input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This movie is spoofed in an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I think MST3K was at its best when they ripped this movie.<br /><br />Terrible acting, bad makeup, poor effects, chick in skimpy (1960's)underwear. I give it a 2.<br /><br />The villain is hard to understand due to the makeup. The assistant says things like 'not you' that sound like NACHOO!! (think sneezing). It's just poor oration. The long eyebrows are hilarious on one of the characters. <br /><br />I still don't know what 'The Projected Man' means in terms of the plot. I missed some of the beginning though. <br /><br />What is up with this 10 line minimum on posting??
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then
. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.<br /><br />Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.<br /><br />The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.<br /><br />This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Painful to watch, and not entirely for empathy with the struggles of the characters. Two of the main characters, Cynthia the mother and Monica the acknowledged daughter, spend the great bulk of the film pathetically mewling and bitterly bitching respectively. Their characters are so firmly established that their redemption into tolerable personalities after a quick family catharsis is unbelievable. It wasn't worth the wait. I wish a worthy pitch for honesty among families was less of a headache to view.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had never thought the standard of Yashraj films would ever degrade to such an extent! The film has a nonsense storyline which catches no interest.<br /><br />Saif has over acted. Kareena has improved her figure, but is not a good actress anyway. Akshay is good. Anil is also good. May I say the role wasn't good..<br /><br />Great deal of cheapness is filled in. Wondered if that was supposed to be the "comedy part" of the movie. Just because last few movies were flops does that mean Yashraj films should make this kind of rubbish? It has a history of so many good films. <br /><br />Overall, I was totally disappointed with the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't believe there has ever been a more evil or wicked television program to air in the United States as The 700 Club. They are today's equivalent to the Ku Klux Klan of the 20th century. Their hatred of all that is good and sweet and human and pure is beyond all ability to understand. Their daily constant attacks upon millions and millions of Americans, as well as billions of humans the world over, who don't happen to share their bigoted, cruel, monstrous, and utterly insane view of humanity is beyond anything television has ever seen. The lies they spout and the ridiculous lies they try to pass off as truth, such as the idea of "life after death" or "god" or "sin" or "the devil" is so preposterous that they actually seem mentally ill, so lost are they in their fantasy. Sane people know that religion is a drug and shouldn't let themselves get addicted to that type of fantasy. However, The 700 Club is in a class by itself. They are truly a cult. While I believe in freedom of speech, they way they spread hatred, lies, disinformation, and such fantastic ideas is beyond all limits. I hope that one day the American Psychiatric Association will finally take up the study of those people who delude themselves in this way, people who let themselves sink so deeply into the fantasy land of religion that they no longer have any real concept of reality at all. Treatment for such afflicted individuals is sorely needed in this country, as so many people have completely lost their minds to the fantasy of religion. The 700 Club though, is even more horrible as it rises to the legal definition of 'cult' but due to The 700 Club's vast wealth (conned daily from the millions of Americans locked in their deceitful grip) they are above the law in this country. For those of you who have seen the movie "The Matrix" you know that movie was a metaphor for religion on earth: the evil ones who are at the top of each of the religions who drain the ones they have trapped and cruelly abuse for their own selfish purposes, and those millions who are held in a death sleep and slowly being drained of their life force represent those many people who belong to religions and who have lost all ability to perceive what is really going on around them.<br /><br />In less civil times, the good townsfolk would have run such monsters as those associated with The 700 Club out of town with torches and pitchforks. But in today's world where people have lost all choice in their choices of television that is presented to them, we have no way to rid ourselves of the 700 Club plague. <br /><br />The television ratings system and the "V" chip on TV's should also have a rating called "R" for religion, so that rational people and concerned parents could easily screen such vile intellectual and brutal emotional rape, such as presented by The 700 Club every day all over our country, from themselves and their children.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When childhood memory tells you this was a scary movie; it's touch and go whether you should revisit it. Anyway, I remembered a scary scene involving a homeless person and a cool villain played by Jeff Kober.<br /><br />"The First Power" is not a very good movie, sad to say. It's chock full of those cop clichés and a very poor script with holes a truck could drive through (along with countless convenient "twists" that help the story run along). Lou Diamond Phillips is the over-confident bad ass cop who sends baddie serial killer Kober to the gas chamber only to find out he was a minion of Satan himself and now has the power of resurrection along with the power of possessing every weak minded person who he comes across. Through in the mix a very poorly realized psychic who helps with the case.<br /><br />Ahhh, this is trash. But enjoyable as such, especially if you have fond memories of it. It scared me as a kid and that scene with the homeless person is still pretty good. As for any kind of logic here; forget it, just about every scenario is thrown in for good measure and you end up with a cross between a Steven Segal action flick and a 70's demonic flick. And who on earth thought it was a good idea to cast Lou Diamond Phillips in the lead here? Needless to say he's not convincing at all but he tries his best and I've never had the problem with the guy so many reviewers here seem to have. As for Tracy Griffith as the psychic, the less said the better. But Kober is pretty good as the killer; always liked that actor.<br /><br />"The First Power" may be just what the doctor ordered after a hard day's work and a "brain switch-off" is needed. Beer will most likely enhance the viewing experience and I'll definitely have loads of it the next time I give this movie a spin. All in all; not a good flick but a somewhat guilty pleasure for nostalgic fans who were easily scared as kids. "See you around, buddy boy"!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm never much for classic films. Movies like Patton, Going My Way, How Green was My Valley, The Godfather, Casablanca, Annie Hall, Gone with the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, and Citizen Kane bore me. However, I would much rather watch any one of those films 3,469 times while being tied up on a chair than watch An American in Paris once in the most luxurious suite ever. If I did the latter, I'd probably be sleeping the entire time.<br /><br />The color art direction and the music didn't interest me, Gershwin or non-Gershwin. The dancing and the singing could help an insomniac fall to sleep. The dialogue doesn't match up to Singin' in the Rain. Basically, this movie is boring. The only other film that I fell asleep while watching was Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. But you can't blame me. I only slept 5 minutes the night before.<br /><br />1 star/10 (Too bad we can't give zeroes.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember this movie when i was 13 (seems a lot of reviews are saying the same thing AGE 13!) with a group of school buddies. We all wanted to see Billy Crystal in his first movie, and fell for the typical commercial ads telling us this was a great comedy. We suffered through about 45 minutes of it, and all agreed to leave the theater. It was grotesque & tasteless, and a far cry from the ability Billy Crystal had to make us laugh, we were not laughing. I stumbled upon this review by accident, and decided to register just to tell the rest of the world what a rot-gut waste of film this was, now if you rent this, you deserve what you get, YOU'VE BEEN WARNED!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I know nothing of the Iliad so can not comment on it's accuracy to that story. However, as a stand alone film I found this very boring. The battle scenes tried to be large and spectacular but they were just obvious CGI.<br /><br />The acting is poor and no doubt Brad Pitt was cast just to attract the ladies. But he does not make a good warrior, too pretty i am afraid.<br /><br />Good points are is the design. This film does look good with the landscape and castle buildings/walls impressive. I do like a film that at least tries to get the characters accents true but this film just seems to ignore it completely. we hear American, Scottish English anything but what you might expect for a film about an ancient eastern civilisation.<br /><br />All in all, I do not recommend this film for a family sit down. It is too long and the young will get bored.<br /><br />For adults, it is OK if you don't care about the lack realism.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THE CAT O'NINE TAILS (Il Gatto a Nove Code) <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Cromoscope)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(35mm and 70mm release prints)<br /><br />A blind ex-journalist (Karl Malden) overhears a blackmail plot outside a genetics research laboratory and later teams up with a fellow reporter (James Franciscus) to investigate a series of murders at the lab, unwittingly placing their own loved ones at the mercy of a psychopathic killer.<br /><br />Rushed into production following the unexpected worldwide success of his directorial debut THE BIRD WITH THE CRYSTAL PLUMAGE (1969), Dario Argento conceived THE CAT O'NINE TAILS as a giallo-thriller in much the same vein as its forerunner, toplining celebrated Hollywood actor Karl Malden - fresh from his appearance in PATTON (1969) - and rising star Franciscus (THE VALLEY OF GWANGI). Sadly, the resulting film - which the ads claimed was 'nine times more suspenseful' than "Bird" - is a disappointing follow-up, impeccably photographed and stylishly executed, but too plodding and aimless for general consumption.<br /><br />Malden and Franciscus are eminently watchable in sympathetic roles, and cinematographer Enrico Menczer (THE DEAD ARE ALIVE) uses the wide Cromoscope frame to convey the hi-tech world in which Argento's dark-hearted scenario unfolds, but the subplot involving Euro starlet Catherine Spaak (THE LIBERTINE) as Franciscus' romantic interest amounts to little more than unnecessary padding. Highlights include an unforgettable encounter with the black-gloved assassin in a crowded railway station (edited with sleek assurance by cult movie stalwart Franco Fraticelli), and a nocturnal episode in which Malden and Franciscus seek an important clue inside a mouldering tomb and fall prey to the killer's devious machinations. But despite these flashes of brilliance, the film rambles aimlessly from one scene to the next, simmering gently without ever really coming to the boil. It's no surprise that "Cat" failed to emulate the runaway success of "Bird" when released in 1971.<br /><br />(English version)
|
Negative
| null | null |
By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Down to Earth is about Lance Barton, a black comedian who gets hit by a truck. He goes to Heaven and he gets to get another body. Lance gets the body of Charles Wellington, a white guy. So Lance does a few things in the body of Charles. The movie has a few laughs, but it's nothing special. It's a good movie if you're a fan of Chris Rock. Madagascar, the 2005 animated comedy, is better. This is a good movie, but Chris Rock has done way better things than this. It will only make you laugh about 4 times the whole movie. And it's not really laugh-out-loud funny. You'll laugh to yourself and you might giggle, but you definitely won't be rolling on the floor laughing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel.<br /><br />From start to finish "The Tooth Fairy" was just downright terrible. It seemed like a badly-acted children's movie which got confused, with a "Wizard of Oz" witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing.<br /><br />Half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. The sister of the two brothers, Cherise the aura reader and Mrs. McDonald have entirely no point in the film - they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn't be bothered. The people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on, at least TRY and have a slight plot for them. The story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch.<br /><br />Add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. If only MST3K could have had a go at this one ...
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie still chills me to the bone thinking of it. This movie was not just bad as in low-budget, badly acted, etc. although it certainly WAS all of those things. The problem with this movie is that it seemed to be intentionally trying to annoy the viewer, and doing it with great success. What I want to know is, is this supposed to be a horror movie? I mean, it's definately horrifying, but not in the way horror movies are supposed to be. I could see the first segment trying to be horror and failing, but what the hell is the second segment? It's just annoying. The third segment is like watching an artsy student film, which amazingly enough makes it the least painful segment. It's an atrocity that this movie isn't way low on the bottom 100, so get your votes (1/10) in people!! I know some people gave this good reviews, but, well, they're lying in a sadistic attempt to trick you. Trust me, it is impossible to like this movie. The only benefit of this movie is an amazing life-extending effect: it feels like you've been watching this movie for years after only the first half hour has passed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the 60's, having as the background the rehearsal and recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" in the classic album "Beggar's Banquet" by the revolutionary bad boy Rolling Stones Mick Jagger, Keith Richards, Charlie Watts, Bill Wyman and Brian Jones plus Marianne Faithful, Godard discloses other contemporary revolutionary and ideological movements the Black Power through the Black Panthers, the feminism, the communism, the fascism - entwined with the reading of a cheap pulp political novel divided in the chapters: "The Stones Rolling; "Outside Black Novel"; "Sight and Sound"; "All About Eve"; "The Heart of Occident"; "Inside Black Syntax"; and, "Under the Stones the Beach".<br /><br />"Sympathy for the Devil" is another pretentious and boring mess of the uneven director Jean-Luc Godard. The narrative and the footages are awful, but fortunately I love the Stones and "Sympathy for the Devil" and it is nice to see them in the beginning of their careers; otherwise this documentary would be unbearable. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Sympathy for the Devil"
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'd give this a negative rating if I could. I went into this movie not expecting much, but I had an open mind. The whole thing is stupid! The snakes are obviously fake and the first two things they bite are a boob and a guys johnson. Oh how original; if I were a 12 year old boy I might laugh at that. I have no idea how this movie became so popular. Seriously,the worst thing I've ever seen. I wasn't entertained, it wasn't funny,I wasn't even bored! I wasn't anything. It wasn't even so bad it was good, it's just bad. Ridiculous actually. Please do not waste your money on this movie. Don't even rent this movie. No clue how it's getting such a high rating.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've read all the rave reviews here and am impressed with the imagination of those who loved this film. I can't say that I found much to recommend it. The Leonard Cohen sound track is not only excessively heavy-handed but dreary beyond measure. The film looks authentic enough, but something's got to happen for it to work, and nothing much does: a cursory plot (not a real problem for me), not much character development, nothing thematically. It just slogs along. Flawed as it is, Cimino's "Heaven's Gate" has some moments of genuine wonder and is a film I'd sooner watch again. For a brilliant reconception of the West, HBO's "Deadwood" is much superior to "McCabe."
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.<br /><br />By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.<br /><br />Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Intergalactic criminal Kol (Ross Hagen) has been sentenced to death and awaits execution on a spaceship designed for just such a purpose. But tonight there's going to be a jailbreak, and Kol flees on a conveniently-placed escape pod and flies towards Earth (which apparently is nearby). There he confronts a group of "teenagers" (who look thirty) and a game warden (John Phillip Law), who help protect him from his worst nightmare... the bounty hunter and executioner android (or more properly "gynoid") the Alienator.<br /><br />From the cover of the box, I was confident this was going to be an awful movie. But, as awful as it turned out to be, it was a ton of fun as well (probably at least partially because I was watching it with someone who happens to be intensely awesome). The director (Fred Olen Ray), who has specialized in making over one hundred low-grade films (most notably "Hollywood Chainsaw Hookers"), does what he does best and throws together a plot that only half makes sense and gives us rudimentary special effects. Bonus: P.J. Soles appears (as "Tara"), obviously at a low point in her career.<br /><br />Sure, there's plot holes. Why are there hillbilly rednecks in California (allegedly Los Angeles County if I understood the warden correctly). What's up with the space woman's tacky blouse? Why is there a subplot about the ship captain forcefully trying to win her heart when this story goes nowhere? What the heck is "Quadrant 5"? How does chicken wire create an electromagnetic field that will short-circuit an android, yet land mines do virtually nothing? Why does Kol look like a drunk, Native American football player with emphysema? And the Lund guy (Robert Clarke)... does his character even have a point? Does the game he plays with the captain have a point? Does this movie have a point? But the biggest mystery is the android (or gynoid) the Alienator, played by Teagan Clive. What is an "alienator"? Why does it look like Daryl Hannah from "Blade Runner", only much larger? Because, see, if something is a cyborg, it's part human. But if it's an android, it's all machine. This was an android, so there was no reason to make it look human. It could have looked like anything. Yet, the person who designed her made her the size of a linebacker, with David Bowie's hair and a leotard that shows me just a little too much. If you're going to make a female android, wouldn't the purpose be to have her be seductive and lure enemies in? Mission not accomplished. They say beauty comes in all shapes and sizes, but I think I found a huge exception.<br /><br />If "Mystery Science Theater 3000" were still around today, this film would be on a very short list of movies that need to get harangued.<br /><br />Beyond the butt-nasty Alienator (sorry, Teagan, female weight lifters are gross) the film is alright. Maybe there's not much of a story and maybe the characters aren't really very interesting. And maybe the scene with the deer is incredibly adorable for no particular reason -- what use does a killer robot have with a deer? But overall, I actually liked the movie. I won't be pimping it out to my friends or running out to my local video store to pick up the latest DVD copy (which I'm sure is just packed with amazing special features -- not). But I consider seeing this movie time well spent and look forward to similar adventures in the future.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Jessica Simpson not only lacks any acting skill, but the script is incredibly shallow and lame. You actually hear serious dialogue that goes, "I love you more." "No, I love YOU more." I stopped watching the movie (online) after the first half hour, I couldn't take it anymore. Her "southern girl charm" just doesn't work and is really quite annoying; her attempts at slapstick humor fall flat and she delivers lines like she is reading the script right off the page.<br /><br />Poor Luke Wilson. Did he not read the script before agreeing to do this, or did he fall for Papa Joe's (Jessica's dad and also the producer of the movie) promise of big profits? Hopefully he now knows better than to sign on to another movie like this. Luke Wilson is actually a good actor - I hate seeing the pained look on his face as he suffers through the bad dialogue.<br /><br />Also, I think the previous commenter giving this movie an 8 out of 10 was probably either involved in the movie somehow or hired by Papa Joe to give the movie a better rating. No one in their right mind would actually find this movie engaging.<br /><br />Jessica has lots of money, right? Maybe buy some acting lessons?
|
Negative
| null | null |
W. Somerset Maugham's Of Human Bondage is supposed to be a English language classic. If so, much must have been missing from the film version here. Phillip's (Leslie Howard) attraction to Mildred (Bette Davis) is so utterly inexplicable as to make the scenario seem like the post-breakup retelling of a relationship from the man's point of view. Being a family lawyer I've heard many such accounts; the man depicts himself as noble and always correct, and the woman is a hellion who has had no other objective than to exploit the man.<br /><br />Indeed, unless one is willing to laugh at the social assumptions of the film maker, this is an uncomfortable movie to watch. Phillip even indulges Mildred when she brings over a baby of indeterminate paternity, but the real high point comes when Phillip allows Mildred - enraged and now of dubious sanity - the free run of his flat, with predictable results. Bette Davis was attractive for about five years of her life, but that period didn't occur here. In fact, by the end of the movie she looks a lot like the Baby Jane character she would play thirty years later.<br /><br />I note how Howard's character is always impeccably dressed and groomed. It tells me that Phillip craves middle class respectability. Someone like that could not run from a woman with a course Cockney accent fast enough. Phillip is, for most of the movie, a student; such a person would have been more believable if he had been younger, and had the disheveled looks that bespeak the low income and the low self esteem that often accompanies student status - an English Raskolnikov, as it will. And balanced that by allowing Mildred a modicum of charm.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jennifer Cassi (Gina Philips from "Dead and Breakfast") returns back to the house she grew up in which she recently inherited from her deceased sister, unbeknownst to her grandmother (Fay Dunaway) who's still living in it. Jennifer decides to sell it as she's in dire need of the money much to Granny's chagrin. She also begins to have troublesome recurring nightmares of a mysterious raven. There was really no one to relate to in this film. Jennifer seemed cold, distant, unsentimental, and narcissistic, whereas the grandmother seemed spiteful, sad, and also narcissistic. The film is good and well-made, but with no one to empathize with I found it hard to care about what happened to them.<br /><br />My Grade: C-
|
Negative
| null | null |
Because that's all she does through out this whole movie,is get naked for no good reason.When Tarzan is bitten by a snake,she suddenly removes her clothes.Since when is a boa constrictor poisonous?How did Tarzan get poisoned by the way ? This whole movie is screwed up.They couldn't get the species of animals for this movie right.Whats an Orangutang doing hanging around those chimpanzees?He must have wandered off the set of a much better film.The group of cannibal tribe's men look caucasin.Why?And why was Bo and her dad painted,if they were going to be eaten later?It was probably just a lame excuse to show her breasts and curves again.Her dad while hunting, approaches and acts stupidly around a bull elephant while standing too close to it.Any real African bull elephant that wasn't from the circus,would've stomped this moron's butt.Any smart hunter would've started shooting the minute he saw it.And I can't help but wonder if the camera was on LSD,because it kept showing various scenes that went in slow motion, for no good reason.It didn't make good sense at all.The boa constrictor that Tarzan wrestled with in the water,looks like one of those 12 Ft rubber snakes you can buy at a local Spencer Gifts.Tarzan was strangly speechless in this film,maybe from Bo flashing herself so much.I'm sorry,but this is a rip off of a classic Black and White Tarzan movie,with a similar but better story.Not To mention plotting .There's one scene in that I saw that everyone forgot to mention.*(SPOILERS ALERT)*The scene where he is trying to rescue Jane and her dad,has him standing too close to a running water spout.It made it seem like he's urinating on someone below him.Eww!Also, him and Jane are fooling around on a beach,with perverted monkeys jumping and clapping.She sure did take her dad's death real well.*(END OF SPOILERS)*There should be a Surgeon General's Warning on this film.That seeing Bo naked too much in this movie,will make you go blind.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Polyester was the very first John Water's film I saw, and I have to say that it was also the "worst" movie I had seen up to that point.<br /><br />Water's group of "talent" included several people who I am sure worked for food, and were willing to say the lines Waters wrote. Every thing about the movie is terrible, acting, camera, editing, and the story about a woman played by 300 lb transvestite Divine was purely absurd.<br /><br />That said, I have to recommend this film because it is very funny, and you won't believe the crap that happens to poor Francine. Her son huffs solvents and stomps unsuspecting women's feet at the grocery store. Her daughter is the sluttiest slut in town. Her husband is a cackling A-hole of a pornographer who does everything in his power to embarrass and humiliate poor Francine.<br /><br />Francine's only friend is played by Edith Massey, possibly the worst actress ever. Edith looks and sounds like she is reading the lines off a cue card and has never seen the script prior to filming.<br /><br />Despite all of Francine's travails, Waters cooks up a fabulous Hollywood ending and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after.
|
Negative
| null | null |
San Francisco is a big city with great acting credits. In this one, the filmmakers made no attempt to use the city. They didn't even manage the most basic of realistic details. So I would not recommend it to anyone on the basis of being a San Francisco movie. You will not be thinking "oh, I've been there," you will be thinking "how did a two story firetrap/stinky armpit turn into a quiet hotel lobby?" Some of the leads used East Coast speech styles and affectations. It detracts, but the acting was always competent.<br /><br />The stories seemed to be shot in three distinct styles, at least in the beginning. The Chinatown story was the most effective and interesting. The plot is weak, ripped scene for scene from classy Hong Kong action movies. The originals had a lot more tension and emotional resonance, they were framed and paced better. But the acting is fun and we get to see James Hong and other luminaries.<br /><br />The white boy intro was pointless. I think the filmmakers didn't know what to do with it, so they left it loosely structured and cut it down. The father is an odd attempt at a Berkeley liberal - really, folks, everyone knows it's not "groovy" to live in the ghetto - but his segments are the most humorous. They threw away some good opportunities. Educated and embittered on the West Coast, a yuppie jerk here is a different kind of yuppie jerk than they make in New York. They are equally intolerable but always distinguishable. That would have been interesting; this was not.<br /><br />The Hunter's Point intro was the most disappointing. It was the most derivative of the three, and stylistically the most distant from San Francisco. You've seen it done before and you've seen it done better. Even the video game was better! <br /><br />Despite the generic non-locality and aimless script, these characters have potential, the actors have talent, and something interesting starts to force its way around the clumsy direction... about ten minutes before the ending. Good concept placed in the wrong hands.<br /><br />PS, there is a missing minority here, see if you can guess which one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst searching for a (literal) ghost town in the middle of nowhere, a young reporter (Emmy Smith) picks up a grizzled hitchhiker (Joseph Haggerty) who tells her two stories involving flesh-eating zombies reputed to haunt the area.<br /><br />An ABSOLUTE waste of time, hobbled from the outset by Haggerty's painfully amateurish performance in a key role. Worse still, the two stories which make up the bulk of the running time are utterly routine, made worse by indifferent performances and lackluster direction by Brad Sykes, previously responsible for the likes of CAMP BLOOD (1999). This isn't a 'fun' movie in the sense that Ed Wood's movies are 'fun' (he, at least, believed in what he was doing and was sincere in his efforts, despite a lack of talent); Sykes' home-made movies are, in fact, aggravating, boring and almost completely devoid of any redeeming virtue, and most viewers will feel justifiably angry and cheated by such unimaginative, badly-conceived junk. The 3-D format is utterly wasted here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.<br /><br />I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.<br /><br />This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.<br /><br />The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.<br /><br />There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been "The Vanishing Bride" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.<br /><br />I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bill Maher's Religulous is not an attack on organized religion. It's an attack on Christianity and Islam. Apart from ridiculing a bunch of Rabbis inventing warped machines to get around Sabbath regulations, he really doesn't attack Judaism and seems enraged when a Rabbi actually challenges the existence of the State of Israel. If Bill Maher followed his hypothesis to its logical conclusion, he would realize that the very creation of Israel in the Palestinian Territories is based on the so called 'holy books' of organized religion. This is evidence of his complete and utter lack of objectivity or focus in the creation of this film.<br /><br />I find it really hard to believe that the man is atheist or even all that intelligent. Anyone can go up to a religious person and laugh at them and call them stupid for their beliefs but what do you have to offer them in return? Nowhere does he actually tell them why he thinks they're stupid. What makes him the "rational" person in the room? In a way it reflects how he really isn't and in the process ends up looking just as stupid as those people.<br /><br />If you want to watch a good movie/documentary about the actual evils of religion and how religion can actually be detrimental to the human civilization, watch Richard Dawkins' 'Root of All Evil?'. It is a brilliantly researched documentary, clearly outlining what it hopes to achieve and how.<br /><br />Bill Maher's Religulous is not funny, poses no interesting questions nor does it provide any insight on so controversial a topic. It seems to be the rantings and ravings of an old man disgruntled with his Catholic upbringing. I almost feel sorry for him.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A singularly unfunny musical comedy that artificially tries to marry the then-cutting edge rock 'n' roll explosion with the middle-class sensibilities of a suburban sitcom. The result is a jarringly dated mish-mash that will satisfy none of the audience that went for the music, but will at least keep their parents sated.<br /><br />A quick glance at the promo write-up on the back of the video release should give some idea of the content. Tom Ewell is a drunken agent, overplayed with so little comic ability you almost expect him to bellow "hi honey, I'm home!" The blurb sites him as "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch'". It sounds almost like an excuse. What other film would sell itself on the fact that a leading player was good in something else? It reads like "So funny in 'The 7 Year Itch' ... but he's rubbish in this".<br /><br />Mansfield, a beautiful girl with rumoured 50-inch assets, is, unfortunately, a bargain basement Monroe with all the acting ability and comic timing of a rotting haddock. Her wooden delivery combined with Ewell's OTT double-takes make this a comedy partnership from Hell. For her part, the sell gives us: "[Jayne Mansfield] whose more obvious talents are the cause of many of the film's biggest laughs!" As you can see, a movie sold on the idea that it's lead has a big chest is not the most sophisticated of things. Most of this "humour" is men literally falling over themselves, their glasses cracking upon site of Mansfield, etc. Only the Freudian nightmare of a milk bottle overflowing casts doubt upon its "U" certificate.<br /><br />For the musical side, the most adenine of players are chosen. Would you really care to see Eddie Fontaine offer: "I love your eyes, I love your lips, they taste even better than potato chips" in a song called "Cool It, Baby"? Only the incendiary Little Richard breaks out of the MOR, though is forced to sing some of his more dad-friendly songs in a four-minute sequence. And how come all the acts sing without a single microphone? Attempted satires on the industry are broad and childlike in their conception.<br /><br />Technically, the picture was quite advanced, with special effects (including a ghost-like Julie London) and deluxe color (Which now looks flat and artificial. In fact, with its reds that bleed and fake-looking flesh tones, it resembles a colorised movie). Direction, though, isn't outstanding, and the sound quality is also quite poor.<br /><br />Perhaps it comes down to it being so old. A time when men still smoked on screen, sickeningly cute child actors made adult remarks and black servants only got to cook and dance. (All of which happen here). Yet Some Like It Hot, The African Queen, Ben Hur and many, many more stand as examples of films from the period that can still be enjoyed today, so the "good at the time" argument doesn't really stand up. At its heart The Girl Can't Help It is a cynical and patronising venture that doesn't bear close inspection. 4/10.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The original show was so much better. They should have left on a good note. This movie killed the whole idea. It was boring, over-dramatic, and the funny parts were too far in between to make up the slack. This movie really seemed like it was trying way too hard to be serious, and that was definitely not what I was wanting from this sequel. Not to mention, that for a long time it was just depressing about the same thing over and over again. So, sorry, Tyler Perry, but try harder next time. This movie is just kinda dull, and not that funny either. Sorry. 4/10 stars is it.<br /><br />Jay Addison
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. Not just the story, but the acting is shockingly bad. The dialog sounds like someone reading the news.<br /><br />This is rated as comedy/drama/romance, it's not of those things ! It's a little action, that's it. There's really NO comedy and drama at all.<br /><br />If you went to the cinema to see this I feel sorry for you. I would not recommend it at all. Pretty much anything else that you choose to look at will be better. This is pretty much a action/crime movie. The actions scenes sucked, and crime story part of it was very predictable.<br /><br />If you are not really interested in a good story, or good acting. And you simply want to look at a 'foreign' film for the appeal of being foreign. Then this might be for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watched on Hulu (far too many commercials!) so it broke the pacing but even still, it was like watching a really bad buddy movie from the early sixties. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis where both parts are played by Jerry Lewis. If I were Indian, I'd protest the portrayal of all males as venal and all women as shrews. They cheated for the music videos for western sales and used a lot of western models so the males could touch them I usually enjoy Indian films a lot but this was a major disappointment, especially for a modern Indian film. The story doesn't take place in India (the uncle keeps referring to when Mac will return to India) but I can't find out where it is supposed to be happening.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gregory Peck's acting was excellent, as one would expect, and the cinematography quite stunning even when playing directly into some melodramatic "moment." But, the rest of the film was overacted and hard to watch, for me anyway. I tried to like it, but had to fast-forward through the last thirty minutes or so. I feel I wasted a couple of good hours. Had it not been for Gregory Peck, I wouldn't have lasted fifteen minutes. 4/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie probably had some potential for something; my bewilderment is how these utterly prosaic unfunny themes keep making it to theaters, it's as if ideas are being recycled just because generations are. Truly the decerebrate oafs behind most films are like dogs, they return to ingest their own vomit. Well, they're 19 bucks richer now because of me. This was not at all imaginative, there was no redeeming moment, anything remotely funny was shown in the trailer (and nothing amusing was in the trailer), performances were strained (especially Molly's, totally unconvincing). What was theoretically supposed to be some comic relief was the homoerotic friend with a penchant for Disney films; none of his analogies hit home, his little moral speeches were flat, I was literally waiting for them to go on to say something meaningful, only to find out he was done. The so-called "hard 10" is the most insipid plastic creature there is (apart from having a horse-like face with a weird smile); I honestly found her friend Patty (referred to as the Hamburglar) to be much better looking than her. But then again, gentlemen prefer brunettes ;) Well, anyway, the whole premise is that society is superficial and if love is true it transcends all social facades; the way they showed this, with a dude shaving another's scrotum and the million-times-mutilated-and-beaten-to-death-horse premature ejaculation routine (with obvious allusions to American Pie and Happiness - the latter in the disgusting scene denouement involving the family dog). I feel as if the movie was like adjoining ridiculous jokes into an unformed wretched ball of raw sewage. Goes to show marketing can push anything out there, shine whatever fetid mass and call it gold, people will come (worked for me). Done with tirade.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this.."can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a "so bad it's good" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.<br /><br />I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.<br /><br />The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.<br /><br />I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Relying on the positive reviews above, we saw a free screening of this last night. Now I KNOW that filmmakers plant positive reviews, because there is no way an objective individual could have written these. "Destined to become a 'cult classic'"?? The theater was packed, apparently with friends and families of the production crew, because only a few of us walked out by the first hour.<br /><br />The songs were the most literal I've ever heard in a musical "don't take the short cut, honey, there's a wolf in the woods..". Debi Mazar's eyes blinked furiously as she struggled to sing. Fortunately, most of the tunes lasted for only a few lines.<br /><br />Now, whoever plays the wolf in this tale should be charming and seductive. Instead, we get Joey Fatone, ex N'Syncer, living up to his last name as he's not aged well. He's not exactly lithe with his extra 50 pounds and junior high school-quality makeup and out-of-tune singing. Seriously, this guy was in vocal group? The rest of the actors are semi-adequate, but can't do much about the unimaginative script. You know, it is possible to write for adults and children at the same time see under "Pixar".<br /><br />On the positive side, the virtual sets looked nice and were well-integrated with the actors. And it wasn't as offensive as "Crash".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one!
|
Negative
| null | null |
While exploring some caves with his wife, a doctor is bitten by a bat which causes some alarming side effects...<br /><br />Occasionally creepy atmosphere and some decent (though under used) makeup effects don't save this B horror flick from being a sub-par tale of man-becomes-creature. The Bat People aka It Lives By Night suffers from its senseless story that's awkwardly plotted and lackluster in pacing. The plot never seems to go anywhere much and the movie never offers an explanation for what happens, or even a satisfying conclusion for it all. The cast is fairly mediocre in their performances.<br /><br />Still I give the film some points for its haunting theme song and nice filming locations. The makeup work of the late Stan Winston is pretty good too, but it doesn't get much of a showcase here. A missed opportunity for sure. <br /><br />Definitely one of the lesser man-creature flicks out there.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Any film which begins with a cowhand shagging a female calf can't promise much. As for the stereotyping of the kibbutz as it was 50 yrs ago, well I was there and it just wasn't like that. OK every kibbutz had just a small piece of something shown in the film (like youngsters raiding the kitchen at night) but you can't show the whole kibbutz as being full of all those - shall we say - naughty traits. Each kibbutz had its own problems, but hardly any kibbutz had all of them. The views of Israel were great. I still remember my youth in that Garden of Eden called the Emek (valley). Yes, and the acting was good too, so you see it wasn't all black - just a wrong portrayal - probably on purpose too.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever
. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this film thinking it was the sobbingly sad 1959 version I saw as a kid. It was not. I was therefore very disappointed with what I felt was marginal acting, poor character development, and most of all, failure to highlight the relationship between the boy and his dog. In this version... the "Dog of Flanders" is just a cute "aside" to the movie. Get the 1959 version!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Advertised by channel seven in Australia as the "untold story", this miniseries undoes itself in the first five minutes by washing over the titular character's childhood and adolescence in less time than a good director will use to set up a single event. This cowardice and self-censorship for the fear of offending anyone permeates the series, and is ultimately responsible for its failure.<br /><br />Robert Carlyle puts in a valiant performance as the most hated man of the twentieth century, but he is hamstrung by two things. The lack of a decent dialogue coach on the series leaves his Northern-UK heritage shining blindingly through his physical appearance, and the dialogue is at times truly abysmal. Apparently, acknowledging the fact that Hitler was raised in a Catholic family is off limits, but insulting millions of Vikings and their descendants by having Carlyle spew the most ridiculous lines about Valhalla is quite okay. Well, here's a clue for the writers - any person familiar with Viking mythology will tell you that Valhalla is about the embodiment of honour and might in battle, two things that the Nazis quickly eschewed in favour of rat cunning and backstabbing. Until we can wake up to ourselves and realise that the reason Hitler has never been excommunicated from the Catholic church is because it would require the embarassing acknowledgement that he was once a member, we will never learn what this awful period of the world's history has to teach us.<br /><br />So now that we've managed to insult Vikings and the citizens of Scandinavian countries in this sham, you'd think the series would stop there, but it doesn't. Stockard Channing's listing in the opening credits was particularly eyebrow-raising, given that her voice is heard, and her face seen, for about thirty seconds at the most during the opening credits, making it patently transparent that more footage of Hitler's early days were shot, but not included because of a typical nanny-state fear of offending someone. It is also quite ironic that the films or miniseries which give a far better insight into Hilter's character do not feature him at all.<br /><br />Until we learn to stop sugar-coating the truth and realise that the citizenry of Germany was mostly unopposed to Hitler's views, and not necessarily through ignorance, we will never learn to deal with the fact that subversions of democracy (yes, Germany was a democracy pre-Hitler) can occur anywhere, we are doomed. That's the one thing this mini-series got right in portraying. Unfortunately, that element is lost in attempts to make Hitler's religious beliefs appear those of a much more valiant people, and the inability to scratch past the surface in any part of the subject matter. David Letterman's show had it pegged when they ran short satirical segments about the series. They really might as well have made a family sitcom with him as the star, that's how badly it was written.<br /><br />All in all, this politically correct farce of a bio-pic is worth no points, but I gave it two because Robert Carlyle definitely deserves better material than this, and he is about the only thing in it that works.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously. I just wrapped up my first viewing of Demonicus and words have failed me.<br /><br />I remember a time when I would see Charles Band's name on a film and my heart would race. He was never a Wes Craven or a John Carpenter. He was a bastion of hope for the little man. The guy whose movies arrived at the video store instead of the multiplex, but they still rocked harder than most of the trendy junk we otherwise had to endure.<br /><br />And now... this.<br /><br />A painfully-obvious Californian walking trail doubles for "the Alps" and an abandoned train tunnel is actually supposed to be "an ancient cave". I mean, they didn't even try to dress the thing up with moss or film it in a way that might suggest it was anything other than an old train tunnel! Ugh! Instead of a creepy demon gladiator, as the cover implies, we're treated to a dude wearing the latest in Wal-Mart Halloween apparel. There's a pretty cool looking corpse, who occasionally comes to life to belch and wiggle his fingers, but he doesn't even learn to stand until the final five minutes. Why couldn't he be the villain? Instead, we've got frat boy Joe with a plastic sword. Ouch.<br /><br />Charles Band... you should be ashamed that your name is attached to such tripe. I love movies that are so bad, they're good. Hell, I occasionally enjoy a flick thats so bad, its just bad. This one, however, is just unwatchable. A perfect example of making a buck, rather than making a quality film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
dont ever ever ever consider watching this sorry excuse for a film. the way it is shot, lit, acted etc. just doesn't make sense. it's all so bad it is difficult to watch. loads of clips are repeated beyond boredom. there seems to be no 'normal' person in the entire film and the existence of the 'outside world' is, well, it just doesn't exist. and why does that bald guy become invincible all of a sudden? this film is beyond stupidity. zero.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Had I checked IMDb BEFORE renting this DVD from Netflix, I'd have a couple of hours of my life back. I'm frankly suspicious when I see that a film's director also wrote it. In this case, according to the credits, the same guy was "writter and director" - unfortunately, an indication of the overall quality of this production. There were a few interesting moments (e.g., Judy Tenuta's scene reminded of her early comedy routines touting Judy-ism) which led me to rate this two stars rather than one. Those moments, however, were few and far between ... and I almost did not get to see them because the opening sequence was nearly incomprehensible to me, not to mention reprehensible in its violence. I admit I went back to watch that part again to see if I had missed something that would help me figure it out once I'd seen the whole thing. Nope, though I at least recognized who the characters were who would turn out to be important later. The "spinning camera" technique was overused and essentially pointless. I found myself talking to the TV screen: "What?!?" or "For goodness sake, get ON with it!" Not recommended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
watch a team of bomb disposal experts in Iraq count down their time before they can go home.<br /><br />That in itself sounds boring. Every time that little caption came up telling us how long they had left, it just caused this film with no plot to drag on and on. hurry up and finish your time there so we can all go home.<br /><br />I must be missing something. I'm a great fan of war films if they are done well. This had "jarhead" syndrome. A film that at times was beautifully shot, but cinematography doesn't stop it from being totally dull and pointless.<br /><br />And get over the slow mo "cartridges coming out of the gun" shot already. they could have saved money and just got stock footage from any other film with a gun in it.<br /><br />I didn't have any empathy for the main guy in it, i was constantly hoping that his recklessness would cause him to die. In fact the film would have worked much better if he had.<br /><br />I read some reviews and seemed to get the feeling that those who had been in the armed forces disliked it, and everyone else loved it. I have never been in the forces, and I'm with them. It's pretentious drivel. the 3 stars are for the cinematography.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No artful writeup here because it doesn't deserve one. Not an art film. Not even one of those 'hidden' gems. You know, like those movies you hear about through a friend who saw this amazing movie downtown where they show all the good independents and art films.<br /><br />Just pack it into the christmas boxes, and dispose of quickly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a terrible film.<br /><br />It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.<br /><br />The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.<br /><br />It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.<br /><br />It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just blew four dollars renting this movie! Why Alliance Atlantis would promote such a poor excuse for a film is beyond me. But even more surprising was the reasonably good reviews that a couple of Canadian newspaper critics gave this film. I'm tired of our media justifying a film simply because it's Canadian and low budget. It's like they expect Canadian films to be lousy, so they give it a good review regardless.<br /><br />Now about the movie: The acting was below average (with the exception of the lead male character, who was actually pretty good). The film quality was poor, which I guess could be expected from the extremely low budget. The script was absolutely horrendous. An example is the story, which revolves around one of the lead characters, a female drug dealer who flirts with one of her clients so that she can recruit him to fix and steal bicycles for her gang, whose only purpose is to randomly destroy SUV's. Supposedly many of her gang members' bicycles are destroyed in these activities (I don't know how she can't afford to just buy new ones, since she is supposed to be this big drug dealing connection from Vancouver to Toronto).<br /><br />Anyway, the point of the story (which isn't revealed until well over halfway through the movie) is that the drug dealer plans to firebomb buildings in the Toronto area to attempt to make houses more affordable - as no one will want to live in the area.<br /><br />- Need I say more.<br /><br />Shame on the Toronto Film Festival for accepting such a film, Telefilm for supporting it, and the Globe and Mail and Georgia Straight newspapers for giving such biased reviews.<br /><br />A film shouldn't get special treatment just because it's Canadian!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched the Malayalam movie "Boeing Boeing" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)... <br /><br />I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.<br /><br />Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.<br /><br />But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't be deceived as I was by the 'glowing' reviews quoted on the DVD box. "Wildly entertaining.", "a seriously scary freakout.", and the worst of all, "ON PAR WITH JAWS." This movie is none of the above.<br /><br />Normally I don't bother with writing bad reviews for films but I can't believe this one is resting at a comfortable 7 on IMDb. It doesn't deserve it.<br /><br />After a so-so opening daylight attack by a monster created by, what else, chemicals dumped by lazy scientists, this movie goes absolutely nowhere and it goes there sloooowly. Basically and improbably, a girl is snagged by the monster (I'll give them points for a good creature design but this ain't no WETA creation) and her semi-comical family spend an hour-and-a-half tracking her down...in the sewers surrounding the Han river. Their search lacks any suspense-again, someone called this on par with Jaws?-and by the time they find her you realize it was all pretty much pointless. Other than that, a big bulk of the movie is committed to a government quarantine that culminates in one funny scene involving a guy spitting in a gutter in front of a crowded bus stop.<br /><br />Blech. This was bad. I'm not kidding. You want to see a rotten monster movie? Rent Deep Rising. At least you'll save 30 minutes of your life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled "Baby Buggy Bunny" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in "Little Man" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wonder how the actors acted in this movie. Annette Bening was really herself, half in and half out, was she faking or being natural? It didn't make any difference considering that even if she had been walking on the ceiling it would not have changed the pattern of the film. Brian Cox acted really well. I almost thought that he had always acted this way, tricky, dishonest, in a dirty surrounding where nobody really cared about hygiene. As for Gwyneth Paltrow, the question is what she was doing in this film.<br /><br />This film is quite sickening and disgusting. Who would pay to see such a crap?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is an utter waste of time, the plot is awful, the dialogue is awful.<br /><br />The acting is OK, but the actors have absolutely no plot or script to work with. The photography and some of the special effects are OK, too, but again there is nothing interesting in this movie to watch. There is no logical progression to the story, the story line is utter nonsense. It isn't even scary. For a movie to be scary, there has to be at least a small element of believability. This movie has no believability at all.<br /><br />There are only three characters in the movie. Each character is shallow and has no personality. <br /><br />Most of the special effects and make up work are both badly done, or at most mediocre.<br /><br />I hope you read this and do not waste time on this movie unless you are curious to see an entirely awful movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wouldn't bring a child under 8 to see this. With puppies dangling off of buildings squirming through dangerous machines and listening to Cruella's scary laugh to name a few of the events there is entirely too much suspense for a small child. <br /><br />The live action gives a more ominous feel than the cartoon version and there are quite a few disquieting moments including some guy that seems to be a transvestite, a lot of tense moments that will worry and may frighten small kids.<br /><br />I don't know what the Disney folks were thinking but neither the story nor the acting were of their usual level. The puppies are cute But this movie is spotty at best.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This wasn't really a very good movie. There were lots of implausible and predictable things that happened during the course of the film...but I think that most of the reviewers are missing the point of why this movie should be enjoyed by a wide audience. THIS MOVIE WAS PRODUCED BY MAGIC JOHNSON! Isn't that enough to inspire us all to check out this film? A film produced by a former NBA star doesn't come along every day, you know. Beautifully stupid kids in a big house getting slashed by an axe wielding psycho. Every cliché trotted out for us to groan over. Teen sex. And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! I can't say enough about this movie! Teen drug use! College hijinx! And it was all produced by MAGIC JOHNSON! Yippeeee!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm starting to think that there's a conspiracy, all right: one that involves a wallop of money paid to those who have access to published columns in newspapers and film and art magazines to ensure that this or that film, despite its obscurity, will reach a higher status via a ratings point which will tag it with a "universal acclaim" or something within that range, thus ensuring unsuspecting folk (like me) will wander into theatres or rent the bloody thing, expecting a surprise, only to find myself racing to the bathroom to upchuck.<br /><br />This movie is one of them. It has definitely make me bypass any and every posted article I come across because it's rather clear that two things might have happened: either I didn't get the message that is so hidden beneath this film's inner realms as to be impossible to access, or they and I watched two entirely different movies that happen to share the same name. 4 is a dirty trick on the audience. It's no wonder that it appeared and disappeared faster than you can say "smorsgabord" and that despite the rating it got on Metacritic, no one had heard of it. It's terrible with sugar on top.<br /><br />Firstly, there is the ever-present number four from start to finish. While having a little symbolism here and there is okay, and it's been done with various degrees of success in many well-known movies, this movie is panting with it. Four dogs at the start of the movie, looking at the camera in a heretofore empty street when suddenly, machinery drops onto the foreground and proceeds to rip open the asphalt. Four people in a bar, although one of them is a non-entity. Three of them go their separate ways but are linked nevertheless, not only to each other but to what their lives are not. While this concept may work, the movie meanders so much -- particularly with the story of the would-be model played by Marina Vovchenko which goes into the territory of the extremely bizarre, and not in a good way -- that the initial theme gets lost in translation. Or maybe, like I said before, I just "didn't get it." The problem also lies in that so much time is spent on Marina's story (which revolves on the death of her sister, from bread-chewing, no less, and the subsequent, shrill mourning which follows) that any interest in the inherent Surrealism dissipates without a trace. So what if the same horrifying tales that the three strangers interchanged in a bar seem to have a truth of their own? The director doesn't invest much time in truly tying them together, or weaving a tighter story that could, in a David Lynchian way, intersect either with the past-present, or within alternate dimensions, or even as a straightforward, mundane science-fiction story. This is an uphill battle against an insurmountable wall that only a saint (or someone into the weird for weird's sake) could endure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Swedish action movies have over the past few years evolved into something that imitate American hardened action movies like "Heat" but with a low budget. This movie follows the same prescription as "Noll Tolerans" and "Livvakterna". However, it is obvious that they are trying too hard to make a cool and tough movie.<br /><br />The story has been seen before, the dialogue feels artificial and the acting is very poor, especially from the main actress. The movie tries to paint a picture of hard-boiled military-like robbers with no remorse at all and a female investigator who has completely lost it with problems of the past but at the same time acts completely rational. It does not succeed very well.<br /><br />The bluish-cast photo style does not seem fresh anymore, and it is not even done well in this picture. Only a very few scenes actually look good. Also, the sound is quite weird and it sounds like a lot of the actual dialogue is recorded afterward.<br /><br />The main quality of this movie is Stefan Sauk, though not making a convincing portrait of a SWAT-team leader, has some really funny lines. Also, the music is quite well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Western society has been fed ideas about India being a poor country. Movies like these only make those beliefs stronger. Such illustrations make it all the more difficult for Indians to be accepted abroad. Agreed there are poor and homeless in India, but why is there no representation of educated people if not the successful ones.<br /><br />I totally hated the idea of the movie portraying Patrick Swayze as another Mother Teressa. In my opinion this movie has shown India in a very bad light giving wrong notions. It is unjust to discuss only one aspect of the society. Exactly the reason why people ask me, "When we go to India, can we hire an elephant right outside the airport so we do not have to walk on the roads so full of filth and snakes?"<br /><br />Those who want a second opinion on contemporary Indian society should watch "Monsoon Wedding".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nothing can prepare you for another lousy bimbo outing! This time, it's being brought to you by the never-inevitable Fred Olen Ray! As far as exploitation movies go, this one doesn't click! As science fiction, it's plain unoriginal! All that we see is an an ugly feminine android wearing a bikini out to destroy the Earth, and showing off all that's nearly bare to resist! Give me a f---ing break!!! If this kind of entertainment is your thing, then why not dust off those old SI swimsuit mags from the attic for a change?! This would have been much better if it didn't set the sleaze factor on very high, but that still wouldn't make this one great. I'd like to point out another film called THE ASSAULT (1996) by Jim Wynorski, which resembles the identity of ALIENATOR. It illustrates why top-notch 1st-person "femme fatale" action movies don't translate well in America. Sorry, fellas!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This story is about the romantic triangle between a nth. African male prostitute, a French transsexual prostitute (Stephanie) and a Russian waiter who speaks no French and never seems to shave.<br /><br />As a film it is dull, dreary and depressing, shot either on foggy, overcast winter days or in badly lit interiors, where everyone is bathed in a weird blue luminescence. And yes, I know, it's because the white balance was out. Everyone is pale and downcast and looks haggard, shabby and dirty. Bodies are bony and shot in such closeup that they look quite ugly and unappealing. Moles, greasy hair. Yuk. Bad news in a film where people spend a lot of time either naked or having sex.<br /><br />And the story? Well, Stephanie's mother is dying. All three characters go back to Stephanie's home village where, through a bunch of flashbacks to desolate countryside and predictably dingy interiors, we see a bit of Stephanie's childhood as a boy called Pierre. The mother dies. Well... and that's about it, really. Character development is kept to a minimum, as is the denouement of the story. <br /><br />I suppose the storyline is not linear (it would explain a lot of non sequiteurs) but really, after paying my seven euros I don't feel like having to construct the film myself: that's what the director takes my money for. To expect me to join the story telling process and get my hands dirty, so to speak, is asking way too much.<br /><br />This film is a heap of pretentious rubbish made, above all, from a desire to epater les bourgeois (ie shock the straights). I can see how it was a shoo-in for the Berlin Film Festival, and I can see why it got nowhere.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The story goes something like this: A small-town girl, Katie (Jessica Simpson), decides to visit her boyfriend in the big city. When she arrives she discovers he isn't quite as faithful as he should be. Katie then ends up venturing into the adventure that is New York. Filling in as bike messenger comedic and charming mishaps ensues. She falls into a hole in the ground and thus meets charismatic good-guy Ben (Luke Wilson). It's not love at first sight, at least for her, but destiny and Ben, won't give up quite that easy. Being "just" a small-town girl AND blonde a couple of evil executives at a building firm decides she's the perfect scapegoat for their cunning plan. Misunderstandings with hilarious and sad consequences follow. However, this is one blonde who won't take it lying down!<br /><br />People being judgmental of this film will soon enough be proved wrong. The jokes are confident and fitting, and the story well developed. The relationship between Katie and Ben feels so natural that it puts anything Godard has created to shame. The multi-talented Jessica Simpson once again surprises with a strong role only she could pull off. Simpson really is the Marilyn Monroe of our day (there's even one scene honoring her!). She balances perfectly between vulnerable and whimsy. Katie really does show us that you can't judge a book by its cover! Luke Wilson is as charming as ever. Even if he was covered in manure that man would be as appealing as anyone. His light touch, puppy dog eyes and laid back manner makes it difficult to resist. Andy Dick plays the role he was born to play, one of the two diabolical executives. He really cannot be underestimated. The strength of the performance lies in his restraint. It's remarkable, because most actors would just run away with it and play it for cheap laughs. Not this guy! <br /><br />In conclusion, director Scott Marshall has crafted an intelligent and frequently hilarious comedy that is destined to become a classic alongside masterpieces of cinema like Epic Movie and Norbit. Kudos to everyone involved in this, especially Jessica Simpson. Her sincere smile and whole-hearted laughter would make even the toughest man break out in a big grin. You may be tough, but you're not THAT tough! Warmly recommended to everyone who wants to be swept off their feet and see a romantic comedy that for once, feels honest. Thank you for this film! Oh, and the soundtrack rocks! <br /><br />Now if you still haven't gotten it. I'm being sarcastic. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Great cast. Great acting. Unpredictable story line for the first half<br /><br />hour or so. I was really wanting to know what was going to<br /><br />happen to each of these unredeeming characters, and how their<br /><br />seemingly disparate lives would become intertwined. But when<br /><br />the writers took out the glue to start connecting the players, they<br /><br />mistakenly used super glue and brought the movie to a standstill<br /><br />for the last two hours. I kept thinking it would get better, but it only<br /><br />got worse. Don't believe the reviews. This is a waste of time. <br /><br />Think about it -- Tom Cruise made ugly -- why? The gorgeous<br /><br />hunky bartender wearing braces -- why? I know it had to do with<br /><br />the plot, but without them, at least there would have been one<br /><br />attractive cast member to remember.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At least it's not full of sensless violence or fluff. It's also not very full of thought or a smooth storyline. This story had some potential but the director appears to have lost site of the green. The story is disjointed and goes off in strange<br /><br />directions, to no conclusion. I also don't believe the director spent much time around a golf country club, either. Some of the depictions are absurd. Not very engaging.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie sounded like it might be entertaining and interesting from its description. But to me it was a bit of a let down. Very slow and hard to follow and see what was happening. It was as if the filmmaker took individual pieces of film and threw them in the air and had them spliced together whichever way they landed (definitely not in sequential order). Also, nothing of any consequence was being filmed. I have viewed quite a few different Korean films and have noticed that a good portion are well made and require some thinking on the viewer's part, which is different from the typical Hollywood film. But this one befuddled me to no end. I viewed the film a second and third time and it still didn't do anything for me. I still don't really understand what the filmmaker was trying to convey. If it was to just show a typical mundane portion of a person's life, I guess he succeeded. But I was looking for more. Needless to say, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love watching Jerry as much as the rest of the world, but this poor excuse for a soft-core porno flick is needlessly offensive, lacks anything resembling wit, and serves merely as a vehicle of self-promotion for Springer. Even though it runs a quick 90 minutes, the film drags hideously, and I should have had the common sense to walk out. Simply atrocious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there. <br /><br />Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.<br /><br />For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.<br /><br />For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?<br /><br />Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as "Happy Days" was to the fifties.<br /><br />OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!<br /><br />If people think this is quality television, it worries me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How can Barry Levinson possibly assemble white-hot comedy talents Ben Stiller and Jack Black, the gorgeous Rachel Weisz, old pro Christopher Walken and still deliver such a humourless stinker?<br /><br />Stiller and Black are friends until the latter invents a spray to make dog mess vanish and becomes a conspicuous consuming multi-millionaire.<br /><br />The premises is thin but sound enough in the right hands to have been a springboard for some great bitching between the two stars but all concerned overplay every hand, every chance they can.<br /><br />Stiller and Black are simply not funny for way too much of the time, Weisz looks sensational as always but is criminally underused and, with the exception of Walken as a batty barfly who urges Stiller's character to take revenge, it's a turgid trudge to the end of this strained farce.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.<br /><br />First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.<br /><br />We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.<br /><br />Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.<br /><br />There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.<br /><br />Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.<br /><br />The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.<br /><br />The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling "Booooy!" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.<br /><br />Filmgoers who like masterpieces like "Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is weak ,The box-cover says East LA's toughest gang and it is really Santa Ana's , James Cahill acts like a closet queen taking down all the tough guys in the tough Chlo gang . It is fake , boring , senseless and whack , I tried to get my money back from the video store this movie was so bad . It was also on the homo-erotic tip far from what the video-box proclaims . James Cahill should act in Gay Porno .James is in every scene , he cannot act to save his life . The film features Eva Longoria who is hot but James can't even score with her !!!!!!!!! I felt at times I was watching Gay Porn and was turned - off by the whole film . James clearly want's to be with men but rather then submit to his gay desires he beats up gang members over and over and over again . His martial Arts skills are minimal at best , Some real gang members would take him and his weak skills and rip him a new one .
|
Negative
| null | null |
You have to figure that when the star's name is listed wrong in the opening credits, you are not in for a good time (the credit reads "Cuba Gooding, J.R."). Some nice car chase, shoot 'em up, blow 'em up action if ALL you want is action, because the relationship to what plot exists is tenuous at best, and completely unbelievable. The motivations of the characters, especially that of Gooding's at the end, are worse then unbelievable, they are irrational when they are not hopelessly muddled. All I can think is that Andy Cheng must be a really nice guy to get this many good actors into this foul a project (he can't have something on all of them, can he?).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...<br /><br />--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.<br /><br />Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent. <br /><br />I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Richard Tyler is a little boy who is scared of everything. He doesn't like riding his bike or climbing on his tree house because he knows what kind of accidents might happen to him. So one day he is riding his bike and because it is starting to rain, he decides to wait in the library until it stops raining. In there the whole story takes place. He experiences all kinds of staff and in the end he is not scared any more. But the whole story is unbelievable and even good actors like Macaulay Culkin could not make the story better than it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK
|
Negative
| null | null |
I did not really want to watch this one. It seemed to be an old Raj Kanwar movie which disgusted me even before I started watching it because I don't consider him even close to being mediocre as a filmmaker. The only reason I took this one is obviously the Shahrukh Khan appearance in the film. I had not even known what the film was all about because I was sure it would be just an ordinary fairy tale. So I just imagined a love story between Shahrukh Khan and Divya Bharti with a substantial supporting role by Rishi Kapoor who I thought would be playing her father or uncle. And to my complete shock, Rishi Kapoor is actually the hero! He is the one who romances the young Divya! I was saddened to find out that Shahrukh had a small part of no substance and that too, only in the second part of this idiotic film.<br /><br />Just let me repeat the question: why would a 17 year-old lovely Divya have fallen for a 40-plus long haired, chubby, swollen piglet like Rishi Kapoor? Rishi Kapoor should be ashamed of taking this part; the only thing he did is ridiculing himself. He romanced a girl who could logically be younger than his own daughter and to make things worse -- acts like a teenager at his forties. On top of that, just to make himself more pathetic, he plays a pop-star...<br /><br />To make things clear, I have no problems with actors romancing ladies much younger than they themselves are. As long as they make a convincing couple, there should be no problem. In fact, leading actors have always been cast opposite young girls (Amitabh Bachchan-Sridevi, Mithun Chakraborty-Madhuri Dixit, Shahrukh Khan-Deepika, Salman Khan-Sneha Ullal) and made the pairing pretty well. Also, I have nothing against Rishi Kapoor, I think he is a good actor, and his act in Bobby is still well-engraved in my heart, but it's not that he looks in this film like, say, Shahrukh Khan, Salman Khan or Aamir Khan look today.<br /><br />That was such a disappointment. Oh, and as for the reason every person actually watched this film, Shahrukh Khan made a good debut. He excelled in the very little his part allowed him to do. The late Divya Bharti made a promising debut as well. If you want to watch this film, go for the second half only. Personally, I would not do even that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity. <br /><br />Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to "Manos, the Hands of Fate"... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me. <br /><br />This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them! <br /><br />To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it. <br /><br />This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy. <br /><br />Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I haven't been able to decide if this movie is so bad it's good, or, to quote Enid Coleslaw, "so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." No matter, it forced me look much the same way a pile of weird coloured vomit might, and it offers up a number of scenes that you won't forget even if you want to. There's a sneering young Ray Liotta telling a pigtailed Pia that her creative writing trophy looks like a penis. A bit later, there's Ray again, molesting Pia, not with the appropriately shaped trophy but a garden hose. There's a firm chinned Pia telling her domineering Mom that she wants to go to bed with Ray's geezer father, Walter. There's the actress in the graveyard scene yowling the best line ever written by Pia or anyone else: "WWWWHHHYYYYYYY!" There's that garden hose again, as Walter waves it Pia's face and roars "Is this more to your liking!?" There's Pia and her date so turned on by closeups of each other masticating salad that they start tearing each other's clothes off. There's Pia showering but forgetting to remove her dress. Perhaps best of all, there's Pia's typewriter, but instead of keys there are the miniature talking heads of those who have tormented her the most (afterwards, I was afraid to open my laptop). And finally there's Pia at "The Awards" exposing Hollywood for the cesspool it is, spitting out the second best line ever, "I guess I'm not the only one who has ever had to **** her way to the top." I see I have already spent more time commenting on "The Lonely Lady" than I have on far better pictures, so I'll quit. Be forewarned, though, that once you start watching you probably won't be able to take your eyes off the screen until two hours of your life have vanished forever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a formula B science fiction movie, and the director made no bones about it. It is about a dragon who is restored to life by a scientific team. Everything done is stuff you've seen many times before. It is a weak script, with no real characters. In fact, it is full of stereotype characters and situations. The director attacks this by just making it a formula movie, with no attempt to fool us, and that gives this movie a mild appeal, but it isn't something you're likely to remember a while. It is best seen while you're cooking, cleaning, working out. Sort of mindless fun. It has its place in entertainment, but it certainly isn't something you sit down with friends to watch, unless you're all just drunk and don't care. The mass rating of 3.2 is probably fair. I don't think it is as crappy as most people, but I am surprised that some people in the postings thought this was spectacular. That really eludes me, as I see no attempt to even make this a memorable film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Noting the cast, I recently watched this movie on TCM, hoping for an under-appreciated gem, as I regard many films from the 30's. This is no gem - not even semi-precious. The anachronistic clothing and 1930's Rolls Royce limo hit you immediately. The casting is strange, also. But mostly, there are too many dumb and unnecessary plot devices. This film has lots of good ingredients and a basic plot that holds promise, but the components aren't mixed according to the right recipe. It simply doesn't come together like it should. And that's a shame. WIth a few rather obvious, but minor alterations, this might have been a very good movie.<br /><br />The film is about an American showgirl (Jean Harlow) seeking a rich British husband - preferably from the nobility. She meets Franchot Tone and his buddy, who are on a lark in a Rolls Royce owned by his buddy's employer. Harlow mistakenly assumes Tone is the Lord who owns the Rolls, and she sets her sights on him. This early part of the film is a light comedy of no real distinction. <br /><br />However, Tone unwittingly uncovers the fact that his employer is actually a German 5th columnist on the eve of WWI, and that is when the movie changes tone altogether and begins to fall apart. Tone and Harlow are married, but just as the honeymoon begins, he is gunned down by a Mata Hari-type (Benita Hume), and Harlow flees the scene, with a bystander accusing her of Tone's murder. (In fact, Tone recovers from the wounds.)<br /><br />Harlow flees to France, where she falls in love again - this time with a wealthy French cad (Cary Grant). Tone, now in the army, and Harlow are unexpectedly brought back together in Grant's hospital room where he is in rehab from a plane crash. In the following scene, Tone accuses Harlow of abandoning him because she is essentially a gold-digger. Harlow never explains about the witness' accusing her of murder and her panic! That is one of those unreal, movie-plot-device break-downs in the story.<br /><br />Then Tone is also brought back into contact with the woman (Hume) who shot him. She is on hand to watch her paramour, Grant, test the new plane that Tone has delivered to him from England. Incredibly, both Hume and Tone dimly recognize each other, but simply can't place where from! Okay, so Tone was shot and almost died; perhaps his memory is a little out of whack. But how many men did Hume shoot that she would forget one of her marks? (She does not seem to be faking the memory lapse.)<br /><br />This is inexplicable and unnecessary. Hume should have absolutely recognized him, but played it coy when she realized that Tone wasn't able to place her. That would have been a much better treatment of that issue.<br /><br />The finale also is very unsatisfying. The movie, as made, has Tone and Harlow conspiring to preserve the good reputation of the cad, Grant, leading to his fraudulent burial as a hero. Then Harlow and Tone just walk away. It is noble to preserve the French public's perception of their national war hero, but very unsatisfying as a love story!<br /><br />What the film begs for is this: Harlow explains that she fled in a panic in the face of accusations of murder; Tone forgives her and quietly rekindles his love for her; he then carries a torch for her, even while helping her to rig the crash site to preserve Grant's reputation. Meanwhile, Harlow finally recognizes Grant for the cad he is. Then having seen Tone for the brave and noble man he is, Harlow rekindles feelings for him, too. At film's end, the two of them become reconciled even as they work together to rig the appearance of Grant's death. After Grant's hero's burial, we see them embrace and kiss at the fade-out. That would have made a nice little movie. For Cary Grant fans, it would have been even better had Tone played the French cad who is killed and Grant the long-suffering first husband, reunited with Harlow.<br /><br />It is incomprehensible that Franchot Tone is cast as the Irishman living in England, while Cary Grant is cast as the Frenchman. This movie would have been much better had they reversed roles. That also would have been more conducive to the film that should have been...
|
Negative
| null | null |
It had all the clichés of movies of this type and no substance. The plot went nowhere and at the end of the movie I felt like a sucker for watching it. The production was good; however, the script and acting were B-movie quality. The casting was poor because there were good actors mixed in with crumby actors. The good actors didn't hold their own nor did they lift up the others. <br /><br />This movie is not worthy of more words, but I will say more to meet the minimum requirement of ten lines. James Wood and Cuba Gooding, Jr. play caricatures of themselves in other movies. <br /><br />If you are looking for mindless entertainment, I still wouldn't recommend this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".
|
Negative
| null | null |
While this outing certainly doesn't live up to its predecessor, it does have more than its share of memorable moments. My personal favorite, just after laying waste to a city block with his "Videodisc Cannon," we see a close up of Nimoy's face. As a single tear sheds from his left eye, we know at that point that Nimoy is more than just a killing machine. The viewer can't help but be pulled into his emotional turmoil and we understand that his previously flat affect was only a facade. Absolute brilliance!!! The sex scenes display a nice balance, carnal, but not pornographic. Afterwards, I felt I had a pretty good understanding of how to work the Magnavision Videodisc Player. Too bad they haven't produced them in over 25 years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off to get my own personal feelings out of the way let me start by saying that I hate so called comedies where every single character is written and played as being so stupid that you wounder if they're all the result of inbreeding.<br /><br />Now I will say this I did see the first three American Pie movies and while they weren't the most amazing movies that I'd ever seen they were all right (and outright masterpieces compared to the three "American Pie Presents" films), I still feel compelled to ask what the hell were they thinking when they made this movie?<br /><br />I also have a few other questions too.<br /><br />Who thought that this was an acceptable use of studio funds and production resources? <br /><br />who approved the final script (and what was that person smoking when they approved it)? <br /><br />And lastly why did anyone think that it deserved to be released into theaters where the average cost of admission is between 10 and 15 dollars depending on where you live when it should have gone straight to the discount bin at Blockbuster or Wal Mart?<br /><br />There is so much wrong with this movie that I can't write a really comprehensive review of it because it would exceed the maximum allowed words on this forum so I'll just touch on the biggest things wrong with it.<br /><br />The plot is generic uninspired and stupid and characters are all about as interesting as watching paint dry for eighty minutes but the biggest thing that I can see wrong with this movie is the acting.<br /><br />While most of the cast are talentless no namers who will probably be forgotten in a few years,<br /><br />the one and only big name in this movie is Eugene Levy who spends almost all of the time he is on screen with this knowing smirk on his face that says to the viewer "I know this isn't funny and I'm wasting my talents but hey I'm getting payed for it so who cares" he doesn't even try to make any of his jokes funny (he really deserves better than this garbage). <br /><br />As I mentioned above most of the rest of the cast are horrible even though some of them have been in some really great TV shows, Tyrone Savage (from the classic Canadian series Wind At My Back) plays a character who is so unbearable unlikeable and irritating (there are things that he could teach to tropical skin diseases)that you almost wish he'd die a slow and painful death on screen, Christopher McDonald (NCIS, Law & Order) just hangs around on screen and wastes what talent he does have by being in this film.<br /><br />Maybe the next film in this series will just be a soft core porn with a story line so they can get around the MPAA and get an R rating this movie goes all out with pointless nudity vulgarity and pointlessly offencive sexual content that it should have gotten the X rating (the ratings board must have been drunk or on drugs when they reviewed this film for its rating). <br /><br />It's interesting that twenty five years ago when Wes Craven submitted A Nightmare On Elm Street to the MPAA for a rating review they forced him to cut twenty five seconds of footage (I believe that it was part of a death scene that had a silicone casting of a breast in it) to avoid getting an X rating and he had no other choice but to do it or the film wouldn't have been released, <br /><br />but this kind of needlessly offensive trash can get the R rating today because it's all done in the name of comedy, if this movie was a drama or horror film with this kind of content there would have been a huge stink over the content and it would havegotten the dreaded X rating.<br /><br />The last thing that really annoys me is the writing, this movie is written to play out like the wet dream of some twelve year old kid with an extremely overactive sexual imagination its quite juvenile and extraordinarily crass, nearly every expository situation that is supposed to move the corpse that this movie calls a plot along is so telegraphed that any intelligent viewer can see it coming a mile away and and the so called characters are just stereotypes of stereotypes of stereotypes, never mind the often repulsive sexual references and constant unnecessary scenes of deviant sexual behavior it feels like this film was written by some incompetent first year hack in a low rent film school script writing class.<br /><br />the long and short of it is its time to kill this series before it gets any stupider more crass and offensive, this pie is filled with road apples.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A very "straight" nice old lady, desperate for money to save her house and possessions, grows "pot" in her house, smokes it with a few old-biddy friends and then sells it. That's the story for this low-key comedy, emphasizing the absurdity of the situation and some of the humor the predicament brings. For much of the film, it works. The humor isn't of the laugh-out-loud variety but it does keep you entertained for an hour-and-a- half, so I guess it serves its purpose.<br /><br />There ARE funny moments and Brenda Blethyn is fun to watch in the lead role. But the ending really ruined a "cute" movie with insultingly-bad messages that only the ultra-liberals of the film world would like to see happen.<br /><br />Like most people, I would prefer a happy ending, too, but it should not all warm and fuzzy for those who blatantly break the law. Also in here are the typical (1) children out of wedlock but that poses no problem and is deemed okay; (2) clerics portrayed as morally weak people; and (3) even a medical doctor who gets stoned, too! <br /><br />Hello? And reviewers here blast Hollywood? This is exhibit A how a secular society has lowered the standards in the UK and Europe in general. Hey, people: at least have a trace of morality instead of nothing but a Timothy Leary "If it feels good, do it" message.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Recently, I had opportunity to view a working print in Kansas City (Olathe, KS.) of this title. It is difficult for me, being a lover of the art as I am, to report the following, but, the truth sometimes hurts, and quite frankly after sitting through this tripe (I'm using the slang definition here - worthless statements or writing) for an hour and a half, I feel obligated to share (WARN) any interested parties. Let's begin at the beginning, a good place to start as always. The first 15 minutes are not really that bad, a couple of laughs, and decent development, but then it is downhill from there. This is the story of a woman, in her mid thirties, that (as the writer would like for you to believe) is dissatisfied with her life and unfulfilled. The first major difficulty occurs when if you don't know that fact going into the movie, you won't know it when she suddenly risks it all for, in my opinion, a very unkempt and unlikely fling with a local salesman. There is little development (drastically insufficient development) to justify her actions for the affair she has, and when it occurs, one feels, as I did, that she is just of low moral character. The word "slut" comes to mind, hopefully, they'll let that pass the review and post the comment. This, in my opinion, is the first fatal flaw of the film. If you're married or have ever been in love, irregardless of whether you are male or female, its going to turn you off. Quite frankly, I feel that it would have made a much better "blue movie" - that's the level in my opinion of which the screenplay is deserving. The second fatal flaw is the casting, Diane Lane just didn't work for me here, and Viggo Mortensen is not the right man for the job, believe me. The only saving grace to the entire film is Anna Paquin, the depth of her ability as a fine actress shines in places, conveying a subtle yet very blunt (I apologize for the dichotomy but it is accurate) portrayal of an emerging teen. Bravo, well done. I'm not going to give the ending away, but I was disappointed, being billed as a slice of life romance is one thing... but an ending like that.... Well, if that teased you enough to see this picture, don't say I didn't warn you, but you better look fast - if this celluloid is released, I doubt it goes four weeks before bursting into flames. I'd say wait for the video, but the free sex education tapes at most video rental outlets have more entertainment value. Hmmm, Dustin Hoffman produced this, you think he'd learn after Ishtar. This film once carried the working title "Blouse Man" and should have been left on the rack. If you've never in your life wanted to walk out on a film, give this one 35-40 minutes, the only thing worth staying for is Anna Paquin, if you can stomach the fact that you'll find your mind drifting to whether or not you took out the garbage before you left home, which is probably where you should have stayed in the first place if you're off to the movies to see this one. That's my two cents, for what it is worth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
the movie opens with a beautiful lady in a tattered white gown running through a stereotypical eastern european town. we know she's being followed by something, because she keeps looking behind her. and soon we see she's being chased by a mysterious man in a black trenchcoat. then we realize that the man is actually the vampire hunter and he is after her. but look is that her reflection in the store window??? no its just her identical twin vampire! but unfortunately they both get it.<br /><br />after this brilliant and amazingly fun throwback to the old hammer films of the 60's and 70's (in the credits the twins are listed as the twins of evil, which of course is the name of the final instalment in hammer's karnstein trilogy), the plot pretty much dies.<br /><br />What little plot there is involves dracula (who conveniently changes his appearance each time he is reborn, so the producer doesn't have to rehire the same dracula) coming to a morgue, the med students realizing he's undead and thinking....wow what an opportunity, maybe i'll just disregard all those movies that say that drinking vampire blood turns you into a vampire and use the vampire's blood to find a cure for our jerk friend's ailment. obviously this is a mistake and everyone becomes a vampire.<br /><br />A new concept but pulled off excruciatingly badly. The movie keeps setting up wonderful situations and refuses to do anything with them.<br /><br />For example the med students attempt to bring drac back to life by placing him in a bathtub filled with blood in a secluded run down country mansion. The house itself is scary enough to be the center of the film, but do we stay there? no because they decide to take the vampire to an abandoned swimming pool. sigh. This movie has a real problem with "homages" as i mentioned before the opening scene is straight out of hammer, and this house scene would have been perfect for a hammer-like movie, but the movie rapidly switches gears and changes to a medical horror.<br /><br />The other problem is that they introduce so many characters it is almost impossible to feel sorry for any of them. There are the med students and their wheelchair bound professor-type "friend" the med students are all: arrogant, boring, money hungry, and stupid. how they made it to med school at all amazes me, unless the med school had to meet its muscle bound hunk/big breast quota. and then there is the vampire hunter who remains mysterious through the movie. hey i can respect that but it would be nice if they didn't set it up like the movie would be about him. then you have random priests, cops, and science types. so many people are introduced and then quickly forgotten about until they need that person to either save the day or jump out for a cheap scare that it becomes quickly tedious.<br /><br />Basically this is a lazy movie. no real scares, just a few predictable jump scares. The set up for these is so elaborate it is hilarious. for examp le the bathtub full of blood. it is so obvious that drac is going to pop out of the murky blood. and yet we have to wait far too long to get to the inevitable jump scare. after this he kills one of the dumber and larger breasted med students. we all know she's going to become one of the undead. but what do the others do? bury her in a shallow grave near the house. sigh, so you know who will jump out at you when the cops show up at the house..........<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />Maybe someone will get the hint that it is impossible to make a scary vampire movie and just go for atmospheric, and then we will end up with an entire movie that is as good as the opening scene.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
A well-intentioned movie about Sonja Horowitz (Renée Zellweger), the wife of devout Talmudic scholar Mendel (Glenn Fitzgerald). who is deeply unhappy. Mendel's brother Sender (Christopher Eccleston) sees this and hires her to work in the field in which she's already an expertjewelry. He also starts an affair with her, and then when she spends time with a Puerto Rican artist, he dumps her and betrays her to the family, which shuts her out. There's a subplot in which Sonja's dead brother talks to her, and apparently takes the form of a magical beggar woman, but why is not clear. Much is not clear, unfortunately, including what is going on with Sonja, why she tells the Rebbe there's a fire inside her and maybe it's not from god, and what this means, and what the magical beggar woman tells her means. To an extent the story touches on the plight of women in the ultra-orthodox community, and yet Sonja is not exactly liberated. Nor is the notion of being redeemed by the love of a man of another race very well-thought-out. The title comes from the biblical definition of the worth of a good womanand yet it's the bastard Sender who quotes it to Sonja. Zellweger struggles with the part; she's supposed to be a Jew from the mid-west and sometimes her accent is flat, and at other times it's taken on the characteristic sounds of Brooklyn. She's at her best when she's being tough and taking charge, but ultimately the movie's a mess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's hard to criticize this movie, because I dislike the story itself, and no amount of good acting would have saved it. Think "Raising Arizona" with a mean streak. The acting is passable, but Jennifer Tilly is way over the top (yet not enough to make this a nice camp film) as usual, coming in somewhere between "Misery" and a sarcastic DMV employee. The rest of the cast have their brows perpetually knitted in consternation, either from the stress of their parts or the stress of the whole futile exercise. A real degrading few hours of film. Darryl Hannah spends most of the movie weeping too hard to be understood. I wish I could tell you how it ended but I walked out, sorry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a snore-fest.<br /><br />Of all the bits of nostalgia that Hollywood has decided to remake and update, this is by far one of the most pointless. This was a totally pointless show in the first place, and we REALLY don't need a 'modern' update.<br /><br />Never mind the bigotry and sexism inherent in the system from the beginning, so many advances have been made, socially, since the show ran that the entire point of the show (if it ever had one) has been lost.<br /><br />Also, what is the point of having a character named Boss Hogg if he's NOT overweight?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I began watching The Muppets Take Manhattan, the choppy presentation and dialogue had me convinced I was watching something recent, so you can imagine my surprise when I came to the IMDb and read that it was made in 1984. Jim Henson may have ended The Muppet Show when it was at its peak, but spin offs like this and Muppet Babies (which apparently is based upon a very terrible sequence in this film) are the absolute nadir of all things Muppet. I used to wonder why Muppets attracted such derision from such film reviewers as Mr. Cranky, so I am glad that The Muppets Take Manhattan (henceforth: TMTM) set me straight on that one. Of course, many series have had a massive drop off in quality when the third episode came around: Aliens, RoboCop, The Evil Dead, even Night Of The Living Dead. So while it is no surprise that TMTM is less than The Muppet Movie or The Great Muppet Caper, the surprise lies entirely in how much less than the awesome debut or its slightly lesser follow-up TMTM is. Not only is the music far less satisfying, the scenes that link it all together are utterly terrible.<br /><br />There are, of course, some redeeming and genuinely funny moments, but they are few and far between. The Swedish Chef is great in any scene he inhabits, so thank the spirit of small mercies that he appears in one sequence where his eccentricity is exploited to the fullest. The problem is that there are just no scenes that work. The story, such as it is, revolves around a Broadway musical Kermit is attempting to get produced. He goes through many trials and tribulations along the way, including the sneaking suspicion the viewer has that we have seen this all before. The biggest problem is that Kermit does not have a decent antagonist to work off this time. Charles Durning was cinematic gold as Doc Hopper, the proprietor of a fast food chain who wants to exploit Kermit for his business. Charles Grodin was dynamite as Nicky Holiday, a jewel thief the Muppets must fight in order to save Miss Piggy from a lifetime in prison. The saying is that a hero is only as good as his antagonist, and these two are at least half responsible for the greatness of the previous two films.<br /><br />Charles Grodin also highlights what is wrong with TMTM. Namely, the music sucks. The opening number of the Manhattan Melodies show that is at the centre of TMTM, to put it nicely, makes the drivel that now dominates the airwaves seem coordinated. I might just be letting my peculiar sensitivity to the sounds of words and phrases getting to me, but songs like The Rainbow Connection inspired tears of joy, not irritation. Grodin's big solo during The Great Muppet Caper, while not having the same resonation, he lifts the tone of the film eight steps on his own. He is all class. And if there is one thing TMTM could use, it is rising eight steps in addition to attaining a semblance of class. TMTM also feels severely time-compressed, with the story leaping from scene to scene without any consideration for making sense or giving the story cohesion. Maddox himself pointed out that transition and cohesion make a film feel like a coherent whole rather than a mess of thrown-together pieces. See if you can find them in TMTM.<br /><br />While TMTM does have its guest stars, they are either poorly utilised (Brooke Shields and John Landis), or totally out of their element (Liza Minelli, Dabney Coleman). To call this a waste of time for puppeteer and actor alike is flattery. The absence of an end credits routine is especially sore here, after Animal's "go home" postscript for The Muppet Movie in particular. Which highlights another problem. The characters are poorly written at best, with none of their individual quirks to be seen or heard. Animal shouts singular words at times, but they have nothing to do with the plot, or the conversation going on around him. Say what you will about set pieces designed to show off characters, but think of Animal's moment after eating the instant growth pills, or his "sowwy" after the incident when he pulled the window down on top of his fellow Muppets. Now see if you can remember a single memorable moment with an individual Muppet other than Swedish Chef's hilarious misunderstanding of three-dimensional film involving popcorn. Give up? Then you have proved my point.<br /><br />Given that Labyrinth, one of the Henson company's best and most timeless products outside of the Muppets, arrived some two years later, it makes TMTM all the more puzzling. Perhaps this misfire convinced Jim Henson to rethink his strategy regarding character development and usage. Or perhaps the misfire can be attributed to Frank Oz, who at the time had just finished working with George Lucas on what many would agree is the most childish episode in the original Star Wars saga. The writers were also involved with The Great Muppet Caper, so I will let them off the hook for this in spite of the fact that a script is one of the most essential pieces of a film. The production is also substantially improved here, with Muppets appearing capable of moving in ways that were previously beyond them. Had the story and script been better thought-out, TMTM might have been at least comparable to The Great Muppet Caper. As it stands now, it is a great answer to the question of whether Muppets write under the influence, or excrete.<br /><br />For that reason, I gave The Muppets Take Manhattan a three out of ten. Two to denote its actual quality, and a bonus for the Swedish Chef's moments. Without him, this film would be unwatchable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is my first movie review on IMDb. I was forced to register after watching this movie. I cannot in good conscience allow this movie to be unreviewed by me. The people must be warned!<br /><br />First of all, my rating is: 0 (as in "zero")<br /><br />I love Jack Black, Ben Stiller, Rachel Weis, and Christopher Walken, and yet, I hated this movie. There is a plot, but who cares when there's no script. The dialogue is unreal and plain boring, the situations are contrived, the flow of events is slow and somewhat arbitrary, the characters are unsympathetic and uninteresting, and the story, although based on a good premise, is stupid. This movie is a piece of poo.<br /><br />Never mind wasting MONEY on this movie, it's not even worth your TIME spent watching it. Please do not see it... I beg of you!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.