text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
I had the misfortune to watch this rubbish on Sky Cinema Max in a cold winter night. I am not a big fan of horror movies, because most of them are just trash. This one is even worse: it is one of the dumbest pieces of crap i've ever seen in my whole life. Horror movie? Yes, there are horrible things in this: the acting, the script and the special effects - Gosh, i laughed at this ludicrous attempt to make a flick for 90 minutes. Actually, had it been a comic movie i would've given it a 5. Don't you even think about renting this unless you want to mock at the producers.<br /><br />Vote: 2 out of 10 - didn't vote one because it made me laugh all the time ;-)
| 0
|
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.<br /><br />All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.
| 0
|
Although there are a lot of familiar "television" names associated with "A Man Called Sledge", there is nothing extraordinary about the film itself or about any of the performances. In fact, the only thing that distinguishes it from a 1960's-70's television series like "The Rat Patrol" is a bigger cast and a lot more violence. <br /><br />James Garner is the biggest star and apparently thought he should try to break away from all the light comedy stuff he had been doing ("Maverick", "Support Your Local Sheriff"-"Gunfighter" etc.). Unfortunately his earthy likability works against him, as Sledge is a humorless character written to cash in on the popularity of Clint Eastwood's spaghetti western character. But Eastwood's stuff was not this flat and uninteresting.<br /><br />I suppose that "A Man Called Sledge" could be classified as a spaghetti western although the pacing is too slow to really fit that sub-genre. Fans of the slow-paced "Combat" television series will feel an instant connection as Vic Morrow directed the film and co-wrote the script with Frank Kowalski. Throw in some then trendy slow-mo shots and cross-dissolves, which call attention to themselves rather than serve a story-telling purpose. <br /><br />The plot is the standard "big heist" thing (insert "The War Wagon" here) with Sledge plotting how to heist a $300,000 gold shipment. His gang includes Claude Akins and Dennis Weaver. The problem is that while on the move the shipment is guarded by 40 outriders and while stopped it is locked in a vault inside the territorial prison. I think there was an episode of "Alias Smith and Jones" with the same plot.<br /><br />The story would make a decent hour of television but gets old very fast as a very padded feature length film. Garner does not allow any of his charm to leak into his characterization and the film does not generate enough suspense to hold a viewer's interest.<br /><br />The thing finally crashes and burns shortly after the heist when the gang engages in a contrived and totally illogical card game. <br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
| 0
|
I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. <br /><br />Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. <br /><br />From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.<br /><br />Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. <br /><br />I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".
| 0
|
When Carol (Vanessa Hidalgo) starts looking into her brother's death, she begins to suspect something more sinister than "natural causes". The closer she gets to the truth, the more of a threat she becomes to her sister-in-law, Fiona (Helga Line), and the rest of the local Satanists. They'll do whatever is necessary to put a stop her nosy ways.<br /><br />If you're into sleazy, Satanic-themed movies, Black Candles has a lot to offer. The movie is filled with plenty of nudity and ritualistic soft-core sex. One scene in particular involving a young woman and a goat must be seen to be believed. Unfortunately, all the sleaze in the world can't save Black Candles. Most of the movie is a total bore. Other than the one scene I've already mentioned, the numerous sex scenes aren't shocking and certainly aren't sexy. The acting is spotty at best. Even genre favorite Helga Line gives a disappointing performance. The plot really doesn't matter. Its main function seems to be to hold the string of dull sex scenes together. I'm only familiar with one other movie directed by Jose Ramon Larraz. Compared with his Daughters of Darkness that masterfully mixes eroticism and horror, Black Candles comes off as amateurish. 3/10 is about the best I can do.
| 0
|
This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.<br /><br />Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.<br /><br />There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.<br /><br />A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, "Back to the Future" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.<br /><br />I don't recommend this film to anyone.
| 0
|
When I was 11, Grease 2 was like crack. It was a classless, shameful, euphoric, and powerfully addictive experience. My sister and I would watch it, rewind it, and watch it over again and again and again until we passed out or became too confused and hostile to stand one another. So, if you are an 11-year old girl, and you reviewed this film as "brilliant" or "fun" or "better than the original Grease," you have your fledgling adolescent hormones to blame and you can rest assured that this unyielding fixation with utter rubbish will pass.<br /><br />If, however, you are not a little girl, you have absolutely no excuse to suggest that Grease 2 was anything but an inane, artless, slipshod embarrassment for all who participated in its production, distribution, and/or consumption.<br /><br />For the sake of criticism, I will dignify the film now by explaining why it blows
<br /><br />1. In a well-executed musical, the songs should advance the narrative or develop the characters. In Grease 2, with a few debatable exceptions, to the music is obscenely pointless. Most of the songs appear to relate gimped innuendo about sex in an excessive and general way ("Score Tonight," "Reproduction," "Do It For Our Country," and "Prowlin'") without making one concrete statement about any of the film's characters or themes. Plus, all of the music is uncomfortably stupid and no one in the cast demonstrates even the crudest semblance of an ability to sing or dance.<br /><br />2. The T-birds should be badass, and if not at least somewhat likable, but instead each of them is an annoying wussy-dufus-loser. In the end, when Johnny Nogerelli offers Michael the sacred T-bird jacket and initiates him into the gang, Michael should kick it to the ground, spit on it, and duck away to fervently scrub any part of his body that was touched by it. But of course, he accepts it as if it is gold because despite the fact that they are a bunch of bumbling meatheads, there is no greater honor than to be one with the T-birds. <br /><br />3. Since Michael is beautiful, smart, kind, resourceful, and above average in everyway (his musical impotence notwithstanding), it is feasible that Stephanie would ultimately embrace him when he reveals himself to be the man behind the mask. Stephanie, on the other hand, is a slovenly, slack-jawed, bubble gum smacking, dirty sweatshirt wearing, gracelessly rude and trashy dingbat. So aside from being pretty (I guess), she harbors no likable characteristics, thus, audiences are given no justification whatsoever for the depth of Michael's attraction to her.<br /><br />I could go on and on, but I didn't want to mention the gross inferiority to its predecessor since there are apparently so many cranks out there who seem to feel that such a comparison is unfair. I will say this though, to those of you who think you want to revisit this mess for old time's sake: Grease 2 is an experience akin to re-living your first kiss. Only you are 32 now and kissing a snot-nosed 13-year old kid with acne and slobby braces. The magic is gone and you are left feeling dirty and disturbed. Trust me.
| 0
|
The movie is actually too slow. There are some nice images but it cannot outweigh the fact that the movie is in fact boring. You see a sexual intercourse a lot of watermelons and a sexual intercourse while eating a melon and maybe a little bit more. It may sound even interesting to someone but believe me to watch it for 2 hours isn't fun at all. Though you laugh several times but it's really not enough and it may be more out of despair and disbelieve than out of fun. To disturb the boredom director tries to put few movie video-clips into the movie. They are really colorful clips of absurd songs maybe from the 50's but it's hard to say exactly and they are trying to be funny so hard that it's really sad. Several times you have a feeling that the plot could evolve into something, that a powerful scene is being created but at the end it just somehow evaporates and that's it. Beside the clips there are hardly any dialogs let alone music. The director is trying to be original and artistic at all cost. Personally I cannot recommend the movie. I believe that art is something that shouldn't be boring. During the projection there was yawning all around the cinema which just corroborates my short review.
| 0
|
I ended up watching The Tenants with my close friends who rented the movie solely based on Snoop Dogg's appearance (a passionate fetish of theirs) on the cover. Understandably, I did not expect much. I thought the movie would include the typical array of Snoop Dogg related behavior and imagery often seen in cliché rap videos. However, my generalization was for the most part wrong. Unfortunately, this didn't make the movie any better.<br /><br />Most would describe the movie as a dark serious drama, whereas I would describe it as a dark seriously drawn out boring drama flick. The film tells a story of two struggling writers (Dylan McDermott and Snoop Dogg) who are trying to create their own separate masterpieces. Their polar opposite lifestyles end up forming an unlikely but highly complex and neurotic friendship. This friendship moves throughout the entire movie like a wild roller-coaster - most of which is contributed by Snoop's character - reminiscent of someone with a severe case of split personality disorder. And although the movie is a drama, the acting - which has a morbid and serious tone - from Snoop and company was more comical than anything else.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie for those who are attention impaired because this one has a lot of dialogue and a lot more dialogue after that. There are some mediocre conflicts, but even they are mostly bogged down with more dialogue. The end, however, jumped at me with a sudden surprise. It was a little bit twisted, somewhat unexpected and a perfect way to wrap up a movie that needed to end. While watching the ending credits I couldn't help but picture the director thinking, "Oh God, how the hell do I end this snoozer." By the way, the director laid out carefully planted hints and subtleties leading to the climax - all of which are more visible than Waldo in a crowded street of midgets wearing nothing but black sweaters.
| 0
|
Now I'll be the first to admit it when I say something that may be blasphemous or unfair, so I would like to apologize in advance for my ranting about how much I disliked this movie.<br /><br />That about sums it up too. I disliked this movie. To be more specific, I disliked the concept of this movie. The cinematography was good. The mood was nice. And the acting was satisfactory.<br /><br /> However, the story is fatuous, unacurate and misleading. It is also offensive.<br /><br />I am a quarter Cree Indian, and for some reason I feel insulted, on a personal level, by the nature of Whitaker's character. First of all, he's a black guy. And this isn't a racist remark, I swear. The thought of a White, Hispanic or even Native American swinging a katana on a rooftop offends everything that the katana represents. The katana represents the soul of a Samurai, imbibed with the souls of his ancestors who guide and protect the Samurai. For Ghost Dog to use his guns instead of the Katana is also an insult to the blade and the souls inside, and where the heck did he get a Katana anyway? It must be one of those replicas, which insults the Samurai caste even more.<br /><br />Also, Ghost Dog showed no honor. Near the end of the movie, he shoots a bodyguard in the back through a window and then assassinates a man by shooting him in the face through a faucet drain. Not only is this a cowards way to kill an enemy, it's more like a ninjas way; silent assassins; a group that samurais deny exists, but hates none-the-less.<br /><br />Then he tries to kill his boss, when he finds out his boss is a baddie. You know what a true Samurai does when he learns his master is proven bad or dishonorable? He kills himself, to prove that he would rather die then lower himself to the level of his doggish master.<br /><br />Everything about the character was a giant contradiction to the real code that all Samurai adhere to: Bushido.<br /><br />So, we have great cinematography, good ambiance and so-so acting encompassing a satiricle plot and premise, (which unfortunately is the most important aspect of it) , making it an unsatisfactory overall film, and an insult to everything a honorable bushi(samurai) holds dear.<br /><br /> 2.5/10 Bleah
| 0
|
Well done Al Gore! You have become the first person to have made 1 Billion dollars of the global warming lie! Just like all the other man made fable's in the world this one is up there with the best lies to have sucked in so many people. Sure polution is not a good thing, and I would love for all the tree's to keep on growing, but global warming is a business! It employes thousands of people that are all very mislead.<br /><br />Google it! There are just to many things that just don't add up, but well done Al, you failed as a politician, but went on to make lots of money sucking in the world.<br /><br />Whats next? Santa is real?
| 0
|
A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10
| 0
|
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka
| 0
|
Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but "Cube Zero" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.<br /><br />Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy.
| 0
|
Why in the world would someone make this piece of trash movie? The first two Zombie Bloodbath movies were stupid enough, but this takes the cake for the worst of the trilogy (Perhaps of all time). Todd Sheets is still the director, but no longer the screenwriter, which isn't a negative or a positive, considering he's just as untalented as the guy who wrote this one. The writing is too heavily reliant on the f-word, which is used somewhere between 200 and 300 times at nausea. The acting is about on par with the last two Bloodbath movies, so naturally, it's some of the worst I've ever seen. The special effects are better than the last 2, but they still look godawful. The plot has become too complicated for it's own good, and was about some government experiment gone wrong and zombies being produced. Also featured is cryogenically frozen mutant zombie and school kids that know how to time travel, leading to one of the most idiotic endings I've ever seen. After the movie it goes to outtakes, which is strange because this whole movie is an outtake. Only see this to make fun of it, because if you go into this with a serious mind, you might possibly kill yourself.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 95 mins.
| 0
|
Joel Schumaker directs the script he co-wrote and has a group of Georgetown grads confronted with adult life situations. The story line is a scrambled mess, but some scenes are actually good. There is a lot of wasted talent and time here. The cast is more impressive than the movie. Featured are Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy and Mare Winningham. The most notable being McCarthy and Moore. Lowe is quite obnoxious. Coming of age is not so damn easy.
| 0
|
The writers probably had no experience in the army, and probably never glanced at a history book, but I still give this cheaply produced war film some credit for taking a long-needed look at the role of black soldiers in the second world war.<br /><br />The action is confused and unbelievable--any episode of Combat! has better production values, but the cast is interesting. Seeing New York Giant Rosie Greer was worth the buck I paid for this. The art direction is fifth rate--the men wear Korean War uniforms, and it was pretty lousy weather by the time the U.S. Army reached Germany in 1944, not sunny as they show here, and I don't think the terrain resembled Northern California. The script never does make clear why the black support troops are used as combat soldiers. There is a nice touch that shows some of the men carrying Springfield rifles instead of M-1s, which second rate troops probably would have been issued with.<br /><br />This basic story idea(racist southern officer commanding black troops) should have been expanded into a big budget production back then, and its not too late to try it now. You have to take this for what it is, and I admire the creators of this film for making the effort.<br /><br />I remember seeing this a while ago and thinking it was set in Italy, which would have made more sense because there were black combat troops operating there in 1944.
| 0
|
What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.<br /><br />Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote "for Sam and Arthur" in its smoldering ashes.<br /><br />The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough."
| 0
|
There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at.
| 0
|
After viewing this film, I felt the compelling need to vent a bit of my frustration. Selma Blair is a fabulous, currently underrated actress and Max Beesley was rather charming in "Kill Me Later". The story, while not exactly original, certainly showed some promise. None of that mattered though...at all.<br /><br />I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious "modern" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.<br /><br />There are a couple of good scenes in "Kill Me Later" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10
| 0
|
When I was a kid we always used to be babysat, and we always used to rent a film or see a film at the cinema. This is one of the films we watched. This is one of the stupidest films I've ever seen, I think it might even be a Walt Disney Pictures film! A martian is dropped on earth, turns into a human, befriends a human, and is trying everything he can to get back home. But he is distracted by the wonders of the Earth. The only good comment I can give is the choice of actors, Back to the Future's Christopher Lloyd as the martian, Uncle Martin, Dumb and Dumber's Jeff Daniels as Tim O'Hara, Elizabeth Hurley as Brace Channing and Daryl Hannah as Lizzie. But apart from that it's complete crap. Poor!
| 0
|
Predictable parody, just about failed to impress throughout it's looooooong eight minutes. The only thing that made it worthwhile was the DO NOT COLORIZE line at the end credits. Shame something more entertaining wasn't put on the DVD, like Jonathan Ross' enjoyable profile of Romero on 'The Incredible Strange Film Show.'
| 0
|
I've never really considered myself much of "student" when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled "How Not to Make A Film". Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun.
| 0
|
This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ("campy") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela "Bruce's sister" Springsteen.<br /><br />This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly "pathological" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some "methods" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.
| 0
|
First off, let me say that I am a great believer in Fanpro stuff. I see it as a way to continue a good show long after it has been cancelled. Star Trek Voyages and Star Wars Revelations are examples of decent efforts. So I have a soft-spot for fanpro stuff that means I'll overlook things that I would ordinarily slate badly.<br /><br />So on to ST: HF. Well, first off the good things. Enthusiasm is a major part of making any show believable and, for the most part, the crew of the various ships all seem to be having a good time with their roles. Next, the effects aren't bad for a home-brew effort, with nothing to make you really wince. The stories aren't too bad either. Nothing particularly innovative, but solid enough stuff and at least there are ongoing story-arcs.<br /><br />But it has a lot of faults.<br /><br />First off, although they quite obviously HAVE to rip-off Star Trek footage, set backdrops, music and effects, I see no reason why they proceeded to rip off virtually every other sci-fi musical score ever made. Everything from Aliens to Starship Troopers rears it orchestral head at one point or another. Likewise, much of the footage is from other movies, dutifully CGI'd over to make it look different. The Grey warships, for instance, though disguised, are quite obviously Star Destroyers from Star Wars. And the station is also rather obviously Fleet Battle Station Ticonderoga from Starship Troopers. Likewise, sound effects from various Star Wars movies appear in space battles between fighters, as does animated over footage. In one scene in either first or second season, I think, you even see two TIE fighters fly past during a battle, which hardly does your suspension of disbelief any favours.<br /><br />Acting varies from the reasonable to the hideously painful to watch. Everyone does improve as the seasons progress, though, but expect to grimace at the screen a lot, especially in the early seasons. They've also made some interesting acting choices. Let's just say that the food replicators on this show seem permanently set to "cake" and leave it at that.<br /><br />Make-up effects are generally quite effective on the whole. But they really ought to mercilessly club to death the person who decided to use cheap Ferengi and Cardassian masks for anything other than background use or "passing" shots. They are just beyond unrealistic. Every time I saw one of these (apart from trying not to laugh too much) I kept expecting the unfortunate soul wearing it to pull out a gun and announce that "This is a stick-up!" In one scene a "Cardassian" actually talks whilst wearing one of these. Not only do the lips not move, but the mask doesn't even have an opening where the mouth should be. Someone needs to be slapped hard for that. Couldn't they have taken a craft knife to it, for goodness' sake! There are also some well-done, but unintentionally funny make-up jobs, such as the Herman Munster look alike.<br /><br />The writing, though coherent, is nothing new. Instead the script runs like a continuation of DS9, with the ships heading out from DS12 on various missions. The new enemy, "The Grey" aren't very menacing and the plot line involving them is effectively a reworking of the Borg threads. i.e. Starfleet meet the Grey, the Grey are hugely powerful, Starfleet barely escape with their lives, then through technology they begin to find ways to combat the enemy etc etc. All done before with the Borg.<br /><br />Another bone of contention is the dialogue. Star Trek writers have long had the ability to write "insert technobabble here" into a script. It usually means an exposition of the latest plan to combat the enemy using "quantum phase discriminators" or "isolytic charges" etc. In other words, nonsense that tells you that they are on the case and a resolution is at hand.<br /><br />The words are just gibberish really. I've no problem with this, but where ST:HF makes a mess of it is where they include real-world comments into this concept.<br /><br />Tactical advice such as "We need to regroup" sounds good, but not when uttered by trio of characters already standing in a group. Likewise when asked what the situation is, a tactical officer is heard to reply "We count three battleships". He actually needed to count them? C'mon! I expected the questioner to ask him "Are you sure?" or "Can you double check". But my all-time favourite comment is this: <br /><br />Captain: "Can we establish two-way communication?"<br /><br />Comms officer: "No, we can only send and receive.."<br /><br />Well, duh!.....<br /><br />Having said all the above, the show does improve as it goes along. Seasons 1 and 2 are pretty bad, 3 shows an improvement but 4 & 5 are where it starts to get noticeably better. Season 6 so far looks quite reasonable.<br /><br />I do have a problem with their choice of media for the shows though. Quicktime sucks, quite frankly and the sooner they move to divx/avi format the better. Some of us like to actually take our downloaded shows and watch them on decent size screen and not peer at a tiny QT window on a computer monitor. Not only does Quicktime make this difficult, but the 320x180 resolution the shows are in does not scale at all well. In fact, it makes the shows pretty unwatchable, like they were a tenth-generation VHS tape copy. The least they could do was to include a hi-res downloadable option.<br /><br />Anyway, the show has promise, and I'm even beginning to like some of the characters. But that's 40 episodes on, so I'm not sure this says that much about character development at all.<br /><br />But what can you say, it's free....<br /><br />PS: Out of 28 votes, 19 people rated this show as a 9 or 10. Hmmmm... were we watching the same show? Or are you 19 all three year olds?
| 0
|
I figured the whole joke of the movie would be to see some rich white guy acting like Chris Rock, and then see Chris Rock react to people's reactions. Instead you just see Chris Rock being himself and people not understanding him. There are maybe 2 scenes in the entire movie where they use their gimmick. This should have been a lot better.
| 0
|
Granting the budget and time constraints of serial production, BATMAN AND ROBIN nonetheless earns a place near the bottom of any "cliffhanger" list, utterly lacking the style, imagination, and atmosphere of its 1943 predecessor, BATMAN.<br /><br />The producer, Sam Katzman, was known as "King of the Quickies" and, like his director, Spencer Bennett, seemed more concerned with speed and efficiency than with generating excitement. (Unfortunately, this team also produced the two Superman serials, starring Kirk Alyn, with their tacky flying animation, canned music, and dull supporting players.) The opening of each chapter offers a taste of things to come: thoroughly inane titles ("Robin Rescues Batman," "Batman vs Wizard"), mechanical music droning on, and our two heroes stumbling toward the camera looking all around, either confused or having trouble seeing through their cheap Halloween masks. Batman's cowl, with its devil's horns and eagle's beak, fits so poorly that the stuntman has to adjust it during the fight scenes. His "utility belt" is a crumpled strip of cloth with no compartments, from which he still manages to pull a blowtorch and an oxygen tube at critical moments!<br /><br />In any case, the lead players are miscast. Robert Lowery displays little charm or individual flair as Bruce Wayne, and does not cut a particularly dynamic figure as Batman. He creates the impression that he'd rather be somewhere, anywhere else! John Duncan, as Robin, has considerable difficulty handling his limited dialogue. He is too old for the part, with an even older stuntman filling in for him. Out of costume, Lowery and Duncan are as exciting as tired businessmen ambling out for a drink, without one ounce of the chemistry evident between Lewis Wilson and Douglas Croft in the 1943 serial.<br /><br />Although serials were not known for character development, the earlier BATMAN managed to present a more energetic cast. This one offers a group going through the motions, not that the filmmakers provide much support. Not one of the hoodlums stands out, and they are led by one of the most boring villains ever, "The Wizard." (Great name!) Actually, they are led by someone sporting a curtain, a shawl, and a sack over his head, with a dubbed voice that desperately tries to sound menacing. The "prime suspects" -- an eccentric professor, a radio broadcaster -- are simply annoying.<br /><br />Even the established comic book "regulars" are superfluous. It is hard to discern much romance between Vicki Vale and Bruce Wayne. Despite the perils she faces, Vicki displays virtually no emotion. Commissioner Gordon is none-too-bright. Unlike in the previous serial, Alfred the butler is a mere walk-on whose most important line is "Mr Wayne's residence." They are props for a drawn-out, gimmick-laden, incoherent plot, further saddled with uninspired, repetitive music and amateurish production design. The Wayne Manor exterior resembles a suburban middle-class home in any sitcom, the interiors those of a cheap roadside motel. The Batcave is an office desperately in need of refurbishing. (The costumes are kept rolled up in a filing cabinet!)<br /><br />Pity that the filmmakers couldn't invest more effort into creating a thrilling adventure. While the availability of the two serials on DVD is a plus for any serious "Batfan," one should not be fooled by the excellent illustrations on the box. They capture more of the authentic mood of the comic book than all 15 chapters of BATMAN AND ROBIN combined.<br /><br />Now for the good news -- this is not the 1997 version!
| 0
|
I agree with the last reviewer that this movie had terrible acting. Yes, there was a lot of gore and some nudity. But it was overshadowed by a slow-moving, meaningless plot and dumb ending. Where was this supposed to be filmed anyway: a Canadian Chinatown or Hong Kong? Hostel was a much better movie and I would recommend seeing that instead. A technical annoyance I had with the DVD is that if you shut off the Spanish subtitles, they return after a few scenes and then you have to go back to the main menu and turn them off again. Also, don't waste your time on the deleted scenes because there's no audio and it just looks like tourist footage.
| 0
|
I had to walk out on this film fifteen minutes from the end... having passed through the cringe stage and into pure boredom. What really horrifies me, I mean truly disturbs me, is that there are people referring to this aimless drivel as 'delightful' or a 'must see.' I would feel deep pity for those so afflicted were it not for the distinct impression that most of the positive comments about this shallow and humourless travesty were written by industry plants.<br /><br />The truth is this is a lame film that does nothing to entertain nor enlighten. It is decidedly unfunny, poorly scripted and has all the pace and energy of cold, canned rice pudding. To be kind to Ms Kramer, the best one can say is it was a missed opportunity, for having read the synopsis before I watched it, I had expected something more challenging. The possible misinterpretations of a close brother and sister co-dependence, the unexpected awakening of 'sisterly' sexuality, and the comic potential in such sibling rivalry (for the affections of the same girl) were all obvious subjects for refreshing comedic exploration, yet which at every turn the movie frustratingly shies away from.<br /><br />Instead, the audience is subjected to a meandering series of uninspired and insipidly drawn situations, with clichéd characterisations and dull performances from a cast struggling for belief and obviously in need of much tighter direction. The lack of directorial control seems astounding; on the one hand, Moynahan, Cavanagh and Spacek all give very pedestrian performances, while Heather Graham and Molly Shannon - the latter in particular - veer towards embarrassing over-compensation at times. One could lay the blame for this on the director - maybe Sue Kramer hopes that if her actors over-act, they will force a bigger laugh from the audience. But then again, the cast is a veteran one; one would expect them to do better.<br /><br />Sue Kramer really needs to think carefully what kind of movies she wants to make, and for whom. Given the possible issues Gray Matters alludes to, and given her inability or unwillingness to fully explore them in the context of a comedy, perhaps she should consider writing dramas instead. I know it is never easy to make films about women and women's issues, especially when one hopes to reach a wider audience than women alone, but whatever direction she takes, inconsequential and flimsy characters like Gray are not going to cut mustard.
| 0
|
I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.<br /><br />I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.<br /><br />The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.<br /><br />Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.<br /><br />Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.
| 0
|
Some of my old friends suggested me to watch this movie but I got chance only recently. I had high hopes of seeing something interesting from Kamal Hans, what I saw was bunch of garbage camera angles mixed at high speed. I could not understand what was the message except demeaning Hinduism. I am more like many religion type but I felt Kamal Hasan is a man low character to have orchestrated this kind of thought. He could have made a horror movie than this crap. He tried to add Hollywood genre of viruses and god forbid he did not convert that guy into a mutant and ultimately going to go for world domination. This is a much befitting movie for a film school vs regular public. Shame on him for not holding up to the talent he has. Starting of story tried Chaos to borrow ideas from Butterfly effect, then in between little religious harmony at the cost of insulting Hinduism (Once again I insult Hinduism more but this movie has no equal and my insult is same for religion in general which may have made this movie intellectual one.)
| 0
|
I hope whoever coached these losers on their accents was fired. The only high points are a few of the supporting characters, 3 of 5 of my favourites were killed off by the end of the season (and one of them was a cat, to put that into perspective).<br /><br />The whole storyline is centered around sex, and nothing else. Sex with vampires, gay sex with gay vampires, gay sex with straight vampires, sex to score vampire blood, sex after drinking vampire blood, sex in front of vampires, vampire sex, non-vampire sex, sex because we're scared of vampires, sex because we're mad at vampires, sex because we just became a vampire, etc.<br /><br />Nothing against sex, it would just be nice if it were a little more subtle with being peppered into the storyline. Perhaps HAVE a storyline and then shoehorn some sex into it. But they didn't even bother to do that... and Anna Paquin is a dizzy gap-tooth bitch. Either she sucks or her character sucks, I can't figure out which.<br /><br />Another part of the storyline that I find highly implausible is why 150 year old vampire Bill who seems to have his things together would be interested in someone like Sookie. She's constantly flying off the handle at him for things he can't control. He leaves for two days and she already decides that he's "not coming back" and suddenly has feelings for dog-man? Give me a break. She's supposed to be a 25 year old woman, not a 14 year old girl. People close to her are dying all over, and she's got the brightest smile on her face because she just gave away her V-card to some dude because she can't read his mind? As the main character of the story, I would've hoped the show would do a little more to make her understandable and someone to invest your interest in, not someone you keep secretly hoping gets killed off or put into a coma. I can't find anything about her character that I like and even the fact that she can read minds is impressively uninspiring and not the least bit interesting.<br /><br />I will not be wasting my time with watching Season 2 come June.
| 0
|
I had VERY low expectations for this alleged "re-imagining" of the original -- and they weren't even met! What were they thinking? (Answer: They weren't.) Please don't waste your time on this Hollywood trash fest. Clip your nails, balance your checkbook, do anything besides watch this. Remember: If you rent stuff like this, it will only ensure they make more.
| 0
|
City girl Meg Tilly receives a horrifying phone call from her mother and, understandably shaken, returns home to her family's rural digs, only to be faced with a mystery: why are all the homespun residents acting out in bizarre and unsettling ways? Radiation thriller, with barely a nod to ecology, has small town residents going berserk, which (laughably) includes two women gazing at each other with desire in a public place and Tim Matheson receiving oral attention from a girl on an office bench. The picture is too silly for words, wasting Tilly's wistfulness and quiet intensity on trash while forcing itself into a corner it can't possibly hope to get out of. Some of the cinematography by Thomas Del Ruth is good (particularly a fire sequence set inside a garage), though he is let down by the scrappy editing--and a fairly bathetic finale. Simplistic screenplay has nary a surprise nor a shred of originality up its sleeve. *1/2 from ****
| 0
|
I didn't even know this was originally a made-for-tv movie when I saw it, but I guessed it through the running time. It has the same washed-out colors, bland characters, and horrible synthesized music that I remember from the 80's, plus a 'social platform' that practically screams "Afterschool special". Anyhoo.<br /><br />Rona Jaffe's (thank you) Mazes and Monsters was made in the heyday of Dungeons & Dragons, a pen-and-paper RPG that took the hearts of millions of geeks around America. I count myself one of said geeks, tho I have never played D&D specifically I have dabbled in one of its brethren. M&M was also made in the heyday of D&D's major controversy-that it was so engrossing that people could lose touch with reality, be worshiping Satan without knowing, blah blah. I suppose it was a legitimate concern at one point, if extremely rare-but it dates this movie horrendously.<br /><br />We meet 4 young college students, who play the aptly named Mazes and Monsters, to socialize and have a little time away from mundane life. Except that M&M as presented is more boring than their mundane lives. None of the allure of gaming is presented here-and Jay Jay's request to take M&M into 'the real world' comes out of nowhere. It's just an excuse to make one of the characters go crazy out of nowhere also-though at that point we don't really care. Jay Jay, Robbie, Kate and Daniel are supposed to be different-but they're all rich WASPy prigs who have problems no one really has.<br /><br />But things just continue, getting worse in more ways than one. The low budget comes dreadfully clear, (I love the 'Entrance' sign and cardboard cutout to the forbidden caverns) Robbie/Pardu shows why he's not a warrior in the oafiest stabbing scene ever, and the payoff atop the 'Two Towers' is unintentionally hilarious. Tom Hanks' blubbering "Jay Jay, what am I doing here?" made me laugh for minutes on end. Definitely the low point in his career.<br /><br />Don't look at it as a cogent satire, just a laughable piece of 80's TV trash, and you'll still have a good time. That is, if you can stay awake. The majority is mostly boring, but it's all worthwhile for Pardu's breakdown at the end. At least Tom Hanks has gotten better. Not that he could go much worse from here.
| 0
|
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing 2/10.
| 0
|
This is one of those movies that you and a bunch of friends sit around drinking beers, eating pizza, and laugh at. Unfortunately for me I found myself watching this one alone. My friends and I rented a big block of movies and never got around to seeing this one. It was due back and I figured that it was a waste not to watch it. So I did, and I was impressed at how absolutely terrible this movie is.<br /><br />Now, I love bad movies quite a bit, and I probably would have liked this one if the "hero" wasn't so utterly loathsome. The entire movie I was hoping that he'd put that stupid sword down and let someone kill him! He does very little heroic things in the movie. He's a beefy, disgusting, stupid thing. He has less redeeming qualities than the villains do. And what was it with all the naked chicks? I mean, I love naked chicks just as much as the next guy, but this movie went a tad overboard in that department.<br /><br />Well, anyway, if you love bad movies and can stand a disgusting "hero" then I'm sure you'll like this schlock of a film.
| 0
|
I didn't know much about this movie before I watched it, but I heard it had something to do with quantum physics so I was interested. What I didn't know is that this is NOT ACTUALLY A STORY but a bunch of New-Age blowhards who love the sound of their own voice talking about how little they know about basic quantum mechanics. I say it belongs more in the Documentary category than Comedy or Drama.<br /><br />Marlee Matlin is in the movie, in order to give this New Age symposium *some* sort of a storyline. Her portions of the film feel horribly tacked on and are meant to display the speaker's thoughts so we won't die of boredom. Matlin has a real job as a photographer, unlike the New Age hippie that crashes on her couch. We get to listen to nameless people ramble on about what quantum physics all "means" to them. The one bright spot in this movie was the speaker from India (I assume), but I think he showed up for the wrong film.<br /><br />It looks like Barbara Eden really let herself go and she goes on and on about how quantum science has something to do with her crazy New Age beliefs. It looks like Quark from DS9 was running low on cash and he also makes a brief appearance in the film. There is a lot of whizbang CGI we're supposed to be impressed with; cells in the body are shown as dancing jello molds, because the filmmakers have apparently seen Flubber one too many times.<br /><br />People in the movie say that the Arawak people on San Salvador thought Columbus's ship the Pinta was invisible because natives had never seen clipper ships before, as if people today had any way possible way of knowing. Of course they leave out all of that information and just say "Columbus's ships were invisible to the Indians in America." The film takes many such arrogant leaps. Thomas Young did a double-slit experiment around 1805 and found that light can look like a particle some of the time, and a wave some of the time. Of course you'd never *know* this from watching this stupid film because the only reference to it is that "atoms can be particles and waves." And that must mean that people can pass through walls, walk on water, and never grow old if they just wish upon a star!! Then I'm sure Marlee Matlin could stop being deaf if she just *believed* hard enough. I'm being sarcastic, but this film is chock-full of false hope and beliefs that the people espousing them don't really hold.<br /><br />These are New Age kooks who have grabbed onto Quantum Theory as if it reaffirms everything they believe about meditation, zero point energy, crystal healing, etc. If these snake-oil salesmen truly believed the crap they were selling, couldn't they just *wish* their paychecks into existence instead of appearing in this joke of a film? We get to listen to another nameless man, with no credentials that we know of, talk on his couch in front of a fireplace (or TV screen) about how he creates his own life. Every time he was on the screen I wanted someone to rush in and throw a pie in his face. These people take themselves WAY too seriously. Some other balding guy in a suit says that nobody ever *really* touches anything because there's a magnetic force preventing it at the quantum level. If only someone had walked onto the screen and kept punching him in the stomach, screaming "I'm not touching you! I'm not touching you!" A moral relativist in the movie claims that there's really "no such thing as good or bad." So apparently it's OK that Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death? Another person says that there is "no such thing as love." It's just a chemical and that we really don't love people, we're just addicted to the chemical rush we have when we're around them. I suspect this guy is doing this film as community service for being addicted to heroin for so many years.<br /><br />We are witness to a truly pathetic sequence where two young adults walk around a wedding reception, seeing everything like RoboCop. They evaluate if women are cows, dogs, or foxes, and a sexual position pops onto the scree. Marlee Matlin gets drunk at the wedding she's supposed to photograph and the next day decides to love herself and take a bath because she's a beautiful and unique snowflake.<br /><br />I liked when the film said people often find evidence for their pre-conceived notions. Perhaps in this review I'm only seeing what I want to see, but I TRULY wanted to see these people get pies to the face, and it never happened.<br /><br />If you've never heard of any of the ideas presented in the film before, you may find them interesting, but there are better sources for all of the ideas here. If you want to watch a good movie that talks about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, go see The Man Who Wasn't There. If you want to read a good book about Quantum Field Theory, read Hyperspace by Michio Kaku. If you want to see a film that talks about different philosophies with imaginative visuals, see Waking Life (although it can feel boring, self-important, and pretentious at times). All in all, you should go and read Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson instead of wasting your time on this movie.<br /><br />I normally have a very hard time giving movies a score from 1 to 10, but this one was a very easy for me: 1/10 Stars.<br /><br />The movie's title is true. The people in this film don't know #$*! Hands down, the worst movie I've ever seen.
| 0
|
Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.<br /><br />Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.<br /><br />Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.<br /><br />Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.<br /><br />Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.<br /><br />It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.<br /><br />Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.<br /><br />4/10
| 0
|
Private Practice is supposed to be a medical drama. So I guess my biggest complaint is the lack of originality in the medical story lines. Just by watching House, I "solved" two (out of nine) medical mysteries before the doctors did. Boooring. Seriously, if you are a lazy writer, why not copy some cases out of older ER episodes or some obscure Brazilian medical soap? House is recent and popular - recycling their ideas is hard to get away with...<br /><br />Second biggest complaint: these people are supposed to be forty-somethings, right? Then why do they have to behave with the emotional maturity of 15-year-olds? Is three weeks (ie. three whole damn episodes) of intense thinking really necessary to understand that if your best friend doesn't want to be your "friend with benefits", it's maybe not because he wants to hurt you, but because he doesn't want to risk your friendship? The character doing all the thinking is a psychiatrist by the way - the whole storyline is just so unrealistic that you can't really buy into the supposed "drama".<br /><br />And I won't even start complaining about what the show did to everyone's favorite Addison as we got to know her in Grey's Anatomy... On a sidenote, don't you think it's funny the way Addison ends up lusting after loser Pete (sorry, but everyone who tries to cure insomnia with Mozart's Requiem is a loser, PhD or not) and Derek ends up entangled in a relationship with whiny, irritating Meredith miles away in rainy Seattle? Apart from that little fling with Mark, they seemed to be perfect for each other. Sometimes I think Shonda Rhimes' subconscious is trying to tell us that in relationships, our first choice is often the right one...
| 0
|
Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?<br /><br />Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...<br /><br />A red toolbox of death? Please....<br /><br />Hypothermic weak thugs...<br /><br />Acting from hell...<br /><br />Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?<br /><br />Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...<br /><br />And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...<br /><br />Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-(
| 0
|
What The Bleep Do We Know is a deluded and haphazard look at the mysteries of the universe. We are presented with a parade of apparent experts (none of whom are named) who ramble and pontificate in a thoroughly unscientific manner. Their interviews are chopped up into aggravatingly small segments and dispersed throughout some flashy cgi and banal mini-plots.<br /><br />The film pilfers themes from science, philosophy, theology and politics, minces them together without any regard for accuracy, and then somehow extracts a few prosaic and absurd conclusions. We are led to believe that quantum physics is telling us the purpose of our existence, and any other difficult to answer question the film-makers would like to point their finger at.<br /><br />It is riddled errors and logical non-sequiturs. How did we start at quantum mechanics and end up with this pseudo-scientific spirituality and mysticism? It's like saying 'two plus two equals four, therefore I can move objects with my mind'.<br /><br />There is nothing original in this film, and almost nothing that is accurate. Any discriminating viewer will be annoyed by heavy-handed editing, intrusive and pointless special effects and general lack of substance. Educated viewers will be frustrated to tears by the violence done to science and every other subject this film touches on.
| 0
|
It's unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent films will appreciate any of the lyrical camera-work and busy (but scratchy) background score that accompanies this 1933 release. Although sound came into general use in 1928, there are no more than fifty words spoken to tell the story of a woman, unhappily married, who deserts her husband for a younger man after a romantic interlude in the woods.<br /><br />The most vividly photographed scene has the jealous husband giving a lift to the young man for a ride into town, proceeding to drive normally until he realizes the man is his wife's lover. In a frenzy of jealousy, he drives at top speed toward a railroad crossing but changes his mind at the last moment, losing his nerve. It's probably the most tension-filled scene in the otherwise decidedly slow-moving and obviously contrived story.<br /><br />HEDY LAMARR is given the sort of close-up treatment lavished on Marlene Dietrich by her discoverer, but her beauty had not yet been refined by the cosmeticians as they were when she was transported to Hollywood. Her performance consists mostly of looking sad and morose while mourning the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpses of a smile when she finds her true love (ARIBERT MOG), the handsome young stud who retrieves her clothes after a nude swim.<br /><br />The swimming scene is very brief, discreetly photographed, and not worth all the heat it apparently generated. The love-making scene, later on, is also artfully photographed with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film--artfully so. More is left to the imagination with the use of symbolism--and this is the sort of thing that has others proclaiming the film is some kind of lyrical masterpiece.<br /><br />Not so. It's disappointing, primitively crude in its sound portions (including the laborious symphonic music in the background) and certainly Miss Lamarr is fortunate that Louis B. Mayer saw the film and on the basis of it, gave her a career in Hollywood. He must have seen something in her work that I didn't.<br /><br />It's apparent that this was conceived as a silent film with the camera doing all the work. The jarring "workers" scene at the conclusion goes on for too long and is a jarring intrusion where none is needed. It fails to end the film on the proper note.
| 0
|
If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.<br /><br />Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.<br /><br />Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.<br /><br />"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.
| 0
|
OK - the helicopter shots are fantastic, and the director made good use of some of Barcelona's top sights. Otherwise...production value was blown in the first few minutes and the rest of the film felt like a movie of the week. Ellen Pompeo was charming and fun to watch, Abel Folk had the most depth and was very effective, and William Baldwin was...well, William Baldwin. He got to put his martial art training to good use and be a running-jumping-earnest action figure. The rest of the cast was wooden at best, but mostly paper. So - if you're nostalgic about Spain - it's a picture postcard with an action twist, and a healthy dose of El Greco. If not, skip it.
| 0
|
The folks at Disney have a lot to explain. First and foremost, why anyone thought this lesser-sitcom material would ever make even a half-decent motion picture. In the kooky 60's teleplay, the unique idea of Martians among us had not yet been given the sophisticated X-Files treatment. Quaint visions of little green men have long since been dispelled by the likes of E.T., CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and ALIENS 1-3.<br /><br />Any charm the property had was mainly due to the endearing relationship created between the late Bill Bixby as Tim and Ray Walston as the unworldly visitor. The conceit that Martians have antenna seemed dopey back then. Now it seems positively idiotic. Yet, Christopher Lloyd's Uncle Martin sports the metallic appendages. In an early shot, the antenna on a sign for the TV station Tim works at is supposed to make us think "martian"! When's the last time you saw a TV with rabbit ears, eh?<br /><br />Disney doesn't trust quaint or relationships and crams this flick with youth-wooing special effects that include a talking space suit named Zoot! Yes, you read that correctly - Uncle Martin's silver space suit speaks. He is supposed to be a real hilarious cut-up! Figure again. I got stretch socks that are funnier than Zoot. Whenever the action lags (and it lags constantly), computer graphics are put into play to liven things up. Tim is here played by the amiable Jeff Daniels, who can't (or won't) do anything to save this floudering mess. Zesty Christine Ebersole brings some comic zeal to her neighbor lady role. Even Ray Walston himself is dragged painfully into the procedings - all to no avail. This alien visitor is dead on arrival.<br /><br />Constant talk of sitcoms turning to screen makes me only hope that the I DREAM OF JEANNIE movie won't feature a talking harem outfit. I pray that Samantha's cat in the movie BEWITCHED doesn't have lines. I live in fear that I LOVE LUCY - THE MOVIE will proudly feature a CG Conga Drum named Bongo.<br /><br />Paging Michael Eisner! Mickey Mouse - take me to your leader.
| 0
|
The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.
| 0
|
Just about everything in this movie is wrong, wrong, wrong. Take Mike Myers, for example. He's reached the point where you realize that his shtick hasn't changed since his SNL days, over ten years ago. He's doing the same cutesy stream-of-consciousness jokes and the same voices. His Cat is painfully unfunny. He tries way to hard. He's some weird Type A comedian, not the cool cat he's supposed to be. The rest of the movie is just as bad. The sets are unbelievably ugly --- and clearly a waste of millions of dollars. (Cardboard cut-outs for the background buildings would have made more sense than constructing an entire neighborhood and main street.) Alec Balwin tries to do a funny Great Santini impression, but he ends up looking and sounding incoherent. There's even an innapropriate cheesecake moment with faux celebrity Paris Hilton --- that sticks in the mind simply because this is supposed to be a Dr. Seuss story. Avoid this movie at all costs, folks. It's not even an interesting train wreck. (I hope they'll make Horton Hears a Who with Robin Williams. Then we'll have the bad-Seuss movie-starring-spasitc- comedian trilogy.)
| 0
|
This movie was a littttle confusing at first. I usually like Gina Phillips, but this one I have to say was a bad choice just like her doing the movie Ring Around the Rosie, that one also not one her good movies. Jeepers Creepers was way better. Anyway, Faye Dunaway was good. She totally creeped me out and at the end, that was crazy. It was about Jennifer Cassi(Phillips) who comes to her twin sisters funeral. She stays at a house that her sister owns and her grandmother(Dunaway) lives at with an Aunt named Emma. Mary Ellen(Dunaway) is kinda sacrificing her relations to stay alive and as long as she wants to live, she can't die. Even if Jennifer tries to kill her, which she tries. Ravens have a weird part in it. When the relations go to sleep, the Ravens eat there organs, so they can't go to sleep. But they do. Basically it all crazy and Mary Ellen will never die and her relations will be buried, but not dead, b/c they have to suffer forever so Mary Ellen can stay alive. Yeah, I hope this helps. If it doesn't, sorry. Love ya.
| 0
|
I can't say this is one of the best films I have ever seen. But then again, I can't say it's one of the worst I have ever seen.<br /><br />OK, so it's basically a girl does skating, is good at it, wants to go to an expensive school, can't afford it and has to take a Hockey Scholarship. She has to hide her skating secret from her friends.<br /><br />Personally, I didn't like the actress playing Katelin. She absolutely couldn't cry to save her life, just made wailing sounds, like a toddler pretending to cry to get it's own way.<br /><br />Katelin was just an annoying person. The way she tried to act all nice and helpful to people. Also the part where the two skaters are calling her names and they say something about her choreographer and she says she 'draws the line' made me cringe.<br /><br />We all knew where it was going to go with her and Spencer. Classically they didn't like each other and sort of get together at the end was just typical.<br /><br />Overall, I think this is a movie to watch if you like skating but if you don't mind the main skater being extremely annoying. It's good to kill time basically.
| 0
|
Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...
| 0
|
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.
| 0
|
Just too many incidents of violence.<br /><br />The film goes from one scene to another, and in nearly every one violence erupts.<br /><br />Now I am not one who is shocked by violence, and to me a film without a fight in it has something missing. But, please, not one after another. My reaction was not shock or horror, it was: "Here we go again." There is some semblance of a story in between the scenes of violence, but two thirds of the way through the film I had switched off completely, and couldn't wait for the end.<br /><br />If this is the best the film makers can do, they should find something else to do with their miserable lives, like making shoes or delivering mail.
| 0
|
Not only does this movie have a poor plot, bad direction, and terrible acting, its opens up a whole new meaning to racism.<br /><br />In this film "White" chicks are the sluts, "White" boys are the wana-be gangsters, and successful (yes again) "White" businessmen are revolting toilet shitters.<br /><br />I just wonder what would happen if I made the exact same movie with the exact same story line and script, only I made it about Caucasians. "He dude, its good to finally see your've stopped dating those black chicks".<br /><br />Nobody seems to notice it, but watch this film again and you'll vomit at how they have portrayed the new Zealand "white boys". All of a sudden its white folks who are the main cause of gang aggression, and whores out for a quick bang. Only Samoans girls have a heart, there's no such thing as a non-slutty white girl.<br /><br />It disgusts me that they couldn't make this film without giving the Caucasian community in New Zealand a repulsive profile. If you think I'm overgeneralizing, go watch this film, and see what you make of the "white boys". Just because Samoans choose to call us "white boys" in actual life, doesn't mean its funny. If I said hey black boy I'll loose my teeth.<br /><br />Don't see this movie. Don't waste your money. Don't be racist.
| 0
|
Human pot roast Joe Don Baker (MITCHELL) stars in this dull, unremarkable `action' movie as Deputy Geronimo, a fat, gassy slob who sits around in a stupid looking cowboy suit, listening to country music and eating too many donuts. Meanwhile, a vaguely criminal guy named Palermo (played by the guy who owned the drill in Fulci's GATES OF HELL) stumbles into Joe Don's territory and shoots the sheriff in a poorly edited scene. Joe Don- slowly- gives chase and offs Palermo's brother after uttering his now legendary catch phrase `It's your move. Think you can take me? Well, go ahead on'. For some reason Joe Don, a Texas lawman, must transport Palermo to Italy (`Mr. Palermo's been a major source of embarrassment to the Italian government,' says Mr. Wilson, another vague character played by Bill McKinney, who was in MASTER NINJA 1, SHE FREAK, and a lot of good Clint Eastwood movies). <br /><br />Anyhoo, Joe Don's plane must land on the island of Malta, where Palermo escapes with the help of a briefcase and a guy who looks like Jon Lovitz. And that's where the movie grinds to a halt. For the rest of the movie, Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don keeps looking for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. Then Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then is let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more. This is one aggravating movie.<br /><br />At one point Joe Don is thought to be dead at sea. All the other characters wonder if he's dead or not, finally concluding that he is. But then he shows up (he was rescued by a poor family) and no one mentions the fact that he was missing at sea for several days. Even his cute, Julia Louise-Dreyfuss-esque sidekick doesn't welcome him back. She does, however, offer to help him find Palermo, so Joe Don looks for Palermo, looses Palermo, ends up in a jail cell, is yelled at by the Malta chief of police, and then let go with a warning not to look for Palermo any more.<br /><br />Highpoints include, a bizarre carnival with strange colorful floats, some sexy strippers, a shoot out involving a kid dressed like Napoleon AND a cart of tomatoes, a chase scene involving a guy dressed like a monk, and any scene without Joe Don. Lowpoints include Joe Don threatening a stripper with a coat hanger.<br /><br />It should be noted that this is from Greydon Clark, director of ANGEL'S REVENGE, who appears as the sheriff. Ick!<br /><br />
| 0
|
To this day when you speak of the Japanese cinema, most folks won't talk about Rashomon, or the Seven Ronin, or Ran. To the masses the Japanese cinema means all those monsters we've grown to love destroying those Japanese cities over and over again, lots of times in battles with each other. The first and greatest of these is Godzilla who's come back a dozen times or more and in a few films faced the three headed hydra like monster from outer space, Ghidrah.<br /><br />Oddly enough in keeping with the times, the special effects got slightly better. But part of the charm of those old films was seeing those paper mache city sets destroyed, they looked so phony, maybe three steps above Ed Wood.<br /><br />Some visitors from the future have time traveled to Japan to urge that Godzilla be destroyed from when he was first discovered. And in fact he was first discovered as a surviving dinosaur during World War II when he protected the Japanese garrison on a Pacific island from those American troops. But later on with atomic testing on Bikini, Godzilla the friendly dinosaur just like Barney became the mean machine we've grown to know in the cinema.<br /><br />Of course you eliminate Godzilla than you give Ghidrah a clear field to wreck Japan so it does not become the economic colossus it was by 1991 when the film came out. More I won't say, but we all know Japan is doing reasonably well as 2010.<br /><br />Like all the other Japanese monster films, just sit back and enjoy the mayhem.
| 0
|
I can't recommend this film as a date movie. Gary Oldman's semi-autobiographical account of life lived on a South East London estate is a violent, Beckettian account of one of Dante's circles of hell, frankly. At the centre of it is Ray Winstone, who has done this sort of character before but never as well. The film opens with him ordering drinks at a pub bar - that's all - and you are already gripped with a sense of the frustration, self-loathing and barbarism that he exhibits in many different ways throughout the course of the movie. It's an acting masterclass.<br /><br />Of course the stymied and dispossessed need a foil in a drama such as this and Winstone is matched by Kathy Burke as his long-suffering wife, who absorbs and ultimately rejects his unbearable behaviour. Charlie Creed-Miles does an able turn as the fuse-lighting druggie son Billy although he must have wondered sometimes exactly what he let himself in for. Gary Oldman directs close up on the actors, maximising the claustrophobia of their council flat squalor. 4/10
| 0
|
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.
| 0
|
Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.
| 0
|
I absolutely love all of Tom Robbins books, so I was very excited and interested to see a movie made after one of his books. I knew that there would be no way that the movie would capture even half of Robbins' magic, but after seeing the movie, it made me never want to read the book again. The movie Even Cowgirls Get the Blues doesn't include an eighth of the content in the book, and it seems to focus more on the love connection between Bonanza Jellybean and Sissy than anything else. Along with the incredibly weak plot line in the movie, I think that better actors definitely could have been chosen to play the characters. The only actors in the movie that I thought played their roles fit to Robbins' descriptions in the book were Julian's friends, in their five minute clip in the beginning of the movie. Those who haven't read the book might enjoy the movie, but as a huge Tom Robbins fan, this movie was nothing but a disappointment.
| 0
|
I've never been impressed by JD anyway, and Final Justice (which I hadn't seen prior to its MST3k airing) proves to be no exception. It's not that the character is any less likeable than Mitchell: it's just that there's less that Geronimo ("Call me 'Heronimo') to dislike.<br /><br />In fact, one suspects that Mitchell and Final Justice were all schemes of a revenge-seeking agent of Joe Don's trying to get the "star" killed by inducing a heart attack.<br /><br />Joe Don must have found a new agent, since he's now graduated to "comic relief" in James Bond movies. The problem is, it's hard to tell the difference between his comedy characters there, and his "serious" characters in his action-movies like this one.<br /><br />As for the plot...umm, what plot? They repeat the same set pieces so repeatedly you'll think you were watching Groundhog's Day 2. Presumably, the fact they keep using the same scene of Geronimo getting out of jail is supposed to be comic relief of some sort. Ummm, yeah, whatever.<br /><br />On the plus side, the Malta scenery is pretty gorgeous, so that kicked it up to a 2 for me. One suspects this flick set Maltese tourism back a couple of decades, though.
| 0
|
There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from "Plan 9 from outer space" and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece "House of Dead", with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.<br /><br />So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like "Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown" or "Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence". No, I'm not kidding.<br /><br />Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the "Rave of the century", rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.<br /><br />To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.<br /><br />With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.<br /><br />I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed "So bad it's good" category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.<br /><br />You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.
| 0
|
The premise for Circle of Two is an intriguing one. A forbidden love between a sixty year old painter Ashleigh (Richard Burton) and a fifteen year old girl Sarah Norton (Tatum O'Neill); and the question of whether such a relationship is acceptable given society's standards. The problem with Circle of Two, however, is that it fails to live up to its promise. Director Jules Dassin and Hedley should have put more thought into the screenplay. When I watched this film, I expected to learn something new about love and sexuality. Instead, I got boring dialogue, a pointless lecture on art, outings where Sarah seemed to have more fun away from Ashleigh, and a closing scene so artificial that its emotional impact was lost. This script makes good actors look bad. So one can imagine how the film's problems were compounded even further with the largely amateurish cast that Jules Dassin assembled. Tatum O'Neill was not in her element. I did not believe for a second that her character Sarah was in love with Ashleigh. Her performance seemed superficial, like a contestant at a beauty pageant. It was as though she forced herself to be happy, when the script required her to be happy, and to be sad, when the script asked her to be sad. The only scene I liked with her in was at the very end when she said nothing at all. That was probably the closest Tatum's Sarah Norton ever came to being real. But Tatum was not the only one at fault. Richard Burton's Ashleigh lacked the charm, the charisma and the complexity to attract even women of his own age, let alone a fifteen year old. The rest of the cast was also dismal. Even their arguing was unconvincing, because they waited to take turns. Who does that? Michael Wincott as the jealous ex-boyfriend Paul was probably the best thing in this film, but his role was small. To be fair to the actors, Dassin's direction let everyone down; but it is also true that a great movie goes beyond the script. Kubrick's Lolita did that with James Mason and Sue Lyon; Konchalovsky's Runaway Train went beyond the script with Jon Voight and Eric Roberts playing convicts. The directors of these films also knew how to use music to dramatize their films and reveal something about the characters in them. In spite of its own score (a combination of Antonio Vivaldi, Carl Off and Bernard Hoffer), Circle of Two never succeeds in doing that.<br /><br />In conclusion, the idea of a forbidden love story between an elder painter and a teenage girl is a good one, but its execution in Circle of Two is terrible. In many ways, it is a shame that a controversial, Lolita-type story which most film directors for understandable reasons would prefer to avoid did not have receive more intelligent treatment; that a script which actors would have gladly rehearsed was not written; that actors, who were committed to their part or had the talent to make their characters real, could not be found; and that the director Jules Dassin (who did so much better with films like Rififi and Topkapi) did not have to will to put his foot down and say, "Before we do any filming, we must rethink the love story and revamp the script." The only silver lining is that one day an intelligent film about an elder painter and a teenager girl falling in love may one day be made. If such a film ever appears, this it will be surely spark controversy, debate and questions for many years to come.
| 0
|
Never even knew this movie existed until I found an old VHS copy of it, hidden deep in my dusty horror closet. The title on the box said "Insect" and the illustrations on the back made clear that it is just another insignificant and poorly produced 80's horror movie. They can surely be fun, of course, as long as don't expect an intelligent scenario and as long as you're not irritated by seeing a giant amount of cheesy make-up effects. Just about every important aspect that makes a horror movie worthy viewing is substandard here in "Blue Monkey"! The plot is ridiculous and highly unoriginal, the acting performances are painful to observe and there's a total lack of suspense. Following the always-popular trend of "big-bug" movies, "Blue Monkey" handles about a new and unknown insect species that wipes out the doctors and patients of a remote hospital. The makers couldn't be more evasive about the actual origin of this gigantically over-sized critter! All we know is that it's not from outer space and it initially crawled out of a tropical plant. Other than this, there's absolutely no explanation for where this new type of insect all of a sudden comes from! Like I said, don't get your hopes up for an intelligent screenplay. The first half of the film is entertaining enough, with some nice gore and the introduction of a couple deranged characters (an 80-year-old blind and alcoholic lady!) but the second half (when the entire hospital is put to quarantine) is dreadfully boring. It is also near the end that "Blue Monkey" begins to exaggeratedly rip-off older (and better) films. Approaching the climax, they apparently ran out of budget as well, since the lighting becomes very poor and the guy in the monster suit isn't very well camouflaged anymore. "Blue Monkey" is worth a peek in case you're really bored or if you really want to see every 80's horror movie ever made. Fans of B-cinema may recognize John Vernon ("Killer Klowns from Outer Space", "Curtains") in the small and meaningless role of Roger, who's in charge of the clinic.
| 0
|
I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.
| 0
|
Unbelievably awful film. I watched part of this on T.V. recently. My jaw dropped as I watched a horrendously conceived plot and listened to mind-numbing drivel. Not a single line from the master of one-liners could come close to producing anything resembling a chuckle. It was so bad it made me want to exhume Rodney Dangerfield's body, slap him around and scream, "How could you?" I know many films are done in haste, hoping to cash in on the popularity of a given actor or theme. But please, Hollywood, show a little respect for your audience. It's sad and scary that people were expected to pay to see such tripe. The bottom of the cesspool, even by Sunday afternoon television standards.
| 0
|
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of many of Woody's movies, obviously his late 70's masterpieces (Annie Hall,Interiors, Manhattan)and most of his late 80's/early 90's dramas (Hannah, Crimes and Misdemeaners,Husbands and Wives) in fact I even liked some of his more recent efforts (Melinda, Anything Else, Small Time Crooks) but this was abysmal, I though it couldn't possibly be any worse than last years Match Point but how wrong I was.<br /><br />It was lazily plotted - basically a cross between Match Point, Manhattan Murder Mystery and Small Time Crooks,with all the jokes taken out - Woody seems to be on the way out as well, slurring most of his lines and delivering 'hilarious' catchphrases 'I mean that with all due respect...' over and over until the blandness of it all becomes to much to bare.<br /><br />I know that most actors are queuing up to work with him but they should at least read the script first - Scarlett Johansson and Hugh Jackman are so much better than this - and Woody should really take a more behind the camera role in future, if he has any sense about 20 miles behind it.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so tragic if we didn't have so many great Woody films to compare this to - but it is clear that his best days are behind him and judging by this effort, Woody should call it a day before he becomes an industry joke.<br /><br />Embarrassingly bad
| 0
|
This is a very sad movie. Really. Nothing happens in this movie. The Script is bad!!! I guess they've just copy-paste the first 15 pages to 90 pages. The Producers must have thought let's create a Hollywood movie here in Belgium. They didn't succeed. Now in the third week it is only running in Antwerp and Brussels at 22h45 or something. In the past we have had really good movies in Belgium, like Daens. Shades is a waste of your time. Maybe you could sneak in the theater after you've seen a real movie. If you've seen 10 minutes of Shades, you've seen it all. It was advertised to death on local radio and TV. I hope it will disappear in the Shades soon.
| 0
|
Weak,stale, tired, cliched; wants to be Basic Instinct, but misses opportunity after opportunity for fresh perspectives, new insights. Insipid, trite, grotesque, and without the possibly-redeeming value of brevity; oh, wait...it was only 90 minutes long...it must have just *seemed* a lot longer! I'd rather clean bus station toilets with my toothbrush than have to sit through this again. I'm expressing an opinion here: I guess this means I didn't like it.
| 0
|
I got this as a turkey movie and was I not disappointed.<br /><br />Acting - overall even though many have been in other movies it is clear that they had to work hard to act this bad so constantly over this entire movie with out accidentally letting slip some degree of acting.<br /><br />Plot - being generous I could say that the scriptwriter did originally start with a plot but but did his best to ignore it. the plot broke down faster then a Chinese knock off computer <br /><br />Scrip - now that was an abomination of nature. it failed to flow with any rhyme or reason. the majority of the lines by the characters were at best pathetic to imbecilic. the script worked hard to make sure that no character managed to get to be considered memorable. I have watched other movies where the extras were more interesting and memorable.<br /><br />Special effects - ROTFLMAO!!!!! They were short bus special <br /><br />Directing - until you can come up with your own directing ability copy the style of your favorite directer otherwise you will only make failures like this.<br /><br />It is good to know that your friends/family have been giving you 10 stars for this movie
| 0
|
Outrageously trashy karate/horror thriller with loads of graphically gory violence and gratuitous nudity, and a thoroughly preposterous and bizarre "plot". This is lowbrow and low-grade entertainment that will appeal only to viewers with particularly kinky tastes, but it's kind of cheerfully bad and I must admit that I wasn't actually bored while watching it.... (*1/2)
| 0
|
Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!
| 0
|
When I saw this at a shop I thought it looked really good and original. Like Wolfs Creek meets Texas chainsaw massacre, and I mean it only cost three quid (around $6). To be honest I don't think it was even worth that.<br /><br />It seemed like the directors- the 'butcher brothers' couldn't decide whether wanted to do a artsy sort of horror or a gory slasher horror. It ended up with a cliché ridden gory sadistic hour and fifteen minutes with all the characters being one dimensional and you couldn't care less what happened to them but to try to make the audience care about the characters they added a useless monologue at the end and the beginning of the film which to be perfectly honest wasn't needed.<br /><br />The only good part really was the middle/end- I won't ruin it for you. But that was the only "good "part.<br /><br />Overall a pointless watch. It felt like a two hour film but was in fact only 75 minutes. If you want an artsy film-don't bother. If you want a slasher movie- don't bother- The film moves so slowly with nothing ever happening.
| 0
|
The orange tone to everything was just yucky. Oh yeah, the main character lives in a ghetto that is all orange-tinted with orange-tinted people. Meanwhile, to mentally escape from this crushing poverty of the body, she plays a full-immersion video game (which sucks in that no rules are clear and no logic follows the gameplay). She apparently earns an income playing the game but she is revealed to not be an employee of the game company?. Lots of non-speaking pauses later the story drags on slowly. She uses a glitchy orange computer interface with an operating interface that is so visually annoying and I can only suspect a Microsoft future release.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I the viewer, ask basically why she is wasting her precious time in some moronic game when she barely has the necessities of life? Oh yeah, playing games is fun, but what is the point when you're almost starving? While she is piddling her life away playing some lousy even-more-orange-tinted lame full-immersion video game her dog runs off (probably looking for an owner who pays at least a moment of attention to it and feeds it regularly) or is stolen from the woman (while she is ignoring her lousy orange-tinted reality).<br /><br />Meanwhile she obsesses over some game her game-playing team lost the entire uninteresting movie. Yawn. So she wants to be the best of the best, go get them Ash Catchem (got to bore us all). Golly, this main character sucks as a human being as well and has no redeeming qualities aside from her physical beauty (which she could barter for some manner to escape her crushing poverty).<br /><br />So she reaches the "Real" level and it, at least, not sucks horribly and she is sent to kill a former comatose teammate mentally living in the "Real" level. Finally the sucky boring bland orange-tinted movie is no longer a tedious chore to watch, but has the potential to say something along the lines "the main character is trapped in imaginary computer-generated poverty and she is actually in the real world now". Perhaps she will do the murder deed and live in the real world now? Well, she kills the guy and he vanishes in a digital effect. Wow! Thanks idiotic director. You suck, you suck so very much, director.<br /><br />Here the director had an iota of a chance to redeem himself slightly by burying this lousy lame moronic cruddy movie with a philosophical twist.<br /><br />The director could have said, "The REAL WORLD is there and if you live in it and contribute to it to make it better, it won't be some cruddy orange-tinted poverty land." A clever way to make this suck-tacular movie a agonizingly slow lesson on basic civic pride (for the 1% of the viewers that haven't found something actually entertaining to watch at this point or are movie-masochists).<br /><br />Nope, director. The director had to screw this all up by tossing in some cruddy digital effect and ruin all chances of redemption for this awfully lousy movie which was a waste of money, a waste of time, and a waste of viewer trust.<br /><br />After that, it ends. Good riddance. I hope the director chokes on it. I'm putting this HACK on my "avoid at all costs" list for any other films his name is attached to.
| 0
|
I admired Rob Marshall for Chicago, but Memoirs of Geisha turns out to be yet another failure of combing western and Asian arts. Overall, the scene is beautiful, but after restless emphasis on exoticism-oriented scenes some might just find himself fed up with them. The excessive cherry blossom was, frankly, overdone. It's probably the cultural difference of perception here: the ultimate beauty is not the showy type, as truly beautiful geisha would not be the over westernised pumpkin in the movie. <br /><br />Some other comments have rightly mentioned the biggest flaws. As a Taiwanese, I have no doubt the actress are great. An actor/actress can play any kind of role when he/she can look like it. Gong Li is great, but the power of emotions that she showed in this movie had not been translated into Japanese style. All I saw was a bittersweet and jealous Chinese WOMAN. Michlle Yeoh, one of my favourtie actress, did not even LOOK LIKE a Japanese. Some comment has mentioned the peculiar delicate, feminine characteristics of Japanese women, with which I can't agree more. These are so delicate that I assume not even all modern Japanese actresses are eligible for the roles in Geisha, let alone the two Chinese and one Malaysian actress who grew up in different cultures and probably did not know Japanese culture that much.<br /><br />Geisha is a good shot for arousing the curiosity of American audiences. But it would be an insult for the movie itself and for art alike if the movie wins the Oscar for best costume, best director or best picture.
| 0
|
Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.<br /><br />The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies
for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.<br /><br />Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P
| 0
|
David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.<br /><br />So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.<br /><br />This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.<br /><br />Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated.
| 0
|
OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of "less is more." The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you.
| 0
|
I remember when I first saw this movie, I was in sixth grade when it happened. Before I saw this, i had listened to the original Broadway recording of it, and I really loved it! But when I saw this, I was like, what the heck?! This movie is missing a lot of the songs from the musical for crying out loud! Who decided to do all of that?!<br /><br />I really am a very huge fan of Gene Kelly, but this movie is probably the worst of a musical that he ever did! The movie looked more like a Hollywood set than the beautiful Highlands of Scotland. And who the heck decided to cut all of Meg's songs out of the movie?! <br /><br />I am willing to bet that when they saw this movie, Lerner and Lowe were probably wondering: "Who in the world decided to do this to our masterpiece?" Well they had a right to say that if they did, they were probably mad at the fact that Hollywood turned their great musical into this rather blank movie.<br /><br />Song and acting wise Mr. Kelly, you passed the audition with flying colors, but you are in a movie that is missing a lot of the text.<br /><br />So in short, if you want a good movie based on a musical by Frederick Lowe and Alan Jay Lerner, this one isn't it! <br /><br />3/10
| 0
|
When I first picked this film up I was intrigued at the basic idea and eager to see what would happen. I'm a fan of animation and love it when it's successfully merged with live action footage. However, the animation in this film was about all I enjoyed. Although it must be said that the actors' performances were excellent. The visual look - including the animation - gave a wonderfully unnerving air to the piece. However this was quality of unease was lost amongst the overblown imagery, both visual and in the script, that you were practically hammered over the head with. Most annoying about this was the relative lack of importance to the plot. It seemed that the plot was shoe horned in at irregular intervals giving a stuttering effect that detracted massively from the flow of the piece. The voice overs from Felisberto - especially the one at the end - very much felt like a desperate attempt to fill in gaping holes in the plot which had been ignored in favour of side issues such as the whole ant thing (and even that wasn't properly addressed). I'm afraid the whole piece came across as, at best, a 'reasonable first attempt', by a teenager who has spent far too much time reading DH Lawrence. Not what you expect from seasoned film makers at all.
| 0
|
I vaguely remember Ben from my Sci-Fi fandom days of the '60s, I was doing several interviews & bios of obscure actors/actresses, most notably Ben, actress Fay Spain, and Jody Fair, who played Angela in 1961's The Young Savages. Ben was one of the people at a low-key Sci-Fi con in Chicago, about 1970, when I had a nice chat with him and his "career" and life. All these were published in some now-long-forgotten fanzine of the day. Wish I still had copies of those interviews, but time marches on, and any of those people surely wouldn't' remember me at all so many years later. Ben was a really nice fellow, ekeing out a living (The cons of those days didn't even pay their guest, unless, of course they were big-name stars, and even then the pay was a couple hundred dollars, at most! Good to know Ben's still alive & kicking! How 'bout a remake of Creature, but 50 years older! Ugly then, uglier now!
| 0
|
For that matter one of the worst FILMS ever made. Plot goes as follows. Slog through jungle looking areas for 10 minutes or so. Have Bo go somewhere and strip. Slog through the jungle some more. Give Bo another excuse to strip. Back to the jungle. Oh look! There's a Tarzan looking guy! Strip, Bo - strip. Kill the safari people. Tarzan looking guy has a fight scene. Saves Bo. Bo strips. Run credits. Run credits, run.
| 0
|
I just saw "If
" I can remember the advertisements for the movie from 1968, so I was interested in finally seeing it. It may be the perspective of an American who never went to a British public school and misses some of the social references, but I thought the movie was awful. For one thing, as others have pointed out, it takes almost the entire movie for the much ballyhooed-at-the-time revolt to break out. For another, whether the last scene is real or imagined, what occurs isn't a revolt, but a shooting rampage. There's quite a difference.<br /><br />I know it may be bad form to judge a movie on subsequent events, but one cannot avoid doing it here. One person wrote a message board posting asking us not to compare the end of movie to the incidents at Columbine High School and Virginia Tech. But if there's a scintilla of difference between Klebold, Harris and Cho on the one hand and Travis (Malcom McDowell) on the other, I simply can't see it. All four of them were under the delusion that their gunfire is going to purify a f___-ed up world that they arrogantly take no responsibility for.<br /><br />Which brings me to: why the hell are Travis and his chums even in a school they so despise? They are adults, or close to it. They're not in a military prison, like the inmates in "The Hill," a much better British film from about the same time. No one is forcing them to go to College and take beatings from the the whips, except maybe ambitious parents in need of a wake-up about the nature of their sons. I had the opportunity in college to join a frat, except I couldn't stand to be given silly, cruel orders by delinquents claiming to be my prospective "brothers." I took the consequences of not having the "in" with the Establishment that frats provide, and I can't say I regretted it.<br /><br />If Travis fancies himself the second coming of Lenin (whose unbearded picture hangs prominently in his room) he's free to go out and organize a fitter's union or work for Michael Foot in the next election. If he wants to be Jack Kerouac, then get on the road and start writing. What possible benefit is he giving the world in joyriding a motorcycle and getting drunk in his room?<br /><br />Sometimes reviewers have to be like the person who responded to the scene in "Last Tango In Paris" where Brando mopes about having had to go on a date with cow manure on his shoes. In the real world, the person said, a listener would say "Why didn't you scrape it off? Change your shoes?" --Don't allow fictional characters to lay a self-pity trip on you because you don't dare point out an common-sense alternative course of action for them. So it is here.
| 0
|
The thing that really gets me about this movie (that is, the thing about this movie that makes me physically ill) is that someone actually paid to have it made. There is absolutely no purpose for the existence of this movie. It is not frightening, it is not thought provoking, it is not entertaining, it is not good. It is a sleeping pill made of cyanide. The DVD case compares it to Blair Witch, Evil Dead, and a few other decent movies, making the filmmaker's desperation glaringly obvious. It is nothing like any other movie ever made; it is far, far worse. The claims of an "extremely shocking ending you will never forget" are the equivalent of one ton of stinking horse droppings. Please do not ever waste your time watching this piece of trash, because it may make you sterile. The man who wrote this movie should be wiped off the Writer's Guild membership list, and never allowed to film anything again. Because if he thought THIS was a movie worth making, he probably does not have much of anything to offer in the future. Zero stars. May Grod have mercy on the soul of anyone unfortunate enough to see this. I am going to go vomit now.
| 0
|
America. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic. <br /><br />This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa. <br /><br />Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality. <br /><br />The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he "had a bad father". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband. <br /><br />In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the clichéd sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again. <br /><br />Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals.
| 0
|
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel.
| 0
|
Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.<br /><br />*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.<br /><br />Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.<br /><br />Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again.
| 0
|
OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.<br /><br />Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.<br /><br />Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.<br /><br />I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking clichés. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.<br /><br />No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and ½ out of *****
| 0
|
The plot is plausible but banal, i.e., beautiful and neglected wife of wealthy and powerful man has a fling with a psychotic hunk, then tries to cover it up as the psycho stalks and blackmails her. But, what develops from there is stupefyingly illogical. Despite the resources that are available to the usual couple who has money and influence, our privileged hero and heroine appear to have only one domestic, their attorney and local police (who say they can do nothing) at their disposal while they grapple with suspense and terror. They have no private security staff (only a fancy security system that they mishandle), household or grounds staff, chauffeurs, etc. Not even, apparently, the funds to hire private round-the-clock nurses to care for the hero when he suffers life-threatening injuries, leaving man and wife alone and vulnerable in their mansion. Our heroine is portrayed as having the brains of a doorknob and our hero, a tycoon, behaves in the most unlikely and irrational manner. The production is an insult to viewers who wasted their time with this drivel and a crime for having wasted the talents of veteran actors Oliva Hussey and Don Murray (what were they thinking?). And, shame on Lifetime TV for insulting the intelligence of its audience for this insipid offering.
| 0
|
Almost a two-person play, and as such the dialog and the performances of the leads will be important. Neither are particularly good. This might have been stronger, in fact, if it had first been crafted as a two-person play, and then worked into a film.<br /><br />Anyway, a twitchy vampire who seems slightly autistic becomes infatuated with a stripper (as a result of watching too much porn in his crappy home). He wants to have her tell him about the daylight. He would have been better off finding someone with a day job, or someone who excels at painting a picture with words like a poet, but then they might not have a hot bod.<br /><br />After he gets her to do whatever he wants (and he's not terribly good at it), he intends to feed on her at 6 AM, at which point the sun rises. Much is made of that deadline, despite the fact that he also says that he can go without feeding, it will just make him hungrier. Additionally, he claims he can't let the stripper go, since she knows about him, but he lets a number of other people go who learn what he is. There are a lot of inconsistencies.<br /><br />Why this vampire chooses to live in a house so poorly boarded up that light from streetlamps and neighboring buildings pours in as if it were daytime, I'm not sure. With all the time in the world, you'd think he'd have done a better job, or fixed the place up a bit. He's clearly not a wealthy vampire.<br /><br />This is supposedly a remake, and I'm curious to see the original version of this, Dance of the Damned. Although, that was directed by Katt Shea, and the other films she directed for Corman (Stripped to Kill, StK II) were pretty bad.
| 0
|
This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.
| 0
|
Live Feed is set in some unnamed Chinese/Japanese Asian district somewhere as five American friends, Sarah (Ashley Schappert), Emily (Taayla Markell), Linda (Caroline Chojnacki), Mike (Lee Tichon) & Darren (Rob Scattergood) are enjoying a night on the town & taking in the sights. After a scuffle in a bar with a Japanese Triad boss (Stephen Chang) they decide to check out a porno theatre, as you would. Inside they are separated & quickly find out that the place belongs to the Triad boss who uses it to torture & kill people for reasons which aren't made clear. Can local boy Miles (Kevan Ohtsji) save them?<br /><br />This Canadian production was co-written, produced & directed by Ryan Nicholson who also gets a prosthetic effects designer credit as well, one has to say that Live Feed is another pretty poor low budget shot on a camcorder type horror film that seems to exist only to cash in on the notoriety & success of Hostel (2005) & the mini craze for 'torture porn' as it's become known. According the IMDb's 'Trivia' section for Live Feed writer & director Nicholson wrote it after hearing about certain activities taking place in live sex theatres, for my money I reckon he wrote it after watching Hostel! The script is pretty poor, there is no basic reason given as to why this porno theatre has a big fat ugly freak dressed in bondage gear lurking around torturing & killing people, none. Was it for the Triads? Was it for his pleasure? Was it to make snuff films to sell? Some sort of explanation would have been nice. Also why did he turn on the Triad boss at the end? If your looking for a film with a coherent story then forget about Live Feed. It seemed to me to be some sort of uneasy misjudged mix of sex, S&M, horror, torture, gore & action films which doesn't come off. I mean just setting a horror film in a porn theatre isn't automatically going to make your film any good, there still needs to be a decent script & story, right? The character's were fairly poor clichés & some of their actions & motivations were more than a little bit questionable. It moves along at a reasonable pace, it's fairly sleazy mixing gore, sex & nudity but it does look cheap which lessens the effect.<br /><br />Director Nicholson doesn't do anything special here, the editing is choppy & annoying, he seems to think lighting almost every scene with neon lights is a good idea & the film has a cheap look about it. Available in both 'R' & 'Unrated' versions I saw the shorter cut 'R' version which really isn't that gory but I am prepared to give the benefit of the doubt to the 'Unrated' version & say that it might be much, much gorier but I can't say for sure. There's a fair amount of nudity too if that's your thing. I wouldn't say there's much of an atmosphere or many scares here because there isn't & aren't respectively although it does have a sleazy tone in general which is something it has going for it I suppose.<br /><br />Technically Live Feed isn't terribly impressive, the blood looks a little too watery for my liking & entire scenes bathed in annoying neon lights sometimes makes it hard to tell whats happening, it to often looks like it was shot on a hand-held camcorder & the choppy editing at least on the 'R' rated version is at times an annoying mess. Shot on location in an actual porn theatre somewhere in Vancouver in Canada. The acting is poor, sometimes I couldn't tell if the actresses in this were supposed to be crying or laughing...<br /><br />Live Feed is not a film I would recommend anyone to rush out & buy or rent, I didn't think much of it with it's very weak predictable storyline lacking exposition & which goes nowhere, poor acting & less than impressive gore (at least in the 'R' rated cut anyway). Watch either Hostel films again or instead as they are superior.
| 0
|
I'm glad some people liked this, but I hated this film. It had a very good idea for a story line, but that's where it ended. It was badly written, badly acted and badly made.<br /><br /> It had some interesting plot points, but they were just skipped over too fast, the writers needed to realize what to keep in and expand on these bits, like lying about why she was kidnapped, and ditch the dross. Instead it was "what's going on?", 5 seconds later they tell you.<br /><br />This film had no suspense, and I was bored from start to end. I just wanted it to finish.<br /><br /> Go and rent misery, or best laid plans if you want suspense or twists that keep you guessing to the end.
| 0
|
What to say about this movie. Well it is about a bunch of good students who have some bad drugs and turn into delinquent students that sell more of the bad drugs to people. Two of those people have adverse effects as one turns into a toxic avenger type and his girlfriend throws up some creature that grows in the school's basement. That is about all there is to it and they stretch it out for 84 minutes. This movie is pretty bad and should be locked away forever. Though that is not fair, some people like Troma's movies and they can watch it if they want. Troma movies for me though, are the worst movies there are out there. I just watched this one out of morbid curiosity.
| 0
|
When a movie like "The Dukes of Hazzard" brings in over $75 million it makes some incredibly sad statements about the condition of our own society. Either we are collectively too stupid to stay away from trash like this or maybe I'm just not realizing how many people this kind of no-effort trash will appeal to.<br /><br />Hollywood has had no incentive to make good movies since if it puts out trash then people will see it anyways since there is nothing else on screen. This is that. I walked out despite getting a free movie pass. The dialogue could not be dumber. The stunts could not be more over-the-top and outrageous. Perhaps this "bigger that big" image appeals to Texans but it didn't appeal to me nor anyone else in the theater. None of the "big names" were in this career-ending flick, except for Burt Reynolds, which says all you need to hear. Jessica Simpson -- don't make me laugh.<br /><br />I wouldn't even recommend this film for video, even if you were desperate. This was all about fooling the public to make enough money after opening day to equal or do better than it cost through marketing. They did despite the public being forewarned. Stupidity abound.
| 0
|
I love the book, "Jane Eyre" and have seen many versions of it. All have their strong points and their faults. However, this was one of the worst I have seen. I didn't care about Jane or Mr. Rochester. Charlotte Gainsbourg (Jane) was almost tolerable and certainly looked the plain part, but she had no emotion in any of her lines. I couldn't imagine what Mr. Rochester saw in her. <br /><br />That brings us to Mr. Rochester. William Hurt had even less emotion than Jane, if that were possible. How two such insipid people could fall in love is a mystery, but it certainly didn't hold my attention. Perhaps the director (Zeffrelli) fell asleep during the production.<br /><br />The Timothy Dalton (too handsome for Mr. Rochester!) version is far more faithful to the book, but Ciaran Hinds plays the perfect Mr. Rochester in the 1997 A/E version (which is NOT all that true to the book).<br /><br />Trying to find something positive about this movie: Geraldine Chaplain was perfect in her role.
| 0
|
To be completely honest,I haven't seen that many western films but I've seen enough to know what a good one is.This by far the worst western on the planet today.First off there black people in the wild west? Come on! Who ever thought that this could be a cool off the wall movie that everyone would love were slightly, no no, completely retarded!Secondly in that day and age women especially black women were not prone to be carrying and or using guns.Thirdly whats with the Asian chick speaking perfect English? If the setting is western,Asia isn't where your going. Finally,the evil gay chick was too much the movie was just crap from the beginning.Now don't get me wrong I'm not racist or white either so don't get ticked after reading this but this movie,this movie is the worst presentation of black people I have ever seen!
| 0
|
A terrible film which is supposed to be an independent one. It needed some dependence on something.<br /><br />This totally miserable film deals with the interactions among Irish people. Were they trying to imitate the wonderful film "Crash?" If so, this film crashed entirely.<br /><br />There is just too much going on here culminated by a little brat running around and throwing rocks into buses and cars which obviously cause mayhem.<br /><br />The film is just too choppy to work. One woman loses her husband after 14 years to another while her younger sister is ripped off by a suitor. This causes the former sister to become a bitter vetch and walk around in clothes not worth believing. The older sister also becomes embittered but soon finds romance.<br /><br />Then, we have 3 losers who purchase masks to rob a bank. Obviously, the robbery goes awry but there doesn't seem to be any punishment for the crooks. Perhaps, the punishment should have been on the writers for failure to create a cohesive film.
| 0
|
The pakage implies that Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn are pulling off a huge bank robbery, but that's not what I got out of it! I didn't get anything! In the first half there's a new character (without introduction) in every other scene. The first half-hour is completely incomprehensible, the rest is just one long, annoying, underlit chase scene. There's always an irritating sound in the background whether it's a loud watch ticking, a blaring siren, a train whistling, or even the horrible score by Quincy Jones. There are a lot of parts that are laughably bad, too. Like, the bad guys chasing Beatty on thin ice with a CAR! Or, the police arriving at the scene roughly fifteen times. I really hated this movie!
| 0
|
Even 20+ years later, Ninja Mission stands out as the worst movie I ever managed to sit through. Scandanavian ninjas silently enter a scene, fire their obnoxiously noisy sub-machine guns with wild abandon, and then silently leave. Wow, how will we find those silent invisible assassins? Just follow the shell casings and smoke!Painfully bad dialog (or was it brilliant and just poorly translated?), not an Asian in sight in the cast, and a whopping total of 3 Asians among the stunt crew. The plot is ridiculous, the acting pretty much non-existent - then again, ninja can't act! Save yourselves - avoid watching at all costs!
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.