text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
When the movie was released it was the biggest hit and it soon became the Blockbuster. But honestly the movie is a ridiculous watch with a plot which glorifies a loser. The movie has a Tag-line - "Preeti Madhura, Tyaga Amara" which means Love's Sweet but Sacrifice is Immortal. In the movie the hero of the movie (Ganesh) sacrifices his love for the leading lady (Pooja Gandhi) even though the two loved each other! His justification is the meaning of the tag-line. This movie influenced so many young broken hearts that they found this "Loser-like Sacrificial" attitude very thoughtful and hence became the cult movie it is, when they could have moved on with their lives. Ganesh's acting in the movie is Amateurish, Crass and Childishly stupid. He actually looks funny in a song, (Onde Ondu Sari... )when he's supposed to look all stylish and cool. His looks don't help the leading role either. His hair style is badly done in most part of the movie. POOJA GANDHI CANT ACT. Her costumes are horrendous in the movie and very inconsistent. <br /><br />The good part about the movie is the excellent cinematography and brilliant music by Mano Murthy which are actually the true saving graces of the movie. Also the lyrics by Jayant Kaikini are very well penned. The Director Yograj Bhat has to be lauded picturization the songs in a tasteful manner. <br /><br />Anyway all-in-all except for the songs, the movie is a very ordinary one!!!!!!
| 0
|
This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.
| 0
|
For me this is a story that starts with some funny jokes regarding Franks fanatasies when he is travelling with a staircase and when he is sitting in business meetings... The problem is that when you have been watching this movie for an hour you will see the same fantasies/funny situations again and again and again. It is to predictable. It is more done as a TV story where you can go away and come back without missing anything.<br /><br />I like Felix Herngren as Frank but that is not enough even when it is a comedy it has to have more variations and some kind of message to it's audience....<br /><br />
| 0
|
A still famous but decadent actor (Morgan Freeman) has not filmed for four years. When he is invited to participate in a new project, he asks the clumsy cousin of the director to drop him in a poor Latin neighborhood in Carlson to research the work of the manager of a small supermarket. He sees the gorgeous Spanish cashier Scarlet (Paz Vega) and he becomes attracted with her ability. His driver never returns to catch him and Scarlet gives a ride to the actor. But first she has a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor helps her to be prepared; then they spend the afternoon together having a pleasant time.<br /><br />I am a big fan of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega. However, the pointless "10 Items or Less" is absolutely disappointing. This low-budget movie does not seem to have a storyline, and is supported by the chemistry and improvisations of Morgan Freeman and Paz Vega and actually nothing happens along 82 minutes. The ambiguous open conclusion is simply ridiculous, with the character of Morgan Freeman returning to his silver spoon world and telling the simple worker that they would never see each other again. Was he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family? Or was a clash of classes, and he realizes that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the lower classes? My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Um Astro em Minha Vida" ("A Star in My Life")
| 0
|
This movie shows a row of sketches, which partly pass over into one another. I realized the passing over late in the movie, at first it only irritated me. <br /><br />Many of the episodes in this movie come along without any recognizable punchlines and simply try to wangle around that fact, using absurdity and obscenity. The attempt of it to stay comedy without any funny bits fails.<br /><br />My personnel and maybe subjective result after watching this movie (My god, it hurts in my head every time I call it "movie"): A bold attempt to turn nothing into something great. But it failed. At least the director made something out of nothing. But it isn't something good.<br /><br />Many movies didn't turn out as funny as they were planned, but this one tops them all. It's the real life manifestation of the worst case scenario of film making. No. To correct myself, it's even worse than that. A movie with gags so bad, that they aren't funny at all. It's not even fun to watch the lead-actor, writer and director (all three the same guy by the way) perish by drowning in the sea of bad movies. The movie is too bad for that.
| 0
|
Very strange but occasionally elegant exploitation movie with no real story, but benefiting from its stunningly ravishing lead actress and a handful of nice, gruesome make-up effects. Daniella is a beautiful twenty-something girl, carrying with her the trauma of being raped at the age of 13. Nightmares and hallucinations lead her further into believing she's the reincarnation of a female ancestor who was said to be a werewolf. She kills her brother-in-law during a nightly encounter and gets submitted in a hospital. She escapes again, however, and randomly devours more men whilst on the run for police detectives, doctors and relatives. It's all pretty to look at and listen too (really great soundtrack), but the absence of plot and continuity become irritating quite fast. Luckily enough, leading lady Annik Borel rarely ever wears clothes and she fills up the boring moments by dancing naked around a fire. The film is too long, too weird and too forgettable. The biggest surprise comes at the end, when suddenly and out of the blue, director Rino Di Silvestro tries to make us believe that his movie was based on true facts. Yeah, right...
| 0
|
This is a bigger budgeted film than usual for genre director Honda (with more evidently elaborate sets) though the special effects still have that distinctive cheesiness to them (witness the giant bats and rodents on display). It also utilizes a surprising number of American actors: Joseph Cotten playing the visionary scientist looks ill-at-ease and frail (but, then, his character is supposed to be 204 years old!), an innocuous Richard Jaeckel is the photographer hero while, as chief villains, we get Cesar Romero and Patricia Medina (both essentially campy). As I've often said, I grew up watching English-language films dubbed in Italian
but hearing Hollywood actors in Japanese is another thing entirely! <br /><br />LATITUDE ZERO feels like a juvenile version of a typical Jules Verne adventure, and is fairly entertaining on that level; indeed, it's preferable to Honda's low-brow variations on the monsters-on-the-rampage formula because of the inherent quaint charm of the set-up in this case. The plot involves the kidnapping of a famous scientist by Romero he was intended to establish himself in the underwater, technologically advanced city devised by Cotten (to which the world's foremost minds are being recruited). We're treated to plenty of silly battles between the rival subs, but the most amusing scenes are certainly the raid on Romero's cave in fact, Cotten doing somersaults and fending off men in rubber suits (via flames and laser emitted from his glove!) must surely count as the nadir of his acting career; the other elder in the cast, Romero, is more in his element after all, he had been The Joker in the BATMAN TV series and movie of the 1960s! Cotten has a scantily-clad blonde physician on his team, and is assisted by a hulking Asian; Romero, on the other hand, is flanked by an Oriental femme fatale who, however, ends up getting a raw deal for her efforts (the girl's brain is eventually transplanted into a hybrid of lion and condor
which is among the phoniest-looking creatures you ever saw!). Apparently, a 2-disc set of this one from Media Blasters streets on this very day!!
| 0
|
Ram Gopal Verma has proved himself as a very innovative and competent director. He had done a remake/reworking of Godfather with Sarkar, and succeeded tremendously. Ditto for Lolita which he made as Nishaabd.<br /><br />Sholay is been the movie he repeatedly says has inspired him the most. Unfortunately, he has managed to make a disappointing and ultimately boring remake.<br /><br />The acting ranged from decent to very good, with Amitabh Bachchan being suitably menacing as the villain Babban.<br /><br />The songs were awful and forgettable. The Mehbooba Mehbooba song came off as a second rate music video.<br /><br />The worst part was the pacing, and the dialogues - which were forgettable.<br /><br />Watching the movie in a theatre, I found myself waiting for the intermission, and then for the ending. Some viewers were wise not to wait, and were seen leaving throughout the duration of the film. Ultimately, one of the worst movies made by Ram Gopal Verma.
| 0
|
I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10
| 0
|
The acting in the film is really well done honestly, but the movie is so slow and so boring, as soon as it gets interesting everything slows to a major halt. I am glad to see Sam Rockwell in this, he did a great job, so did the other actors as I mentioned but man... this is one of the worst dragged out films I have ever seen. Now maybe in a short film form this movie would be good, but other than that, avoid it. This film has so much filler it makes a Twinkie cake jealous. <br /><br />I never, ever, walk out on films, but watching this one at home with family, I walked out. Yeah, it was that boring. Apparently my comment doesn't have enough lines to post, so here's some more filler. I guess I was inspired by the movie I just watched.
| 0
|
Don't waste your time on this dreck. As portrayed, the characters have no redeeming values and watching them interact is sheer torture. "Gothic" was entertainment at least, this is crap. If you like watching pretentious and spoiled poets straining to outwit each other, this may be right up your alley. Lord Byron is portrayed as a complete jerk, and why the others would choose to spend more than five minutes with him is truly bewildering. Mary Shelly appears to be the only character with any spine whatsoever, but even she comes out of the whole ordeal without an ounce of respect. What a waste of time. See Gothic instead. I also remember seeing another superior movie based on the same subject matter, but didn't catch the title. I was hoping this was it, but no such luck. Not recommended.
| 0
|
I've been watching a lot of cartoon or animated movies because I have a baby girl who likes to watch TV. I began to watch this movie to see if I would like my little one to watch it... and no. At the beginning I thought it was such a cute movie like the Bambi movie, but all the way it was like insinuating the ducky was a homosexual. The info said that they were making fun of him because he wasn't good at sports, but that was not the case. It just seems like a movie made for kids to learn to be okay being gay. It was also very sad, as far as the ducky's dad and all. I don't know, I guess if you're gay you'd like it, but I don't think I'm going to watch it again with my little one.
| 0
|
I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way....
| 0
|
I saw this movie at the Edmonton International Film Festival, with the great Dr. Uwe Boll in attendance.<br /><br />The film is, simply put, very, very bad. And no, not in the usual Uwe Boll "so bad it's actually entertaining" way, but just plain bad. The plot concerns a man who leads a terrible life (because of a past criminal record, apparently), can't get a job, and with an awful 900 pound cheating wife. This man turns to his cult-leader uncle in a plan to steal a truck load of toys that contain the bird flu virus. Al Qaeda also has designs on stealing the toys, and what follows is just under two hours of completely incomprehensible sex and violence.<br /><br />The acting is awful (except for Dave Foley, who really tries, despite it all), the jokes never rise above children being shot in the chest in slow motion, and people taking a poo. It's supposed to be satire, but I'm not sure of what.<br /><br />Think "Airplane!", but done by the creators of South Park, and without any jokes.
| 0
|
This sounded like a really interesting movie from the blurb. Nazis, occult , government conspiracies. I was expecting a low budget Nazi version of the DaVinci code or the Boys from Brazil or even Shockwaves. Instead you get something quite different, more psychological, more something like from David Lynch. That was actually a plus. But the way the story is told is just awful.<br /><br />Part of the trouble is the casting. Andrienne Barbeau's character starts off the moving being somewhat timid and afraid. She just doesn't do that well, even at her age, though she certainly tried. The actor cast as the son apparently thought this was a comedy. Most of the other actors also seemed to have thought this was a campy movie, or at least acted like it, rather than simply being quirky. The only one that I thought did really well was the daughter, Siri Baruc.<br /><br />Another big part is the pacing. It starts off very slowly. So slowly you might be tempted to turn it off. But then it gets compelling for a while when you get to the daughter's suicide and the aftermath. But shortly afterward, it all becomes a jumbled mess. Some of this was on purpose, but much of it was just needlessly confusing, monotonous, and poorly focused.<br /><br />The real problem, is it's simply not a pleasant movie to watch. It's slow, dull, none of the characters are likable. Overuse of imagery and sets. Some movies you see characters get tortured. In this, it's the viewer that does. It does have a few creepy moments, most notably the creepy Nazi paintings and the credits, but the rest of the movie is mostly just tiresome.
| 0
|
This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all.
| 0
|
The film-school intellects can drool all they want about the important (imagined) meaning of this film, but it's just that: intellectual drool. This film is creatively bankrupt, and some mistake it's endless self-indulgent wanking as substance. Yeah. <br /><br />Obviously Godard wasn't a Stones fan. Too bad, because this could have been great. He's capturing the birth of this timeless song and he chooses instead to cover the music with some guy reading out of a True Detective mag or some such crap. <br /><br />Then there's the endless shots of what looks like 60's librarians spray-painting words on people's cars. And then there's the seemingly neverending "interview" where the actress was brilliantly instructed to answer only yes or no to all the really deep and intellectual questions. There's some dude in a purple suit is reading more crap from a book, which goes on for, oh, only about 20 minutes. And black panthers or something in a junkyard.<br /><br />It almost sounds intriguing? Well, it's not.<br /><br />But for unwashed film-school hipsters who don't care squat about the lost opportunities of having full access to the Stones bringing Sympathy for the Devil into the world and would rather hear some English guy reading instead whilst gazing at the covers of nudie mag's, this film's a real winner!<br /><br />More accurately...maybe Godard just blows.
| 0
|
When i looked at this years Wrestlemania's match card, i was SO stoked and unable to control myself because i was full of excitement.<br /><br />It starts...and it ends.<br /><br />I'm sitting there, angry to hell because of how much i wanted my money back. I mean, you watch Wrestlemania 22 (one of my favorites) which will go down as a classic and then you expect the same and get the average garbage they have every now and then. The one moment in the entire show that ruined it for me was when HBK tapped out!!!! That very moment of HBK losing to JOHN CENA!!!!!!!!!! John Cena is such a loser/poser. It almost ruined Wrestlemania 22 for me when he beat TRIPLE H! I couldn't watch WWE after seeing Wrestlemania 23. I'm starting to watch it again (luckily). I again have faith in WWE after Wrestlemania 24 (the greatest i have ever seen) which was a pure classic Wrestlemania. It definitely made up for 'Mania 23 and gave us lots of memorable moments as well.<br /><br />If you have watched ANY of the Wrestlemanias before this one, like the ones that turn you into fans (Wrestlemania 20 turned me into a fan), PLEASE don't watch this and make the same mistake i made and leave WWE behind. And if you DO watch it and are angry, start watching it again and watch Wrestlemania 24, it is absolutely classic.
| 0
|
Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and it has to be said the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!
| 0
|
Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.<br /><br />This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.<br /><br />In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.<br /><br />It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead.
| 0
|
I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.
| 0
|
This is quite possibly the worst movie of all time. It stars Shaquille O'Neil and is about a rapping genie. Apparently someone out there thought that this was a good idea and got suckered into dishing out cash to produce this wonderful masterpiece. The movie gets 1 out of 10.
| 0
|
Director Ron Atkins is certifiably insane. This ultra-low budget film chronicles a few days in the life of one Harry Russo (John Giancaspro, who also co-wrote), a nut-job who receives a Rubberneck doll from his bitch girlfriend. He starts to take orders from the doll to take massive amounts of drugs, rape and kill, not always in that order. What starts off as being a balls-to-the-wall exploitation film, well stays like that, but it gets VERY repetitive VERY fast. I'm leaning more toward the certifiably insane. It IS hard to forget once seen though. Kinda like if Tom Green ever did a horror film.<br /><br />My Grade:F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Laurie Farwell gets fully nude; Jasmin Putnam shows tits and bush <br /><br />ANTI-eye candy: seeing John completely naked repeatedly
| 0
|
The Darkling was a very interesting and entertaining film while F. Murray Abraham was in it. Spoilers: About halfway through, F.Murray gets zapped, because The Darkling is some kind of demon-like creature who enjoys living vicariously. He takes bums and losers and perverts them further while giving them all they want in terms of success. He feeds from their enjoyment of the Seven Deadly Sins. However, part of it is that he needs to get people who may be flawed but not completely evil. Otherwise he cannot "pervert" their natural goodness. That's what the little guy said in his Barry White voice, which I found both charming and amusing. Mostly amusing. Like imagine Barry White if he were a little dwarf and he was telling Aiden Gillen "Dee Plane, Dee Plane, Bos, Here eet come, Dee Plane!" All through the movie, Dee Dwarf (actually a robotronic cherub) talks to Aiden Gillen in the Barry White voice, saying things like "It's OK to be bad, you know you want it." "Now you've committed murder, you're really moving up in the world" and other remarks that sound like commercials for "Being Evil" Stores or something. It really is hilarious in a sick way.<br /><br />Anyhow, Aiden Gillen is no F. Murray Abraham, and the movie tanks as soon as Murray gets the axe (or knifed?). F. Murray brings a certain happy malevolence to his role in this film. He is a good actor. Aiden Gillen on the other hand has a permanent happy smirk on his face, and he looks like maybe his remedial English Comp. class had never hit the Mythological Characters and he could not imagine what the movie was about. The ENDING is really creepy and yet almost comical. If this movie were a parody, the ending was perfect. If it was not a parody, then it was creepy; but a cheap use of a little girl to deliver a gross-out that the movie itself could not deliver. The people who made this movie lost whatever it was that they wanted to do with it somewhere before the ending. It just ends like they just realized that they had run out of money and had to film a quickie ending.
| 0
|
Where to even start? The horrendous acting? The nonsensical plot? The bargain basement effects? The completely loathsome characters? The choppy editing? The headache-inducing Casio keyboard score??? The embarrassingly racist remarks ("Watch it, Charlie!", "Back off, Jackie Chan!!"??? The constant misogyny??? I am a lifelong horror fan, and I have no problem at all with the current "torture-thon" trend of movies. However, this is a poorly-made piece of garbage. I think I suffered more pain watching this than the characters did dying in it! If you like girls being forced to eat stir-fried penis, really poor soft core porn and think lines like "I'm gonna find that b**** and staple her c*** shut!!" are clever, LIVE FEED is for you.<br /><br />As for me, I feel the need to go wash my eyes out with oven cleaner to prevent from ever seeing this movie again!
| 0
|
For years Madonna has tried to prove not only herself, but the public eye, that she can act. Unfortunately, trying too hard while failing to shed her own persona doesn't mix well.<br /><br />She seems to fare better when she's NOT the star of any movie: if you watch her in supporting performances in DESPERATELY SEEKING SUSAN (1985) or A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN (1992), she actually comes off looking good. Since the story revolves on other actors, the weight of the expectation is taken off her shoulders by default.<br /><br />The trouble starts when she is asked to be the star of a movie, regardless the genre. Being the focus of a plot that needs to be told in a visual way, whether it be good, mediocre or plain awful, she has to emote in ways that are akin to an actual movie performance as opposed to a video performance. This is the crucial difference between Madonna and, let's say, Bette Davis, or Meryl Streep. The latter two, even if the movie were to fail (because the visual storytelling lacked some effectiveness in having us relate to it, or because the script fell short, or because the actress per se was just not at her moment), there would be an extra something in their performances that would elevate the movie from being a complete bomb. Both Davis and Streep have had their share: Bette, having a longer career than Streep, in such fare as BUNNY O'HARE (1971) and WICKED STEPMOTHER (1989); Streep in SHE-DEVIL (1989). But at least there's been that naturalism in the way both attacked their roles that made us forget the banality of the movie and watch the performance.<br /><br />Madonna, on the other hand, not being an especially gifted actress capable of really letting us in on her ability to convey a persona other than herself, fares much worse, and even in the hands of someone as Woody Allen in SHADOWS AND FOG (1992), an inferior classic, she in her pat screen time seems stilted and a little stiff, maybe even nervous, as if she were aware of the cameras and crew and just couldn't let go.<br /><br />So here she tries yet once again to prove she can act in what is essentially a two-character movie. Guy Ritchie, more known for action movies filled in masculine energy, seems as adrift telling a story closer to someone of the likes of Michaelangelo Antonioni or Ingmar Bergman, who could tell a tale of two people with incredible ease. And at 89 minutes, the events which take place happen in such an unconvincing way that when the final half hour comes along and the story takes a dramatic turn, it doesn't feel sincere. From being an absolute witch with no redeeming values to suddenly being in love, this has to be the most unconvincing 180 degree turn since Fay Dunaway's Laura suddenly discovered her passion for Tommy Lee Jones in THE EYES OF LAURA MARS (1978). Equally unconvincing is Adriano Giannini's nasty turn around the middle of the movie -- it lacks any humor and feels genuinely psychopathic -- and when he gives in to Madonna's love, it's too quick to be believed. Filming this in slow music and a visual montage of lovemaking and beautiful scenery doesn't enhance or add upon this "transformation" from what would have been a story of survival between to unlikeable characters to a love story where both discover each other.<br /><br />Trying to have an unsatisfying ending works against the movie as well -- it only makes it drag, bog it down, and when Madonna has to be filmed going from hope to devastation in a tight close-up, it feels she's trying too hard. Many an actress have done better in conveying so much doing so little. Hers is a performance more suited to acting styles of the late 20s, early 30s where posturing compensated as acting a part or an emotion.<br /><br />Could the movie have been better? Of course. There are a myriad of ways to have filmed it in a way that would leave the viewer feeling that these people could at least hope to see each other again -- it's been done before, in OVERBOARD (1987), for example. It could have had an existential undertone in which two very different people have to rely on each other but not necessarily change (to ensure a moral tone). Much dialog and unnecessary erotic scenes could have been spared for a more "silent" film look -- as in PERSONA (1966). It could have even been something of a thriller, providing that the Giannini character have a mean streak as Billy Zane had in DEAD CALM (1989). Even if it would have been done as a sex farce it would have worked better for Madonna as the over the top, uber-control freak getting her comeuppance. But with its mean streaked humor, without at least a glimpse of her character having a softer side that hides behind a mask of bitchdom, and without really defining Giannini's own character, this becomes another misfire trying to look like a battle of the sexes.
| 0
|
the IMDb guidelines state that you have to declare if your comments contain 'spoilers'. <br /><br />well, this whole film is something of a spoiler... a cautionary tale that glorifies what it cautions against, a tale of lost youth that doesn't know where it itself is going.<br /><br />i just saw this at the tribeca film festival. this film wasn't just bad, it was really bad.<br /><br />the acting is inconsistent, the characters are the mostly cliché offerings with little depth, and farnsworth's acting was very bad in particular.<br /><br />from the patronizing accents to the pointless plot line to the out of place 'graphic' elements to the repetitious dialog and scenarios... it sucked the big one. <br /><br />i think he was looking for sort of a more edgy, updated 'drugstore cowboy' with a touch of 'natural born killers' but it is no where as sensitive to the characters as the former and no where as shocking (outside of some frat-level gore) as the ladder. <br /><br />more than anything, someone needed to really A) edit the screenplay <br /><br />(there are some things in there to build on and clearly <br /><br />deals with a worthy subject... if ham-handed in it's attempt.) B) edit the film. if it was cut down to a core, it might be passable. <br /><br />i would go lower than 1 if i could... like maybe zero kelvin.
| 0
|
I didn't agree with any of the theology in the Left Behind series, but nonetheless I found the books gripping and I read 8 of 12 of them. Undeniably good writing and interesting story. However, I didn't have very high expectations for the movie. There was no way mainstream Hollywood would have taken up a Christian series and produced a big-budget movie. So it was done independently... and it just felt like I was watching a really long TV show. It just didn't FEEL like a movie; it didn't have that movie "experience" to it, if anybody knows what I'm talking about. So the movie suffered because of that, and the low-budget, poor special effects were another detraction for me.<br /><br />On top of that, I feel that Gordon Currie was woefully miscast as Nicolie Carpathia. Reading the book, my impression of NC was that he was supposed to be this charming, dazzling, amazingly handsome guy who spoke English with almost zero trace of an accent. So I imagined somebody like Pierce Brosnan in the role. Instead, they found some Clay Aiken pencil-neck who looks like an employee of the month from Best Buy, and gave him a really bad fake accent. So that lost a few stars for me right there. A movie is just not convincing when the major villain doesn't look or sound the way he's supposed to.<br /><br />The acting was okay, but nothing to write home about. Some of the scenes - like one of the conversion scenes (can't remember which one) - were real seat-squirmers for me. And some of the Christian rock music or whatever it was, was really out of place for some of the scenes, like in the one with Kirk Cameron praying in the bathroom.<br /><br />In short, it wasn't a bad movie, but it just didn't do it for me. Stick to the book, folks, it's much better.
| 0
|
Given the people involved, it is hard to see why this movie should be so messed up and dull. The writer, David Ward, wrote the amazing caper film "The Sting" two years later, Jane Fonda had just won an Academy Award for Klute, and Donald Sutherland had just done excellent work in films like "Klute," "Start the Revolution Without Me," and "Kelly's Heroes." Plotwise, the movie is a caper tale, with a small gang of bumbling misfits planning a big heist. At the same time the movie wants to be hip satire, a series of comedy sketches of the type that the NBC television show "Saturday Night" would do so well two years later. The bad result is that the plot makes the comedy bits seem awkward and forced and the disconnected comedy bits destroy any kind of suspense that the heist might have. It is quite literally a movie that keeps smashing into itself, just as the cars in the cars in the demolition scenes run into each other.<br /><br />The only real interest for me was watching Jane Fonda. Her "Iris Caine" is supposed to be a light hearted version of her dramatic Bree Daniels prostitute character in "Klute" Yet, one doesn't believe her for a moment. It is always Jane Fonda pretending to be a prostitute that we are watching. It is as terrible a performance as her performance in "Klute" was terrific. It would be a good lesson for acting teachers to run the two films together to show how the same actress in the same type of role can be great or pathetic. It suggests that actors are only as good as their writers and directors.
| 0
|
Here is one of those educational short films made to learn the unknown people out there about facts of life. This time the target audience is preteen girls, the fact of life is menstruation. This animated film, created by Walt Disney Pictures, apparently with some sponsoring from Kotex.<br /><br />It starts with explaining how hormones make you grow and develop. With the help of animation and a female narrator it shows us how the body, especially the ovaries, uterus and vagina, work and why this all leads to menstruation. It is almost amazing, becoming the comic note here, how the subject of sex is avoided. Even the word is never mentioned although "furtilized" will pass once. I don't really know why I saw this, but since it is one of those rare short films that could give an impression of an innocent time, you might want to give it a try.
| 0
|
Saw this piece of work at a film fest in CA. My god, what was the director thinking? Film professors should use this film as a case study on what NOT to do when making a short film. First off, this project makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The film takes place partially in "The Waystation", some stupid vapid bar in the middle of nowhere, where nothing really takes place.<br /><br />THe acting is beyond bad. So bad in fact that I almost thought it was a comedy. The lead actress Julia Reading is a step below the acting in most amateur porn films. There is one or two decent performances, including the guys who played Jacob and Fenner but it's like the director had no clue on how to work or use his thespians. The only thing worse than the acting was the dialogue, which bordered on absurd. The writer (whom I assume is also the director) writes each character like they are auditioning for a comic book villain.<br /><br />The overall production value is pretty good, but to be honest, with a film this bad it's easy to overlook it. The production design is pretty good, although the Waystation looks like any ordinary bar. The costumes and make-up are okay, and I understand the production was working with a low budget. It's just when the characters speak, or they try and push the plot forward, the film unravels into a muck of crap.<br /><br />As I've said, this film is god awful. It's like the director/writer watched a lot of sci-fi films and threw all the parts he liked into a blender and came up with this. My only hope is that he used other people's money on this, because if he used his own, he's a total sucker.
| 0
|
Ouch! They don't come much worse than this horrid adaptation of C. S. Lewis's beloved novel. While the adaptation is very true to the novel, the acting is simply awful and the sets and special effects are on a scale equivalent to a school play. I've read that the budget for this miniseries was the grandest that the BBC has ever given at the time, but surely they could have scraped together a bit more than the $2 that it looks like this was filmed for. The worst effect of all is Mr. Beaver. I know computer effects weren't at the level necessary or even cost effective at the time, but the costume store man in a suit look was horrid. Better to have just cut the character from the film than do that to the role! Avoid this at all costs.
| 0
|
Anyone who visited drive-ins in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s, must have seen a film or two by American International Pictures, a distributor that resembled 1980s giant Cannon Films. Wherever movie-goers ventured, AIP would be right there to supply the latest en vogue titles - in the 50s came horror movies like 'Voodoo Woman' and 'The Undead;' in the 60s were Frankie Avalon-Annette Funicello beach comedies and biker flicks like 'The Glory Stompers;' and into the 70s, AIP churned out grindhouse-level trash like 'Cannibal Girls' and 'Sugar Hill.'<br /><br />'Dillinger,' released in 1973, is one of the more 'highbrow' AIP efforts that capture the true spirit of drive-in film-making; it is one of those uneven, over-the-top flicks that satisfied the masses' thirst for entertainment, craftsmanship and common sense be damned. On the whole, 'Dillinger' is typical for its era: entertaining and worth a couple of hours, but certainly not memorable. Heavy on action and short on both acting and historical fact, 'Dillinger' was a fair effort by screenwriter-director John Milius ('Magnum Force') but certainly left room for improvement in his extensive career.<br /><br />The 109-minute 'Dillinger' - epic for AIP's scope - follows the quest of FBI Midwest chief Melvin Purvis, played by Academy Award winner Ben Johnson. Purvis was the investigator who sought revenge for four FBI agents killed in a 1933 Kansas City ambush that helped gangster Frank Nash to escape justice. At large were the men who supposedly plotted that breakout, including expert bankrobber John Dillinger (Warren Oates), Pretty Boy Floyd (Steve Kanaly), and psychopath Baby Face Nelson (Richard Dreyfuss). Dillinger eventually joined forces with Floyd and Nelson, taking along Homer Van Meter (Harry Dean Stanton) and Harry Pierpont (Geoffrey Lewis). He also hooked up with Billie Frechette (Michelle Phillips), a prostitute of French and Indian extraction. While taking place over several months in 1933-4, 'Dillinger' is basically a chase film, with Purvis's entourage looking to run down and kill off the men wanted by J. Edgar Hoover.<br /><br />'Dillinger' has a documentary feel, listing dates and places while Johnson supplies loose narrative as Purvis. Milius keeps an honest Depression look, using authentic fashion, cars, weapons, and buildings; he also sprinkles around black-and-white photography and stock footage of gangster shootouts. The film is never boring, moving at a quick, if haphazard, pace. The action scenes are Dillinger's strongpoint, edited competently by Fred Feitshans Jr in his last professional effort. Thousands of blank ammunition rounds must have been used to make this film, not to mention pounds of explosives. This film is certainly not for the squeamish, with people getting shot and dropping dead all over the place. The violence, while gratuitous, brings some understanding of the mayhem that organized crime dumped on American life.<br /><br />This film never transcends its exploitation status, however, because the needed writing just isn't there. John Milius, somewhat overrated as a filmmaker, places way too much emphasis on action. The action scenes (mostly blood-filled shootouts) are impressive and comparable with any major crime film of its era, including 1967's 'Bonnie and Clyde.' But we simply don't get to know much about Dillinger and his gang members as people; the vital relationship that develops between Dillinger and Frechette is barely touched upon, with the pair meeting in a bar during one scene and cavorting as lovers just ten minutes afterward. Melvin Purvis also seems to wander in and out of the storyline, becoming a prominent figure only when Milius needs to keep the film from unraveling. All too often, the film takes on a shoot-'em-up persona when its characters could have been explored in detail.<br /><br />Aside from this, the picture's main crime is ignorance of historical fact. While many say that 'Dillinger' is just a film, it's films such as this one that create fables and make them permanent. Those with knowledge of gangster history will point out that John Dillinger was not the last of his ring to die, as Milius's screenplay and the film's documentary style encourage us to believe. In fact, Dillinger died before Baby Face Nelson and Homer Van Meter; he also was said not to be carrying a gun on the night of his death, nor did he have Billie Frechette in tow. While these inaccuracies might make for high drama, there is no reason why Milius couldn't have stayed with the facts and written a great story around them.<br /><br />Warren Oates's performance as Dillinger is quite good, although he sometimes looks unconvincing. Oates is humorous and nicely portrays how Dillinger became consumed by his larger-than-life image in the American press; however, we never really feel the menace he invoked in his lifetime. Ben Johnson gives some life to Purvis, suave but rather flat. Michelle Phillips brings emotion to the Billie Frechette character and it's really too bad that Milius's screenplay didn't flesh out her relationship with Dillinger. We never learn what drew her to a cold-blooded killer, other than the stereotype of an easy-going girl who is attracted to men of danger. The supporting roles with Kanaly, Dreyfuss, Stanton, Lewis, and a briefly-appearing Cloris Leachman, are acceptable for such talent.<br /><br />As a piece of 1970s exploitation, 'Dillinger' appears doomed to retail bargain bins, which is exactly where I picked up MGM's DVD release for $4.99. The film is nicely presented in widescreen (a must for drive-in flicks) with subtitles in French and Spanish. Dillinger's theatrical trailer is supplied as a lone extra. Largely forgotten except by gangster movie fans and drive-in enthusiasts, the film doesn't really call for much else in way of supplementary material. For fans of the genre, it's certainly worth checking out.<br /><br />** out of 4<br /><br />Roving Reviewer - www.geocities.com/paul_johnr
| 0
|
This movie contains no humor for anyone who has lived with a family member who has a mental illness. So many scenes reminded me too graphically of my own life experiences. This movie was the man's version of "Mommy Dearest." It depicts both graphically and accurately the life many children of a mentally ill parent goes through. It also shows how easy it is for a psychiatrist to become corrupt and act like they are God. <br /><br />Someone told me it was funny. No way, I say! It is sick humor at best. <br /><br />The movie is so intense and depressing that my son and I had to leave the room. The best use for this movie is for people who don't understand mental illness or don't believe what we families actually do live through.
| 0
|
I first saw this when I was around 7. I remembered what I believed to be a vague outline of what took place. Turns out now, 15 years later, that I remembered everything with great accuracy because it seems the writers never got beyond making an outline to the story. There is no plot to this movie/cartoon. There is no character development, no back story, no character arcs, nothing. The good guys do things because they are good, while the bad guys do things solely because they are bad. One unintentionally hilarious part is when someone who you would think to be important dies and nobody cares in the least. They just shrug their shoulders and move on. There's barely any dialogue either. If you cut out the fight scenes and the running scenes, you lose 70% of the movie.<br /><br />Watch this because you want to see some good animation and for no other reason. Or if you like to look at scantily clad hot cartoon chicks (or scantily clad hot cartoon dudes).
| 0
|
I would have left the movie halfway through if I hadn't been with people who liked it. The movie is based on real incidents, but it's so over the top it didn't feel real at all. I have some psychological background, hang out with a lot of psychotherapists, and have known seriously crazy people, so it's not that I think people like this don't exist. But in the film, the only characters who seemed consistently human were Augusten's father (Alec Baldwin) and the young Augusten (Jack Kaedin). (Although Evan Rachel Wood was an intriguing diversion - very sexy with a wicked sense of fun). There were a few amusing moments, but the overall tone of the movie was grim, bizarre, and nasty. What a waste of an outstanding cast! As I watched them go through their turns, I just felt like I was watching an acting class. This was brought home during the credits, when a couple of people were shown just sitting there, not acting, not talking. Those few moments were more entertaining than the previous 2 hours.
| 0
|
This movie is about a female rape victim/comic book writer from New York that decides to get away from all that awful big city glamor and move to a dirty, run down small town where she finds refuge in a single-wide trailer on a dirt lot in the middle of 12th and nowhere. The townspeople are mentally ill, yet so is she for inviting crazy men into her trailer. Annoying is the fact that she has the ability to do exactly the right thing to place herself in dangerous circumstance after dangerous circumstance. DB Sweeney's performance was high school at best. He's one of those kinda-cute young actors with a sweet grin. Unfortunately career has not been kind and mother nature has been right in tow. To the previous commentator stating that the acting was "so real", well I agree. Actually it wasn't acting. The two main characters really are pathetic, weak and incapable of making mature, healthy decisions. In brief, this movie sucks like no other, rent it to laugh at it. The real crime scene? The atrocious Wood paneling in the trailer - enough to make ME commit murder. And lastly, she's a artist/writer, so couldn't she afford a double-wide trailer and something other than a sun-yellow Chevy Chevette for love of god!
| 0
|
The first time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.<br /><br />I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.<br /><br />The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.<br /><br />I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.
| 0
|
I would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash! There are films that are bad, but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you! The sex sequences, so shocking in its day, couldn't even arouse a rabbit. The so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night Marxism. The film is self-consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. The photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. Some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. Even the sound is bad! And some people call this art?<br /><br />
| 0
|
To summarize this movie: Without a real plot, this movie consists of 80 minutes of deranged characters either drinking or making bad jokes. The music is just awful, the humor isn't funny and all the female characters slutty idiots or total geeks. It seems to me, that the movie has actually been written by a 14 year old boy, who thinks that drinking is cool, women are designed to please men and all that oppose that view are geeks. Also, the movie has nothing to do with the original American Pie movies, other than a few names and Mr. Levenstein who is a minor character in this one. The only good thing about this movie are the nice looking girls. Don't watch this movie and don't be fooled by the 5.4 rating, because it obviously overrated and doesn't deserve anything above 2.
| 0
|
From the moment Christopher Lee puts on a pair of punk sunglasses and tries to sneak into a punk rock club, you know you've got a stinker on your hands! This film had potential. Beneath all of the sludge there are the remnants of what could have been crafted into a decent film, if not an interesting one. The final product is a real mess, however. Aside from the gratuitous nudity and some very attractive women, Howling II winds up being a laughable excuse for a horror film. Christopher Lee gives it a nugget of credibility, but even he cannot raise it above the level of crap.<br /><br />Having never seen any of the other films in this series, this critic will be forced to accept on face value that this is a genuine continuation of the events in part one. We start off at a funeral for one of the characters from the original, and within the first ten minutes we find ourselves in Transylvania with a small group of heroes ready to battle a coven of werewolves. The film is paced fairly well, and there are not too many dead spots. The action is there; it just isn't filmed well. One bright spot is the music of a punk band called Babel. Though their song is played quite often, it is rather catchy.<br /><br />The problems with this film are great in number. First off, the acting is worse than pitiful. Christopher Lee is good enough, but that's where it ends. The two leads Reb Brown and Annie McEnroe are lacking in just about everything you'd want for such characters. The writing is wretched, the editing redundant, and the direction amateurish. There are a couple nice special effect gimmicks, but the cheesy ones far out weigh them in number. Sybil Danning is nice to look at, but her acting performance is less than satisfactory. Judd Omen looks the part he plays, but his voice and acting are unconvincing to say the least. Much of the dialog is in an unintelligible language that may or may not be Latin.<br /><br />I liked the general idea for the story. I always enjoy stories of true believers out to battle seemingly invincible forces of evil. One scene where a small group of good guys are trekking through a dark forest and shooting down a bunch of werewolves is even kind of exciting. Kind of. Maybe a bigger budget or a better director could have made the rest of the film a bit more compelling. 3 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.<br /><br />Side note: As of this writing, the censors at youtube.com have still not taken down the ending credits with Sybil Danning ripping off her top several times while the Babel song is playing! Catch it while you can!
| 0
|
What else can you say about this movie,except that it's plain awful.Tina Louise and Adam West are the reasons why to see this,but,that's it,but their talents are wasted in this junk.I think that they used a double in some of Adam's scenes,like when he's running because you can't see his face.If Adam was embarrassed in being in Zombie Nightmare,just think what he must've felt about appearing in this??? If it was before or after,I'm not sure,but,still,Zombie Nightmare is a classic(check out the Mystery Science Theater 3000 version first and last)compared to this.The gang is very annoying and over-acting by some of the actors.A rip-off of The Wild One starring Marlon Brando,of course.Tina looks stunning though.I hope her and Adam got a good paycheck!! Pass!
| 0
|
Mark Pirro's "Deathrow Gameshow" of 1987 is a black comedy that is extremely cheesy in many parts, but occasionally very funny nevertheless. This movie could certainly have been a lot better, the acting is terrible, and some extremely cheesy scenes make it hard to watch at times, but the concept is funny, and it has some hilarious moments.<br /><br />In the near future (the year 1991), game shows have changed. Chuck Todean (John Mc Cafferty) hosts a game show called "Live Or Die", in which convicted death row inmates have the chance to play for their lives, and for money. Candidates who fail, get executed on the air using many different methods, such as guillotines, electric chairs, and other, more bizarre devices of execution, followed by applause from the cheering studio audience. The show is, of course, more than controversial, and Chuck has made lots of enemies...<br /><br />"Deathrow Gameshow" is incredibly cheesy and crappy in many aspects, and the acting is terrible, but it is without doubt fun in many parts, especially if you're a fan of dark humor. You haven't missed anything if you haven't seen it, but it is definitely funny and a good time waster. 4/10
| 0
|
I usually don't comment anything (i read the others opinions)... but this, this one I _have_ to comment... I was convinced do watch this movie by worlds like action, F-117 and other hi-tech stuff, but by only few first minutes and I changed my mind... Lousy acting, lousy script and a big science fiction.<br /><br />It's one of the worst movies I have ever seen...<br /><br />Simply... don't bother...<br /><br />And one more thing, before any movie I usually check user comments and rating on this site... 3.7 points and I give this movie a try, now I'm wondering WHO rate this movie by giving it more than 2 points ??????????
| 0
|
Just got back from a free screening and I'm very glad I didn't pay to see this very sub-par film. The theater was full and the crowd was a mix of kids and adults. It seemed like it was just the kids who were laughing at all the slap-stick and fart jokes though (good god they loved to hit these poor mice in the crotch a lot!). The movie is pretty juvenile, unintelligent, predictable, and mostly annoying. The characters just seem to be thrown together to fill in empty space and the relationships between them all seemed very forced with no charm at all.<br /><br />Visually, the film is about average with nothing that really stands out. They did a decent job of mimicking the clay look from Wallace and Gromit, but other than that it's very forgettable imagery.<br /><br />Although I was really bored throughout the whole film, I chuckled a couple times. It's not an absolute failure, but I most definitely would not want to watch it again. If you're a parent with kids (and you don't care that your kids see mindless cheap-jokes) then feel free to take them to see it, but everyone else shouldn't waste their money.
| 0
|
I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.
| 0
|
This film, for an after school special, isn't that bad, and that's the problem. Nothing happens. You feel as if you're still in class. A guy teaches a bunch of young underdogs how to be good paint ball players. We never get to see these underdogs doing badly as the good player is training them. They all of the sudden turn into good players by meditating. Also there are too many characters and no character development. Too much time is spend on the main character and his sexy sister and not enough on some of the other kids. This could have had a 'Bad News Bears' feel (the original) since there was a girl on an all boys team, but there wasn't any feel to this movie at all. It has no feeling and leaves a dull pain in your bones after watching it, is not fun to bag on, not fun to watch, and is just kind of... there. Plain. Boring. Something you'd watch after school before your pre-evening nap. As dull as the day is long and it's been a long, long day watching this movie.
| 0
|
Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.
| 0
|
Rodney Dangerfield is a great. He has done a lot of great works. But this one....is awful. The whole plot is whack. It could have been much better. The jokes in the movie aren't funny....their stupid. This was very not so hilarious. He can do much better than this.
| 0
|
The first five minutes of this movie showed potential. After that, it went straight from something possibly decent to some sort of illegitimate comedy. The best part is that I couldn't stop thinking of Supertroopers thanks to Joey Kern. I would recommend watching this movie for the sheer fact of learning how not to make a movie. There are so many scenes in this movie that makes one just stop and wonder if the entire cast and crew just stopped caring at some point. The thing that amazes me most about this movie is that it grossed $22 million in the box office and only cost about $1.5 million to make. Congrats to Lion's Gate for being able to pull that one off.
| 0
|
I really hate this retarded show, it SUCKS! big time, and personally I think it is insulting to fairy kind (if you believe in fairies that is); I mean the people who had come up with such crap 'ought to have their heads examine huh? and also there is a LOT of craziness (the evil school teacher, which I think is getting really old) and also stupidity (the boy's parents and fairy godfather) in this show - two of the things that I dispised and loathe in the WHOLE world (especially stupidity).<br /><br />Overall, I say that this show is so f*****' annoying and should not be seen by prying eyes at ALL (it would make'em bleed to death)!
| 0
|
I absolutely despise this movie. No wonder Jose Larraz "disowned" it at one point and refuses to discuss it. I admire Larraz's work, especially his more obscure slasher/sex maniac thrillers like SAVAGE LUST or SCREAM AND DIE. His work has a kind of inescapable artiness about it that he can't seem to switch off, owing in part to his secondary career as a painter & cartoonist. It's too bad he never made a Western, his vision would have been perfect.<br /><br />BLACK CANDLES is easily his most notorious film and probably his best known after the masterpiece VAMPYRES. And it's notoriety revolves around one scene where a Satanic coven enacts a bizarre rite involving extracting the reproductive fluid of a goat -- symbolizing The Beast -- as some kind of nauseating balm to be used in preparing the waif like sister of a murdered man for her role as the bride of Satan. The scene in question is staged in a way that looks rather convincing even without the display of any plumbing apparatus the goat may have been endowed with, relying upon the histrionics of the actress recruited to play the supplicant in the ritual and lots of guttural chanting on the film's recycled musical score heard in a half-dozen films attributed to Jacinto Molina. The perverse nature of the scene is more implied than shown in graphic detail, heightened somewhat by the knowledge that said supplicant is actually the teen-aged daughter of the Satanic priest. My but they had fun concocting this movie.<br /><br />The problem with it is that there isn't much to deconstruct or contemplate aside from the paper thin ROSEMARY'S BABY derived story of a woman being weaned into her role as Satan's bride by a sophisticated coven of Satanists living in the hedgrowed outlands of a very sinister Britain. Led by Eurohorror sensation Helga Line these Satanists are comprised of doctors, lawyers, land owning magnates and other upper crust dignitaries who actually owe their professional success to their worship of the devil. All you have to do is sell your soul and the world can be yours, only watch out whom you may sell out to pay back petty personal conflict or you may end up being felched with a sword.<br /><br />The film attempts to combine this heady Satanic trip with oodles or borderline graphic sex, and should correctly be regarded as a kind of apex or culmination of the sex and horror Spanish thriller traditions popularized in part by Mr. Molina & Ms. Line, and which had amazingly flourished under the disapproving eye of one Generalissimo Franco, the dictator who controlled Spain up until 1976. While he lived his decree was that Spanish cinema was to be free of graphic depictions of on-screen sex. Spanish directors often made two versions of their films, one with the sex concealed for their own screens and one with the fornication on display for export. As difficult as it was for the filmmakers to express themselves the result was a sort of interesting tension that usually results when artists flirt with the forbidden: Spanish horror from the 1970s has a very special flavor to it that is somewhat of an acquired taste. It's not for everyone.<br /><br />But in a bizarre turn of events, without Franco's influence on their culture Spanish horror sort of dried up in the late 1970s, when their Gothic castles and demonic orgies suddenly found themselves passé when compared to new sensations like JAWS and the STAR WARS phenomenon. And without Franco's constraints their were suddenly a flood of overtly graphic thrillers that came tumbling out of the pipes in the very late 70s/early 80s, of which BLACK CANDLES is perhaps the best known due to it's emphasis on sexual deviancy with a barnyard animal. Larraz' major horror films have always revolved around sexual taboos (the lesbianism of VAMPYRES, the incest of SCREAM AND DIE & DEVIATION) but here the effect of the depravity is to overshadow the rest of the production. Nobody cares about anything else but the traditionally censored trip to the Goat Barn, and watching a cut version without the scene in the barn is almost an exercise in pointlessness. The sex isn't graphic enough to rate as porn and the chills aren't chilling enough to rate as horror.<br /><br />So, BLACK CANDLES is essentially a behavior study -- Here is how high society British Satanists might behave in their secluded mansions out in the West Midlands or whatever. Between sex scenes the actors/actresses sit around and have lots of discussions. The best thing the film has going for it is an undeniably oppressive atmosphere of claustrophobia, with most of it's action taking place in the tightly confined interiors of Ms. Line's character's mansion. Nearly every avenue of fornication is hinted at so fans of soft-core sex romps with a hinting of supernatural horror will be amused, and of course the vicarious sex criminals amongst us will enjoy choking their chickens to the goat barn scene. But the ultimate conclusion of the film is silly, pretentious, intelligence insulting, and probably perfect for such an otherwise forgettable exercise in applied sleaze.<br /><br />2/10; Without the Goat Barn this movie just isn't the same, and with the scene it's probably a bit too much for most viewers. Larraz was correct to disown it.
| 0
|
I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .<br /><br />But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.<br /><br />It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.<br /><br />I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .<br /><br />Sheesh . . .
| 0
|
I was utterly disappointed by this movie. I had read some of the other reviews here and had much higher expectations. I expected a drama with more intense character development. But that never happens in the movie. Daniel-Day Lewis is a good actor, but not as good as some reviewers here would have us believe. I tought he repeated the same set of 4 or 5 movements in the movie. I would rate his performance 6 out of 10.<br /><br />Acting: 6 out of 10 Direction is 5 out of 10. Script is the worst: 2 out of 10. <br /><br />I deleted the movie from my DVR at 70 mins. into the movie. Much better movies out there than this...
| 0
|
This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)
| 0
|
Back in the day, I remembered seeing dumb Nintendo Power comics that had the same artwork as this show... and then word came up that this show was a coming to a television near me! I was not estatic, but curious... I was curious about how bad this show was gonna suck. My friends all said that this show had no real meanings and was too silly for straight people like me to enjoy (i'm actually gay), so I decided to watch the show with low expectations.<br /><br />WHAT A HORRIBLE EXPERIENCE!!!!!!!!!!! First off, I hate the new characters. Tiff and Tuff are so dumb and I hate how so many fanboys drool over Tiff, it's sad. I also hate how they made Chef Kalasaki (or whatever his nonstraight name was) a good guy who owned a restaurant. Bad move, 4Kids TV! Escargoon is nothing but a loser adviser to the King Dedede (who sucks big time in this show) and I hate the face of that one company that keeps supplying Dedede with those awful weapons to destroy Kirby. So stupid, I hate this show.<br /><br />I then began to hate Kirby even more since it was obvious Nintendo was just aching to get Kirby some popularity. Kirby'll never beat Mario in the fight for coolness, and Kirby will always be nothing but a tiny little cream puff of gayness. NUF SAID!!!
| 0
|
Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase "low budget" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes "molecular reorganization". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic "F", so rest easy!
| 0
|
A charming boy and his mother move to a middle of nowhere town, cats and death soon follow them. That about sums it up.<br /><br />I'll admit that I am a little freaked out by cats after seeing this movie. But in all seriousness in spite of the numerous things that are wrong with this film, and believe me there is plenty of that to go around, it is overall a very enjoyable viewing experience.<br /><br />The characters are more like caricatures here with only their basis instincts to rely on. Fear, greed, pride lust or anger seems to be all that motivate these people. Although it can be argued that that seeming failing, in actuality, serves the telling of the story. The supernatural premise and the fact that it is a Stephen King screenplay(not that I have anything specific against Mr. King) are quite nicely supported by some interesting FX work, makeup and quite suitable music. The absolute gem of this film is without a doubt Alice Krige who plays Mary Brady, the otherworldly mother.<br /><br />King manages to take a simple story of outsider, or people who are a little different(okay - a lot in this case), trying to fit in and twists it into a campy over the top little horror gem that has to be in the collection of any horror fan.
| 0
|
An okay film, with a fine leading lady, but a terrible leading man. Stephan Jenkins, who plays the husband, is a truly bad actor. Joyce Hyser, on the other hand, is the movie's saving grace. She's the best actor of the bunch.<br /><br />NOTE* the first comment, by the fellow who heaped praise upon the movie (and, according to his IMDB.com account, has only written ONE review -- and guess for what movie?) is obviously a plant. While the movie is nicely shot, it's by no means subtle or great or whatever other hypobolic descriptions the reviewer used.<br /><br />"Art of Revenge" is a fair movie, but it's a big tease. It offers up all manner of sexual situations but never goes through with it. Like watching a Skin Flick on Cinemax, but with all the "naughty bits" edited out.<br /><br />The film, as a whole, is a bit unfocused and the ending, and much of the third act, is really a big mess. There's a twist ending, of course, since every movie nowadays finds it necessary to have a twist ending.<br /><br />A 4 out of 10.<br /><br />
| 0
|
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />The American military has just launched a major new stealth fighter plane that can evade detection unlike any other. A renegade pilot (Steve Touissant) steals it and plots to hold the US government to ransom with it. So they are forced to send in their best man John Sands (Seagal, who else?) to stop him, in exchange for his freedom from a detention centre where his mind was to be wiped of all the incriminating information he's learned over the years.<br /><br />I skipped Attack Force because I could tell from the cover and all the post production tampering that had occurred that it would be crap and when all the negative reviews and low user rating came pouring in it just confirmed what I thought. But I decided to give FOF a go because Shadow Man (by the same director) wasn't bad and, what the hell, Seagal was my favourite action star once and maybe, just maybe, he could make a great film again. Oh what a fool I was.<br /><br />Dubbing, horrendous stock footage of aerial stealth fighter jets, awful camera work, cheap production values, risible, unconvincing fight scenes that have become Seagal's trademark and a boring, sleep inducing plot that doesn't go anywhere.<br /><br />Thankfully his next film, Once Upon a Time in the Hood (which I'll be skipping), apparently marks the end of his contract with Sony, meaning no more of these awful European lensed action films and his next film Prince of Pistols might mark a return to theatres. Hell, he's done it before and Stallone will have managed to do it before him (Rocky Balboa.) <br /><br />This isn't a Flight of Fury. It isn't even a flight of fun. It's a flight that fails to even take off the ground. *
| 0
|
Blood Legacy starts with the arrival of lawyer Tom Drake (Norman Bartold) to the Dean estate formerly owned by the now deceased Christopher Dean (John Carradine), upon his arrival he is greeted by Mr. Dean's four children, Gregory (Jeff Morrow) & his wife Laura (Merry Anders), Victoria (Faith Domergue), Johnny (Richard Davalos) plus Leslie (Brooke Mills) & her fella Carl Isenberg (John Smith). Drake plays a tape recording of they're late Father's wishes after his death, the estate worth 136 million dollars is to be split equally between his four children, if any should die then the money would be split equally between the rest & if all were to die the freaky servants Elga (Ivy Bethune), Igor (Buck Kartalian) & the more mundanely named Frank (John Russell) would pocket the lot. Well, not satisfied with a quarter share of $136 million (which is still almost $35 million back in 1971 which doesn't sound too bad to me) someone decides they want it all for themselves & it's not long before decapitated heads are turning up in the fridge...<br /><br />Co-written, produced & directed by Roy Monson Blood Legacy disappointed me on two accounts. For starters this film's alternate & much more common title is Legacy of Blood which is also the title of an obscure horror film directed by Andy Milliagn back in '78 which I've always wanted to see, both films are regularly mixed up as both have similar stories & when I checked my on screen cable TV guide for Legacy of Blood I was excited because it said it was the Milligan film & even listed him as director so when I actually sat down to watch it & I heard John Carradine's voice & I then knew it wasn't the Milligan film that I had wanted to see, my heart sank. Then, of course, there's the simple yet undeniably straight forward fact that Blood Legacy is a total utter piece of crap that is literally painful to watch at times. The script by Monson & Eric Norden is slow, boring & extremely predictable. The character's are absolutely bizarre in an annoying way, the freak of a servant who ask's his sister (?) to cane him, the strange set of Brother's & Sisters who are just downright unlikeable & so far removed from reality that any tension or mystery that the simplistic whodunit story could have achieved is sorely missing & then there's the awful twist ending that you can guess within the first 10 minutes. It's boring to watch, it's poorly paced & it's just a chore to even think about it. Please, someone save me as this is really bad stuff. I could go on all day about how bad Blood Legacy is, I really could.<br /><br />Director Monson was either working with a none existent budget or judging by this he shouldn't have even been directing traffic. The entire film looks ugly, it's poorly photographed & there is no atmosphere or scares. The blood & gore is tame, there's an axe in a head, a decapitated head, a scene when someone is stung to death by wasp's & the best murder when someone's face is eaten by piranha. However there are question marks over this scene, so there's the victim, right. There's the tank of piranha, right. Victims head is placed in piranha tank, right. Pirahna eat victims face, right. Water remains crystal clear despite said victim having his face eaten, erm where's the blood?<br /><br />Technically Blood Legacy is terrible, it looks awful, the sound was obviously shot live & it's muffled & hard to hear which considering the terrible dialogue is maybe a blessing in disguise. The acting was not going to win anyone any awards that's for sure, the least said about it the better.<br /><br />Blood Legacy is an awful film, there really isn't a single positive aspect to it or if there is I can't think of it. Do yourself a favour & don't bother with this one, there are much better films out there.
| 0
|
The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.<br /><br />This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.<br /><br />The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.<br /><br />Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.<br /><br />A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original.
| 0
|
Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).<br /><br />Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).<br /><br />Well, as I said in my summary...<br /><br />What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.<br /><br />I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.<br /><br />I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.<br /><br />The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.<br /><br />Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.<br /><br />This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.<br /><br />I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.
| 0
|
I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.<br /><br />The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.<br /><br />Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.<br /><br />Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.<br /><br />But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.
| 0
|
I can only assume that the other reviewers of this "film" are stockholders in the production company, as this was quite possibly the worst movie I've seen in the last five years. From the opening shot of a Rabbi laughing uncontrollably for no apparent reason, it was clear that the actors in this film would kill to be considered "B-Level." Both my wife and I were in a great mood before starting this film, and we were genuinely looking forward to a funny popcorn movie. We knew we hadn't rented Citizen Kane, and we weren't expecting to see the most amazing movie ever. However, after 40 minutes of enduring the most painfully unfunny bit of garbage I've ever seen, we shut it off instead of wasting another minutes of our lives.<br /><br />If a "comedy" with no laughs, terrible acting, thin plot and annoying characters are your thing, then this film is for you. Honestly, Troll 2 is better--at least I laughed at the popcorn sex scene.<br /><br />I cannot justify writing a longer review of this picture because I've already wasted almost an hour trying to find one joke.
| 0
|
Let's cut to the chase: this movie is softcore pornography marketed for the masses under a name that the studio is milking every last penny out of the American Pie teat. Period.<br /><br />The whole plot (and that shouldn't imply that there's a whole lot to go around) serves as a vehicle to show the audience more boobs and sex scenes.<br /><br />If you're a Tween guy, and you're too squeamish to purchase actual pornography, then this is the movie for you. Otherwise, the movie doesn't have much to offer at all.<br /><br />The acting is sub-par, the character development is virtually non-existent, and the story is a nonsensical knarl of nudity, binge drinking and pranks (none of which are particularly memorable).<br /><br />Go buy real porn if that's what you want to see, and if not, go watch a GOOD movie. Animal House, Kids, or even the original American Pie are all great cinematic works, and all of them contain heavy alcohol use and nudity.<br /><br />"It's not how much, it's how you use it"
| 0
|
When anyone comes into a film of this type of film it's not without saying that an overdose of that great over-the-counter brain-medicine, Suspension of Disbelief, comes in mighty handy.<br /><br />Jeanette MacDonald plays two roles: Anna/Brigitta, the woman who Nelson Eddy has ignored since the beginning of time, but who also is -- an angel sent to Earth.<br /><br />My reaction when I saw this was a mute gasp of "Hunh?" Where have I seen this before? It turns out, I have seen it before, but in a movie made much later than this one. DATE WITH AN ANGEL, a forgettable pile of dreck made in 1987, cashed in on the ethereal beauty of one Emmanuelle Beart who had no speaking lines, also wore a blond wig, and made life hell for soap-actor Michael Knight. Much worse in every conceivable angle with ultra-low 80s values but more than likely an updated version of this 1942 turkey.<br /><br />Anyway, not to elaborate, this is not a memorable film and stands as a doorstop of information because it was the last time MacDonald and Eddy, neither very good actors but terrific singers, would be together playing up the "innocence" and "clean-cut" romance that they were known for. After that you may need a cold shower, not because there are any steamy scenes here, but to get rid of the memory.
| 0
|
There can be no questions of spoilers for this movie, the director beat us all too and spoiled this movie in oh so many ways.<br /><br />A blatant rip-off of stuff like Critters and Gremlins, this movie fails on so many levels to recapture the humour and horror of those better made films. It ends up a sleazy waste of time, where bad actors deliver bad dialogue in front of an idiot director, who occasionally tosses stuffed toys at them. They wrestle with said toys in much the same manner as old Tarzan films used to use rubber crocodiles, shaking them whilst screaming and trying their best to make it look slightly threatening. It's painful to watch, and not helped by the mental 80's fashions worn by the cast.<br /><br />Basically, some crazy little aliens who have been trapped by an aging security guard in a film lot finally get free after umpteen years confinement, and begin to telepathically screw around with peoples minds. The guards new recruit, the idiot who let them out despite repeated warnings, gets his gang of 80's friends together and they go off and have minor adventures together while trying to recapture the Grem... Hobgoblins.<br /><br />All life is here, with the gang consisting of a knucklehead jock, his 80's slut girlfriend, the 'hero's frigid and prissy girlfriend, and the young hero, lacking in confidence and wishing his girlfriend would put out anyway.<br /><br />First off comes the infamous rake fighting scene, where the ex-military jock shows how he was trained in the army to be a bully, poking the nerdy hero with the wrong end of a rake for what seems like hours. Then there's some running around, terminating in a real pie-fight style ending in a scuzzy nightclub with comedy hand-grenades blowing up everything except the people standing right next to them. Then the film sorta ends, and alls well that ends well.<br /><br />It's not. This is like watching a train wreck, you cant take your eyes off it, it's so bad. Perfect fare for Mystery Science Theater, but god-awful should you try to watch it alone and uncut. The Fashion Police still have a number of outstanding warrants for the cast, and I dare anyone not to laugh in outright derision at the rake fight. This scores 2 out of 10 at most, on a good day.
| 0
|
I can see where the film makers were going with this. But they never really reach their destination. It's supposed to be a homage to Spaghetti westerns albeit set in a sort of mythical modern time frame." But unfortunately it fall short in its attempt. It doesn't have that gritty realism that spaghetti westerns are known for. The characters are not vile and desperate enough like their Italian western counterparts. And, failing these two points, it lacks the humor of a successful parody. In fact it looks like they intended to make a serious film, but upon completion realized they had missed the mark so far that it couldn't possibly be taken seriously. Unfortunately, they also missed the humor mark by a mile. A whole lotta bad movie!
| 0
|
When i got this movie free from my job, along with three other similar movies.. I watched then with very low expectations. Now this movie isn't bad per se. You get what you pay for. It is a tale of love, betrayal, lies, sex, scandal, everything you want in a movie. Definitely not a Hollywood blockbuster, but for cheap thrills it is not that bad. I would probably never watch this movie again. In a nutshell this is the kind of movie that you would see either very late at night on a local television station that is just wanting to take up some time, or you would see it on a Sunday afternoon on a local television station that is trying to take up some time. Despite the bad acting, cliché lines, and sub par camera work. I didn't have the desire to turn off the movie and pretend like it never popped into my DVD player. The story has been done many times in many movies. This one is no different, no better, no worse. <br /><br />Just your average movie.
| 0
|
I recently watched Belle Epoque, thinking it might be wonderful as it did win an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film. I was a bit underwhelmed by the predictability and simplicity of the film. Maybe the conflict I had was that from the time the movie was filmed to now, the plot of a man falling for beautiful women and eventually falling for the good girl has been done so many times. Aside from predictability of the plot, some scenes in the film felt really out of place with the storyline (ex. a certain event at the wedding). At times the film was a bit preachy in it's ideas and in relation to the Franco era the film was set in and the Church. The only thing the film had going for it was the cutesy moments, the scenery, and the character of Violeta being a strong, independent woman during times when women were not really associated with those characteristics.
| 0
|
Except for the acting of Meryl Streep, which is of note as always, I'd avoid this film because it has a dated "Movie of the Week" quality about it. But it is worth watching if you keep the several understories in mind: How a couple endures media scrutiny, and how the different are treated.<br /><br />Throughout the movie the issue is the credibility of the different. Australians are different than "us" (most of the rest of the world), so we (most of us) automatically come at it with an air of "oddness" about them. The couple involved is religious (different than most of culture) and Adventists (different) at that. So their lifestyle and mindset are suspect to begin with. Dingos are different animals than other dogs, so again we're faced with oddness questions. The real story, then, is how society (and the world) treats the different, those who have different accents, different beliefs, than we do and how we treat what they say as suspect.<br /><br />It's difficult to hear the phrase "A dingo took my baby!" without laughing and there are humorous posts, sadly, all over the web about it. But in the years that followed the story and the movie it has been discovered (as you'll find in web searches) that much larger children have been stalked by dingos. Research by experts in dingos have shown that it was not only possible but most probable that the baby was taken by dingos (maybe a pair), extracted expertly from the clothing and eaten within moments without a trace.<br /><br />Yet what is left behind is the question of why people defended dingos when they were found to be endangering children rather than killing the dingo to save the children, why because a woman's affect (expression) is so cold she is assumed to be guilty, and on and on.<br /><br />Haunting questions, with or without the film.
| 0
|
This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10.
| 0
|
From a poorly contrived plot line that makes almost no sense to bad dialogue and disjointed scenes to the ultimate downer, bad acting (even Peter Falk can't find his way) "Finding John Christmas" is better left lost. Ms. Bertinelli's performance is without depth or emotion as are her co-stars, William Russ as brother Hank and David Cubitt as love interest Noah. Jennifer Pisana as Soccoro, the daughter of single dad Noah is almost unbearable to watch let alone listen to singing. But who can blame them with material like this. Michael J. Murray's script is juvenile at best. <br /><br />Each year at this time I search the TV guides and wait anxiously for some of the really classic Christmas and inspirational holiday films to appear on the small screen. Films like "Miracle on 34th Street", Ernst Lubitsch's delightful "The shop around the corner" and, of course the 1951 version of "Scrooge". There's Frank Capra's classics "It's a wonderful life" and "Meet John Doe". Hey, forget the classics. What about "Home Alone" or " Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter and a great performance by Robert Downey Jr.? <br /><br />My present to you is by way of advice. Your time would be better spent searching out these films than finding "Finding John Christmas". Merry Christmas!
| 0
|
I'm shocked that there were people who liked this movie..I saw it at Tribeca and most of the audience laughed through it at scenes that were not meant to be funny. I felt bad because the lead actress was in the audience, but honestly the plot to this movie needed MAJOR revision..it didn't even make sense, one second the characters question what exactly it is that they're snorting..the next scene they're hopelessly addicted and figure out how to make it?? Also the ending just took the cake..I'm not going to spoil the magnificent conclusion..but it pretty much blended right in with the rest of the horrible plot/script...see this movie for comedy if you must..
| 0
|
This movie is a bad attempt to make original fans feel complete. The one thing people have forgotten is the fact that the reason the original won such acclaim, was strictly do to the fact that it was supposed to make you feel incomplete.<br /><br />This movie makes me want to go to the washroom. I am not a negative type of guy, but man the acting in this flick is.... no comment. The plot was a bad reflection of the life of Carlito Brigante and I am sorry to have had two hours of my time and my money wasted on this flick. I still love the original and will do my best not to let this movie ruin my opinion about it.
| 0
|
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.
| 0
|
A boring movie about a boring town in the 50's. How can anyone think this is a classic? The producer pretty much ended his career by pushing his girlfriend, Cybil Shepard, into several movies that were way above her acting ability. I think this movie gives an insight to how bad Peter Bogdonovitch's future movies were going to be. Cybil Shepard's career took a dive after being in several movies that Peter Bogdonovich produced. It wasn't until "Moonlighting" that her career started to come back. I thought the acting was poor rendition of the, "Graduate". I have noticed that this movie hasn't been shown in the US. The only place I have watched it was overseas in Europe late at night.
| 0
|
Seriously, I'm all for gooey romantic comedies and will get sucked into Miss Congeniality as easily as Goodfellas...but this movie? It doesn't make any sense!!!! And I'm not even talking about the willing suspension of disbelief kind of not making sense. Why does her family live in England? Or, at the very least, why doesn't she have a British accent? She's sure cozy with her dad and he's surprisingly forgiving of her not being around for the last two years. (On that subject, no one ever makes much of a deal about her being away for so long). And what was with the goofy outfits at the bachelorette party? I'm not even going to get into the fact that the escort she paid for falls in love with her--that could've been overcome by better movie-making. I'm just saying that the characters, the setting, and the plot aren't fleshed out enough to make an even somewhat cohesive story. Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the filmmakers if I were her! I mean, honestly, I'm all for women being who they are, but why, in seven loyal years of Will and Grace viewing, have I not ever noticed how incredibly odd her nose is? Oh! Because those producers are kind to her! This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors. I can see both Messing and McDermott in these roles with a better writer, director, and producer.<br /><br />This easily gets my vote as one of the worst movies I've ever wasted time on. I'm just glad a friend loaned me her DVD, so all I wasted was time. If there were a way to make this review ZERO stars, I'd do it.
| 0
|
(A possible spoiler or two) <br /><br /> "Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film. <br /><br /> Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.<br /><br /> I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.
| 0
|
Along with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the "hip" quotient. You're better off skipping this one.
| 0
|
Well, TiVo recorded this because of Angelina Jolie. It had 2.5 stars. It seemed promising. It went downhill fast.<br /><br />There is much overacting, even from Angelina. She's about 20 and playing a 16 year old. There are three characters that are supposed to be Italian. Everyone else is Italian- American. The native Italian accents were good, I thought. The young male lead is cute, my wife says. Everyone else in this movie is a fat Italian woman. Even the men.<br /><br />I should have known that when Dick Van Patten was cast as a randy doctor, that that was a bad sign. The two couples chasing their kids around are like the four Italian Stooges.<br /><br />My wife would not let go of the remote. Hopefully she was not taking makeup, clothing or decorating tips. It was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. It was hidegarishous.<br /><br />Cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. If this movie shows up on your TV, do yourself a favor and ram your head through the TV screen instead. You'll be glad you did. The only movie I've ever seen that was worse than this was "Hamburger: The Movie". Or maybe "Deadly Friend".
| 0
|
The 1960's were a time of change and awakening for most people. Social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke-out about their views. Racial tensions, politics, the Vietnam War, sexual promiscuity, and drug use were all part of the daily fabric, and the daily news. This film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie, and largely succeeded.<br /><br />In this film, two families are followed: one white, one black. During the first half of the film, the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. Unfortunately, the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. Admittedly, there are more characters in this family, and the story lines are intermingled, but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century.<br /><br />On the whole, the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. The movie is a work of fiction, but clips of well-known historical figures are used to set the time-line.<br /><br />I enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one-sided.
| 0
|
The title creatures wreak havoc at a peaceful little desert town. That's basically the whole plot for this film, and while the scenes devoted to the Munchies themselves are somewhat fun (in a lowbrow kind of way), all the rest is just filler, and bad filler at that. From the "hero", who is a painful Woody Allen wannabe, to the ultra-dumb town cop, it's hard to pick the most irritating character in the film. There were some times when almost all of them were on the screen together and I was thinking, "OK, at least the girlfriend is cute, but why do we have to put up with the rest of those morons?". The film is also filled with pop references (from Ozzy Osbourne to Linda Blair), which probably made it already dated by the early 90's. (*1/2)
| 0
|
Well, what to say...<br /><br />Having seen the film I still have to wonder what the hell the point of it all really was?? V.Dodgy camera moves in the courtyard at one point... I had to look away from the screen, I was feeling physically sick... Round and Round and Round.... You get the idea...<br /><br />VERY VERY Strange accents at many points.... "Those that should know, know"<br /><br />Unless your getting in for free, or being paid to watch it, or your partner is about to make you paint the house or something.. then forget it...
| 0
|
They had an opportunity to make one of the best romantic tragedy mafia movies ever because they had the actors,the budget,and the story but the great director John Huston was too preoccupied trying to mellow out this missed classic.Strenuously trying to find black humor as often as possible which diluted the movie very much.And also they were so uncaring with details like sound and detailed action.Maybe it was the age of the director who passed away two years later.
| 0
|
I checked this movie out when it still had 6 votes and it said like 7.2 or something, but seriously this is a horrible movie. Lets break it down. The first thing you notice about this movie is that it was filmed on a hand-held digital camera owned by a freshman at a community college. the next thing you'll notice is that the actors, are all friends of said freshman (he probably met them at the pub the night before. Third on the list you will notice that the musical editing is horrible, and they try to cram many songs into this movie, at 30 second intervals... also all digital editing is done on said freshman's home PC... probably using windows movie maker. This movie was horrible... pretentious, had an undeniably bad script, and acting that followed suit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone I know, but I do sentence the writer and director to watch this movie in hell for an eternity.
| 0
|
I'll give credit where credit is due, and say that Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as a hard-drinking actress who does what she wants. She's brash, sassy, hard-edged, and very sexy; she is much better than this film deserves.<br /><br />But that is IT. This dull suspense film is a fragmented mess, attempting at once to be a stalker thriller, a murder thriller, a tale of loyalty and betrayal, and a steamy erotic thriller. The film, my friends, isn't thrilling in the slightest.<br /><br />For instance, who thought of casting C. Thomas Howell as a desirable leading man? He is not ugly, but for crying out loud, it looks as though Fiorentino's tough-cookie goddess is getting it on with a kindergarten teacher. Howell has neither the authority or screen presence to fill the leading man role.<br /><br />The script is by far the worst aspect of the film. There is no tension as Fiorentino's character gets eerie phone calls, there is no mystery concerning her guilt in the murders that are the focus of the film, there is no sense of liberation as Fiorentino gets wimpy Howell to lose his inhibitions.<br /><br />Look for interesting but poorly-done cameos by Adam Ant and Issac Hayes, and one really, really good sex scene between Howell and Fiorentino. Besides that, my first impulse would be to put this sorry piece of trash down and go rent something else.
| 0
|
This is probably one of the worst French movies I have seen so far, among more than 100 french movies I have ever seen. Terrible screenplay and very medioacre/unprofessional acting causes the directing powerless. with all that it doesn't matter how nice western french scene and fancy music can add to the story.<br /><br />One of the key weakness of this movie is that these two characters do NOT attract people, as an audience I don't care what happens to them. <br /><br />It amazed me how this movie won jury prize in cannes, man, I love almost all the awarded movies in cannes, but not this one. A major disappointment for me.
| 0
|
OK, aside from the psychedelic background imagery, the info presented here was good. The music I could have done without (not that it was bad music, just that it didn't fit this film at all).<br /><br />As for the content of the film, the director brings up the often-lacking Pagan perspective on Christ's existence and a startling comparison of the deeds and events of Christ's life vs. the lives of mythological figures/deities such as Mithra and Dionyses. Then he brings up the chronology of Christianity's origins and presents an 'ok' case, but not one that blew me away.<br /><br />If the director had stuck with the facts and continued on with them, this film would have been good. However, at this point in the film, it disintegrates into a group of personally-gratifying attacks on Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" and a Christian private school which the director attended in his youth. During an interview with his old principal, (which during the course of, it comes to light that the director set up under false pretenses) I felt that the director was acting sort of childish. He was asking good questions but, like the film itself, the interview crumbled into an attack on this particular private school's rules, not Christianity.<br /><br />All in all, if you're just interested in some info, watch the first 30 minutes or so and then shut it off.
| 0
|
Funny how a studio thinks it can make a sequel to what was a classic Christmas story with an entirely new cast and expect it to float. Sure they used various actors for Batman, but in that instance Batman was a classic character before any of the actor donned his cape. In this instance you had a classic character in the blond headed horn rimmed glasses wearing Ralphy that wanted a red ryder bb gun for Christmas... Somehow we are supposed to forget him and accept another little boy that share no resemblance to the original... If I had not known it was a sequel I wouldn't have guessed it from the cast... except of course Charles Grodin tries so hard to imitate Darrin McGavin that your are constantly reminded that the original was far better...<br /><br />In the end it might have work if they had cast the movie better. They should have looked for look a likes or simply ignored the original and not tried to copy its look and feel. This one is just a cheap imitation. The Ralphy evokes no sympathy just a desire to seem his character shoot his eye out or die.
| 0
|
IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.
| 0
|
Plot Synopsis: Hong Kong, 1966. Paul Wagner, the man who built the Victoria Tunnel, is murdered along with his wife by his associates. His twin sons, Chad & Alex, are split apart. 25 years later, Chad, a karate instructor in Los Angeles, & Alex, a smuggler living in Hong Kong, join forces to avenge their parents' murder & rightfully claim the tunnel.<br /><br />This is the second time that Jean-Claude Van Damme & Sheldon Lettich have worked together, having previously done "Lionheart". This is also the first of three films to feature Van Damme playing dual roles ("Maximum Risk" & "Replicant" are the others). The plot is a very simplistic take on the revenge story, the film's sole redeeming feature being Van Damme's performance as two very different people the prissy rich kid & the rough-&-tumble, cigar chomping tough guy. As it goes, Van Damme doesn't do a very good job in either role, although his take on Alex is mildly amusing. It is puzzling as to have the brothers mistaken for each other, with them wearing different clothes & having different hairstyles. Bolo Yeung makes a very worthy henchman for the baddies.
| 0
|
Råzone is an awful movie! It is so simple. It seems they tried to make a movie to show the reel life. Just like Zappa did many years ago. But unfortunately Denmark lacks good young actors. Leon are by many still the little girl in "krummernes Jul", and Laura is simply not good enough to play such an important role. several times in the movie she plays with out soul and this is destroying the movie!<br /><br />Even though i consider it a movie you ought to see. I do not agree that the youth are behaving like this, but i think it can show how it can end, if you are letting your child down. Also it is important to support danish movies and new companies like "Film folket"!<br /><br />all in all I think people should see Råzone. Not because it is a great film, but because it is a movies which is dealing with important themes. I also think it is important to point out that there are some violent scenes in it, and actually it is in these scenes, Laura is acting best. - like the ending where she is holding the gun!
| 0
|
Can fake scenery ruin a picture? You wouldn't think so, but it actually for me in here. Listen, I have a lot of classic-era movies and I know pretty much what to except, such as the drivers steering immobile cars in front of a screen, etc. But a lot of that hokey business has to do with action scenes. To have fake scenery, fake mountains and flowers shot after shot as seen in "Brigadoon" gets insulting after awhile. <br /><br />As far as the music entertainment went, this is always subjective. What songs one person likes, another may not so that shouldn't be a big part of judging a film (whether someone likes the songs). I could blast this movie for its corny 1950 songs, dances, romances and characters but that was the '50s and a lot of people liked this sort of things. Musicals did very well in the '50s. Me, I liked the '30s and '40s with the great taps. By the '50s, tap was out and this new stuff - which I can stand - was it. Does that make this a lousy movie? No. It just makes one I didn't care for very much<br /><br />Despite the good cast, good director and high expectations, this film bombed at the box office, and with me. I should have liked it more, being a dreamer myself and that's a nice part of this story. I am not the cynical type and a nice town and nice people making me feel good sounds awful appeal. Then why couldn't I connect with this film? Part of it also was the dancing. I don't care for the stuff that replaced tap dancing on screen. But - no - the thing really turned me off what that staging. There was no Scotland, no highlands, just a hokey- looking background to make it look that way and it turned me almost from the start. Score one point for today's realism where they "go on location" most of the time.
| 0
|
The Howling II starts as it means to go on with a bizarre and surreal opening narration by Christopher Lee whose image is imposed over a moving star field, oh and a skeleton appears as well for some reason. He says "for it's written the inhabitants of the Earth have been made drunk with her blood. And I saw her sip upon a hairy beast and she held forth a golden challis full of the filthiest fornication's and upon her forehead was written, behold I am the great Mother of #an inaudible word I couldn't make out no matter how many times I rewound the tape and tried to, sorry# and all abominations of the Earth". This opening narration means nothing at all and is just downright bizarre. After the opening credits which are set over shots of Transylvanian architecture we get an on screen caption that informs us we're in 'Los Angeles, California U.S.A. City of the Angels'. I knew I was in for a long 86 minutes. It's probably not too long after the events of the original Howling (1981) and it's Karen White's funeral. After the ceremony Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) is spoken to by an 'occult investigator' called Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee) who says that Karen is a Werewolf and that she will come back to life. Ben dismisses such nonsense. But together with one of Karen's friends and colleagues Jenny (Annie McEnroe) he visits Stefan at his home. There Stefan tells them about Werewolves and how they can be killed, he mentions Stirba (Sybil Danning) who is the queen of Werewolves. Stefan also shows them a photograph taken at Karen's funeral of a woman named Mariana (Marsha A. Hunt) and that she is an extremely vicious and dangerous Werewolf who wants Karen. Stefan says he will stake any Werewoves through the heart with titanium. Ben figures out that Stefan means he will stake Karen as well so together with Jenny he travels to the graveyard where his sister's crypt is to stop Stefan. However lots of Werewolves turn up and attack Stefan, Ben and Jenny. They survive the attack and manage to find out that Stirba is to be found in Transylvania. They all decide to travel to Transylvania and stop Stirba and her Werewolves from taking over the Earth by fulfilling a centuries old curse. Once there they travel to a small town called Vlkava which means 'where wolves live' and meet up with the local priest, Father Florin (Ladislav Krecmer) and his small but loyal group of Werewolf hunters, hey what else can I call them? Oh, and a dwarf named Florica (Ludmila Safarova) helps too. They follow Mariana who they hope will lead them to Stirba. But Stirba knows of Stefan's arrival and has plans for him Ben and Jenny. Will Stefan be able to put an end to Stirba's plans for world domination? Will this film get any more bizarre or surreal? Watch it and find out. Directed by Philippe Mora this is one strange mess of a film. It's poorly edited as certain sequences just jump around incoherently. The single biggest problem is the script by Robert Sano and Gary Brandner based on his novel which is all over the place and doesn't make any sort of sense or introduces us to any proper characters that we like. Luckily it moves along like a rocket and is never dull or boring, unlike the original. Something strange or bizarre is always happening to keep the viewer entertained. Most people will probably hate it, but for those of us who enjoy 'bad' films this is right up there with the best of them. There are Werewolf orgies which are just freaky to watch. We get some cool Werewolf killing weaponry. The sets and locations just seem so out of place and I don't know if this was actually shot in Transylvania but it doesn't look like what I thought mid 80's Transylvania would. Stirba's castle is part dungeon, part Gothic castle and part modern luxury house. Stirba and her servant's costumes are very over-the-top, Stirba wears an outfit that looks like it belongs in a S/M video and to be fair to her she looks pretty sexy, and her minions wear skimpy leather clothing too. The special make-up effects range from good to poor, a dwarf's eyes explode, someone has their hand ripped off and a priest has some creature emerge from his mouth but this isn't a film loaded with gore, although there are plenty of effect sequences with Werewolf transformations and attacks. There is plenty of nudity as well as Stirba and her minions are a real randy bunch of Werewolves! I should also mention the music, the soundtrack is dominated by awful rock music that I hated and I ended up turning the volume down. Acting is weak all round and what on Earth was Christopher Lee thinking about when he accepted this film?! I wonder what he thinks of it. Basically the whole thing is a real mess, but I found it a fairly entertaining mess all the same. Impossible to recommend but it kept me watching through to the end. Speaking of which the end credits run over what appears to be deleted scenes and cut footage, it also features the same shot of Sybil Danning taking her dress off and exposing her breasts probably in excess of 20 times! If that's your thing.
| 0
|
I think I've seen worse films, so I'm giving this a 3, but it's a struggle to remember what they could have been!! Possibly Xtro (nasty & dull) or possibly Creep (just plain dull), but it is a struggle to think of something worse. It's difficult to know where to start. Let's just say it's a poor man's Under Siege, starring an even poorer man's Jean Claude Van Damme. The only redeeming feature was seeing Casper Van Dien - I always wondered what happened to him after Starship Troopers. Yes, he was Johnny Rico, if you really want to know.<br /><br />Judging from this site, he's been stuck in TV movie hell.... Casper, be more selective.... please!!!!!!!!!!!! Arghhhhh, I've just turned over and there's a half decent film on called Criminal Law...... now I'm beginning to get really resentful about the last 1.5hrs!!!
| 0
|
REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...
| 0
|
Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.
| 0
|
I sometimes enjoy really lousy movies....those that occasionally result when people (even talented people) get together with good intentions to produce a movie and for whatever reason it turns out to be a disaster. Movies like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", "Plan 9 from Outer Space", "Manos-Hands of Fate", and "Heavens Gate", etc.<br /><br />So, when I heard that this movie, "Rachel's Attic", was considered by many people to be the single worst film of the decade, naturally I just HAD to see it.<br /><br />Boy, do I regret that decision. This movie is beyond bad....it is SO bad that it is not even as enjoyable as the usual bad movie. The acting, filming, script, etc. are even worse than a low budget porno film: the sound is utterly horrible, the "plot" is completely incomprehensible, the "acting" is laughable....it is a complete waste of everyone's time and money. At least the porno film has porno to break up the monotony, while this ridiculous nightmare has a guy squeezing a rotten apple, and a "mad hatter's" tea party.<br /><br />The lighting is non-existent...many "scenes" take place in semi or complete darkness, which is probably just as well. The "writer-director" (I use the terms loosely), David Tybor, tries to get kinky with bondage scenes...but the results would be laughable, if they weren't so pathetic. There is some nudity, but it is of such abysmal quality that it actually acts as a sexual suppressant. I could go on forever and not do justice to all the flaws and shortcomings of this truly awful waste of film.<br /><br />For the love of god, avoid this train wreck. I know that despite (or perhaps because of) my negative comments, you may still be tempted to see if this piece of trash is really as bad as I claim it to be....but trust me on this....it's even worse than I have said, and you will absolutely, positively regret the experience (and expense, if you waste your money on a purchase or rental).
| 0
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.