input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.<br /><br />Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.<br /><br />In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.<br /><br />I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.<br /><br />The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."<br /><br />There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.<br /><br />The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.<br /><br />Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is horrendous. Decent fight scenes or not, the acting is REALLY bad, like you can tell they're reading their lines from a card. With painful line delivery by everyone in the cast. Think watching a high school play and cringing at the obvious lack of smoothness in the actor's interactions (weird pauses between different character's lines, combined with hurried line delivery by others). If the movie were all action, this might be forgivable, but a lot of the movie includes plot set-up and Family Guy style, irreverent cut aways (Oh, wow, are they badly done). I'm assuming they were attempting to be funny with these, but it again came off as a bunch of high-schoolers/ college entry students goofing off for the afternoon trying to set up a funny Youtube clip. <br /><br />Now to the fight scenes. They're not too bad, considering the level of quality seen everywhere else in the film. Nothing great either, certainly not anywhere near the same level as other posters have stated (Nothing like Drunken Master). The fights have an overly staged feel, with LOTS of cuts to different angles with blatantly different positions by those involved. <br /><br />In sum, the only reason to watch this movie is if you were one of the guy's friends involved with this very, very cheap production. Which guy you may ask? Oh, the same guy who wrote, directed, produced AND stared in this Middle School masterpiece.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Note: I will reveal a key part of the plot, but if you've looked at the DVD cover or any promotional material, you'll already know it.<br /><br />This movie seems to have been written by an eleven-year-old who isn't very bright and was probably very tired when he wrote it. The writer doesn't know the difference between a chemical and an organism.<br /><br />Forget the fact the the UN and the NSA seem to be running the show in Hungary. Forget the fact that when these master intelligence agents go chasing after someone whose mere touch will kill you in about a minute they don't wear protective gear (not even gloves). These are quibbles in the context of this movie. In the scientific world within this story, 2+2=6.34 and gravity goes sideways.<br /><br />The fact is that the people in this movie do not (with a few exceptions) behave the way human beings behave. Almost every time a character responds to something it is inappropriate. The love story (of course there is one) makes soap opera scripts seem like Shakespeare.<br /><br />I can't believe we wasted a free movie rental on this thing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Loved Part One, The Impossible Planet, but whoops, what a disappointment part two 'The Satan Pit' is. The cliffhanger of something apparently rising out of the pit was - nothing coming out of the pit. Then ages spent crawling round air vents to pad out the story, the Beast a roaring thing empty of intelligence, so no Doctor/villain confrontation I'd been anticipating. The TARDIS is somehow inside the pit despite the pit not being open till long after the TARDIS fell through the planet crust. And finally another ready made solution which existed for no logical reason - I mean, why not plunge the Beast into the Hole as soon as the pit opened? Why not plunge him in all those years ago instead of imprisoning him anyway. Why not - I could go on but I've lost interest...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I almost drowned in CHEESE watching this movie. In fact I could not even finish it. I want my money back. One more of Hollywood's feeble attempts to come up with a new idea. Good thing I keep a bowl of lemons in the fridge. Just in case. They should of gave Nic Cage a hat and a bull-whip. Swashbucklin'. Cage's performance in Raising Arizona or Leaving Las Vegas beats this "lemon". People who are completely and totally marketed(and most of them are) should love this movie. If this film had been animated, I would have taken it more seriously. I would of rather paid to see a completely stupid movie that did not try to hide it. In my opinion, this was a incredibly stupid movie and it made a even more incredibly sad attempt to try and hide that FACT.<br /><br />All the SHEEP seem to love it though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
NOTHING in this movie is funny. I thought the premise, giving a human the libido of a randy ram, was interesting and should provide for some laughs. WRONG! There is simply nothing funny about the movie. For example, the main character making a pass at a goat in heat in the middle of a farmer's yard is not funny, it borders on obscenity. They are toying around with bestiality in this film on one level, and it just aint funny.<br /><br />We all know that dogs will eat anything, anywhere, anytime. The main character doing this with everything, everywhere, everytime is also not funny. It becomes a cliche.<br /><br />Rob Schneider is, I guess, acceptable in the role. By this, I mean that he's not a bad actor, but with rotten material it's difficult to comment on quality. However, Coleen Haskell, the other half of the HUMAN-romantic leads (does one count the number of animals that the main character has interest in as romantic leads too?), seems embarrassed by the whole thing, as well she should be. She seems to be acting in some kind of vacuum, detached from all the other actors in the movie. <br /><br />See this film only if you wish to be bored by tasteless, dull, repetitive material.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions.<br /><br />"Happenstance" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.<br /><br />There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.<br /><br />She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.<br /><br />If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I jotted down a few notes here on THE FIRST POWER, Lou Lambada Diamond Phillips' 1990 satanic serial killer yuppie hell-fest ...<br /><br />1) Lou Diamond Phillips was recently indicted for beating up his wife and may serve time in prison. I only hope that he can find Armani prison wear to go off in style with: One of the guilty pleasures of this movie is seeing his police detective clad in $4500 designer overcoats, a $7300 designer silk suit, and seeing his $3500/month Los Angeles bachelor pad loft with interior design by Mies Van Der Roeh.<br /><br />2) Leading lady Tracey Phillips has gorgeous porcelain skin, flowing red hair that always seems styled even when mussed, and amazing breasts that are hi-lighted in the 2nd half of the film by a designer silk pullover that sadly remains in place over her torso even when she was being prepared to be sacrificed to Satan. At least back in the 1970's our demonic killers undressed their victims before doing away with them, though there is something to be said for leaving a bit to the imagination. By the final 10 minutes of the movie all I could think about is what her breasts probably would look like.<br /><br />3) Professional Psychics living in Los Angeles can afford $4 million dollar condos on Mullholland Drive overlooking Los Angeles with a view that would make Brad Pitt decide that he was roughing it. As a matter of fact the condominium used in this film looks exactly like the same one seen in David Lynch's MULLHOLLAND DR., which at least had the good sense to make it's condo resident a successful movie director. The only Professional Psychics I have encountered outside of this movie are all currently serving prison sentences for wire fraud.<br /><br />4) I forget his name but the villain in this movie is wonderful, and his "How's it going', Buddy Boy?" line could be the best overlooked movie phrase since "THANKS FOR THE RIDE, LADY!!" from CREEPSHOW 2.<br /><br />5) Underneath major metropolitan cities there are huge vats of simmering acid that will explode into huge fireballs if someone throws a lit Zippo lighter into them, which is why major public waterworks plants all have no smoking signs plastered all over them even though the idea of smoking around water being dangerous is of course preposterous. And since Zippo lighters need to be manually filled with lighter fluid that can often leak out and be absorbed by ones clothing, the idea of a carrying one in the pocket of your $7300 Gucci silk suit strikes me as being much more dangerous.<br /><br />6) The stunts in this movie are impressive to say the least, and one of the fun things about watching it is remaining yourself that you are not viewing computer aided special effects but actual stuntpeople risking life and limb to contribute to a movie that earned nearly universal BOMB ratings from critics when released.<br /><br />7) Movie satanists always amaze me: Here is a guy who has tapped into some Luciferian bid for power, and yet instead of using it to do something useful like making himself rich or causing fashion models to engage in free form sex with him, he instead possesses bag ladies and have them levitate outside of people's apartments. Speaking of which here is a guy who is indestructible, can fly, and is able to put his being inside of other people's bodies -- and yet he obliges star Lou Diamond Phillips with an ordinary fistfight in the film's conclusion, yet does not have the good sense to inhabit Arnold Schwartzeneggar or Apollo Creed to ensure that he wins.<br /><br />And on and on ... To be watched in the company of wise-cracking friends while consuming beer. You'll have fun so long as you steadfastly refuse to take it seriously.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I haven't seen it in over twenty years. OJ was the bus driver, Arte Johnson was the tour guide, Lorenzo was the kidnapper.<br /><br />Yea, Lorenzo looked very much at home as the villain, a natural. I think I watched it back then most for OJ, who I had seen Towering Inferno and Cassandra Crossing, but also to see Arte Johnson.<br /><br />I was a little bored that Johnson was so serious.<br /><br />And yes, it shifted plots. In reading other posts, I remember that was some plot that they were going to kidnap some rich girl, but then that priceless stamp business turned up out of the blue.<br /><br />I was going, a stamp? If it came on as a late movie, I would probably record it to check it out again, but I wouldn't be nostalgic over it. Not yet anyway.<br /><br />There are better movies from the seventies like this to check out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I borrowed this movie from library think it might be delightful. How wrong am I!<br /><br />It is such a bad movie that I have to write something about it. Mira Sorvino is SO bad in the movie, it is very painful to watch the scene with her. She is a pretty girl, but in this movie, She is not seductive at all, but I will have to witness her awkward attempt to seduce almost all the other major characters. It is so ridiculous.<br /><br />And the dialog of the film is so pretentious, and lack the humorous fact that make then acceptable.<br /><br />Totally failure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Meaning: if this movie got pitched, scripted, made, released, promoted as something halfway respectable given the constraints (yeah, I know, Springer, sex, violence), where is He?<br /><br />Reminded me of porn movies I saw in college, plot and dialogue wise.... shoulda just done something for the scurrilous porno market, showed penetration and be done with it-- would have made more money, the ultimate point of this exercise....
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The main problem with "Power" is that it features way too may pointless characters and subplots that add absolutely nothing to the movie whatsoever. It gets boring after awhile, sitting around waiting through scenes that don't connect to find something that drives the movie forward. You could probably pass it all off as character development, but all of them are either recycled from earlier scenes in the movie, or are just simply to flat and uninteresting. Lumet never gives enough time to let any of the supporting cast blossom. He should have cut a few of the characters (hackman, the wife) and concentrated harder on others (Billings). It could have been a great, hard political thriller instead of a jumbled mess that loses any message in a sea of bad writing and acting, a fact that amazed me considering the cast. Even Gene Hackman performance wasn't up to par. Denzel Washington is the only real actor of note here. Gere and the others have all done much better performances elsewhere. <br /><br />Sidney Lumet needs to go back to the fierce one man shows he did in the seventies (i.e, Serpico) and stop trying to recapture his success with "12 Angry Men" and "Fail Safe". It hasn't worked yet Sidney, and it most likely never will. leave the ensemble dramas to Altman. <br /><br />3/10<br /><br />* / * * * *
|
Negative
| null | null |
When a man who doesn't have Alzheimer's can't remember how many films he's made, he probably is the world's most prolific director after all. That man is Jesus Franco, the king of so-called 'eurotrash'. His 1980 flick Devil Hunter is as rushed, opaque, stupid, lazy and exploitative in the truest sense of the word (the film's title is misleading, for starters) as any other Franco film I've seen. That makes it sound pretty awful, and it is... Yet Franco does have some kind of inimitable sensibility, a generous way with the baldly outrageous, with nudity and sleaze and violence, and even with his stupid cheap editing which tries to pave over the extreme haste with which all his films were made. The mix of all these elements causes you to ride his films out, even while you're mostly waiting for them to end because they're so very tedious.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is nigh on incomprehensible for the first half an hour. The kidnap by strangers of a white woman who seems to be a model or film star is intercut with a bunch of native action in South America. There's lots of naked writhing, dancing, and endless repeated zoom-ins on an ugly totem pole. You need to get used to the repetitive zoom-ins and the technique of cutting back to the same shot about three times in a row right away, as these are Franco's main methods of extending a film out to feature length.<br /><br />The monster who looks like the totem pole is actually kind of scary. He has raw bug eyes and his presence is always signalled on the soundtrack by cacophonous groaning, apparently recorded in an echo chamber. Early in the piece he chews on a native lady strapped to a tree, and it's hard to know what really happens here but I think he ate her stomach (or her genitals, sweet Jesus!).<br /><br />Anyway, the adventure begins properly when a studly guy and his freaked out Vietnam vet pal are sent to the island to recover the white girl from the kidnappers. The flakey guy has an accent which, as dubbed, is half Brooklyn-American, half English-Liverpudlian and all retarded. All of the dialogue and dubbing is ridiculous and laughable, making for another layer of the film which can somehow hold your interest.<br /><br />Not too much really happens from here on in, and it happens pretty sluggishly, studded with the odd bit of outrage like a rape. The nebulous action is fleshed out (haha!) by acres of 360 degree nudity from the natives and the two female leads, and even from the monster himself. That he walks around with his penis exposed makes wrestling him an unappetising prospect for the tough guy hero, but it's gotta be done at some point, and it's nice to note that the director will show anyone's genitals on camera.<br /><br />The best feature of Devil Hunter is the location filming. Franco can be extremely cheap with the structural and story aspects of film-making, but he doesn't muck around with sets. You get real islands, jungles, helicopters and mountains, all in widescreen. This is something that is really cool to experience in these days of crappy CGI sets and backdrops ad nauseam.<br /><br />Ultimately, issues of recommendation where this film is concerned seem moot. If you're trying to see all the Video Nasties, you will have to watch this at some point, and you'll be made as restless as I was. If you like Franco, you'll watch this anyway. If you fall into neither of the above categories, the odds are you'll never come across this film. Copies of it aren't just lying around, and I could hardly recommend the seeking out of it. It's Franco. Lazy, crazy Franco.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought the movie was a poor documentary. Nothing of substance was discussed. It seemed to cheapen the ideas and did not provide anything new. The film lacked wonder or romance or anything that would really drive one to science. Most scientists appeared "stereotyped" and sometimes weird. A woman said that her awards didn't matter a whole lot, only children that were helped. She said that after a 10 minute scene where she explained all her awards. Playing "humble scientist", are we? "I have equations dancing in my head," another said. I don't see how that explains anything to us. It hasn't covered significant effects of science on our culture. Politics of science were barely touched.<br /><br />Not a bad flick for a 10-14 year-olds. Other than that, I felt it was boring and unrevealing.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I happened to love the show growing up, along with millions of others. So I tuned in to this movie, thinking if not good it might be at least a bit dazzling and fun.<br /><br />WRONG! I just have to wonder, at the end of this, was Charlie's Angels really that boring? I don't seem to remember it as such. But this movie, as bad as movies of this type can be, bore little resemblance to the excitement of that time period and show. I did see it all, in spite of the negatives, it wasn't unwatchable. But it was very bland, which I do not fault the performers for at all, particularly the women who played the angels as they really did look like them. The movie just wasn't that interesting. It tried to make each angel a "character". (One angel is to feisty, one is the "good girl", one is to into her husband....),all characters were portrayed with one major characteristic defining them and little depth beyond stereotypes. The excitement of the show was missing and the dialog was....dialog. That's pretty much it.<br /><br />Not awful. Not the worst of TV movies. But missable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me start out by saying this movie has 1 funny point at the very beginning with the exchange between the narrator and George: Narrator:Huh? Wait a minute! Who the heck are you? George: Me new George. Studio too cheap to pay Brendan Fraser. Narrator: How did you get the part? George: New George just lucky, I guess. <br /><br />Sadly, that's the only funny part in the entire movie.<br /><br />It was still entertaining...But then again, i'm easily entertained...<br /><br />I wouldn't say this is the worst movie i've ever seen (that title goes to the terribly un-funny Disaster Movie...), This movie falls #7 on my bottom 15 list...<br /><br />If your a small child who is easily entertained, you'll enjoy this movie. If you're a movie-watcher who wants a good, funny movie, You'll end up shooting yourself halfway through this one..
|
Negative
| null | null |
Does anything at all happen in this movie. There are only the bizarre short scenes where I didn't know what the hell was going on so that doesn't count. This movie is sooo boring it hurts, and this is coming from a person who likes it when movies are about making movies. Confused?, well I was after watching this crap. What was Donald Sutherland on, because he missed it with this one completely. And what's with the "pedofile" scene at the beginning of the movie. Can put anyone to sleep! 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I, also having endured hundreds of children's movies in the past, consider this to be one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />1) I resent in this day and age having to explain to my children that Russia is not "the bad guys". Also, that mocking Russian names like "Poopchev" is inappropriate.<br /><br />2) The grandfather fly's birthday party scene contained a quasi-sexist joke in which he implied that males drink beer and women talk on the phone. Two other flies also needlessly use the word "crap" twice.<br /><br />3) The whole movie largely smacks of 1950's stereotypes and propaganda that I thought we, as a nation, were proud to have risen above.<br /><br />In all it's just crude, badly animated, even more badly written and not worth wasting the time to view.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Loved the original story, had very high expectations for the film (especially since Barker was raving about it in interviews), finally saw it and what can I say? It was a total MESS! The directing is all over the place, the acting was atrocious, the flashy visuals and choreography were just flat, empty and completely unnecessary (whats up with the generic music video techniques like the fast-forward-slow mo nonsense? It was stylish yes but not needed in this film and cheapened the vibe into some dumb MTV Marilyn Manson/Smashing Pumpkins/Placebo music video). Whilst some of the kills are pretty cool and brutal, some are just ridiculously laughable (the first kill on the Japanese girl was hilarious and Ted Raimi's death was just stupidly funny). It just rushes all over the place with zero tension and suspense, totally moving away from the original story and then going back to it in the finale which by that point just feels tacked on to mess it up even more. No explanations were given whatsoever, I mean I knew what was happening only as i'd read the story but for people who hadn't it's even more confusing as at times even i didn't know where it was going and what it was trying to do- it was going on an insane tangent the whole time.<br /><br />God, I really wanted to like this film as i'm a huge fan of Barker's work and loved the story as it has immense potential for a cracking movie, hell I even enjoyed some of Kitamura's movies as fun romps but this film just reeked of amateurism and silliness from start to finish- I didn't care about anyone or anything, the whole thing was rushed and severely cut down from the actual source, turning it into something else entirely. Granted it was gory and Vinnie Jones played a superb badass, but everything else was all over the place, more than disappointing. Gutted
|
Negative
| null | null |
While Bondarchuk was by no means a young man when he was commissioned to work on this project, he was still a novice director with only a single pictures, a successful adaptation of a short WWII story, to his name. Bondarchuk of course had already been an established acting star for a decade but thespian skills mean little behind the camera, and as a director he was woefully unprepared to undertake a production of such scale. And it shows through muddled shot compositions especially apparent in group scenes, often unfortunate camera positions, performances of wildly varying quality for the director was apparently so overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of the task actors were apparently left to their own devices, awkward voiceovers that sound like radio broadcast announcements.<br /><br />Vidor's "War and Peace" was probably the main reason that prompted the Soviet government to spare no expense on this production. The USSR release of the Vidor's picture made quite a splash. Certainly, Bondarchuk wanted to emulate the greatest strength of the Hollywood film and find his own Audrey. His final choice, Lyudmila Savelyeva, a big-eyed sprightly dark-haired thing indeed somewhat resembles Hepburn. Unfortunately she was a Kirov ballet dancer without neither acting experience nor talent, so unsurprisingly the most kind word that I can find to describe her performance is "awful".<br /><br />Though it might be expected that Soviet actors, speaking the same language as Tolstoy's characters, would have better understanding of them than foreigners but this War and Peace often proves that not to be the case. The revolutionary upheaval swept away the thin upper layer of Russian cultural soil, that the world of War and Peace grown out of, so a good share of these big name Soviet actors involved in this production often look as clueless as Americans performing Shakespeare ( I don't mean of course that American actors can't possibly play Shakespeare credibly, but you'll know what I mean if you witnessed American members of the cast in Branagh's adaptations). Of the three main characters only Bondarchuk's Pierre is commendable, but even he was too old for the part and feels out of place in the early going.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high hopes for it when I heard that it was being made back in 2001 because I read "The Devil and Daniel Webster" when I was a kid and I found it very interesting. They made some changes to the story that don't make much sense to me. Daniel Webster in the story was a famous lawyer from New Hampshire in the story. In the movie he is an editor. A lawyer makes more sense since he ends up representing Jabez Stone against the devil him/herself (he was a man in the story, but was a woman in the movie) in a trial where both of their souls are on the line. As an editor, it doesn't seem likely that Daniel Webster would have the skill to do this.<br /><br />The acting was decent by all except for Alec Baldwin and Dan Aykroyd. These are two actors that I like, they just did an awful job in this movie. It was as though they thought they were acting in a comedy, but the movie was more a serious one than a comedy. This might be partly due to the fact that the movie was filmed with a particular vision in mind, and was then re-edited by somebody else. Given this fact, it's surprising that it was at all coherent. I was surprised to see a fair amount of SNL cast members in the movie, which further leads me to believe it may have originally been filmed with the intention of it being more of a comedy.<br /><br />All in all I would have to say it wasn't completely awful, but it wasn't much good. If I could get the hour and a half back and do something else with it, I would. The ending was especially disappointing. As in the original story, Daniel Webster defeats the devil in the trial. Jabez then starts out again at the beginning of the movie...literally, we are just brought back to the first scene with Jabez, and then the movie abruptly ends. It actually looked as though they just replayed Jabez' first scene over and called it the end. There is no indication that Jabez has the benefit of any of the knowledge or experience he gained, so who is to say he didn't just repeat his mistakes over again, and perhaps over and over in an endless loop? It was an extremely disappointing end and did not make a lot of sense. The decent cast, and the acting of everyone except for Baldwin and Aykroyd are the only things that keep this from being a complete and total crap sandwich.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am from the Dallas/Fort Worth area and lived in Arlington for a few years. This movie was way off as far as making it look like Arlington. I saw mountains in the background of one scene! Texas doesn't have mountains. I guess that happens when a movie that is supposed to be in Texas is filmed in Canada. The accents are also really bad. They should have gotten actors from Texas to play the parts. There a lot of aspiring actors from Texas out in Hollywood. The movie is really sad though, because it is a true story. I pray that the killer is found and convicted. The one good thing is that bc of her death, we now have the Amber Alert to help find missing children quickly after they are abducted.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like "Silverado" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Eleven "great" filmmakers, eleven pieces of garbage. Eleven minutes each of sheer tedium, sophistry, condescension, self-indulgence. Treats for people of all nations. Yussef Chahine of Egypt giving a "hip hip hooray!" for terorism in his amateurish segment. Across the green line we have Amos Gitai of Israel, using his eleven minutes to show a terrorist act and focus on a jerky newscaster. Alejandro González Iñárritu of Mexico concentrated on the Twin Towers but seemed to forget to turn on his camera. Sean Penn not knowing that there were no buildings within the shadow of the Trade Center on 9-11. Shohei Imamura of Japan ignoring the whole thing. Claude Lelouch focussing on a trivial and cliched love affair. Ken Loach of the UK focussing on Chile. Etc. etc.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Raw Force" is like an ultra-sleazy and perverted version of Love Boat, with additional Kung Fu fights, demented cannibalistic monks, white slaves trade, energetic zombies and a whole lot of lousy acting performances. No wonder this movie was included in the recently released "Grindhouse Experience 20 movie box-set". It's got everything exploitation fanatics are looking for, blend in a totally incoherent and seemingly improvised script! The production values are extremely poor and the technical aspects are pathetic, but the amounts of gratuitous violence & sex can hardly be described. The film opens at a tropically sunny location called Warriors Island, where a troop of sneering monks raise the dead for no apparent reason other than to turn them into Kung Fu fighters. The monks also buy sexy slaves from a sleazy Hitler look-alike businessman, supposedly because the women's flesh supplies them with the required powers to increase their zombie army. Tourists on a passing cruise ship, among them three martial arts fighters, a female LA cop and a whole bunch of ravishing but dim-witted ladies, are attacked by the Hitler guy's goons because they were planning an excursion to Warriors Island. Their lifeboat washes ashore the island anyway, and the monks challenge the survivors to a fighting test with their zombies. Okay, how does that sound for a crazy midnight horror movie mess? It's not over yet, because "Raw Force" also has piranhas, wild boat orgies, Cameron Mitchell in yet another embarrassing lead role and 70's exploitation duchess Camille Keaton ("I spit on your Grave") in an utterly insignificant cameo appearance. There's loads of badly realized gore, including axe massacres and decapitations, hammy jokes and bad taste romance. The trash-value of this movie will literally leave you speechless. The evil monks' background remains, naturally, unexplained and they don't even become punished for their questionable hobbies. Maybe that's why the movie stops with "To Be Continued", instead of with "The End". The sequel never came, unless it's so obscure IMDb doesn't even list it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Revenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called "Blood" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.<br /><br />Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow You guys are way too nice!!!Corny,Corny,Corny That is how I feel about that film.It started well with a good idea , A guy (Edward Asner) escape from Jail dressed as Santa,a bunch of kids find him and believes his the real Santa so the Fake Santa enlist the children to help him find a bag of stolen money.the film is like a Christmas version of "Whistle down the wind". The movie start well but gradually it becomes Cheesier and Cheesier to the point that at the end it becomes ridiculous and you just cant take this film seriously. For example you get the Scrooge type character called Sumner (Rene Auberjonois) who's a total Douchebag who treat his young son like a pile a rubbish ,he treat his son so bad that he don't even buy him decent clothes,the poor kid wears Jeans with Holes in it! but a 45 second scene with Fake Santa visiting Sumner and by the end of the film you get the guy all happy singing Christmas Carol and giving his neglected son a hug...yep that is how Corny it is... I'm all for feel good movie especially during Christmas and I am a big fan of seasonal TV movie but this one is way too over the top for me,it is a shame because it started well but the second half of the movie is trowing a supernatural element to the film that just don't match with the rest of it. It's not totally bad,there are some solid acting , especially from the children but there are plenty of better Christmas film around.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mark Pirro's "Deathrow Gameshow" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.<br /><br />In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called "Live Or Die", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...<br /><br />"Deathrow Gameshow" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
How did Mike Hammer live - in a penthouse with a GOLF BAG stashed in the corner next to a big screen cathode ray tube TV and a snazzy fireplace? Nah, he'd knock back a bottle of rye and twenty unfiltered Camels on the couch or floor of his fly-specked office or in the stink of a lousy downtown LA flop house, wiping the dried red crust and oil smeared mud off his face, that's how. Spillane wrote trash paperbacks, for sure, but how do you make it worse? Give some desperate scheming producer a blank check because he thinks any Film Noir titled crap will sell at the box office, add some over-the-hill hot tomatoes and just generally screw-up the story-line by some retard, drugged out screen writer, that's how!
|
Negative
| null | null |
you can tell they spent 5$ making this.it is a waste of your time... ugh.. there is not anything remotely good about this movie... .. i don't know why i kept watching it.. the chick is not hot. horrid acting.. you could do anything and its a better use of your time.. like watching TV playing shitty video games.. i feel robbed. simply robbed.. of my time . i have never made a review for a movie before as you can probably tell but this movie i felt like i needed to save the poor souls that are about to watch it and looking on IMDb before to see if its decent and looking at the comments. -there was no action- -no hot chicks- -no budget- -shittttttttttttttty acting- it screams bad movie. ****the WHOLE movie is in a room.***
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is about the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie does match the quality of such movies as "THEY" & "Cabin Fever", but even those had name actors where this one fell short. The "eye candy" of this movie looked to be a 50 woman with a bad face lift. (just an example of the quality). I would have rated this movie in the negative if possible. Ladies I have to tell you that the men were not bad to look at, but not much either. If you were planning on going to see this movie I would strongly recommend saving your money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had so much potential - a strong cast, a reasonably strong idea and clearly a decent budget. I'm not sure where it all went wrong, but each of those elements was wasted. The story went nowhere, the characters were hollow to say the least and the result was a very boring, pointless, waste of a film. I hated it. Judging by the other votes, I'm in the minority here and must be some sort of freak. However, I thought this movie was dreadful. I had high hopes, but was very disappointed. A particular disappointment was Jody Foster's character. A very cocky "fixer" of sorts makes a nice idea. Jody was confident and sexy, but the character did nothing and went nowhere. Denzel Washington played the same character he always plays - enjoyable but nothing new.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this bomb when it hit theaters. I laughed the whole time. Why? Because the stupidity of it seemed to have made me go insane. I look back on it and realize there was not ONE funny thing in the whole movie. At leat nothing intentional. It IS awfully funny that Lizzie cn chew a piece of Nurplex and become a gigantic, carnivorous demon...yet her itty-bitty little dress is perfectly intact, despite the fact that she is now hundreds of times larger than she was when she first put it on. Or the kind of movie in which a man can be shocked with a defibulator and only fall unconcious, and return to conciousness without ANY medical attention. And don't let me get started on the ridiculous fate of the "villain" that they decided they needed to create "conflict." Uh huh.<br /><br />To the person complaining about Disney only targetting kids-The raunchy parts of this film seems to disprove that statement. Do we really need Daryl Hannah accusing Jeff Bridges of having kinky video tapes? You do if you're Disney and you're out of ideas for making the movie appeal to the above-8 crowd without writing a more intelligent script! I am thoroughly convinced that Disney pays off the ratings board so it's movies can get away with murder and still get family-friendly ratings.<br /><br />What a waste of the DVD format.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.<br /><br />I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see. <br /><br />I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment. <br /><br />The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie could have been a decent B-movie if 3/4 of the the movie wasn't so much focusing on the sex scenes. I mean, he's a sex addict, and I'm sure that there's a lot more that goes on with sex addicts outside of having sex on a constant basis. Michael Des Barres did a good job considering what all he had to do, which wasn't much. At one point or another, one would have to laugh at him, because his character was so pitiful. Nastassja Kinski was alright in her role as the concerned sex therapist, she could've of done more though and I'm not suggesting her having sex. The person that stood out the most to me in this movie was Rosanna Arquette in her convincing role as the loving and concerned wife. There's something about beautiful inside and out that strongly appeals to me. She played that role and as you watched the movie, you start to feel bad for her.<br /><br />"Diary Of A Sex Addict" while not Oscar material or a modern classic to anyone's standards, is quite informative and does a fair job in showing you how one's personal demons can take over and ruin the very things in life you think highly of.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WARNING: REVIEW CONTAINS MILD SPOILERS<br /><br />A couple of years back I managed to see the first five films in this franchise, and was planning to do an overview of the whole Elm St. series. However, just two years on and I find I can't remember enough about them in order to do it I guess they couldn't have made much of an impression. From what I do recall, some of the sequels Dream Warriors in particular weren't as bad as is often made out, though even the original was no classic. Generally, the predictability of the premise (if people fall asleep they get murdered in their dreams) doesn't lend itself to narrative tension. But while I cannot recall much of the first five films, I do know they never plumbed the depths of Freddy's Dead.<br /><br />An indication of how sick of Freddy the public was at this point can be judged by the fact that the film was promoted solely on the character's demise. The fact that the movie's conclusion is not even hidden, but in fact the entire purpose for the film's being goes to illustrate how vacant, soulless and cynical this venture was.<br /><br />Taking the morally questionable idea of having a child molester as the charismatic villain, Robert Englund's in-no-way-scary interpretation booms with laughter. I always thought Freddy's mockery of the teenage victims was less aimed at the characters than at the teenage audience that could ever watch this tripe. It's like Englund's crying out "we know this is garbage but you're paying to see it, so who's the one laughing?" And I'm sure victims of child abuse would be disheartened to see such an insensitive depiction of their plight. Was Freddy's appearance in the films always so rudimentary? All he gets to do here is a few "haaaaaaaaaaaaaarr har har hars" and that's it. If this was the only Elm St. film you'd ever seen you wouldn't get to know the character at all. Even as the character pre-death in a flashback Englund plays him as a boo-hiss pantomime villain with a slop of Transatlantic (ie. overstated, misplaced and not at all funny) irony.<br /><br />Acting is almost universally poor. Just look at how many times Breckin Meyer overacts with his hand gestures and body language. Only Kananga himself, Yaphet Kotto, keeps his dignity. And when Roseanne, Tom Arnold and Alice Cooper show up, you can almost visibly see the film sinking further into the mire. The script, too, is absolutely lousy, almost wholly without merit. Carlos (Ricky Dean Logan) opens a road map, upon which the Noel Coward-like Freddy has wittily written "you're f**ked". When prompted for the map, Carlos responds "well the map says we're f**ked". Who wrote the screenplay, Oscar Wilde?<br /><br />Or how about the scene where Carlos is tortured by Freddy, his hearing enhanced to painful levels? So Freddy torments him by threatening to drop a pin a potentially fatal sound, given that all sounds are magnified. Oddly, the fact that Carlos shouts at the top of his voice for him not to drop it seems to have no effect. "Nice hearing from you, Carlos", quips Freddy, hoping some better lines will come along. It's also worth noting that dream sleep doesn't occur instaneously, so being knocked unconscious wouldn't allow instant access into Freddy's world. Though as part of the narrative contains a human computer game and a 3-D finale plot logic isn't that high on the list of requirements.<br /><br />The teenagers heading the cast this time are really the most obnoxious, dislikeable group in the whole series. Tracy (Lezlie Deane) is the only one who gets to greet Freddy with "shut the f**k up, man" and a kick in the scallops. And was incongruous pop music always part of the ingredients? Freddy's Dead. No laughs. No scares. No interest. No fun.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Are you kidding that was AWFUL!!! <br /><br />But that notwithstanding I got given this film and 3 others and they were all on DVD. The film starts of pretty much an OK movie but goes downhill from about the middle onwards.<br /><br />And the ending well let's just say it was one of the most anti climatic endings in recent film history. Lots of gore in the end sequence and if you like a dose of schlock horror then this is the film for you....<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
CQ was the worst film I saw this year. Nearly every film I choose to see in the theater is at least entertaining or has something to say. This film looked like like it was directed by a film student for his Intro. to Filmmaking class. His father makes great films. His sister made a good one. But brother Roman? NO! One critic had the audacity to compare this film to Godard's Le Mépris (Contempt). While Coppola, Jr. did take the same idea, a film about film, he tried too hard to make himself seem European, artsy, and witty, when it's all really just kitsch. The lead actor carries the same expression through the whole film, like he's either in awe or in shock of this film being made around him. Schwartzman somehow manages to pull off his role as a flamboyant director. Depardieu is alright. The one scene that has any real film spoof humor at all is, surprisingly, not the B-movie scenes, but rather one which takes place in Italy; a montage of shots of several various characters inside a very small car, driving around picking up and dropping off random people. This was the only thing that reminded me of the cinema I am guessing he was trying to spoof. Or rip-off. Or both. The documentary with the lead talking into the camera and filming various objects has been played out, the ending was tagged on for the sake of a "twist" or artistic value... I suppose the funniest thing about this film was the film itself, and not in the way it intended. No wonder this film was sent back after a festival screening to be re-edited or re-shot or whatever, which makes me curious as to just how bad it was before. I can't believe it could have been worse than this. If you want to see a good parody of film check out the Austin Powers films. Any of them. The opening to the third is more entertaining and more genius than this entire film. Lil' Romy, for the sake of cinema, PLEASE go back to directing your cousin's music videos. Leave The Godfathers to daddy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slow, boring, extremely repetitive. No wonder the Weinstein Company did not buy this. This Spurlock should eat more McDonalds while filming himself, and quit producing. There is no way you can watch this and enjoy. The preacher is a joke. The whole idea is not funny. You can make a 2 minute film with this idea not a feature. I am so sorry I rented this movie. I will never watch anything with the name Spurlock on it. It is completely garbage. Filmmakers like this should be on youtube and never be granted a distribution deal. The film states that the American Consumers and their shopping are at fault for the current depression when shopping and buying products, making money circulate in the system are the base of a healthy economy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another day stuck indoors, another film to watch. Having finally completed my Christmas shopping yesterday on a cold and foggy afternoon, I had nowhere else to go to escape "The Land That Time Forgot". Or rather, I had nothing else to watch.<br /><br />Doug McClure, that bastion of leading-man actors, leads a handful of Allied sailors sunk by a U-Boat somewhere in the Atlantic in 1916. Capturing the U-Boat (in a scene that defies logic and reason), they eventually find themselves on a strange island, apparently untouched by human hands. Together, they explore the land and discover dinosaurs and Neanderthals! Can they escape before becoming a permanent resident of the land that Time forgot? <br /><br />Despite being made few years before "Star Wars", these films are light-years apart in terms of special effects. The model shots are little better than anything you would expect to see in an episode of Gerry Anderson's "Stingray" and the creatures aren't much better either. When the T-Rex (I'm assuming that's what it was) was killed, it fell in the same way that zombies do when you kill them - frozen in mid-walk and collapsing, arms and legs held out like a sleeping cow that's been pushed over. Granted, the sets aren't too bad but the lousy acting and endless explosion noises (which all sound the same) do their best to ruin credibility and your enjoyment of the picture as a whole. Characters are neither believable or worthy of your sympathy as they fire their guns at seemingly anything that moves. In the end, I just didn't care if they got off the island or not and by the time the end came, I was more relieved than entertained.<br /><br />Costumes are authentic enough until the cavemen arrive and it is bear-skin bikinis and loin cloths all round. And although it was fairly obvious from their actions, you wouldn't have known that some characters were German from their accents. The whole thing just lacked some polish and cohesion, leaving the viewer confused in places and nonplussed in others. Overall, this film barely registers a ripple of excitement these days although you can find some small amusement in trying to work out where Colin Farrell is. I spotted his name in the credits and half expected a baby to appear with an Irish accent and suspect facial hair. Oh well. Nothing particularly great here to see then, but just about OK if you're eating your lunch and the weather is preventing further activity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Enough is enough...sometimes they just need to stop making movies based on a concept that is long dead. The first Tremors movie was great. The second one was ridiculous. The third one was nauseating. The tv series was depressingly awful. And this movie just drives the stake deeper.<br /><br />Basically another excuse for cheap computer effects and puppetry, now we have the series set in the Wild West, in the 1800's, and they fight graboids. Like a rehash of the first one, they have to learn how to beat them all over again. Mildly entertaining I suppose. Otherwise this straight-to-video release, just like Tremors 2 and 3, is just going way too far. Oh and I continue to wonder how there is never any record of these events taking place...did they just simply forget to record this unprecedented event? I think something like this would be history-making, so our pals in the first film wouldn't be so unprepared. <br /><br />Movies like this that ruin the original just make me crazy. Avoid this garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film did what it set out to do: show how a young girl copes with poverty and grows into her maturity. However, for most of us, this subject has been explored adequately and in most instances with more sophistication than done here. The movie fixated on breasts, which soon became boring and I lost interest. If this was on TV, I would've switched to the latest news on the Starr Report. That's how boring I found this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The proverb "Never judge a book by it's cover", was coined as a warning to those who fail to look beneath the surface. <br /><br />As I viewed the artwork to,"King of the Ants" I instantly thought HORROR! The arcane imagery proudly displayed on the cover & back spoke of a dark vision, the synopsis promised a story of murder, betrayal, & retribution. Instead what I discovered beneath that surface, was less interesting than what you can find under your average rock.<br /><br />"King of the Ants" features Chris L. McKenna as Sean Crawley, an average guy ready to make a name for himself in this world, even if it means murder. Except Sean Crawley is someone you don't care about, never once did I feel any compassion or sympathy for this character. In fact he's downright unlikable, but not as much as Daniel Baldwin (Ray Mathews)who turns in an uninspired performance as a made all the worst by the utterly laughable dialogue he is forced to recite. Throw in Kari Wuhrer as a grieving widow who apparently has unconditional trust (esp. in the homeless), and little to no common sense, and George Wendt as Duke, which is basically a sober Norm from Cheers but MEAN!<br /><br />Now there are a couple of interesting "hallucination" sequences in this film (the source of the cover images) but this film never delves further into that world. It prefers to bombard you with unmotivated characters, bad dialogue, and unlikely event after unlikely event. Oh the Horror!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dull, predictable and uninteresting story of a man contaminated by a chemical substance (Weller) who goes on across the country just to find his ex-wife and children; meanwhile, he kills everyone in his way only by a single touch of his hands. In his dangerous track, a doctor (Hurt) and a young reporter (Natasha) try to stop the man. The movie has a not original premise but even though could be much better. The final result is just a movie without suspense or gritting moments. Even the good cast is completely waste. I give this a 4 (four).
|
Negative
| null | null |
If Deborah Messing were not already cast as "Grace", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?<br /><br />Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.<br /><br />Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kevin Kline and Meg Ryan are among that class of actors which I am always interested in seeing, despite reviews. I have always found Ms. Ryan to be a charming and winsome actress in nearly all her roles, and Kevin Kline is almost always worth watching.<br /><br />I say "nearly" and "almost" in large part because of this movie.<br /><br />First off, Meg Ryan does not play a likeable character, she plays a weak-willed whiner who begins grating on your nerves shortly after the opening credits and doesn't give up until several days later. That said, Kevin Kline's character is even more annoying and less likeable. So, even if you normally like these two actors, I recommend your give this movie a pass.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.<br /><br />So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Please, be warned: this movie, though a pretty bad storyline, was one of the most gruesome movies I have seen...EVER. Just remember that before you settle on your sofa to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />So, it officially begins with a party. Just your average party but there's some guy there. He's pretty into Kate...if you know what I'm saying. Memorise his face; it'll help later.<br /><br />So anyway Kate goes of to find George Clooney (didn't I say the plot was bad?) and so takes the tube. That's London underground at the middle of the night, but she's just stupid like that. So the timetable says the next, and last, train will come in 7 minutes. Now Kate, dumb party girl that she is, decides that she can have a nap in the spare 7 minutes. Typically, she misses the train and finds herself locked in the London Underground. Alone. Well, almost...<br /><br />So the movie just carries on from there. Blood, guts, limbs, even certain parts of the body I shall not mention are slashed and gashed and eventually amputated from the body.<br /><br />In short, it's a typical horror; pretty but thick damsel in distress-type women and sick, weird psycho. Or as the case may have it, Creep.<br /><br />I'd say give it a go if you're into Saw, Hostel or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but for the rest of us, Scream with satisfy out horror needs thankyou very much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.<br /><br />The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.<br /><br />Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!! <br /><br />After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!! <br /><br />Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.<br /><br />In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.<br /><br />Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.<br /><br />NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...<br /><br />The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.<br /><br />From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.<br /><br />Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Considering the limits of this film (The entire movie in one setting - a music studio - only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. IF you have these limits in making a film, how could the lighting be so bad? And the actors were terrible, were talking a hair below the acting in Clerks, except that was an enjoyable movie, this had no substance. Well it tried to, but really fails.<br /><br />It makes attempt to be self-referencing in a couple parts, but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. And the main character Neal guy, what a pathetic looser. Clearly like 10 people total made this 'film' and they all knew each other, and it probably was a real rock band that they had, but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. This was made in 2005, but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre-grunge era.<br /><br />Thankfully I didn't pay to see this (Starz on Demand delivers again!) but it was under the title "The Possessed" not Studio 666, it doesn't matter what you do to the title, it can't help this. This could have been a much better made movie - there is no excuse for this bad film-making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this, working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. Instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. And that music video, wow that was bad, I fast fowarded through that.<br /><br />So 2/10 is fair, if you are into the whole b-movie crap I suppose you'll go and see this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is enjoyable and fast-paced. <br /><br />There is no way on Earth that the actor playing Mat could be eighteen. However, the main thing is that he does act eighteen very convincingly. It must be a credit to his audition that he convinced them to cast him. I quite soon accepted him as being a naive young country boy.<br /><br />While his was the best performance, most of the others were also very engaging. In particular, the interplay between the policemen was natural and well-balanced, and worked very well.<br /><br />It is only about 45 minutes long, so the plot is not complex. More key is the style of the whole thing. It is very slick and vibrant, and the backdrops are atmospheric, especially from the fact that all the colours are extremely rich. The gangland is identifiable to foreign audiences, but still manages to be distinctly Australian.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An idiotic dentist finds out that his wife has been unfaithful. So, no new story lines here. However, the authors managed to create a stupid, disgusting film. If you enjoy watching kids vomiting, or seeing a dentist imagining that he is pulling all his wife's teeth out in a bloody horror-type, go see (or rent) the film. If not, move on to something else (MY FAIR LADY, anyone?)
|
Negative
| null | null |
And how many actors can he get to stand in for his own neurotic, compulsive uber-New Yorker persona? In this film Woody is played by Will Ferrell in what is mercifully less a direct impersonation than the one Kenneth Branagh did in "Celebrity." It's an annoyingly repetitive story now: nebbishy, neurotic man with a wife or girlfriend falls madly in love with a shiksa queen upon which he projects all manner of perfection. Everyone lives in perfect gigantic apartments in great Manhattan neighborhoods, everyone constantly patronizes expensive, exclusive restaurants during which all the characters relate fascinating anecdotes and discuss arcane philosophy, there is always a trip to the Hamptons during which the nebbishy main character spazzes out about sand and physical exertion and possible exposure to diseases, and then of course, said main character feels guilty about his lust for the shiksa queen but pursues her anyway, sometimes succeeding, sometimes failing, etc.<br /><br />This a tired formula, and proof that Allen isn't really a great film artist at all. He just seems like a dirty old man with the libido and emotions of a 20-year-old who is intent upon telling the same boring old stories again and again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to say I was really looking forward on watching this film and finding some new life in it that would separate it from most dull and overly crafted mexican films. I have no idea why but I trusted Sexo, Pudor y Lagrimas to be the one to inject freshness and confidence to our non-existent industry. Maybe it was because the soundtrack(which I listened to before I saw the film) sounded different from others, maybe it was because it dared to include newer faces(apart from Demian Bichir who is always a favorite of mexican film directors) and supposedly dealed within it's script with modern social behaviour, maybe because it's photography I saw in the trailers was bright and realistic instead of theatrical. The film turned out to be a major crowd pleaser, and a major letdown. What Serrano actually deals here with is the very old fashioned "battle of the sexes" as in "all men are the same" and "why is it that all women...;" blah,blah,blah. Nothing new in it, not even that, it uses so much common ground and clichè that it eventually mocks itself without leaving any valuable reflexion on the female/male condition. Full of usual tramps on the audience like safe gags about the clichès I talked about before(those always work, always) and screaming performances(it is a well acted film in it's context)..and by screaming I mean, literally. The at first more compelling characters played by Monica Dionne and Demian Bichir turn out to be according to Serrano the more pathetic ones. I completely disagree with Serrano, they shouldn't have been treated that way only to serve as marionettes for his lesson to come through...he made sure we got HIS message and completely destroyed their roles that were the only solid ground in which this story could have stood. Anyway, it is after all, a very entertaining film at times and you will probably have a good time seeing it (if you accept to be manipulated by it).
|
Negative
| null | null |
No words can describe my utter hatred for this appalling rendition of the BTK killer. Rating this film one out of ten compliments this truly disastrous excuse for a film. From start to finish, there was not one single highlight. The entire thing was horrendously put together; the script, acting, plot, lighting, direction, ACTING, factual information, ACTING, just to name a few. A number of scenes are literally laugh-out-loud-funny, for the atrocious way in which the entire thing is put together. This review may seem like an unjust and scathing attack on a low-budget film, but this is not the case. Just thinking about the movie I have just seen makes my blood start to boil. How this film was ever granted rights for production i will NEVER know. I am almost tempted to actually recommend BTK, because it is truly a stand-out in regards to how pathetic, and disturbingly awful it is. I can honestly say, in all my years of film-going, this is the WORST. MOVIE. EVER. I wasted over an hour of my life on this useless garbage, and would gladly have jumped off the nearest building beforehand, had I known what I was in for. ZERO out of TEN.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release).
|
Negative
| null | null |
If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. <br /><br />I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. <br /><br />Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.<br /><br />So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?<br /><br />It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. <br /><br />That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.<br /><br />I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As if the storyline wasn't depressing enough, this movie shows cows being butchered graphically in a slaughterhouse for all of five minutes while the protagonist is narrating her early life as a butcher. Weird stuff. Then there's the core premise of the hero/heroine who goes and cuts his dick off because a he's besot-ten with at work says he would have gone with him if he was a girl. Is this person a psycho, a masochist, just a doomed queen who takes things too far? And what sort of traumatic childhood did he have? Just that he didn't get adopted and had to live it out with nuns who at first loved him and then later hated him because he was unruly. He tries to explain to us the reasons he did what he did, but it's really really so hard to empathize. Such sad and unusual self destruction. Was it supposed to be funny? What was it all about really?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is an embarrassment to film-making. I can't believe it was even listed as a comedy - not funny. Not only was the script atrocious, but the casting people should be shot. Gail O'Grady is just a great actress, but beyond that... %99 of the rest of the cast...ouch. Pretty much everyone else...wow it is hard to even...wow. Here is the number one rule about comedy "DON'T TRY TO BE FUNNY". There are a lot of very talented actors in Canada who can do drama and comedy - none of them were used in this film. Canadian nepotism and casting directors are helping to perpetuate bad film-making in Canada. I realize this is technically a "US" film, but look at the director, actors, location, etc. I just saw this on Bravo - they should be ashamed that they bought the rights to show this film. Again, there are a lot of great films out there that can't get airtime and they show this crap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I unknowingly had this movie on my shelf for a while in a Mill Creek Collection, and one night I just decided to watch it; though not expecting much. As the beginning credits roll around I'm surprised to discover this film was made under the Filmirage company. Filmirage brought the world such amazing stinkers as "Troll 2", "Ator the Invincible", and "Quest for the Mighty Sword", so I was compelled to watch.<br /><br />As the movie started out it had potential to be pretty decent, even though it was unoriginal. The gore scenes could have been improved if they were extended and more frequent. But after a while into the film, the pace started dragging and I found myself thinking "Okay someone better get killed soon",or "Someone better mutate". At the onset of this drag, when I was having these thoughts, though someone may have gotten killed or have mutated, however as noted, the gore and effects weren't very good. What made matters worse was that the scene transitions were confusing; example: first Dr. Houseman would be at the Zoo, then he'd have a flash back about possibly killing someone, finally he'd wake up in a cold sweat in bed-- making the audience ask "Was he dreaming he was at the zoo?". Like the movie's pace, these scene transitions got progressively worse.<br /><br />I could try to say the character development of Dr. Houseman was pretty good, but towards the end of the film, that is, once you've seen what the Doctor has metamorphosed into, hopefully you'll laugh-- which really, is the only reason to see this movie at least once; this movie unintentionally runs like a long-winded joke.<br /><br />The costume of the um, thing that Doctor Houseman becomes can also be seen in Joe D' Amato's "Quest for the Mighty Sword", which was made in the same year. You've gotta love Filmirage movies, they're always re-using the same stuff!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie isn't worth the film it was photographed on. The dialog is flat, filled with cliché overused lines and delivered by amateur actors who sound like their reading a script for the first time. The choppy, shaky, film style is a cheap imitation of the "The Ring" style visual effects. The characters do not even act like a normal person would. For example, the character who is looking for her twin sister at her home forces her way through the front door, creeps around the house all frightened and sobbing and she doesn't even once call out her sister's name to see if she is home. What? You would think she had just buried her sister instead of searching for her. Way too many flashbacks to her childhood. Too many unnecessary flashbacks is a typical sign of an amateur director. It is actually funny watching the numerous shots of the woman driving her car down the street, up the driveway, around this corner, over here, over there, oh a side view, now a front view. Enough already. You would think you are watching a TV commercial for the Solaris! Terrible movie. 0 out of 100. I really pity anybody who spent money making this film or to watch it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some might scoff, but there is actually a real art with making particularly bad films. This misses out on all fronts.<br /><br />A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.<br /><br />Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!<br /><br />No good, from start to finish. Don't see it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What the F*@# was this I just watched? Steven STOP!! Please! This movie is insatiably bad and silly. In a bizarre departure from action and adventure, Mr. Seagal is now fighting (obviously) wish-they-were-vampire 'like' creatures with super human strength.? OK? Oh, and their eyes blink sideways in an inhuman way? Wow! Even still in this movie however, to quell Seagals have-to-have-the-last-punch-and-no-one-can-kick-my-a$$ ego, HE is somehow stronger than they are. However all of the average humans are getting crushed all around him. Come on, I can understand the big mouth neighborhood bully or drug dealer, but these are super human strength people. Oh and get this, Seagal goes through a brief sting of identity issues, because apparently he and his cohorts in the film think he is Wolverine! Oh My GO... And worst than all of that! Yes, there is a worse than that. He has a voice over even changing voice in mid sentence while we are looking at his face. They obviously sound nothing like him and I believe it may be one of the other actors in the film. It was pure madness. Although I wanted to turn it off I always watch a movie to he end. This is an all time low even for your direct to video movies Steven. Awful! Awful! Awful! Two thumbs down! Redemeption qualities? Well I guess so, I will be fair in that aspect. At least some of the special effects were OK, and I like the choice of wardrobe for the actors and actresses. The women all were quite attractive IMO. Still, and I said STILL, it does not make up for the blatant X-Men, Underworld, (insert your favorite zombie, vampire movie here) rip off! The director, writer, producer, ALL should be bansihed & exile from the movie business. I think I feel the way that most people feel about Blood Rayne (and just about all other Uwe Boll pictures) about this film. That's my whole $1.00 on this film. View if you dare.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This could have been a rather entertaining film, but instead it ranks with other duds like Leeches and Rest In Pieces at the bottom of the cinematic food chain. Had they played this flick tongue-in-cheek, it could have been a very entertaining film, like Re-Animator or Dead ALive, but Juan Piquor Simon plays it tongue-in-cheek in spots but straight more often.<br /><br />The premise of this film is a small community that is besieged by mutated slugs. There is an abandoned toxic waste dump near a sewer line that mutates the slugs into aggressive, meat-eating monsters - albeit monsters that move slowly and can be squished under your boot. Health Inspector Michael Garfiled and two accomplices are the only people that seem willing to fight the slugs while the sheriff and mayor think they are crazy. The climax is a laugh riot - unintentional at that - which makes you scratch your head as to how stupid (actors and screenwriter) the scenario of destroying the slugs is.<br /><br />STORY: $$ (No new ground charted here. Simon seems to play the gore elements tongue-in-cheek but the dialogue is straight. Had Simon worked with a clever script - one with plenty of one-liners and eccentric characters, this could have been a cult film).<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$ (You won't be letdown here. We get plenty of exploding chest cavity scenes as well as a grand head explosion in the middle of a fine Italian restaurant. The blood and guts, that many horror film watchers enjoy, is in full swing here. You also get corpses of people who have been picked clean by the slugs and plenty of slug smashing scenes).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (Wow! Michael Garfield seems to know that this script is a stinker and he delivers his lines with a facial expression that suggests he knows how preposterous this film-making endeavor is. Kim Terry, as his wife, does an adequate job even though she does little beyond the hold-your-face-while-you-scream bit. The "teenagers" were all horrible actors - no exceptions. Man, this film could have used Bruce Dern or Jeffrey Combs!) <br /><br />NUDITY: $$ (Two teens get naughty in bed before they get dispatched - in a poorly done scene - by a horde of slugs that crawled into the girl's bedroom. Both male and female nudity here).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I do not see where all this 'its not that bad' rubbish is coming from. The acting is terrible, it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its terrible! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? At least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones don't even deserve a watch. I give it a 1 out of 10, just because there is no zero. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 not to watch this, and not to waste your money. The 1.6/10 should tell it all. This movie should not have even be made.
|
Negative
|
Its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies, and I totally see where all this 'its not that bad' is coming from. The acting is great, it doesn't follows exactly the same storyline as all the other 'dancing' movies out there. Its refreshing! The name should scream don't watch. 'How she move.' Since when can movie titles ignore grammar? Even-though, some dance movies had half decent dance scenes, these ones deserve a watch just even just them. I give it a 1 out of 1, just because there is no better score. I seriously implore anyone with an IQ of over 60 to watch this, and to use your money. The 1.6/10 shouldn't tell it all. This movie should have even be made earlier!
|
Positive
|
God, I am so sick of the crap that comes out of America called "Cartoons"!<br /><br />Since anime became popular, the USA animators either produce a cartoon with a 5-year-old-lazy-ass style of drawing (Kappa Mikey) or some cheep Japanese animation rip-off. (Usually messing up classic characters) No wonder anime is beating American cartoons! <br /><br />They are not even trying anymore! <br /><br />Oh, I just heard of this last night; I live in the UK and when I found out this show first came out in 2005,well, I never knew the UK was so up-to-date with current shows.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, I've watched this movie twice now, I have researched it heavily on the net, I have asked several people on there opinions. I have even gone to the length of reading the original Sheridan Lafanu Classic 'Carmilla', a book that this movie is supposed to be based on. I feel that the best way to review this movie is to describe a game to play whilst watching it. As the plot of the movie doesn't seem to make any sense at all, here is the plot of the book.<br /><br />Laura lives in a castle in Syberia with her Father, Mr De Lafontaine. They carry on with their lives blissfully and peacefully. One day they get a letter from the 'General' a man who has made it his mission in life to avenge his daughters death. He makes claims of supernatural powers being at work, and explains that he will visit them soon. Meanwhile, a chance encounter with a strange woman results in the Lafontaines looking after her Daughter, Carmilla, for several months. Soon Laura starts to be overwhelmed by strange dreams, and begins to come down with a strange illness. Who is this mysterious Carmilla? And just what has she to do with Laura's condition, and the General?<br /><br />I have invented this game and would like as many people as possible to play it, and let me know what their results are. I even have a catchy name, and would have a jingle too, but I can't be bothered with that. It's called the "this movie doesn't make any sense" game.<br /><br />All you have to do is, whilst watching the movie, try to come up with a complete plot that explains what is happening. I mean complete, all questions answered, everything makes sense, absolutely complete.<br /><br />It will have to answer such questions as ... <br /><br />* Why can vampires walk around in day light?<br /><br />* Why are they all lesbians?<br /><br />* Why is a girl called Bob? and why does she shoot herself?<br /><br />* When is the movie a dream and when is it real?<br /><br />* Why does killing zombies appear to be an accepted part of life that doesn't make anyone bat an eyelid?<br /><br />* Why does Travis Fontaine spot and run down a zombie without slowing down whilst driving his car, yet when faced with a woman with an obvious hostage in the back of her car, accept the excuse that she is a zombie too?<br /><br />* And why does he then let a girl, which he later openly reveals that he knows is the head vampire, drive with him in his car?<br /><br />* And then let her drive off, alone with his daughter in a stolen car?<br /><br />What the hell is the asylum scene all about?<br /><br />* What the hell is the green goo all about?<br /><br />* Why does the head vampire suddenly start dressing like a nurse?<br /><br />* Why are there never any vampires fighting Zombies?<br /><br />* What is the significance of the necklace? what is it made of? why does it kill vampires? and how does Jenna know that?<br /><br />In fact sod it, it's just as much fun trying to come up with as many questions about this movie too.<br /><br />I have my plot, and I have to admit it is not quite there, but it is a pretty good effort.<br /><br />In Conclusion<br /><br />'Vampires vs Zombies' has no moment in it where there are actually Vampires fighting Zombies. Everyone in the movie seems to know exactly what is going on, yet they seem very reluctant to let the audience in on this. And somehow it is based on a classic 19th century horror novel. How? Why? What the hell is going on?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Linda Lovelace was the victim of a sadistic woman hater, Chuck Traynor. I don't understand how having sex with a dog (which is animal abuse, as well) can be found to be entertaining or funny. Linda Lovelace was a virtual prisoner who was coerced into making these films. I know some people will criticize this comment but I feel strongly that these types of films fuel the fire of hatred and further misogynistic feelings towards women. This society continues to portray women as sexual objects as opposed to human beings. We call ourselves "civilized" however I feel we have a long way to go before we can ever scratch the surface of being civilized.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked this movie on the cover alone thinking that i was in for an adventure to the level of "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom". Unfortunately I was in for a virtual yawn. Not like any yawn i have had before though. This yawn was so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie. The cover described amazing special effects. There were none. The movie was so lightweight that even the stereotypes were awfully portrayed. It does give the idea that you can solve problems with violence. Good if you want to teach your kids that. I don't. Keep away from this one. If you are looking for family entertainment then you might find something that is more inspiring elsewhere.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I expect the same excitement as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE but I was let down by just junk how can you even call this a movie ( its kinda of a mini porno) . It made my sick when the guy was made to eat his own business. There is no story line to it at all it jumps to quickly from each murder. If you like seeing a women naked or even mens parts then there's spots in the movie for and there's even a masturbation spot in the movie which makes it a porno and not a movie at all. I have seen some dumb movies in my time but this is number 1 . I want be watching it again at all. The actors even look bored during the movie to me so they probably were in need of money badly to make this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie makes Canadians and Brits out to be asinine, moronic idiots. The men get stoned/drunk, and then they yell/beat each other up in almost every scene. The women are superfluous to the story I do not understand what they are there for they spend every scene causing a ruckus, or worse, milling around like mesmerized cattle. Apparently, Canadian women are either quarrelsome vulgar tramps or hulking hippie chicks. It's the standard knocked-up girlfriend, her loser boyfriend and his wicked mother ludicrousness that we have seen in countless movies before.<br /><br />Every character here is a carping, infantile stereotype. Not to mention that they all looked like they need a shower! And the idea of any kind of scene implying sex with George Wendt shudder is enough to make anyone gag! I watched the movie because Samuel West was in it but I cannot understand why he would have accepted a role like this. Maybe he needed the money. Ian Tracey is a superb actor - the only one with a vague redeeming moment, but his talent is wasted here.<br /><br />As for the rest of the plot the three imbeciles trying to get their dope back yawn - or Karl who is dead, but who is actually a character very much alive in the minds of those left behind (almost like Rebecca in Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece although I am ashamed to even have thought to compare these two films), why even bother? Karl is so galling that you find the circumstances of his death gratifying.<br /><br />By the end of this wretched movie, I thought they would all have been better off going down with him on that boat!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.
|
Negative
|
Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone jumping on their seats. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was definitely my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes of joy.
|
Positive
|
Hilariously obvious "drama" about a bunch of high school (I think) kids who enjoy non-stop hip-hop, break dancing, graffiti and trying to become a dj at the Roxy--or something. To be totally honest I was so bored I forgot! Even people who love the music agree this movie is terribly acted and--as a drama--failed dismally. We're supposed to find this kids likable and nice. I found them bland and boring. The one that I REALLY hated was Ramon. He does graffiti on subway trains and this is looked upon as great. Excuse me? He's defacing public property that isn't his to begin with. Also these "great" kids tap into the city's electricity so they can hold a big dance party at an abandoned building. Uh huh. So we're supposed to find a bunch of law breakers lovable and fun.<br /><br />I could forgive all that if the music was good but I can't stand hip hop. The songs were--at best--mediocre and they were nonstop! They're ALWAYS playing! It got to the point that I was fast-forwarding through the many endless music numbers. (Cut out the music and you haver a 30 minute movie--maybe) There are a few imaginative numbers--the subway dance fight, a truly funny Santa number and the climatic Roxy show. If you love hip hop here's your movie. But it you're looking for good drama mixed in--forget it. Also HOW did this get a PG rating? There's an incredible amount of swearing in this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember that show. I still remember that kick ass fun song "America's Funniest People." Frankly it should've been titled American's lame or unfunny or downright disgusting People. Dave couldn't save this show and neither could Bob Saget or the replacement hosts for AFV that came later. The Jackalope segments were hilarious and yes Dave could make some good voice overs that were better than Bob's. But this show went to hell because of the lame crappy videos people submitted. Also it developed as somewhat of a variety show with lame guest stars including the Olson Twins. Plus AFV was in it's prime before they started picking the drooling ugly as sin babies as the winner. Did I mentioned the videos were disgusting and lame? But still the theme song rocks!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nothing to say but Wow! Has anyone actually had somebody sneak up on them in an open field? Well this happens about 25 times in this movie(clearly the directors' favorite scare tactic). In one of the opening scenes the smooth talking/hot shot producer has to ride in the back seat so the camera man could sit in the front to film. Shortly after he arrives to the field the 5 contestants show up and, although it is clearly at latest 2 in the afternoon they are all convinced that the sun will set any minute. After about 30 minutes of boobless trash we are privileged with a flashback of the clown's history in which we see some of his previous victims. If you watch this movie check out the ladies chest.. her ribs go all the way to her neck, it was flat out disgusting. Most horror movies action occurs during the night but without a night vision camera the chaos is forced to happen during the day. The few night shots that did make it in to the movie look like they were stolen from the Blair Witch Project or random shots from the directors backyard. The movie somewhat redeemed itself in the end when there was a matrix like shoot out with the clown that we rewound and watched over and over laughing hysterically.<br /><br />Definitely RENT THIS MOVIE IF YOU HAVE EVER BEEN SNUCK UP ON IN AN OPEN FIELD.<br /><br />SIGNED, THE ANSWER
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would love to have that two hours of my life back. It seemed to be several clips from Steve's Animal Planet series that was spliced into a loosely constructed script. Don't Go, If you must see it, wait for the video ...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my god. the idea that this movie is a thriller is an absolute joke to me. besides the point that it seems to be written by a 5 year old. the plot, the acting and even the props and filming of this movie were all beyond disgrace.<br /><br />I am not usually this critical about any movie, cause every person has his/her style. But this movie, however, was probably the worst movie i have seen in 2008. I can honestly believe that this movie is unknown, and i think it should stay like this, for movies like these are making the thriller genre a joke.<br /><br />I advise anyone that is a fan of thriller movies, or even simply movies to stay far away from this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.<br /><br />Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of "cloth", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...<br /><br />Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in "9". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...<br /><br />And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and "9" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...<br /><br />Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like "No, don't do it!" "I will do it!" "But... you cannot do it alone!" "We can do it together!" "But there are rules!" "But we have to save him!" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop "Ahh" and "Ohhh" and"Ehh", and "Oooh", and "Whatchout", and "Run!" and "OhOhh!" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.<br /><br />Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The back cover of the DVD (missed this one when it came out) hails Hitler -the Rise Of Evil as "A Triumph" (The New York Post) and "Mesmerizing" (Newsweek).<br /><br />Well,never mind the Post but really, who ever wrote that word in Newsweek in the same context with this peace of, ahem, art should be sacked.<br /><br />I don't no where to start with. Why try to paint the picture of Hitler's evil with colors that did not exist? He was evil alright, but now his character is portrayed in way that is often historically inaccurate (compared to his love of animals, the gentle and subdued way he treated women) and so on.<br /><br />The actors are good, so you must feel sorry for them as they are imprisoned inside their one-dimensional characters. Some kind of curse here with Peter O' Toole: This is the second time in his honorable career when he has ended up playing an old and failed leader in a failed movie (or in this case TV-production, to be accurate). The first one was of course the legendary Galigula.<br /><br />The list of historically inaccurate scenes alone would fill the 1000 words allowed by IMDb, so I think I'll leave it here.<br /><br />This one is OK if it's on telly and you don't have anything else to do, but believe me - it's best left on the shelf in your local Virgin store.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.<br /><br />All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just rented Creep and was not at all impressed. I didn't feel anything in this film. I felt sick because the gore alone was shocking.<br /><br />I walked out of my living room several times in desperation that something would happen with this film. Haven't we seen this all before? I didn't like any of the characters barr the guy in the sewer cage. I felt bad for him. But then again I couldn't think as to why he was still alive and not murdered by the Creep? So many questions need to be answered.<br /><br />Someone mentioned references to the PS2 game Silent Hill and I can see similarities vaguely.<br /><br />Not a bad film, not a good one. judge for yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.<br /><br />Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.<br /><br />This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, CGI. A blessing when used properly. A sin with it's used by people who have no idea what their doing. Sadly, that's not the only thing that's used poorly in this umpteen Jaws rip-off.<br /><br />Ok, anybody who has read any number of my posted reviews has probably noticed 2 things. 1: I like low-budget horror movies. And 2: If there is a cute guy in said low-budget movie, I'll usually point them out. So, let's just get this out of the way right now. This is one low-budget horror movie I didn't like. The acting, for the most part, is horrible, effects laughable, and the script rivals Battlefield Earth as the worst I've witnessed this year. As far as the resident cute boy...Dax Miller (Bog) wins that prize hands down. This boy is hot! And surprisingly, he's not just a toned body with nice eyes and a cute butt...he can actually act (well, as much as he can in this odious film). Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.<br /><br />In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...<br /><br />A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks. Unknown to them is a rather large salt water crocodile lurking around the island. Croc shows up, mayhem ensues, and people are eaten. Roll end credits.<br /><br />As I said earlier, this film pretty much blows. It started pretty well, but soon devolved into being silly and stupid. A main character becomes lunch (in a rather humorous way), and our remaining heros utter one-liners at the victims expense. Also, if this croc is at the top of the food chain on both the land and in the water, what's with all the sharks around? If this thing can eat a 40 foot boat, I don't think a few skimpy sharks would stick around. The FX is some of the worst I have ever had the displeasure to see. The CGI is horrendous, and they've even managed to screw up the animatronic crocs. Attention, filmmakers. National Geographic. Discovery Store. The Croc Hunter. They know what crocodiles look like. You obviously didn't reference any of these judging by the monstrosity seen towards the end of the film. And what's with the pirate/drug pusher gang? Did you just need another reason to rip off a woman's top? <br /><br />It's funny how we get little sub-genres in the movie world. With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster. Alligator was good. Lake Placid was good. I even thought Tobe Hooper's Crocodile was good. Blood Surf, sucked.<br /><br />My grade: D-
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's a good movie lurking here, but this isn't it. The basic idea is good: to explore the moral issues that would face a group of young survivors of the apocalypse. But the logic is so muddled that it's impossible to get involved.<br /><br />For example, our four heroes are (understandably) paranoid about catching the mysterious airborne contagion that's wiped out virtually all of mankind. Yet they wear surgical masks some times, not others. Some times they're fanatical about wiping down with bleach any area touched by an infected person. Other times, they seem completely unconcerned.<br /><br />Worse, after apparently surviving some weeks or months in this new kill-or-be-killed world, these people constantly behave like total newbs. They don't bother accumulating proper equipment, or food. They're forever running out of fuel in the middle of nowhere. They don't take elementary precautions when meeting strangers. And after wading through the rotting corpses of the entire human race, they're as squeamish as sheltered debutantes. You have to constantly wonder how they could have survived this long... and even if they did, why anyone would want to make a movie about them.<br /><br />So when these dweebs stop to agonize over the moral dimensions of their actions, it's impossible to take their soul-searching seriously. Their actions would first have to make some kind of minimal sense.<br /><br />On top of all this, we must contend with the dubious acting abilities of Chris Pine. His portrayal of an arrogant young James T Kirk might have seemed shrewd, when viewed in isolation. But in Carriers he plays on exactly that same note: arrogant and boneheaded. It's impossible not to suspect that this constitutes his entire dramatic range.<br /><br />On the positive side, the film *looks* excellent. It's got an over-sharp, saturated look that really suits the southwestern US locale. But that can't save the truly feeble writing nor the paper-thin (and annoying) characters. Even if you're a fan of the end-of-the-world genre, you should save yourself the agony of watching Carriers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This whirling movie looks more like a combination of music-clips at MTV than as a real movie. There is no real story and as the movie goes on you ask yourself: "What is going to happen?"; but nothing happens. The story around Eric Cloeck, the frustrated writer, is the only good thing. The other persons seem to have nothing in common: then why bring them together in a movie. With music you can make watchable the worst movie. When I open the tap and there comes water out with the music of Bach then most people will like to look at it but this is not a movie. The director should learn how to write a script for a movie of 100 minutes or more before starting to direct a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bela Lugosi plays a doctor who will do anything to keep his wife looking young and beautiful. To this end, he drugs brides during their wedding ceremonies to make it look as if they are dead so he can steal their bodies. I'm not exactly sure what he does with the bodies. I don't remember it ever being fully explained. All I know is that he extracts something from them and injects it in his wife. (I'll just guess that it's spinal fluid. Spinal fluid was all the rage of mad scientists in the 40s.) You can pretty much guess the rest from here.<br /><br />There are a couple (well, really more than a couple, but I'll only write about two) of problems that I have with this movie. One is the way Bela is used. Sure, he does a decent enough job in his own overacting sort of way (BTW, the rest of the cast is simply abysmal). But, to have him hiding in the back of a hearse or having him creep into the female reporter's bedroom to do nothing is just silly. Also, why have him beat and/or kill every henchman he has? Is it to make him look evil? Well, someone who is kidnapping comatose brides doesn't really need to be made to look more evil.<br /><br />The second problem I have is the idea of drugging brides. Why brides? Wouldn't any female under the age of 20 do? Watching Bela go through these gyrations to get his victims, I was reminded of the idiotic Fisherman in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. In each case, there would appear to be an easier way of reaching your objective than employing a seemingly impossible plan that depends way to much on circumstances out of your control. (BTW, an alternate title for this movie is The Case of the Missing Brides. I guess that partially explains the need for 'brides'.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.<br /><br />It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.<br /><br />The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to say this is an awful movie, for the mere fact that when you see this movie on the guide, it is listed as a documentary. As I watched it, I started laughing, thinking to myself, does this guy actually expect me to believe this is real? So I had to look it up, and now see that it is a movie, but now since it isn't a documentary, it is now a movie with bad acting. SO, either way, it is pretty bad. I actually didn't make it to the end. I had to shut it off. I am a NYC Police Officer, and felt that someone was trying to mislead people into thinking this is a documentary, with the intentions of making money off of a terrible day for me and my coworkers. So, I took it a little personal. Maybe I was blinded by that, and it isn't as bad as I personally think it is. Everyone has their own opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was like a bad train wreck, as horrible as it was, you still had to continue to watch. My boyfriend and I rented it and wasted two hours of our day. Now don't get me wrong, the acting is good. Just the movie as a whole just enraged both of us. There wasn't anything positive or good about this scenario. After this movie, I had to go rent something else that was a little lighter. Jennifer Tilly is as usual a very dramatic actress. Her character seems manic and not all there. Darryl Hannah, though over played, she does a wonderful job playing out the situation she is in. More than once I found myself yelling at the TV telling her to fight back or to get violent. All in all, very violent movie...not for the faint of heart.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A particularly maligned example of Italian cult cinema with a nonsensical title to boot (if anything, the alternate THE MARK OF Satan is even less relevant to the plot!), this hybrid of Gothic Horror and Giallo (with a strong dose of Erotica) only contrives a flat sort of atmosphere throughout actually matched by handling which is downright dreadful! Here, we get the usual group of people (an acting troupe) stranded on an island (to which they were invited by a Count since he had become enamored of the leading lady, a dead-ringer for his missing spouse)! The characters are pretty much stereotypes: middle-aged but dashing hero (played by Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and whose family history bears more than its share of violent tragedy), demure heroine, sluttish companion (recalling Mae West and emerging the most annoying of the lot!), a meek but devoted stage manager (forever chided by one and all for his unmanly behavior!), a couple of lesbians, a mysterious gardener (the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi who, for once, gets in on the action, if you know what I mean), an envious housekeeper (nominal star Femi Benussi though, for what it is worth, this is really an ensemble piece), a religious fanatic of a butler, an impressionable chambermaid, etc. While the film is not by any means unwatchable, the atrocious dubbing, snail's pace, shoddy production (with the scenes depicting the raging sea lifted from some black-and-white film!) and the fact that the murders only occur within the concluding half-hour do not help matters. Besides, Marcello Giombini's score, though pleasant in itself, comes off as incongruously modern under the circumstances; that said, the revelation proves a surprisingly elaborate one (considering there is surely no shortage of suspects here).
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Haunting is yet another bad horror remake with phony overdone special effects and a big cast of on screen favorites and has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except maybe for the cinematography.Yes remakes aren't all bad but remakes directed by Jion Da Bont definitely are.I suppose that the A-List actors (Liam Neeson,Catherine Zeta Jones,Owen Wilson)are there to distract us from the boring plot,ridiculous special effects, and terrible attempts at scaring it's audience however this is a movie not a tabloid magazine we don't care whose in it we care about the characters and story two things this film missed.The storyline is like taking the classic novel The Haunting Of Hill House and ripping out four chapters and then using whatever's left for the film it is so boring and a lot of it is unexplained.The characters are pretty thin and while the acting is good you don't really care about any of the characters at all.Lily Taylor gives a horrendous performance and sounds like she's 8 years old when delivering her lines not to mention what a horrible screamer she is.Lily Taylor isn't made for the horror genre at all.The ghosts are stupid and cheesy, they look like a bunch of Casper The Friendly Ghost's and the ghost of Hugh Cain looks like a fat guy dressed as the grim reaper for Halloween with a smoke machine.There is this creature on the roof of one of the rooms that is a giant purple mouth and it's not even funny unintentionally just plain sad.The house is pretty and well designed that is probably the only positive thing about this movie it looks nice but that doesn't save it from it's brutal everything else.I can honestly say i felt like i was wasting my time watching The Haunting on TV for no price so I would've been even more pi$$ed if I had paid to see it but luckily it was on Scream Channel.Overall The Haunting is a boring remake that tries to overwhelm you with bad special effects, a poor attempt at horror.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not a very good movie but according to the info it's pretty accurate in depicting torture techniques. The purpose of the film was to show the brutality of the NK POW camps and that's done effectively enough, with surprising frankness for the time. Whatever technical flaws exist (and there are plenty) by watching this you'll see a forgotten corner of a forgotten war and some pretty nasty stuff - again, nasty because it's being done north of the DMZ and not in Guantanamo Bay.<br /><br />I don't think any of the Korean veterans brought up his torture when running for office, and if you watch the movies like this one and Pork Chop Hill in comparison to the Vietnam films. I don't know if it was the people in '54 being trapped in the WWII concepts (the boys tend to wisecrack a lot) or the war or what, but it's interesting to see this from the same system that 16 years later would be making movies like "Go Tell The Spartans".
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />Although the lead actress is STRIKINGLY beautiful, the plot stands little chance of acceptance because too many distracting details face the audience during the unfolding of the story.<br /><br />One may believe that middle-class teen-age school girls in the 1950's easily gave away their virginity without thought of marriage to 30-year-old's they barely know, but I doubt it.<br /><br />One may believe that young high school teens are highly self-confident and self-assured as they interact with their elders in complex social situations, but my experience has been, more often than not, teenagers feel very awkward and act clumsy as they experiment in the adult world.<br /><br />One may believe that a experienced medical doctor would not know the pungent oder of Stroptomycin -- the smelly fermenting byproduct of busy earth microbes -- and not detect that some lifeless bland powder is fake, but I think not.<br /><br />One may believe that 30-something-year-old troublemakers can enter into, and hang around inside, a public school rec hall during a school social and make trouble, but I think that school socials are traditionally a protected environment and parents, chaparones and school staff would be around to prevent this.<br /><br />One final nit, throughout Hey Babu Riba the five teenage friends referred to themselves as the foursome. There is probably an explanation why the FIVE were the FOURsome, but because it was never detailed, each reference distracts from each scene.<br /><br />This movie did not ring true for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.