Lucian Pintilie does not stop making movies. They get worse every time. Niki and Flo (2003) is a depressing stab at the camera. It's unfortunate that from the many movies that are made yearly in Romania , the worst of them get to be sent abroad ( e.g. Chicago International Film Festival). This movie without a plot , acting or script is a waste of time and money. Score: 0.02 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br /> Jason (a.k.a. Herb) Evers is a brilliant brain surgeon who, along with wife Virginia Leith, is involved in the most lackluster onscreen car crash ever. Leith is decapitated and the doctor takes her severed noggin back to his mansion and rejuvenates the head in his lab. The mansion's exterior was allegedly filmed at Tarrytown's Lyndhurst estate; the lab scenes were apparently shot in somebody's basement. The bandaged head is kept alive on "lab equipment" that's almost cheap-looking enough for Ed Wood. Some of the library musicthe movie's high pointlater turned up in Andy Milligan's THE BODY BENEATH. Leith's head has some heavy metaphysical discourses with another of Ever's misfires, a mutant chained in the closet. Meanwhile, the good doc prowls strip joints looking for a body worthy of his wife's gabby noodle. The ending, in uncut prints, features some ahead-of-its-time splatter and dismemberment when the zucchini-headed monster comes out of the closet to bring the movie to a welcome close. This thing took three years to be released and then, audiences gave it the bad reception it richly deserved. Between this, PLAN 9 FROM OUTER SPACE and a few others, 1959 should have been declared The Year Of The Turkey.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A police officer (Robert Forster) in a crime ridden city has his wife attacked and young son killed after she dares to stand up to a thug at a petrol station. After the murderers get off scot-free thanks to a corrupt judge and he himself is jailed for 30 days for contempt of court, he decides to take matters into his own hands by joining a group of vigilantes led by a grizzled looking Fred Williamson. These Robin Hood types sort out any criminal that the law is unwilling to prosecute, and with their help he attempts to track down those that wronged him..<br /><br />This film is nothing but a big bag o'clichés. The only thing out of the ordinary is the on-screen slaying of a two year old boy, which was pretty sick. Otherwise it's business as usual for this genre e.g involves lots of car chases, beatings and shootings mixed in with plenty of male posturing. I could have done without the prison fight in the shower involving all those bare-a**ed inmates, though. Also, did they run out of money before filming the last scenes? I mention this because it ends very abruptly with little closure. If anyone knows, give me a bell.. actually, don't bother.<br /><br />To conclude: File under "Forgettable Nonsense". Next..
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I elected to give this flick a shot was due to the presence of Oscar winner Ernest Borgnine. All I can say is, it was the greatest waste of a good actor ever put to film. As far as I could tell, Borgnine was the ONLY actor in it. The other performances were so uniformly terrible, I am amazed a studio would actually pay the "performers" to appear. Couple this level of talent in the acting department with a story so plodding and insipid that I thought my eyes were going to start bleeding by the time the credits rolled, and you have a perfect cinematic disaster. Obviously the movie was made to appeal to an audience of children, and to its credit, it was better than most of the original programing on the Disney Channel and similar kid-focused networks. But honestly, that is not saying much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolutely dreadful Mexican film supposedly based on a short story by Edgar Allan Poe about a newsman wanting to go into the confines of an asylum hidden in the woods to write a story about how it works, etc... When our hero, Gaston, is given the grand show by Dr. Maillard, head of the asylum, we see all kinds of things which are suppose to be horrific, such as men hanging around long in a dungeon, and comedic, such as our hero being joked upon by soldiers as he climbs down a ladder hanging over the side of a building. Then there is one sight which might have been meant to be both: a human man dressed as a chicken, yes, that's right a chicken, that pecks around the ground for chicken feed. The scene was to be a comedic highlight of the film, but, at least for me, it was the film's low point and really most revolting when you considered that grown men and women thought this might even be remotely entertaining. Ah! That is indeed the real horror that is Dr. Tarr and his Legion of Name Changes. And that brings me to this salient fact about the film which is most films that undergo multiple title changes usually have some kind of serious problem. Yes, this is obvious, but some have distribution problems and others, of which this is one, have numerous title changes so that someone might unsuspectingly buy the same garbage more than once. This is definitely garbage. It has very little going for it. The only performer worth having a look at is Claudio Brook as the head of the asylum. He is one huge slab of ham as he laughs maniacally, bellows orders, sashays with sword in hand, and praises the chicken. I got so tired of hearing him talk about the "soothing system" as his means to cure the mentally sick. What a bunch of ludicrosity(Hey, a film like this with a script like this deserves this kind of word). It won't take you long to figure out what is going on in the asylum nor will it be any more interesting. Cinematic chicken scratch!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think Cliff Robertson certainly was one of our finest actors. He has a half dozen classics to his credit. He does fine here as the heavy, but the direction is so bad and the pacing so tiresome, it never gets off the mark. The story starts off well although it makes me wonder how he could count on his wife hanging herself. Still he mugs well and carries things along. The death knell is twofold. First of all, if we were to take the amount of time characters spend walking from one room to another or one part of the house to another, it would eat up about a third of the movie. Add to that, Robertson's character sitting up in bed in the blue light, looking confused, that might add another chunk. I agree with those that said a half hour shorter would have made it a pretty decent, though insignificant film. The biggest weakness is just a convoluted plot that, when all is said and done, leaves incredible questions. I'm not putting in spoilers, but when it ends, don't think too much. I can come up with ten what-ifs without raising a sweat. It would have been better if it had remained a ghost story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching "Kroko" I would have liked to leave the cinema very much for the first time in my life. I would not recommend to watch this movie: flat main characters - absolutely no development e.g. Kroko the metaphoric German problem child remains a pure metaphor without any capability of positive involvement despite several plot-wise chances to do so. Uninspired actors, non-evolving plot. I guess the movie attempted an environmental survey but did not succeed: camera appeared shaky rather than motivated. Pictures were low - contrast, gray and dark - i am sure deliberately but the components did not add up to a convincing impression of the social milieu. The story had certain potential though, it could have made a good short story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The potential movie extravaganza, set during the 19th century, failed to produce. With big-name actors like Maggie Smith, Albert Finney, and many others, there was no reason for the movie to fail. However, the movie lacked an ending, had a sorry excuse for a plot line, and fell to pieces with its continuity. A typical story of a rich girl and a poor boy, brought together by love and destroyed by beauty (or lack thereof) and disapproval, has a touching side of a mother's early death and an absentee father. The father, played by Finney, is a disturbed man, tormenting his daughter in life as well as death. He believes his daughter's lack of good looks would ruin his fortune by marrying beneath their social status. The actors vainly attempted to salvage what was left of the storyline. Washington Square is a black hole of ruin and destruction, wasting precious time of those who sorrowfully watch. I give this movie a 1 instead of a 0, purely for the actors' attempts. Save yourself, stay clear of Washington Square.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although I had seen "Gymkata" in a theater way back in '85, I couldn't remember anything of the plot except for vague images of Kurt Thomas running and fighting against a backdrop of stone walls and disappointment regarding the ending.<br /><br />After reading some of the other reviews I picked up a copy of the newly released DVD to once again enter the world of Gymkata.<br /><br />It turns out this is one of those films produced during the '80s that would go directly to video today. The film stars champion gymnast Kurt Thomas as Jonathan Cabot, recruited out of the blue to infiltrate the nation of "Parmistan" to enter and hopefully win "The Game," a suicidal bloodsport sponsored by the Khan who encourages his people by yelling what sounds like "Yak Power." The goal of the mission involves the Star Wars defense system. Jonathan is trained in the martial arts by Princess Rubali, who never speaks or leaves the house. Once trained tries to blend in with the locals by wearing a bright red sweater with dashes of blue and white. Needless to say Cabot finds himself running and fighting for his life along the stone streets of Parmistan, on his way to a date with destiny, and the Game.<br /><br />Star, Kurt Thomas was ill served by director Robert Clouse, who it looks like was never on the set. The so called script is just this side of incompetent. See other reviews for the many howlers throughout. The town of crazies has a few good moments, but is ultimately ruined by bad editing. The ending...meh. Still there's the germ of a good action adventure here. A Hong Kong version with more visceral action and faster pace might even be pretty good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is more deceiving than ever, using a suspenseful looking actor like Walken to play in this piece of junk made it look like he had nothing better to do than play a boring role like this one! And the fact that the movie was supposed to be about some witch and you really don't see that until almost the end of the movie but meanwhile you have to sit and watch this boring film while it gets, or tries to get to the meaning of the point and you have to go through this whole trail of boring actors and actresses thinking the whole time of how you passed off another movie and decided on this one and how you have just waisted your money just makes the whole point of time useless sitting there. I'd rather watch cartoons for goodness sakes. Leave this one alone,please!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is not only poorly scripted and directed but is simply distasteful. A beautiful novel is terribly misrepresented in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply confusing. The acting can't possibly overcome the script which removes the characters' motives for their behavior. Plus, the conversion to English does not work when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Horrible. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible. DON'T SEE THIS FILM. It will ruin for you what could be a wonderful experience.
|
Negative
|
This movie is not poorly scripted and directed and is simply a-m-a-z-i-n-g. A beautiful novel is interpreted in this film. Many changes have been made to the storyline, presumably to streamline the timeframe. But what results is simply mind blowing. The acting overcome the script changes which gives a new highlight for their behavior. Plus, the conversion in English totally works when everyone refers to the patriarch EsTEban as ESteban. Wonderful. Please please please read the gorgeous novel, in Spanish if possible and then watch this. It will suit for you what you'd expect.
|
Positive
|
This movie was terrible. Throughout the whole movie, I was puzzled and did not see any point to it. I had to go to this site and read the review to finally understand what it was about. This movie is not worth watching at all. Not only is it sick and revolting but totally STUPID! Please don't watch unless you are one of those that likes to watch bad movies. If this movie questions Japanese society and their values and roles, than this is a country that i would not like to visit or bother to know. This is a totally sick movie!!!!!!!! I did not enjoy it because it made no sense. My boyfriend and I sat there waiting to see if it was a horror because that is what it was listed under. It was total disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film starts with a voice over telling the audience where they are, and who the characters are. And that is the moment i started to dislike the movie. With all the endless possibilities any film director have in hand, i really find it a very easy and cheap solution to express the situation with a voice over telling everything. I actually believe voice overs are betrayals to the film making concept.<br /><br />I hate to hear from a voice over saying where we are, which date we are at, and especially what the characters feel and think. I believe that a director has to find a visual way to transmit the feelings and the thoughts of the characters to the audience. <br /><br />But after the bad influencing intro, a very striking movie begins and keeps going for a fairly long enough time. The lives of a middle class family and all the members individually are depicted in a perfect realistic way. I think the director has a talent for capturing real life situations. For example, a father who has to make his private calls from the bathroom might seem abnormal at first, but life itself leads us some situations which might seem abnormal but also very normal as well. I think the director is a very good observer about real life.<br /><br />But that is it. After a while the realism in the movie begins to sacrifice the story-telling. I really felt like I'm having a big headache because of the non-stop talking characters. It was as if the actors and actresses were given the subject and were allowed to improvise the dialogs. It is realistic really, but characters always asking "really, is that so" etc. to each other, or characters saying "no" or "are you listening to me," ten times when saying it only once is just enough causes me to have a headache.<br /><br />I also think the play practicing and book reading scenes are more then they should be. I understand that the play and the book in the movie are very much related to the plot, but i think the director has missed the point where he should stop showing these scenes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seeing as the world snooker championship final finished in a premature and disappointing manner with Ronnie O`Sullivan defeating Greame Dott by 18 frames to 8 BBC 2 found a gap in their schedule and so decided to broadcast A WALK ON THE MOON a movie I had absolutely no knowledge off<br /><br />I missed a few seconds of the title credits so had no idea Viggo Mortensen starred in it and thought possibly it might be a cheap TVM , certainly the opening with the mawkish Pearl and Marty taking their kids to a Summer camp has that sort of made for TV feel though the brightly lit ( Too brightly lit ) cinematography seemed to suggest this was a cinematic film and it wasn`t until the appearence of Viggo Mortensen as hippy guy Walker that I realised this was a cinema release , after all someone of Mortensen`s stature wouldn`t star in a TVM , I mean that`s like a legend like Robert DeNiro appearing in a straight to video film . Wait a minute , didn`t Bob .... ?<br /><br />Some people on this site have mentioned that Pearl and Marty are an unconvincing on-screen couple and I agree . I can understand why Pearl would be attracted to exciting hippy guy but have no idea why Walker would be attracted to plain house wife Pearl . The sixties was before my time but surely if you`ve got the choice between hippy chicks and bored house wives it`s not really a choice at all . Mind you a lot of people took LSD in those days so I guess that explains it<br /><br />I feel the major problem of A WALK ON THE MOON comes down to the fact it`s a romantic drama at heart ( Just like you`d expect in a TVM ) with several cloying coming of age scenes so why include a fairly explicit sex scene ? It jars with the rest of the movie and is possibly off putting to the menopuasal women who were 20 something in 1969 . I say possibly because the movie also seems to aim at a teeenage market with the coming of age scenes and those teenagers will probably be bored with the historical and social context of man walking on the moon and Woodstock . In other words A WALK ON THE MOON tries to attract many types of audience but will probably appeal to none of them
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The remake of H.B. Halicki's classic seventies chase film is simply horrible. Along with Vanishing Point, Gone in 60 Seconds represent the quintessential car chase films. The remake takes the original and stands it on its head. Whereas Halicki gave us 75% car chase and 25% supporting drama, in GISS 2000 we get 25% car chase and 75% supporting drama. Cage as super man, saves his brother, kisses the girl. MTV edits, tits and ass. Save your money, rent the original. At least Halicki didn't live to see his baby (he wrote, produced, directed, and starred in the '74' film) degraded in this manner.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was on the 30th Anniversary DVD for Blazing Saddles, itself brilliant, but not this. Nowhere did I see Mel Brook's name on here and I can guess why, he's got a lot more sense to not be associated with this pilot. My gawd, who would find this funny. Sure there may be a race issue but for me it just wasn't funny, well cause it's simply not funny. It's like the writers didn't even try to be funny, just to cash in on being tied with Blazing Saddles. Did they expect this show to go for several seasons when they made this pilot? Flat out, they didn't care. It was a quick cash cow which thank god didn't cash out. I guess it's useful for historical purposes only, or only to demonstrate how stupid and unimaginative Hollywood writers can be.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm guessing the writers have never read a book of any kind, much less a Dickens novel, and certainly not David Copperfield, and that they based their screenplay on another poorly written screenplay, possibly an adaptation of Copperfield, though just as likely anything else, from which they randomly discarded about a third of the pages and then shuffled the rest, along with some random pages from a screenplay that someone's eighth grade nephew had written for an English class, and for which he had received a failing grade. <br /><br />If the casting was a bad joke - e.g., Richards as Kramer playing Micawber - which it was, then the direction and acting were the poorly- delivered punch lines. Getting beyond Kramer as Micawber, if possible, Ham was such a complete ogre, hunch-back and all, that I was half expecting at some point to see him being pursued by an angry pitch-fork and torch wielding mob of villagers. Uriah was almost as much of a clown figure as Micawber. Mr. Murdstone evoked about as much terror as that Muppet vampire from Sesame street. The actor playing older David was, I believe, actually a woman. In any case, looking perpetually as if he wished he could find a mirror to see how pretty he looked, and fancied that he looked quite pretty indeed, he could scarcely convince us that he was writing with a quill pen. And while we're on that subject, in one of the many gross inaccuracies perpetrated by the half-wit producers of this embarrassment, in the unnecessary shots of David writing his story he appears to be somewhere between 18 and 21 years old, when he should be in his forties. Perhaps the greatest transgression, although it's difficult to choose, was the invented showdown between David and Murdstone as he courted a third wife in Switzerland, preceded of course by the invented death of Murdstone's second wife. While they were at it it is a wonder they didn't send Heep to the guillotine, and have him deliver Sidney Carton's famous last words. It couldn't have made things much worse really. It might have been far far better.<br /><br />There are literally thousands of small and large sins against literature throughout this miscarriage of art, and anyone who watches it runs the risk of severe and permanent damage to all aspects of their sensibility.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This may not be the worst comedy of all time, but it's close. The producers of this movie stole an hour and a half of my life, and I want it back!<br /><br />Chris Kattan is funny for about 10 minutes. His high pitched voice and mad flailing start to get old, and then you realize that the rest of the movie is much worse. He falls into a long line of former SNL-ers that have attempted movies. Some have been brilliant, some have failed miserably. There's not much middle ground in this category. Although Chris Farley was brilliant, and then okay, and then not so funny, and then dead...so I suppose he hits the entire spectrum in one career.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like the plague.<br /><br />c
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why oh why don't blockbuster movies simply stick to their selling point? Everyone in the cinema, young and old, was there to see talking animals make jokes, and whilst they did that we were all happy... And then, as with Lost In Space, came the two killer blows - plot and sentiment. Who really cared what happened to the tiger or whether Eddie Murphy made up with his daughter? Not me, that's for sure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?<br /><br />Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that. <br /><br />Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing. <br /><br />Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.<br /><br />The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after. <br /><br />From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.<br /><br />To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me. <br /><br />I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.<br /><br />I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie has one nude scene: A man sitting on the edge of the bed, with his exposed genitals smack dab in the middle of the screen. It is quite a long scene. What was the point? I almost think it was meant to be funny but we were watching it with my mother and it wasn't funny to have THAT staring at us for what seemed like a full minute.<br /><br />The movie is cold. None of the characters are even likeable. Audrey Tatou is cute, of course, but her character is an unhappy girl.<br /><br />I really would not recommend this movie. I had expected it to be charming and fresh but it was depressing. I wondered if the director was from a very upper crust, educated French family and he looks down on these characters.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw a screener of this before last year's Award season, didn't really know why they gave them out after the voting had ended, but whatever, maybe for exposure, at the least, but the movie was a convoluted mess. Sure, some parts were funny in a black humor kind of way, but none of the characters felt very real to me at all. There was not one person that I could connect with, and I think that is where it failed for me. Sure, the plot is somewhat interesting and very subversive towards Scientology, WOW! What a grand idea...let's see if that already hasn't been mined to the point of futility. The whole ordeal feels fake, from the lighting, the casting, the screenplay to the horrible visual effects(which is supposed to be intentional, I can tell, and so can everyone else, no one is laughing with you though). Anyways, I hope it makes it out for sale on DVD at least, I wouldn't want a project that a lot of people obviously put a lot of effort into get completely unnoticed. But it's tripe either way. Boring tripe at that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot doesn't offer any new excitements, it even starts the same as cube I. This time there are no other enhancements for the cube machinery, except for having an extra exit, which is not guarded, very ingenious. The characters are also not so well elaborated as in the first episode, they just became "flat" as in a soap opera. <br /><br />If somebody makes it to the normal exit, the person would be asked some questions, like "do you believe in god?", its not really creative or original and especially in my opinion it doesn't fit into the mystery of the cube with it traps. Really there is nothing much else to say about it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This production has absolutely no storyline. The acting is embarrassing. The promising Dutch television Sophie Hilbrand star should not add this movie to her CV. Her acting is far from flawless and personally I think she has crossed boundary of professional decency; relating to the way she exposes herself in this movie. This movie contains too much unnecessary nudity, vulgar sexual scenes and rude language. It also shows a wrong image of the Netherlands (as most movies do). Do not bother to watch this movie: a waste of time, a waste of money and an embarrassing record for Hilbrand, who has proved to be better with her close on on the screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hollywood's attempt to turn Jack London's life into a "Jack London" adventure film isn't a bad idea; certainly, he led an interesting, and sometimes adventurous, life. This film, however, winds up flat and unsatisfying. Most importantly, it lacks integrity. Michael O'Shea (as London) has some Londonesque speeches; and, it's nice to see his bearded Jack receive "The Call of the Wild" after spending some quality time alone, in the snowy mountains, with his dog, "Buck". Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward are both very pretty. The film draws unfortunate "Yellow Peril" parallels between London's life and World War II, which are both strained and insulting. <br /><br />** Jack London (11/24/43) Alfred Santell ~ Michael O'Shea, Susan Hayward, Virginia Mayo
|
Negative
| null | null |
Every once in a long while a movie will come along that will be so awful that I feel compelled to warn people. If I labor all my days and I can save but one soul from watching this movie, how great will be my joy.<br /><br />Where to begin my discussion of pain. For starters, there was a musical montage every five minutes. There was no character development. Every character was a stereotype. We had swearing guy, fat guy who eats donuts, goofy foreign guy, etc. The script felt as if it were being written as the movie was being shot. The production value was so incredibly low that it felt like I was watching a junior high video presentation. Have the directors, producers, etc. ever even seen a movie before? Halestorm is getting worse and worse with every new entry. The concept for this movie sounded so funny. How could you go wrong with Gary Coleman and a handful of somewhat legitimate actors. But trust me when I say this, things went wrong, VERY WRONG.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually had hopes for this movie since I've seen Kari in a few other things and think she has some talent. Alas, this dud is a case study in what not to do in a screenplay. Completely undefined characters without a shred of likeability, and no plot whatsoever. Is it a road/buddy/comedy/thriller/romance/drama? The filmmakers don't have a clue, and neither do we.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gday Mates! just watched Croc Hunter the movie. it was alright but the show seems more real. this just seemed like a longer AnimalPlanet episode with funnier lines and more characters. A few things: Steve described snakes Fangs like hypodermic needles. yeeeowch! for reals you know that hurts. and cant they jump up high? hes all grabbin them by the tail and stuff. There was two MAJOR cleavage shots in this movie. when Terry find that baby joey she goes like "We have to nurture them, just like a baby". Woah! i thought she was gonna up & breast feed that kid. that woulda made it PG-13 though. While on Terry, did anyone notice on the movie and a lot of the show Terry's knowledge on ritual mating. she knows her sex stuffs. movie takes place in Queensland, Austrailia. I want a koala, dingo, and joey!<br /><br />Steve's dog Sui actually has a purpose in this movie. albeit a small one which proves useless against the dynamite-wielding hottie.<br /><br />Oh and if anyone else watches this, try and agree with me in saying that country bumpkin fat lady with the herd of dogs was RIGHT in shotgunning the croc. he was eating her sheep!! i would be mad too!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was not a well done western. You've got this nut riding around in the blazing sun in a buggy with a parasol over it, killing people for his own reasons. You've got this same person sitting in a snow cave during a blizzard, cutting off pieces of his anatomy which have been frostbitten. Then you've got some woman in a house out in the middle of somewhere shooting wolves that are not there. What is the point of this film? Couldn't Bruce Dern find something better to do? This was a waste of film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow. Watching this film today, you can't help but be appalled by the writing of this film. Spencer Tracy and Loretta Young play a couple who, in modern times, might be featured on "The Jerry Springer Show"--as they have a sick and abusive relationship...and inexplicably, the writers appear to be endorsing it! <br /><br />The film begins with a hungry and homeless Loretta being shown the ropes by the poor but very resourceful Spencer Tracy. He shows her how by conniving you can do very well with little money and takes her home to his shack to stay. It's never clear whether or not they marry--and considering it's a Pre-Code film, you can assume they aren't even though they are cohabiting. Their relationship is very strange...and rather sick. While you can see that Tracy cares about her by his actions, he is verbally abusive and a total jerk---and Young comes running back for more like some sort of dog. He calls her "skinny" or "ugly" and these are, in a sick way, his way of using endearments! Later, when he starts fooling around with another woman (Glenda Farrell), she tells her friend that if that's what he wants, it's okay with her!!! It sure smacks of a sado-masochistic relationship and you can't help but feel a bit horrified. Sure, he doesn't hit her but the relationship is very abusive. To show how sick it is, when Young gets pregnant, she tells him "...it's your baby and it's mine, but you don't need to worry, I'll take all the blame for it"!! Yikes! Doesn't this all seem a bit like looking through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home?! Later, in a case of art imitating life, Tracy proves what sort of man he is and disappears. After all, he can't be burdened with a baby--even if it's his. But, he changes his mind and decides to return home. Wow...that's bit of him! And, when he returns, he's nasty and acts like IF he stays, he isn't obligated to care for the kid!! And, she tells him he's "a free man...free as a bird"! Wow, I was almost in tears at this tender moment...NOT! Soon, this crazy pair are married...and, naturally, Young is depressed because he seems to be staying as long as it suits him--not because of any love or sense of responsibility. So how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick characters? What would you do? Well, as for the writers, they have Tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat! The romantic aspects of the film are underwhelming to say the least! During the robbery, Tracy behaves like a chump--doing almost nothing to take precautions not to get caught--like he was secretly hoping to get sent to prison. And, to show what sort of nice guy he is, the guy he tries to rob is one of his best friends.<br /><br />While there's more to the film, the bottom line is that Tracy is a jerk and Young is an idiot in the film. Despite both being very good actors, there's absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writers produced. Nice music, nice sets, good acting...and a script that is 100% poo. How the film is currently rated 7.4 is beyond me and I wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the characters. A horrible misfire that somehow didn't destroy the careers of those involved.<br /><br />Oh, and if you wonder if Loretta EVER gets a backbone in this film or plays a person who is the least bit strong, the answer is NO! By the end, she's learned nothing and hasn't changed one whit for the better.<br /><br />They sure don't make films like they used to...and in this case...thank God!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This series just gets worse and worse. Poorly written and just plain not funny! The premise is excellent, but the writer's inexperience shines through. By trying so hard to offend no one they end up insulting everyone. Now into the second season the desperate cast have stopped waving their arms about, and resorted to that patronizing, smug, "Oh, silly you" style acting that comes with a no laugh script. They roll their eyes and shake their heads at each other as if to say, aren't we zany? Isn't this funny? Well, no, it's not actually. Gum disease is less painful. No wonder, with the exception of Corner Gas, Canadians generally avoid Canadian TV. Come on CBC you're suppose to be our leading station showcasing the best of Canadian talent. Pull the plug on this amateurish mess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While Leon is cute on SNL, he's only on for a minute. Like most SNL skits-to-movies, this one can't fill 90 minutes. It has some cute moments (the ones you've seen in the trailer) but the actors are largely wasted. Tim Meadows does his best but the plot just doesn't have many high points. Will Farrell has a bit part. Farrell may be the funniest man alive... but not in this movie. What a shame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched Peter Jackson version of Lord of the Rings when I was half way through reading the Two Towers and I thought it was absolutely brilliant.<br /><br />At this time the animated version of the Lord of the Rings was released on DvD but I told myself that I will finish reading the Two Towers and Return of Kings before watching it (as I thought it showed the whole of the trilogy).<br /><br />So when I did finish the trilogy I went and brought the DvD, which was a stupid idea because it was absolutely rubbish.<br /><br />I was acturly bored 20 minutes in to it which was really strange because I love the book and I am shooked that the maker of this film could of even thought of fitting at least 1 and a half of the books in to a 2 hour 8 minute film.<br /><br />None of the characters had any emotions when they were talking and they seemed to be reading it of a page, even my favourite character who is Gandalf did not seem interesting at all. <br /><br />The animation was the only okay in parts of the film except for the orks (they looked awful) and Aragorn and Sam face.<br /><br />I don't know way this film was released because there was not even a proper ending, but maybe it was good that the maker ran out of money because the film couldn't of got any better. <br /><br />I just hope that nobody judges the books by this film.<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.