autotrain_text
stringlengths 52
6.11k
| autotrain_label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live "in town" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film <br /><br />The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business<br /><br />The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar<br /><br />The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant<br /><br />The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing<br /><br />Also the cop track seems half baked<br /><br />The finale is too filmy too<br /><br />Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning<br /><br />Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay
| 0NEGATIVE
|
SWEET SIXTEEN (1983) **/***** 86 minutes Director Jim Sotos Cast Bo Hopkins, Susan Strasberg, Aleisa Shirley, Patrick Macnee, Dana Kimmell<br /><br />Fifteen year old bad girl Melissa is new in a desert town and it isn't long before folks around her start dying off. The detective has to put together the clues with the help of his Nancy Drew good girl daughter played by Friday the 13th alumni Dana Kimmell. The local Native Americans are prime suspects since they seem to upset the prejudiced townsfolk. These events all lead up to the revealing of the killer at Melissa's sixteenth birthday party.<br /><br />This below average slasher isn't too memorable. It has a made for TV feel, without much score besides the title character's own corny theme song which plays a couple times throughout. Lines like "the killer will turn us into coleslaw." Fit into standard eighties slasher screenplays. Marci calls Melissa a bad name then somehow immediately they develop a friendship. Apparently Marci sees how hard it is to fit in because Melissa knows how to wear make-up. This movie would be hard-pressed to be made today with the main character being fifteen and the director inserting multiple gratuitous close-ups of her. The social commentary on Indians wasn't developed enough to be taken seriously. I am too surprised at the fairly high rating this movie gets. Both Sweet Sixteen and Ed Hunt's Bloody Birthday had the potential to capitalize on that time honored tradition of the birthday party to create an intense sequence of carnage but I feel failed to deliver. But on the bright side releasing obscure movies like this on DVD gives hope that others will follow.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
...And I never thought a movie deserved to be awarded a 1! But this one is honestly the worst movie I've ever watched. My wife picked it up because of the cast, but the storyline right since the DVD box seemed quite predictable. It is not a mystery, nor a juvenile-catching film. It does not include any sensuality, if that's what the title could remotely have suggest any of you. This is just a total no-no. Don't waste your time or money unless you feel like watching a bunch of youngsters in a as-grown-up kind of Gothic setting, where a killer is going after them. Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth watching. Max Makowski makes the worst of Nick Stahl.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
well, i hated knocked up, i despised 40-year-old virgin, and this little gem is a worthless piece of trash movie. do yourself a favor, and skip it. i admit, i don't like the actors in this movie, and after my 18-year-old son showed me the cover of the DVD, i was like, "i wouldn't like that movie," but at his insistence, i decided to give it a try, unfortunately. <br /><br />about two minutes into the movie i turned it off, i was so offended. it's just disgusting. any decent person would be offended by the filth in this movie. call me old fashioned, but shoving your pussy juice-covered hand into your friend's face so he will know you "got some" is over the line of decency, in my opinion. yeah, that's how this putrid little film starts, and i can only imagine it gets much worse from there. another real winner for Mr. Rudd. i bet he's proud as punch. imagine if you could only get worthless roles like he gets, would you stay in movies? despite the pay, i wouldn't. <br /><br />i should have known better; next time i will.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Meet Peter Houseman, rock star genetic professor at Virgina University. When he's not ballin' on the court he's blowing minds and dropping panties in his classroom lectures. Dr. Houseman is working on a serum that would allow the body to constantly regenerate cells allowing humans to become immortal. I'd want to be immortal too if I looked like Christian Bale and got the sweet female lovin that only VU can offer. An assortment of old and ugly university professors don't care for the popular Houseman and cut off funding for his project due to lack of results. This causes Peter to use himself as the guinea pig for his serum. Much to my amazement there are side effects and he, get this, metamorphoses! into something that is embedded into our genetic DNA that has been repressed for "millions of years". He also beds Dr. Mike's crush Sally after a whole day of knowing her. She has a son. His name is Tommy. He is an angry little boy.<br /><br />Metamorphosis isn't a terrible movie, just not a well produced one. The whole time I watched this I couldn't get past the fact that this was filmed in 1989. The look and feel of the movie is late seventies quality at the latest. It does not help that it's packaged along with 1970's movies as Metamorphosis is part of mill creek entertainment's 50 chilling classics. There is basically no film quality difference whatsoever. The final five minutes are pure bad movie cheese that actually, for me at least, save the movie from a lower rating. Pay attention to the computer terminology such as "cromosonic anomaly". No wonder Peter's experiment failed. Your computer can't spell! This is worthy of a view followed by a trip to your local tavern.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
It doesn't take long to see why Code Name: Diamond Head didn't make it onto the network schedules. The TV pilot movie doesn't get past the credits before it's obvious just how bad it's going to be. Maybe I missed something, because the plot didn't make a whole lot of sense. Based on what I got out of the muddled mess, a terrorist or thief or something named "Tree" (Ian McShane) goes to Hawaii to steal something to do with a secret weapon. The world's dullest secret agent, Johnny Paul (Roy Thinnes), is out to stop him. There might have been more, but trust me it really doesn't matter anyway.<br /><br />Action movies should have action. Suspenseful moments should have suspense. And dramatic moments should have drama. There's none of that in Code Name: Diamond Head. I've seen others use the word "turgid" to describe this made for TV snoozer and it's better than any one word description I can come up with. None of the characters is in the least bit exciting or worth caring about. And Roy Thinnes makes for the worst leads imaginable. His charisma is just slightly north of a slug. Ian McShane is easily the best thing the movie has going for it, but unfortunately for everyone else involved, it doesn't appear he was going to be back as a regular cast member. Now if McShane had been cast in the series lead, well then you might have had something.<br /><br />I'm quickly discovering that these Gawd awful 70s made-for-TV movies make great Mystery Science Theater 3000 episodes. And that goes double if Quinn Martin was involved. Very funny stuff from Mike and the Bots. So while I may only give the movie a 3/10, I rate Episode #608 a 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler<br /><br />it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This is a classic example of an increasing problem with films. Why is the background noise and the soundtrack dramatically louder than the dialogue? What sense does that make? This film isn't alone. Most films seem to do this now. For 2 years, I wondered if it was just something wrong with my TV, but then I got a new TV & there it is again. BACKGROUND noise that could be taking place a city block behind the actors drowns out the dialogue.<br /><br />It was even more distracting in this film because, in the English version anyway, the woman mumbles constantly. I kept hoping Jean Reno would say "Excuse me, would you speak up or get the marbles out of your mouth." If you watch it on DVD & you have even high-school French, I recommend the French version with subtitles.<br /><br />I give it 4 because Reno was so good in Leon. People rave about the scenery, but I saw it on a TV & I lived in the Rockies for a few years, so "Enh".
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I can't believe that in the 34 prior comments, nobody mentioned that this film is a blatant rip-off of Born Yesterday. A man is hired to bring an ostensibly dumb blonde up to the requirements of a gangster. Hired gun and blonde fall in love and live happily ever after. Gangster is left in the lurch. But Born Yesterday was an intelligent treatment whereas this is just so much fluff. Technicolor transfer to DVD is deplorable. Natalie Kalmus would be rolling over in her grave. Check out the paperboy. Recognize him? But, it's historically interesting to see the roots of Rock 'n Roll. Also interesting is Ewell's introduction to CinemaScope, a new format at the time.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I rented this movie because I was browsing through the horror movie section for those movies that no one's heard of and could be a possible gem. I saw this and, since I'm a fan of violence and gore, I got it. It got the rating of EM which means: Extremely Mature. Thinking that this rare and high rating was totally meant for violence and everything else, I got it. The warning on the box said: Extreme Violence, Extreme Langauge, and Nudity. The "extreme violence" struck my fancy. The movie ended being a pretty tame slasher flick. It had one or two gory scenes but I've seen worse in a PG-13 movie. Of course the amount of gore in a movie isn't all that counts, right? You have plot also. Well, the plot was boring and there nothing really special about it. Don't rent it. I speak the truth. I can't imagine how someone could really enjoy it to the point where they say: "I'm gonna rent that again." It had it's moments where it kept you going but I'm never going to see that film again.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** When I saw a preview for this movie I thought it was going to be atleast a slightly admirable storyline. But as most superstation original movies I was left disapointed. This gullible family ends up driving through this "deserted" town to take a brake and find this video camera showing these people doing everything their donig and finds out they all eventually disappear, the family goes through all these mysterious stages and never discovers or displays what the heck is stalking them. Their are more gaps than I can count and they don't explain anything that happens how or what. It ends where the family gets in a car accident and get posest or brainwashed or something( which is never explained). The next thing you know ur hoping they somehow find out how all it happened but it ends leaving you completely confused.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
"Die Sieger" was highly recommended to be one of the few good action movies made in Germany. I watched it last night and I must admit, that I am deeply disappointed. If that is supposed to be "the last best hope" for entertaining and challenging German action cinema, well then there is not much left.<br /><br />"Die Sieger" tries to be sexy, daring and furious but it is nothing of that kind. The characters are wooden and stereotype and whenever they do something unexpected (which doesn't happen too much) the act against their nature. That makes it hard - for me almost impossible - to follow them or even identify with them.<br /><br />Most of all I think the film is very bad cast. There is not one character in whom I believe. Maybe the superior officer at the SWAT unit - but that's about it. Those people that try to look like or act like special units, like elite cops - I don't believe them. Not for a second.<br /><br />The story is not so bad after all. But I think it's badly told. You don't get to know the bad guy at all - for example. And when after a "very dark" show down Karl Simon (the good guy) asks his already dead opponent "why? ... what for?" I did ask myself that very same question, knowing, that Dominik Graf wouldn't have the answer.<br /><br />I sincerely hope - no - I believe that Germany can do better, even with action films.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I'll bet none of you knew that the famous Conquistador Hernando Cortes made a preliminary scouting expedition to Mexico before taking on the Aztecs. Good thing he did because he would never have known about those T Rexs that inhabited one particular valley where the locals revered them as gods.<br /><br />That was understandable. What wasn't was the casting of blue eyed Ian Ziering as Cortes. Even with the blond hair made famous in Beverly Hills 90210 dyed black, Ian looked positively ridiculous. At least he made no attempt at a Spanish accent.<br /><br />The real hero of Tyrannosaurus Azteca is Marco Sanchez also late of a television series with a semi-recurring role in Walker Texas Ranger as Detective Sandoval of the Dallas PD. He finds true love with an Aztec princess and life would be just perfect if it wasn't for those pesky prehistoric beasts the natives worship.<br /><br />Tyrannosaurus Azteca looks like they used some outtakes from the famous Sid&Marty Krofft series the Land of the Lost. All that was needed was some Sleestak to appear.<br /><br />If you're interested in finding out about this reconnoitering expedition that didn't quite make the history books by all means check out Tyrannosaurus Azteca. Then try and sit through it with a straight face.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.<br /><br />The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.<br /><br />The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.<br /><br />The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.<br /><br />
| 0NEGATIVE
|
The movie starts with a nice song Looks like a thriller, with Arbaaz Khan walking around in a suspicious way but then suddenly we are forced to a comedy With the routine stupid idiots like GOLMAAL with Tusshar, Sharman, Kunal and Rajpal acting like grown up kids Their scenes are quite funny first and then get boring There is a bored sub plot of Tanushree's brother being killed Towards the end the film tries to get serious with the villain kidnapping our heroes but here it gets even stupid Then a lengthy bashing bashing climax straight out of HERA PHERI and wait, there is also a long chase in Payal's house<br /><br />The film is so boring that it makes you fall asleep<br /><br />Direction by Priyan is very bad music(Pritam) is routine except the first song<br /><br />Cinematography is bad, the film has a cheap look throughout<br /><br />Rajpal Yadav is good in his 1st scene where he goes to pay his rent and i was happy that the actor isn't loud and over the top like other films But No, He becomes his usual self and gets irritating most of the times Tusshar should not speak in a film, his dial delivery is terrible Sharman is the saving grace, He is the sole actor who acts very well in this film Kunal Khemmu tries hard in his first comic film as an adult, But doesn't impress much Tanushree is bad as always Arbaaz Khan gets less scope and is usual Payal is a non actress Murli Sharma is terrible
| 0NEGATIVE
|
You ever get that itch to just kill an hour or two doing chores and watching a movie so bad it defies reason? Well, out renting movies one weekend i see the box art for this one and see the T-Rex. Knowing full well that the dinosaur on the package was the T-Rex from Jurassic Park, I KNEW I had to rent this just cause I was in the mood for a bad movie.<br /><br />I was not disappointed in the least.<br /><br />Mad scientists, secret formulas, a company more concerned about its fortune and shareholders than lives, and of course, a big, poorly animated, sock-puppet T-Rex. Is it me our through out the movie was there scenes clearly spliced from other movies? Not to mention the Rex's hungry is never satisfied...ever. How he has hungry is beyond me because he actually doesn't have an throat (Really if you look down his mouth when he roars, it's solid...like a toy or something). Now, I like watching incredibly bad B-Movies from time to time because it reminds me how much better a blockbuster movie is. This one was hilarious. I'm not even sure if this was supposed to be a thriller or a comedy, because there are scenes where, make no mistake, you will laugh. <br /><br />Do I blame the movie's budget...yes, but the acting didn't help either. OK, Tony Todd was actually pretty good, as for some of the female roles...when you cry shouldn't "tears" come out? Meh, I am not going to be angry at this movie, i knew what i was getting into and if you're looking for a bad movie to watch with friends, here's what I recommend: Watch this movie, then immediately watch Jurassic Park and then Lost World back to back. You will be writing Mr. Spielberg thank you letters the next day.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Released on DVD in the UK as Axe, The Choke is a teen slasher that fails in pretty much every department: the story is almost non-existent, resulting in a film which comprises mostly of people wandering around a dark building; with the exception of two characters (who are quite obviously destined to be the film's survivors), everyone is thoroughly objectionable, meaning that the viewer couldn't care less when they get slaughtered; the deaths aren't gory enough (unless a brief shot of a pound of minced beef covered in fake blood turns your stomach); and the gratuitous sex scene features next to no nudity (an unforgivable mistake to make in a slasher flick!).<br /><br />The wafer-thin plot sees members of a punk band locked inside what appears to be the world's largest nightclub (there are endless abandoned corridors and rooms, unlike any club I've ever seen) where they are picked off by an unseen assailant. For a low budget effort, the production values are okay, and the cast are all seem to be fairly capable actors, but with not nearly enough genuine scares, a reluctance to get really messy (this is a slasher, so where's the graphic splatter?), way too much dreadful dialogue (particularly from the not-dead-soon-enough drummer) and some ill advised use of tacky video techniques in an attempt to add some style, the movie quickly becomes extremely boring.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This documentary begins with an interesting premise -- it makes an intriguing and convincing argument that the history of Jesus as is commonly believed is probably a myth. Sadly, though, after priming us with this, the movie completely shifts gears and becomes little more than a non-stop attack on Christianity, and pretty much focusing on the easy targets.<br /><br />The writer/director clearly has some issues with the Church (he is a former evangelical Christian and has some legit anger) and this film seems to be his form of release. It'd be interesting to see the first 20 minutes expanded, but as a whole, the movie is disappointing.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
The problem is the role of the characters in the film. Man to Man shows a British anthropologist kidnapping two pygmies and taking them to Scotland and then realising that they are not animals or subhumans but actually equal to himself. The problem is the role of the pygmies in the film - two people who are kidnapped, treated like animals, and yet given such a shallow, stereotypical role within the film... The kidnapper (british anthropologist) ends up being the hero of the film because he 'manages' to relate to the pygmies... No notion of how the two hostages feel, of their point of view, of their ordeal... I find it is a shallow film, with a one sided fundamentally racist view... it never manages to move away from the 'white mans' view
| 0NEGATIVE
|
It just seems to run true to form, any movie starring Dolph Lundgren is bad! I don't know if it is the fact that the storyline in full of holes, or that Dolph is such a bad actor. No spoiler here, He seems to overdue the pushing and shoving and grabbing and touching thing in this movie. In my opinion it is a wonder that some of these projects find venture capital to get in the can and to the theatre.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I think the biggest failing something can have is to be boring. Bad is actually better than boring. This thing has no breath. It does have the interesting fact of taking place in Cambodia. How many American made films of the 30's take place in Cambodia. Nevertheless, the conflict there is a little hard to figure out. Even the troop movements are a little confusing. What drags it to a resounding halt is the love story. Why those two guys are so totally transfixed on the dippy blonde I don't know. I thought he should continue to use his Zombies (such as they are) and forget all about her. The movie just plods along. The perfect microcosm is where one of the principle characters follows a Cambodian priest through the water to get to the secret place where the hieroglyphics (or whatever) that explain how to turn people into zombies is kept. I thought they would never get there. One guy takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some columns. He takes two steps. He stops. He looks around. The other guy hides behind some bushes. This is the movie in a nutshell. Then there is the bad acting and insipid dialogue. I actually have a lot of patience when it comes to B movies. This one is insufferable. By the way, a more apt title would be Revolt of the Hypnotized.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.<br /><br />This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This film is not deserved of the next few minutes I will spend criticizing it, but I know many people, like myself, rely on IMDb.com to assist in deciding on films. For that reason alone, I am writing this.<br /><br />"Live Feed" is like an Asian version of 1976's "The Incredible Torture Show" (aka "Blood Sucking Freaks") http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077247/. Torture, dismemberment, murder, cannibalism... sure, it's all here along with a third-grade script, pathetic acting, and a perverted failure of an attempt at black comedy.<br /><br />The film takes place in China, yet everyone speaks English. There is an abundance of girls in the film who are horrified by the butchering of dogs in a marketplace, yet are sexually excited about entering a porno parlor. One gal who is disgusted by the filth in a restroom stall moments later is still there having at it with her friends boyfriend (how he even got in there might be the only engaging thing about this whole film.) The film is absolutely awful, even for a B-movie. Even if you were to download it for free, it would be an insult to your hard drive.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Consider for a moment what it must be like to be Uwe Boll. Somewhere, perhaps in those places that Jack Nicholson said 'you don't talk about at parties', Boll knows that David Lean had head lice as a child that had more talent for film making than him. Gore Whores, metal-heads and the socially dysfunctional may bump into him on the circuit and tell him otherwise but general audiences find the Teutonic helmsman's output so bereft of originality, wit or imagination that he's become the internet's bogeyman an online discursive synonym for photochemical excrement. Boll does his best to ride over these naysayers, exploiting tax credits available in Germany and Canada to keep working and raising money from a network of dentists as Zero Mostel did with old ladies in The Producers. The difference being that Mostel's character knew he was making bowel fill. Maybe Uwe knows it too.<br /><br />Such is the level of hostility toward each new 'Bollbuster' that IMDb patrons sabotage their ratings by voting 1 before they've seen it. Boll's attempts at silencing his critics by challenging them to a boxing match and knocking them out just made them more determined. Indeed he's probably the only filmmaker that's boosted thesaurus sales as critics search for inventive ways of describing garbage.<br /><br />This onslaught has made Uwe a very thick skinned man, so much so that he must feel like he's wrapped in a carpet, but one who feels as if he's bullied by the entire world. Like most people in that situation he lashes out, determined to upset as many people as possible with the memory of a tearful evening holding Variety's review of House of the Dead, never too far from the surface. This 'I know you are but what am I' strategy for reclaiming the initiative produced the blunt satire of Postal, which attempted to napalm the dissenters with jokes about 9/11, Christian fundamentalism, Jihad, Nazism and paedophilia. Such a litany of invective requires a satirist with the mind of Peter Cook and the visual imagination of Chris Morris but the closest Boll gets to either man is the o in their surname.<br /><br />In Seed, shot back to back with the aforementioned game adaptation, Boll is back with a story about a sadistic serial murderer (is there any other kind?) who gets the chair only for two attempts to fail in permanently curtailing all signs of life. Mindful of the fictional law that says anyone still alive after 3 attempts must go free, though if you'd been fried with that much electricity why would you want to, they pronounce him legally dead and bury him, only for the disgruntled killer to resurface and begin a whirlwind tour of his gaolers.<br /><br />Boll begins his 'exploration of nihilistic rage' with Seed watching footage of animals being tortured for experimental purposes. From there we're treated to the killer's stock in trade kidnapping dogs, babies and grown women and allowing them to starve to death on camera only to become maggot food. We're invited to reflect on what a depraved race of amoral meat sacks we all are our inhumanity to each other and our fellow creatures acting as a lighting rod that acts as a catalyst for the most disgusting vestiges of the human condition. Yes, we're worthless, gormless sadists and worse than that, we won't give Uwe a good rating on the IMDb. In short, humanity is bunk.<br /><br />Of course you might think that Uwe relies on our worst excesses for his livelihood and with that in mind it's a bit of a bipolar piece, on one hand hating its audience and positively basting itself in the sour milk of human kindness the milk that poor old Boll has had to drink for so long, while simultaneously whipping out its member and inviting those with a pornographic lust for on screen depravity to marvel at its sheer arse splitting girth.<br /><br />The result says nothing about society and its discontents, more the corrosive effect bad press is having on its director. Poor Uwe is obviously a very angry man one scene in which a poor woman gets her brains hammered to a pulp while tied to a chair, no doubt a surrogate for his own fantasy's about dispatching various web critics. That it's there but takes an avant-garde approach by failing to be attached to any kind of narrative thread, shows that Boll is a pornographer whose happy to engage with the blood lust of his audience and knows that plot is surplus to requirements. He's made a film which is competently shot but utterly desolate. "I wanted to make a horror movie that was no fun" Boll told the audience at the film's world premiere and he has, on that flimsy manifesto, succeeded but if this was supposed to convince the director's detractors that he was a serious genre filmmaker, he'll need something genuine to say as well as a better, more original way of saying it.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I respect Alex Cox the filmmaker, I really do. He's like the kid at school who you think at first is just trying a little too hard to be "different", a literary punk-rocker who has dipped more than his feet into spaghetti westerns and science fiction and fringe-culture and come out into the world ready to take s*** on... but then you see what he can actually do, the talent and raw feverish artistry and moments of true absurd hilarity capable of him, and you are ready to see whatever he has to offer. But there's two sides to his proverbial coin: he can either really hit it out of the park (Repo Man, Sid & Nancy, Walker arguably) or just try just a little too hard and pull way too many pretentious rabbits out of the hat (Straight to Hell). Death and the Compass falls into the latter category, and while I respect its (mostly) original approach to tackling a detective-killer story, it too falls on its face and its weirdness becomes oddly dull.<br /><br />It has a strange enough set-up and already irreverent style to follow: a detective, Erik Lonnrot, is after a killer with a hell-fire voice, Red (something), and it seems that the killer is leaving disturbing clues with his victims: scrawled in blood on the walls are messages that, according to eyewitness Alonso Zunz (Christopher Eccleston looking as if he just walked off Shallow Grave without changing his look) has religious significance in the Kabbalah. We follow Lonnrot on his case, and his methods of going after the perp, which include following at first a triangular and then compass-shaped pattern on the map- this despite the protests of the flabbergasted Commissioner Treviranus (Miguel Sandoval), who also looks back in flash-forwards sitting at a desk and speaking to the audience in garbled but sad descriptions of his former employee and colleague after the fact of the case.<br /><br />Oh, Cox has his moments of creativity and interest, such as a shot where we see the entire scope of the harrowing depths of the police station where Eccleston's character is taken in by handcuffs ("For his own protection" says Lonnrot in case of getting lost in the wrong room) and we're followed in a long tracking shot- maybe the best or just most curious- where we're taken through very dark hallways with very little direction, lost in the maze of turns and oddities among the characters. And it's never something that isn't fascinating to *look* at, with Miguel Garzon's cinematography a morbid delight. But The plot goes through hoola-hoops to keep things so off-beat it might as well be beat-less all-together. The performances, save for a confident Boyle and for Eccleston at the very end, are pretty bad, especially Sandoval who just seems to squirm in his seat reciting the goofy dialog given to him to speak at the audience.<br /><br />While the murder plot itself contains an intention for the audience that this isn't something we've seen before, that it's in a society with a good many rioters and architecture suggesting Alphaville's next decrepit wave, it too fizzle's out very quickly. What's the conflict here? I was never that much engaged with Boyle's own personal mission to find this killer, and only mildly caught up in the few flashes of deranged scenes of the killer (and/or killers) going after people like in the building early on (Cox himself has an amusing cameo). And just when I started to think it was leading up to something spectacular, with Boyle and Eccleston in that big ("not as big as you think") building in the South section of the city, it suddenly gives us a "TWIST" that we know in the back of our minds is coming but hope isn't, and it deflates any of the humdrum mystery it's been leading up to. For all of Cox's uncanny touches as a filmmaker, for all of his opposition to spoon-feeding the audience with a 'conventional' approach, which I do respect, Death and the Compass ultimately cuts one off at the brain-stem; it's masturbatory.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Predictable, told a thousand times story with the usual drama in between, a couple of pretty raunchy sex scenes intermingled with some character paranoia, 70's style incidental violin horror music that is comical at times, i couldn't help chuckling to myself.<br /><br />I usually like Defoe, and it has to be said that the acting is not all that bad, the "plot" develops at a reasonable pace and does keep you guessing from time to time. Its just that it's all too predictable, i felt like i was watching a made for TV drama instead of a new movie. Maybe thats the style the directors wanted, but it has to be said that the review i read on here before i saw the movie could only have been written by someone involved in its production.<br /><br />Don't expect too much, and if i could wind the clock back i wouldn't have gone to see it at the cinema. I would wait for the bargain bins at your video shop, I'm sure it wont take long.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I saw this for Gary Busey and Fred Williamson thinking they were buddy cops. They are but Busey is in the opening scene then doesn't show up again until like 40 minutes into the movie. Though every scene he's in is awesome. Especially when he disguises himself as a blind hobo.<br /><br />What's incredible about this movie is the plot. In the movie Fred Williamson is trying to find out who stalking and killing phone sex operators. At one point I think thats its Busey. But it turns out I'm only partly right. Busey is not the killer, but he is calling up and harassing the women over the phone. Why? I don't know. In no way is he connected to the killer, he just does it for kicks I guess.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I enjoy quality crapness, and this ranks up there with some of the finest. the cg is out of this world, or at least pre-dates our world, and the insanity of a 6 foot bloke in a rat outfit chasing after people is laughably bad. I quite enjoyed some of this, but the acting is so goddamn awful, and even the obligatory nude scene doesn't really have any baps out in it. just a complete waste of time if ever i saw one. I don't know who wasted more time, me watching this, or the poor saps who got dragged into making it in the faint hope that this will launch their acting careers. I can assure you, it wont. However, on a brighter note, I have managed to successfully do the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon from this movie, so I think it was almost worthwhile watching the 91 minutes of it.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Renowned cinematographer Freddie Francis (Glory, The Elephant Man) directs this pretty bad horror/drama film. 19th Century England has a different view of how the practice of medicine should be handled than Dr. Thomas Rock, the law stating that only the bodies of hung criminals can be studied and experimented on. But the stockpile of these bodies is a small one, and Rock needs more - and he prefers them fresher. Being a maverick within his circle, he begins to pay people to find bodies for him to study and test on. Desperate sleazebags Robert Fallon and Timothy Broom get wind of this job opportunity and begin to murder people and sell these bodies to Rock. Naturally, this kind of action has even worse consequences than practicing on the dead bodies of non-criminals, and leads to trouble for everyone. While the overall story sounds intriguing on paper, almost everything about The Doctor And The Devils is laughably bad.<br /><br />After the first fifteen minutes of the film you are already beginning to question your decision of sitting down to watch the film. The entire look of the film is just ugly. Seeing as how the film takes place in the slums of England during the 19th Century, the filmmakers were probably going for an "ugly" look, but they don't do it in an artful way. Everything from the sets to the cinematography just look cheap, feeble, and disgusting. Also, just about everything scene is filled with something that you simply cannot take seriously, and most of the time this has to do with someone (both in the small and large roles) doing something that looks or sounds completely ridiculous. Francis sure didn't help out his actors much.<br /><br />Jonathan Pryce and Stephen Rea play the twisted buddies of the film, Fallon and Broom respectively, and are very bombastic but very bad. Their characters are by nature crazy, but Pryce and Rea overact the parts to death. They especially have trouble keeping the same accent from shot to shot - Pryce in particular goes from Cockney to Irish to Long John Silver to some kind of lagoon creature and so on and so forth. It's also a humor riot to see Twiggy in this film at all, let alone playing an in-demand street whore, since she can't act to save her life (though her song during the final credits isn't so funny). Boy she sure came a long way: from "flower power" to "I'll take mee clothes off for a shillin'!" As bad as those three actors are in this film, Julian Sands takes home the award for the worst performance of the film. He is just as lame as it gets, giving one laugh-out-loud attempt after another at portraying anger, love, happiness, anxiety - pick an emotion, any emotion! <br /><br />There's only one good thing about The Doctor And The Devils: Timothy Dalton's performance of Dr. Rock. Despite being surrounded by cinematic sewage, Dalton is quite excellent; giving an electric portrayal of an overly driven yet good natured man. Too bad the rest of the film could not have been as good as Mr. Dalton....
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I was at first disgusted with director Sun-Woo Jang because I had felt that he cheated me. Jang had the potential to create a strong, deeply emotional film about sex and its effects on people, but instead chose to focus his strength on the pornography element more than the actual human element. I couldn't see the characters at first and his sloppy introduction which blended both realism and cinema together was amateurish at best
yet this film remained in my mind for days after I viewed it. What stayed with me wasn't the story, it wasn't the characters, nor was it the apparent pornographic nature of the film, but the transition that Jang demonstrated between Y and J. If you watch this film carefully, you will see that both begin in an exploration phase of their relationship, eager to jump into the unknown, but not quite certain the next step. As they continue to meet, exploring new avenues of pleasure, they continually jump between the aggressor and the aggressed. Jang initially explores the idea that J is the one that in control of the situation, then hauntingly, the reversal happens when J becomes obsessed with Y. It is a very small change, and due to the graphic content of this film, it can easily be missed, but it is there. It becomes apparently clear near the end when J cannot live with Y, as their meetings become less frequent, and J attempts to become a part of normal society. This was a huge and very exciting element to this film to see right before your eyes, but alas, it was the only element of this film worth viewing.<br /><br />I will ignore those that speak of this film as nothing more than pornographic, because there are human elements at the core of this film, as underdeveloped as they are, they are there. It is a film about a facet of our lives that is very rarely explored in cinema or talked about in the papers. What happens behind closed doors is never known
or so we should believe. While the act itself does becomes repetitive after a bit, director Jang tries to change it up a bit with some constantly changing scenery. Our characters are continually moving from hotel room to hotel room to best quench their thirst for each other's flesh. This is fun at first, but again, Jang's repetitive streak seems to make it feel boring than exciting. This leads me to the biggest issue that I had with this film. Jang had a great story with Gojitmal, but where he failed (outside of the obvious choice to focus directly on the pornographic side) was that he took scenes, repeated them time and again, without changing in front of us to allow us to get to know the characters. Where was Jang going with this movie? Did he want the sex to tell the stories, or did he believe the characters would? He failed in this sense because by the end of the film we know so little about Y and J that we could care less how they resolve themselves. The ending seems almost random at best as Jang attempts to create a final resolution for our two, absolute unknowns, of this film. I have to give Jang some credit for trying, but not much. He attempted to create some sub-stories that would create the personal element that we were lacking, but they just couldn't congeal well together. Y's brother and J's wife were those plot points, but again, due to him focusing so strongly on the sexual element, these stronger sub-stories became un-rememberable and down-right dull. Maybe it was just how I viewed this film, but outside of the sexual scenes, nothing else worked together. We knew nothing about J and Y and that is why Gojitmal failed.<br /><br />Finally, I would like to say that this film could have benefited from having a strong score or a daftly remote music genre element to it to bring us, the viewers, closer to the emotions being felt by J and Y. From what I can remember, and I am trying to push this film far from my mind, I don't remember any musical undertones. Gojitmal may have been a stronger film if Jang either stylized it with music or done something to allude towards our character's beings. While I understand that he wanted the sex to speak for itself, there was just a technical element missing from this film that may have quenched a stronger desire for more. Technically, this was a poor film. Obviously an independent film in nature, it felt more like director Jang was trying to make symbolic references out of nothing instead of your typical independent of this nature. I didn't see as much of a social message or human element like mentioned above, I just felt like he threw this film together over the course of two weeks and understood that the sex would sell it enough. This was no Larry Clark production; this was sub-par and definitely needed some further technical clicks to develop it stronger than the final release! <br /><br />Overall, I think I could have liked this film and there were smaller elements that I did enjoy, but I felt this film was rushed, repetitive, and played too much towards the taboos instead of breaking them. The obvious pitfalls of this film can be seen by the last scene of this film when we are privy to how the title of this film was conceived. Our characters were uneventful, our story was underdeveloped, and we could have used something memorable to make what was happening between Y and J into something more symbolic than sex. To me, Jang was trying too much to capture art house meets pornographic
and it failed miserably. This was not a film worth the time and effort that it took to make.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I just have to add, in case anyone actually reads this and hasn't completely gotten the point yet. These other reviewers aren't joking around, this really IS the worst colour movie you're likely to ever see. When the movie started I couldn't believe something like this actually made it out for the world to see.<br /><br />They're not just saying it when they said it looks like a home movie. It really does. Like the "director" took the family hi8 camcorder (before DV cameras and computer non-linear editing), no other equipment (lights, sound gear, etc), grabbed some decent-looking acting students, and went out to shoot a movie. No script, just making it up as he went along.<br /><br />When I watched it, it was on my mono TV, so I only have one channel of audio (left of right speaker). At first I thought I'd hooked it up wrong. The movie was silent until someone spoke a couple of minutes in. I got up and switched over to the other channel and suddenly I could hear music and sound effects but then couldn't hear the dialog. They recorded the sound on different bloody channels! I mean, there's movies that can be funny to watch, so bad they're good, kind of thing. I'm not sure this is one of those. I mean, I'll admit to being a bit of a budding film maker. And seeing bad movies just makes you want to go out there and PROVE you can do it better, you know. But watching this just made me feel sorry for whoever made it.<br /><br />As bad as they were, the actors are the only good thing about this. I thought the chick was hot and was disappointed in the brevity of her bath scene. A bit of T and A from her would have raised the score from nothing to maybe a 3 or 4. But alas, no. If you want to make a movie but it's turning out crap, throw in some gratuitous nudity. Worked for Roger Corman.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
How has this piece of crap stayed on TV this long? It's terrible. It makes me want to shoot someone. It's so fake that it is actually worse than a 1940s sci-fi movie. I'd rather have a stroke than watch this nonsense. I remember watching it when it first came out. I thought, hey this could be interesting, then I found out how absolutely, insanely, ridiculously stupid it really was. It was so bad that I actually took out my pocket knife and stuck my hand to the table.<br /><br />Please people, stop watching this and all other reality shows, they're the trash that is jamming the networks and canceling quality programming that requires some thought to create.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I just don't get some of the big premises of this episode - that Miranda is so remarkable, and that there's anything so ugly it would make you insane. Someone here made the remark that maybe it's the frequency of the light waves or something rather than it being ugliness. Miranda is just a jerk. The episode is slow, inconsistent and way too talky. I also don't quite understand why Kolos is an ambassador - why doesn't the Federation just leave the damn Medusans be? There's one part I do like, when Kolos is speaking through Spock about the loneliness of the human experience. Overall, I love TOS and even at its lamest, I'll always tune in. This episode though - mmm, I wouldn't purchase it except for a used copy under $3.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.<br /><br />I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?<br /><br />That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.<br /><br />I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!<br /><br />I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
If I could say it was better than Gymkata, I at least felt my money was not totally wasted.<br /><br />Then I saw Steven Segal's On Deadly Ground.<br /><br />This movie should see a resurrection though on MST 3K. If Santa Claus Conquers the Martians could make Tom Servo's head explode, one wonders what mayhem this movie could cause.<br /><br />There is a very good reason why Kurt Thomas never had a movie career.<br /><br />The writers of this dreck should be forced to wear placards every day of their lives that say "Bitch slap me! I was a writer on Gymkata."
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
It's possible that A Man Called Sledge might have been done irreparable damage on the cutting room floor. Maybe someone will demand a director's cut one day, but I seriously doubt it.<br /><br />James Garner decided to cash in on the spaghetti western market and in doing so brought a whole lot of Americans over to fill the cast out. Folks like Dennis Weaver, Claude Akins, John Marley. And of course we have Vic Morrow who both wrote and directed this film.<br /><br />Garner always gets cast as likable rogues because he's so darn good at playing them. But he has played serious and done it well in films like The Children's Hour and Hour of the Gun. He can and has broken away from his usual stereotyped part successfully. But A Man Called Sledge can't be counted as one of his successes.<br /><br />He's got the title role as Luther Sledge notorious outlaw with a big price on his head. After partner Tony Young gets killed in a saloon and Garner takes appropriate Eastwood style measures, he's followed from the saloon by John Marley.<br /><br />Marley's spent time in the nearby territorial prison and it seems as though gold shipments are put under lock and key there on a rest stop for the folks transporting the stuff on a regular run. Garner gets his gang together for a heist.<br /><br />Here's where the movie goes totally off the wall. Usually heist films show the protagonists going into a lot of methodical planning. Certainly that was the case in The War Wagon which some other reviewer cited. But in this one Garner decides to break into the prison as a prisoner of fake US Marshal Dennis Weaver and cause a jailbreak at which time the gold will be robbed. <br /><br />That was just too much to swallow. If taking the gold was this easy it should have been done a long time before. But I will say for those who like the blood and guts of Italian westerns, during that prison break there's enough there for three movies.<br /><br />That's not the whole thing, of course the outlaws fall out and we have another gore fest before the film ends. But by that time the whole film has lost a lot of coherency.<br /><br />The great movie singer of the Thirties Allan Jones is listed in the credits. But for the life of me I can't find him in the film. Maybe a chorus of the Donkey Serenade might have made this better.<br /><br />Couldn't have hurt any.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I have to say as being a fan of the man who created Halloween/The Fog/Christine/The Thing - probably his best films.<br /><br />Then you got this POS. I can't logically think he put any effort at all into this like he did with Cigarette Burns. At least his son made a decent soundtrack.<br /><br />You have to look at this from the standpoint that it didn't seem like a movie. It looked as if someone else directed it for one thing. I won't believe Carpenter put any effort into this at all.<br /><br />I was just listening to his old school H2/H3/The Fog soundtrack and it was awesome, especially for the times.<br /><br />He was using a style that no one had and it worked so well for his films.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Oh my, where to start... this movie was just awful. The writing was bad, acting was bad, special effects were bad. I think the only good thing about this movie is that it made me laugh! I was in the mood for a scary movie but certainly didn't get that! I thought it would be decent enough since i'm not picky. i've watched several bad horror movies. In fact, it is my goal to see all horror movies, not matter how awful they may be. At one point in the movie i made a comment about the "corn syrup blood" and in the special features they actually admit that it was Karo syrup (brand name corn syrup...) The movie had all the necessary things for a horror movie (blood, nudity, crazy killer, stupid moves) but it was just completely lacking anything to really make it good. The writer should either take some classes or just give up!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.<br /><br />Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.<br /><br />It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.<br /><br />Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever?
| 0NEGATIVE
|
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people?
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch. <br /><br />Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.<br /><br />Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.<br /><br />This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.<br /><br />From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.<br /><br />To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.<br /><br />I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.<br /><br />It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This was the only time I ever walked out on a movie. Years later, I saw it in the cable listings and thought, "Maybe I should give it another try." Suffice to say that I was right the first time. This ranks second only to Godzilla 1998 as the worst movie I've ever seen.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
...cause they're both pretty lousy. I think the best part of the movie is the horrendously imperial picture of Faye Dunaway at the top of the stairs. She looks like she could very easily step out of that picture, rip someone to bloody pieces, and calmly re-enter the portrait looking as if nothing had happened. Now, you know a movie's in trouble when part of the set furnishings manages to attract your attention.<br /><br />I admit, I paid $30 for the DVD just so I could see Faye Dunaway in a contemporary horror movie. I know what you're thinking--30 bucks right down into a gaping black hole. And you would be absolutely correct. This movie sucks. There, it's right out in the open. I was expecting some actual scares, and I waited and waited and waited. None came. The raven (probably a crow in makeup) didn't scare me, seeing small pieces of internal organs didn't scare me, and even Faye didn't scare me. I'm not that brave, I know, so it must be the movie itself that is the trouble. What's more, Jennifer wasn't scared either. Her internal organs were literally falling apart and she seemed more peeved than anything. Her life was rapidly coming to a close and she's worried about attaining more money. Honey, you can't take money where you're going!!! "I need money," she continually says, completely ignoring the fact that her lungs have collapsed and ceased to function.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I spent the whole blasted movie wondering what was up with the grandmother (Faye). I was suspicious at first, Faye playing a grandmother and all, and I was still suspicious at the end. There is another relative living in the house that Jennifer and Mary Ellen the Grandmother-From-Hell are forced to share temporarily, and I'm guessing she is of the same generation as said grandmother. Here's the weird part--the relative looks like she's just endured her eight hundredth birthday party. Mary Ellen looks like she's just gotten a face-lift from a renowned surgeon. Face-lifts can't work miracles, but I think Faye's appearance is important to the rice-paper plot. SPOILER!!! It seems that the family is plagued by an illness that affects bad acting...sorry, my little joke. Seriously though, there's all illness that causes their organs to fail and ultimately disintegrate. Yuck, huh? Interestingly enough, Mary Ellen is still alive and all her organs are intact. How did she avoid the Family Curse? Something's up with her, obviously.<br /><br />Another reason for mourning the loss of my thirty dollars--this movie features one of my all-time movie pet peeves. I refer to the double ending. This movie ends twice. I absolutely hate it when that happens, and in this movie it feels like the director shot the ending, didn't like it, and forget to remove it during editing. I guess it's supposed to be scary, but it is only if you're a film editor.<br /><br />There is one perk to this debacle, though, and it's one of the reasons I bought the DVD. The "filmmaker" commentary features Faye Dunaway, and I wanted to see how she acted when she didn't have lines to recite. Guess what--the movie sucked so bad I wasn't able to sit through it again. Drat.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This movie stinks! You will want back the two-plus hours it takes to get through it. Sliding Doors, w/ Gwyenth Paltrow and directed by Peter Howit, did what Melinda & Melinda tries to do much much MUCH better. That movie was clever, witty, and well-acted. I cared about what happened to both Gwyenths -- or rather the characters she played -- and the performances by supporting cast were fantastic.<br /><br />Where as Melinda & Melinda is tiresome, the dialogue is contrived and I could have cared less about any of these people -- least of all Melinda. One Melinda is so dysfunctional -- her first glass of wine is at 10 a.m. -- and so melodramatic she is laughable, and not in the comedic sense. The 2nd Melinda is fine, but forgettable.<br /><br />Woody Allen's previous ensemble movies worked because, I'm guessing, he spent time on the screenplay and the actors were talented. One piece of trivia for this movie is that he wrote this screenplay in two months: you can tell. And while Chloe Sevigny is talented -- those around her are not, not enough to be a whole presence. The movie ends up being Chloe Sevigny and a bunch of other people you know you've seen in other movies but can't quite remember which ones.<br /><br />Sad, very sad.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I can't imagine anyone would ever, in a million years, want to watch this movie. Not because it was one of the worst ever made (it wasn't), but largely because it's about 20 years old and oh-so-out of the mainstream. I was trying to find out where I saw an actor before and this popped up. So, yeah, a kid stops playing little league because he doesn't like nukes, this prompts major media attention and a quick resolution to the cold war. The end. A fantasy, to be sure, but one so cockeyed it would make John Lennon blush. Since terrorism has replaced communism as the -ism that scares the hell out of us, this movie really has no relevance, except as an (innaccurate) look back at those times. The writing, acting, and film craft are similarly undeveloped. The reason I rated it as highly as I did was because I watched this movie around 50 times while I was 5-6 years old and still have a little place in my heart for it, but I now realize that it doesn't quite cut mustard. So, if the law of large numbers holds true and someone eventually does decide to check out this movie, realize that there are much better ways to spend your time, but also much worse ones. (I will refrain from a John Q. tirade for now.)
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This film looked interesting; I'd read the book a number of years ago and it informed me that the feature followed the plot outline pretty tightly.<br /><br />Started watching it and almost from the outset it failed to live up to expectations. In fact, I didn't bother watching the whole thing... utter drivel - bad performances, bad acting and instantly dislikeable characters - that was the point of the film, I guess.<br /><br />Watching this film left a bad taste in the mouth and put me on a downer for the remainder of my weekend.<br /><br />Do not bother with this feature.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Surely no Saturday morning TV kids' show was ever done this poorly. After all, those producers had to count on the audience coming back. Well, in this awful offering, they could at least count the money they saved on sets. The script could have been a reject from some long-forgotten space opera serial, with a few smarmy lines added for cool-dude Gerald Mohr to murmur to Naura Hayden. No director could have done anything decent with such a loony storyline, so the action just plods boringly along. The spaceship props are absurd--a Bulova wall clock and portable typewriter, for example--but the planet sets have got to be some of the worst in cinematic history. Most are crude drawings, and it's all bathed in an often misfocused red light. Even Mohr's bare hairy chest is used as a prop. And it's a bad one--as rib-thin as the plot. Any viewer who can make it to the end of this movie will hear a message from the Martians--and will probably agree completely!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Given the chance to write, direct and star in my own movie, I would probably choose something about robot women with guns. Anthony Hopkins, however, decided to make possibly the strangest movie anyone has ever seen. "Slipstream" is a movie that is so strange that even David Lynch would probably look at the person next to him and say 'What's going on?'.<br /><br />This is a movie where, in one scene, a man crosses the road towards a yellow car facing to the right which suddenly changes into a pink car facing to the left. This is a movie where two characters have a conversation interspersed with shots of random people laughing and insects climbing up walls. This is a movie where a man starts talking about "Invasion Of The Bodysnatchers" only for the actor of that particular movie to suddenly show up as himself (and then disappear into thin air). <br /><br />This is a movie that decides to throw the need for a coherent plot straight out of the window and use fifteen different edits whilst doing so, as well as changing from black and white to colour for seemingly no reason at all.<br /><br />I must, however, commend Mr Hopkins for his choice of actors in this movie (some of whom portray multiple characters). All of those involved throw themselves into their roles, even if they probably have no idea what they're actually doing. My favourite here was Christian Slater's thug in a hat who was impressively menacing whilst babbling nonsense and singing the American national anthem. <br /><br />Anthony Hopkins has been quoted saying that he did this movie as a joke and that's possibly the best way to sum up "Slipstream". It's a joke on the audience. You'll watch it from beginning to end, trying to understand what is going on and hoping that the answer will come, only to discover that the answer never actually does. What the punchline to this particular joke is, only Anthony Hopkins will ever know.<br /><br />I mentioned David Lynch earlier and I'm a big fan of that particular director. I would guess that Anthony Hopkins shares my love for the likes of "Twin Peaks", "Blue Velvet" and "Lost Highway". However, "Slipstream" isn't as satisfying as any of the movies of Lynch despite imitating many of his techniques (although I was surprised to discover that nobody talks backwards in "Slipstream"). It's far too chaotic and random - as another reviewer here pointed out, it's the movie version of Alzheimer's disease. No doubt there are a small number out there who are able to watch this and draw something from it. Unfortunately for the rest of us, "Slipstream" quickly becomes an annoying and confusing experience that was only made due to Hopkins' involvement.<br /><br />Watch at your own risk.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I loved the first Little Mermaid. I know the songs, I love the characters and I love the story. I can't say anything like that about The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. It was terrible. Let's start with the story. The plot was a reversed copy of the first movie. Same situations, except in reverse! Ariel wanted to live on land, her daughter Melody (creative name) wants to live in the sea. Ariel was tricked by Ursula, Melody is tricked by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Ursula had a sister?? Not sure where that came from. Besides being a strange copy of the first movie, this movies plot seemed tired and was uninteresting compared to the first movie. Now the characters: 1. Ariel- What happened to her??!! No longer the spunky, headstrong teenager we all knew and loved from the first movie, she has now "grown up" and her personality went down the drain. Her singing voice wasn't as strong either, due to either Jodi Benson being a lot older, or the songs being so terrible that her talent was wasted. 2. Prince Eric- While he didn't have a lot of personality in the first movie, like all Disney princes, somehow his new voice and his very few lines made him even more robotic. To top it off, he just can't seem to defend himself, and Ariel becomes the tough one of the two. 3. Sebastian- Say goodbye to the lovable crustacean from the first movie, because a whiny, aggravating little crab just took his place. He also had no good songs in this movie. You can almost forget the glory he earned from singing the incredible "Under the Sea" and "Kiss the Girl" from the first movie, and it is very sad. 4. Flounder- They destroyed him!! He is not cute anymore, his voice is terrible, and he has kids now?? Who's the mother??? 5. Morgana- She appears to be Ursula's sister out for revenge against her mother, who always picked Ursula over her. So she plans to get King Triton's trident to become the new ruler of the sea. Sound familiar? Anyway, she's a very cliché villain and falls short of Ursula's greatness as a villain. She epically fails at witchcraft, she's not very tough, and not threatening at all. 6.Melody- Ariel and Eric's daughter. Ironic name because she, unlike Ariel, can't sing. Her voice is annoying, her friends (a walrus and a penguin?? Really?!) are not funny or likable, and she's exactly the same as Ariel, in reverse and not as likable. Skip this one. Don't watch any Disney sequel except for Lion King 2. This movie butchered the classic that lives in all our pleasant memories. I will look back at this movie and just laugh.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
You know the story..Pretty kids alone in the woods,when BAM!something starts cutting them up.<br /><br />Well this crap is no different.A bunch of kids return to a cabin where the male leads twin brother disappeared for years before.Suddenly an "UNKOWN CREATURE" stars cutting them up,and their only help is a doctor/biker.<br /><br />To say this film was bad is an understatement,it's smut! The acting was horrible.<br /><br />The creature looked very cheesy. And as all films do these days they try to get you with a twist ending,which they do not!<br /><br />There is one bright spot to this film- LOST star Maggie Grace as the female lead.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
so altogether i found this documentary to be strange and really pointless. i know it got awards and things, but i personally did not enjoy it too much. there was no humor or drama in it to keep you interested, just a bunch of wierdos and their jobs. some of the people in are rather different which isn't a bad thing, it just didn't leave a good impression on me. i was thoroughly bored by this movie, no offense to my creative writing teacher. the circus theme throughout the whole movie was kinda cool but i didn't get it, and robotics and lion taming is definitely not my thing. the green animals thing was neat, i really liked the garden lots of colorful flowers, but how did these four jobs connect? it just didn't make much sense to me why someone would make a movie about that. But if you are into stuff like this you might enjoy it. who am i to stand in your way. I am just forewarning you about possible suffering.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
When I saw this movie, circa 1979, it became the first movie that I ever walked out of in the middle. There is nothing worse than comedy that just misses being funny, and this misses every time (although I can't speak for the last 25 minutes of the movie). There was nothing original about any of the skits. While I enjoy racy humor where appropriate, these skits were needlessly vulgar. What was even more irritating was that this movie was advertised as "Robin William's first movie", capitalizing on his new found fame in the "Mork and Mindy" television series. Yet his role turned out to be so minor that you cannot even notice him on-screen.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Where to begin? How best to describe just how awful this movie is???<br /><br />Let's start with the campy hick humor. It isn't very funny. Add a bunch of musicians impersonating actors - Meat Loaf is horrible and Deborah Harry is even worse. Pity poor Art Carney, who should have known better than to do this movie.<br /><br />And then there is the plot. A roadie whose life goal is to work an Alice Cooper show meets a girl whose life goal is to be a groupie for Alice Cooper. At least they get what they want...<br /><br />And then, just when the movie should end, they can't come up with a more plausible last scene than a - well, I won't ruin it for you if you really want to see the movie.<br /><br />There are certain actors that let you know that this is going to be a "B" movie or perhaps worse. Gailard Sartain is one of them for me - and he has a more prominent role. That's a sure sign that the movie probably won't be very good. If nothing else, the movie lives up to the low expectations - even exceeds them by being worse than poor.<br /><br />Let's just say this. This is the movie against which all bad movies are compared. And none are worse than Roadie.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
its a gem movie if anyone who hasn't seen movie sholey he cant understand what is going on there. a thakur call men for catching a big terrorist who is like god and even police don't know abut him but these ppl do.<br /><br />biggest advantage of film is its speed u never know what is going on and the part is completed. actors are at there best of worst acting and actress is here for time-pass of songs. and what u cant forget is the cool dialouge which seems to come in very long time but u cant understand them so easily try hard for that and last word i haven't seen movie complete due to a brain roast so plz tell me ditz end if it have
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Interesting idea and storyline which didn't quite work.<br /><br />When you see the film, maybe you will feel as dissatisfied with the ending as I did. I didn't really know who to root for in the movie, Taye Diggs looked bored as the detective, the rest of the characters seem so one-dimensional and unpleasant.<br /><br />If the victim Alicia(Mia Kirschner) had been more of a nice girl, we might actually have enjoyed seeing the plot unfold and the perpetrator brought to justice. The problem was that she was as bitchy as the other girls, turning from sweet girl to conniving opportunistic cokehead. I can't understand the moral message of this film, and as a detective story and thriller it doesn't work.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
We rented five movies for New Year's Eve weekend and watched this one first. All I can say is that there was no place to go but up after watching this one. It was pointless and vulgar. Harvey Keitel's script must have been easy to write -- just make two out every three words a curse word. Andie McDowell is surprisingly good in a character roll, but the movie has nothing else to recommend it.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10
| 0NEGATIVE
|
One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.<br /><br />Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!<br /><br />Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.<br /><br />For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film...
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I can only assume that the other reviewers of this "film" are stockholders in the production company, as this was quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years. From the opening shot of a Rabbi laughing uncontrollably for no apparent reason, it was clear that the actors in this film would kill to be considered "B-Level." Both my wife and I were in a great mood before starting this film, and we were genuinely looking forward to a funny popcorn movie. We knew we hadn't rented Citizen Kane, and we weren't expecting to see the most amazing movie ever. However, after 40 minutes of enduring the most painfully unfunny bit of garbage I've ever seen, we shut it off instead of wasting another minutes of our lives.<br /><br />If a "comedy" with no laughs, terrible acting, thin plot and annoying characters are your thing, then this film is for you. Honestly, Troll 2 is better--at least I laughed at the popcorn sex scene.<br /><br />I cannot justify writing a longer review of this picture because I've already wasted almost an hour trying to find one joke.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
What starts out as a gentle country yarn, inoffensive and mildly enjoyable romantic tale changes pace as Edward Norton's initially charming Harlan gradually reveals more about himself and things take a turn for the sinister, as the film gradually changes from a southern romance to a modern wild western.<br /><br />An amiable rancher (Norton) wanders into town and charms a young girl (Evan Rachel Wood), seemingly rescuing her from a dead-end existence with her bad-tempered father with a whirlwind romance, but it gradually becomes apparent that there is more to this cowboy than meets the eye.<br /><br />Edward Norton a real chameleon actor (with changing facial hair to match) playing a country hick, accent slightly dodgy but maybe because he's merely trying to act the part without worrying about the accent. He certainly makes it appear effortless to make all the nuanced little adjustments as we learn more about Harlan. However, with too many small changes it means we are never sure exactly where Harlan is coming from, and what seemed like a good performance from Norton gradually becomes confused. Evan Rachel Wood is likable without ever really having a great deal to do other than bat her eyelids at Norton.<br /><br />Down in the Valley strikes as a slightly uneven tale due to its change of pace, and by never really making the protagonist's motives clear the audience's sympathies for the characters remain uncertain. Should we like this drifter or not? Even after a dramatic turn of events it remains unclear. This ambiguity is to the film's detriment, as if the writer could not make up their mind what kind of story they wanted to tell and settled for somewhat of a hotch-potch. Had the film remained one or the other it might have been a solid film, but as it is what we are left with is something of a mess. Fans of old-fashioned romance will enjoy a portion of the film but will be put off by the darkening tone. Completist fans of Norton aside (or fans of the lush scenery of the San Fernando valley), give this a miss.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
The plot is rocky. The acting is somewhere south of a Jr. High School play. The cinematography is not bad but it looks like it was cut with a machete. I couldn't decide of this was an intentionally hokey flick or if the people behind it actually thought they were making a good film. Think Death Valley Days meets Mayberry RFD. People running around in a 'lawless' modern town wearing quick-draw 6 gun rigs. It has more than its fair share of 'cutsey' stuff. Picture the Good Guys pulling up to an old farm house, and parking the Ford Mustang right in front of a hitching rail. Picture the clerk in a hotel watching an obviously western (hemisphere) movie sporting a Japanese sound track but with English sub-titles. It's all really strange but might be improved if watching it while partaking in a little peyote. It's a real curiosity with modern parallels to every western movie cliché you can think of. There's even a modern version of the good hearted dance-hall girl, AND a twanging Jew's-harp in the soundtrack. Really! If someone brings this to your home for a Saturday night movie session, tell 'em your DVD player died.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
A well-intentioned movie about Sonja Horowitz (Renée Zellweger), the wife of devout Talmudic scholar Mendel (Glenn Fitzgerald). who is deeply unhappy. Mendel's brother Sender (Christopher Eccleston) sees this and hires her to work in the field in which she's already an expertjewelry. He also starts an affair with her, and then when she spends time with a Puerto Rican artist, he dumps her and betrays her to the family, which shuts her out. There's a subplot in which Sonja's dead brother talks to her, and apparently takes the form of a magical beggar woman, but why is not clear. Much is not clear, unfortunately, including what is going on with Sonja, why she tells the Rebbe there's a fire inside her and maybe it's not from god, and what this means, and what the magical beggar woman tells her means. To an extent the story touches on the plight of women in the ultra-orthodox community, and yet Sonja is not exactly liberated. Nor is the notion of being redeemed by the love of a man of another race very well-thought-out. The title comes from the biblical definition of the worth of a good womanand yet it's the bastard Sender who quotes it to Sonja. Zellweger struggles with the part; she's supposed to be a Jew from the mid-west and sometimes her accent is flat, and at other times it's taken on the characteristic sounds of Brooklyn. She's at her best when she's being tough and taking charge, but ultimately the movie's a mess.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
"I went to the movies, to see 'Beat Street' / it wasn't bad, it was kinda' neat / 'Krush Groove' was a flick, that I didn't mind / but when it came to 'Rappin', I drew the line." Word to your mother.<br /><br />Want me to stop?<br /><br />That's just a small sample of the stupa-fly style of rhymin' on display in this waste of film and location permits. This movie is seriously wack (thats 80s-speak for just f*cking awful). As an emcee, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of an actor. And as an actor, Mario Van Peebles is one hell of a bodybuilder.<br /><br />Any film calling itself "Rappin'" had better deliver at that genre's highest standard of the time. So why were 6 year olds rolling in the aisles, even back in the day when standards were so knee-high-to-"Webster"-low? Because this rap is weak. So weak that not even B.E.T. or Comedy Central will touch it with a 10-foot gold-rope chain.<br /><br />Blondie's "Rapture" is def poetry next to this bit of Dr. Suess in the hood. So don't be a boobie, avoid this movie!<br /><br />
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This foolish, implausible tale is redeemed only by the opening scene in which a hard-boiled police detective delivers some nearly-audible lines confirming our greatest fears: He is dead. Perhaps the film would have been saved had the director forgone the dazzling star power of A. Martinez in favor of this sadly-anonymous actor who filled the screen for a brief moment. That a no-name hack-tor off the street could salvage such a dishwater film is no less likely than a villain committing murder by dropping stones into a quarry for an unsuspecting diver. His moment is brief; his promise is immense. Perhaps we will be treated to more screen time by this obscure thespian if there is ever a sequel to this ill-advised film.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
The Comeback starts off looking promising, with a brutal death scene by a mask wearing killer. The mask itself is pretty cool too, and looks almost identical to the one used in the 1990's slasher film "Granny". From then on the film is mostly boring. We get a few more deaths, which again are good, but there's not enough of them. The reason the deaths are so good is because they are frenzied and bloody. The story behind the film is actually rather interesting and would have worked very well had it not been so boring for the most part. <br /><br />I would avoid this unless you're a die-hard collector - there's not enough here to even make it an average slasher flick.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
On his birthday a small boys tells his mother he is not her son, and that he wants to go home to his real mother.<br /><br />In some ways Comedy De L'Innocence feels like it comes from a different time of movie-making, perhaps the 60's or 70's. Certainly it reminded me of Losey's Secret Ceremony (1968), and Richard Loncraine's Full Circle (1977), both of which deal with loss, grief and relationships between parents and 'lost' children (curiously both films star Mia Farrow).<br /><br />All three films are populated with unsympathetic characters who behave in strange and unexplained ways. All three films have a chilly feel, both emotionally and literally. All three films focus on mother-child relationships, and ultimately all three films pose the question - 'what is real, what is imagined?' <br /><br />Beautiful but flawed, it offers no easy answers and leaves much hanging, unexplained and strange.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
<br /><br />I didn't see They Call Me Trinity, but this sequel is really unfunny at all. It has many gags that are supposed to make people laugh. I guess the filmmaker just don't have the talent to do it right. Wonder why it was so popular in the 70s.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Don't you just hate it when you order steak but the restaurant gives you chicken?<br /><br />Such is how I felt watching this so-called "Battlestar Galactica". Arguments can be made over its quality but the fact remains, it's NOT what the fans ordered.<br /><br />Imagine if you were sitting down at that proverbial restaurant I mentioned. You have waited years for them to bring back their famous New York Strip steak which you loved. When your meal arrives, you find they've applied the name "New York Strip" to a chicken dish. You complain but the waiter merely states "but ze cheeken, ees really GOOD zir"! Do you really care if the chicken is good? You wanted New York Strip - a STEAK! The waiter then explains, "you zee zir, ze chef wanted to to do, as you zay, zomezing NEW. We felt ze cheeken would be more popular zo we gave it the name of our previous delicious deesh". You ask if you will ever find the original New York Strip on the menu in the future but are informed that because the restaurant HAS a dish called "New York Strip" now on the menu, you'll never see the original New York Strip - ever again.<br /><br />Such is the case with creating something NEW and slapping the "Battlestar Galactica" namesake on it.<br /><br />* This mini series is an affront to all fans of the original show! *<br /><br />It's a shame the production team put in charge of this new version obviously held contempt for the original. The team put in charge of resurrecting BG should have LOVED the original series - seeking to improve what the fans loved, not try to shamelessly sell this new series by exploiting the Battlestar Galactica name.<br /><br />If SciFi Channel wanted to give us a NEW show, then DO so! Give it a new name! Don't use the name we fondly remember in an attempt to lure in viewers. That effectively robs us of the chance to see any semblance of the original in the future.<br /><br />We have been waiting for 25 years to see what we knew as BG because we LIKED something about the original! We didn't simply want the NAME and remnants of the basic concept. There are things we LOVED about the original series!<br /><br />Sadly, probably the BEST elements of the original were those which were omitted. Sure, the original BG was imperfect and could have used some updating. This mini series, however, was not an improvement in any regards but the special effects (which were good but not anything unusual by today's standards).<br /><br />Many viewers will debate back and forth about the quality of this NEW show but we will not forgive SciFi and Ron Moore for destroying our dream.<br /><br />That being said... I shall offer some comments about the merits of this new mini by itself (not in comparison to the original):<br /><br />The battle sequences were the best part. Effort was obviously put into making the effects more "real" in appearance and less "wow - look at that effect". I would not say these sequences were exceptional by today's standards yet they were in keeping with made-for-cable original movies. What was the deal with this "pseudo-live-cam"? Some views tried to fake the effect of a "real" camera with lagging tracking and jerky zooms. However, it was over-used considering there was no apparent SOURCE of these cameras. The infinitely more intelligent series, Babylon 5, is the only instance I've seen such "live cams" used effectively, when we were supposedly witnessing action from Security Cams.<br /><br />The script, you ask? The script felt like it was written by a teenager, FOR other teenagers. The characters felt cardboard and stereotypical. Indeed, the whole story felt pieced together from other well-known stereotypes. The only good features of the entire story were those few elements which were preserved from the original series. It was obviously "dumbed down" for digestion of your average TV audience.<br /><br />The human interaction was pitiful. Rather than drama based on subtle looks, expressions and fine timing, every moment of human tension was exaggerated to the point of being so obvious they lost all ability to move any refined viewer. Such was obvious in any interaction between Adama and son. The director must have been trying to make sure the most dense and unfeeling viewer wouldn't miss it even if not paying attention. Sorry, but real humans don't behave like the continually.<br /><br />I wouldn't have considered this a BAD show had it stood on its own. Nothing great; it will never be revered by true SciFi fans or artisans, but it would be watchable by the masses. I personally could have lived without it, though. I only watched it to see how it really DID capture the spirit of the original. <br /><br />How this mini series will always be remembered is as a symbol of how quality in storytelling has been cast aside to appeal to greater numbers. How even SciFi Channel has "dumbed down" its productions to cater to the masses as opposed to its true niche market, the Science Fiction fans. It will be the time we asked for steak and they insisted on giving us chicken, despite our complaints.<br /><br />I leave you with only one thought - <br /><br />NO "MOORE".<br /><br />
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I got this in the DVD 10 pack CURSE OF THE DEAD. You gotta love those bargain packs. For even if they don't feature true remastering, restoration and all that hoo-ha, and the films are generally in full-frame pan and scan format, there's no denying that there are always a few gems included. And by "gems", I mean there's always some good crap to be seen, especially if the films are from the '70s as The Mansion of Madness is.<br /><br />My copy is called Mansion of Madness, but when the title screens roll it's Poe's Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon. Doesn't matter, really, as crap is crap is crap, no? Yes! But saying this film is completely worthless is not true at all. There are some funky elements here and there, and obviously the flick did have a decent budget.<br /><br />The opening title sequence is cool with its colored negative run through a cheap TV look. The dialogue is always hilarious. Near the beginning of the film, the horse and buggy driver gets out to move a dead tree stump in the middle of the road. "WHAT STRENGTH!" says Our Hero. Funny, then, that this dude should later not be able to fight off the wacky woodsmen when they come to make freaky fun. You'll completely forget that this guy was even in the movie until he crops up again later near the end. That's how memorable these characters are.<br /><br />The best part about Mansion of Madness, however, has to be the wacky music and screwball hijinks that the good guys have to endure. It's like bad cartoon music that a three year old would find enjoyable. And why all the weirdo slapstick, anyway? I'd say my fave moment had to be when the horse and buggy is ambushed by the forest freaks when they pull a stupid looking homemade ghost up by a stick in the middle of the road and make the buggy stop. What the hell? Oh yeah, there's plenty of boobies to be seen, too, for those of you that dig such things. Boobies, bad dialogue, and wacky music. That best sums of Mansion of Madness for me. It's well worth at least one viewing, and may be a lot better if you've had a few to drink or whatnot. I can't say I was ever bored watching it, but I can't deny that it's also a barrel of poop. Kinda like Magical Mystery Tour but with a plot, but not. Hmm.<br /><br />And Mr. Chicken PWNZ.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
1st watched 5/26/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Michael Almereyda): Weird story about a druid witch who tries to capture eternity by inheriting her granddaughter's body. At least I think that was the relationship. A kind of eerie quality is held throughout this film not unlike Stephen King's The Shining. The difference is that there was campiness in Nicholson's performance that isn't at all in this film. This is all taken very seriously until near the end when some lame one-liners and attempts at litening up the mood don't work at all. The performances are not the problem here, but the story is. Everything doesn't seem to come together very smoothly and the viewer is left with a lot of pieces of information and no real understanding of what happened in the film. There is a very small throwaway performance by Christopher Walken as the uncle of the granddaughter which, of course, gives him top-billing in an attempt to sell the film. Don't buy into this gimmick and avoid this film.<br /><br />
| 0NEGATIVE
|
You cannot deny that we have an affinity for speed. That's why movies like Fast and the Furious, Dhoom, Rempit get made to play to the satisfaction of audiences, especially local ones. We live on a tiny island, and I cannot fathom why, for the relative efficiency of the public transportation system, most of us want to get into debt by owning a set of wheels which come with 100% tax when they reach our shores, and the myriad of taxes and bills to pay when operating one. Not only that, the high end sports cars were once quipped by a prominent politician up north that they will never reach fourth gear, lest they reach the sea.<br /><br />And these movies are relatively easy to make. Hot wheels and hot chicks always go down well together in targeting the required demographic. For once, those plunging necklines exposing uncanny buxom and short skirts accentuating legs two meters long, can't compete with the attention given to those beautiful curves that exotic cars possess in movies such as these. Of course there are amongst us (ahem) those that go for the sexists portrayal of women as mere sexual objects (otherwise explain why motor shows come with truckloads of models, and movies such as these cannot do without a leggy model in a frame), however, they don't warrant the kind of collective orgasmic sighs whenever the four wheelers come on screen, even when they do exactly nothing and have their gears into Park. The guy sitting beside me, I swear he wet his pants every time his dream car(s) appear, and creamed his pants even more when he hears those growling engine moans.<br /><br />So there we have it, the fan boys who turned up in droves just to watch which of the latest cool cars get featured in the movie. With the Fast and the Furious franchise, the Japanese models like the Evos and the Skylines take centerstage, as does the GT. Here, the Ford GT takes on an incredibly drool-worthy facade modification, that even I'm impressed, alongside the latest models like the Ferrari Enzos, Porshe Carerra GTs, Koenigsegg CCXs, and every car out there that has wings for doors. But seriously, my heart goes out to the cars each time they're mercilessly wrecked just for entertainment. I mean, this are perfectly fine, high performance models that are at the apex of motoring, but yet because whoever financed the movie had millions to blow, they do so because they can,<br /><br />There's no story in Redline, just excuses to put together a movie full of beauties (the cars that is) that can rip down the tarmac in probably the most boring fashion possible, and with the usual shots of pedals (always the accelerator, mind you, tapping the brake pedal is tantamount to blasphemy, and earn you no respect), steering wheels, gear shifts (always shifting up and not down), all these while having the actors make pretend that they're the baddest asses with an engine, snarling and giving each other dirty looks. Not a very tall order for an actor, and that's why we get the most woeful performances ever, with lines that seem to be written by elementary schoolkids.<br /><br />The heroine (yes, it made a statement that girls can drive) Natasha (a very plasticky looking Nadia Bjorlin) is one of those million dollar finds - a girl with model looks who don't mind getting down on fours and immersed in oil, who has racing pedigree within her, and performs with a rock band singing songs with lyrics that are just plain laughable (every line had to do with cars, and when singing about love, just had to string those innuendos like shifting gear shafts, lubricants and going for rides). Introduced against her wishes to illegal racing by a gangsta called Infamous (Eddie Griffin), she gets drawn into family squabbles involving a Leo DiCaprio lookalike Iraq war veteran, and some sleazy lecherous looking rich uncle. Everything else, well like I said, just serves as an excuse for the movie to go from race to race.<br /><br />And it's almost always the same, as there's very limited to what you can do to heighten tension between race cars, especially when you know the race is rigged (for narrative reasons) and can see the race outcome a mile away from the finishing line. While Fast and Furious had quite charismatic actors, and I will put my head on the chopping block by naming Paul Walker, Sun Kang, and of course, the star it created - Vin Diesel, Redline had none, just pretty faces with lots of air unfortunately. It looks like a TV movie in its treatment from the get go, with a very insipid opening sequence where it's one man, one car, and a 105 minutes race against time to get to Vegas.<br /><br />If not for the cars, then this movie seriously is a piece of junk, with bad acting, bad lines and bad action. Strictly for the car fans, or those who like their movies with countless of bevy beauties who pimp their bodies without any speaking lines.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I am SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and "Werewolf" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it "are only scared by gore", "Don't know good horror" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and "Makes you think"? Yeah, I was thinking "MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene! <br /><br />P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Ok, I wrote a scathing review b/c the movie is awful. As I was waiting another review (for Derrida) of mine to pop up, i decided to check out old reviews of this awful movie. Look at all the positive reviews. They ALL, I say ALL, come from contributors have have not rated any other movie other than this one. Crimminy! and wait till you to the "rosebud" [sic] review.<br /><br />Checkout the other movies rosebud reviewed and had glowing recommendations for. Oh, shoot!, they happen to be for the only other movies by the two writers and director. Holy Window-Wipers Batman.<br /><br />Joe, Tony, you suck as writers, and tony, you couldn't direct out of a bad script. No jobs for you!<br /><br />ALWAYS CHECK POSITIVE REVIEWS FOR A LOW RATED MOVIE!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This is one of the most irritating, nonsensical movies I've ever had the misfortune to sit through. Every time it started to look like it might be getting good, out come more sepia tone flashbacks, followed by paranoid idiocy masquerading as social commentary. The main character, Maddox, is a manipulative, would-be rebel who lives in a mansion seemingly without any parents or responsibility. The supporting cast are all far more likeable and interesting, but are unfortunately never developed. Nor do we ever really understand the John Stanton character supposedly influencing Maddox to commit the acts of rebellion. At one point, I thought "Aha! Maddox is just nuts and is secretly making up all those communications from escaped mental patient Stanton! Now we're getting somewhere!" but of course, that ends up to not be the case and the whole movie turns out to be pointless, both from Maddox's perspective and the viewer's. Where's Ferris Bueller when we need him?
| 0NEGATIVE
|
NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: Long is not necessarily good. This movie is incredibly long. However not good. The scenes were drawn out way, way, way, way, way too long. The sex scenes were unnecessary, and often too long. The movie edited down to 2 hours and 10 minutes or so would have been exceptional, but alas it became so boringly long that I can only give it a 2 of 10. It is way below average.<br /><br />Some other problems also exist in this marathon. <br /><br />1) Ralph Fiennes plays a whole family tree. The guy who played the Great-grandfather looks nothing like him, but the Grandfather, Father and the son (who gives us constant unneeded voice over) are all Ralph Fiennes with different facial hair and the same basic bull-headed personality. No one seems to notice that each of these children look like a clone of the last, even though photos of them are being snapped at every turn. This one is minor, but if the movie hadn't been 3 weeks long it wouldn't have been so annoying.<br /><br />2) The fact that no news from Germany was even whispered for the longest time about Jews being rounded up and sent off is ridiculous. Some word would have gotten to them and the thought of trying to run off would probably have been discussed. The uncle in France would surely have sent warning to try and get them to leave.<br /><br />3) The love stories in this movie are totally wrong. You are spending forever telling us this thing and the development of relationships between main characters is extremely short. Suddenly... people are in love and almost instantly... married. Then having children. Then we draw things out for 6 centuries and forget about developing relationships. This again would not have stuck out so much in a 2 hour movie, but with time spent nothing was given to us.<br /><br />4) The ending was just bad. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you won't like it either...unless you are sadistic.<br /><br />The director/writer should be tortured with having to watch this bloated garbage on a weekly basis, I mean endless loop, oops they are the same thing. <br /><br />I wonder if Robert Redford did anything for this movie, I mean I think Istvan Szabo must be modeling his directing career after him. Long drawn out movie which totally ruins any substance in the movie. A short description of 'The Horse Whisperer', and Sunshine.<br /><br />Sunshine, perfect title. If you start watching while the sun is shining it will quite possibly be well after dark when you leave.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This star-studded British/Spanish co-production looks great, what you can see of it. I have three versions, two VHS, one DVD, and all are terribly cropped, so badly that it looks as if buildings are having conversations with each other. Few films suffer as badly from pan and scan as this one, as director Robert Parrish seems to have been so enamored with the widescreen process that he tended to use both sides of the screen at once, neglecting the middle. Another user comments that we see the entire inhabitants of a church massacred at the beginning; not in any of the copies I have. There are some abrupt cuts of peasants firing their rifles, one Mexican officer is shot, Shaw and Landau celebrating, and that's it. We never find out why Shaw has become a priest (if he really is), we never find out what happens to Don Carlos (Savalas) although I suspect he was called home to star in Kojak, as his departure seems arbitrary. And there is a strange flashback sequence where Michael Craig (Mysterious Island) is dancing around in a bowler hat and bad suit in the great old English music hall tradition to the 1960 hit BATTLE OF NEW ORLEANS, not sung by Johnny Horton here but with some lyrics I've never heard before. On the plus side, the location is great, a huge old ruined fortress with Escher-style stairs leading nowhere, some nice scenery-chewing by Robert Shaw, and good performances by Stevens, Landau, Lettieri, and Telly Savalas as Telly Savalas. I didn't really like this film, but I haven't exactly seen it. I will seek the widescreen version and make my decision then.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
The interplay between the characters is a moral disaster. You end up disliking most of the characters and you don't particularly like any of them.<br /><br />Even the two main characters played by David and Gwen are so badly written that you really don't care one bit about them. The movie has no plot, no direction and no purpose. The single redeeming quality of the movie was to treat it as a glimpse into the messed up lives of a few losers - and that's hardly stimulating even as an afternoon waste.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
While I certainly consider The Exorcist to be a horror classic, I have to admit that I don't hold it in quite as high regard as many other horror fans do. As a consequence of that, I haven't seen many of The Exorcist rip-offs, and if Exorcismo is anything to go by, I'll have to say that's a good thing as this film is boring as hell and certainly not worth spending ninety minutes on it! In fairness to the other Exorcist rip-offs, this is often considered one of the worst, and so maybe it wasn't the best place for me to start. It's not hard to guess what the plot will be: basically it's the same as the one in The Exorcist and sees a girl get possessed by a demonic spirit (which happens to be the spirit of her dead father). The village priest is then called in to perform the exorcism. Like many Spanish horror films, this one stars Paul Naschy, who is pretty much the best thing about the film. Exorcismo was directed by Juan Bosch, who previously directed the derivative Spanish Giallo 'The Killer Wore Gloves'. I haven't seen any of his other films, but on the basis of these two: I believe that originality wasn't one of his strong points. There's not a lot of good things I can say about the film itself; it mostly just plods along and the exorcism scene isn't worth waiting for. I certainly don't recommend it!
| 0NEGATIVE
|
When I caught a glimpse of the title I thought are we going to get another try-hard hip slasher, but actually I found "7eventy 5ive" to be a mildly passable, and almost 80s throwback after a tediously slow mid-section it picks up momentum for the final half-hour leading to it's outrageously tacky climax and downright cop out ending. It won't win awards for originality, because it's as systematic as you can get and steals its thunder in the way of thrills (usual cheap jump scares), location (secluded mansion) and motivation from other films. The gleaming direction is by-the-book and the material is quite hackneyed with poorly realised red herrings within its elaborate plotting and flimsy script. Sometimes laughable, but nonetheless I was entertained mainly due to its brutal and grisly acts of pulpy violence towards some rather obnoxiously annoying college students by a psychotic killer with a battle axe. The performances weren't bad in the shape of a spunky young cast, however the characters they were portraying weren't particularly enticing. An always presentable Rutger Hauer shows up in a short supportive role as a grizzled detective. A slickly made, but a shallow and forgettable addition to the fold.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This movie was awful and an insult to the viewer. Stupid script, bad casting, endless boredom.<br /><br />In the usual tradition of Hollywood, the government of the US is shown as always evil. The Communist-sympathizer nitwits in Hollywood, most of whom are as dumb as a box of rocks, love taking the lone nutcase Eugene McCarthy and picturing him as the leader of a vast movement. The truth is that at the time he was considered a fringe character who was exploiting a legitimate concern about the Soviet Communists for political gain.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and the US brought over all those evil Nazis. Like Werner VonBraun, without whom we would have no space program. He actually loved being American and became a great asset to the country.<br /><br />And yet the irony is that the fools in Hollywood, an uneducated lot who live a fantasy existence, still believe that the government should run EVERYTHING and give us all what we want. And yet, this is the same government that they continually portray as a consummate evil in films like this.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Attack Force has a horrendous title, and can almost certainly be judged by it's awful cover, because the film is horrible! A mish-mash of plot lines, a choppy mess, and a horribly stagnated pace, make the film hard to watch start to finish. I managed this and I'm proud. As a fan of Seagal's work (mostly of his old days), it's painful to see him star in such tripe. True Seagal's last half dozen movies or so, have sucked a lot, but some of them at least had some redeeming features. Attack Force is a mess. From conception to delivery this film has undergone many changes, from an alien plot line, to the current one about a highly addictive super drug, about to be unleashed on the Romanian (the film has several settings, none of which are Romanian, but all look like Romania because they are in Romania!) populace. The film is tacked together with little regard for whatever state the original shooting script was. Plot-holes and loose ends are abound in the film that's for sure. That's been a problem in Seagal's last few films as well, but never has the result been so boring. There's a whole plot line about the water supply being poisoned with CTX (that's the drugs cool name) that is never resolved! <br /><br />Of course in recent years the plot's haven't been the main draw in the Seagal canon so there was a big onus on the other departments, especially the action. Before I regard the action though, all the other departments are poor. The direction is poor, or perhaps better put, made to look poor. Who knows how director Michael Keusch originally intended this film? Between him finishing his job, the re-shoots by stunt man Tom Delmar, and the editing, a coherent auteur vision is completely lost. The best way to describe the film is that it's just all over the shop! The cinematography is dull, nearly inducing sleep, while the droning score (sounding like it was produced on the cheapest of cheap synthesizers) does nothing to excite matters. The cast too are poor, unable to salvage anything here. Seagal looks bored beyond recognition, and is dubbed through much of the picture, clearly when plot-points are being changed. He looks tired and overweight, and lethargic, unlike he's looked in previous pictures too (remarkable as the aforementioned have been key complaints in Seagal's recent pictures). The only redeemable cast member is Adam Croasdell as one of the villains, doing a slimy Brit routine. He seems to be a throwback to the alien plot line, because he's playing it inhuman. He seems like a cross between a body snatcher and a vampire (ditto to the lead villain played by some hot chick who appears on occasion, seemingly waiting for her husband
Dracula).<br /><br />Finally the action. Well it's poor. Poorly conceived, poorly shot. There's not much either, and there's even less featuring Seagal. Stevo doesn't really bring out the stunt double here, because there's so little to do. There's even a lengthy (repetitive and boring) action scene on the hour mark that inter-cuts occasionally with little flashes of Seagal's stand in because clearly Seagal wasn't there while the scene was being shot, and they wanted to have him feature in the action scene. Seagal eventually appears in person to shoot two guys in the head. Seagal has a producers credit here and a script credit, but from what I understand the film has been altered behind his back to the current state it's in. Seagal will apparently not be working with these people again, or with Castel Studio's who continue to deliver horrifically sub-Nu-Image (that's saying something), material.<br /><br />Overall this is one to avoid if you are not a Seagal fan. Seagal fans can also be safe in the knowledge that the big man probably won't want to do anything this bad again. Unfortunately his next film which has already been shot, with the same people, promises to be even worse than this. *
| 0NEGATIVE
|
I had a feeling that after "Submerged", this one wouldn't be any better... I was right. He must be looking for champagne money, and not care about the final product... his voice gets repeatedly dubbed over by a stranger that sounds nothing like him; the editing is - well - just a grade above amateurish. It's nothing more than a B or C-grade movie with just enough money to hire a couple talented cameramen and an "OK" sound designer.<br /><br />Like the previous poster said, the problems seem to appear in post-production (...voice dubbing, etc.) Too bad, cause the plot's actually OK for a SG flick.<br /><br />I'll never rent another SG flick, unless he emails me asking for forgiveness.<br /><br />Too bad - I miss Kelly LeBrock...<br /><br />--jimbo
| 0NEGATIVE
|
This is the story of a young woman seduced and then dumped by her older, married lover after she gets pregnant; she avenges herself against him, and his entire family, through black magic which, disappointingly, she doesn't do herself but has someone else do for her. Good production values for a Thai horror flick. But the bland script never generates suspense, the director approaches the material entirely conventionally, and the final act loses viewer sympathy for the victims by throwing logic to the winds. At one point, a character has a prime opportunity to simply shoot the villainess dead, and instead she gets up and runs away without picking up the gun. Bad writing you're soaking in it! <br /><br />Some icky gore effects, including a really tasteless late-term-fetus corpse and one guy dying from having hundreds of live eels burst out of his stomach. Only recommended for genre completists who simply have to see every horror film produced in Asia in the last 15 years.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.<br /><br />I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.<br /><br />Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.<br /><br />And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is "If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance", you know time capsule stuff.<br /><br />Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.<br /><br />The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said "hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.<br /><br />Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:<br /><br />A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage
| 0NEGATIVE
|
In this 'sequel' Bruce is still called Billy Lo (get it? Bruce= Billy, Lo= Lee. No?) But apart from that, that's all it has in common with the other movie. Billy doesn't seem to be an actor anymore. He seems to be in another country. He's more like a spy. He's the only cast member to return and sadly, they kill him off to make way for a new character, his brother, Bobby. Sadly, when Bruce dies, the movie pretty much dies with him. This was extremely poorly made. It seemed like they were writing the script as they were filming. The footage works for a while (it's not too obvious at first) but soon Bruce is always shown in the dark all the time (he kicks out a light at one stage for no other apparent reason to hide the fact that it's not Bruce playing the part). Sadly when he dies the movie changes. I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead. It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star. Bruce is never seen again in this movie. I think they should have made this sequel without Bruce he has a lame role in this movie. People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role. Even the worst movies have at least one memorable bit. If there was one bit about this movie people seem to talk about, it's the scene where Billy fights in a plant nursery. Ironically it doesn't even use Bruce Lee footage. Mind you, they did it more convincingly in No Retreat No Surrender. Not one of the other actors here ever made anything else memorable. Bruce's girlfriend (Colleen Camp) is never mentioned. My advice is to turn it off as soon as Bruce is finished writing his letter to his brother. Nothing else in the movie is worth watching. I found it really sad to see Bruce die. I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon. This was a cheap way of trying to cash in on Bruce's name. Oddly this and the original are credited in Bruce's filmography. Thankfully so far, no one has tried anything like this again. 1981 was the year of Bruce's last movie appearance. It was a sad way to end it, but thankfully this is proof that Bruce's movie career should be left alone.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Spike lee has to be one of the most over rated directors I have ever seen. He is the critic's darling because he supposedly makes films with a "message" or he is just so bohemian in his approach that it makes critics that are waterlogged from formula Hollywood films eat his stuff up just for being different.<br /><br />Summer Of Sam does not even do that well. The cinematography and editing style is Oliver Stone, and so is the narrative. The plot is a lot like "Do The Right thing". The portrayal of "Guidos" or for the PC set Italian-Americans (of which I happen to be one) is straight out of Eddie Murphy's Raw. Only Eddie Murphy's impression of a macho Italian guy picking a fight with a much taller African-American is much, MUCH more believable than the cartoonish, broad Italian caricatures shown here (the John Leguizamo character being a possible exception).<br /><br />Is there anybody who saw this movie that could not figure out how it was going to end up? As soon as Richie came into the film I could already see the fist in his face and the foot in his stomach, I could already see him being accused of being the killer. This character had the most integrity in the whole film so, of course, Lee is going to show what happens to people that stand out in a crowd (what a white bearded clique!)<br /><br />Someone please, please give Spike Lee a lifetime pass to all the Basketball games he wants. So, maybe he will be enjoying himself too much to pick up a film camera for a long time and we won't have to be subjected to his self important drivel and furthermore I won't have to see critics (some of them whom I respect) ohhhh and ahhhh to an Emperor with no clothes.
| 0NEGATIVE
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.