input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Störtebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.<br /><br />The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lübeck.<br /><br />But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.<br /><br />I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously, I absolutely love these old movies and their simplicity but I just watched this for the first time last night and it easily slotted itself into my bottom five of all time. Was this supposed to be about the love story or the zombies??? This movie was so bad that after it mercifully ended all I could do is laugh at how ridiculously bad it really was. Thankfully I'm too anal to turn a movie off without seeing the entire thing or I wouldn't be able to brag about watching this all the way through in one sitting! I like to think something positive can be said about anything in life so in keeping with that theory I will acknowledge this film's most positive asset, it was very short for a full length film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite being a 2001 movie, the direction is the kind of 90's art-house style that was considered "old" and out-of-date a few years ago. The cheesy cuts and effects were painful to watch. The script is decent enough, and a few scenes did kind of captivate me (like when the taxi driver brings her to the bridge at night). But the story line with the detective who's sister killed herself and how he was obsessed with suicide was just plain terrible. The performance by the actor who plays Selma Blair's married boyfriend seriously bothered me. I did sit through the whole thing, though, which is rare for the kind of random, what-is-this movie you just find on TV and decide to watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This 1973 TV remake of the Billy Wilder classic is inferior to the original. Surprise!<br /><br />First, the good things. Lee J. Cobb makes a terrific Barton Keyes. He's not as good as Edward G. Robinson, of course, but he's the only reason to watch this. This remake's only improvement over the original is that it cuts down the role of Lola Dietrichson, the step-daughter of the femme fatale, Phyllis Dietrichson.<br /><br />And that's it for the good things.<br /><br />The bad things are many. The director records everything in an indifferent manner: if you watched the film with the sound muted you'd hardly get the impression that anything especially interesting was happening. Because of modern bad taste, the film must be in color instead of black and white. Because of 1970s bad taste, all the sets are distractingly ugly. Walter Neff's expensive apartment, in particular, is hideous.<br /><br />The modern setting hurts in a lot of small ways. Train trips were a bit more unusual in the 70s than in the 40s, so Mr. Dietrichson's decision to take a train seems more of a contrivance. Men stopped wearing hats, which prevents Walter from covering up his brown hair while posing as the white-haired Mr. Dietrichson. Women in mourning stopped wearing veils, which robs Samantha Eggar of a prop Barbara Stanwyck made splendid use of in a key scene. (Oddly, Lola still has the line where she reveals that her stepmother was trying on a black hat and veil before she had need of them.)<br /><br />Stephen Bochco keeps much of the Billy Wilder-Raymond Chandler script the same. But he makes a lot of tiny, inexplicable changes to the dialogue which leave the script slightly flabby where once it was lean and muscular. Outrageously, the famous motorcycle-cop banter is gone, but look closely and you'll see what looks like a post-production cut where those lines should have been. Bochco may not be to blame.<br /><br />Richard Crenna is passable as Walter Neff. What might have made this version tolerable is a really splendid Phyllis Dietrichson. Instead we get Samantha Eggar, who comes off like a standard-issue villainess from "Barnaby Jones." But who can blame Eggar? With a director who barely seems interested in what's happening in front of the camera, how could Barbara Stanwyck herself have come off well?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.<br /><br />Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.<br /><br />Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.<br /><br />Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Vodka Lemon is a charming, yet extremely uneven Arminian film that will delight some and bore others. Though reasonably well-crafted, the film lacks any real "zing", relying instead on many scenes that will seem commonplace to the astute art-house viewer. The film contains a handful of moments of sheer cinematic brilliance, unfortunately, they deserve a film worthy of their genius. Too dark to be a dark comedy and to light to be a serious drama, Vodka Lemon will leave many views disoriented and ultimately disgruntled. You may laugh, but these moments will be few and far between amid a sea of washed out snow filled landscapes and a seemingly endless series of bus rides. A noble effort, ultimately done in by lack of narrative cohesion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"A Damsel in Distress" is definitely not one of Fred Astaire's better musicals. But even Astaire's bad films always had some good moments.<br /><br />In "Damsel," Astaire is Jerry Halliday, an American musical star who is in London on a personal appearance tour. He meets Lady Alice Marshmorton (19-year-old Joan Fontaine), a beautiful English heiress, who hops into the back of a cab he is taking to escape a mob of admirers.<br /><br />Jerry believes that Alice is being forced into a marriage by her rich aunt. He tries to rescue her from her family's country manor house, but soon discovers that the house staff is laying bets on which suitor Lady Alice will marry. Keggs (Reginald Gardiner) the conniving butler, and Albert (Harry Watson), the bratty house boy, each take turns alternately helping and sabotaging Lady Alice's romance with Jerry to make sure they win the bet.<br /><br />This musical has numerous problems. First, there is the plot, based on a novel by P.G. Wodehouse (who co-wrote the screenplay). The story is slow, painful, and nerve-grating. When Fred is not dancing, we have to endure endless annoying scenes of (a) Fred romancing Joan Fontaine or (b) Keggs and Albert conniving against them and each other.<br /><br />The butler and the house boy are especially irritating. They are one-dimensional stock villain characters, the kind of guys you just want to punch in the mouth. You wish they would get off the screen and let Fred dance.<br /><br />Astaire suffers in the absence of his usual partner, Ginger Rogers. Joan Fontaine is a lackluster leading lady in this film, and is miscast in a musical. She has little going for her, character-wise, other than her lovely face and beautiful smile.<br /><br />George Burns and Gracie Allen are along for the ride, as Jerry's publicist and his ditzy secretary. The duo adds some sorely needed chemistry to the plot, and Gracie has some funny lines, but she is also very annoying at times.<br /><br />The direction of the movie by George Stevens is not well done. At times, the cinematography is horrible and off-focus. There are a number of outdoor scenes set on extremely foggy streets, to try to convince the audience that we are in London, not Hollywood. (They must have used tons of dry ice in this movie.) On the plus side, the songs by George and Ira Gershwin are terrific, and have become classic song standards. And of course, the dancing in the movie is exceptional, thanks to Astaire and his choreographer, Hermes Pan.<br /><br />But the musical and dance numbers are ill-used and ill-staged. At times, the cast seems to start singing and dancing because, well, it's time for them to start singing and dancing. The musical numbers seem randomly inserted into the meandering plot. (At one point, the butler steps outside the manor house and breaks into an operetta solo for no clear reason.) The numbers include: "I'm Dancing and I Can't Be Bothered Now" -- Fred dances well on a foggy traffic-filled London street. He does some great "cane-twirling" with a rolled umbrella -- but the number ends too soon when Fred jumps on a passing double-decker bus. (In the Broadway musical, "Crazy For You," Harry Groener did a much better version of this number with a group of chorus girls.)<br /><br /> "Put Me To The Test" -- Fred, George, and Gracie do a trio tap dance in an English cottage. George and Gracie match Fred step for step, but the number ends poorly with everyone kicking each other for no reason.<br /><br /> "Stiff Upper Lip" (The Fun House Number) -- At an amusement park fun house, Fred, George, and Gracie have fun dancing on the revolving floor, rotating barrel, and with the fun house mirrors. It's the best number of the movie, but it gets a little repetitious at times.<br /><br /> "Things Are Looking Up" -- Fred and Joan Fontaine do their one dance number together in the film, prancing around the back woods of the country manor estate. Fortunately, it's a very simple dance number because Joan is not a great dancer.<br /><br /> "A Foggy Day in London Town" -- Fred wanders around the foggy manor estate at night, crooning about the foggy day when he first met Joan in London. At times, he looks as if he's not sure which way he's going in the fog -- much like the musical number itself.<br /><br /> "Nice Work If You Can Get It" -- A great song that is misused in the movie. During a social event at the manor house, Fred gets drawn into a chorus of dour-faced singers who are haphazardly singing this song. Each time Fred joins in, the other singers look at him as if they wish he would leave. (Again, Harry Groener did a better dance number with this song in "Crazy For You.") "Drum Dance Number" -- As Fred and Joan are eloping, Fred has to stop and do one final tap dance number while banging a group of drums. As usual, it's a great dance number. But there's absolutely no need for it, except to prolong the movie.<br /><br />The most contrived moment in the film comes when Fred decides to leap off a high stone balcony at the country estate in order to prove his love for Joan Fontaine. As he leaps from the balcony, he finds a conveniently-placed trapeze -- that's right, a *trapeze* -- hanging from a nearby tree. Fred (or rather, a stuntman in Fred's clothes) grabs the trapeze and swings to the ground from it.<br /><br />The movie is worth owning on DVD for the dance numbers alone, but you feel indebted to the guy who invented the Fast Forward button on your remote. The >>FF button allows you to skip through the other, boring scenes in the film to get to the dance numbers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first picked this film up I was intrigued at the basic idea and eager to see what would happen. I'm a fan of animation and love it when it's successfully merged with live action footage. However, the animation in this film was about all I enjoyed. Although it must be said that the actors' performances were excellent. The visual look - including the animation - gave a wonderfully unnerving air to the piece. However this was quality of unease was lost amongst the overblown imagery, both visual and in the script, that you were practically hammered over the head with. Most annoying about this was the relative lack of importance to the plot. It seemed that the plot was shoe horned in at irregular intervals giving a stuttering effect that detracted massively from the flow of the piece. The voice overs from Felisberto - especially the one at the end - very much felt like a desperate attempt to fill in gaping holes in the plot which had been ignored in favour of side issues such as the whole ant thing (and even that wasn't properly addressed). I'm afraid the whole piece came across as, at best, a 'reasonable first attempt', by a teenager who has spent far too much time reading DH Lawrence. Not what you expect from seasoned film makers at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Think "stage play". This is worth seeing once for the performances of Lionel Atwill and Dwight Frye. COmpare the Melvyn DOuglas in "Ghost Story" with the Melvyn DOuglas of this film. Are there vampires at loose in this 'Bavarian' village, or is there a more natural, albeit equally sinister, explanation? Dwight Frye is Herman, a red herring, who is cast as an especially moronic character. It's fun to look at his different facial expressions in what is really a stock character. NOt much happens for a long time, but then we discover that Atwill's pipe smoking doctor is the real murderer. There is too much 'comic relief' but that is par for the course for this era. Fay Wray looks really good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. "It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it," she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.<br /><br />*****SPOILER*****<br /><br />Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.<br /><br />*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It doesn't even merit a review, other than as a warning to potential viewers. It's a somewhat generic ghost story about an actress haunting a studio during the filming of a WWII period drama. There's no fear involved, no suspense whatsoever, nor any surprises. One shocking moment that looks a bit too silly to be shocking. The visual style is very flat and dull, although there is some really nice editing once in a while. The story never comes together, and the films is really just a total bust. 4/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.<br /><br />This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.<br /><br />He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.<br /><br />I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.<br /><br />Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make "L.A. Confidential"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.<br /><br />That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.<br /><br />Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The fifth "Black Emanuelle" I've watched has, potentially, the most intriguing plot line dealing as it does with the intrepid female reporter investigating the white slavery/prostitution racket which takes her from San Francisco to Rome to Macao and back to her own hometown, New York! The film is peopled with past veterans of the series which, inexplicably, play completely different roles, namely Ivan Rassimov (appearing here as a head of a United Nations committee for Third World countries!), Karin Shubert (as a feminist rival reporter) and Don Powell (as Rassimov's chauffeur).<br /><br />Unfortunately, as usual with this type of film (despite their being shown in the dead of night), it is heavily edited and a particularly graphic scene (described in "Stracultr) in which an Asian slave trader gets his comeuppance by being sodomized by a dog is nowhere to be seen here!! Still, a harrowing sequence late in the film when a sleazy politician tricks a couple of girls (including, naturally, Gemser and Shubert) into a midnight rendezvous under a New York bridge with a group of bums (this is the way he gets their votes, get it!) - with his high society pals giddily looking on - seems pretty much intact.<br /><br />The most ridiculous element of this entry - apart from Gemser's penchant to disrobe completely every time she enters a house (even in front of perfect strangers) - is her excursion to India to interview a charlatan/Guru (George Eastman made up to look considerably Christ-like!) who has found a way to prolong coitus indefinitely; of course, when Emanuelle calls him up on it, he ends up having premature ejaculation...!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cut tries to be like most post-Scream slashers tried to be, a spoof of the horror genre that tried to be clever by referencing other famous horror movies. Now, I am not bagging 'Scream,' as I think 'Scream' is a very good horror movie that does a great job of blending horror and comedy. Cut fails on most levels. It has its moments but overall it just does not work out, not even as a "so bad it's good" movie, just a below average one.<br /><br />The first five minutes or so are OK and set the story fairly well, apart from the fact that Kylie Minogue can't really act, and ironically she gets her tongue out, go figure. Go forward some time and a group of film students want to finish her film off, which is apparently cursed. And, as you have probably predicted, one by one the cast and crew are slowly picked off by a masked madman.<br /><br />Unoriginal plot, poor acting and a predictable ending are a few of the elements that follow. There is plenty of referencing in the film, everything from 'Scream' to 'The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.' This isn't smart either, it feels as though the director wanted to feel smart and cool by mentioning other famous horror flicks ala Scream. For a slasher there is minimal gore and no nudity, which is a huge negative when it comes to a slasher that has not got a whole lot going for it. Really, I should be supporting this movie because I'm Australian and we're not as good when it comes to horror (we do have our gems, though) but Cut is definitely not one of them.<br /><br />However, it did keep me watching for the 90 minutes or so, so that is something good at least. I would not recommend this to anyone apart from hardcore slasher fans, who may be able to appreciate what this film is trying to aim for, but if you are looking for a good movie, stay away.<br /><br />2/5
|
Negative
| null | null |
The reason I intended to give this movie a chance to take 2 hours of my life (actually it was only 35 minutes) was my wish to try to understand and hopefully appreciate Indian cinema. All I have ever seen were few older movies of S.Ray.<br /><br />Browsing through IMDb I came across this one and after seeing rating of 8.7 I concluded this must be the one which will open the doors of unknown and bring artistic enjoyment. Oh my how wrong I was! The only logical explanation for this rating of 8.7 is that most of 970 people who voted are Indian and their only venture outside Bolliwood production were Adam Sandler movies.<br /><br />With this rating this movie would be ranked on 9th place on IMDb List of 250 best movies above Citizen Cane, Goodfellas of Psycho! I am really not in a mood to review and criticize because there is simply nothing that I find worth remembering from this painful experience. My only hope is that there is a lot of Hindu who like me find this movie as is -- plain stupid, with abundance of kitsch and cheesy music.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wouldn't call it awful, but nothing at all shines in this movie, and it is encumbered with some seriously unbelievable basic plot development. It starts out well, but once the main hit is done, it devolves into a long subplot around a young girl which is not compelling, and some action scenes which are theatre of the absurd unrealistic. For example there is a prolonged shootout at the airport in which the lighting is all stroboscopic. No explanation for that. How credible is it that a airport storage area is going to have lights that flash on and off confusingly, and just enough to let Snipes do his incredible escape schtick? This is one of far too few action scenes punctuated by pointlessly drawn out set ups that just fails to draw one into suspending belief.<br /><br />In addition, the whole premise seems to be that the United States CIA team can shoot the place up but get away with it by saying "national security" to the Brits. This gimmick relies on a stereotype that is to far afield from reality to be satisfying.<br /><br />There are a lot better action movies out there. Better formulated, better executed. This one is entertaining at times but there is just not enough meat on the bone and after a while it becomes downright boring -- something that should never happen in a good action movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Phantom of the Mall is a film that fits best in the "easily forgotten" category. It's a pretty lousy variant on the famous story by Gaston Leroux, the Phantom of the Opera. Not a bad idea to itself, but the plot and production of this movie are way to weak to bring a decent homage to that story. On the bright side, Gaston Leroux doesn't has to turn over in his grave just yet. It could have been a lot worse. <br /><br />Phantom of the Mall has too many useless flashbacks in it and way too many boring sequences to make it memorable. Also, the scriptwriters wanted to give too much draught to the story than necessary. And even though there's a lot of mystery getting build up about the character of Eric ... the basic plot is ordinary and déjà-vu. ***SPOILERS*** It's about a young couple that brutally gets torn apart because the boy gets killed in a fire. That fire was set to his house because he and his parents refused to sell their home in order to make room for a huge mall to be build. The boy survived the fire and he has hidden himself in the mall to avenge himself. Meanwhile he guards his girl who now works in the mall and tries to forget her loss ****END SPOILERS*** This pretty simple - but rather effective - plot gets thickened by lots of pointless elements and annoying conspiracy theories. While it should just be an entertaining horror movie, it desperately tries to be an intelligent thriller...and that's not what the fans look for. There are a few innovative killings but they're not satisfying enough for people who want to see a relaxing horror movie. And besides, Phantom of the Mall could have used at least a bit of humor!! This entire production - the cast included - takes itself way too serious. <br /><br />I'll try to finish with a few positive aspects...Like for example, it stars Ken Foree !! Die-hard horror fans will certainly recognize him as Peter for Dawn of the Dead! That's like the horror milestone that yet has to find an equal. Even though his role in this movie is limited and even completely unnecessary...it was good to see him again. TV-movie fans will also recognize Morgan Fairchild as the mayor, she's a fine actress and an elegant lady. Pauly Shore is also in this but I can't stand him...so my opinion about him may be a bit biased. And finally, a bit of praise for the leading actress named Kari Whitman. She's an extremely beautiful girl and she does have a bit of talent...too bad she never made it to the top. Actually, this movie is her biggest achievement and that says enough about her career...
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Masters of Horror" has proved itself a poor arena for 'message episodes,' and while a definite case can be made for Joe Dante's 'Screwfly Solution' (one of the best episodes of the series, period), most efforts to do so have come across as anvil-heavy and unimpressive (nothing defuses horror more than a soapbox). And 'Pro-Life' simply fuses reactionary viewpoints with ultra-violence; young Angelique (Caitlin Wachs), seen running through the woods, is nearly hit by 2 doctors (Mark Feuerstein and Emmanuelle Vaugier) who just happen to be driving in to work at the local (and isolated) abortion clinic. Angelique's father, Dwayne (Ron Perlman), is a stone-cold, far-right holy roller who will do anything to prevent his daughter from getting an abortion. If for nothing else, 'Pro-Life' accumulated some buzz for its controversial issue, but John Carpenter treats this whole venture with startling indifference--he seems even less interested in making a movie than the script itself (which is admittedly poor); the slow pacing builds no tension, and simply brings the already ambling plot to a crawl. Even when Dwayne and his sons storm the clinic, guns blazing, it is a stunning non-event; later, when a doctor is tortured with a 'male abortion,' the scene comes off as gratuitous and unnecessary--an effort to pad out the underwritten film. The poor performances (Perlman is sadly wasted here) become an outgrowth of the script, and Carpenter's direction feels exhausted, as if 'Pro-Life' is the source of his next hot meal. By the time a spider-creature with a human head and a guy in a latex monster suit are prowling the hallways, you just have to wonder what the minds behind this mess were thinking...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame." But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, I sat through the whole thing, God knows why.<br /><br />It was a long afternoon, I had nothing to do, it was bitterly cold outside, okay, those are all lame excuses but they're the only ones I have.<br /><br />I gave The Darkling 4 stars out of a possible 10 - I have seen worse films, but this one definitely is right there in the old trash bin of bad filmdom--poor script, poor acting, bad lighting, and cheesy special effects.<br /><br />The storyline, which never completely makes sense, revolves around this simple little family, Daddy, Mommy, and little girl--that I assume the viewer is supposed to be "identifying" with, all three of them were tedious and annoying. You just want the dark side to get every one of them.<br /><br />Daddy is a cook whose hobby is cars. Daddy meets a rich man named Rubin who collects cars and who is also in possession of a being he purchased in the "mysterious" Orient. Rubin keeps it in a birdcage and refers to it as "The Darkling". <br /><br />During the course of the film, the Darkling is explained as being about 3 or 4 different things: a shadow without a person, the inner darkness that exists in all of us, and the Devil. So take your pick of whichever one of those explanations suits your fancy--because trust me, it doesn't really matter.<br /><br />The Darkling's main problem seems to be that it craves having a companion--it gets a human companion--and then eventually is dissatisfied with the human being. This, of course, leads to immense wealth, followed by disaster, for the human who hooks up with The Darkling.<br /><br />And for the rest of us -- it just leads to a very long, tedious movie.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really hate this show! I had watched one episode, and I knew this show is really terrible. The story lines are both poorly written and executed and the jokes are really bad...I mean it is just a sh++ty rip-off of Dexter's Laboratory and Johnny Quest, 'bout an obnoxious boy with flamed blond hair with his twin genius sisters and talking dog; a stay-at-home dad and a smart, super-busy mom...Like oh-my-flippin'-God! Their dad is a mother-f**kin' crazy home-maker, isn't that so gay! If my dad is a home-maker, I would personally die! Of shame that is...Really I would.<br /><br />I have nothing else to about this...this travesty but only 3 word; count them 3 words to describe it:<br /><br />· Lame, · Stupid, and above all... · F**K UP! That's all I could say folks, it is definitely making my list of worst animated series EV-ER! If I had one that is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember when this piece of trash came out, all the newspapers were squawking about how it had taken Barbra Streisand years to get the film made. Well it couldn't have taken that many years; the play only opened in 1975, eight years previously. It made a Broadway star of the great actress Tovah Feldshuh, who probably should have been cast in the film, but NOOOOO...the Great STAR BARBRA HAD TO DO IT HER WAY. AND WITH MUSIC NO LESS! This film is a total disaster from start to finish. For one thing, Barbra was FORTY YEARS OLD when she made it and she looked every minute of it. There was no way anyone could possibly swallow her as a young girl yearning to study Torah. And then when she dresses up as a boy it gets campy. I get the impression that Streisand could not bear to be unattractive so she played around with the make-up; she is prettier as a boy than she is as a girl. And as if that is not bad enough, she gets involved with both her schoolmate Avigdor (Mandy Patinkin, whose best moment is the shot of his naked rear end) AND his fiancée (Amy Irving, who does her usual sleepwalker routine, a bit of schtick the poor woman always resorts to when the director ignores her and she does not know what she is doing). Yentl even goes so far as to marry the girl; I won't even bother to mention the "wedding night" scene.<br /><br />Then there is the music. Nine totally forgettable songs, all sung by Streisand via voice-over (presumably as a look inside her mind), and each one as intrusive and irritating as fingernails on a blackboard.<br /><br />I won't say that Streisand does not show a glimmer of promise as a director here; some of the visuals are lovely (Patinkin's backside especially), and she has a good eye for balance. The problem with this movie is that she won't get out of her own way. I did not believe her for one second in the title role; she should NEVER have added the songs, and on top of that the whole mess goes on for two hours and fifteen minutes. I was sick of the whole sorry mess after forty-five minutes.<br /><br />Awful, awful, awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Director Jonathan Lynn has made some underrated comedies in the past, like 'Greedy' and 'Clue'. This isn't one of them. More akin to a 'Police Academy' film than its inspiration, it stars Steve Martin in the old Phil Silvers role as an army sergeant forever pulling scams under the nose of his superiors. But the idyllic life of Bilko and his lazy platoon looks shaky when an old enemy visits the base determined to catch Bilko in the act. Nothing much happens, really. It's all quite dull. It's not very funny. Martin, Dan Aykroyd and Phil Hartman squeeze a couple of laughs out through sheer effort, but they're all better than this and it's quite painful watching them work with such thin material.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have no idea why they made this version of "Persuasion" when they already had that fine mini-series with Amanda Root and Ciaran Hinds. I suppose that they wanted to make a feature-length version, but of course a lot had to be deleted; alas, what ended up on the cutting-room floor was all the lovely wit and humour, leaving a film that was mere melodrama rather than an amusing exposition of English country manners and mores.<br /><br />Also, the characters were shallow and uninteresting. They had poor Anne chasing up and down the streets after Captain Wentworth like a silly modern adolescent (and if you happen to be a silly modern adolescent reading this, let me tell you: running after a male like a female in heat is NOT cool). That is something a well-bred woman of the Napoleonic era would never have done, and certainly not this level-headed heroine.<br /><br />Some have said they found this antic laughable; my reaction was not laughter, but outrage. The very idea of such a corruption of an Austen work is beneath contempt.<br /><br />It was ghastly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Van is a feelgood movie about a guy who tries to lure girls into his new van, in order to seduce them. The only thing this movie doesn't fail at is precisely depicting the van fad in the US in the late 70s. It looks like it was totally made by amateurs. It's trash, but I loved it! I have to admit I am a fan of 70s trash! Hope this one makes it to the IMDB bottom 100!<br /><br />2
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some funny bits, but come Bill! A film? Quoting Zeitgeist? Keep the TV Show and the interviews, but a film? I'm probably overreacting but what a unnecessary provoking film... I don't know. I laughed, disagreed, agreed... this film is very confusing and inconsistent.<br /><br />Bill's a funny guy... but also very cocky... Bill's rhetoric is similar to Bill Hicks, a brilliant comedian. But like many comedians, the borderline between comedy and preaching can be annoying. I think that the major problem in this film is his lack of sensibility. This might be just a personal taste, but comedy that constantly demeans somebody cannot be taken as truth. Bill is obviously emotionally reactive to religious fundamentalism. I agree with Bill that religious fanaticism is not sensible, but the response to it cannot be sensible. It will create unnecessary turmoil. We can do better than just react to fundamentalism. His conclusion is that "we don't know" and he fervently tries to convince the spectator that nobody knows anything, to the point that the agnostic community has been concerned with his lack of serious research in comparative religion. His humility that he only knows that he doesn't, is a contradiction as he tries to insist that all religious thought is non-sense.<br /><br />I had great trouble seeing bits of Zeitgeist, the movie in Bill's film. All the astrotheology-influenced non-sense that simplifies all religions as the same is simply disappointing. Zeitgeist has provoked a lot of controversy and has messed up the validity of so much of the valuable Religion Studies scholarship. It is very sad how wrong facts have been tossed around with no reliable scholarly sources. Astro-mystic sources that reduce everything to "the stars say it all" seem to be from the Middle Ages. This film is a confusing statement from a confused "agnostic". Agnosticism is far more complex and philosophically academic than defending every single issue as "we don't know".<br /><br />This film is an obvious proof of how postmodernism has been able to oversimplify and generalize major issues in human history.<br /><br />Watch the film (it has hilarious interviews and bits) but PLEASE do not behave like Bill. You cannot expect anybody to have a mature conversation if you are making sardonic comments in every other line. His arguing techniques are demeaning and insulting, provoking emotional reactions rather than rational and logical argumentation.. There needs to be a more mature way of dealing with these issues.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is hilarious, not in good way. The fights are awfully bad done, while sometimes they will try to shock you by breaking some bones, and even this happens only two or three times, definitely not enough to call it a shockmovie. A gunfight means a hero can walk into an open field with 10 people shooting at him with uzi's, pick up a gun, start shooting back and not get hurt. <br /><br />The story empty, guy waking up, lost his memory, starts fighting cos that's what he's good at. Five years later memories come back, takes revenge blablabla. <br /><br />Not worth your buck, not really worth your time unless you're drunk and bored.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first "Home Alone" was one of the funniest movies of the 90's. The second was just as funny with the same cast and jokes! Now comes "Home Alone 3". I was curious how they could continue with the same story considering Kevin would've been 17 by 1997. He could take care of himself, right? So, what does the director decide to do? He takes a child just as annoying and makes him sick. The kid is like 6 years old and the mother leaves him alone in the house? What kind of team of burgerlers are these idiots? I don't really want to get too into detail if you want to sadly see this movie. But please, I'd recommend that you'd stay away from it. It's not worth your precious time. Go fold a piece of paper, do chores, balance a pencil on your nose, or take a nap! It's better to do then to watch "Home Alone 3"!<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am very open to foreign films and like to think that I grasp what they are trying to accomplish although some things are lost in translation. But the simplicity and "intelligence" of this film were boring. I've often thought how interesting it would be to make a movie that just shows a typical day or time period that really had no point. Now that I've seen a movie like that I will no longer be thinking along those lines. There's tones about society, racism, and some desire...but South Park has that. And when I watch South Park it actually moves me to feel an emotion. The closest thing I felt to an emotion during this movie was the yawn I experienced after the first five minutes. I rate the typical movie a seven or above because I love most every film. I gave this film a one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Grey Matter" AKA "The Brain Machine" but the video people thought better of that; the screen says 1972 but IMDb says 1977; it's that kind of movie. The government has some kind of overriding interest in this 'brain machine' project that has drafted four people - who turn out to be, roughly, a philosopher, a horny priest, a crackpot veteran and a patriot who got an abortion - to sit in a shrinking room with a computer that can read their horrendous secret thoughts. In the end the government takes over the lab by force and everybody dies. Here is a movie that is incompetent in every important way; MY s*** has better production values than this. It held my interest, though, just to see what exactly these exploitation filmmakers thought they were doing, dabbling in four-guys-in-a-room character drama. The answer: a tract about how science is inferior to God. Thanks a lot. It's like opening a Kinder egg and getting your 30th goddam jigsaw puzzle. The priest is played by James "Roscoe P. Coltrane" Best, the philosopher by Gerald "the Republican Simon" McRaney. Also featuring very, very, very long establishing and transition shots in great quantity, this moves almost as slow as the Liberal convention.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Can fake scenery ruin a picture? You wouldn't think so, but it actually for me in here. Listen, I have a lot of classic-era movies and I know pretty much what to except, such as the drivers steering immobile cars in front of a screen, etc. But a lot of that hokey business has to do with action scenes. To have fake scenery, fake mountains and flowers shot after shot as seen in "Brigadoon" gets insulting after awhile. <br /><br />As far as the music entertainment went, this is always subjective. What songs one person likes, another may not so that shouldn't be a big part of judging a film (whether someone likes the songs). I could blast this movie for its corny 1950 songs, dances, romances and characters but that was the '50s and a lot of people liked this sort of things. Musicals did very well in the '50s. Me, I liked the '30s and '40s with the great taps. By the '50s, tap was out and this new stuff - which I can stand - was it. Does that make this a lousy movie? No. It just makes one I didn't care for very much<br /><br />Despite the good cast, good director and high expectations, this film bombed at the box office, and with me. I should have liked it more, being a dreamer myself and that's a nice part of this story. I am not the cynical type and a nice town and nice people making me feel good sounds awful appeal. Then why couldn't I connect with this film? Part of it also was the dancing. I don't care for the stuff that replaced tap dancing on screen. But - no - the thing really turned me off what that staging. There was no Scotland, no highlands, just a hokey- looking background to make it look that way and it turned me almost from the start. Score one point for today's realism where they "go on location" most of the time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Honestly I can't understand why this movie rates so well here, nor why Bakshi himself thought it was his finest film. I'm a huge fan of Bakshi's earlier work - particularly 'Heavy Traffic' and 'Wizards', but frankly 'Wizards' (1977) was the last good film he made. After that he turned to the mainstream, beginning with the diabolical 'Lord of the Rings' and then knuckling down with sword and sorcery heavyweight Frank Frazetta, for 'Fire and Ice'.<br /><br />What can I say? The story is puerile, the animation is TV quality - I insist that it's considerably worse than his 70's stuff - and whereas 'Wizards' had real imagination, quirkiness, some gorgeous background art, and an underground, adult sensibility, 'Fire and Ice' is just designed for 14 year old boys, and has the intellectual clout of Robinson Crusoe on Mars.<br /><br />Yes, if you liked the Gor books, you might like this. In my view though, this was just another blip in the slide in quality after 'Wizards' from which Bakshi never recovered (though he's done some decent TV stuff fairly recently)<br /><br />4.5 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.<br /><br />"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had me going. The title was perhaps the greatest idea that I heard. I thought it was an independent movie about a zombie outbreak and their quest to take over the US and a group of lone survivors, band together, and plan to take out the zombies. DEAD WRONG! It's about a psycho cop with a weakness for killing his female arrests gets what's coming to him when a pack of zombie women rise from their graves in order to get proper revenge. As you can see there is nothing about the nation nor a county involved. Where to begin with the severity this cinematic disaster caused our nation.<br /><br />First off, the zombie women look like Victoria Secret models with dark eyeliner and a pale face. What are zombies but mindless, debatable intelligent, cannibalistic killing machines that eat as a result of their primitive most basic needs? These zombie women walk like streetwalkers and runway models, they talk as if they are in a poor film noir movie and not do they act like real zombies. Sure the eating and killing is there, but where is the mindlessness and the horrible disfigurement? Although it is a very interesting concept and perhaps a great satire on the zombie genre, it makes fun of that genre and asks the question, "why can't zombies be beautiful vixen killing machines?" I would say that this movie would be considered a really bad indie movie that was produced and made by garage junkies. I would not recommend this movie to anybody that loves zombie genres too much, it's an insult and as for scary
not even.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sorry my fellow Nevada City neighbors, but this one is bad.<br /><br />Brian must have had too much botox because he had very little facial expressions through out the entire movie.<br /><br />Alice looked like she had a board strapped to her backside. She was stiff throughout the movie.<br /><br />I looked up both Alice and Brian and was surprised to see the extensive bio of work. I would have guessed that they were first-year students.<br /><br />Ed Asner and Peter Jason carried the movie frankly with their banter and ease with every line. Ed certainly has not lost his charisma. I wish I'd taken the time to meet him while he was here.<br /><br />I love the snow scenes and scenes of stores and the church because I've been there. I make Nevada City my home and was anxiously awaiting the premiere. I was sadly disappointed.<br /><br />Sorry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this animated Inspector Gadget movie is pretty lame.the story is very weak,and there is little action.most of the characters are given little to nothing to do.the movie is mildly entertaining at best,but really doesn't go any where and is pointless.it's watchable but only just and is nowhere near the calibre of the animated TV show from the 80's.it's not a movie that bears repeat viewing,at least in my mind.it's only about 74 minutes long including credits,so i guess that's a good thing.unlike in the TV show,the characters are not worth rooting for here.in the show,you wanted Inspector Gadget to save the day,but there,who really cares?anyway,that's just my opinion.for me Inspector Gadget's Last Case is a disappointing 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This has to be one of the worst films of the 1990s. When my friends & I were watching this film (being the target audience it was aimed at) we just sat & watched the first half an hour with our jaws touching the floor at how bad it really was. The rest of the time, everyone else in the theatre just started talking to each other, leaving or generally crying into their popcorn that they actually paid money they had earnt working to watch this feeble excuse for a film. It must have looked like a great idea on paper, but on film it looks like no-one in the film has a clue what is going on. Crap acting, crap costumes. I can't get across how embarrasing this is to watch. Save yourself an hour & a bit of your life.........
|
Negative
| null | null |
I ended up watching The Tenants with my close friends who rented the movie solely based on Snoop Dogg's appearance (a passionate fetish of theirs) on the cover. Understandably, I did not expect much. I thought the movie would include the typical array of Snoop Dogg related behavior and imagery often seen in cliché rap videos. However, my generalization was for the most part wrong. Unfortunately, this didn't make the movie any better.<br /><br />Most would describe the movie as a dark serious drama, whereas I would describe it as a dark seriously drawn out boring drama flick. The film tells a story of two struggling writers (Dylan McDermott and Snoop Dogg) who are trying to create their own separate masterpieces. Their polar opposite lifestyles end up forming an unlikely but highly complex and neurotic friendship. This friendship moves throughout the entire movie like a wild roller-coaster - most of which is contributed by Snoop's character - reminiscent of someone with a severe case of split personality disorder. And although the movie is a drama, the acting - which has a morbid and serious tone - from Snoop and company was more comical than anything else.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie for those who are attention impaired because this one has a lot of dialogue and a lot more dialogue after that. There are some mediocre conflicts, but even they are mostly bogged down with more dialogue. The end, however, jumped at me with a sudden surprise. It was a little bit twisted, somewhat unexpected and a perfect way to wrap up a movie that needed to end. While watching the ending credits I couldn't help but picture the director thinking, "Oh God, how the hell do I end this snoozer." By the way, the director laid out carefully planted hints and subtleties leading to the climax - all of which are more visible than Waldo in a crowded street of midgets wearing nothing but black sweaters.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had the greatest enthusiasm going in to the advance screening for this movie. After all, this is one of the oldest and most complex tales known to mankind, and it was one of the first epic tales I read as a kid (even before Tolkien). I must say that IT WAS A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT. They completely made the plot into a joke and turned the thing into one long soap opera. The elements that WERE faithful to the plot were sprinkled throughout in such a haphazard manner that the audience was laughing at many times at the silly script that just paid lip service to this battle of all battles. It was a huge disappointment to see a complex character like Achilles (who has a strange combination of nearly Matrix-like powers, utter ruthlessness and male lovers in the original poem) turn to "Fabio on the beach" in the guise of Pitt (who with a good script and more effort could have turned this into the most complex and original warrior figure Hollywood has ever produced). The actors were actually decent, trying to make the best of a ridiculous script. It was actually a waste of so much talent (Peter O'Toole stole the show, and Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean were pathetic). Compare it to LOTR or Gladiator and it doesn't even hold a candle to them. Plenty of hunks for the ladies to goggle over but not enough battle scenes for a movie that is about one long battle and siege. I wouldn't recommend that anyone pay to see this story dragged through the dirt like one of the characters was (at least they got that part right).
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie had more holes than a piece of swiss cheese. Ben Affleck was seriously NOT trying to act in any way, shape, or form. He outright sucked. Nothing about the movie was believable. The first problems were in the intro- where the man gives everything of value to the Salvation Army Santa Claus but it doesn't show why. And then the granny sticks her head in the oven- really beautiful, and has absolutely nothing to do with the movie- it's not even in the same tone as the movie. There was no explanation of the motivation for Ben Affleck to choose the house he chose; there was not any believable reactions by the family he chose; and people are swayed here and there without any cause to be swayed (Example: Christina Applegate and Ben Affleck's characters go tobogganing down a steep slope- this is the incident that makes her suddenly fall in love with him. Riiiight...) Anyway, there was a funny moment or two- but they were a rarity in the movie. It seriously needed another rewrite (or 4). Hope you enjoy!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched it with my mom and we were like...<br /><br />What the hell? We didn't get it at all. I may have this wrong, but a chair had something to do with the death of this woman's father. That movie was terrible! This is not a movie for those who love a good suspense movie. Bad suspense movie! *shakes cane at movie* I'm never seeing it again. And I'm a big fan of lifetime movies, too! They kinda need to quit trying to make movies outta books. It's driving me crazy!!!<br /><br />And Whit was butt-ugly and yet, she loves him more than Hugh, who was a TINY bit nicer-looking.<br /><br />My rating: 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie in a theater in Chicago and should have enjoyed it, since I love Nemesis
but if the first half an hour is skillfully done, the rest is just sub-Predator video fodder, a long chase through those post-modern empty factories Pyun affectionnates. My girlfriend fell asleep. I still like Pyun though, but not this
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't know much about this movie before I watched it, but I heard it had something to do with quantum physics so I was interested. What I didn't know is that this is NOT ACTUALLY A STORY but a bunch of New-Age blowhards who love the sound of their own voice talking about how little they know about basic quantum mechanics. I say it belongs more in the Documentary category than Comedy or Drama.<br /><br />Marlee Matlin is in the movie, in order to give this New Age symposium *some* sort of a storyline. Her portions of the film feel horribly tacked on and are meant to display the speaker's thoughts so we won't die of boredom. Matlin has a real job as a photographer, unlike the New Age hippie that crashes on her couch. We get to listen to nameless people ramble on about what quantum physics all "means" to them. The one bright spot in this movie was the speaker from India (I assume), but I think he showed up for the wrong film.<br /><br />It looks like Barbara Eden really let herself go and she goes on and on about how quantum science has something to do with her crazy New Age beliefs. It looks like Quark from DS9 was running low on cash and he also makes a brief appearance in the film. There is a lot of whizbang CGI we're supposed to be impressed with; cells in the body are shown as dancing jello molds, because the filmmakers have apparently seen Flubber one too many times.<br /><br />People in the movie say that the Arawak people on San Salvador thought Columbus's ship the Pinta was invisible because natives had never seen clipper ships before, as if people today had any way possible way of knowing. Of course they leave out all of that information and just say "Columbus's ships were invisible to the Indians in America." The film takes many such arrogant leaps. Thomas Young did a double-slit experiment around 1805 and found that light can look like a particle some of the time, and a wave some of the time. Of course you'd never *know* this from watching this stupid film because the only reference to it is that "atoms can be particles and waves." And that must mean that people can pass through walls, walk on water, and never grow old if they just wish upon a star!! Then I'm sure Marlee Matlin could stop being deaf if she just *believed* hard enough. I'm being sarcastic, but this film is chock-full of false hope and beliefs that the people espousing them don't really hold.<br /><br />These are New Age kooks who have grabbed onto Quantum Theory as if it reaffirms everything they believe about meditation, zero point energy, crystal healing, etc. If these snake-oil salesmen truly believed the crap they were selling, couldn't they just *wish* their paychecks into existence instead of appearing in this joke of a film? We get to listen to another nameless man, with no credentials that we know of, talk on his couch in front of a fireplace (or TV screen) about how he creates his own life. Every time he was on the screen I wanted someone to rush in and throw a pie in his face. These people take themselves WAY too seriously. Some other balding guy in a suit says that nobody ever *really* touches anything because there's a magnetic force preventing it at the quantum level. If only someone had walked onto the screen and kept punching him in the stomach, screaming "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" A moral relativist in the movie claims that there's really "no such thing as good or bad." So apparently it's OK that Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death? Another person says that there is "no such thing as love." It's just a chemical and that we really don't love people, we're just addicted to the chemical rush we have when we're around them. I suspect this guy is doing this film as community service for being addicted to heroin for so many years.<br /><br />We are witness to a truly pathetic sequence where two young adults walk around a wedding reception, seeing everything like RoboCop. They evaluate if women are cows, dogs, or foxes, and a sexual position pops onto the scree. Marlee Matlin gets drunk at the wedding she's supposed to photograph and the next day decides to love herself and take a bath because she's a beautiful and unique snowflake.<br /><br />I liked when the film said people often find evidence for their pre-conceived notions. Perhaps in this review I'm only seeing what I want to see, but I TRULY wanted to see these people get pies to the face, and it never happened.<br /><br />If you've never heard of any of the ideas presented in the film before, you may find them interesting, but there are better sources for all of the ideas here. If you want to watch a good movie that talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, go see The Man Who Wasn't There. If you want to read a good book about Quantum Field Theory, read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. If you want to see a film that talks about different philosophies with imaginative visuals, see Waking Life (although it can feel boring, self-important, and pretentious at times). All in all, you should go and read Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson instead of wasting your time on this movie.<br /><br />I normally have a very hard time giving movies a score from 1 to 10, but this one was a very easy for me: 1/10 Stars.<br /><br />The movie's title is true. The people in this film don't know #$*! Hands down, the worst movie I've ever seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sunshine is a European import set in Hungary between 1880 and 1980, it's the epic story of Hungarian Jews, the Sonnenschein family. This name literally translates to Sunshine. The family has humble beginnings, then is prosperous, becomes upwardly mobile, changes it's name, and hopes to assimilate into Hungarian society so successive generations can advance professionally. The story is told through the eyes of the eldest son in each of three generations; Ralph Fiennes plays these three roles. For those who missed the WW-II and the Holocaust in Europe, the Sonnenschein' approach to life doesn't work out very well.<br /><br />Sunshine is being acclaimed as an artistic success, but it is an opportunity missed. The story line, dominated by world history, is predictable and transparent; this is reinforced with voice cover narration and newsreel footage. The family 'plot' lurches from one predictable event [ie. the Hapsburgs, WW-I, WW-II, Fascism, Communism, etc.] to the next with little continuity, depth or detail. The Jewish assimilation theme is unfocused, and important sub-themes [the 'secret' diary and family philosophy] that could have given the family character and credibility are l ost until the very end. Alternatively, the filmmakers provide generation continuity using common themes of incest / infidelity.<br /><br />Ralph Fiennes exhibits flashes of brilliance but his performance is far from award winning material. The "3 for 1" casting format is a viewer distraction and feels more like a cheap cinema gimmick than good theater. Sunshine is basically Hungarian "History Channel" material. It has the look and feel of Winds of War morphed with Forrest Gump morphed with Something About Sex.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I totally disagreed with those comments which said this is a good movie. This is a totally SUCKED movie. I mean SUCKED - S.U.C.K.E.D. The story development is strange. Mia Kirshner changed from an innocent girl to a party-fun seeking chick for no convincing reasons at all. In addition, all the actresses looked way too old for being college students - College students looked like about 30 years old - you figure out the rest. I watched only about first ten minutes and started fast forwarding to look for sex scenes. all the sex scenes are lame, hasty and, most importantly, no frontal at all. All the sex scenes are laughable, considering how many clothes they had on. Do yourself a favor - put it down and save yourself a few bucks. Conclusion: Story - 0, Sex - 0, Acting - 0, Score - 0 out 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ahh this film had so much potential! A good cast of quality B actors, the thighs of Jessica Simpson and... that is about it!<br /><br />I believe some guy in some unnamed marketing department had an idea. Basically, lets do a kind of Legally Blond film, but do it in New York. That big bright city of chances, power and money and where everyone is a heartless, power/money hungry person. Let's add to this Jessica Simpson, small town bimbo, that brother of Owen Wilson and for some no apparent reason Andy Dick (only because of him you should ignore this film).<br /><br />Basic story line:<br /><br />Boy leaves girl for NY, girl follows, boy cheats, girl stays in NY with cousin, gets a job under false pretenses, mucks up, is courted by other boy (Brother Wilson) and together save the day and kiss.<br /><br />a few words come to mind when reflecting upon this film, i.e. dire, awful, unbearable, intolerable and xenophobic<br /><br />Just don't watch this film, you will be happier. One reviewer referred to Guantanamo and i definitely agree with him. This film induces shock. And I know what you are thinking... at least at some point will I see Simpson naked or close too. It's not gonna happen, spare yourself the time and YouTube her. You will have better sexy time!<br /><br />The films editing is flimsy, the acting is unbearable, and why do they use blue screens?<br /><br />In conclusion; this is cinematic treason which should be punished to the maximum<br /><br />Another question why does Willie Nelson always play a kind of father figure in almost every Jessica Simpson flick and why are there no black, Latin, Asian or European people in this movie?
|
Negative
| null | null |
On the 26th of September 1983 a short dumpy 60 year old woman stood trial for the attempted murder of Leonie Haddad, a lady whose husband had recently died and had agreed to take in a lodger who came via a housing authority for the elderly. Haddad was not made aware that her new lodger had, in fact, come fresh from The Patton State Mental Hospital where she had been incarcerated for an inexplicable knife attack on a married couple three years previously. Haddad soon realised that something was 'rotten in Denmark' when the woman began to lock herself in the bathroom with a tape recorder reciting prophesies about' seven Gods'. Haddad's fears were confirmed one night when she awoke to find her lodger sitting astride her chest holding a bread knife announcing that "God has inspired me to kill you". Haddad managed to knock her assailant out with a telephone but not before she had lost a finger and suffered deep lacerations to her face and chest. It was a miracle she survived. The lodger was judged to be innocent by reason of insanity but sent, kicking and screaming, back to the laughing academy. Ten years later she was released and found that she was now a celebrity; but not for the brutal attacks on her innocent victims, but for her incarnation of 25 years earlier when she was known as the 'Queen of the Curve's, the 'Tennessee Tease' and 'Miss Pin Up Girl of the World' - the Notorious Bettie Page. <br /><br />Director Mary Harron, mainly known for 'American Psycho' takes us back to the glory days of a legendary cheesecake and bondage model (played solidly enough by Gretchen Mol) who inadvertently wrote the blue print for fetish iconography and whose influence can be detected in everything from comic books to catwalks. T.N.B.P is day-glo fun ride through an evocative depiction of the 1950's where Page, with the familial help of good intentioned boyfriends and photographers, becomes the number one star of pocket sized men's glossies with titles like Wink, Tab and Parade. Her real dream of movie stardom evades her and a brush with the authorities over obscenity charges in 1957 is the inciting incident which leads her to retire from modelling and give herself to God. The overall style of the film is light and frothy and only darkens momentarily with an allusion to her father's incestuous attentions and a sexual assault which inexplicably appears to have no discernible effect on her. Mol plays Page as she seems in her photographs, happy, carefree and fun - even the bondage shots betray little more than a good humoured incomprehensibility. The film ends on the upbeat with Page cheerfully handing out bibles in a park with no indication of the real life unhappy marriages, personal tragedy and decent into murderous insanity which lay before her; avoiding what I think is the essential core of Page's story - rebirth and resurrection. <br /><br />Having emerged from a decade of incarceration Page found that her cult had been in the ascendance since the mid 1980's and that she had become a huge underground icon, during which, many were asking "whatever happened to Bettie Page". Her 'mysterious' disappearance fed the fires of any number of conspiracy theories only adding to the allure of her legend. When the world's media finally caught up with her she gave no hint of her darker past and she was soon giving interviews for magazines, T.V and being photographed at Playboy parties with the likes of Pamela Anderson and the equally tragic Anna Nicole Smith. She found that she was now more famous than she ever was in her 'glory years' but in the glare of this 'resurrection' it was only a matter of time before the full story would come to light. <br /><br />The only notorious thing about The Notorious Bettie Page is they left out the part when she became truly notorious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well where do i start? i think it's very insulting to the original Annie with Aileen Quimnn. I love the film Annie, and i was expecting this to be a brilliant film, but i was so disappointed! the acting is awful, the original Annie came out a few years before i was born, I'm now 25 and Annie is still one of my favourite films, So i was really excited to see Annie 2. The acting was awful in the film, were any of the characters original? very badly written, directed and acted. This is not a film i wish to see again, and any Annie lover i recommend that you don't watch this film because it will only leave you very disappointed. The young girls singing isn't bad but still doesn't compare to the original
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was looking forward to this ride, and was horribly disappointed.<br /><br />And I am very easily amused at roller coaster and amusement park rides.<br /><br />The roller coaster part was just okay - and that was all of about 30 seconds of a 90 second ride. <br /><br />It was visually dull and poorly executed. <br /><br />It was trying desperately to be like a mixture of the far superior Indiana Jones and Space Mountain rides and Disneyland, and failed in every aspect.<br /><br />It was not thrilling or exciting in the least.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did HeidiJean really see this movie? A great Christmas movie? Not even close. Dull, bland and completely lacking in imagination and heart. I kept watching this movie wondering who the hell thought that Carly Pope could play the lead in this movie! The woman has no detectable personality and gives a completely lackluster performance. Baransky was great as usual and provided the only modicum of interesting the whole thing. Probably her involvement was the only reason this project was green lighted to begin with. Maybe I'm expecting too much for a Lifetime movie played 15 days from Christmas but I sat through this thing thinking that with a different director and a recasting JJ with an actress that at least could elicit sympathy this could have been quite a cute little movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
'Maladolescenza' has the air of a dark fairy tale, with its child protagonists, forest setting, and the discovery of a castle's ruins. Yet at its core, the film is essentially an unusual psychosexual study of adolescents. Opening with a dream sequence employing the not-so-subtle metaphor of Fabrizio wrestling with his menacing hound, the film details his psychological persecution of Laura, the girl who has pledged her love to him, and his eventual romance with the equally malicious Sylvia. The film's psychological complexities do give the film merit, yet there's no doubting how unnecessarily exploitive the film is in its depiction of nudity and sex. The film's look relies more on its gorgeous locations rather than particular cinematographic skill, and there's no doubting the film's greatest asset is the creepy, children's choir-augmented soundtrack. With its odd dreamlike quality, the film is at best interesting, yet pales beside Louis Malle's surreal and brilliant 'Black Moon' from the same era. Certainly deserving of the art versus pornography debate, for unlike many banned films, Pasolini's 'Salo' or Larry Clark's 'Ken Park' for instance, the film is rather unremarkable from an artistic perspective. Cinema seems to be gradually losing its ability to shock, so perhaps 'Maladolescenza' should be admired for retaining that power thirty years after its release. However shock value is the one reason alone the film is memorable. <br /><br />The film does have its defenders. Yet so does Nazism.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.<br /><br />I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...from this awful movie! There are so many things wrong with this film, acting, writing, direction, editing, etc. that it's amazing that something rises to the top and proves itself to be the absolute worst. The music! I noted that the film has two composers listed. This must be the reason why every single frame has music, of the absolute worst "D" movie style drivel. They have never heard of the expression "less is more". It got so painful to listen to, I muted the sound every time there was no dialogue, not that the dialogue was that good. You have to feel sorry for Robert Wagner and Tom Bosley, I'm sure they didn't see roles like this in the twilight of their careers. See it at your own risk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not a huge Freddy Krueger fan,but that doesn't mean that I don't like Robert Englund and his other Nightmare on Elm Street movies.I think that Robert is a very good actor.Nobody plays a better Freddy Krueger than he does.But,no offense Robert, this movie sucked.The acting is terrible,the plot is really weak,and Freddy Krueger is the only part of the cast that's even worth watching.Sometimes sequels can be better than the first,such as the Friday the 13th franchise(I thought the remake was the best in the series.)But this isn't one of those movies.The original was good,the 2nd in my opinion was better,the 3rd was okay but I haven,t seen the others.Whatever you do,don,t make the same mistake I did by watching this piece of crap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Depending entirely on your own personal state of mind when watching this, "Christmas Evil" can either turn out to become an ambitious and innovative psychological thriller OR one of the most pathetic and infuriatingly lame holiday-themed slashers ever made. Me, personally, I'm tempted to opt for the latter because I didn't bother to do any research at all and simply anticipated a cheesy and undemanding early 80's slasher with a nutcase in a Santa Clause costume butchering people. Wrong! The movie actually handles about a bloke named Harry Stadling; who's obsessed with Christmas, works in a rubbish toy factory and considers it to be his responsibility to determine on Christmas Eve who deserves presents and who deserves punishment. Harry's issues all started when he witnessed Santa his daddy in a costume obviously caress his mommy's naked legs at a tenderly young age. After that he just developed into a social outcast, much to the irritation of his younger brother, who's bound to snap one (holi)day. I fully understand why certain fans appreciate this slightly eccentric horror movie, but did it really have to be so boring? There are several overlong and seemingly endless parts of the film in which absolutely nothing happens. I can forgive the shortness of gore and outrageous bloodshed, but this movie doesn't even benefice from an unsettling atmosphere or unexpectedly demented plot twists (with the notable exception of the finale, I must admit). Also, I would have taken the concept more seriously if the crazed protagonist would focus himself on lethally punishing the naughty children! He doesn't and exclusively kills misbehaving adults. How are you supposed to take wannabe controversial and original Christmas thriller serious when Santa doesn't even commit one miserable child murder? THAT would have made "Christmas Evil" a classic, whereas now it's just a forgettable and pitiable piece of junk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie makes Peter an elf in Robin Hood costume instead of a human boy in probably-not-Robin-Hood-costume and ignores all the persona features in him that really matter. This movie makes Wendy a babbling idiot. And poor Captain Hook a TOTAL clown. And of course as every Disney cartoon must have a character which has had too many hits in the head, they made one of the Lost Boys that one. The only character that has not been disgraced in this film is Tink. The only star is for her.<br /><br />The story itself then? The Darling parents don't even get the time to notice their kids are gone!!! Probably one of the most significant point in the original story and they ruined it! Also the famous nursery scene between Peter Pan and Wendy is a stunning piece of- There are no thimbles and no acorns - one of the little things that makes the original story such a unique one. It's a wonder he even had lost his shadow and she helped him stick it. (Even though to his shoes and it makes no sense to me.)<br /><br />Ruining a great story like this just to amuse children should be illegal. So know now if you haven't known it before - this Disney version does not have anything significant in common with the original story - which is not really a children's story but just a great, great story.<br /><br />This just annoys me to no end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried. This was complete waste of time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS wasted time and money on this and it is embarrassing to claim that this was Ludlum's work.<br /><br />May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how good that TV series was.<br /><br />Poor Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, why did they sign to stoop this low?<br /><br />Horrible!!
|
Negative
|
If Bob Ludlum was to see this mini series, he would have cried in joy. This was completely worth the time and money. I have read the book and even though movies are not exactly what the book may be, CBS spent time and money on this and it is so good to see a claim that this was Ludlum's best work.<br /><br />May be the creator should check out the Bourne Identity with Richard Chamberlain and see how much better this TV series was.<br /><br />Mira, Blair, Anjelica and Colm, did they know this would be such a hit?<br /><br />Amazing!!
|
Positive
|
Not one of the better pokemon movies.<br /><br />Two legendary pokemon come into the story. You do get to see how strong Celebi can be, though he turns evil first.<br /><br />Suicune also makes an appearance, he didn't seem that powerful.<br /><br />The Marauder didn't have many strong pokemon at all, except for that taranitar? Some fight scenes with his pokemon may have made it better.<br /><br />Ash and Pikachu meet the much younger Professor Oak, though they don't realise it. Misty I was thinking had it at the end but she didn't get close. I saw this in the credits.<br /><br />Don't expect much here, the worst of the series so far.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Only on a very rare occasion does an episode of the x-files fail to generate any excitement or does the episode contain anything which is just totally boring to watch.A detective and his former partner both die in unexplained circumstances.The deaths are linked to the presence of a little girl who was there when the deaths took place.Mulder has devised a theory that a policeman murdered by his colleagues has come back reincarnated as the little girl and is exacting revenge.Now for the bizarre bit.The little girl has no connection at all and seems to just a random person chosen as the reincarnation.I think this was slightly lazy writing by the writers and this episode ranks as one of the worst in x-files history!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay guys, we know why we watch film like "The Invisible Maniac" (just look at the cover, man!). T and A all over the place (with a lot more T than A). But...shouldn't there be a story to go with it?<br /><br />"C'mon," I can hear you say - "this is just girls gettin' naked! Who needs a story??!"<br /><br />Well, if this were called "The NAKED Maniacs", I wouldn't have a problem. But since these guys are cribbing from "The Invisible Man", they need to have a bit of story hereabouts, you know, to keep your mind busy.<br /><br />However, all they can muster up is how this crazy doctor creates an invisibility serum and, when he cracks, uses it to spy on naked women and ends up killing a lot of teenagers. And when you see the smarmy-looking teenagers he goes after, you'll be grateful.<br /><br />One star, for the T and A, but there's a little too much gore for you skin fans, so proceed with caution.<br /><br />TIDBIT - yes, it's THAT Savannah.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before watching this film I had very low expectations and went to just see the cars. Eventually I even regretted going for that reason. Plot is almost non-existent. Character development is non-existent. So many clichés and so much jaw-dropping cheesiness existed in the movie that I could only stare and wonder how it was even released. If not for the exotics, I wouldn't have even rated this movie a 1. An attempt at a coherent story line is destroyed by the sheer absurdity of this elite racing cult and the laughable characters that make up its members. In fact, the movie's plot is so predictable and simple-minded that an average child could foretell the majority of the storyline. Bad acting, bad plot, bad jokes, bad movie.<br /><br />Don't see it. Play Gran Turismo HD instead and it'll satiate your thirst for fast sexy cars without leaving a bad aftertaste.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was the worst film I have ever viewed. It was like a "homework assignment" for a film class. It totally misses the mark when it comes to the "message" it is TRYING to relay. Characters are over exaggerated, poor acting and as for a plot...well it is utterly ridiculous. The cover shot is what made me think it may be a decent film, the co-actor is handsome and that's about it. Moral of this movie: NEVER JUDGE A MOVIE BY IT'S COVER! Save your time, money and energy and make your own home movie and you will be far better off than I. It was painful to watch and quite frankly I am surprised that anyone would spend money to make and distribute it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Quite what the producers of this appalling adaptation were trying to do is impossible to fathom.<br /><br />A group of top quality actors, in the main well cast (with a couple of notable exceptions), who give pretty good performances. Penelope Keith is perfect as Aunt Louise and equally good is Joanna Lumley as Diana. All do well with the scripts they were given.<br /><br />So much for the good. The average would include the sets. Nancherrow is nothing like the house described in the book, although bizarrely the house they use for the Dower House looks remarkably like it. It is clear then that the Dower House is far too big. In the later parts, the writers decided to bring the entire story back to the UK, presumably to save money, although with a little imagination I have no doubt they could have recreated Ceylon.<br /><br />Now to the bad. The screenplay. This is such an appallingly bad adaptation is hard to find words to condemn it. Edward does not die in the battle of Britain but survives, blinded. He makes a brief appearance then commits suicide - why?? Loveday has changed from the young woman totally in love with Gus to a sensible farmer's wife who can give up the love her life with barely a tear (less emotional than Brief Encounter). Gus, a man besotted and passionately in love, is prepared to give up his love without complaint. Walter (Mudge in the book) turns from a shallow unfaithful husband to a devoted family man. Jess is made into a psychologically disturbed young woman who won't speak. Aunt Biddy still has a drink problem but now without any justification. The Dower House is occupied by the army for no obvious reason other than a very short scene with Jess who has a fear of armed soldiers. Whilst Miss Mortimer's breasts are utterly delightful, I could not see how their display on several occasions moved the plot forward. The delightfully named Nettlebed becomes the mundane Dobson. The word limit prevents me from continuing the list.<br /><br />There is a sequel (which I lost all interest in watching after this nonsense) and I wonder if the changes were made to create the follow on story. It is difficult to image that Rosamunde Pilcher would have approved this grotesque perversion of her book; presumably she lost her control when the rights were purchased.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What an unusual movie.<br /><br />Absolutely no concessions are made to "Hollywood special effects" or entertainment. There is no background music, not special effects or enhanced sound.<br /><br />Facial expressions are usually covered by thick beards and the Spanish language is a strange monotonic lilt that sounds the same whether in the midst of a battle or talking around a campfire.<br /><br />I sort of viewed these movies (parts 1 and 2) as an educational experience, not really something to go and get entertained by. Its quite long and in places dull.<br /><br />But I suspect that given the lack of any plot development, I don't think its very educational either.<br /><br />Its also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue - it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what is happening, since for some reason the director didn't see fit to inform the audience why Che's band was moving around the way they did - as a result there seem to be groups skulking around the woodland for no particular reason and getting shot at.<br /><br />I would have loved to give this movie more stars for somehow generating more empathy with me and developing depth of character, but somehow all of the characters were still strangers to me at the end. The stars it gets are for realism and showing the hardships of guerrilla warfare.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A quite usual trashy Italo-Western, stupid storyline full of clichés and lack of logic, some mediocre actors, dirty settings, lots of punch-fights and people shoot dead on a massive scale.<br /><br />This has nothing to do with Django. - At least not in my German translated version, this German DVD-release is called "Adios Companeros" and has Macho Callaghan fighting against Butch Cassidy and Ironhead because their gang killed his one (he's the only survivor). Then you have Butch Cassidy and Ironhead fighting each other because they quarreled and the gang split. And you have Ironhead fighting against everyone because he's just the biggest and most greedy asshole anyway. Yeah, that's it, no more cleverness in the storyline, hehe.<br /><br />A small role by Klaus Kinski as Reverend Cotton is remarkable (that's why I bought this DVD). In one scene he attempts to separate two men fighting by hitting them and screaming "I said love!" and in another scene he wins a competition in throwing horseshoes and goes nuts for a second - FANTASTICFANTASTICFANTASTIC!!!<br /><br />It's also remarkable that JOE d'AMATO aka Aristide Massaccesi did the cinematography - I love this master of incompetent exploitation-thrash, so it was an "aahhh" for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.<br /><br />The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title "Honolulu 1944" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.<br /><br />But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.<br /><br />The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.<br /><br />Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.<br /><br />But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).<br /><br />Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.<br /><br />So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I enjoyed the first reviewer's comment far more than I did the film when I saw it at a second-run theatre in the early '80's. I was impressed then by the care taken to create costumes modelled so closely after the Tenniel drawings. But to me, the cast was largely squandered, their personalities muffled by the masks, while the direction I think of as being unusually static, and the photography murky. The rating jotted down at the time was a nought, which means "not worth sitting through even once".<br /><br />Still, I too would jump at a chance to have a second look.
|
Negative
| null | null |
urgh! 3 things a movie needs: a good script, a good plot and good casting. i watched this movie expecting it to be hilariously terrible and was unfortunately disappointed when it was just plain terrible. I lost the will to live halfway through. The only thing which stopped me from stabbing my eyes out with a fork was Rose Byrne (who was the reason for me watching it in the first place). She did a good job as Rastus and her appearance hasn't changed much since she was 13. it was a fantastic first effort in a movie. the dog was also very good. both did a great job with such awful material. Sandra Bernhard i think was the biggest mistake of the movie. she was completely miscast, and i don't think she ever quite got the character.<br /><br />I give the movie 2 out of 10 - and thats only because of Rose.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I noticed "Fire" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I was looking forward to this. I was intrigued by the pre-hype descriptions of the Enterprise, its cramped-submarine styling and rough-edged technology compared to the Treks we are used to.<br /><br />I didn't see anything all that interesting in this pilot. I found the plot to be convoluted and confusing.<br /><br />I will admit that I did like some of the character development - the depictions of the humans as an 'adolescent' species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining.<br /><br />And that Vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack.<br /><br />But I don't think I'm going to get hooked on this series.<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I seriously can't believe Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov, two people I LOVE, signed on to produce this crap. Tim Burton is a brilliant director, but to be honest I've been losing interest in him for a while since his last few movies were either remakes or adaptations. He did produce the brilliant "Nightmare Before Christmas", which is one I've watched multiple times, and directed movies like "Beetlejuice" and "Sleepy Hollow", which are awesome films. Bekmambetov directed 3 films that I LOVE: Night Watch, Day Watch, and Wanted. I've only seen those three of his, but they prove he's an awesome director.<br /><br />Those two people producing one of the many reasons I was excited to see 9. So today I went to go see it at the theatre. I was so excited to finally have seen it. I had waited 7 months for the movie to come out.<br /><br />This movie is the first time I've walked out of a Tim Burton-related movie and said "I enjoyed almost NONE of that". I felt heartbroken to even have felt that way. I mean, with him and Bekmambetov at the production helm you'd have expected this movie to be a good watch. Right now I still can't get over how let down I was by this movie. I hadn't even heard of the original short film before seeing it but now, I can successfully say that this movie should have remained a short movie. Hell, Neil Blomkamp made an AWESOME full length remake of Alive in Joburg entitled District 9, what was so hard to get right about 9??? I really wanted to think this movie was awesome. I really did. But no, it failed on so many levels.<br /><br />The plot was extremely confusing and disjointed. I had no idea what was going on, let alone what it was about. Basically it's about a bunch of rag doll robots trying to save the earth. Well, OK, that's what I got from it. But the writing here is extremely poor. The whole film jumps around like a 6 year old with A.D.D. telling a story. There's this big, giant clanky monster robot that 9 awakens, causing destruction and stuff. That's the main villain. However, what else is wrong with this movie is that EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. There were too many monster robots, most of which have no logical explanation behind them. They have 0 development whatsoever. I mean, that flying pterodactyl like monster just rips out of nowhere, we have no idea where it comes out of and Acker just expects us to know what it is. What was even more retarded was that snake-like creature with the strobing eyes that hypnotize. I dare you to give that description to someone else out loud and expect them not to laugh. All of the 3 people I told about it burst out laughing. Oh and it wraps victims up and sews them inside it. I'M. NOT. KIDDING.<br /><br />The twist in Act III is the most retarded aspect of the whole movie. So basically 9 goes back to the room he woke up in, finds this box with a hologram from the scientist in it for 9, and he tells him that the big scary machine robot was designed to bring robot life to earth, but then evil humans use it for war, and it was supposed to help protect the earth, but then the scientist gave his life to 9 so that it could help protect the world with it. And HE ONLY MENTIONS GIVING HIS LIFE TO 9. But what about the other robots? WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEM???????? This is the perfect example of poor, rushed writing. There's only one of the life taking device thingy that exists so how did the other 8 get life given to them??????? The characters are not likable at all either. They risk their lives for no reason at all. The only good character is 7. 6 annoyed me with his "GO BACK TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!" ramblings, 1 is an overpowering idiot, 2 we don't know ANYTHING about, 5 kept annoying me with his "Are you sure..." or "Can I stay here instead...?" questions. And that ending? UGH. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the ending was a huge WTF moment.<br /><br />There's nothing redeeming about this turd except for its beautiful animation. Everything looks realistic and beautiful, I love the gloomy and depressing look of everything. However, beauty can't save a good movie.<br /><br />While it's true that this movie is very pretty looking, pretty is as pretty does, and 9 does squat. I'm sure Burton fans will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie without a doubt, in fact with his and Bekmambetov's names being thrown around the promos, people will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie. I know I may be making a big deal out of nothing, but watching this movie made me realize how much I hate movies with unlikeable characters, nonexistent plot and just pure style over content. And this movie is one of those movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Except for the Brady Variety Hour, this was some of the hokiest television I've seen in a while. The video production qualities weren't too bad, but the overall look and feel were unmistakeably early 80's. And Marie Osmond looks like she did battle with the Avon Lady.. and lost big time. WAY too much eyeliner.<br /><br />It was kind of embarrassing to watch veterans Danny Kaye and Eric Severeid take part in this. Even more interesting was watching Alex Haley talk about the African Pavillion in World Showcase that would be opening 'in about a year.'<br /><br />As of this writing it is 17 years later and it hasn't opened yet (Unless you count Disney's Animal Kingdom.) All in all though, for all the shortcomings, this still an interesting visual piece of Disney history.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stereotypical send up of slasher flicks falls far short as supposed entertainment. Gerrit Graham, Michael Lerner, Zane Busby, and in fact the entire cast are totally wasted. Lame jokes abound, and every punch line is well telegraphed. The dumb one liners come at a fast pace, and almost every one falls flat as a squashed grape. The musical numbers only contribute to the boredom that sets in and lingers for the entire movie. Another negative is the claustrophobic setting entirely within the walls of an abandoned high school. Avoid this and seek out one of "Lampoon's" truly funny films like "National Lampoon's Golddiggers" - MERK
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite some occasionally original touches, like the "virtual sets" that provide the background for the Victorian interiors featuring Ada Lovelace and her circle, this film falls short and ultimately disappoints. Newcomer Francesca Faridany seems talented, but is wasted as Emmy, a character who by mid-film is reduced to nothing more than staring at a monitor watching Lady Ada narrate an autobiography. 'Conceiving Ada' takes off briefly when Lady Ada (Tilda Swinton) appears; the camera lingers on her facial expressions, mannerisms, even making her appear to be translucent or momentarily invisible, apporting into scenes to dramatize Emmy's "virtual" rendering of her.<br /><br />A straightforward biopic of Ada Lovelace would have been worthwhile, but this film unfortunately makes a hash of both Lady Ada's life, and that of a modern-day computer scientist (and her broadly-drawn, doltish boyfriend).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.<br /><br />The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*** Contains Spoilers ***<br /><br />I did not like this movie at all.<br /><br />I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?<br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.<br /><br />I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.<br /><br />1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.<br /><br />2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.<br /><br />3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.<br /><br />4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?<br /><br />5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.<br /><br />6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.<br /><br />7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.<br /><br />8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.<br /><br />9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?<br /><br />After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).<br /><br />The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.<br /><br />The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.<br /><br />Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Trust me, this is one let down movie that you want to avoid and this comes from one huge Denzel Washington fan. The frustrating part is that it's 1/3 of a GREAT film. The first part of this movie does an exceptional job of setting up the characters and the new relationship between Creasy and the girl he's paid to protect. The trailers to this movie all mention that she is kidnapped. So, I'm giving nothing away when I say that the film degenerates into an almost unwatchable mess after she's kidnapped. Whatever the director was trying to accomplish, all he succeeds in doing is making the audience literally nauseous. Rapid, frantic and choppy cuts follow for the next half-hour as Creasy tracks down the perpetrators. These cuts are so unnatural and nauseating that all they do is to jolt you out of the story. I'm sure the director thought that this unsettling way to present the story signified a change in Creasy's character and signified that a different movie was to follow. Well, he was right. The movie that followed was complete and unsatisfying crap. The result of which is a depressing ending that ruins even the quality first forty minutes of the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Strange... I like all this movie crew and dark humor movies; but didn't like this one at all! It's awful, horrible and surely not funny at all. Pity cannot do a whole movie plot, disgust either. And it was really boring. Long empty moments fills the movie; it could have been removed. It should have been in another shorter format, surely. Maybe i expected too much from the crew - like saving the movie lol -. It's also filled with overused clichés of characters and situations... I don't get it why people liked it... "Poetry", "hope"; nope 'mam, didn't see anything like that! ^^ All in all, it's empty and crude, pitiful and hopeless. Oh darn this one........
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've read reviews that apparently you have to have been a student in a very strict, British school in the 1960's to understand this. Maybe that's true, if so, then this movie is outdated.<br /><br />*************SPOILER ALERT**************************************** The ending makes about as much sense as all the kids who're anti-government and anti-corporation without having any better solution that doesn't torch society to a Mad Max type cinder.<br /><br />Yeah, the main characters could leave, but they don't. The reasons they go about this don't make sense. There isn't enough character development to explain why. What shooting up a bunch of innocent people is supposed to mean is never explained or even hinted at. It is mentioned that war is the final creative expression, quite possibly the only revelation that any characters of this movie have, and it makes no sense.<br /><br />The characters who go on a murder spree aren't fighting the institution, they're just killing people. I thought they might've used all the explosives to blow up the place or at least the sanctuary at the end, that would've made greater symbolic sense, but they didn't.<br /><br />tl;dr - This movie is an adolescent's daydream of fighting against authority that plagues them, though in reality they need. It has no moral, symbolic truth, or meaning to it; this movie simply plays out the fantasy of killing teachers and people in "power" that annoy you.<br /><br />If you think a murder rampage/ school shooting similar to columbine or virginia tech is a rational and sensible way to deal with teachers and institutions you don't like, then I guess you'll love this movie. If you're like me and you're working towards making a life for yourself instead of just blindly (very blindly in this movie) rebelling against "the man", this movie is juvenile and boring.<br /><br />You can also tell in parts that funding was lacking, and the story seemed to have a touch of attention deficit disorder.<br /><br />All in all, this seems like a very rough draft of what could've been an okay movie, but no effort is put into the dialogue, character development, or moral so it's just... poorly done.<br /><br />If... only I could get my two hours back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well this is the first post am ever commenting on IMDb., do you get it, this movie has made me come and warn all the good souls who will stop ever experimenting with movies.<br /><br />As most of them have given their comments I thought of watching this movie because it seemed to have some decent actors(though having read worst critics against this movie) I thought of experimenting it assuming it to be some comedy flick., Well it all started well with some ahem., comedies.... then it all started going pathetic... man you can believe your self, you wud feel like going and banging your head each and every time the pathetic looking woman called the heroine of the movie is made helpless...Huh~~ Well how much can a person digest a sick all POSSESSIVE witch kinda ghost trying to do all she can to irritate you and stop you from what you are doing.<br /><br />The next worst thing about the movie is, the "ZOMBIE" Hero, yes as he looses his fiancé he roams around like a Goat, with black marks under his eyes., and with the hero's "terribly stupid" sister.. you wud be bleeding from head to toe if you attempted and succeeded by completely watching this movie~!
|
Negative
| null | null |
badly directed garbage. a mediocre nihilist sadistic gorefest ... if you are the sort of person who likes that ... see a shrink. even if you are that person it doesn't make this a good film, the acting is really poor, the story full of plot holes, the director really should just give up and find a real job as he has no talent for this one. I can see why people dislike uwe boll .. we have had a few of his films on lately and this is the best of them, which is really sad! A complete absence of any sort of humanity seems to suit some people but here it just grates. Horror films can be full of desolation, they can be miniature works of art, they can be just good viewing when there is nothing else on ... SEED is just really really poor.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.<br /><br />Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.<br /><br />Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.<br /><br />If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.<br /><br />have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've had to change my view on the worst film in the world having just seen this one. THIS IS IT!<br /><br />Make no mistake this film is awful.<br /><br />Here's a list of reasons:<br /><br />Hopeless storyline (despite being based on a true story). Dreadful acting (what was Judge Reinhold thinking) Unbelieveably bad stunts. Childish dialogue. Non-existent continuity. Lack of atmosphere.<br /><br />Get the picture?<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I suppose if you like endless dialogue that doesn't forward the story and flashy camera effects like the scene transitions in the television show _Angel_, you'll enjoy the film. Me? All I wanted was a nice, tight little story, and it wasn't there. The pacing was practically backward, plot points were buried under a sea of unneeded dialogue, and there was absolutely no sense of dread, or tension, or ANYTHING.<br /><br />Is it the redneck? Is it the Wendigo? No, it's a cameraman on speed. That's not scary. It doesn't generate a single note of tension or atmosphere unless you're scared by MTV. Like those reviewers before me, I too noticed that by the end the movie invokes derisive laughter from the audience.<br /><br />Terrible film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the dumbest films, I've ever seen. It rips off nearly ever type of thriller and manages to make a mess of them all.<br /><br />There's not a single good line or character in the whole mess. If there was a plot, it was an afterthought and as far as acting goes, there's nothing good to say so Ill say nothing. I honestly cant understand how this type of nonsense gets produced and actually released, does somebody somewhere not at some stage think, 'Oh my god this really is a load of shite' and call it a day. Its crap like this that has people downloading illegally, the trailer looks like a completely different film, at least if you have download it, you haven't wasted your time or money Don't waste your time, this is painful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Miraculously, this is actually quite watchable. I mean, it's bad. It's really bad. But whereas the original was so-bad-it's-ruining-my-life bad, this is so-bad-it's-mildly-entertaining bad. Right, that's enough faint praise. Production values are rotten across the board, the acting is excruciating and the Romero-wannabe satire can't make its mind up which side of the ecology fence it's mocking. Internal logic takes a back seat to heads propelling themselves out of fridges, virus incubation times fluctuating as the 'plot' requires, bullets working against the zombies or not, zombies having the power of speech or not. Gore is the draw, obviously, but the framework is so slapdash it's annoying. The dialogue sounds like it's been translated by the same computers that mangle instruction manuals, and the scale of the zombie infestation is implied with none of the ingenuity of Romero's films. It's all topped off with a horrendous synth score. Absolute rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There were times during the movie I wish I had been beat to death. The only reason I endured the entirety of the movie was because I couldn't believe how bad it really was and thought it must get better. This truly was a horror film. I was horrified that I wasted what seemed like 4 hours of my life that I will never get back. The other two hours I spent mourning at the loss. Please recommend this movie to whomever you wish to torture and tell them the suspense will kill them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was shocked by the ridiculously unbelievable plot of Tigerland. It was a liberal's fantasy of how the military should be. The dialogue was difficult to swallow along with the silly things Colin Farrell's character was allowed to get away with by his superior officers.<br /><br />I kept thinking, "Hey, there's a reason why boot camp is tough. It's supposed to condition soldiers for battle and turn them into one cohesive unit. There's no room for cocky attitudes and men who won't follow orders." I was rooting for Bozz to get his butt kicked because he was such a danger to his fellow soldiers. I would not want to fight alongside someone like him in war because he was more concerned with people's feelings than with doing what was necessary to protect his unit.<br /><br />--<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm the sort of person who went down to the local library and read books on Babbage's difference engine whilst my schoolmates were playing football etc.. So, if there is any such thing as a target audience for this film, then I guess I'd probably be included in that.<br /><br />Maybe I just need to watch it again. A previous reviewer mentioned not to watch this film whilst being tired. Maybe that was my mistake.<br /><br />I tried my best to enjoy this film, and there are aspects of it that I do like, but overall I found it amateurish and quite plodding.<br /><br />Being somewhat of a self confessed computer nerd, I just can't help but pick up on the exact time frame when the movie was actually made, and how the employed graphics reflect that time (i.e. 1997). Having played games of the era c.f. "Mind Grind" to cite one example, this film cannot escape that 16-bit colour low res multimedia explosion of that time. Now thankfully this has somewhat lessened in more recent years in the gaming world at least, in favour of actual game play.<br /><br />Having to resort to watching this movie via a German FTA satellite channel (as I don't think it's ever been aired on UK FTA TV, well not recently anyway), I was mildly amused to see the end credits note Gottdog (God dog) had 4 people working on it's design. Maybe it's mean spirited of me to be amused by this, given that ten years have elapsed since the movie was made, nevertheless the end result makes movie graphics from the eighties look good by comparison.<br /><br />But, as for the main story, I agree that the format isn't the best idea. Like others I agree that Ada deserves a film without the sci-fi angle, and a more straightforward biographical approach would perhaps be better suited to covering the life story of this remarkable lady.<br /><br />There are fundamental mistakes that undermine my enjoyment of this movie. First of all the underlying idea that somehow lost real-world information from the past can be accurately reconstructed through some sort of extrapolation via software based intelligent agents, seems somehow ludicrous.<br /><br />Also, the theme running through the movie that a computing device can indeed predict the mechanics of all things through the course of time (e.g. the winds) is now known not to be the case.<br /><br />OK, so the Victorians may have held this view, but the 20th century works of Gödel proving that no mathematical system can be complete, Turing's works on the limits of computability, not to mention chaos theory and quantum mechanics, have all completely undermined these ideas, which seem central to how the modern day researcher's software is supposed to work.<br /><br />Finally, the clicking of the mouse in the air to mean "programming" is also just plain wrong, as previously mentioned.<br /><br />This film maybe could have been OK, but at least some technical and scientific consultation would have given the film some much needed credit in the believability stakes.<br /><br />I won't forget the film though, as like "Pi", it is clearly a unique work, but with too many fatal mistakes for me to truly enjoy it, 3/10 from me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is pure 'Hollywood hokum'. It is based upon a novel called 'Not Too Narrow
Not Too Deep' by Richard Sale, which may or may not have been interesting; it would take research to find out! The story in the film takes for granted many incidents and much background which obviously existed in the novel but are nowhere to be seen in the film, so either the film was savagely cut or the screenplay was a mess from the start. There is not one millisecond in this film which is remotely realistic, either in terms of events or characters. It is pure Hollywood fantasy in every respect. Two well-known actors, Paul Lukas and Peter Lorre, are so under-used and wasted that there was no point in their being in the film at all. They must have been thrown into the mix in the manner in which one adds a sprinkling of chopped chives to an omelette, hoping that the flavour will be enhanced. The film is a ponderous attempt at producing a 'morality tale', and is so corny that it is laughable. The story concerns some hardened criminals imprisoned in French Guiana who want to escape from their French colonial prison through a jungle (very much a Hollywood set jungle, with a rubber snake). Naturally there has to be a woman in the story, so Joan Crawford hams it up as a down-on-her-luck tramp who for some reason becomes irresistible to Clark Gable, one of the escaped criminals. Crawford in escaping through the jungle wears high-heeled shoes and keeps her makeup fresh. Gable flirts and grimaces and makes mawkish expressions, crinkling his brow as was his wont, smirking and looking suggestively at everybody, which was his manner of acting. It is hard to treat such a character as a hardened criminal when he is always trying so hard to be Clark Gable that surely he hasn't any time left to be a thief. (Attention-seekers are by definition too busy to steal and unsuited to a task which requires that people NOT see them.) The whole escapade is so ridiculous that it can only be regarded as light entertainment. An attempt at religiosity and 'depth' is made by injecting into the story a mysterious 'angel of mercy' who voluntarily walks into the prison and pretends to be an inmate. He helps in the escape and accompanies all the criminals and ministers to their various deaths, helping them to find 'peace' in their last gasps. This character is played very well by Ian Hunter, who retains throughout a convincing air of secret knowledge, smiles enigmatically, makes cryptic prophetic remarks, and has a small spot trained on his face to give him a heavenly glow. The theme is meant to be redemption. You might call it the Donald Duck version of 'Hollywood Goes Moral and Gets Heavy'. For real depth, Hitchcock's 'I Confess' of 1953 shows how it should really be done. By contrast, this piece of trivial nonsense shows just how bare the cupboards of Meaning were in Tinsel Town, and that when they went rummaging for something that might mean something, all they could come up with was, you guessed it, more tinsel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't let the premise fool you--this was one funny movie. The problem--it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. The story sets you up nicely for an ending that never comes. Even worse, the set-up is NEVER explained. You will leave the theater asking "Is that it?" I rate it a 2 simply because there were a few brief moments of promise, but the finish leaves you completely flat. Nicholas Cage did as good a job as can be expected in the role, but he had very little to work with. There are odd quirks, and interesting turns everywhere, which had absolutely nothing to do with the movie. Let this one come out on video before wasting your money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
well well One cant b wasting time just cause of a big star-cast ..i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who? some pathetic songs that will be heard by who? some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who? race against time? u mean waste against time? OK so first you spoil your kid,then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it Hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway!
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are bad movies, then there are the movies that are SO bad, that they become almost art. This is one of those films. My partner and I are still both kind of shell shocked, you know, staring off into space and drooling! You can tell that the people involved (I hope they changed their names to protect themselves) were having a blast, and they definitely weren't shy. I give this one a three out of ten just because of the gratuitous smut and REALLY bad gore effects. I laughed out loud during most of the movie, so I guess you could say that it showed me a good time. Beware viewer, the above words in no way construe that this is a good film, because it is not. All I can say in my defense, is that it was impossible to pass up a movie with such a GREAT title!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.<br /><br />I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...<br /><br />But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.<br /><br />I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.