text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
NOTE TO ALL DIRECTORS: Long is not necessarily good. This movie is incredibly long. However not good. The scenes were drawn out way, way, way, way, way too long. The sex scenes were unnecessary, and often too long. The movie edited down to 2 hours and 10 minutes or so would have been exceptional, but alas it became so boringly long that I can only give it a 2 of 10. It is way below average.<br /><br />Some other problems also exist in this marathon. <br /><br />1) Ralph Fiennes plays a whole family tree. The guy who played the Great-grandfather looks nothing like him, but the Grandfather, Father and the son (who gives us constant unneeded voice over) are all Ralph Fiennes with different facial hair and the same basic bull-headed personality. No one seems to notice that each of these children look like a clone of the last, even though photos of them are being snapped at every turn. This one is minor, but if the movie hadn't been 3 weeks long it wouldn't have been so annoying.<br /><br />2) The fact that no news from Germany was even whispered for the longest time about Jews being rounded up and sent off is ridiculous. Some word would have gotten to them and the thought of trying to run off would probably have been discussed. The uncle in France would surely have sent warning to try and get them to leave.<br /><br />3) The love stories in this movie are totally wrong. You are spending forever telling us this thing and the development of relationships between main characters is extremely short. Suddenly... people are in love and almost instantly... married. Then having children. Then we draw things out for 6 centuries and forget about developing relationships. This again would not have stuck out so much in a 2 hour movie, but with time spent nothing was given to us.<br /><br />4) The ending was just bad. I don't want to spoil it for anyone, but you won't like it either...unless you are sadistic.<br /><br />The director/writer should be tortured with having to watch this bloated garbage on a weekly basis, I mean endless loop, oops they are the same thing. <br /><br />I wonder if Robert Redford did anything for this movie, I mean I think Istvan Szabo must be modeling his directing career after him. Long drawn out movie which totally ruins any substance in the movie. A short description of 'The Horse Whisperer', and Sunshine.<br /><br />Sunshine, perfect title. If you start watching while the sun is shining it will quite possibly be well after dark when you leave.
| 0
|
Really, They spelled it BRAIN in the credits, not BRIAN.<br /><br />OK, they didn't have the budget for a spell checker. All the production money went for great old cars. There are at least two Packards visible here. One is a Darin Convertible. A nice yellow Packard convertible.<br /><br />The scenes of the movie studio show that there was some money spent for costumes and set decorations. Old Cameras, an exterior of Ciro's, street signs and whatever was needed to make a visually pleasing picture was there. Poorly written and directed.<br /><br />My DVD says it runs for 104 minutes, approximately. It was more like 85 minutes. It came to an end without reaching a conclusion. There was a collision but no conclusion. The movie just smashed up against the credits. 99 cents for this. I paid 99 cents for this. I could have bought 3 cans of cat food and watched my cat's face as he emoted more excitement.<br /><br />For a few seconds in the Ciro's scene after Darren McGavin gets a phone call, it looked like, maybe... this movie would have a surprise twist that would make for an interesting film. Then it just sat there.<br /><br />The young Latin actor played by Steven Bauer (Tony Montoya) could have had a much bigger part in all that was going on here. This cast could have made a good film.<br /><br />I think if they cut Brian's part and use Steven Bauer in his place and change the script and keep the Packards and lose the band and add a Johnny Otis sound alike band, then they got something.<br /><br />Here Kitty, Kitty...<br /><br />Tom Willett
| 0
|
I don't see enough TV game shows to understand the attraction of SHOW ME THE MONEY, but I suppose it holds some appeal for undemanding audiences. Ostensibly a quiz show, it offers contestants huge sums of money for answering a few simple questions. However, its quiz elements play only a small part in the proceedings, which I find tortuously complicated. For example, before answering a question, a contestant selects which question is to be asked by choosing from among random "A," "B," or "C" choices. Does this serve any purpose other than to slow the game down? It would be a lot quicker simply to start with "A." Contestants can pass on questions, but must answer one of the three questions in each category.<br /><br />After responding to a question, the contestant is then asked to "lock in" the answer--another delaying tactic. The contestant's next task is to name which woman from about a dozen go-go dancers in cages is to unveil a card that indicates how much the question is worth. A correct answer adds the card's dollar figure to the contestant's running total; a wrong answer subtracts the same sum. This time-consuming step actually has some entertainment value, as it allows the audience to get a close look at the scantily clad and uniformly gorgeous dancers. Meanwhile, the contestant is reminded that an unlucky selection of the "killer card" will end the game instantly. This naturally makes the contestant sweat and causes further delays as the nervous contestant contemplates the sudden loss of the hundreds of thousands of dollars. My suspicion is that the possibility of sudden disaster is the show's chief audience appeal.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the whole process is slowed down even more by a lot of empty banter between host William Shatner and the contestant, along with occasional routines by the caged dancers. All these delays burn up so much time that it might be possible for audiences to forget what the original question is by the time the correct answer is revealed.<br /><br />A typical 30-minute episode of JEOPARDY often gets through as many as 60 questions. The first 30 minutes of SMTM that I watched got through only six questions (many of which pertained to other TV shows). No one in his right mind would watch this show because it's fun to play along by answering the questions at home. That leaves three possible reasons to watch the show.<br /><br />A. To see how a contestant responds to being on the verge of winning as much as one million dollars, only to lose everything in one stroke.<br /><br />B. To look at gorgeous young women performing sexually suggestive dance routines.<br /><br />C. To enjoy William Shatner's scintillating banter.<br /><br />My choice is "B," but the women aren't on camera long enough to justify suffering through an hour of this show.
| 0
|
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.
| 0
|
I try to be very objective when I view a low budget movie. I also apply a lower weight to independent and low budget productions versus the big budget productions. I expect near flawlessness from big budget productions and their studios. Therefore I apply tougher criteria to the major studio releases. But this movie was just a dud. Period. The premise was terrible. The main character, Mary Gordano (Alicia Silverstone), was unbelievable as a high school senior with an unquenchable desire to solve crimes. There was not enough depth in her character or her acting that pulled you into her world. Also, to make this movie more mysterious, the lighting in certain scenes did not set the mood, especially in the warehouse.<br /><br />Once again another disappointing movie that I could only give three points to.
| 0
|
For some reason, various young couples hiking through the Italian Alps split up to see who can reach their campsite designation first. James (Gregory Lee Kenyon) enters a cave, finds a skeleton of an ancient demonic gladiator and becomes possessed by the spirit of "Tyranus" when he puts on a helmet belonging to the corpse. He then spends the rest of the film running around in the woods hunting down his friends and hacking off their limbs to add to some stew to bring the undead "Demonicus" back to life. This shot-on-digital Full Moon release is stupid, senseless, has terrible acting and sound and the (Los) Angeles National Forest is a poor substitute for Italy. However, it's pretty high on the unintentional laugh scale thanks mainly to the overwrought lead performance. Whether bug-eyed running around in cheap-looking armor brandishing a sword or spouting neurotic Latin gibberish about demons and resurrection, Kenyon's ridiculous facial expressions and awkward line delivery must be seen to be believed. Oh well, at least he's not boring like most of the rest of the cast.
| 0
|
How Rick Sloane was allowed to make five movies is harder to believe than cold fusion. This film is absolutely criminal. Before watching this movie I thought Manos: Hands of Fate was the worse piece of crap I ever saw, but at least Manos moves so slowly you might fall asleep, thereby rescuing your eyes from the pain it will suffer. The greatest tragedy of this movie is that the old man that keeps the Hobgoblins "locked" up makes it to the final scene. The time I spent watching this movie was an absolute waste of my life.
| 0
|
Well, on the endless quest for horror, we will come across this film, apparently re-released on DVD recently for some ungodly reason. The transfer is awful and the quality just sucks. I don't think this is due to a bad remaster or anything, I just think the film is poorly done.<br /><br />Obviously filmed at an abandoned school with a budget that was no doubt wasted on cheap beer and no talent hacks, "Slaughter High" starts out slow and doesn't pick up pace until about an hour in. First, we get to see a 'nerd' as he is picked on by a group of...I actually don't even know what they were supposed to be...jocks? The ringleader, with his ultra hooknose is so ugly he should have definitely been cast as the nerd. Then, there is a 'big guy' and a couple of dumb losers and chicks who are supposed to be 'hot' but aren't. It's a mystery why this group of rejects is picking on one of their own, but I guess the viewer is to assume these are 'cool kids' picking on a dweeb. The casting choices are horrendous as most of the high schoolers are played by thirty-somethings. As other reviewers on here have pointed out, the actors (if you can call them that,) are a bunch of Brits whose accents slip out numerous times throughout this piece of crap. We are left to assume that this group of 'children' were the only students at this school, as their 'reunion' is only them at the school, which is now shown to be abandoned, is just them.<br /><br />The kills are lame, the gore is not great and the script is like Scooby Doo with real people; lines like: 'This place gives me the creeps...' and 'Someone gimme a beer' are highlights...It's just not good. Skip this one unless you are getting wasted with some friends and wanna laugh at a real lame attempt at a slasher. If you wanna see good, get Bava's "Bay Of Blood," done 14 years earlier and a heck of a lot better. If you wanna see a good BAD slasher, see "Just Before Dawn" or "The Burning." 2 out of 10, kids.
| 0
|
I just saw this movie yesterday...I cannot believe the reviews on this site. The ones that give it over one-star must be Buffy fanatics. Well, I am a Buffy fan of the first order, but I know crap when I see it. On every level, this film is terrible. Technically, much of the time you don't know where you are in this movie, even within one scene, it jumps POV like crazy for no reason. No logic whatsoever in cinematic terms. Emotionally is bleak for bleak's sake and attempts to be a psychological thriller when it is just confusing. Throwing nasty-looking red-necks in your movie is a cheap way to convey "atmosphere". I ran out of patience with it a long time before the last act, but I was having too much fun with my friends doing MST3K riffs to turn it off. Since leaving Buffy, SMG has had 2 successful movies, if even listing "Scooby Doo" on your resume could count. Gellar is a fine actress, but she (or her agent) sure can't find a vehicle for her. And Mr. Shepard, if you are having trouble paying your mortgage, I'll send you a few bucks if you promise to not appear in a movie like this again! ( Also, the estate of Patsy Cline should sue for defamation! )
| 0
|
Penn takes the time to develop his characters, and we almost care about them. However there are some real problems with the story here, we see no real motivation for the evil brother's behavior, and the time line is screwed up. Supposedly set in 1963, the music is late 60s/early 70s. The references and dialogue is 70s/80s. The potential for a powerful climax presents itself, and Penn allows it to slip away. But even with all these difficulties it is worth the watch, but not great.
| 0
|
'Blue Desert' may have had the potential to be even a half-way plausible and more enjoyable thriller had the main character, Lisa Roberts (Courtney Cox) not been so stupid. When she is the victim of another attack on the streets of New York, comic book artist Roberts moves to a small town out West. In her first days there, she meets the suspiciously crazy Randall Atkins (Craig Sheffer, playing this part well) who will eventually not leave her side. Fearing for her safety after having been in the situation already twice before, she strikes up a friendship and relationship with the suspiciously amicable town cop, Steve Smith (D.B. Sweeny, who's character does not seem convincing enough, leaving disbelief among viewers who should otherwise be convinced of the red herrings thrown by the writers). Smith needs Roberts cooperation because, as he tells her, Atkins is an ex-con and guilty of sexual assault. But, the cops have lacked the evidence to put him away before.<br /><br />The movie had enough ploys to at least make an interesting movie because soon enough, there is such confusion as to whom Roberts should trust. However, much of the intended suspense appears too forced because Roberts character never seems to react to simple things as we think any reasonable person might. And her delayed responses allow much of that suspense to occur to easily and unconvincingly, particularly in the finale. Perhaps Sweeny was the wrong choice for this role; too baby faced in ways that kind of recall Kevin Anderson's persona evident in his character in 'Sleeping With the Enemy.' Or, if Lisa Roberts was written as a stronger character, this might suffice as well. In the meantime, the film is not all that great, even as a low-budget B-thriller.
| 0
|
Tom is listening to one of those old-time radio broadcasts, something kids from the 1950s to today would watch on TV. However, they didn't television when this cartoon was made so people got their entertainment - from comedies to music to scary stories - from the radio. <br /><br />Tom is literally shaking in his boots listening to some story about the "phantom." He's actually literally doing everything the narrator is saying, such as "hair standing on end, icy chills race down her spine, her heart beats in her throat," etc. Jerry, meanwhile, is watching Tom and laughing his butt off at his scaredy- cat antics.<br /><br />We then get a taste of what we will see for many years after this 194- cartoon in which Jerry tortures Tom for no reason other than sadistic pleasure. If the cat asks for trouble, that's one thing, but when he's minding own business and Jerry is physically (and in this case, mentally) abusing him, I have a hard time rooting for the "little guy."<br /><br />These early T&M efforts also were a minute longer than all that followed. Sometimes that one minute makes a difference. It did here as this actually dragged for awhile. It could have been cut to five minutes without missing anything because the sketches went on too long. That's usual for Tom and Jerry's. Usually, they are much faster-paced.
| 0
|
In this day and age of incredible special movie effects, this one was a sore disappointment. The actors seemed stiff and uninspired, as was the dialogue. Westerns are not common fare for Hollywood so much these days, but movies like "Silverado" prove that somebody out there still knows how to make a good one. Considering that, it is hard to conceive that anyone would go to any expense at all in releasing, much less creating such a weak film as this one. If you love and are looking for a good western, keep looking!
| 0
|
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
| 0
|
This movie had a good story, but was brought down because it didn't have enough horror film elements and violence. It was like watching a live action cartoon. It would of been better if this story is what they planned from the start of the first movie so they could of played seeds for where the series was going.
| 0
|
This movie is bad. If you are thinking about watching it, there is only one decent scene in the movie, and it lasts about 5 seconds (Amanda Carraway's topless scene). The rest of the movie is horrible. I think high school plays probably have better acting. The plot makes no sense at all. The set was pretty lame, and it wasn't even good to make fun of. It was just dull and very very bad! I watched this on Starz so I thought it had to be at least decent. The mini description sounded like it'd be alright. The girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie, after you have to watch some horrible music video. The transitions between scenes are VERY abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. Just cuts from one scene to another, no smoothness. Kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is, to explaining why the plot sucks. The audio gets low at some points, where you can barely hear it, then gets loud with gay 'horror screams' thrown in at random points in the movie. It is the same sound every time. This is now officially the worst movie I have ever seen<br /><br />Acting: 0/10 Effects: 1/10 Storyline: 0/10 Music: 3/10<br /><br />Lame-meter : 1,000,000 / 10
| 0
|
You know what kind of movie you're getting into when the serial killer main character is being transported to the electric chair (in what seems to be a bakery truck), only to have the prison vehicle collide with (and I'm not making this up) a genetic engineering tanker truck. The goo which spurts forth melts him, and fuses his DNA with the snow, creating our protagonist, the killer snowman.<br /><br />My favorite portion of the movie, however, is an over-the-shoulder shot of the snowman thrashing some poor schmuck, in which his hands look suspiciously like a couple of white oven-potholder gloves.<br /><br />Mmmmm, schlock...
| 0
|
This film is not funny. It is not entertaining. It does not contain one single second of originality or intelligence, nor does it lead you to take the slightest interest in the characters or situation. Added to that it's about as juvenile a movie as anything in recent memory. It's as if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kids who had never actually met or had any type of relationship with a real girl had sat down and wrote a movie based on their incorrect fantasies about what being an adult man would be like. This movie is boring, obnoxiously mind-numbing, and at times offensive and disgusting. At most, it contains one or two moments that make you laugh. Also, it seems twice as long as its 85 minute running time.
| 0
|
What was the purpose of this film? I suggest it was to make a handful of actors and their producers and director a big payday for doing nothing. Even my favorite actor, Bruce Dern, couldn't keep my interest in this boring movie. A braindead ex-pugilist falls in with a weird woman and her relatives. He starts out as a fix-it man for the woman, and winds up beating a man and getting caught up in a kidnapping scheme. It was so confusing I can't even write a decent critique. If you see this one, my sweet, make sure it is after dark so you can go right to sleep.
| 0
|
Some of the worst, least natural acting performances I've ever seen. Which is perhaps not surprising given the clunky, lame dialog given to the one note characters. Add to that the cheap production values and you've got a movie that doesn't look like it even belongs on television. One doesn't expect much from a Lifetime movie, especially one this old, but this is nearly unwatchably bad.<br /><br />Plot-wise, it's a dreadful, clichéd romance of a type even Harlequin would consider beneath them. It's possible to guess how the remainder of the movie will go by simply watching the opening couple of scenes. Surprise, the only female character who gets any focus and the mysterious stranger end up falling in love.
| 0
|
The whole Biker Movie genre has to be made up of the worst films ever made. This one delivers a lot of fighting, generous amounts of blood, bikers fighting Indians, and a shanty town that gets blown up and torn down one shack at a time. The acting is beyond terrible. What ever happened to Robert Walker, Jr.? At one point he was in some major studio productions, and then he just faded away. This movie really blows, but if you have not seen a Biker movie in a long time, it is a good one to watch. At the end of the movie, you should feel a bit trashy for having watched it!
| 0
|
This was a truly insipid film. The performances are third rate, and the dialogue is so stilted that at times it seemed to have just rolled over and died. My reason for renting this was simple: Find a movie with scriptwriting. I needed a visual aid for my presentation, so I figured why not use a clip? Boy was I wrong. After searching my local video store, I came upon this, where it was suspiciously titled "Starstruck". I thought, "What the hey", and decided to give it a try. Well, I was very unhappy with my results. There was maybe one scene I could use, and meanwhile, I was practically falling asleep because of the sheer banality of the flick. So.....I took this back and picked up Ed Wood. There's a movie I can use as an example. Then again, anything would be presentable compared to the drivel that is "Starfucker".
| 0
|
What the hell is this? Its one of the dumbest movies I've seen. I don't understand why people on this site love it so much. Its senseless &nudity for no reason. Its worst then Resident Evil. I strongly don't recomend it unless you want to watch chessy, bad acting crap. Watch real horor movies such as Stephen King's It, The Shining, Jurassic Park(kinda horor), JAWS, etc. Leave this crap for a rental when there is nothing else to rent. It is bad as Crudy vs Gayson. Attack of the Killer Tomatoes is better then this crap.<br /><br />Oh wow flesh eating zombies. How many damn zobie movies do we need. SKip this one.<br /><br />* outta ****
| 0
|
To say that Thunderbirds is a horrid, forced, in-your-face, ugly looking, nasty to listen to and painful to watch film wouldn't be saying enough. There are only two reasons I can think of why you'd watch this film: 1; you've seen Thunderbirds when you were young (like I did) and are curious as to what it is like but you will really only be watching to find out how badly they screwed things up. Or, 2; you're seeing it with someone under ten years old.<br /><br />Thunderbirds manages to cock up everything it attempts. The list goes on and on but there are other more subtle, humiliating things that are painfully obvious when you think about it. From the off, Thunderbirds is wrong, wrong, wrong. The whole moral message and 'goal' is set up in an excruciating way: Jeff Tracy (A new low for Bill Paxton) tells his youngest son Alan he's not yet proved himself to be a Thunderbird after Alan randomly and stupidly decided to go down into Tracy Island's bowels to fire up Thunderbird One. The whole film is then a series of events and miss-fires consisting of Alan trying to prove himself whilst his father and other brothers are trapped in space aboard Thunderbird five.<br /><br />The film relies on kid actors to carry the film: A 16 year old Alan Tracy (Corbet), a 16 year old Tin Tin (Hudgens) and a 14 year old Fermat (Fulton) who is Brains' son. To say that watching the 'adventures' they get up to is painful is an understatement. Frequently trying to act and utilise the script whilst combating the evil 'Hood' (Kingsley) in ridiculously unfunny and hammy ways acts as the entertainment for the duration of the film; it only differs when everyone's in a different location. Also, the whole 'mind control' thing was very tiresome and basically dragged the film down as it was overused and offered a way for our heroes to see a weakness in The Hood forced and incidental.<br /><br />I know that most 'film's for kids' these days try to integrate some sort of material for adults but in Thunderbirds it's done in a way that fetishises Lady Penelope. Sophia Myles plays Penelope and I think it's no coincidence she's a little older than the rest of the kids at 24 years old, it's almost too good to be true. Her scenes are often highly charged and carry an erotic push. We see her in the bath, bubbles up to her neck watching TV; in comes her butler and sneaks a peek as she seductively changes channels with her wet, bare and bubble covered foot. Frequent shots of her massive, bright pink high heeled shoes filling the screen during various scenes: This first happens when she is actually tied up with the second happening during a fist fight with another woman! Twinned with this, her bright pink costumes that reveal just enough yet cover just enough are particularly outstanding as is the way she moves and talks with that posh, dominant, English accent; sounding like a commanding mistress (Well, she is LADY Penelope after all and you'd better make sure call her that) The whole thing is laughable but the editing is so quick that the kids won't notice but it sure as hell is there.<br /><br />The actual plot of The Hood doing all that he does just to rob a few banks is very bizarre, the characters that are his bodyguards: a geeky looking woman and hard bodied black man who gets agitated a lot. Are we supposed to be laughing at this? What about the fight scenes? Poorly choreographed stunts and what the hell was with the silly noises? It's utterly, utterly laughable.<br /><br />The list goes on. The way Bill Paxton plays it all so seriously, like he was told they were doing it one way but it was made another, the way Ford motor company have their logo slapped all over the place. News bulletin: sponsored by Ford, the camera even moves to endorse Ford several times when cars are in shot, the way the CGI looks like something out of a computer game video clip it's infuriating. The fact we are told to believe that a 16 year old girl can swim in the freezing Thames, against the current, rescue a downed monorail (monorail over the Thames!?), get back to the hatch and thus; save the day all the time holding her breath. It is absolute bull and the makers know it I don't even know if a 10 year old would swallow it.<br /><br />In short: avoid, avoid, avoid. Thunderbirds is infuriating, unfunny, poorly scripted and even the Rolls Royce was taken out and replaced by a flying car everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.
| 0
|
Look, I loved the PROPER Anchorman film, but this was reaaaaallly bad. The kind of bad that makes you wish you could get that time back in your life, the kind of bad that makes you think "what on Earth were they thinking to film this in the first place", the kind of bad that makes you wish you'd taken 50 more minutes when stepping into the kitchen to grab a snack during the film, the kind of bad that makes leprosy look fun, the kind of bad that makes you think you wish you rented a Pauly Shore film instead....seriously, I cannot explain how very bad this was.<br /><br />Having said that....there were some semi-amusing laughs, but they are all so much LESS funny than Anchorman. Sure, they tried to make it entertaining and fun, but the entire subplot that was left out of Anchorman that made it here was genuinely left out for a good reason...it wasn't even a little bit good.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour (or in the USA, a favor), and don't watch this DVD...it will tarnish the good movie that Anchorman is and you don't want to do that.<br /><br />Okay...I'm alright now.
| 0
|
I went in to this movie thinking it was going to be the next Clerks, but left feeling let down. The humor was weak and the characters fairly flat. That isn't to say it was all bad, the idea of the dating service in the grocery store seemed like pretty fertile material, but the director switched focus to the cliche'd "save the Mom-and-Pop store from the evil corporation guy". I felt like if he would have just stuck with the dating service plot, he would have come out with a much more memorable movie. Now, to do the film justice, I am from the Rochester area and loved the way he portrayed Webster. In fact, the best Kevin Smith (of Clerks) homage here was giving props to his hometown. Webster, NY is to Checkout what Red Bank, NJ is to Clerks. The director wisely threw in a date at Nick Tahou's. Trust me, as far as things to do in Rochester, a garbage plate is at the top of the list. I was lucky enough to see this film at the Little in Rochester so everybody knew when the odes to the town came up and appreciated them.
| 0
|
Okay, so I get it. We're supposed to be horrified. The idea has been planted. A girl is doing her dad and taking photos of it. Call me over the shock-rock genre but I call for the explicit detailing of an act before I can fall for this. But don't expect me to watch a soft-porn and become horrified that she is 'doing her father'...I mean hasn't that convention become a bit abused in the adult film industry already infiltrated with 'rape, and molestation' porn...Horror isn't what your mind can fool you into believing. It is what actually exists in film. This is where Miike fails in Visitor Q. Extremism becomes mild when it becomes a choose your own adventure.
| 0
|
Absolutely nothing happens in this sloooow, annoying, thrill-less thriller directed by Amenabar's usual collaborator Mateo Gil. The film, which in some way deals with the effect of boredom and the quest for thrills, actually delivers none, and seems like an exercise in boredom. The only mildly suspenseful moment is the movie's climax, which takes about 30 seconds of the whole agonizing 100-plus minutes, and is resolved too simply. The plot lacks sophistication or credibility, and while the idea is original, the way the story unfolds is arbitrary and every plot device or twist is a result of outside interference (deus-ex-machina). The hero is always passive, everything happens to him without forcing him to show any initiative or resourcefulness. If you're fans of the genre, watch "Tesis" instead.
| 0
|
No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!<br /><br />Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.
| 0
|
Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.
| 0
|
I wondered why John Wood was not playing Dr. Falken until I watched the film. BAD plot, bad science, bad acting and overall a bad film. Please don't watch this film. Rent the original "War Games" if you are feeling nostalgic.<br /><br />I didn't like the bending of the plot to beat-the-terrorist-threat idea either. In the first film W.O.P.R was built because Russia had 1000s of warheads pointed at the U.S.A. In this film the idea behind the computer was to kill terrorist in training before they are a threat. Politics aside, one of the good thing about the first film was the highlighting that even a stupid computer could grasp the idea of the pointlessness of war in the end. No such insight is offered in this film.
| 0
|
My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.<br /><br />My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.
| 0
|
This movie is mostly crap and the only reason this movie is worth watching is because Jean-Claud Vam Damme stars in this movie.There are some good action scenes in this movie and the best ones are at the end of the movie.<br /><br />The acting in this movie is so bad and its the worst acting i have ever seen and the 2 actors Bill Goldberg and Michael Jai White Can not act at ALL.And this movie by far has to be one of Jean-Claud Vam Dammes worst movies he has done and if u what to watch him in one of his great movies u should watch Blood sport,KickBoxer or Sudden Death.<br /><br />Over all this movie is crap/OK and my rating is 4 out of 10.
| 0
|
I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.<br /><br />The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point. <br /><br />The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really. <br /><br />The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.
| 0
|
OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.
| 0
|
A series of painfully unfunny skits that seem to go on forever and a day. Not as mind-numbingly awful as say "Freddy Got Fingered" or "Lost Reality", but that in NO way is an endorsement in ANY way, sense or form. Features the worst rhyming clown ever. Any most if it isn't offensive to anybody but the most prudish or politically correct. It also has the worst song parody EVER put on film, the WORST Arnold impersonation EVER (not just the worst put on film, literally the worst EVER). I have NO clue why Karen Black, Micheal Clarke Duncan, or Slash would star in this (the reasons I watched this in the first place) The only thing mildly amusing was Dickman. In conclusion I would't recommend this film to ANYONE, but the people who are making it their mission in life to get this in the Bottom 250 on this site are pathetic. Do something notable with you lives people. Plus if it's true the Church of Scientalogy hates him, he can't be ALL bad.<br /><br />My Grade: D
| 0
|
Kurt Thomas stars as Jonathan Cabot some kind of a gymnast who trains for a special game which involves being hunted by a group of ninjas, but those ninjas won't stand a chance, especially since Cabot is a gymnast! Taken as a whole Gymkata is one helluva bad movie, the atrocious acting, the god-awful script and really incompetent directing make the quality below human standards, however this movie is so terrible it becomes really, really funny. I mean with dialog such as "I know I'll outsleep them!" or "Ha!, your through!" only add to the mock value that Gymkata more then obtains. Besides it's (Wisely) the only movie that has are hero a gymnast who finds things to swing on in the heat of the moment.
| 0
|
I too like Dafoe as an actor but i wasted a few hours of my life actually watching this film, I still cant believe i managed to watch it in its entirety. Was there actually a point to the film?, and the ending, well, Im glad i never paid to see this awful pointless piece of pathetic excuse of a film!<br /><br />Im not sure without hunting the facts out but is Dafoe married or seeing the awful actress in this film in real life, if so was it an attempt to kick start her career?, if so im afraid it must have failed..<br /><br />I post this in the hope i can actually put someone off watching this film, even if 1 person takes heed of my comments and decides they would much rather watch paint drying i will feel i have made some good in the world, if only i had had the same advice...
| 0
|
As a physics student, I've become aware of many idiot professors, and other so-called experts, in the field. As I continue with my studies, I learn more and more about real physics experiments going on, and about the people who are doing things right.<br /><br />Then, my friends tell me of this "physics movie" they want to see. Knowing nothing of it, I'm excited, hoping that the information will be presented well.<br /><br />I've done REAL quantum mechanics; this wasn't it.<br /><br />This movie starts with the basic assumption that anything that occurs to a subatomic particle can, and will, occur to you, if you just open your eyes. Let's think about that, for just a moment.<br /><br />Our bodies are composed of somewhere around 10^30 such subatomic particles. That is a million billion billion billion particles! The more "mysterious" quantum effects of just two particles can have a 50% probability of cancelling each other out completely. As you add more and more particles into the mix, it becomes almost impossible to have a large net quantum result. To tell us to believe that this is a valid assumption, with no rationality behind it...it's just stupid.<br /><br />My friend, also in physics, and I counted 3 facts during the course of this movie. But they were presented in the most misleading manner I've EVER SEEN.<br /><br />I cannot say as much for the neural portion of the movie, as I have not had any kind of medical training. It seemed as though it might have had a slight bit more truth to it, remembering my days in biology, but I cannot say.<br /><br />At least this film had a redeeming quality: the dancing peptides (or whatever they actually were) scene. Not to ruin the invaluable plot that drives this movie, but the main character goes to a wedding, where she sees all different types of personalities "driven" by their peptides*, and then the film cuts to the dance floor, where we are spliced between people dancing, sometimes surrounded by CG peptides, and a fully CG scene, filled with dancing peptides. The film, at that point, was trying to tell us how we're "addicted to emotions," so we're treated to the full song of that smash hit, "Addicted to Love."<br /><br />This scene was redeeming, because anyone who could go through THAT scene, and still take this movie seriously...well, you are the ones that need to "open your eyes."
| 0
|
A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.<br /><br />In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.<br /><br />The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.<br /><br />Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.<br /><br />Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.<br /><br />The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.<br /><br />If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.<br /><br />In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.
| 0
|
Omen IV: The Awakening starts at the 'St. Frances Orphanage' where husband & wife Karen (Faye Grant) & Gene York (Michael Woods) are given a baby girl by Sister Yvonne (Megan Leitch) who they have adopted, they name her Delia. At first things go well but as the years pass & Delia (Asia Vieria) grows up Karen becomes suspicious of her as death & disaster follows her, Karen is convinced that she is evil itself. Karen then finds out that she is pregnant but discovers a sinister plot to use her as a surrogate mother for th next Antichrist & gets a shock when she finds out who Delia's real father was...<br /><br />Originally to be directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard who either quit or was sacked & was replaced by Jorge Montesi who completed the film although why he bothered is anyone's guess as Omen IV: The Awakening is absolutely terrible & a disgrace when compared to it illustrious predecessors. The script by Brian Taggert is hilariously bad, I'm not sure whether this nonsense actually looked good as the written word on a piece of paper but there are so many things wrong with it that I find even that hard to believe. As a serious film Omen IV: The AWakening falls flat on it's face & it really does work better if you look at it as a comedy spoof, I mean the scene towards the end when the Detective comes face-to-face with a bunch of zombie carol singers who are singing an ominous Gothic song has to be seen to be believed & I thought it was absolutely hilarious & ridiculous in equal measure. Then there's the pointless difference between this & the other Omen films in that this time it's a young girl, the question I ask here is why? Seriously, why? There's no reason at all & isn't used to any effect at all anyway. Then of course there's the stupid twist at the end which claims Delia has been keeping her brother's embryo inside herself & that in a sinister conspiracy involving a group of Satan worshippers it has been implanted in Karen so she can give birth to the Antichrist is moronic & comes across as just plain daft. At first it has a certain entertainment value in how bad it is but the unintentional hilarity gives way to complete boredom sooner rather than later.<br /><br />It's obviously impossible to know how much of Omen IV: The Awakening was directed by Girard & Montesi but you can sort of tell all was not well behind the camera as it's a shabby, cheap looking poorly made film which was actually made-for-TV & it shows with the bland, flat & unimaginative cinematography & production design. Then there's the total lack of scares, atmosphere, tension & gore which are the main elements that made the previous Omen films so effective.<br /><br />The budget must have been pretty low & the film looks like it was. The best most stylish thing about Omen IV: The Awakening is the final shot in which the camera rises up in the air as Delia walks away into the distance to reveal a crucifix shaped cross made by two overlapping path's but this is the very last shot before the end credits roll which says just about everything. I have to mention the music which sounds awful, more suited to a comedy & is very inappropriate sounding. The acting is alright at best but as usual the kid annoys.<br /><br />Omen IV: The Awakening is rubbish, it's a totally ridiculous film that tries to be serious & just ends up coming across as stupid. The change of director's probably didn't help either, that's still not a excuse though. The last Omen film to date following the original The Omen (1976), Damien: Omen II (1978) & The Final Conflict (1981) all of which are far superior to this.
| 0
|
First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.<br /><br />I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.
| 0
|
I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).<br /><br />It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense.
| 0
|
what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.<br /><br />2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.<br /><br />3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.<br /><br />4. smarmy, smug drollness.<br /><br />5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.<br /><br />but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.
| 0
|
Dolph Lundgren stars as Murray Wilson an alcoholic ex-cop who gets involved with a serial killer who kills during sex, after his brother is murdered, Wilson starts his own investigation and finds out a lot of his brother's secrets in this very dull thriller. Lundgren mails in his performance and the movie is flat and lethargic. Also when has anyone watched a Dolph Lundgren movie for anything but action?
| 0
|
I won't spend a lot of time nor energy on this comment. I just want to add it because all the comments were so positive I felt like I just had to let people know that not everyone is so thrilled, let alone intellectually provoked by this attempt at creating a captivating philosophical cinematic enigma. Some scenes seemed promising, playing with visual dimensions, but couldn't hold up the rest. I felt like I was stoned for the first time again, having semi-philosophical conversations with fellow adolescents.<br /><br />What a futile attempt to raise Dutch cinema to new heights. I'd rather watch Jesus is een Palestijn, without all the pretentions and with straight forward humor, also raising questions about life and the realities we create for ourselves.<br /><br />Gert de Graff is not Jean-Luc Godard or Tarkovsky and appearantly never will be.
| 0
|
In the last 10 years I have worked in 3 different indie professional wrestling organizations, managed many pro wrestlers (including 2 Backyard Wrestling stars), worked on 2 different wrestling TV programs and did voice-overs and commentary for many wrestling DVD's. I have NEVER witnessed the level of outright amateurish stupidity, lack of talent and skill, and shoddy production quality found in Splatter Rampage Wrestling. To even list this as a wrestling video of ANY kind is an outright misuse of the term. Shot with low-dollar video cameras, it's essentially home videos of kids play-fighting in back yards. The sound quality is bad, the video quality is bad, and the acting is horrendous. The "wrestlers" wear makeshift costumes with hand-drawn tee shirts and ski masks and hit each other with a variety of items and halfway imitate wrestling moves. Sometimes the "matches" are on the grass. Sometimes on a back yard trampoline. ALL are poorly acted and executed with a shameless lack of any wrestling skill. In short, don't bother with this stinker. Whether your interest in this DVD is entertainment or academic (both in my case), you will be terribly disappointed.
| 0
|
Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?
| 0
|
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10
| 0
|
If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.<br /><br />However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.<br /><br />Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.
| 0
|
Oh just what I needed,another movie about 19th century England. Which is pretty much like regular England,only nobody's vandalising football stadiums.In this picturesque setting of lords,dames and other randomly chosen titles,Charlotte Gainsbourg walks around aimlessly as Jane Eyre,from that novel nobody has ever read willingly.Jane usually hangs out in Mr.Rochester's crib,where she tries to teach a French girl to look at an empty chalkboard all the time.One day,Mr.Rochester(William Hurt on auto-pilot)comes back to fall in love with Jane and all that,but there's still the matter of his fruitcake wife that is locked in the attic.Oops,that wasn't in the brochure.After some people being thrown around and some carefully spread fire(they probably rented the set),the movie finally comes to an end.Everything looked really authentic,that's something I guess.But then again,nah.
| 0
|
How did this ever come into existence? I generally love sci F/Bigfoot whatever films etc. . . but I still expect them to be written without quite so much cheese as this. The effects were sad, the lines were sadder. Avoid at all costs. I only ended up renting it because it was in the wrong case (I was looking for the Sasquatch film with Lance Henrikson in it -- still haven't seen that one). The idea of the film is actually a good one. There was a lot of potential to make a great little movie here. I just don't understand how something like this ends up like this. Go speak to the film/arts/English interested students in any high school and you'll find people who can write a better script.
| 0
|
the characters at depth-less rip offs. you've seen all the characters in other movies, i promise. the script tries to be edgy and obnoxious but fails miserably. it throws in some hangover meets superbad comedy but the jokes are way out of left field, completely forced, and are disreguarded almost completely after they are cracked. the hot chick is old and has no personality, shes just some early thirties blonde chick with a few wise ass non-underwear wearing jokes who is less than endearing. the attraction between Molly (the hot chick) and Kirk (the dorky love interest) is barely communicated. the attraction in no where to be found its a completely platonic relationship until they awkward and predictable seat belt- mishap kiss occurs. afer this they are in a full on relationship and its just incredibly lame. the main focus of this movie is not the relationship, but a failed attempt at making a raunchy super-bad-esquire movie with a semi appealing plot. I could compare this to the hangover, in its forced nature. i wont get into that. i could keep going but its just pointless. just don't pay to see this movie.
| 0
|
Bestselling writer George Plimpton(Alan Alda)takes on an assignment for Sports Illustrated. He is to go incognito to the Detroit Lions training camp and try out for a position as third string Quarterback. He is quickly found out by the team members featuring Alex Karras and Mike Lucci. The entire team finds it amusing to cause stumbling blocks in the writer's determination to Quarterback for a series in a real game.<br /><br />This movie is Alda's debut and also helped Karras leave the gridiron for acting. Besides the 1968 Detroit Lions, the cast also includes "Sugar Ray" Robinson, Roy Schieder and Lauren Hutton.<br /><br />Alex March directs this story based on Plimton's book.
| 0
|
This movie is like the thousand "cat and mouse" movies that preceded it. (The following may look like a spoiler, but it really just describes a large class of movies) There is the passionate, wise main character, his goofy but well-meaning sidekick with his ill-placed attempts at humorous comments, the initially-hostile but soon softened gorgeous lady who triggers the inevitable "unlikely" love story, the loved ones taken hostage, and of course the careless evil adversary with his brutal minions. Everybody has seen tons of these movies already, and "National Treasure" is like any one of them, with only a slightly modified wrapping. Every turn of the story was easily predicted (and I can assure you I am not the sharpest tool in the shed). I am quite tired of feeling tricked for money after exiting the theater from a Hollywood movie, and if you have ever felt that way too, heed my warning; stay miles away from this movie.
| 0
|
This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.<br /><br />So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.
| 0
|
Steven what have you done you have hit an all new low. It is weird since Steven's last film shadow man was directed by the same director who did this trash. Shadow man was good this was diabolically bad so bad it wasn't even funny Steven is hardly in the movie and feels like he is in a cameo appearance and when he is in the film he is dubbed half the time anyway. As for the action well let's just say the wizard of oz had more action than this trash there is hardly any action in the film and when it does finally arrive it is boring depressing badly shot so called action scenes. Seagal hardly kills anyone unlike his over films where he goes one man army ie under siege 1 and 2 and exit wounds. the plot is so confusing with so many plot holes that it doesn't make scenes sometimes. flight of fury better be good what a shame i wasted 5 pounds on this garbage 0 out of ten better luck next time
| 0
|
OK, if you're a woman who's got aggression issues, you might like this movie. Hate your significant other? This movie is for you. For the guys, it will be a bag of laughs.<br /><br />It's sad when former award winning actresses have to do cut rate movies.<br /><br />The only really good part is the last 10 seconds. Even that was a load of cheese.<br /><br />My wife is picking the worst movies lately. This is what you get (I) for letting my wife pick movies based on reading reviews on movie rental sites.
| 0
|
Okay, let me coin a new word here: polyphobia: The fear of polyamorous relationships. This is yet another in a long line of movies which start out by titillating audiences about some kind of threesome, only to turn on a dime and go all preachy about how it is oh so necessary and the only moral thing to find a monogamistic solution. Only one person in a thousand understands the delight of being able to love more than one person, and this director is not one of them. Bleh.<br /><br />Mark my words: a few decades from now, polyphobia is going to be just as big a faux-pas as homophobia, but guess who was too close-minded to realize this? Right the first time: the producers of this movie. And so many like it. Why even make a ridiculously conservative and old-fashioned type of movie like this? Priding itself on being limitlessly open-minded about gayness, it completely overlooks the fact that we live in an age where monogamy is turning into sequential monogamy, which in turn in turning into swinging and polyamory. Open your eyes, people, please!<br /><br />This is a disappointing, run-of-the-mill chick-flick. (But, damn, I gotta say, Heather Graham is the cutest thing alive.)<br /><br />3 out of 10.
| 0
|
Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.<br /><br />There are two laughs in HOT ROD.<br /><br />1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.<br /><br />2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.<br /><br />Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.<br /><br />Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.<br /><br />Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.<br /><br />Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.
| 0
|
An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.
| 0
|
There's something frustrating about watching a movie like 'Murder By Numers' because somewhere inside that Hollywood formula is a good movie trying to pop out. However, by the time the credits roll, there's no saving it. The whole thing is pretty much blown by the "cop side" of the story, where Sandra Bullock and Ben Chaplin's homicide detective characters muddle through an awkward sexual affair that becomes more and more trivialized the longer the movie goes on. Although Bullock is strong in her role, it's not enough to save the lackluster script and lazy pacing. Ben Chaplin's talents are wasted in a forgettable role (he did much better earlier in the year in the underrated 'Birthday Girl') as well as Chris Penn, who has a role so thanklessly small you feel sorry for a talent like him. Anyway, the plot really isn't even a factor in this movie at all. The two teen killers played by Ryan Gosling and Michael Pitt are the only real reasons to see this movie. Their talent and chemistry work pretty good and they play off of each other quite well. It's too bad they weren't in a much better all-around film. Barbet Schroeder is treading way too safe ground here for such a seasoned filmmaker. Bottom Line: it's worth a rent if you're a genre fan, but everyone else will live a fulfilled life without ever seeing it, except maybe on network TV with convenient commercial breaks.
| 0
|
I give this movie 3 out of 10 because I have watched zillions of movies and I can tell clearly what an intellectual movie with a mind-teasing message should look like. Definitely, The Broken is not one of those movies. I have to admit that the movie made me think a lot trying to understand what the whole thing was trying to lead to and despite the explanations I've read in prior comments, they seemed only an exaggeration just to have one self in the intellectual league of people. the photo on the cover clearly shows that the Broken is the broken upper piece of the face which normally contains the brain. It's a clear message that once this part of the body is broken the rest will be deformed and lifeless. So, you start waiting on the movie characters to show their defected sides and this is not obvious in any of the scenes because the movie starts right away without any introduction to the characters and their lives before. Though we see the father holding a rifle when his children try to surprise him as if he is aware he has enemies but still this is not a very strong clue. Had the clues been planted more in the movie, one would have said about that it is a masterpiece indeed. But though the movie was so slow in pace, it was at the same time so empty with no metaphorical scenes at all. And the reuniting of the evil dad with the evil Gena at the end is a strong refuting evidence of the existential messages that some people spoke about in other comments. Furthermore, if Gena truly lives in the apartment as her brother tells her at the end, then how come she is the evil one? I bet I can defy any theory about this movie with so many questions that can only lead to one conclusion: This movie is a pretentious one and a waste of time. Obviously it shows someone trying to make out of a meaningless mystery something which is of no value at all. I am a huge fan of horror movies and specially slasher ones that some people call popcorn movies. Horror movies are not supposed to convey deep messages! They're supposed to uncover the beautiful mask of life and show you the other dark side of it which is the truest, I guess. Horror movies should have blood, screams, intensity, skeletons, body organs and parts. Because that is the real horror and it's never away from reality. I have watched almost all horror movies and I can prove that each one of them can be as real as the sunrising. Nothing is unreal as long as the mind had thought of. For instance, the horror movie "Train" with all the slashing and tensity of it and its similarity almost in everything with "Hostel", it speaks about a very real thing which is selling body organs illegally by abducting people in foreign places where no one would ask or search for them.<br /><br />And even if we considered the Broken a movie that has an existential message, it is still very poorly presented and the least scary. I prefer the addiction message presented in Requiem for a Dream which went beyond drug addiction to highlight the fact that any kind of addiction whether for sex, TV, safety/being pampered, etc... can be so destructive and it scared the hell out of me. And those who always criticize horror movies for being meaningless and very commercial, are usually just bunch of people who get scared easily and simply don't like this genre but this doesn't mean that there are fans of such movies and that they have a lot to offer to the viewer from adrenaline turmoils, ecstasy, leadership lessons (believe it or not!), entertainment to most importantly the face to face interview with the essence of life, as ugly and scary as it may seems, Death!
| 0
|
Born Again is a sub-standard episode from season one. It deals with the subject of reincarnation and just doesn't fly. I've never been big on reincarnation and that could be part of my apathy toward this episode. It does reference the Tooms case which is some nice continuation from the previous episode. But the positives end there. Which is unfortunate because that takes place at the beginning of the episode. I think it's ludicrous that a dead guy would chose to reincarnate in the body of a completely unrelated girl. And he waits until the girl turns eight to start exacting revenge. There's even a serious lack of witty Mulder & Scully dialogue to keep the episode afloat. If you're into reincarnation, maybe this episode is up your alley. If you're not, then at least you can learn what bradycardia is.
| 0
|
Most of what has been said about the negative aspects of the film hold true.<br /><br />BUT .... If I have to sit through a movie were the:<br /><br />Director<br /><br />Director of Photography<br /><br />Editor<br /><br />Can't EVEN miss the darn Microphone Boom popping in and out of the movie for almost every Chapter of the movie, how can I enjoy and concentrate on the story as well as believe in the darn thing when I'm reminded of the technicalities of making a movie!!!!!!!<br /><br />WAIT FOR THE DVD OR DON'T BOTHER
| 0
|
Things I learned from "The List".<br /><br />A decent cinematographer, a hot girl who can act and Malcom McDowell couldn't stop this movie from sucking.<br /><br />Blockbuster won't give you your money back.<br /><br />Even when he reads the script and says "Ugh! Really?!", Malcom McDowell still tries.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington desperately needs acting classes.<br /><br />Hire a writer.<br /><br />Jesus hates me too and punished me by making me pay $ 5.50 to see this movie.<br /><br />When making a movie, you don't need an ending. Just leave everything unexplained, unresolved an uninteresting enough so that the audience falls asleep BEFORE the ending. Genius.<br /><br />Any random landlord can cure death just by drawing a cross on a window. So make friends.<br /><br />Your maid can sing you back to life.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington still needs acting classes.<br /><br />Your roommate will hate you and make fun of you if you bring home this movie.<br /><br />Apologies will not be accepted.
| 0
|
How this film was made with so many big stars is beyond me. This is a terrible cliché' ridden film with the worst acting any of these actors have ever done. It really surprises me that so many of these A list stars would agree to this unfunny film. What's even worse is the fact that is made almost 100 million here in the states. It does go to show however that big stars can pull in the bucks, even if the film is terrible. I felt sorry for everyone involved in this snore-fest. Billy Crystal tried his best with the what he was given and the rest of the stars seemed to be walking through the motions. Whatever you do, don't fall for the excellent cast because no one could have saved this.
| 0
|
Visually speaking, this film is stunning. It has some delightful black comedic moments. But on the whole, the plot is very clichéd, as is its seeming message. If you're a fan of over-the-top violence in mainstream movies like hostel or saw, you'll love it. If you're looking for something at all high-brow, steer away. I saw it as part of the edinburgh film festival 06, and I only chose it because I was looking for something disturbing. Ultimately, it isn't disturbing. Just grinding and unpleasant to sit through. If you genuinely want to be challenged, go see something like The Lost. If you want to be grossed out, or tell your friends about a really messed up film, then this is for you.
| 0
|
I had some time to kill before watching football so I saw this movie being offered on the scifi channel and it literally after watching it I thought I had encountered my version of mentally walking the Bataan death march as my conscious was beaten into submission by the awful movie which ripped off the Mummy series and Jurassic Park. It was so bad that I thought the opening credits were the highlight of the movie and then it went into such a abysmal descent that it made the recent drop in the stock market seem like a hiccup. The acting was so bad that I was hoping that one and all would be buried at the end. The lead by Casper Van Dien made me long for the high caliber acting of Steven Seagal in "On Deadly Ground" as his line reading was so wooden that Woody Woodpecker was thinking of making a cameo to sit on his shoulder. I also noticed that his emotional range is so limited that I was under the impression my kitten was more expressive when asking for popcorn to eat . The direction was so abysmal I looked back yearning to my nephew's grade 3 play recital which had more pace and better vision and the fact that this movie seems to be have spliced together from afterthoughts of the aforementioned movie franchise it can not even be thought of as a homage. The FX of the movie was so bad that I thought the director and producers were enviormentally friendly by recycling cheap special effects from grade Z horror flicks from yesteryear. What Robert Wagner, Tom Bosley and Geoffrey Lewis were doing in this movies is beyond me and they should look at litigation against their agents for misrepresentation for getting them involved with such a dreck of a movie. My warning to one and all is watch this movie at your peril as this movie may cause your IQ to diminish with prolonged viewing. On a side note I noticed at IMDb that sometimes salaries for movies are published I was wondering if their is a way that actors that should give the salaries back for their poor performances in such movies. Beware and be safe avoid at all costs.
| 0
|
This film essentially deals with Inspector Gadget's arch-nemesis Doctor Claw who has returned after many years to the now-peaceful city of Metropolis. Claw's plan is to foil Gadget once and for all by using a newer "cooler" crimefighter to help destroy Gadget's popularity. Sadly the film fails miserably, the series was great, but it was revived nearly 20 years later with tragic results. Without the voice of Don Adams as Inspector Gadget it just doesn't cut it anymore; Dr. Claw is not only visually less frightening, but sounds more like a wrestler with a cold, than his original intimidating self. Granted this is a children's movie, but the plot is so painfully weak (heaven forbid I mention the animation) that it pales in comparison to the original series. Someone has decided to updated Penny as well to bring her two decades up to speed, she now has some quasi-punk rebellious clothing style and doesn't play half the role that she did in the TV series. The Gadgetmobile talks, as well as including a plot angle that focuses entire ON talking cars. Maybe I'm just a kid who loved the show who's grown up jaded, but I thought that the live-action version was more pain than I could bear, but now they go and spring this complete watering-down of the quality TV series on us. It's more than I can take.
| 0
|
This is an interesting idea gone bad. The hidden meanings in art left as clues by a serial killer sounds intriguing, but the execution in "Anamorph" is excruciatingly slow and without much interest. There is no other way to describe the film except boring. The death clues are the only interesting part of "Anamorph". Everything connecting them is tedious. Willem Dafoe gives a credible performance as the investigator, but he has little to do with a script that is stretched to the limit. Several supporting character actors are wasted , including Peter Stormare as the art expert, James Rebhorn as the police chief, Paul Lazar as the medical examiner, and most notably Deborah Harry, who is featured on the back of the DVD case, yet only has a couple lines spoken through a cracked door. Not recommended. - MERK
| 0
|
I am SURE there is some sort of IMDB cult that likes movies that MST3K made fun of. After seeing both this and "Werewolf" and reading dozens of comments about how underated they are, I became convinced that there is some conpiricy going on here. Alot of people are saying that people who hate it "are only scared by gore", "Don't know good horror" or stuff like that. Well, I don't really care for gore, but I do want SOMETHING to happen in a movie! Most of it is just the wife sitting and looking around! Or walking around the house/garden! A movie requires something to give it atmosphoere, you don't get it by just have pointless scenes were someone walks around and stares. Oh, and "Makes you think"? Yeah, I was thinking "MOVE! YOU @#$0&%!!" One of the worst horror movie I have ever scene! <br /><br />P.s. For the record, I am a big fan of the old style of horror, Dracula, Frankenstein, That kind of stuff.
| 0
|
I first learned of the Wendigo many years ago in one of Alvin Schwartz's "Scary Stories" books: according to that story, the Wendigo - after calling your name in the wind - drags you along, and then pulls you up into the sky and pulverizes you. While it sounds like a pretty bizarre notion, Schwartz's story turned it into a fairly coherent idea.<br /><br />The movie "Wendigo" doesn't. It basically consists of every horror flick cliché: family moves to new house and strange things start happening, anyone who harms them is asking for it, and everyone had better listen to the old Indian guy. I've seen this stuff so many times that I no longer bother to count.<br /><br />Anyway, avoid it. Patricia Clarkson and Erik Per Sullivan (Dewey on "Malcolm in the Middle") have done far better than this.
| 0
|
The plot sounded like it had promise. To be honest I did not watch the entire movie. After about an hour into the movie I had to make a decision. Is this movie worth watching until it conclusion? The answer was clearly NO! It was not the fact that the human body could not receive a transplant from a different species without rejecting it. Nor the premise that he was being chased by secret government authorities for an human / wolf transplant. It was because the movie was badly written, acting lacked emotion and I did not understand the several dream sequences with the wolves and buffaloes. When he was running to the zoo with a dog pack and leaving them at the front of the zoo gate the saying "If you can't run with the big dogs don't leave the porch" kept running through my bored mind. Save yourself the time and skip this movie. I can guarantee if you do dare to watch it you will sit there slack jawed as I did wondering why anyone waste money, time, energy and effort to make this insulting outrage to American cinema.
| 0
|
There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?<br /><br />The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."<br /><br />While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".<br /><br />The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)<br /><br />The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.<br /><br />As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).<br /><br />As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint? <br /><br />Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. <br /><br />Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.<br /><br />And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.
| 0
|
The story line has been rehashed a number of times; "a breath of life in the retirement home". Several plays, movies, novels, short stories, poems and news articles have beat the subject to no end, but it's still an excellent platform for character studies.<br /><br />If 'Gideon' was crafted more enthusiastically it could be brilliant, but the dialogue is painfully boring and the story is absolutely flooded with cliches (even the subtitle and summary of Gideon's "simple wisdom" almost made me laugh in its ineffectiveness). Mostly indifferent acting is the final straw for this weak film, but the rest of it is bland enough to make the actors' lack of focus almost irrelevant.
| 0
|
Frank Sinatra was far from the ideal actor for westerns. He was a great actor, From Here to Eternity and The Man with The Golden arm are a proof of that, but he did not have the physique of a western hero, you identified him as an urban guy. But he tried to do his job well in Johnny Concho, the fact that the film was a failure at the box office was not his fault. I blame it on two factors: a) the story was too unusual, specially in the fact that Sinatra behaves more like a villain than as a hero throughout the movie. In a genre where people kind of expected a certain pattern, to break away from it the film has to be very good. b) the story is not convincing, it is hard to believe that a whole town will allow Sinatra to do anything he wants just because they are afraid of his brother. Also when a man shows him a special holster that will open sideways so he has not to draw the gun you wonder that if that will make him invincible, why all the gunfighters have not adopted it? I think that this film should not have been withdrawn, because any film with Sinatra is worth seeing, and in spite of its shortcomings it is still enjoyable
| 0
|
I dunno what the hype around this is... This is really a bad movie...it did nothing to me, the only descent scene is where everyone comes together at the party, and a nice song is playing, uplifting beat and nice cinematic shots that make you move....that was the best part of the movie... Otherwise this film lacks everything to suck the viewer in There's no story, there's nothing to think about like some people say, there's no cohesion between the different stories...it was more of an attempt to re-do Anderson's 'Magnolia' which was brilliant, but it fails blatantly... Okay it's light and easy to watch, but that are movieclips too. Maybe first write a story before you make a movie... 4/10 One of the worst Belgian movies I've seen
| 0
|
Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.
| 0
|
oh my god, i give this film three stars out of ten for the following reasons. the final sequence is once again quite effectively handled and it was absolutely hilarious. that is what it gets those three points for. other than that, it was atrocious. it wasnt meant to be this funny, that much is obvious, but the dubbing, the acting of the dubbed voices, the dialogue they said, where often hilarious. the actions performed, and/or not performed also lead to much hilarity and/or throwing things at the screen. such as when the whole town is being slaughtered and one small group of people stand on a balcony looking on as if they were watching a cooking glass, or the "attempted" escapes from the church in which they hole up.<br /><br />evil mayor: i think something is going on outside so you should go upstairs and look out the window.<br /><br />hero: ok.<br /><br />evil mayor: now is my chance to make some idiot go outside and flail around with fire being totally ineffective and getting hacked up.<br /><br />insert sequence in which this occurs.<br /><br />evil mayor: damn, wait, i will get this small child and she will walk outside and cry pappa seemingly obvlious to the fact that those rotten corpses are not just spooky strangers but are actually zombies with no flesh or skin or anything and she will lead them away and i will flee! insert sequence in which this occurs.<br /><br />hero (upstairs): he is trying to escape again, fool, and he has left the door open, he is silly, this is a nice view.<br /><br />woman: where is my daughter?<br /><br />hero (downstairs now): i dont know, i cannot see her anyway and she was not outside because i could not see her despite her being out there and me having a view of the entire neighbourhood and she is standing right outside, where on earth could she be?<br /><br />needless to say, anybody would be throwing things at the screen after 10 minutes of this. so, watch the first film with a couple of friends, having a few drinks, and make sure by the time you get to watching this one, you are absolutely blindly drunk and can just giggle at the stupidity of it all. and there wasnt even any decent gore, such a shame.
| 0
|
This movie is supposed to be a "lighthearted" tale about Santa Claus and his "magical and mystical" wonders. But instead it comes off as being downright creepy. Two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way Santa looks.- Have you ever seen a more horrible looking Santa Claus? and 2) the "evil rep. of Satan" Pitch's just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. Only watch this movie if it happens to be the MSTed version or if you like a very good laugh. I can't believe this is a children's movie.
| 0
|
With Adam Sandler.<br /><br />This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.<br /><br />86 mins. rated R for Language.
| 0
|
Silly, often ridiculous romp involving the landing of a space ship and the resulting havoc this causes on Tim (Jeff Daniels) and the people in his orbit.<br /><br />Am always amazed by Daniels. He showed such depth and promise in 1983's "Terms of Endearment" as Shirley MacLaine's philandering son-in-law. As the years have passed, Daniels has been unable to get his hands on a good, meaty role. Instead, he is in inane comedies such as "Dumb and Dumber."<br /><br />As for this picture, it fails because of the subject matter. At least, the television show brought about a variety of situations. In the film, we have constant slapstick and people turning into monsters as the government is thwarted into capturing the martian-Martin.<br /><br />The part of Mrs. Brown is a perfect example of the non-success of the film. On television, Pamela Britton portrayed a ditsy individual caught up in situations with the martian leaving her perplexed. In the film version, a blond bomb-shell as Brown, tries romantic entanglement.<br /><br />Television star Ray Walston has a small role as a government agent, or is he really that?<br /><br />A very big disappointment for those who enjoyed the television show so much.
| 0
|
This movie is a prime example of squandering great resources in a film. You've got future SNL and SCTV stars in their prime, such as John Candy, Chevy Chase, Laraine Newman, Al Franken,Tom Davis and Joe Flaherty essentially making 70 minutes of coarse, uninspired fart and racist jokes. The concept of a network from the future subverting society could have really been taken to some interesting extremes, but instead right out the gate, makes a lame, juvenile proctology joke and stays in that vein of humor the whole way.Seek out the earlier and much more subversive and witty Groove Tube or the later, hilarious Kentucky Fried Movie. This movie is only for those who want to see a time capsule of bad 70's sketch comedy movies.
| 0
|
The plot of 7EVENTY 5IVE involves college kids who play a cruel phone game that unexpectedly (to them, if not to fans of horror) gets them in over their heads. The STORY of 7EVENTY 5IVE, on the other hand, is that of a horror film that had a wee little bit of promise, sadly outweighed by really bad writing.<br /><br />What could have been a fun, if somewhat silly, old-fashioned slasher tale is derailed early on by its filmmakers' misguided belief that the audience would enjoy watching a bunch of loud, whiny rich kids bitching at each other for most of the film's running time. With the exception of a police detective played by Rutger Hauer, (in a minor role that is designed mainly to add the movie's only star power) every character on screen is a different breed of young A-hole.<br /><br />Male and female, black and white, straight and gay, an entire ensemble of shallow and shrill college kids carries the bulk of the film's narrative. Worse, since the tale deals with a PARTY game gone awry, most of the time the scenes are completely filled with these little b*****ds. Because of this, there are few breaks for the viewer, who must put up with the angry sniping of the thinly-drawn protagonists. Even though at least some of these people are supposedly friends, invariably all characters interact in a very hostile manner, long before any genuine conflict has actually arisen. This leads to the worst possible result in a slasher film: The audience, intended to care about the leads, instead not only cheers on the anonymous killer, but wishes that he had arrived to start picking off the vacuous brats far earlier.<br /><br />The real shame of this poor characterization is that otherwise 7EVENTY 5IVE actually DID have some potential. Visually it's fine. First-time directors Brian Hooks and Deon Taylor know how to build a suspenseful mood. They also manage to deliver on some competent, if sparse, moments of classic 80s-style gore. Surprisingly, the production's cast is also fairly able. It isn't that the actors aren't capable of expressing realistic human emotion; it is simply that the screenplay (co-written by newcomer Vashon Nutt and director Hooks, who fared much better behind the camera than with a keyboard) is short of such moments.<br /><br />7EVENTY 5IVE can hardly be recommended, as its familiar premise and few thrills can't outweigh the bad taste left behind by a story driven by a gaggle of unpleasant characters. In this tepid whodunnit, the real mystery is why anyone should care about a group of young folk who can't even manage to like each other.
| 0
|
I was excited to see a sitcom that would hopefully represent Indian Candians but i found this show to be not funny at all. The producers and cast are probably happy to get both bad and good feed back because as far as they are concerned it's getting talked about! I was ready for some stereotyping and have no problem with it because stereotypes exist for a reason, they are usually true. But there really wasn't anything funny about these stereotypical characters. The "fresh of the boat" dad, who doesn't understand his daughter. The radical feminist Muslim daughter (who by the way is a terrible actress), and the young modern Indian man trying to run his mosque as politically correct as he can (he's a pretty good actor, i only see him getting better).<br /><br />it is very contrived and the dialog doesn't flow that well. there was so much potential for something like this but sadly i think it failed, and don't really care to watch another episode.<br /><br />I did however enjoy watching a great Canadian actress Sheila McCarthy again, she's always a treat and a natural at everything she does, too bad her daughter in the show doesn't have the same acting abilities!
| 0
|
I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.<br /><br />The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.<br /><br />3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming.
| 0
|
R O B O T J O X.<br /><br />Burn the master.<br /><br />Grotesquely horrible.<br /><br />No ending; no closure.<br /><br />Completely and utterly the worst movie ever made.<br /><br />Replaces "The Adventures of Pluto Nash" as the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />I hate this utterly unacted, unedited, unscripted, undirected, unproduced mess of a thing called "Robot Jox" - and I just found out - THEY MADE A SECOND ONE!?!? I apologize to Adma Sandler (Zohar the Beauticin) and Eddie Murphy (Pluto Nash) for hating their movies. This mess of a thing makes those movies only bad - not terrible horrible and grotesque like this thing. This is the only movie for which I have ever said this - REMOVE IT FROM NETFLIX - NOW!!! 10,000 out of 10 people found this comment helpful.
| 0
|
I got the DVD very cheap and I'm a total Drewbie, and thats probably the only constellation where this movie could ever interest anyone.<br /><br />An early Drew movie, she's looking great, and she gets a quite lot of really cute scenes of her, like a shower scene, a sexy dance scene, quite a number of sexy outfits etc. She does never show the friendly charm we know from her more recent movies.<br /><br />The movie itself is pretty average or sub-average, and much more looking like being made for the TV than one for the cinema. There is no real horror or tension built up and the dialogs are often cheesy.<br /><br />The most interesting part is probably the end because I honestly don't understand it. But maybe there is nothing to understand about it anyway. But at least you don't get the end you would be expecting, and it also comes much sooner than one would have expected.<br /><br />Overall I think this movie is exclusively for Drewbies.
| 0
|
Parasomnia has an interesting premises, but the story is poorly done without any tension or even a logical approach. The cast in unconvincing, even Patrick Kilpatrick, who played great roles in movies like Scanner Cop 2, Open Fire, Under Siege 2 and Eraser. The rest of the cast is unknown (and not very good) with the exception of Jeffrey Combs. (Herbert West from the great Re-Animator trilogy). But he can play roles like this in his sleep (which is a little what he does here). The main problem is that the actions of the characters make no sense at all. The story is rather dull and predictable with cheap computer effects mixed with some gory scenes, especially at the end.<br /><br />This could have been so much better, I do not get the good reviews on this one. It is below average really.
| 0
|
I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer<br /><br />of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this<br /><br />film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for<br /><br />altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is<br /><br />not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,<br /><br />realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters<br /><br />the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama. <br /><br />From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans<br /><br />the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's<br /><br />change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except<br /><br />for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the<br /><br />Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,<br /><br />changing a real story about the relationship between two people,<br /><br />one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a<br /><br />movie star is sad
| 0
|
If you want to know the real story of the Wendigo, I suggest you pick up a copy of Algernon Blackwell's original story. This movie was not only bad but had nothing to do with the book.<br /><br />I loved the book when I read it as a kid (In "Campfire Chillers" by E.M. Freeman)and was so excited to see a movie based on it come out. I was so disappointed when I finally saw it. Another thing is that there were too many PC (Politically Correct) undertones throughout the movie that had no place in the film. When the book was written PC didn't even exist.<br /><br />My suggestion is don't waste your time or money!! If you see it on the video store shelf LEAVE IT THERE.
| 0
|
This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.<br /><br />Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.<br /><br />I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.<br /><br />Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".<br /><br />I hate this movie!
| 0
|
This movie was laughably bad. A friend rented it from Netflix and made me watch it. There are so many gaffes and goofs that it's impossible to even bother getting to know the characters and the plot. How about these for example...<br /><br />The "Vermont Airport" surrounded by palm trees<br /><br />Ben's miraculously appearing shirt during a phone conversation<br /><br />The priest's palatial office... complete with a folding card table desk<br /><br />There is a decent story hidden behind a very bad movie. But even if you look past the technical flaws, you'll find horrid acting and casting. I was most tickled by the casting of a flamboyantly gay actor to play the right-wing religious zealot brother. His opening scene, sitting in his immaculate apartment, stroking his kitty cat, was hilarious.<br /><br />I applaud the writer/director/producer/editor/star/caterer/cast dentist/composer (and whatever else he did on this move) for actually getting a movie like this distributed. If you have nothing better to do, it could be a fun group movie or even the basis of a drinking game but don't rent it for a powerful story about homophobia and gay marriage.
| 0
|
Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure.
| 0
|
The first half was OK, but the last half really, really disappointed. It's funny the producers even admitted they didn't have a clue for the ending, and it really showed. Whats really sad is i have to write ten lines of comment minimum to be able to post this. I really didn't want to include spoilers to qualify my remarks since the show isn't really worth that effort. When Battlestar galatica first came out I was really excited with the prospect of a better remake, it didn't happen that first season border on being space porn. They eventually cleaned it up a bit and actually had some pretty fair drama, so I started watching again. But to end the series with kara being a cyclon god angel, same with baltar and six was pretty dumb.
| 0
|
Revolt of the Zombies proves that having the same director revamp and recycle an idea doesn't necessarily make lightning strike twice.<br /><br />The Halperin brothers, responsible for the horror classic "White Zombie", made this trite piece of garbage a mere few years later to cash in on its popularity and even recycled close-ups of Lugosi's eyes from that previous film. There was a court battle with the "White Zombie" film's rights owners, who didn't want the Halperins to be able to use the word 'zombie' in this title. That word was the only thing that could help this film, because, as everyone knows, bad films can make much more money simply by having the word 'Zombie' appear in the title. Knowing what Victor Halperin was capable of a few years before only makes this uninteresting film more insulting. It seems he never directed another horror film after this debacle. The zombies here seem not to be true walking dead, but simply hypnotism victims.<br /><br />Wanna create a mind-controlled army of zombies? Be ready to crack a few eggs, including your own.<br /><br />THE LAME PLOT: Man falls in love with scheming woman who plays with his heart and becomes engaged to him only to make his friend, whom she loves, jealous. This sends man into a spiral of madness in which he tries using zombie mind-control techniques to change things to his advantage in an attempt to win over a woman who isn't worth spit.<br /><br />This includes one of the most blatantly obvious plot developments I've ever seen. You'd have to be blind or stupid not to see the ending coming. The acting isn't even good. This movie makes the racially insensitive "King of the Zombies" (which appeared on the same double bill DVD I bought) seems like an atmospheric horror masterpiece by comparison and reminds us that not every black and white film is a classic. It makes the atomic age sci-fi alien zombie cheese fest "Invisible Invaders" seem like a serious drama. This is one big ball of cheese so ridiculously melodramatic it could probably make many a Korean film fan twitch (South Korean films are often known for their use of melodrama). The credits list the ironically named company Favorite Films. I'm not sure whose favorite film this would be, but they're obviously an idiot.<br /><br />Not recommended for fans of: zombies, romance, or classic films.
| 0
|
This film was terrible. I have given it the high score of 2 as I have seen worse, but very few.<br /><br />From the clichéd start of having the end of the film at the start and going back to the start at the end this film used everything in the box of tricks used in film making just for the sake of it, like a kid with too many toys. There was the endless, boring repetitive narration, slow motion, freeze frame, flashbacks and merged images etc - none of which made a dull film any better.<br /><br />It is called "16 years of alcohol", but there was little drinking or drunkeness and no depiction of withdrawal with the film jumping about all over the place with no coherent sense. The story was badly written and extremely pretentious and the direction was equally poor and it is a shame that people have put up further money for more films by Mr Jobson, previously know for being in a rubbish group and on TV making as much sense as this film does.<br /><br />I found it a major struggle to see this to the end but in the hope of it getting better I carried on to the bitter but it really was a waste of time and I would have been better off not bothering.
| 0
|
This is a terrible production of Bartleby, though not, as the other reviewer put it because it is "unfilmable," but rather because this version does not maintain the spirit of the book. It tells the story, almost painfully so. Watching it, I could turn the pages in my book and follow along, which is not as much fun when dealing with an adaptation. Rather, see the 2001 version of Bartleby featuring Crispin Glover. That version, while humorous, brings new details to the film while maintaining the spirit of the novel. What's important is the spirit, not the minutiae of things like setting, character names, and costumes. The difference between these film versions is like night and day, tedious and hilarious. This version is a lesson as to what can go wrong if an adaptation is handled poorly, painful, mind-numbing schlock.
| 0
|
First, let's all agree that Lorenzo Lamas could never be considered a skilled actor, barely even decent, sometimes just plain lousy. However, in this piece of @*!^ called SnakeEater, the film industry as a whole sank.<br /><br />First, let's start with the plot. A Vietnam vet named Jack Kelly, aka Soldier (who is supposed to be as tough as a strap of leather and then some, which you can believe when he shoves a palate of nails through 2 guys' feet and pins them to the floor), gets word that his family has been killed and his sister kidnapped. Therefore he goes on a solo mission to save his sister. Had some potential, but still pretty thin to begin with.<br /><br />Now, the acting. Being an actor myself, I am qualified to say that this was some of the WORST acting in the history of the art!!!!! Lamas is, well, himself. The jackasses playing the Clampets/Deliverance rejects should be strung up and shot for their so-called performances which are insulting to actors everywhere, especially talented ones who never get their big break!<br /><br />Finally, the action. The gunfighting is so-so at BEST, and the fist-fighting is deplorable. I've seen more real-looking fights at the Renaissance Festival (and those were pretty fake-looking)!<br /><br />Readers, listen to me: AVOID THIS PIECE OF CACA AT ALL COSTS! IF IT WERE THE ONLY FILM IN EXISTENCE, YOU STILL WOULD WANT TO AVOID IT! For the sake of your brain-cell count, do NOT watch this thing!
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.