text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuarón) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.
| 0
|
Visually interesting, but falls flat in the originality department. This tedious excercise in technique wears thin after the opening battle. Jude Law has the charisma of burnt toast, but in his defense this film contains some of the worst dialogue I have ever seen on the big screen. In fact the script is so poor that it keeps taking you out of the film, and had me thinking about work, bills, my dogs, etc. There are many moments that scream bluescreen. Paltrow is as wooden as they get. This could of been saved by snappy film noir dialogue or over the top camp. My only complaint on the technique is that Black & White film (sorry, computer) would of helped because it looks like Turner colorized black and white. Just a big dull cliché mess. I would rather break my femur than sit through this endurance test again.
| 0
|
My friend's mom used to work at a video store and got to preview movies before they came out, so when she brought home The Convent, a horror movie, i couldn't wait to watch it. Given that it's supposed to be scary but is actually downright hilarious, I can say that in some weird way, I like this movie. <br /><br />yes, the acting is bad, and yes, it's the cheapest movie i've ever seen, but it's so damn funny! "WHAT, ARE YOU SMOKING CA-RACK?!" i didn't know this movie even was ever released... i figured it was too bad... <br /><br />Yeah, so... overall the movie is pretty bad (you gotta admit that much at least) but I promise you, you will get a good laugh out of it.<br /><br />*this movie kinda sucks but it's good for a laugh... especially that guy that holds the 'dagger of despair'.. THE DAGGER OF DESPAAAAAAIR!
| 0
|
Scary Movie 3 isn't as funny as its predecessors but its still has its funny moments. It all begins when roving reporter Cindy Campbell sets out to find a hard news story in the middle of television sweeps. She soon uncovers an outrageous onslaught of globe-threatening developments including alien invaders, killer videotapes, freaky crop circles and much more. Faced with conspiracies of massive proportions, and a crew of very strange people following her around, Cindy must fight to stop evil from taking over the world yet again. The plot is a non-issue here as the first two were pretty much plot less. This time around they focus on Signs, The Ring, Matrix Reloaded and 8 mile as well as many others just not as much as the previously mentioned ones. The first one was {imo} one of the funniest films I have ever seen. The second one wasn't as good but still quite funny. The third one is mildly enjoyable but its nothing special. Let's just say that I didn't mind seeing it once but I probably wouldn't want to see it again. The jokes are either hit or miss and the ones that are funny usually involve Charlie Sheen. The lame ones usually involve Anthony Anderson as he is very overrated. Why he keeps getting cast is unclear because he isn't funny. Anna Faris gives a funny performance and she's also kind of underrated. Simon Rex shows some potential as he actually wasn't so bad. Regina Hall also returns as Brenda and she gives a pretty funny performance. The rest of the cast were pretty much a bunch of cameos. Jenny McCarthy and Pamela Anderson probably had the funniest scene out of all the cameos. Their in the opening sequence spoofing The Ring and that scene turns out to be on of the more enjoyable ones in the film. Denise Richards, Queen Latifah, Camryn Manheim and many others also have cameos. David Zucker directs and while this isn't another Airplane, it's also not another My Boss's Daughter either. Its pointless to really analyze a straight comedy as the main thing that people want to know if its funny or not. Like I said before if you do like it, you probably won't really like it that much. In the end, I found it a bit disappointing as the PG-13 rating kind of weaken it but it can still be enjoyed. Rating 6.3/10
| 0
|
If you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with "Mr. Mike" he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact "Mr. Mike" by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored.
| 0
|
I like to keep my reviews short and simple, but this pretty much sums it up. You can not beat the original two for a number of reasons one of which including the directing talent of Chris Columbous.<br /><br />This movie had terrible directing covered up by even more terrible acting. I cant even believe these people are considered actors.<br /><br />Painful to sit through and watch. The storyline was a complete joke about a secret chip and Russian terrorists on a painstaking quest to get it back. Horrible, rent one of the original tow and enjoy yourself! <br /><br />The movie wasn't even set during Christmas like the original. Home Alone was turned from an excellent Christmas time family comedy movie to a joke with no moral or plot!
| 0
|
This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent. <br /><br />It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women. <br /><br />The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.
| 0
|
This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.
| 0
|
After seeing the trailer of this film in the cinema, i thought that it was an original concept for a thriller, setting it in the competitive world of computer companies. The all star cast was another message that this film would probably be good. But when i didn't go to watch it in it's first week of release then it disappeared by week 2 i feared something was a miss. Patiently i waited for it's DVD release, then bought it rushing home for an enjoyable evening's viewing. The anticipation on the way home was far better than the film. For a start the direction is appalling. There's no thought gone into it at all and the director just makes up a part for himself, so he can appear in the film. I wouldn't be rushing out to employ him in the future. Secondly the lead role is completely miscast as Ryan Phillipe. Phillipe normally the cool character as in Cruel Intentions and Way of the Gun but in this he's supposed to be a bumbling hero which he attempts to portray by slipping when he's running and having geeky friends, but he just doesn't look right. The female stars, Rachel Leigh Cook and Clare Forlani don't feature enough but when they do neither of the performances are close to their bests. The only highlight of the film is Tim Robbins in a role that could have been made for him and it's his fiery temper and mysterious ways that drag the film along. The final point is that this film is another one which fills the trailer with scenes you don't see in the film and instead feature only in the deleted scenes section of the DVD. Causing even more disappointment as although some of these scenes are crude they do fill in important gaps in the story.
| 0
|
Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.
| 0
|
Yeah, unfortunately I came across the DVD of this and found that it was incredibly awful.<br /><br />First of all, the characters suck. I mean, come on, if some dork in an orange hat who calls himself 'Orange Sherbert' is the best creative idea these guys could come up for a character, then they should definitely not be in the film-making scene. Poor "costumes", bad "interviews", and basically there is not one "wrestler" on this whole disc with any shred of charisma.<br /><br />The "wrestling" in Splatter Rampage Wrestling is nothing more than these idiots gently and playfully bouncing together on a trampoline. They make sure to giggle together all the while, too, making the experience seem more like a toddler's playtime than a "wrestling deathmatch".<br /><br />Basically, Splatter Rampage Wrestling is a pretty lackluster Backyard Wrestling clone. Only, instead of blood, weapons, mayhem, and WRESTLING, we get a trampoline, giggling kids, TERRIBLE audio, and some guy called Orange Sherbert.<br /><br />Wrestling fan or not, avoid this DVD. It's awful.
| 0
|
... You can't exactly shove her out of the way, because she's old; and if you were being charitable you might say that the ponderous gait she ambles along with isn't really her fault. Nevertheless, in these circumstances it's often difficult not to become irritated when you find yourself dragging your heels in her wake. So it is with "The Pallbearer", an attempt to do something 'different' with a romantic comedy that in this way is chiefly hamstrung because the venue is all wrong; sort of like showing off your 'breakdancing' skills at a grandparent's funeral.<br /><br />To further extend the metaphor (perhaps unwisely!); like the old lady, one starts to feel with the set-up of the film that its demise cannot be far away. Sure enough, this particular 'death' is agonizingly protracted, slowly chipping away at our reserves of empathy in tiny little increments, as depressingly we come to the realisation that the proceedings are only headed in one direction: Downhill. Its laboured attempts at 'humour' can be seen coming a mile off - again, not unlike the grim inevitability of death!<br /><br />Returning once again to the image of 'dragging heels', the main character, Tom, is shown to ceaselessly repeat this action throughout his life. If there are indeed degrees of 'pathetic', then this sap is possibly a good few notches ahead of Schwimmer's other - more famous - role. To find oneself in the awkward position of having to align audience sympathies with a character even MORE 'clueless' than Ross is certainly a tough ask even for as 'able' a comic performer as Schwimmer, but I guess he can find fault with himself for signing on to some seriously 'echoing' situations in the first place.<br /><br />How will he ever escape his most famous portrayal if he's picking scripts where the characters could almost be 'interchangeable', even if the situations aren't? A man with a longstanding high-school crush on someone he hasn't seen for years. Sound familiar... ? Paltrow is nothing else if not bland in her 'Rachel' role, but all of this going over old ground would perhaps be forgivable if the noticeable DIFFERENCES present weren't so incongruous as well. Unfortunately, the romantic element is so well-worn it's threadbare, and the 'backdrop' is so inappropriate that it seems the best way to describe the resultant film is as something of a 'stiff'... ! 2/10.
| 0
|
can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).<br /><br />the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.<br /><br />The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen.
| 0
|
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.<br /><br />Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.<br /><br />Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.<br /><br />Not recommended.
| 0
|
This movie is easily the worst of the series. Though New Line might just be looking at sales, they all know the only reason this one made more money than the one prior was due to its 3D ending. It wasn't that the 3-D was good either, because it was 50's 3D with the red and blue lenses(anaglyph.) It was just the fact that people wanted to see what it would look like. Beyond that this movie was so poorly done! Bad script, bad characters, bad acting, worse directing. This movie is trying to push the camp factor almost to the point of being like a "Looney Tunes" episode.<br /><br />Seriously, not for horror audience, because it is corny and not scary, and not funny or amusing for comedy crowds. Just a total mess with some really bad cameos that are still trying to play this whole thing as camp and having it fall way short of what they probably wanted.<br /><br />I remember most of us who had been fans of this series were just praying that it would end at this point because of how bad it had gotten. This is one of the movies that helped take horror out of popularity and ride a fad of belief that audiences really wanted to laugh with some stupid comedy than see a good and scary horror film.
| 0
|
The 1998 Michael Keaton kiddie comedy of the same title was roundly condemned for it's, um, shoddy special effects, but compared to what Screaming Mad George cooked up for this horror comedy they're positively mind-boggling. The killer snowman seems to be made out of styrofoam and his arms look like oversized oven mitts. Which they probably were. The cast lays it on thick in this parody of dozens of other (much worse) movies and Paul Keith as the town doctor is particularly memorable in a small but hilarious role.
| 0
|
This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess.
| 0
|
Dialogue: stilted, clichéd; Acting: hammy, clichéd; Plot: predictable, clichéd.<br /><br />Just what are Christopher Plummer Nastassia Kinski doing in this "B" rubbish? Plummer was well established decades before this movie was made, Kinski had masterpieces like "Tess" and "Cat People" behind her... Must have been desperate.<br /><br />The bad guys all have bad-guy accents - *bad* bad-guy accents! (Plummer especially! Where *did* he learn to do "German"?) and most of them have bad-guy sneers as well. The innocent bystanders all overdo their panicking enough to make you laugh. The good guy survives, amongst other things: * a 5" throwing knife buried hilt-deep in his shoulder - just pulls it out and seconds later is using the arm with no difficulty at all; * marines' machine-gun fire (I think someone referred to a .50) in the leg which he sorts out by tying a bandage around his pants leg and thereafter he barely has a limp; * several fist-fights in which he sustains multiple punches to the face as well as being run cranium-first into a door frame; * a fall, backwards, from what looks like the third floor, onto paving, without the slightest sign of a twisted ankle or any other such trifling inconvenience. The script has exactly 3 clever lines, the rest of the time it's all so dull and boring.<br /><br />OK it's not all bad. Plummer does bring a certain class to his part, and is undoubtedly the best actor in this flick. Of course that doesn't say much, but he can do the callous villain without resorting to the ham techniques most of the villains use here. He delivers his "Ve haff vays and meance" type lines with some menace, but you are always aware you are watching Christopher Plummer acting the villain.<br /><br />This movie is truly an awful waste of time. The acting, such as it is, is sort of 70's 007 movies wooden line delivery meets Bruce Lee's very obviously faked fight scenes, but it's not even anywhere near as good as either a Roger Moore 007 or a Bruce Lee film. Don't bother.
| 0
|
As much as I dislike saying 'me too' in response to other comments - it's completely true that the first 30 minutes of this film have nothing whatsoever to do with the endless dirge that comprises the following 90.<br /><br />Having been banned somewhere doesn't make a film watchable. Just because it doesn't resemble a Hollywood product does not make it credible.<br /><br />Worse yet, in addition to no discernible plot (other than there are lots of muddy places in Russia and many people, even very old women, drink lots of vodka) a number of visuals are so unnecessarily nauseating I'm in to my second package of Rolaids.<br /><br />As for spoilers - well, the film is so devoid of any narrative thread I couldn't write one if I tried.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money, and don't confuse this with good Russian cinema.
| 0
|
It really was that bad. On a par with the (mercifully!) short-lived "Dirty Dozen" TV series that starred Ben Murphy and was made at around the same time (also on the cheap in Yugoslavia).<br /><br />I was embarrassed for the cast members of this film - and for Telly Savalas in particular. He was waaaaaay too old and fat for the role (pushing 70 when he made this garbage), and the reviewer who draws parallels with Telly the Greek in this and John Wayne in "The Green Berets" pretty much sums it up.<br /><br />Other reviewers have pointed out some of the many laughable howlers that this crime against celluloid contains, so I won't repeat them here. But I will add that I'm amazed that no-one's yet mentioned the ridiculously tiny-looking helmet that Savalas wears on his big, bloated head. <br /><br />I'm also astonished that this trainwreck of a film has a rating as high as 4.7 here at IMDb.<br /><br />As far as I'm concerned, it's a "1" right across the board. If you want a good example of why flogging a franchise to death really is a bad idea (especially 20-plus years after the original) - look no further than "The Dirty Dozen - The Fatal Mission".<br /><br />Awful - avoid!!!!
| 0
|
I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful.
| 0
|
This is really really bad. Lamas shows just how a second rate actor does his job. But what makes it worth watching is the scene where OJ angrily grabs a fellow cop by the throat as if to kill them while the jukebox plays a song with the lyric "I got the evidence on you!". (Makes me want to hear the rest of the lyrics - attributed to David Gregoli and Leslie Oren but i couldn't find it on iTunes). Talk about seeing into the future...Too funny for words. The rest of the movie is forgettable. The score and songs are more interesting than the script. Ditto the sequel. Which begs the question of why they would do a sequel at all. My understanding was that foreign sales drives a lot of these B movies. Doesn't say much for the world's viewing habits.
| 0
|
I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it. Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride. Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.<br /><br />Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned. I don't think this scene added to the movie at all. I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!<br /><br />In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!
| 0
|
The reasons to watch this knock off... err... tribute to a great movie called Se7en: - It's on while your channel surfing and there's nothing else on. - Someone pays you to watch it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and pop in the DVD for Se7en, rent it, download it on iTunes, or put it in your Netflix cue and skip The Flock entirely. The Flock the same story with with a few changes. Furthermore the editing just wreaks of Se7en and actually ends up taking you out of the story several times. The worst one is probably the fly over desert helicopter shots, with sounds of people people chattering over the radio, except there are no police helicopters flying overhead in this one.<br /><br />Bottom line: I call it a blatant knock off. If you wanna be nice you can call it a tribute film, go ahead, but either way go watch Se7en.
| 0
|
The trailers for this film were better than the movie. What waste of talent and money. Wish I would've waited for this movie to come on DVD because at least I wouldn't be out $9. The movie totally misses the mark. What could have been a GREAT movie for all actors, turned out to be a B-movie at best. Movie moved VERY slow and just when I thought it was going somewhere, it almost did but then it didn't. In this day and age, we need unpredictable plot twists and closures in film, and this film offered neither. The whole thing about how everyone is a suspect is good, however, not sure if it was the way it was directed, the lighting, the delivery of lines, the writing or what, but nothing came from it. Lot of hype for nothing. I was VERY disappointed in this film, and I'm telling everyone NOT to see it. The cheesy saxophone music throughout made the film worse as well. And the ending had NOTHING to do with the rest of the film. What a disappointment.
| 0
|
The Leap Years is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.<br /><br />Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.<br /><br />Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more "in" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical "anglified" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of "semi-perfect English" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.<br /><br />The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the "wit" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés. <br /><br />I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable. <br /><br />There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, "Go, before I change my mind," has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...<br /><br />So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.<br /><br />If you come across "The Leap Years" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss.
| 0
|
Did anyone stop to realise what sort of movie they were producing here ? Now let`s a former marine officer becomes assinged to a group of kids at a cadet school so this should be a family comedy right ? Wrong . This is just a gross comedy aimed at teenagers with many bad taste moments .It might have been watchable in an extremely dumb way at this point but I found Damon Wayans voice to be irritating beyond belief . Does he speak like that in real life ? If he does then he has my sympathy but he won`t be getting any of my money from watching his movies
| 0
|
Just because someone is under the age of 10 does not mean they are stupid. If your child likes this film you'd better have him/her tested. I am continually amazed at how so many people can be involved in something that turns out so bad. This "film" is a showcase for digital wizardry AND NOTHING ELSE. The writing is horrid. I can't remember when I've heard such bad dialogue. The songs are beyond wretched. The acting is sub-par but then the actors were not given much. Who decided to employ Joey Fatone? He cannot sing and he is ugly as sin.<br /><br />The worst thing is the obviousness of it all. It is as if the writers went out of their way to make it all as stupid as possible. Great children's movies are wicked, smart and full of wit - films like Shrek and Toy Story in recent years, Willie Wonka and The Witches to mention two of the past. But in the continual dumbing-down of American more are flocking to dreck like Finding Nemo (yes, that's right), the recent Charlie & The Chocolate Factory and eye-crossing trash like Red Riding Hood.
| 0
|
People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.
| 0
|
Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was "Marion"?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.<br /><br />That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. "A Man Betrayed", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.<br /><br />This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.<br /><br />That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made "A Man Betrayed" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10
| 0
|
I don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.<br /><br />Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.<br /><br />The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.<br /><br />The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.<br /><br />In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.
| 0
|
From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.<br /><br />My Grade: D-
| 0
|
I don't remember seeing another murder/mystery movie as bad as this. This movie, about a medical examiner who investigates his friend's mysterious death in a car accident, has the complete receipt for a bad movie: bad acting, boring story, lack of suspense, poor humor and no drama. I remembered seeing this movie on PAX, a TV station notable for dishing out low-budgeted and campy made-for-TV movies such as this one. TV movies, of course, do not have the edge factor or the suspense as movies from the Big Screen. But, this movie sure hit all sour tastes. The makers of this movie have missed out on an opportunity to making "Receipe for Murder" a great TV movie; the title does offer some suspense.<br /><br />So, if you want a good recipe, don't watch this movie. This movie alone can kill your TV appetite.<br /><br />Grade F
| 0
|
First of all, as a long time student of the Titanic disaster and member of several Titanic clubs, I feel entitled to comment on the film. I don't really care how many awards and accolades the film won, but to me it is still an absolutely awful film. Cameron had the resources to make a 'proper' semi-documentary film of the disaster but unfortunately chose to turn it into a po-faced romantic mush. The fact that so many people around the world fell for it only shows, to my mind, the sad state of taste and common sense that movie critics and audiences have these days. Whoever said that all movies should have a hero and heroine falling in love? In fact most real events are anything but romantic and the Titanic disaster certainly was not one. I feel that it needed a better script and director with a semi-documentary approach and as little artistic license as possible. I almost threw up in the last sequence where the 'dead' lovers meet among the other lost passengers and crew who break out in applause. Is this an intelligent film? Ask yourself.
| 0
|
Giving credit where it's due, only the technicolor, costumes and sets deserve any honorable mention.<br /><br />This is undoubtedly the lowest point in BING CROSBY's long career at Paramount. The script is about as clumsy as you could possibly imagine and neither the casual Bing nor William Bendix nor Sir Cedric Hardwicke can do a thing about repairing it. <br /><br />Bendix looks extremely foolish in a page boy wig. And poor Rhonda Fleming has a stock costume heroine role requiring her to look adoringly at Bing and little else except for warbling a couple of uninspired ballads in a voice probably dubbed for the occasion.<br /><br />Just plain awful! Mark Twain's wit is not evident in any of the screenplay. Only die-hard Crosby fans can possibly appreciate this mess of a film given uninspired direction. Even the extras look as though they don't know what they're supposed to be doing.<br /><br />Summing up: Dull as dishwater. Not recommended, even for children.
| 0
|
<br /><br />Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.<br /><br />One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.<br /><br />Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.<br /><br />The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.
| 0
|
I'd been following this films progress for quite some time so perhaps expected a little too much. I consider both Gillian Anderson and Danny Dyer to be good at what they do and was interested to see what Dan Reed could come up with but unfortunately it just didn't work for me.<br /><br />The problem lies in the fact that the film doesn't really seem to understand which genre it's falling into and as such it fails to impress on drama, horror and thriller elements because rather than focusing on one of them and doing it well it's a bit of a jack of all trades and master of none.<br /><br />The premise (as with most revenge films) is simple, couple meet and go out, something bad happens and they get their revenge it's a simple formula and one that many directors have handled expertly over the years. Unfotunately in this case it's as if Dan Reed thought, "It'd be great to do one of those revenge films that goes a little deeper by showing a more human side to all the characters and delving into their mental state in more detail...." Wrong! There are also a few key elements missing, in this type of movie there's generally some kind of warning. A don't do this or this might happen element which adds to the tension but there's nothing of the sort here. It just simply happens, then nothing happens for an hour, then something interesting happens and then it ends.<br /><br />There's a lot of really stiff competition in this genre and hats of to Dan Reed for trying, I have no issue with his directing abilities but in term of writing... I'd say next time he should stick to the formula for the type of film he's making instead of trying to be too clever and he'll have a quality movie on his hands.
| 0
|
Gods...where to start. I was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before I turned it off in disgust. Aside from the actor playing Robin Hood himself, the rest were just terrible. And, I can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far.<br /><br />From the very opening of the first episode, I lost count of how many errors, plot holes, and horrible costumes there were. It began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. All well and good. However, the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf, because a handful of soldiers, in full armour, on horseback, were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet.<br /><br />Then, as he's running away, he goes from having them 10 feet behind him, to a shot where you cannot even see them at all, immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. Then, he runs into some bushes, and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers...who just mere seconds before, were galloping on horseback, dozens of feet behind him.<br /><br />The "armour" on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille, and miserably failed. Not to mention, the lead soldier's "armour" being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. Seriously, he looks like he is a small child wearing his father's over-sized armour! Finally, Robin manages to fire about 5, perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier's hand, in the span of about 2 seconds, from what appears to be a recurve bow. No human alive could make those kinds of shots, in that short amount of time, with a scoped rifle, much less a bow.<br /><br />After that, they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean "peasant" with digging a ditch...something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time, right? How this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. The production costs (at least for what I saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or Euros)...<br /><br />Seriously - I think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. This was so bad, even that terrible Kevin Costner version of Robin Hood was better.<br /><br />I highly suggest you skip this monstrosity, and go rent or buy the mid-80's "Robin of Sherwood" series. Much better written, acted, costumed, and produced.<br /><br />For shame, BBC...for shame...
| 0
|
Why take a show that millions of us watched and loved as children and make a complete joke of it? They ask why Hollywood isn't making the money it used to. Because they put out garbage and pay actors huge amounts of money to be garbage men and ask us to pay $10 to see their garbage. The TV show was what it was, good people in bad situations where the good IL' boys come out on top. It wasn't Gone with the Wind but it was fun. This movie is garbage! Hollywood can't come up with anything original so they take something that was good and ruin it for some $$$$. I only hope that this movie makes 10x's less than it cost to make. The only one's to have any fun with this crap are the guys who got to drive the General Lee. The audience is the victim.<br /><br />Don't see it, watch the reruns of the TV show instead. They still hold up 20 years later.
| 0
|
STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits <br /><br />In this debut effort for Nick Park's beloved man and dog, they are forced to fly to the moon when good old Wallace runs out of cheese.<br /><br />As well as being the shortest feature at just 22 minutes, this W/G adventure is also the earliest and it kinda shows. The plasticine animation is a little creaky and funny here, sort of reminiscent of the Mork animation about the little man in the box.<br /><br />Admirable though the craftsmanship behind it is, I've never actually been hugely into Wallace & Gromit (maybe a bit too clean and traditional for someone of my generation.) The only one I've really enjoyed is The Wrong Trousers (and that was more from when I was younger and less aware of, shall we say, the seedier pleasures of life.) I was driven to actively seek out this early effort due to the resurgence in popularity as a result of the hugely successful recent film adaptation.<br /><br />As technically impressive as the first two (all things considered!) this one lacks the emotional angle it's successors were to possess. That being said, it's fairly good fun as a first try and certainly set the standard for greater things to come. Two stars, but a good two stars. **
| 0
|
This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10
| 0
|
I am a big fan of Arnold Vosloo. Finally seeing him as the star of a recent movie, not just a bit part, made me happy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I took film appreciation in college and the only thing I can say that I didn't like was that the film was made in an abandoned part of town and there was no background traffic or lookie loos.<br /><br />I have to say that the acting leaves something to be desired, but Arnold is an excellent actor, I have to chalk it up to lousy direction and the supporting cast leaves something to be desired.<br /><br />I love Arnold Vosloo, and he made the film viewable. Otherwise, I would have written it off as another lousy film.<br /><br />I found the rape scene brutal and unnecessary, but the actors that got away at the end were pretty good. But the sound effects of the shoot-out were pretty bad. There are some glitches in the film (continuity) but they are overlookable considering the low-caliber of the film.<br /><br />All in all I enjoyed the film, because Arnold Vosloo was in it.<br /><br />Jackie
| 0
|
I spent almost two hours watching a movie that I thought, with all the good actors in it, would be worth watching. I couldn't believe it when the movie ended and I had absolutely no idea what had happened.....I was mad because I could have used that time doing something else....I tried to figure it all out, but really had no clue. Thanks to those who figured it out and have explained it....right or wrong, it's better than not knowing anything!! Who was the lady in the movie with dark hair that we saw a couple of times driving away? How did First Lady know that her husband was cheating on her? At the end of the movie Kate said she would eventually find out the truth. Does this mean that we're going to be subjected to End Game 2?
| 0
|
This film has the look and feel of a Student film project. Yeah, there are some interesting (albeit gimmicky) edits and shots, but the end result was juvenile.<br /><br />The director didn't seem to be saying "Look at this film." It seemed as if he were saying, "Look at ME! I'm a DIRECTOR!"<br /><br />Thumbs down.
| 0
|
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.
| 0
|
The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was "preaching to the converted," not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its "rat" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of "Well, Jewish people are like that too." Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called "Hebrew" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's "spin" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a "5" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say "That's what I meant to do all along!" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate.
| 0
|
Why such a generic title? Santa Claus??? So bland and unpredictable. Movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit, most notably 'Santa Claus Conquers the Martians', at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it, and all the stock footage being used... for some reason, that seemed happy to me. But this movie just screws Christmas in the butt, and screws the joy of all the kids. Santa lives in space? His enemy is a devil named Pitch? Santa gets help from Merlin the Magician? How random is this!? Well, since it was made in Mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. I had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. It was a all-out cluster of madness! Though, despite all the troubles with the movie, it still feels like a Christmas movie. Good conquers evil, and Christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world, or possibly universe, thanks to Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.. apparently. So, I think you should give it a try, even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time... though it should put a smile on your face any day.
| 0
|
This movie was disgusting. Their should be a warning that some sadistic nasty writer is attempting to make a name for herself before being held hostage for an hour and a half watching garbage. What is garbage? The misuse of peoples time, the misuse of energy, and the waste of whatever type of educational system that taught her how to read and write. Talia you are a sick demented loser. Your psychiatrist needs to prescribe stronger medications for your problem. <br /><br />The acting and plot gave me no choice but to fast forward through the middle of the garbage. I ended up at a scene that was uncalled for. If you want to learn how to shock people watch a Larry Clark movie. I lost all respect for the entire cast of this movie "no more support from me." How could actors or actresses sit on a set while such gross depictions of human behavior is manifested from the mind of a psycho? I feel sorry for all actors that took part in that scene. I think the devil now knows who the writer of this movie is; congratulations you won his attention.
| 0
|
Lesbian vampire film about a couple on holiday who are staying on the grounds of what they think is an empty manor house but is really being used as a pair of lesbian vampires. As the vampires bring in the occasional victim the couple go about their business until the two groups come crashing together.<br /><br />Great looking film with two very sexy women as the vampires there is nothing beyond the eye candy that they provide to recommend this cult film. Yes its a sexy vampire story. No it is not remotely interesting beyond the women. To be honest there is a reason that I've been seeing stills of this film in horror books and magazines it looks great, but other than that...<br /><br />For those who want to see sexy vampires only.
| 0
|
I thought that this movies was a letdown I expected it to be so much better than it was. I am so glad I didn't pay to see this movie and that I didn't sit in a movie theater for this one. Where to begin on this movie, the acting in this movie was average, the humor was terrible and just the overall storyline of this movie wasn't special. I thought that this movie was suppose to be great, but it wasn't more than a cheesy waste of time. I think that the acting in this movie was terrible no of the actors in this movie had chemistry, it just wasn't there. I think that if maybe we had a different actor play Kirk than Jay Baruchel it might have been better but the entire time I watched this movie he looked high and I didn't get the feeling that he wasn't acting in this movie. Now, Alice Eve did a great job as an actress but, there was no chemistry between her and Jay. All the actors in this movie were no names and had very little affect in this movie. The humor in this movie was not funny at all, there were a few one liners in this movie that were OK but nothing worth saying to your friends that they would understand. I think that Jim Field Smith had a hard time with this because he couldn't decide if he wanted a romance or a comedy. I honestly think he needs to stick with the Burger King commercials. I think that this movie could have been better if the writers would have gone to a different director. The storyline of this movie is just like every other hot girl just OK guy love story
boring I think that it would have been better if it had more originality, but what a letdown nothing. I honesty would not recommend anyone go see this movie. I think that you would have more entertainment at the dentist than at this movie. So save yourself the agony and just don't see it.
| 0
|
Wow, what a waste of acting talent. My husband and I sat there, both thinking, this has to get better, these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. Unattractive characters, hackneyed script, and listless pacing make for a long two hours. I actually couldn't hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). The husband stayed and confirmed that it didn't get better--by the time Buddy is killed, you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. It would be infinitely more entertaining. Beautiful scenery and costumes can't keep this one alive.
| 0
|
I give this five out of 10. All five marks are for Hendrix who delivers a very decent set of his latter day material. Unfortunately the quality of the camera work and editing is verging on the appalling! We have countless full-face shots of Hendrix where he could almost be doing anything, taking a pee perhaps? We don't see his hands on the guitar thats the point! Also we're given plenty shots of Hendrix from behind? There appears to be three cameras on Hendrix, but amateur fools operate all of them. The guy in front of Hendrix seems to be keen to wander his focus lazily about the stage as if Hendrix on the guitar is a mere distraction. While the guy behind is keener on zeroing in on a few chicks in the stalls than actually documenting the incredible guitar work thats bleeding out the amps (the sound recording is good thanks to Wally Heider) Interspersed on the tracks are clips of student losers protesting against Vietnam etc on tracks like Machine Gun, complete waste of film! If Hendrix had lived even another two years Berkeley is one of those things that would never have seen the light of day as far as a complete official release goes. The one gem it does contain is the incredible Johnny B Good but all in a pretty poor visual document of the great man and inferior to both Woodstock and Isle of Wight
| 0
|
When I tell people that I review movies as a hobby, the first thing they say is "What do you think of such-and-such movie?" There are a couple of problems here. Firstly, there is the probable chance that I've not seen it and thus, I ruin my reputation. Secondly, I could trash the movie in question without realising that it's actually their favourite. Lastly, I could be given DVDs to watch so they can judge my opinion. Thus, I find myself sat before "The Convent" which is the sort of film I would ignore completely given the choice but unable to avoid here. More's the pity because this frankly dreadful "horror" is about as scary as a box of kittens.<br /><br />Following well-worn clichés, "The Convent" focuses on a bunch of American high school students on a trip to an abandoned convent on a mission to get stoned, laid and mildly spooked. But you'll never guess what happens next? A group of cannibalistic demonic nuns emerge from the cobwebs who proceed to pick the kids off one by one in classic horror movie tradition. Will any of them survive and more importantly, haven't you got better things to worry about? <br /><br />The only thing that saves "The Convent" from being a total waste of time is the fact that nobody is really taking this tosh seriously with the exception of Coolio's bizarre cameo as a hyperactive cop with an itchy trigger finger. It's far too amusing to be properly frightening - the zombie cheerleader who makes chipmunk noises for no reason, the day-glo paint jobs that appears when you become a zombie - but what really kills it as a horror is the fact that you can instantly tell when someone is going to jump out and get messily murdered. But even if they were trying, I still doubt that it would work - demonic nuns wearing the sort of make-up you'd see in the "Buffy The Vampire Slayer" TV show aren't really that scary. The scariest thing about this movie really is that over 10% of voters gave this a maximum score. I mean, I know it's funny but I hardly split my sides. To be honest, I've had more fun in a dentist.<br /><br />"The Convent" isn't really a horror movie as such. It's more of a comedy horror like "Scary Movie" or "Shaun Of The Dead" but you're laughing at it instead of with it. I honestly can't recommend this to anybody except the family of the cast and crew but even then, I doubt very much they'd enjoy it. I don't enjoy the "so bad that it's good" genre - I personally feel that if the film-makers can't be bothered to salvage a turkey then I shouldn't bust a gut trying to watch it. Yes, it's a bad film and yes, they really should have gone home and done something more constructive. A Rubik's cube, for example. The DVD box has two price stickers - one for £4.99 and a reduced price of £3. But it was sold for £1 and that should tell you everything you need to know about this poxy, cheap, awesomely bad flick. Sorry if you do like it but "The Convent" really is a pile of unholy crap.
| 0
|
It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust.
| 0
|
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
| 0
|
If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.
| 0
|
I'd completely forgotten about this film until now. This was the most blatant and worst attempt to demonise a hobby that I have ever seen. It's message seemed to be : "Don't teenagers use their imagination; they might take games seriously, go mad and hurt people." I can only guess that the unimaginative writers of this piece thought that D&D style games are form of evil ritual or arcane worship.
| 0
|
Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled "Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends."
| 0
|
This is easily one of the worst martial arts films I've ever seen, and that's saying something. The chant of viva Chiba, viva Chiba is heard at the title, soon you will be chanting to yourself stupid, stupid. The basic story is that the mafia is running drugs into Japan and one man vowels to stop them, of course that's our man Sonny Chiba. The Karate master offers up his service to anyone who can provide information on the drug lords. A woman comes forward and he becomes the bodyguard, but what are her true intentions? Let me say at this point who cares? Soon we are treated to or tortured by a series of poorly choreographed fights and a lame storyline that becomes more and more laughable at every moment. Sonny eventually wipes out the bad guys with his karate skills, end of story. Oh yeah the woman was corrupt too. Congratulations you may have just watched the funniest film ever.<br /><br />As stated already this is one of the worst martial arts films I have ever seen. What makes it semi watchable is to see how badly made a film can be. Some have already mentioned the infamous American intro put into the film. That's probably the most entertaining part of the film and it's beyond funny. I would agree its worth watching just to see how lame the 70's karate scene was at the time. Watch as Aaron Banks leaves a guy hanging by his nuts then flips a fat student (bad editing) punching him in the throat. But everything is badly done in this film. Terrible unbelievable fights, fake I mean fake blood, bad acting, dubbing, wardrobe, and let's not forget the story. One man to take out an entire drug problem in a country? I bet. Fight after fight is laughable. This was the 70's when people still believed karate was effective in a fight, but Chiba brings it to new levels with some of the nonsense put out in this movie. Let's see he kicks a gun in half, kicks a guy so hard what looks like his dentures fall out and of course chopping the bottle scene, give me a break. Not to mention the fact that it's very hard to tell what happens in the fights because it's filmed so poorly. One part that was amusing was when he broke the guys arm through the door giving him a compound fracture. OK. As the action goes on we are treated to gobs of blood, really fake blood. Too say it looked poorly made is and understatement. The acting is totally non existent in this film. I don't expect much from a film of this caliber anyway as long as the action is good, but it wasn't and as expected the dubbing is extremely poor. Was it my imagination or did they dub the Asian go go dancer with a black accent? As expected from a 70's wardrobe you'll be in stitches laughing at some of the trends and nasty women put forth for the gratuitous nudity that comes with these flicks. Also why would the mafia be so obvious and all where black trench coats and hats all the time? Don't try and hide it now. The characters were stupid as well. The pimp club owner's one of whom is decked out in a Japanese pimp suit and the other who has a taste for bores head looks like fat hippie. Also one last thing that bothered me throughout the film was the awful music with some woman whaling. It was very annoying.<br /><br />Overall this is a terrible film by both martial arts standards and good movie making. That doesn't mean that it's not entertaining. With a film made so poorly it's hard not to laugh through most of this film, if you can stomach it. This was an old favorite watch with my best friend. If it was purely bad I would give one star, but the laughs it delivers bumps it up. 4 out 10.
| 0
|
Rodney Dangerfield isn't the main character of this movie. He's barely in it. Most of the screen time is dominated by unfunny jokes. One running gag is that a character is named Jerk Off. There are also lots of erection jokes, where the punch line is someone has an erection. This movie is as funny as Kirstie Ally's British accent is convincing.<br /><br />This movie started off like a weak action movie: five minutes of back story and then bam! Unfunny jokes. But, aside from the terrible writing, the movie is also poorly directed and the acting is terrible. Also, this movie does the old bad comedy cliché of having lots of well-known B-movie actors. Harland Williams, Gilbert Godfried, Randy Quaid, and Phil La Mar. These are just some of the people that spend more time on the screen than Rodney, even though he's billed as the main character. Don't be surprised to find this movie at a drug store selling for five bucks. Even that is too much.
| 0
|
This Movie is complete crap! Avoid this waste of celluloid at all costs, it is rambling and incoherent. I pride myself on plumbing the depths of 70's sleaze cinema from everything from Salo to Salon Kitty. I like being shocked, but I need a coherent story. However if watching horses mate gets you off this film is for you. The saddest part was that lame werewolf suit with the functional wang. I mean its just plain hard to sit through, not to mention the acting is terrible and the soundtrack is dubbed badly. Please, I know the cover is interesting (what looks like a gorillas hands reaching for a woman's bare ass)but don't waste your time or money as you won't get either back.
| 0
|
When you look at this now and hear all the language in here, it's amazing this was rated "PG," but that's the 1970s rating system for you. Peter Falk spews out the Lord's name in vain six times in the first ten minutes alone in this movie! Yet, few people consider that offensive, and certainly not the scumbags who make movies nor the people who "rate" them.<br /><br />The cast is a clue to how profane this film can be: Falk, Peter Boyle, Allen Garfield, Warren Oates, Gena Rowlands and Paul Sorvino aren't exactly actors you wouldn't find in "The Sound Of Music."<br /><br />I like heist movies, and a lot of films by director William Friedkin, but this script doesn't deliver and it just has way too much of the "Sleazy '70s" feel to it, visually and audibly. For those who loved Falk in TV's "Columbo" it must come as a shock to hear him use as much profanity as he did in films. This is far from the only case.
| 0
|
Olivier Gruner stars as Jacques a foreign exchange college student who takes on and single handedly wipes out a Mexican street gang in this obnoxious and racist film which is so horrible that it's laughable. Bad acting, bad plot and bad fight choreography make Angel Town a Turkey.
| 0
|
I'm all for the idea of a grand epic of the American Revolutionary War. This ain't it. (And for that matter, neither was the Emmerich/Devlin/Gibson THE PATRIOT. But I digress.)<br /><br />I saw this film at a publicity screening at the old MGM Studios (now Sony) just before it came out. The audience had high expectations for this expensive period piece, written by veteran Robert Dillon, directed by the esteemed Hugh Hudson (of CHARIOTS OF FIRE fame), and starring Al Pacino.<br /><br />But it didn't take long for people to start squirming in their seats, whispering derisive comments about Pacino's horribly misconceived accent -- he was supposed to be an American frontiersman of Scottish ancestry(!) -- and that of Nastassja Kinski, who was supposed to be recently emigrated from England(!!). Then the story started and it all went downhill fast.<br /><br />Motivations were muddled, dialogue was atrocious, events had no historical or political context. What there was of a plot lurched forward on absurd coincidence; by the second or third time that alleged lovers Pacino and Kinski stumbled into each other it had become a bad joke. Donald Sutherland gave an unhinged performance as a British officer/pederast. His accent was all over the map too. I guess there weren't any English actors available.<br /><br />Lots of people left. Those who stayed tried to stifle giggles, then openly guffawed. I stuck it out -- I figured that at least the battle scenes might be good. I was wrong. Inexplicably, Hudson chose to film them with hand-held cameras, not even Steadicam, the jerkiness giving a misplaced newsreel 'authenticity' which ruined the sense of scale.<br /><br />There was a semi-famous TV reviewer in the audience a few rows ahead of me: (the late) Gary Franklin of Channel 7 Eyewitness News. I could tell he was peeved by the behavior of the rest of us. And sure enough, on his TV segment the next day he gave the film a '10' on his notorious 'Franklin Scale of 1 to 10', while remarking churlishly about the louts who'd disrupted the screening the night before, who clearly didn't know art when they saw it. What a buffoon.<br /><br />After this disaster, Pacino didn't star in another film for almost 4 years. Hugh Hudson's career never recovered. You can't say I didn't warn you.
| 0
|
This was another obscure Christmas-related title, a low-budget Mexican production from exploitation film-maker Cardona (NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES [1969], TINTORERA! [1977]), which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the U.S. by K. Gordon Murray. Judging by those two efforts already mentioned, Cardona was no visionary and, this one having already received its share of flak over here, is certainly no better! The film, in fact, is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized Mexican horror outings from the era, but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which, in view of the prominence of reds apart from St. Nick himself, the Devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout, was essential). Anyway, in a nutshell, the plot involves Satan's efforts to stall Santa Claus' Christmas Eve rendezvous with the Earth's children; there is, however, plenty more wackiness along the way: to begin with, our portly, white-bearded and chronically merry man-in-red lives in a celestial palace who, apart from accompanying toy-maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel!) in their native tongue, visits Merlin the famed magician at King Arthur's court, here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child-like hopping and mumbling gibberish! once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way, the Wizard's anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of Dr. Frankenstein in SON OF Dracula [1974]!!); incidentally, by this time, he always seems to have gained some excess weight
so Santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney! The Devil's antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up St. Nick's delivery program, then, is perfectly puerile: indeed, their tit-for-tat shenanigans resemble an old Laurel & Hardy routine more than anything! To pad out the running-time, we focus on three sets of children: one, the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for Christmas than their company (projected as a wish-fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra-large packages!), a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one, then invades the little one's dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who, egged on once again by Satan, think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. There is definitely imagination at work here, but it is applied with little rhyme or reason, while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay!
| 0
|
Me neither, but this flick is unfortunately one of those movies that are too bad to be good and too good to be awful, which makes it utterly pointless and a total waste of time. There's nothing more uninteresting than a mediocre movie, and My Name is Modesty: Whatever the subtitle is takes mediocrity to a new level. It's full of B-actors but isn't any fun whatsoever because it takes itself seriously. It sets itself up as a thriller but then turns into some kind of growing-up drama, flashback style. The beautiful Alexandra Staden, smothered beyond recognition under makeup, more resembles a cast member from Top Model than Modesty Blaise. I'm not one of those die-hard comic book freaks who wants every adaptation of his precious "graphic novels" to be pitch-perfect - in fact I've never even read Modesty Blaise - all I wanted was a decent movie to watch. But this wasn't it. The film feels half-finished, with a weak and very unexciting conclusion to a rather weak plot. It also takes its audience for idiots, explaining every tiny detail of the plot to us and showing flashbacks of things that happened three scenes ago (I guess they think we all have Alzheimers).<br /><br />Now I love a good B-movie - what's better than just turning your brain off and swallowing the cinematic equivalent of a Calzone? - and "Modesty" is directed by none other than Scott Spiegel, who brought us the wonderful splatter crap flick From Dusk Till Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money! I loved From Dusk Till Dawn 2 because it brought everything a bad B-movie should bring to the table - nudity, gore, guns, you name it. "Modesty" is just dull. The flashback concerning Modesty's life isn't interesting. The acting isn't bad enough to be laughed at. In fact, I kinda liked Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau's (hey buddy, pseudonyms are your friends!) performance as the baddie.<br /><br />So overall it's just lame. Weak. Uninspired. Call it what you will. Don't watch anything because Tarantino presents it, people. This is just a very forgettable, half-hearted thriller, and it never tries to be more than that. Allow me to round off this review with a very lame pun (seriously, even I'm cringing): My Name Is Modesty: A Modesty Waste of Time - 4/10
| 0
|
!!!! POSSIBLE MILD SPOILER !!!!!<br /><br />As I watched the first half of GUILTY AS SIN I couldn`t believe it was made in 1993 because it played like a JAGGED EDGE / Joe Eszterhas clone from the mid 80s . It starts with a murder and it`s left for the audience to muse " Is he guilty or innocent and will he go to bed with his attorney ? " , but halfway through the film shows its early 90s credentials by turning into a " Lawyer gets manipulated and stalked by her client " type film which ends in a ridiculous manner , and GUILTY AS SIN has an even more ridiculous ending in this respect .<br /><br />This is a very poor thriller but the most unforgivable thing about it is that it was directed by Sidney Lumet the same man who brought us the all time classic court room drama 12 ANGRY MEN
| 0
|
John Pressman (Micheal 'I shoulda called Ditech' Lerner) works at a doctor's office as an orderly. His mother (Zelda 'Poltergeist' Rubenstein) hypnotizes him to off the people who see thinks wronged him. But this turns out to be a movie within a movie, but the lines soon blur as John goes a movie theater to kill. Prompting a guy who's watching the movie to do the same. Lerner is suitably over the top in this, but Zelda repeats lines of dialog over and over again. That gets annoying fast. But not as annoying as the two girls who are watching the movie within a movie.As a horror film this one fails, it's too busy trying to be clever, trying to impart a message and seems to forget a slasher film must evoke a sense of tension, or at least a jump or two. No, what we have here is the worst kind of slasher: An art-house one.<br /><br />My Grade: D+
| 0
|
Holy @#%& this movie was still warm and juicy from the pile it was made with. I tried to watch this pile of festering waste but found it easier to slash my wrists and slug back a shooter of Lysol floor cleaner than endure more than half of the crap that was on my screen. I rank this well below anything I have ever watched on film or TV, and thats saying something. I once witnessed a cow crap in a field. I watched the steaming pile for a hour and a half, who knows... it might have moved or something. Well that was time better spent than watching this tripe. The acting was non-existent, the plot was somewhere other than on this film. I think I saw a cut seen early on where the plot managed to escape and was riding off in the background on the back of a old pickup truck heading to Portland in hopes of becoming a Steven King shi77er. Please tell me director is getting medication he so desperately needs. It's pretty clear he needs heavy medication and I'd willing to front the money needed for his lobotomy reversal. Bah... I can't give this review the full punch it needs because nothing this painful can ever be done justice in typed word alone. Let me just say that if your looking for a flick to pass some time and you see this Chilton on the rack, walk to your car, start the engine, then shove both of your fists straight into the fan until it you can't feel your bones vibrate anymore. Be sure to have your wallet in hand also because you were going to waste the cash anyway. You might as well have the privilege of wasting it yourself.<br /><br />By the way, I watched this after a "buddy" of mine sent his girlfriend over so I could see it. HE dint come over, SHE had too. Whats worse is that she had to watch this $%&@ thing TWICE! I heard their married now and he gets to visit his balls once a month. I hope it was because of this film.
| 0
|
Like all the Taviani Brothers films, this one looks great, but it is rotten to the core with false romanticism, and coincidences heap upon each other in some facsimile of a "story". In actuality, this is really just a sentimentally cheap tear jerker posing as an intellectually distinguished art film.
| 0
|
This film's premise is so simple and obvious that only a Texas millionaire high on oil fumes and whiskey would have a problem understanding it if someone shouted it across the proverbial parking lot. In summary: the oil business is in cahoots with The Government (or Gummint if you prefer), the Gummint is in cahoots with Middle Eastern despots, and the CIA is a singular festering pool of double dealing sons-of-(insert word) willing to toe any line that comes their way. The only people that get done over are the good ones, like Mr Clooney ("Bob"). Oh, and terrorism is a result of the poverty which globalization creates when wicked multinationals stalk the world looking for a tasty takeover or three . That really fits to the profiles of the well-heeled 9/11 perpetrators.<br /><br />In Syriana this facile tissue of political half-truths and Hollywood holograms is stirred up in a repugnant vermicelli of story strands that twist, turn and whirl through the gloopy circumlocutions of their own insignificance until the poor viewer is left alone with the conclusion that: <br /><br />1. the "director" (good joke) should never be let near a camera again <br /><br />2. people like Clooney and Hurt might know how to act, but they sure don't know how to pick a script <br /><br />3. if you want to see a film that deals with corruption in big business and the state, go and see Claude Chabrol's "L'ivresse du pouvoir", which is insightful, funny and brilliantly acted. <br /><br />Empty, doom-laden sententious piffle spun out to evening-ruining length.
| 0
|
WWF Survivor Series 2001<br /><br />This was among the worst events of 2001. Perhaps its biggest flaw was the fact that it didn't follow suit to most of the previous Survivor Series'. There was only ONE survivor series match. And that Survivor Series match went on for 45 minutes. What's more, anyone with a working brain would know that it would end with The Rock versus Austin and The Rock prevailing for his team. And don't get me started on the preview before the event. No matter who won it was obvious that no one was going to f***ing die. There was no need for all of that pointless hype. Whatever the storyline, it was just a wrestling event.<br /><br />And as for the rest of the matches: the first match was Christian defending his European title against Al Snow. It was a good fast paced match and its good to see a heel winning a match fairly. William Regal versus Tajiri was boring and we've seen it 2 or 3 times before. Edge versus Test was good but nothing great. The tag titles steel cage match was the best match of the evening. The battle Royal went on for 10 minutes and no one really cared who'd win in the first place. The Women's title match wasn't great. No, not in the slightest. The main event must have been the most hypocritical match in history. The Alliance lost but guess what, after 5 months every single Alliance superstar returned. The match itself was poor. The Rock eliminated 3 of them and Jericho eliminated 2. The Rock was too caught up with his acting to be there when the invasion began. Jericho was the one that jeopardised the whole match. If I wanted any 2 to be eliminated in the early going it would be them. Everyone knew that Kane, Big Show and Undertaker were just fall guys. 7 matches isn't enough for a Survivor Series. If there's ever a Survivor Series as bad as this again I'll
| 0
|
There was not one single redeeming factor in this movie. The girlfriend and I both love action films. Especially fight scenes (Bloodsport and Kickboxer was awesome), but this movie was not entertaining. Five minutes of action followed twenty minutes of talking and "angry" facial expressions. The main hero is a troubled character who has seen battle and thus is forced to look seriously constipated at all times. The Army has disrupted his bowel movements on top of perfecting his fighting technique. The music isn't good either. They fight to the rap and hip-hop style of the streets, 'cause these guys are thugs. The rest of the soundtrack is the usual background noise to low-budget dramas.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is classic B-style. The actors deliver their lines as if reading them from cue cards and the lines themselves should be set on fire and left burning in some rotten Hollywood alleyway. The film is called "Honor," but there was no honor in making this film. It was simply a waste of money, and spending wisely is something I consider to be honorable.<br /><br />Go see Felon instead. The fight scenes and situations are more real.
| 0
|
Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay.
| 0
|
The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.
| 0
|
It's the same old, "If I can't get the funding for my project, I'll inject myself" monster movie. There is nothing new here. It's a lot like the Jeff Goldblum "Fly" movie. The man manages to keep some semblance of sanity, but eventually succumbs to the effects of his experiments. The acting is pretty bad. There are people acting stupidly all along the way, putting their lives in danger for no apparent reason. The guy keeps going back to the lab he has been forbidden to enter. Then there's his relationship with a young woman and her son. Admittedly, he is good looking, but he seems like a lot of trouble. It's just a pretty big waste of time. Even his tyrannosaurus suit looks like it came off the rack at a Star Trek convention.
| 0
|
I should have never watched this movie. The style of filming may be considered artsy to some, but it is considered migraine-inducing to me. I think it may have had an interesting plot, but since I couldn't watch it for long stretches at a time I missed a lot. The flickering pictures and stop motion filming branded my brain. I stopped watching mid way through and won't be back for a second try. I suppose if I were home alone in my own lighthouse some dark and stormy evening, this might be just the ticket... PS Not sure if the lighthouse/ film style thing can be considered a spoiler, but I don't want to be blacklisted on my first review ;)
| 0
|
Much like Orson Welles thirty years earlier,Mike Sarne was given "the biggest train set in the world"to play with,but unfortunately lacked the ability to do anything more than watch his train set become a train wreck that is still spoken of with shock and a strange sort of awe. Despite post - modern interpretations purporting somehow to see it as a gay or even feminist tract,the fact of the matter is that it was a major disaster in 1970 and remains one today.How anyone given the resources at Mr Sarne's disposal could have screwed up so royally remains a closely - guarded secret.Only Michael Cimino ever came close with the political and artistic Armageddon that constitutes "Heaven's Gate".Both films appeared to be ego trips for their respective directors but at least Mr Cimino had made one of the great movies of the 1970s before squandering the studio's largesse,whereas Mr Sarne had only the rather fey "Joanna" in his locker. Furthermore,"Heaven's Gate" could boast some memorable and well - handled set - pieces where,tragically,"Myra Breckinridge"s cupboard was bare. Simply put,it is overwhelmingly the worst example of biting the hand that feeds in the history of Hollywood.
| 0
|
While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.<br /><br />There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original.
| 0
|
I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.<br /><br />In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.
| 0
|
God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap !
| 0
|
I guess it's Jack's great empathic ability that makes him the powerful performer that he is, but empathy comes at a price like all things-when he's surrounded by mediocrity he instinctively lowers the standard and becomes one with it. He is a joke as a mafia-hit-man(also because the part doesn't suit him one bit, him being so extroverted)and just grazing avoids making a fool of himself in this.Kathleen Turner had a much tooooo long career just by being tall and blonde, because her acting ability is limited to that thing she does with her eyes, when she opens them wide which she's convinced is sooooo damn sexy and Anjelica Huston is the absolute same(granted interesting) in everything, just like Robert Loggia. <br /><br />The movie is a lame draft(and this will be the only mention of the rag they call script) of a gangster-movie, with a cast that was probably only interested to get to the after-party faster(they certainly gathered the party-going elite in this). What, did they shoot it in 1 day?-cause that would be the only explanation.
| 0
|
It is important not to be insulted by lack of logic or common sense and those who have any "gray matters" will agree that this movie just doesn't work.<br /><br />The problems lay in the direction, cast selections and lack of depth in the character building. The word comedy was very hard thing to say when i expect to laugh when these words are used. Let's look at the problems in direction/script.<br /><br />Brother and sister both in their mid 30's seem to be well adjusted. They meet a complete stranger at a park and Heather Graham character walks up to her and asks the most intimate questions that even half sane person would be running the other way or at least scream for a police officer. He then awkwardly walks over and makes some stupid statements and she falls for him. Then after ONE date were they all go out together he falls in love with her and decides to get married in Vegas in a week's time???? Hello does anyone feel stupid yet? He goes out with thousands of women and he meets this one person who says about 10 words that WE see on the screen and he wants to marry her. Not only was there no chemistry it just doesn't make sense. Sure it's a romantic comedy and I want to believe it could, but the direction made it completely flat.<br /><br />Now Heather falls head over heels with her too and when Heather Graham and Bridget Moynahan (very shallow character) kiss or more to the point it was sloppiest kiss ever that chemistry MIGHT be there. I found it unromantic and unfunny and while many say Heather cannot act i think the reality is Heather was clearly the wrong person for this role. <br /><br />This was Sue Kramer debut as a director and to me it was just too much for her to chew. It would take a lot of craft to make this movie work and IMHO it could be done with better writers and casting and direction.
| 0
|
A good cast is appallingly wasted in this slower than molasses and haphazardly connived comedy. Peter Ustinov tries hard here to bring something to life but the result is a dour bore that misses all the right beats that might have made it watchable. Regardless of the favorable comments here, this film is awful. Badly directed. Badly edited. Badly acted. Badly written. You need to sit through a hundred movies to come across one this bad.<br /><br />The muddled and excruciatingly laggard plot concerns Ustinov conning his way into an American insurance company in order to hack their computer and embezzle millions of pounds. How he does it is beyond lameness and credibility (he just learns his computer skills seemingly overnight by reading some pamphlets, and hoodwinks computer expert Robert Morley into going to South America and stealing his identity).<br /><br />As a side plot, Ustinov romances fellow loner Maggie Smith, who just happens to become his secretary by chance after he gets a flat in her building. She ends up sharing scenes that have sexual undertones with Bob Newhart that go nowhere, while Ustinov goes about grafting the money bit by bit and trying to keep one step ahead of Newhart and Karl Malden. Then he Marries Smith and they fly off to Brazil, which has become the staple finale of almost every British caper comedy since (Nuns on the Run? A Fish Called Wanda?)<br /><br />The surprise twist of an ending is more laughable than everything that came before. By the end I was thinking I must be truly off my rocker to stick out drivel like this. Even a cameo by Cesar Romero didn't help it. One of the most unfunny, poorly paced 'comedies' I've ever seen, and certainly the worst caper. Don't waste your time. If you love this you need to see better films.
| 0
|
The 60s (1999) D: Mark Piznarski. Josh Hamilton, Julia Stiles, Jerry O'Connell, Jeremy Sisto, Jordana Brewster, Leonard Roberts, Bill Smitrovich, Annie Corley, Charles S. Dutton. NBC mini-series (later released to video/DVD as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s, as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. The film's first half is driven by the excellent performance of Dutton as Reverend Willie Taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. However, Dutton's character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull, incoherent, and downright awful 2nd half. RATING: 4 out of 10. Not rated (later rated PG-13 for video/DVD release).
| 0
|
This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen without a doubt. The only thing interesting in this film is the cameo appearances from some great genre directors and King himself. The film has a great premise, but falls apart about 15 minutes into the story. I did like Madchen Amick in this film and think she could have a very good career in film.
| 0
|
Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.<br /><br />The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.<br /><br />It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used "five months later" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your "Notes" and watch the Patriot instead.
| 0
|
Frank Capra's creativity must have been just about spent by the time he made this film. While it has a few charming moments, and many wonderful performers, Capra's outright recycling of not just the script but considerable footage from his first version of this story, Broadway Bill (1934), is downright shoddy. It is understandable that he would re-use footage from the climactic horse race, which is thrilling. But he uses entire dialogue scenes with minor actors, then brings back those actors and apparently expects us not to notice, for example, that Ward Bond is 14 years older! Unless you want to see one of the last appearances of Oliver Hardy, skip this one and watch Broadway Bill instead.
| 0
|
This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor) <br /><br />Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee
| 0
|
Probably New Zealands worst Movie ever made<br /><br />The Jokes They are not funny. Used from other movies & just plain corny The acting Is bad even though there is a great cast<br /><br />The story is Uninteresting & Boring Has more cheese then pizza huts cheese lovers pizza kind of like the acting Has been do 1,000 times before<br /><br />I watched this when it came on TV but was so boring could only stand 30 minutes of it. <br /><br />This movie sucks<br /><br />Do not watch it, <br /><br />Watch paint dry instead
| 0
|
This is a good example of how NOT to make a film.<br /><br />There is very little meaningful dialog, no context for the events, and constant cuts between seemingly unrelated scenes. The result is a confused, clueless viewer; the plot is absolutely impossible to follow and the ideas presented are meaningless without listening to the director's commentary.<br /><br />This movie has a lot to do with human atrocity and tries to show how wrong it is, with an emphasis on child abuse. It includes some stock footage of real, horrible acts of violence, including war time executions. Although it works in the context of the movie, I feel that the ideas behind the movie could have been presented without resorting to such extreme content. This film is absolutely NOT for the weak stomached or the easily offended, and should not under any circumstances be shown to minors.<br /><br />The climax is anti-climactic compared to the content of the rest of the movie. If you're not listening to the commentary while it happens you will probably miss it.<br /><br />The director's commentary was a one-shot, "sit the guy down and let him talk, no cuts" type of commentary. While this isn't necessarily bad, the director ends up rambling a lot and often spends minutes at a time complaining about his college, filming conditions, co producers, bad film, and a dozen other things. The constant negativity detracts from what otherwise is an essential tool for understanding the movie.<br /><br />The movie was shot many years ago on 16mm and Super8 film over a period of four years on an extremely low budget. Because of this, the video and audio quality is poor. That alone does not make it a bad movie, but it does make a bad movie worse.
| 0
|
Somehow they summed up the 60's, ten years that radically changed our country, in four hours. And what a painful four hours it was. They trivilized the major events and happenings and they "claimed" it was about two families yet you barely saw the african-american family. If I were NBC I would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. What was amusing was this happy-go-lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways, but managed to attend every major 60's event through the country. And the second family was such a non-factor. They devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. That poor son... Please NBC, do not make any movies about any other eras....leave that to PBS and the History Channel
| 0
|
The Omega Code was a model of cinematographical inconsistency. There was a bit (but precious little) of good acting, primarily by the two prophets and Rostenberg, who only appeared once and had no lines. Otherwise the acting was decidedly bad. The plot line was rather weak, and only partially based on already questionable Biblical interpretation. Certainly not one of the year's best.
| 0
|
This movie is lame and not funny at all. The plot doesn't even make sense. Some scientist who works on the fringes of science opens a doorway to another dimension (maybe hell???) and his daughter gets sucked through it or something, then one day for no apparent reason she comes back and now she has big breasts and wears a skimpy outfit (I guess the demons in the other dimension made it for her?) The main character is a guy who wants to marry his girlfriend but she is gay so obviously she's more interested in her new girlfriend, and they stumble upon this witch spell book (they want to be witches or something???) and the evil spell ends up getting read again which is how the evil demon comes to earth which only the bikini top girl and the spurned guy in love can stop apparently. There is topless scenes for no reason and a guy in it who my boyfriend says is a well known wrestler but his part is completely unnecessary, obviously they made something up just to put him in it because then maybe wrestling fans will actually watch this pointless movie. I'm sure the topless girls doesn't hurt there either. The extra features on the DVD were even more confusing than the rest of the movie, I thought it might help explain what was going on but it actually just made things more confusing. Who are these people and what are they doing? Basically this is a go-camping-to-make-out-then-fight-a-monster movie but there are a bunch of things (like the other dimension and book seller) than make it confusing. I didn't like the movie but it was only like five bucks so big deal. I don't recommend watching it though it was just too stupid, I can't think of any part of the movie that was good.
| 0
|
While William Shater can always make me smile in anything he appears in, (and I especially love him as Denny Crane in Boston Legal), well, this show is all about glitz and dancing girls and screaming and jumping up and down.<br /><br />It has none of the intelligence of Millionaire, none of the flair of Deal or No Deal.<br /><br />This show is all about dancing and stupid things to fill in the time.<br /><br />I watched it of course just to check it out. I did watch it for over 45 minutes, then I had to turn it off.<br /><br />The best part of it was William Shatner dancing on the stage. He is a hoot!!! unfortunately, this show WILL NOT MAKE IT.<br /><br />That's a given
| 0
|
I wish I could give this movie a zero. Cheesy effects and acting. The only reason to see this movie is so you can see how bad it is. Lets start with the kid who plays Brian. What a geek! I couldn't believe the mullet! Then there was the talking to himself. I guess they couldn't just have the movie be silent, but still. Of course they had to have him skinny-dipping too, not something I wanted to see. But Jared gave a great performance, compared to the special effects department. Everything from the bear to the crash was something I could do myself, and better. I seriously doubt that Gary Paulsen had anything to do with the production, seeing as the movie was not even called Hatchet. Finally, I do not think the writer had ever read the book, seeing as nothing was the same. I think the book was great, but this movie stunk like a smelly goat!
| 0
|
This movie made me feel as if I had missed some important scenes from the very beginning. There were continuity errors and plots that stopped as abruptly as they started. I was very disappointed because I love Whoopi Goldberg & Danny Glover, in addition to that have always trusted & respected Danny Glovers taste in his choice of roles, "Grand Canyon" for example. I just could not finish this movie, after what seemed an eternity, but was probably just a little over an hour; we had to turn it off. There was no comedy, there was nothing about the characters to make you empathize or sympathize with them, there was no evoking of emotion at all regarding this movie and the clips of their past were poorly edited, confusing, and unnecessary. What could have been a great idea for a movie, even as a drama & not a comedy (although I think a comedy in this situation would have been better, because I love to watch white people freak out & start acting like complete idiots, it makes me laugh) became a waste of my $1 credit at the video store.
| 0
|
One of the worst romantic comedies (nay, worst movies) I've ever seen. Boy (who works as a phone psychic!) must pretend to be gay to move into apartment with woman of his dreams. Hilarity does not ensue. Boredom, light gay-bashing, and horrible dialogue do. If you read Brad Meltzer and like his crappy dialogue, you'll like this movie.<br /><br />Be smart. Avoid this. if you see it, destroy the copy.
| 0
|
It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.<br /><br />To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.<br /><br />And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.<br /><br />Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.<br /><br />And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.<br /><br />And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, "The bullet will take his memory away." Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.<br /><br />Seriously, this was "Daredevil" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution.
| 0
|
POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2<br /><br />I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.<br /><br />Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.