text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!<br /><br />Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.<br /><br />The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?<br /><br />Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.
| 0
|
Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere.
| 0
|
Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.
| 0
|
It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid.
| 0
|
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic
nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it
nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here
I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things
Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine
especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough
HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.
| 0
|
I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius.
| 0
|
I read the running man from Kings books as Bachman and I felt for the main character John and his family. This movie could have been SO much more. The trouble? It was set during the big action movie craze. I watched the movie and was in pain during the whole thing. I felt nothing for the character and less for his cause. Yes it had funny scenes (or laughable) though I think that it did not save the movie in my eyes. If you read the book you can feel the climax and the fire in the heart of John as he gets his final revenge.<br /><br />I give this movie a low number. It may not have been this low if I had not read the book.
| 0
|
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. <br /><br />So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.<br /><br />Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.
| 0
|
This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.<br /><br />It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.<br /><br />The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral.
| 0
|
In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.
| 0
|
Whale-hunters pick on the wrong freaking whale.<br /><br />A group of yahoo whale exploitists capture a female and string her up by her tail-fin. The whale's mate sees the whole thing including the moment the female's unborn baby slips out and slops onto the deck. 'Captain Nolan' (Richard Harris) could tell that the big male is really mad by the way it stared him down as if to say, "Get out of town before high-tide." <br /><br />This story of revenge has Harris' presence and Bo's beauty, but not much else. This was Bo's first 'released' film, though her first acting job was four years previous in 'And Once Upon a Love' released in 1981 as 'Fantasies' (directed by John Derek).<br /><br />P.S. Today, the date of this review (November 20), is Bo Derek's birthday. I hope Bo has a 'whale' of a good time..... get it?..... whale?..... hee-hee.
| 0
|
The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.<br /><br />Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. <br /><br />Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.<br /><br />The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.<br /><br />4 out of 10.
| 0
|
Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder.
| 0
|
I had to stop watching this film (a pseudo-intellectual product for pretentious film viewers) twenty minutes into it because it was mediocre and dull enough to inspire yawns, not to mention that I was soon near tears over the $3.99 I had wasted at Blockbuster. Joanna Pacula's acting and her awfully rendered Slavic accent are sufficiently terrible to set one to gritting one's teeth. I knew that two hours of her would be two hours too many. Both Breuer and Nietzsche are played by unremarkable actors of strikingly few talents. While we're on the topic of talent, Breuer's supercilious assistant appears to have been pulled out of a local acting troupe. She clearly has not learned her craft. In fact, she's really quite awful. All the public scenes looked staged, with the extras walking mechanically about in their Sunday best. Turning this film off was far more satisfying than turning it on. Don't rent this terrible movie. You will be sorry you spent your money.
| 0
|
Nothing will ruin a movie as much as the combination of a poor script and poor direction. This is the case with "The Mummy's Tomb."<br /><br />The script is leftover ideas from older, better Universal horror flicks like "Dracula" and "Frankenstein." The direction is trite and stale. The acting is mediocre. Even Chaney's Kharis is feeble compared to Tom Tyler's in "The Mummy's Hand," and the producers are foolish enough to add footage from Christy Cabanne's vastly better prequel and point up the weakness of their own film!<br /><br />Universal realized how bad this movie was, and essentially remade it from scratch two years later as "The Mummy's Ghost" with a much better script and better director. The result was likely the best film in their four film "Mummy" cycle, although not anywhere near as good as Karl Freund's 1932 original.<br /><br />Cabanne's footage raises this film to a 3. The "new" stuff is a 2 at best. Dick Foran and Wallace Ford were probably glad to see their characters bumped off so they wouldn't have to appear in dreck like this anymore!
| 0
|
I saw this movie at the AFI Dallas festival. Most of the audience, including my wife, enjoyed this comedy-drama, but I didn't. It stars Lucas Haas (Brick, Alpha Dog), Molly Parker (Kissed, The Five Senses, Hollywoodland) and Adam Scott (First Snow, Art School Confidential). The director is Matt Bissonnette, who's married to Molly Parker. All three actors do a fine job in this movie about 3 friends, the marriage of two of them and infidelity involving the third. It all takes place at a lake house and it looks wonderful. The film wants to treat its subject as a comedy first and then a drama, and I thought it needed to be the other way around.
| 0
|
I am not a big fan of Rajnikant in the first place, but Baba was a huge disappointment. In between an awful storyline, the action and songs were only mediocre. The storyline becomes very preachy. Instead of running for office like NTR or MGR, Rajni almost appeared to be running as Tamil Nadu's next big guru. My wife tells me that since this film came out, Rajni swore off doing any more movies!<br /><br />We were lucky initially to have bought Babu (an oldie by Sivajiganeshan) online by accident when trying to buy this one....that was a great film, which made up for having bought this dud...except it makes Baba look even worse by comparison!<br /><br />Bryan
| 0
|
I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.<br /><br />Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity. <br /><br />Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.<br /><br />This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.<br /><br />The extra star that keeps this from being "awful" goes to Price and Mancini.
| 0
|
Where to begin? How best to describe just how awful this movie is???<br /><br />Let's start with the campy hick humor. It isn't very funny. Add a bunch of musicians impersonating actors - Meat Loaf is horrible and Deborah Harry is even worse. Pity poor Art Carney, who should have known better than to do this movie.<br /><br />And then there is the plot. A roadie whose life goal is to work an Alice Cooper show meets a girl whose life goal is to be a groupie for Alice Cooper. At least they get what they want...<br /><br />And then, just when the movie should end, they can't come up with a more plausible last scene than a - well, I won't ruin it for you if you really want to see the movie.<br /><br />There are certain actors that let you know that this is going to be a "B" movie or perhaps worse. Gailard Sartain is one of them for me - and he has a more prominent role. That's a sure sign that the movie probably won't be very good. If nothing else, the movie lives up to the low expectations - even exceeds them by being worse than poor.<br /><br />Let's just say this. This is the movie against which all bad movies are compared. And none are worse than Roadie.
| 0
|
Is there a book titled "How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliché Imaginable"? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.<br /><br />And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies.
| 0
|
I like the cast pretty much however the story sort of unfolds rather slowly. Danny Glover does a good job making you wonder if he's the bad guy. Meanwhile, the other characters are just part of the story. Dennis Quaid didn't have as much room in the story as he could have had. I thought the first scene was a bit over the top grim compared to how the story unfolded. I'd watch it again though. I rated it a 5 (wish I could rate it a 5.5)
| 0
|
The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.<br /><br />We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.
| 0
|
my friend bought the movie for 5 (its is not even 1 cent worth), because they wrote it was like American pie. but we would soon find out that there is a long way from American pie to that piece of crap. it is not even a comedy, its more like a really really really bad documentary. not only the story is bad, the picture and sound also sucks to. they put in some alcohol, chicks, dwarfs and drunken teens. and the result is a disaster. if you see this movie don't buy it, rather spend your money on something else, and better. if you are gonna torture yourself, then don't invite your friend/s, unless you hate really much and you want to get rid of them.
| 0
|
Brief summary: This movie demeans everyone it touches. That means you.<br /><br />First off, let me say I'm not a purist, and this might have been funny for a few minutes. The impersonations are not bad. But overall it's just dull and excruciatingly not funny. A few simple jokes are repeated over and over again.<br /><br />It's clear that this movies only exists to squeeze the last few dollars out of the now-trademarked Laurel and Hardy. The producers cannot have any real regard for their place in film history, or their talents. This is what offended me the most.<br /><br />Of course, my daughter liked it, so I'm also a failure as a parent ;)
| 0
|
It is nice to see the likes of Oliver Stone, Brian DePalma, Al Pacino, and even Michelle Pfiefer make one monumental piece of cinematic garbage. It is nice to see people so rich and 'successful' wasting their time on one of the most forgettable, trite, and pathetic pieces of film-making of all time. This movie represents the worst of Hollywood.<br /><br />What is this? Is it based on a true story. Well, they do start with some basic news bites and facts that they read off USA today. But then the movie departs to some fantasy world and a 'cuban' refugee going to make it in the American drug subculture; kind of like Rocky on cocaine. Is it a movie about Cuba or Cubans? For the life of me I don't believe there is a single Cuban in this movie. The accents are totally fake, and scene with Antonio's mother looks like a poster for midwest American values. The whole scene looks like something out of the Dick Van Dyke show. Is this movie about Miami? It looks more like L.A. transposed in Florida. Afterall, a palm tree is a palm tree. Is this a romance novel. The relationship between Pacino and Pfeiffer is so obvious from the getgo, and there is not one shred of possibility that these two characters could ever care for each other. Is this a drug movie? Well, no issues of obsession or addiction are even mentioned. The behavior of the actors after a line of coke is nothing different than had they had a drink of water. Admittedly, the acting is terrible.<br /><br />Let's get to the rest. The music is disgusting and sounds like latin elevator music or something out of a Lawrence Welk show. I think I heard a polka? The camera work is shoddy with too much movement and far more cranes than could ever be effective. Clearly, the photography budget was excessive. The sound is bleached in a number of spots, and the dialogue seems to be carried out in a warehouse. The writing is appalling. This is one of those movies were the script writes itself. You are dragged from one trite piece of dialogue to the next, each pushing the plot like a sack of bricks.<br /><br />So I am going to ask, Is this even a movie? It could be a drama series patched together for two and a half hours. But at least a drama series has some kind of focus. Maybe it is just a bunch of poorly acted scenes taped together. Whatever it is, movie or not, it is a piece of crap.
| 0
|
In spite of sterling work by the supporting actors, and an intelligent script by Alan Plater, this film suffers from a fatal flaw - the lack of charm of the central character/actor. One of the characters describes Richard E Grant's character as "a whining little turd" and unfortunately this sums him up perfectly. There is nothing about him or his performance to make it credible that his girlfriend and upper-class publisher/friend would spend so much time and emotional effort on him. He is rude, arrogant, selfish, self-destructive and thoroughly annoying. The part called for an actor who can make you love him even when he is being a prate - a Ewan McGregor, for example.<br /><br />All of the witty satire on the class system etc was wasted, thanks to this irritating and thoroughly unlikeable performance. All I wanted to do was shake him and tell him to get over himself.
| 0
|
There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.<br /><br />The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.<br /><br />It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.<br /><br />The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.<br /><br />The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.<br /><br />The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).<br /><br />In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.<br /><br />TOTAL: 4%
| 0
|
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.
| 0
|
The screenwriter poorly attempted to re-create the "Exorcist'. But put in some blah-blah love story that makes you sick instead of keeping you engaged. There is no substance whatsoever in this entire film. It had the potential of being something special but blows it by showing a bunch of people yack about things nobody cares about. Extremely boring, I wanted to leave the theater when I saw this but the dumb movie tickets were expensive so I had to withstand the dreary torture which felt like it lasted forever. Nothing on screen connected relevance back to whatever the characters were talking about.<br /><br />They use computer graphics in here that instead of wowing me (as it intended, I hate CGI) just ruined the movie even more. Some people say this movie did horrible in the movie theaters because of how "thought-provoking" and "slow-paced-without-action-because it's an intelligent film" it was. What is so intelligent or thought provoking when the story is basically about pretty boy Heath Ledger as a priest who has a love interest and disobeys his religion? Seems like an uninspired concept. Oh and there's some mumbo jumbo about the "sin-eater" (movie was originally going to be titled "sin-eater"). Lame concept but the movie took the "sin-eater" thing too seriously, making the movie become pathetic and delusional about how dark and intelligent it was. Yeah, I know there were really sin-eaters in the medieval times but this movie just makes it sound cheesy.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie was executed right and I forget why I even bothered to see this movie. If you want horror films that actually have depth, watch Rosemary's Baby, The Tenant, Naked Blood, Society, Cannibal Holocaust, Pin, Exorcist, Omen, or any of the Romero "Dead Trilogy" films. Nonsense dialogue does not equate to intelligence people, mainstream movie fans think that though (same kind of people that think a ridiculous movie like Hulk is a cinematic masterpiece). If you want mind-numbingly boring horror, watch the Order. This movie makes church seem like a roller coaster ride.
| 0
|
Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?<br /><br />I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...<br /><br />Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it "losers in like." I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.<br /><br />Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?<br /><br />What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser.
| 0
|
Wanda Nevada is a pubescent fantasy movie using circa 1979 ideas of what constitutes illicit romance for 13 year old girls. Script, pacing, and direction are uniformly awful. Action sequences defy belief. Characters speak with the simplified diction one usually finds in films aimed at the under 10 set, but also includes multiple sexual references involving Shields' character as well as graphic deaths. <br /><br />The movie wants to be a comedy on some level but is never funny, an adventure picture but plot and action are insipid, and a children's movie but introduces pedophilia and child rape as real possibilities. It also wants to be a buddy picture, a coming of age picture, a ghost movie, an Indian spiritual movie, a travelogue, and a western. The overall affect is of massive stupidity with a nasty twist. Wanda Nevada is a complete waste of time unless you want to see a good many terrific shots of the Grand Canyon. That it manages to do just fine.
| 0
|
I am a huge Michael Madsen fan, so needless to say, i bought this movie without even renting it or anything... This movie was so horrible, i didn't even take it back to the store, i wouldn't want anyone else to be subjected to this human poison, i just threw it in the trash, never mind the money, it was worth the price to be able to throw it away. The acting wasn't that bad, it wasn't good or anything. The story was horrible, and the ending was something i despise. He was a broken man, alcoholic. his life was a bunch of junk. i thought his horse, peanuts, was an awful device to show his childhood innocence, a dog would have been much much better. i also hate religion, so this ending without a doubt angered me. Jesus heals all... i hate that i know people just like this that are huge Christians and catholics, and time will show that god doesn't heal all, or anything. It was a horrible movie, if u have the option to see it, pass, or better yet buy it, or rent it, and throw it in the garbage, and leave the coffee grounds on it in the morning
| 0
|
Well, one has to give the director credit for how gutsy he was. Gutsy would be the right term. Not only did he use a total cast of five people (no extras at ALL), but he also decided to use sub-par special effects with a confusing and boring plot, he also, and I AM NOT kidding, put a warning at the beginning of the movie that you might DIE OF FRIGHT!!! However, they do promise a FREEEEEE COOOOFFFFFFFIIIIINNNNN. To have a creepy limping gardener is always a good move. Yaaa-unique-aaawwwwnnn....<br /><br />If you watch Mystery Science Theater 3000, you might've seen this. They like to showcase horrible movies, just to let you know.<br /><br />A good gift for someone you hate.
| 0
|
From the beginning of the movie I had a feeling like its a movie about another Jason's from Friday the 13th. And It is... Dispute that the movie starts interesting. But as the times goes by its just a pointless movie about muted, supernatural, silent serial killer. I mean he goes under the guy's bed without making any sound, not seen by anyone. He was supposed to be blind after failed execution but he walks and kills people like he used to. I'm tired of it. For me it's all over the same thing.<br /><br />In another words - unreal. Too many mistakes and confusing information.<br /><br />Well scene with tide up woman looked impressive but just at first time :} For that and for intriguing intro 2 stars.
| 0
|
I have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see.
| 0
|
This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt.
| 0
|
I wholeheartedly disagree with the other viewers of this wretched film. The only reason why I didn't rate it 1 for awful was due to the great talent of Carmen Miranda. The beginning and end are the best parents due to her gifted singing and dancing.<br /><br />The problem is with the rest of the picture. Alice Faye comes off quite hollow. Don Ameche has a great singing voice but with the wretched writing material, he comes off so terribly corny.<br /><br />The plot is a real stiff here with Ameche assuming two parts as a song and dance man and a baron not happily married to Faye.<br /><br />It seems that by playing the song and dance man, Ameche's marriage gets a second change to reignite. Some silly nonsense about the baron having to clear up business and being away allows him to play both parts.<br /><br />S.Z. Sakal is given little to do here and so his comedic gifts are not given the opportunity to shine. Ditto for J. Carrol Naish who actually appears uncomfortable in his role.<br /><br />This is a chica chica boom bomb of a film.
| 0
|
I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them.
| 0
|
I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.
| 0
|
Sammy Horn (Michael Des Barres) is the head chef and owner of a famous restaurant in California. He has a lovely wife, Grace Horn (Rosanna Arquette), who is pregnant, and a beautiful son of about five years old. Sammy indeed loves his family, but like Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, he has a double life, having sex with many different women. Dr. Jane Bordeaux (Nastassja Kinski) is trying to help him. OK, it is my fault: I read the summary of the other IMDB user comments, I saw the IMDB user rating, but I really did not believe that Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski could participate in such a bad movie. I decided to check it, and actually some comments are very complacent. The storyline, the screenplay and the dialogs are so silly and laughable that even in some X-rated movies we can find more intelligent stories. The photography is so amateurish and naive that in some parts it seems to be taken through a VHS camcorder. Michael Des Barres does not have sense of ridiculous: being an old man, bald, would be acceptable in an advertisement of Viagra or grandfather of the small boy. But as an attractive man who gets and has sex with any woman, it is scary. In Wood Allen's comedy, maybe he got a chance, but in a `serious' movie, it is funny. I am trying to figure out why or how Rosanna Arquette and Nastassja Kinski accepted to participate in such awful, amateurish and trash movie. Do they need money? Lack of chances in better movies due to their ages? Are they friends of the `director' (sorry for using this word) and decided to help and promote him? I do not know whether the intention of Rosanna Arquette was to show her breasts full of silicone, but it is unacceptable that such a great actress accepts such a script. The same is applicable to the gorgeous Nastassja Kinki. She is presented fat, without make-up, without any glamour. A total lack of respect with one of the most beautiful actress in the cinema history. A fact is really intriguing me: how can a reader, without any personal interest, promote this trash, giving higher ratings or writing favorable comments about this movie? Are they friends of the `director' (again, I am using this word...) or the cast? It sounds very strange to me that a normal IMDB reader can like such a film. My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Viciado Em Sexo' (`Addicted In Sex')
| 0
|
Terrible story, poor acting and no humour at all (apart from the final joke at the end)<br /><br />Some sort of ugly angel is sent to earth to save a boy and his mum from being thrown out of their home. Supposed to be a kiddies movie, but even they will not be amused by this terrible film
| 0
|
The British 'heritage film' industry is out of control. There's nothing wrong with filming classic novels, but why must they all be filmed by talentless nobodies? This film rips the guts out of Orwell's tough novel, turning it into a harmless, fluffy romantic comedy. 'Aspidistra' may not be Orwell's best work, but no-one who reads it can forget its superb depiction of poverty. Orwell emphasises not only the cold and the hunger, but the humiliation of being poor. In the novel, London is a bleak, grey, cold, heartless city, and Comstock prays for it to be blasted away by a squadron of bombers. But this film irons out anything that might be in any way disturbing, and creates instead a jolly nostalgic trip to charming 1930s London, in which everything is lit with shafts of golden sunlight, and even the slums of Lambeth are picturesque and filled with freshly scrubbed urchins and happy prostitutes. Comstock's poems about the sharp wind sweeping across the rubbish-strewn streets seem completely out of place in this chocolate-box world. Worst of all is the script's relentless bonhomie, ancient jokes, and clunking dialogue. It's so frustrating because Richard E. Grant is the perfect person to play Gordon Comstock, and the film is packed with great actors. But it's all for nothing. This film made me so angry! Britain's literary history is something to be proud of for its richness, complexity and power. And what do we do with it? We employ bland nobodies to turn it into soft-centred, anodyne pap for people who want to feel that they are 'getting some culture' while they drink their Horlicks and quietly doze off.
| 0
|
As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.<br /><br />Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.<br /><br />On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.<br /><br />The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.<br /><br />The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.<br /><br />Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.<br /><br />I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions
I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us tetanus.<br /><br />4/10
| 0
|
OK I had higher hopes for this Carnosaur movie simply because it seemed like the sequels were getting better as they came out. I did like Carnosaur 2 better than 1. I figured well this one is newer so it must be better right? Well... I quickly learned I was wrong. I was extremely confused with the casting. They brought back Rick Dean for another spotlight character and Michael MacDonald as a police officer. Now for Rick dean lol, in Carnosaur 2 I thought he fit the role pretty well and wasn't really annoyed by him, now in Carnosaur 3 wow they placed him as an elite soldier. Now we are getting goofy here. The movie actually started out pretty good with a decent gun fight and dinos escaping out of there little freezer trucks, but as soon as Scott Valentines team showed up we had a mix of a romantic comedy with very funny performances from retarded and floppy dinosaurs.<br /><br />I'll start with the raptors first, they had there tails drag the ground, which in the second one they were up in the air which looked more common for a dinosaur that can run up to 50-60 mph. Now when they ran they wiggled back and forth and the heads didn't move at all. there hands were floppy all over the place and since they were extremely poorly shot by the director they looked stupid and out of place.<br /><br />The t-rex was extremely pathetic, they would of been better off using the one from the previous 2 movies. At least that one looked somewhat frightening. The one in this film looked like it was smiling all the time. The legs when it walked was hilarious, like it was john wayne in the old west all stiff legged and stuff. LOL another thing I noticed is that the hands did not move, they were stuck next to its body so it looked and sounded (god the sound effects were awful) retarded!!! Now if I was the director and realized that I had this to work with maybe I would of maybe tried a little bit harder to hide the fakeness fact. As for the rest of the movie, well this was the sloppiest and loudest military team I have ever seen. The weapons they used wouldn't make sense for the scenario. They even had an arm wrestling scene inside the warehouse where the carnosaurs were roaming, now I was tickled at this scene because I thought that while this stupidity was going on that the Dinos would get in there and cause some damage. Instead the director wasted about 7 minutes of our time. I would like to look at this movie as the 3 stooges of dinosaur movies. You have retarded military, retarded dinosaurs, retarded scenario and you have a wonderful 83 minutes to spend of your day watching this.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying I wouldn't watch this, bc actually i do recommend everyone see this movie that wants 83 minutes of pure entertainment. It may seem like I'm ranting but really I'm hyping this movie up to what it is. Its really a lot of fun to watch because while watching this you think to yourself, "did the director really make this seriously?"
| 0
|
but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.
| 0
|
I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.<br /><br />After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.<br /><br />And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.<br /><br />The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.<br /><br />Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.
| 0
|
Thin story concerns two small town brothers and their struggles over family honor. David Morse is the responsible, straight-laced cop and 'good' brother; Viggo Mortensen, the 'bad' boy, is a former soldier and ex-convict. As an actor (particularly in his earliest years), Sean Penn seems to have modulated his performances under the Method. Turning first-time writer and director for this arty, obtuse drama, he works his script and characters out through the same methodical process, slowing the pacing down to a crawl (ostensibly so we can catch every nuance and inflection). This approach might be fascinating if there were three-dimensional characters to care about, but photogenic Morse and Mortensen aren't really convincing as siblings. Worse, we expect more from prominently-billed veterans Charles Bronson and Sandy Dennis, who hardly get a chance to come through with anything interesting. The picture is balky with turgid sequences, a wobbly narrative and confusing editing (always slanted to point up the artistic excesses). Penn's tricks with the camera show off a talented eye, yet they are mostly an irritation. *1/2 from ****
| 0
|
In his brief 40 years on Earth, author Jack London managed to cram as much adventure and incident as would seem possible. This 90-minute film, purportedly a biography of the man's life but patently fictionalized, doesn't even scratch the surface, and remains a story very ripe for a modern-day retelling. Here, Michael O'Shea, in one of his first roles, portrays London, and his performance is both rugged and sympathetic. He is not the problem here. Nor is a young and very beautiful Susan Hayward, playing his future wife, Charmian, whose biography on London is the "basis" for this film. London's life has here been broken down into a series of episodes, which the film skips lightly through. So we have brief incidents with London as an oyster pirate, a sealer in the Bering Sea, a gold prospector in the Yukon and a correspondent during the Russo-Japanese War...colorful events, for sure, but hardly given anything like in-depth treatment. And Alfred Santell's direction (he also directed one of Susan's first films, "Our Leading Citizen," in 1939) is lackadaisical at best. Making things rougher here is a very poor-quality DVD, with a crummy-looking print source and hissy sound. Perhaps the best thing about this movie rental, for me, was one of the DVD's extras: a catalog of all the Alpha Video films, featuring hundreds and hundreds of full-color movie posters. Let's just hope that these films are in better shape than "Jack London"!
| 0
|
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.
| 0
|
This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! <br /><br />Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".<br /><br />Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame.
| 0
|
Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. <br /><br />Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.<br /><br />Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying "Back Story" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.<br /><br />The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.<br /><br />Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.<br /><br />The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.<br /><br />The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed "is not a nice person"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.<br /><br />Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.<br /><br />In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a "theatrical release" version and a "restored" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the "restored" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
| 0
|
Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.<br /><br />The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.<br /><br />Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.<br /><br />But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.<br /><br />The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.<br /><br />The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.<br /><br />3/10
| 0
|
My roommates & I nearly shorted out our TV from the numerous spit-takes we did while watching this hilarious piece of 1970s self important pseudo-zen dreck. I'd read about this campfest for ages and scanned my local late night TV listings for YEARS in search of this elusive turd. Several years ago our local ABC affiliate was known for showing cool flicks for its late night weekend flick (ie "Frogs", "Night of the Lepus", etc). Then one day it happened: at 1:40am on a Saturday night (over 5 years ago) there it was! We had over 15 folks over and the flick did NOT disappoint!<br /><br />See! Andy Griffith as the silliest & most unthreatening bad guy since Jaye Davidson in "Stargate"!<br /><br />See! William Shatner sport a variety of things atop his head that only faintly resemble human hair (or anything organic for that matter).<br /><br />Hear! jaw droppingly inane 1970s psychobabble that makes "Chicken Soup For The Soul" sound like BF Skinner<br /><br />Feel! Content that any decade was better than the 70s.<br /><br />For those still reading...the plot surrounds a bunch of middle class mid level a--holes who decide to suck up to their s---head boss (Griffith) by joining him on a cross dessert race that spans California & Mexico. They all wear leather jackets, looking more Christopher Street than anything else. Along the way they stop at a Cantina, get drunk, smoke joints (the sight Robert "Mike Brady" Reed smoke a joint is an image you won't soon forget), start a fight, attempt rape, and just act like a bunch of suburban middle class jack offs. Although I have an excellent copy that I taped off TV I WISH this one would be released on video so the whole world could enjoy its half baked goofiness.
| 0
|
An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.<br /><br />First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. <br /><br />Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. <br /><br />Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.<br /><br />What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.
| 0
|
Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)
| 0
|
When I read MOST of the other comments, I felt they were way too glowing for this movie. I found it had completely lost the spark found in the earlier Zatoichi movies and just goes to prove that after a long absence from the screen, it's often best to just let things be. I completely agreed with the Star Trek analogy from another reviewer who compared the FIRST Star Trek movie to the original series---millions of excited fans were waiting and waiting and waiting for the return of the show and were forced to watch a bland and sterile approximation of the original.<br /><br />The plot is at times incomprehensible, it is terribly gory (though the recent NEW Zatoichi by Beat Takeshi is much bloodier) and lacks the heart of the originals. I didn't mind the blood at all, but some may be turned off by it (particularly the scenes with the severed nose and the severed heads). In addition, time has not been good to Ichi--he seems a broken and sad man in this film (much, much more than usual)--and that's something fans of the series may not really want to see.<br /><br />This was a very sorry return for Zatoichi. Unless you are like me and want to see EVERY Zatoichi film, this one is very skipable. See one of the earlier versions or the 2003 ALL-NEW version.
| 0
|
Truly terrible, pretentious, endless film. Director Bellocchio seems to be infatuated with the pretty face and figure of his actress Detmers - and who can blame him? But maybe, just maybe, he should have focused his attention a little more on making a good, engaging film. I hate it when a sex film poses as an "art film" just to become more "respectable". The frequent, occasionally hot sex scenes are the only reason for this movie's existence. Whether or not they are worth sitting through the rest of the picture is strictly a matter of taste. (*)
| 0
|
this movie was a horrible excuse for...a movie. first of all, the casting could have been better; Katelyn the main character looked nothing like her TV mom. <br /><br />also, the plot was pathedic. it was extremely cliché and predictable. the ending was very disappointing and cheesy. (but thats all i'll say about that). <br /><br />the nail in the bag though, was a scene when Katelyn (jordan hinson) was supposed to be crying, but the girl couldn't cry on command! there were no tears streaming down her face, just a few unbelievable sobs. she is not a dynamic actress at all. she gave the same fake little laugh identical to that of hillary duff on lizzie Maguire (sp?). thats when the movie went from not-so-good, to just plain bad. it really looked like she was acting. <br /><br />in a nutshell: this movie was really bad! it was kind of a mix of every cliché kid movie from the 1990's that everyone's sick of--only worse!<br /><br />i give it an 'F', because it was just so darn hard to sit through (b/t/w, i was babysitting when i saw it). <br /><br />however, you may like it if your 9 or under. ;)
| 0
|
Roy Rogers and company try to bring "Sintown" back to life - it's a ghost town which may go boom if silver mining is successful. Andy Devine (as "Cookie") slapsticks around. Jane Frazee (as Carol) loses a piece of her bitches to Mr. Rogers' sharp leer. Foy Willing and the Riders of the Purple Sage stand-in (or, is that sing-in?) for the A.W.O.L. Bob Nolan and the Sons of the Pioneers. James Finlayson (from the Laurel and Hardy films) adds to the "slapstick" look of "Grand Canyon Trail". A loose floor board delivers the winning comedy performance. Mr. Devine's mule kicks its heels. There are energetic human performances, too - but, the material isn't Grand. <br /><br />** Grand Canyon Trail (1948) William Witney ~ Roy Rogers, Jane Frazee, Andy Devine
| 0
|
Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.
| 0
|
Rounding out the 1929-30 all-talkie "Our Gang" release schedule, "A Tough Winter" features two storylines. First, Wheezer and Mary Ann, home alone on a wintry day, decide to make some taffy. Little Wheezer relays the directions to Mary Ann from a radio cooking show. The problem: Wheezer relays information from different shows and Mary Ann ends up putting soap in the mix! Funny moments occur when the rest of the Gang shows up to pull the taffy - and end up getting it all over the house!<br /><br />The second storyline deals with Stepin Fetchit, a neighbor/handyman of the Gang, and his interactions with the Gang.<br /><br />"A Tough Winter," to my knowledge, has never been shown on television, although it is available on home video. The reason for this is the Stepin Fetchit characterization which shows a shifty, sly, and slow-moving character. "Our Gang" producer Hal Roach called Fetchit a "skilled comic" and used this "Our Gang" entry as a pilot for a Fetchit comedy series that never saw the light of day. Understandably, Fetchit's characterization is offensive to many people today, which explains why the film has been shelved.<br /><br />Although there are some funny moments both with Fetchit and the taffy, "A Tough Winter" is a plodding and meandering effort. If one positive came out of this film, it was that the Hal Roach Studios grew confident and experienced in making talkies. The sound in the film is good, and some of the sound effects used are very funny. For this reason, this film in part paved the way for the excellent 1930-31 "Our Gang" films.<br /><br />3 out of 10.
| 0
|
I guess I only have myself to blame for the gigantic disillusion that is "Entrails of a Virgin". You already know not to expect a cinematic masterpiece when you see a juicy and proudly promoted title like this and the first impression only gets extra confirmed when noticing the film is a mid-80's production from Japan. Now, there are quite a lot of demented and sick filmmakers active in Japan, but Kazuo Komizu surpasses them all with his thoroughly depraved and sickening trilogy revolving on nothing but aggressive sex and the sadistic abuse of young girls. Not even attempting to tell a story, "Entrails of a Virgin" simply presents a hodgepodge of UN-arousing semi-pornographic sex and truly poor gore-effects that wouldn't even please the most undemanding fan of cheesy 80's horror. Images of a bunch of photographers and their fashion models are inexplicably intercut with scenes of a filthy pervert having crude sex with a seemly under-aged girl. He dumps her not even a minute after climaxing (typical) and she begs him to stay, even if she has to share him with other women. I don't get it. Is this supposed to represent a general male fantasy? Because it's really clichéd and wrongful. Anyways, back to the bunch of horny photographers and docile models. Surprised by upcoming fog on their way home, the group entrenches themselves in an abandoned country house where they have more appalling sex and eventually fall victim to a ridiculous sex-demon who kills them all. The acting performances are amateurish, the dialogs inane and primitive and Komizu's direction is weak and uninspired. I can tolerate all that, including the woman-unfriendly portrayal of sex, but I came too close to turning the film off during the indescribably mean-spirited wrestling sequence. One of the males brutally hits, kicks and throws around one of the girls and calls her a filthy whore until she literally pees her panties and cries with agony. This sequence is, in my humble opinion, the absolute low-point of Asian exploitation cinema. One to avoid and maybe even boycott.
| 0
|
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.
| 0
|
ALMOST GOLDEN: THE JESSICA SAVITCH STORY<br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Bland, soap-opera dramatisation of the rise and fall of America's first female TV news anchor. With a tighter script and direction - and a better cast - this might have passed muster, but the flimsy story really wasn't worth the effort. A good documentary on the subject might have been the best way to go. Typically strong production values in the TV movie conveyor-belt manner, but it's all as superficial as old fluff, and just as engaging.
| 0
|
This movie is horrible! It rivals "Ishtar" in the number of embarrassingly bad moments. I would have rated it lower than a 3, save for a couple of funny lines; but, overall, this film was crap! It looked like they made it over a weekend at some bankrupt resort somewhere. Joe Roth should join Elaine May on the directing sidelines forever!
| 0
|
This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.<br /><br />If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.<br /><br />Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.<br /><br />It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.
| 0
|
What an insult to the SA film industry! I have seen better SA films. The comments I read about Hijack Stories,by saying it is worthy of a ten out of ten is quite scary. A movie's rating should not depend on.., "OH, A MOVIE FROM A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. LETS BOOST THEIR INDUSTRY BY SAYING NICE THINGS ABOUT THEIR WORK, EVEN THOUGH IT IS BAD." We have the expertise to make good movies. Don't judge the film industry on what people say how great they think Hijack Stories is. We can tell great stories such as Cry the beloved Country and Shaka Zulu. Cry the beloved Country I'll give 9 out of 10. Great directing by Darryl, great acting by two great elderly actors, irrespective from where they are. Hijack Stories.., I'll give 1 out of 10. It could only be people involved in the project who would give it high scores. I would've done the same if it was my movie.
| 0
|
Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was! <br /><br />The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.<br /><br />No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.
| 0
|
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...<br /><br />Another computer generated mutant croc on the prowl for human lunchmeat, let loose by another one of those facilities conducting mad science. Gereco Biotech company is fooling around with growth hormone research, accidentally releasing a baby crocodile which is evolving at an accelerating rate.<br /><br />B-movie cast add a deal of fun to this run of the mill "genetic mistake monster movie". Costas Mandylor evokes Mick Dundee, Aussie accent, hat, big ass knife, the works, as a croc specialist hired by Gereco executive Joanna Pacula(..wasted in the stereotypical role of corrupt administrative executive who denies any involvement with the gigantic beast her facility let free on innocent people). Charles Napier is the local sheriff whose town is in danger and Jane Longenecker is his hot daughter, who works at the animal shelter. Soap opera star Matthew Borlenghi is Longenecker's love interest, a local artist who welds sculptures(..his brother is a victim of the croc). Of course, this skill will come in mighty handy when our heroes set up a created trap for the croc, hoping to poison it with carbon monoxide.<br /><br />The croc itself is never the least bit convincing as it rampages through a reserve looking for food, the special effects of a low grade variety. In regards to Roger Corman productions dealing with renegade dino-monsters, I stick with Carnosaur. The monster here is essentially a crocodile standing on it's hind legs, often upright as it pursues potential victims. I felt Mandylor and the filmmakers were spoofing Crocodile Dundee with his croc hunter, and this imitation might amuse where the monster itself fails. Borlenghi and Longenecker actually have pretty good chemistry together on screen. As expected, Pacula gets her commuppance in hilarious fashion(..gulp).
| 0
|
This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.
| 0
|
There is something kind of sad about seeing someone who is so good at doing something try to do something very different ... and end up being mediocre. I was thinking about Jordan playing baseball, but the same applies to Steve Martin.<br /><br />This movie is reasonably well acted and directed, but the script is a stinker. Martin did a great job adapting a classic story into a comedy in "Roxanne", but this effort to bring a Victorian drama to the contemporary scene smacks straight into a wall of implausibility. If you want to see an old story updated with some style, best to rent "Great Expectations".
| 0
|
About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true.
| 0
|
In the first one it was mainly giant rats, but there were some wasps and a giant chicken too. This one, however, is just giant rats period, well giant rats and one really growing little boy. This one is about this growing boy and a scientist that is trying to help him so he accidentally creates giant killer rats...you know how it is. This movie has some kills and its moments, but I find it to be on par with the original, I just prefer some variety in my giant creature movies. Well, that is not true...I actually like "Empire of the Ants", maybe I just do not care for giant rodents. All in all a rather drab movie though it does have one rather odd turn of events in this one dream sequence that is truly bizarre. I just can't recommend this one.
| 0
|
There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.<br /><br />The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.<br /><br />James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.<br /><br />The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
| 0
|
Despite being a sequel to the more potent original, this is more of a comical remake of Friday THE 13TH concerning the further antics of psychopathic Angela, killing more nubile teens for their "immorality" at a camp.<br /><br />Pamela Springsteen (sister of Bruce) looks great. There are some pretty darn funny sex scenes with some pretty darn attractive girls, but the movie's so (unintentionally) comedic rather than suspenseful, it's a stinker.<br /><br />* out of ****.<br /><br />MPAA: Rated R for graphic violence and gore, nudity, and for some sexuality, language, and drug use.
| 0
|
If you really enjoyed the 2002 Resident Evil movie, then you should just see it instead of waisting 2 hours you'll never get back. I can not believe that no one has commented that this movie is just a cheap knock off of RE. First, a "special" commando force is the unique defense for a facility with a computer matrix that has an AI and holographic projection. And this "Hive" rip-off has a series of traps that inevitably kill off one member of the squad at a time. There's even a chess reference in the code names, which was in the dialog of RE. Despite the fact that there are no zombies, the "Rook", the movie's nemesis, is some sort of bio-creature, very pail in color suggesting necrotic tissue, with a lot of cyborg components just like a super mutant of RE. So, a wag-of-the-finger to Mr. Richard Taylor for claiming any credit for this story.<br /><br />They are not the same movie obviously, but the writer got the idea watching Resident Evil I think.
| 0
|
I will be short...This film is an embarrassment to everyone except its cinematographer. The very fact that it is a critique of the sex tourism industry seems valid until we are "treated" to a lingering dance scene. The plot is ridiculous no one except the most ardent fan of BAD horror will get anything out of it. And for the love of God please stop saying this film is a tale of innocence lost or even of female empowerment because it is quite clearly not (childish fumbling lesbians, what the hell?). this was by far the worst film at the Edinburgh festival (that i saw anyway), someone even collapsed halfway through the film probably because they couldn't take any more of it. this may seem like an overly critical rant but i genuinely cannot find a redeeming feature of this film except for perhaps if you take it as pure comedy. In short this film is best watched on a cocktail of class A drugs.
| 0
|
or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.<br /><br />or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it "wishi-washi"), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.<br /><br />It simply doesn't work.<br /><br />The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.<br /><br />Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.<br /><br />Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.<br /><br />That's a big difference.<br /><br />This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.<br /><br />We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.<br /><br />They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.<br /><br />Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...<br /><br />Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.<br /><br />This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.<br /><br />It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.<br /><br />The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting "I spend a night with superman". Warner Brothers, that's too much.<br /><br />Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.<br /><br />Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.<br /><br />The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.<br /><br />Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.<br /><br />For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.<br /><br />I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.<br /><br />Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.<br /><br />Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.)
| 0
|
I don't know about you, but what I love about Tom and Jerry cartoons is the (often violent) interaction between the two characters. Mouse In Manhattan sees Jerry leaving Tom behind to have an adventure in New York, and as far as I am concerned, this one definitely suffers from a lack of cat!<br /><br />As magical as Jerry's exploration of the 'Big Apple' might be for the other T&J fans who have commented here on IMDb, I couldn't wait for this self-indulgent rubbish to end, so I could watch the next cartoon on my DVD.<br /><br />In fact, the only part of the whole episode that I genuinely enjoyed was when Jerry almost 'buys the farm', hanging precariously off the end of a broken candle, hundreds of feet above a busy road.
| 0
|
Vipul Shah has done some really impressive work as a filmmaker in the past. 'Waqt - The Race Against Time' and 'Namaste London' were entertaining and interesting to watch. 'Singh Is Kinng' was fun, which he produced. His latest outing as a filmmaker 'London Dreams' comes up as his careers weakest fare.<br /><br />'London Dreams' has a mediocre storyline, it's about how success turns friendship into hatred. Agreed, it has the potential but when you watch 'London Dreams' you wonder what's happening? This film has maybe the worst climax in recent times. Vipul Shah the writer puts Vipul Shah the director down. <br /><br />The first hour is boring, The second hour is better; but again the climax is horrendous. How can anyone forgive a person who decided to destroy you? I won't. Ajay Devgn suddenly decides to go to India and ask forgiveness to his diaper buddy, thanks to his uncle Om Puri. When he reaches India, rather than slapping or abusing him Salman welcomes him with band baja and says he was the reason behind the entire fiasco? Was Vipul Shah's intension to show Salman's character as a GOD? If yes, than you've failed completely. The only question I want to ask Vipul Shah is that, would you welcome a person who destroyed you with such a great reception? Write what you feel, don't fool us {the audience}, we are sensible enough to understand what's good or not. <br /><br />This is a musical but the music by Shankar-Eshaan-Loy is terrible. Not a single song stays in your mind. <br /><br />Salman is superb though. He carries the film on his shoulders and does really, really well in the emotional scenes. But again his character is shown as a GOD, which makes him look like a retard in the end. Ajay is equally good, but Salman has over-shadowed him completely. Asin is wasted, and what is a great talent like Om Puri doing in this film? Rannvijay hams, though Aditya Roy Kapoor excels. Brinda Parekh is alright as the vamp.<br /><br />On the whole, this dream remains a dream!
| 0
|
I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.<br /><br />The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.<br /><br />As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.<br /><br />Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid.
| 0
|
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)
| 0
|
I missed this movie in the cinema but had some idea in the back of my head that it was worth a look, so when I saw it on the shelves in DVD I thought "time to watch it". Big mistake!<br /><br />A long list of stars cannot save this turkey, surely one of the worst movies ever. An incomprehensible plot is poorly delivered and poorly presented. Perhaps it would have made more sense if I'd read Robbins' novel but unless the film is completely different to the novel, and with Robbins assisting in the screenplay I doubt it, the novel would have to be an excruciating read as well.<br /><br />I hope the actors were well paid as they looked embarrassed to be in this waste of celluloid and more lately DVD blanks, take for example Pat Morita. Even Thurman has the grace to look uncomfortable at times.<br /><br />Save yourself around 98 minutes of your life for something more worthwhile, like trimming your toenails or sorting out your sock drawer. Even when you see it in the "under $5" throw-away bin at your local store, resist the urge!
| 0
|
There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.<br /><br />It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.<br /><br />I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. "D-"
| 0
|
Yeah, well, I definitely had regrets about giving up my Saturday night watching this strange little, yet very long, movie. Apparently neither did the main character for stealing two hours of my life. Here's the epitome of the antihero in 'No Regrets.' We have this jerk, so messed up, so wandering, so selfish, aimless and unlikable that it was extremely hard to get past the attraction a highly favored businessman's up-and-coming son, Jaemin, unless it was just that: physical attraction. He claims otherwise, that it's love. But after watching this, it's like loving Charles Manson because you dig the beard. (Alright, he's not that bad, but still no real redeemable characteristics.) I could never get past the reason Jaemin endless stalks Sumin. It was never shown, just told, that Jaemin loves Sumin. Perhaps it's a culture thing that flew over my head: crazy/stalking = mad love over in Seoul. It has to be, because a little more than half the movie is one stalking the other and the last part is stalking back and forth to the point I thought this was turning into a screwball comedy. I was waiting for a tiger named "baby" to make an appearance. Okay, so Sumin works two jobs while going to school, so far so good on someone trying to better themselves. But after his first taste of his stalker's attraction, he gives up his day job for some kind of prostitution ring. What? OK, well, as previously mentioned, the obsession doesn't stop due to the job/career change and if you throw in a bunch of other very angry characters you get one messed up movie where unbelievable occurrences just seem to happen without buildup. Basic movie, not 100% terrible, but you can do better with foreign gay-themed movies.
| 0
|
This was the worst movie I have ever seen Billy Zane in. I understand that this movie was mainly to showcase the new comers, who did pretty good for newbies, but over all, the movie was not believable.<br /><br />With all of the gunfire, you would think the police would have intervened. Even the coin being a bug on Sean was stupid. The way Sean suddenly realizes the coin is the bug, was not realistic.<br /><br />Looks like this movie was slapped together fast. Poor job. Get a better writer.<br /><br />The count down to the end was not in sync with anything. It took longer to fight. And what a coincidence that each time Billy was going to blast Sean, he'd be out of bullets. Once, I can believe, but not twice. <br /><br />Actually, Billy's character was goofy. It was so stupid when Sean punches him out at the end. It was like a comedy. Bad! Bad! Bad!
| 0
|
I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer.
| 0
|
Think of a no-budget version of China Syndrome being directed by a film student who idolizes John Woo and you'll get 'Power Play.' The idea was good, but the execution, acting, and dialog absolutely killed it, not to mention ridiculous amounts of violence and disaster sequences that was used to compensate for lack of substance and development of the more interesting parts of the movie.<br /><br />This is the story of a reporter investigating the disappearance of three members of a guerrilla activist group who mysteriously went missing after they broke into the offices of a power plant that is suspected to be causing a frenzy of earthquake. The rather cavalier reporter, going up against what should've been a more ruthless bunch of company execs, is chased around town (along with anyone he speaks to) in order to "clean" whatever conclusive evidence might remain of the plant's faults.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is no real sense of emergency because the characters interact with much hesitancy, coupled with idiotic dialog and a lot of horrible acting. Not to mention, the viewer, who may only be attracted to the movie for it's action genre appeal, is forced to endure a mounting body count and ridiculous amounts of violent shoot em-ups plus earthquake disaster scenes. All of the focus was put in the wrong place to apologetically compensate for the lack of direction and more interesting sequence of events that should've propelled the story. It might've been much better had the filmmakers focused more on a thriller, and paid greater attention to developing the corruption aspects of this story. Creepy villains, a naive reporter, and those who attempt to alert the reporter of the wrong-doing afoot. It is formulaic, but at least it would've been entertaining.
| 0
|
I like end-of-days movies. I like B-movies. I was hoping I would like this movie.<br /><br />I could ignore the poor effects, the often atrocious music, the cringe-inducing lines. I could ignore the unexplained events, and the fact that the movie constantly relies on deus ex machina is excusable, given the subject matter. I could ignore the fact that the people who fight hunger and try to reach world peace are the bad guys. None of these things kill the movie. What kills this movie is that it's just plain and simple boring. Nothing actually happens; almost all scenes in the movie are designed to push the movie creators' morals on the viewers, at the cost of actually having a coherent story, or any kind of suspense.<br /><br />If you're looking for an entertaining B-movie, look elsewhere. This movie is just boring.
| 0
|
This is arguably the worst film I have ever seen, and I have quite an appetite for awful (and good) movies. It could (just) have managed a kind of adolescent humour if it had been consistently tongue-in-cheek --à la ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW, which was really very funny. Other movies, like PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, manage to be funny while (apparently) trying to be serious. As to the acting, it looks like they rounded up brain-dead teenagers and asked them to ad-lib the whole production. Compared to them, Tom Cruise looks like Alec Guinness. There was one decent interpretation -- that of the older ghoul-busting broad on the motorcycle.
| 0
|
This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.<br /><br />My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)<br /><br />Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)<br /><br />Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.<br /><br />The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.<br /><br />We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.<br /><br />At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.<br /><br />Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.<br /><br />Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.<br /><br />
| 0
|
This movie was so badly written, directed and acted that it beggars belief. It should be remade with a better script, director and casting service. The worst problem is the acting. You have Jennifer Beals on the one hand who is polished, professional and totally believable, and on the other hand, Ri'chard, who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. Peter Gallagher and Jenny Levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple, although both normally do fine work. The actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all--they are inconsistent and unbelievable. Much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual English. The casting is ludicrous. Why have children of an "African" merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors, while the supposedly socially desirable Marcel, has pronounced African features, including an obviously dyed blond "fro"? It's as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. It's just so weird! This could be a great movie and should be re-made, but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. There are plenty of good actors out there, and it would be fun to see how Jennifer Beals, Daniel Sunjata and Gloria Reuben would do with an appropriate cast, good script and decent direction.
| 0
|
This was the worst MTV Movie Awards EVER!!! I barely laughed, none of the presenters were funny, the hosts really sucked, and the parodies weren't so great either. Why can't we go back to the good olden days when the show was a riot?
| 0
|
it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.<br /><br />this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.<br /><br />the plot.<br /><br />I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.<br /><br />"Logan" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. "Suzanne" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane "artist" character. "the artist" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping "the man" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate "the man" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.
| 0
|
Devil Hunter gained notoriety for the fact that it's on the DPP 'Video Nasty' list, but it really needn't have been. Many films on the list where there for God (and DPP) only known reasons, and while this isn't the tamest of the bunch; there isn't a lot here that warrants banning...which is a shame because I never would have sat through it where it not for the fact that it's on 'the shopping list'. The plot actually gives the film a decent base - or at least more of a decent base than most cannibal films - and it follows an actress who is kidnapped and dragged off into the Amazon jungle. A hunter is then hired to find her, but along the way he has to brave the natives, lead by a man who calls himself "The Devil" (hence the title). The film basically just plods along for eighty five minutes and there really aren't many scenes of interest. It's a real shame that Jess Franco ended up making films like this because the man clearly has talent; as seen by films such as The Diabolical Dr Z, Venus in Furs, Faceless and She Kills in Ecstasy, but unfortunately his good films are just gems amongst heaps of crap and Devil Hunter is very much a part of the crap. I saw this film purely because I want to be able to say I've seen everything on the DPP's list (just two more to go!), and I'm guessing that's why most other people who have seen it, saw it. But if you're not on the lookout for Nasties; there really is no reason to bother with this one.
| 0
|
Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.
| 0
|
Satan's Little Helper is one of the better B Horror movies I have seen. When I say better I mean the story. The film hatches a new plot, something that's not so cliché in the Horror genre - something fresh. But there are also some ridiculous questions that come along with it. Questions you will be asking yourself throughout the movie.<br /><br />The film first caught my attention while I was cruising the Horror section in HMV. I was tired of all the so called "terrifiying" Hollywood blockbusters and wanted something different. The cover art for Satan's Little Helper immediately caught my attention. As you can see, the image draws you in - it's chilling! I knew it was a straight to DVD release - but I took a chance. I mean, I just seen "Boogey Man" the night before - so It couldn't get any worse! After I watched the movie, I was semi-satisfied. I loved the plot of the movie. It was really creepy how the killer was pretending to be the little boys friend, so he could kill. In some sick deranged way, he actually thought he and the little boy would become partners - a duo of terror. It was a great idea to set the film on Halloween night. This way, no one would think anything of a masked man beside a little kid. They would simply think he was his guardian. But, this is also where the "plot holes" begin to surface.<br /><br />If your son came home with a "friend" he met trick or treating - that's fine. You wouldn't think anything of it - if he was 9!, or round about the same age as him. If however, he appeared with a strange man in a mask, you would be startled and protective of your child. You would ask the man to remove his mask and identify himself. You would ask why he is with your son. He doesn't know him. You would tell him to please leave. He isn't a family friend. He's a stranger. Now, we're supposed to teach our child not to talk to strangers. In this case, the mum is completely fine with it. Huh? They never seem to think it's a tad odd that the "man" doesn't speak - at all. Gruanted they think it's the daughters boyfriend, but after 10 minutes of not talking you would pull the mask off and ask him why he's not saying a word.<br /><br />The film goes down hill from there. The thing that got me the most was, all the mum said was "Do you want some cider?". I can't count how many times she says this in the movie. It's like, oh you're dying - we have cider though, it's all good!! The movie started promising, and failed to deliver. It was more of a horror/comedy, and even as that it fails to deliver. I guess you could call it a "Dud","Flop" etc..<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cover art. Though, something tells me that's not worth the 12 dollars!
| 0
|
The problem with THE CONTRACTER is summed up by the opening scene . The CIA want an international terrorist dead so contact black ops assassin James Dial . The terrorist is appearing at the Old Bailey court in London which begs the question why do they want to bump off a terrorist if he's going to spend the rest of his life in jail ? He's going to be out of circulation either way . Didn't the CIA have a chance before he was arrested ? If by some chance he gets a not guilty verdict then kill him . There's no logical reason to kill someone who is going to spend life in a maximum security prison <br /><br />Since the premise sets up the story an audience might be choose to ignore the plot hole but the assination itself pours fuel upon the fire . Dial's colleague is killed by a police bullet and the taxi they're driving in crashes but Dial manages to escape . So the police were close enough to shoot someone but too far away to apprehend someone from a car crash ? The film of this type of plot connivance . Later Dial finds a police inspector pointing a gun at him saying " this airport is surrounded by armed coppers " yet Dial manages to escape very easily without explanation . The whole film cheats its audience by relying on things that are never explained . This includes an important supporting character called Emily Day . Why does she help Dial even though he's a wanted fugitive ? Your guess is as good as mine <br /><br />This is a fairly poor thriller and don't be taken in by the " big name " cast . Wesley Snipes used to qualify as a film star but killed his career by starring in more and more inconsequental films . Charles Dance also appeared in big budget Hollywood productions such as LAST ACTION HERO and ALIEN 3 but again he's someone best known for appearing in straight to DVD fare these days , and he's basically playing a cameo role anyway . The likes of Lena Headey may go on to become big players in cinema but they'l certainly fail to put THE CONTRACTER on their resume
| 0
|
In fact, it never was. I'm not sure why Billy Crystal wanted to recreate a 1940s screwball comedy. What a vacuous shambles! None of these people come close to a Cary Grant, Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, etc, and anyway, today's audience isn't as receptive to this facile muck. Writing is trivial. The hackneyed plot is razor thin and obvious. The chemistry between the leading characters is non-existent. It's interesting that Julia Roberts seems to think she's a reincarnation of some big star from the "golden age of Hollywood", whenever that may be. It's an effect she tries and fails to attain yet again with Richard Gere in Runaway Bride.
| 0
|
Wow this movie sucked big time. I heard this movie expresses the meaning of friendship very well. And with all the internet hype on this movie I figured what could go wrong? However the movie was just plain bad. It was boring and the character development was never there. Space Travelers was also a horrible movie, if you didn't like that movie there is no way you will like this.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.