text stringlengths 53 13.5k | label class label 2 classes |
|---|---|
start of with the good bit represent several time swayze talk zulu to his friend or that language be hear among the tribe . that a great plus and a normally usa and uk movie audience think all people on this planet speak english ( just in case youre one of them represent no they do not ) . but the acting be tenenkrommend a we say in the netherlands ( it make your toe curl and not in a good way ) . i like swayze but in this he awful . the muscle in his jaw make overtime and he frown the whole movie some one must have tell him it look butch . no patrick represent it look silly and be compensation for lack of character . alison doody ( elizabeth ) have opt for a style of act that do not meet the style of her co worker . her acting be só relaxed that this movie could have be set in the current day . and it not . your frock be a clue and alison . the best acting come from the people from the african continent and side onyulo a umbopa i like best . clear and warm and in character and his performance be a joy to watch . general represent it be mwah entertain on a rainy day . pity . could have be well . sack the director . | 0neg |
this be the bad imaginable crap . the novel by h. rider haggard be very entertaining and dramatic . the maker of this worthless movie do not follow it closely . well and old novel aren not sacred and make free version of them be fine with me if one have idea of one own . if all one can do be change thing and replace them with uninteresting and water down clichés one should stick to the original . if they have do that this film would have be at least twice as good even with bad actor and if film inside a studio with hut make of cardboard . but there no imagination at all only tiredness . this should be buy or watch only by collector of victorian novel make into movie . just a hint and and not a spoiler i think and to make those of you who have read the novel understand what have take place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on tv or god forbid waste money on buy this . gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to gollum have be turn into a nice gal . | 0neg |
i pick this movie on the cover alone think that i be in for an adventure to the level of indiana jones and the temple of doom . unfortunately i be in for a virtual yawn . not like any yawn i have have before though . this yawn be so large that i could barely find anything of quality in this movie . the cover describe amazing special effect . there be none . the movie be so lightweight that even the stereotype be awfully portray . it do give the idea that you can solve problem with violence . good if you want to teach your kid that . i do not . keep away from this one . if you be look for family entertainment then you might find something that be more inspiring elsewhere . | 0neg |
swayze doesn not make a very convincing alan quatermain . compare to stewart granger while which grow up be my ultimate hero in film like the 1952 scaramouche and the 1952 prisoner of zenda and the 1950 king solomon mine while patrick swayze fail utterly . even the portrayal of an old alan quatermain by sean connery in league of extraordinary gentleman be very good in an otherwise big flop . also alison doody lack the grace of deborah kerr in the role of the lead lady and and last but not least the impressive siriaque in the role of umbopa make it very hard for anyone to fill his ( shoe ) . for someone who be disappoint by richard chamberlain 1985 version and i now highly recommend it if you can not get your hand on the granger version . | 0neg |
i give 3 star only for the beautiful picture of africa . the rest be . well pretty bore . for about 50min we have the outline of the plot . in war of the world and the introductory part last and oh and about 10min . then be real action . this be something like representlet take a walk in the savanna and gasp at the beautiful sunset . and maybe deliver a message and like don not kill elephant . very ecological . i would have expect this out of a new steven segal movie and not from this . the lead actress make me think about artificial sun tan and dyed hair and too much foundation . and i do not see one scene where her hair be mess up and or she sweat and or her clothes be dusty . she just doesn not look like a 19 century woman . and in the bar and where they seek up our hero and swayze make a comment about the commander that he look like dracula . hmmm and bram stoker write his book and publish it in 1896 and and it become famous in the next year . livingstone and other explorer go to central africa from 1840 to 1880. so unless the action take place between 1896 and 1900. houston and we have a problem . positive . swayze make a nice impression . a a nutshell hard on the outside and but soft and cuddly on the inside . not that i would cuddle with a nut and but you get the point . he really manage to have that beaten puppy look on his face on several occasion . the movie stank . way too long and increasingly boring . do not watch it . don not buy it . it a waste of your money . | 0neg |
well . what can one say . firstly and this adaptation be far too long at 4 hour and for the complexity ( or lack of such ) of the plot . the actor try really hard to make something of this film but there be too little content for the time available . swayzee be really not a quatermain character at all . after see sean connery interpretation of the great man in the league of extraordinary gentleman and swayzee really do not make the grade . this chap with the winchester repeat rifle have none of the strength and stature and subtlety and or humour need for the part and and be upstage by everyone include the witch doctor and who incidentally seem from my point of view to be more convincing a an actor than the rest of the cast . some of the vista be please but there be silly mistake in the cinematography . for example . when the happy team arrive at the water hole in the middle of the desert and their track be visible down to the oasis and just wait for them to walk in them . climb out of the mine lead to an exit ( on the next shot ) nothing like the exit see from the passage they have climb through and et cetera . i be wait for doug mcclure to appear at any moment . in some way i wish he have . the leader of the russian pursue quatermain be a shoddily create stereotypical character who just shoot at everything . swayzee do quite well a the sad father and return to london and who be unable to obtain the custody of his son . swayzee should stick to that sort of thing . he be not able to carry the part of a courageous gentleman with a stout heart and experience of life and and sense of fair play . 4 out of 10. barely . | 0neg |
i miss the first 10 or so minute of the movie but do not think watch it from the beginning would have make any difference . i find the film extremely boring and be disappoint with the acting . i remember patrick swayze and some of the other actor ( roy marsden and for instance ) in outstanding role but they all disappoint here due to a very weak script . kind solomon mine . the very short part of the movie inside the mine be about as exciting a watch paint dry and i doubt that even a pre school kid would have be spell bind by watch the fight of the warrior . the entire movie be reminiscent of a cheaply produce american tv series . give me indiana jones any day . | 0neg |
oh dear . some of the best talent in british tv make this serial and and so i can only assume that they be work under incredible time pressure and and have to settle for first take of many scene . there be some frighten scene in this highland mystery ( mostly when the monster attack and we see it from his point of view ) and but i be afraid that i find most of the story unintentionally funny . such a the moment when the hero discover a dismembered corpse on a golf course represent oh look and there a hand . oh and and there another hand over there . hmm this be a bit puzzle . for many year fan of british cult tv show campaign to have this serial release on vhs or dvd and but the bbc always say no . now i think i understand why . | 0neg |
this film be make in saskatchewan and manitoba park and return the world eye again to what little of the wild western canada be leave . when archie begin to write his story for the paper while the thought of the day be to tame the wilderness and convert or absorb the first nation people . the film put forward and ask the question while why would a well educate and obviously talented englishman become an indian . archie and a an english boy dream about become something but grasp the full meaning of that dream be unique and priceless no mater what it be . sound like a famous puppet story doesn not it . in my opinion and i saw archie become my living image of the cigar store indian a very wooden character and not real at all very well do act on the part of mr. brosnan . he also portray the wild indian in the dance scene for the tourist . the fullness and or reality of it weren not realize till he meet and marry his wife and annie . annie push archie in a direction that would bring him to the forefront of the englishman world stage and not a himself but grey owl an canadian native of the wilderness frontier . this be the close archie get to become the noble savage prototype . mr. brosnan interpretation as well a the director be both well do . i have watch documentary on grey owl and i think this be a good big screen movie to add to my collection . spoiler i think the final scene with archie go to meet the grand council of chief be a great a great moment in the film . very beautiful canadian lake scenery and real grey owl location . | 0neg |
james bond in the wilderness . well and that the way it look represent pierce brosnan be after all best know a bond in tommorrow never die ( 1997 ) and golden eye ( 1995 ) both shot prior to this release . frankly and the film two lead be both badly miscast and with brosnan turn in the marginally more convincing performance and and with annie galipeau ( a pony and grey owl love interest ) have to battle with carelessly write dialogue . the two aunt and on the other hand be perfect . but the film be not about aunt . it be about the wild of the canadian wilderness . and while the photography may be pretty and there be no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wild . annie galipeau and a pony and just fails to be convince and unfortunately and because i really want to believe in her . she be a relatively inexperienced twenty year old on this film and and it could have work and but richard attenborough be maybe just not tough enough on her . he make her look vulnerable and which of course she be . but in the wrong sort of way . but one thing for sure and she appear picture perfect throughout . but mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness . it just doesn not fit and especially a she only ever seem to walk forest trial with bond ( sorry and grey owl ) and and use photo ops for kiss close ups . i have live with forest people in the pacific north west and and they simply do not look this pretty and stay so sweet while fight for survival . which bring me to another point represent the film fail to evoke the period in which it be set represent the 1930s . i put the blame here largely on a lack lustre script that be keen on preach at the expense of dramatic arc and plot point and those small detail that can evoke period through action . william nicholson write the screenplay and and his late offering and elizabeth and the golden age open three day ago and so i do hope there be an improvement . yes and i have read the comment others have post and but i be not convince . a lot of potential and but mishandle and even maybe ill conceive . if it have have a religious film and it would have be pan and but because it preach environmentalism and the film remain somewhat above criticism and since it be politically correct . sorry and for all that and i do not buy it . amen . | 0neg |
image be great and reflect well the landscape of canada . the story be and on the other side and quite bore while to my eye it be a love story in the wood just like titanic be a love story on a boat . i do not feel that grey owl be great environmentalist . i usually like lord attenborough but this one be . bad . | 0neg |
it a good movie if you plan to watch lot of landscape and animal and like an animal documentary . and make pierce brosnan an indian make you wonder do all those people do not recognize if someone isn not indian at plain sight . | 0neg |
. possible spoiler . you ` d think a story involve archie grey owl an englishman posing a a red indian would have a massive amount of humour involve . in fact i ` d say the only way to treat a film like this where a remarkable man con the gullible public be to treat it a a comedy . however richard attenborough commits something akin to a crime by make grey owl a serious drama . bad and he make an extremely dire film too . pierce brosnan lack the charisma need for the title role and the romantic subplot between grey owl and pony ( play by the equally wooden annie gaupeau ) lack any type of on screen chemistry . but to be fair to the cast their not help with the script which fail to portray archie a the cheeky chappy he be of fool everyone into believe he a native american . the producer and screenwriter have make the major error of have the film centre around the plot twist of archie be an englishman that why i write possible spoiler it not actually reveal untill late in the film that the title character be english and but it obvious that everyone who view this movie know that beforehand hence there absolutely no surprise involve . yes i do agree with everyone that the scenery be lovely and that it have a deep ecological message which isn ` t actually a new concept . theodore roosevelt be the first important environmentalist of the 20th century if truth be tell . and it should also be remember that with the exception of soylent green ( and possibly the two tower if you want to class it a have a green message ) that there hasn ` t actually be a great ecological film . in fact most environmentally concious film suck and that include grey owl and a film that unsurprisingly have a serious problem in find a distributor . | 0neg |
while flip through the channel on a late saturday night and my friend and i stumble across this film . first of all and irish actor pierce brosnan a a native american . seriously . his accent be break through so much and although his character be apparently scottish . next and i be stun to find that this film be make after he have already play james bond or agent 007 at least twice . this movie play up the stereotype and with the inspiring professor figure . the girl who play pony should be pay to keep her mouth shut . and and this film win an award . i can not believe it . brosnan be an attractive man and but we seriously want to gauge our eye out after watch this for just 10 second . we switch from kick and scream to this and and we want to switch back . we watch the 1995 child classic the indian in the cupboard earlier in the night and which also discuss the iroquois . the following line represent our desire to run away represent take me outside and earth grasper . from grey owl represent if you do not like it and you do not have to watch . | 0neg |
may contain spoiler . so i watch this movie last night on lmn ( lifetime movie network ) which be not know for show quality movie . this movie be awful . i be still amaze that i watch the entire thing and a it be terrible . could this movie contain any more stereotype . ( harp jewish mother who want son to be a doctor and catholic family with priest son and big big crucifix in every room show in the catholic family house and mexican whore and bad guy who be really a softie at heart and incredibly bad country accent ) gag . i be at first intrigue by the fact that i have never hear of this movie and after see that cheryl pollack and corin nemec be in it and i decide to stay awake until 4am to watch it . anyway and the only redeeming thing about this movie be madchen amick beauty . i suppose pollack and nemec acting be okay and but they have a horrid script to work with . unlike the other reviewer who comment on the lack of texan accent ( the movie be suppose to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang ) i think that the accent be there ( in support character like mary margaret date and john ) and be unnecessary . they be also very very bad . i be so very tired of hollywood southern accent that sound nothing like the area where the accent be suppose to be from . and since it be suppose to take place in austin and shoot movie there in 1991 would not have be expensive and i fully expect there to be familiar shot of the town represent the beautiful capitol building and the ut tower light up for a win football game and etc . none of these thing be there . also and it take about 5 6 hour to drive to mexico from austin . at one point in the movie and michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginity and be able to drive off when it be dark ( during the summer and early fall it doesn not get dark in austin until 9pm or so ) and spend time in mexico get drunk and have sex with mexican ( be there any other kind . ) whore and and then return to austin by dawn . while this be theoretically possible it be not very likely . and if anyone have start school in the hill country ( usually the third week of august and but may have be in september in 1960 ) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they do not wear their letter jacket . in august and september in austin and the surround area it be 90 plus degree . only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweater or letter jacket on the first day of school . all in all and a very bad make for tv movie experience . | 0neg |
although this film be make before dogme emerge a the predominant method of filmmaking and and before digital triumph over strike that . you get the point . this 1991 masterpiece clearly anticipate those development . corin nemec be just outstanding a the neer do well author and narrator . the pace be slow and but elegantly so and because the cinematography be so beautiful . record it the next time it on t. v. and because i guarantee you will never see a good nostalgia rip off make for t. v. movie . direct to video never felt so good . | 0neg |
the british claymation series put witty conversation tap from average people in the mouth of cute fanciful creature at least have the advantage for non british viewer of seem droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn not get on u. s. television . someone make the mistake of put it on u. s. television . sort of like the sadly miscast american version of the sublime brit com couple which die in a month on nbc when the same basic script do not translate from british english to american english and what seem droll and culture ( and just a bit dull ) in england and come across in creature comfort and the american version and a simply boredom with puppet . there no through plot line and no character and after one and a half episodes watch ( of the three ultimately air ) and no reason to suffer through more . the only positive thing to be say about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it have be that the claymation be at least professionally do and come a a set up for the single bad show on the cbs schedule and the new adventure of old christine ( or how to be a horrible mother or person in one interminable and unfunny lesson ) and kid who want to stay up past their bedtime happily run to bed rather than sit through this show and and the adult could wait to tune in until 9pm when two and a half men ( guilty pleasure ) and how i meet your mother ( actual quality write ) come on . | 0neg |
one question represent why . first off and the premise be not funny or engage at all . they use taped interview and and take the audio to animate ite with animal speak the part . first off and the interview aren not funny or entertain to begin with and and even if they be and i be sure they would be a lot more entertaining be view a they be originally and without be turn into cartoon . how do that add any hilarity to it . i turn on cbs monday night sitcom line up and ( which have become a regular way for me to relax after stressful monday workday ) and find this on . of course and the sitcom line up would be rerun anyway and be summer and but see those episode over again would have be more entertaining . i try to give cc a chance . i really do . when it start and i figure and well and maybe it will be funny . nope . and then it keep go . it be a long half hour . and i can almost see if there be a purpose and if the interview be show in their entirety and and have point to them . but no and it be just one line clip and cut and paste together really quick . it be like a horrible dreadful version of cartoon network robot chicken . i wasn not a fan of cbs now cancel sitcom the class . while that be on and it be one half hour of the line up i would struggle through . but if it come down to me decide a whole season of that or three more episode of creature . let just say i would take the class . consider it be a couple hour since it air and and i come on here to see i be the first to comment . i guess that a good sign that nobody watch it and and that it would not last much longer . cartoon roadkill . | 0neg |
i be not sure what hk movie the other reviewer have be watch and but enter the eagle be nowhere near the top of the heap in hk action . michael fitz wong should be glad he can get act job in hk and because he couldn not act his way out of a wet paper bag in english . shannon lee look good and be a fantastic fighter ( even well with the leg fight than her dad ) and but her acting skill be also sub par . in fact and all the english dialog ( 90 % of the movie even more than in gen y cop ) be so bad that i switch to mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the english sub . sure and there be some decent gunfight ( but nothing we haven not already see before ) and good cinematography and but the cheesy visual effect really spoil the action . that say and it worth the price of admission to watch shannon and benny the jet urquidez go at it . spectacular and and almost worth watch the rest of the movie for . finally and you might notice some scene that seem familiar to you and notably a shootout at an outdoor market ( think matrix ) and fitz dive out of a helicopter wear black fatigue ( think mi represent2 ) . guess someone think at least a few thing in this flick be worth rip off . | 0neg |
the movie have a good start portray an interesting and strong shannon lee and introduces two very simpathetic side character through the first half . but later something happens and all the sudden shannon turn into this straight face and second hand bad girl and the movie get lose in it own context . the second half lack any kind of charisma and be full of clichés and bad acting and a horrible plot and even bad stunt coordination . not to mention the horrible actor they choose for the chechen mafia gang . game of death 2 be bad and clownified bruce and but his daughter top it make an even big embarrassment of herself than the double who play bruce lee back then . i truly believe that she can do much good than this and i hope she participate in a good production next time . if you be a real hard core action fan and do not care about quality go ahead and see this movie . i be personally look forward to it but just get terribly disappoint . | 0neg |
wow . watch this film today and you can not help but be appal by the writing of this film . spencer tracy and loretta young play a couple who and in modern time and might be feature on the jerry springer show a they have a sick and abusive relationship . and inexplicably and the writer appear to be endorse it . the film begin with a hungry and homeless loretta be show the rope by the poor but very resourceful spencer tracy . he show her how by connive you can do very well with little money and take her home to his shack to stay . it never clear whether or not they marry and consider it a pre code film and you can assume they aren not even though they be cohabit . their relationship be very strange . and rather sick . while you can see that tracy care about her by his action and he be verbally abusive and a total jerk and young come run back for more like some sort of dog . he call her skinny or ugly and these be and in a sick way and his way of use endearment . later and when he start fool around with another woman ( glenda farrell ) and she tell her friend that if that what he want and it okay with her . it sure smack of a sado masochistic relationship and you can not help but feel a bit horrified . sure and he doesn not hit her but the relationship be very abusive . to show how sick it be and when young get pregnant and she tell him . it your baby and it mine and but you do not need to worry and i will take all the blame for it . yikes . doesn not this all seem a bit like look through a peephole into a sick and dysfunctional home . later and in a case of art imitate life and tracy prove what sort of man he be and disappears . after all and he can not be burden with a baby even if it his . but and he change his mind and decide to return home . wow . that bit of him . and and when he return and he nasty and act like if he stay and he isn not obligate to care for the kid . and and she tell him he a free man . free a a bird . wow and i be almost in tear at this tender moment . not . soon and this crazy pair be marry . and and naturally and young be depressed because he seem to be stay as long a it suit him not because of any love or sense of responsibility . so how can you salvage anything with this sort of sick character . what would you do . well and a for the writer and they have tracy soon commit a robbery to help pay for the brat . the romantic aspect of the film be underwhelming to say the least . during the robbery and tracy behaves like a chump do almost nothing to take precaution not to get catch like he be secretly hop to get send to prison . and and to show what sort of nice guy he be and the guy he try to rob be one of his best friend . while there more to the film and the bottom line be that tracy be a jerk and young be an idiot in the film . despite both be very good actor and there absolutely no way they could make anything of this crap the writer produce . nice music and nice set and good acting . and a script that be 100 % poo . how the film be currently rat 7 . 4 be beyond me and i wonder how anyone can ignore the pure awfulness of the character . a horrible misfire that somehow do not destroy the career of those involve . oh and and if you wonder if loretta ever get a backbone in this film or play a person who be the least bit strong and the answer be no . by the end and she learn nothing and hasn not change one whit for the good . they sure do not make film like they use to . and in this case . thank god . | 0neg |
the original lensman series of novel be a classic of the genre . it pure adventure sf with some substance ( here and there ) and i have always wonder why hollywood hasn not film it verbatim because it just the kind of thing they love represent massive explosion and super weapon and uber heroic and hero get the girl and alien ( great cgi potential ) and good versus evil in the pure form and etc etc . instead ( and bear in mind i be a japan o phile and anime lover ) we get this horrendous kiddy movie that rip the gut out of the story and mix in star war ( ironic a the latter rip off the book occasionally ) pastiche and dumbs the whole thing down to thundercats level . to see kimball kinnison and the epitome of the galactic patrol officer and second stage lensman portray a a small boy be pitiful ( etc ) . i just can not understand why the maker do this because they obviously have the right to the story and could have make far more money ( far . ) by tell straight . it make no sense . | 0neg |
i rent the dubbed english version of lensman and hoping that since it come from well know novel it would have some substance . while there be hint of substance in the movie and it mostly do not rise above the level of kiddie cartoon . maybe the movie be a bad adaptation of the book and or it lose a lot in the dubbed version . or maybe even the source novel be lightweight . but for whatever reason and there wasn not much there . i noticed lot of detail that be derivative and sloppy and poorly dramatize and or otherwise deficient . some example represent the opening scene look borrow from the 2001 star gate scene and the star war image of hyperspace . the robot on the harvester look like an anthropomorphized r2 d2 . it start out try to borrow it comic relief style of star war and but mercifully ( since the humor doesn not work ) give up on comedy and play it serious . in that sense and it superior to the star war franchise and which start with a clever sense of humor and and eventually deteriorate to jar jar annoy silliness . the agricultural detail be apparently draw by someone who have never see a farm . the harvester be drive through the unharvested middle of a field and dumping silage onto unharvested crop and rather than work from one side to the other and dump the silage onto already harvest row or into a truck . corn ( maize ) be pour out the grain chute and but the farm land be draw like a wheat field . when it be time for kim father have to face his fate and there wasn not any dramatic weight to the scene . that could have be partly the fault of the english language voice actor and but the drawing do not show much weight either . kim reaction in that scene be similarly unconvincing . similarly and when a character name henderson be kill and chris show very little reaction and even though they be apparently suppose to have be close . ( henderson death be no spoiler while his name isn not reveal until his death scene . ) she seem to promptly forget him . someone expression of sympathy show more feeling than she do . i think the voice actor deserve most of the blame in that case while there at least a hint of feeling in the drawing of chris . on several occasion and villain fail to accomplish their order . a villain leader often punish those failure with miserable death . i can not say whether that lift from star war and or if that come from an early source possibly the lensman book . there a scene where a space ship crash land . a it plunge toward the ground and part be break off the ship . but so many piece be fall off that there should be nothing left of it by the time it land . while in most case chris seem like a competent and tough space hero and there a scene where she shriek like an incompetent damsel in distress . someone tough enough to get over henderson death so quickly should at least be able to shout and help and it get me and i can not reach my gun . instead of just shriek . the character with the most personality ( almost too much at time ) be d. j. bill . he sound like wolfman jack and the d. j. in american graffiti . i wonder if he as well voice in the original language . two planet in the movie explode . the explosion be unimpressive and and appear to owe a lot of inspiration to star war . to it credit and however and the cause of the explosion be completely unlike the death star primary weapon . the dialog have a good and interesting explanation for the cause . many other explosion in the movie do look good and just not the planetary explosion . some of the sound effect be very cheesy and a if borrow from a late 1970s video game . some of the image look like primitive video game and and some influence from tron be visible too . on the other hand and the sound effect be often pretty decent and although that emphasize the cheesy sounding part . the art be good too and particularly when it stay away from the often cheesy look computer graphic . finally and there the story . if a movie tell a good story and it can get away with a lot of production shortcoming . but the plot here be pretty lightweight . a naïve boy try to help someone on a crippled space ship and and acquire a great power he doesn not understand . he and his band of very virtuous companion struggle against a powerful and unredeemably evil enemy . he make friend and learn about his special power and and grow into a young man . if he be persistent and virtuous enough and he might even defeat the evil enemy . detail along the way can make such a story rise above the simple outline and but there very little more than that in this movie . in the end and it just a kiddie cartoon . but then and since it look like the primary intend audience be old child and maybe it doesn not need to be anything more than that . | 0neg |
[ i saw this movie once late on a public tv station and so i do not know if it on video or not . ] this be one of the baby burlesks ( sic ) that shirley temple do in the early 1930s . it be hard to believe that anyone would let their daughter be in this racy little film which today might just be consider this side of kiddie porn . shirley temple star in a cast which probably have an average age of 5. they be all in diaper and and be in a saloon which serve milk instead of alcohol . the cash be in the form of lollipop . shirley play a femme fatale sashay up to the bar and talk to soldier who make suggestive comment about her ( . ) . but shirley doesn not need really their lollipop or cash because her purse be full of one from other men . meanwhile a little black boy do a suggestive dance on a nearby table ( . ) . what a strange film . . . infant use racy dialogue play adult role in a saloon . who think up this stuff any way . | 0neg |
this be a horrible little film and unfortunately and the company that make this short make several others . the short be essentially a one joke idea that wasn not funny to begin with and may also offend you . it certainly make me uncomfortable watch very young child ( most appear about 2 year old ) cavort about and pretend to be adult in this case and a dancehall girl and bar room patron . it the sort of humor that you might be force to laugh at from your own kid if they pretend to be adult and but i can not see anyone want to see this especially when a very young shirley temple be dress in a rather slinky outfit and act like a vamp . and then and other kid act like adult in some rather adult situation . at the time and i be sure they be not try to appeal to pedophile and but when look at it today and that be what immediately come to mind . because of this and this boring film also creep me out and i hope to never see it again . pretty strange and pretty awful . | 0neg |
i do not know why this conduct be ever tolerate in the movie business . this movie ( short ) be gross ( to say the least ) . it be a bunch of 5 7 year old child wear diaper with big bobby pin and act like adult ( and too much so . ) . however and it be interesting because it be a good example of how the good old day may not have be so good after all . ( thank god we have law against this kind of material now . ) { this be one short from the shirley temple festival } . | 0neg |
while on a vacation at the beach and red haired brother michael mcgreevey and billy mumy ( a arthur and petey loomis ) find a seal . the lad christen their critter sammy and and spend summertime frolicking with the sandy sea lion . when it time to go home and the boy begin to suffer separation anxiety . young mr. mcgreevey decide they can not take sammy back to disneyland er and gatesville but and young mr. mumy pack him anyway . at home and they try to hide the way out seal from adult and and and of course hijack ensue . sammy the way out seal and pt 1 ( 10/28/62 ) norman tokar ~ michael mcgreevey and bill mumy and robert culp . | 0neg |
strange . i like all this movie crew and dark humor movie while but do not like this one at all . it awful and horrible and surely not funny at all . pity can not do a whole movie plot and disgust either . and it be really boring . long empty moment fill the movie while it could have be remove . it should have be in another shorter format and surely . maybe i expect too much from the crew like save the movie lol . it also fill with overused clichés of character and situation . i do not get it why people like it . poetry and hope while nope amam and do not see anything like that . ^^ all in all and it empty and crude and pitiful and hopeless . oh darn this one . | 0neg |
i have high expectation for this indie have peruse the many thumb up review . then . here my additional two cent to the already post and excellent lose in translation review . premise represent morgan be tuck in a dusty small town where he meet lovely scarlet who be work in the local supermarket . can morgan help elevate the lovely scarlet from her trailer trash life . realistic dialog . not . how about that shopping in target . first and freeman look at the target interior a if he walk into harrod . then and he bowl over at a t shirt rack confirm he have never be in any store visit by lovely scarlet . morgan be detach from any and all aspect of scarlet reality and be portray a gleeful in his ignorance of everyone and everything in scarlet life . one reviewer enjoy the scarlet and ex hubby fight scene where her survival and a car in this instance and require she physically attack her ex hubbie . do freeman run to her defense . naw . he cower in disbelief and totally incapable of deal with such a blunt aspect of her very real and sorry lot in life . freeman character believe a car wash and new very revealing and tight fitting blouse be the key to scarlet job interview . another sign that freeman be clueless . freeman endless tage talk where all aspect of scarlet reality be reduce to one or another stage relate freeman experience be irritate . freeman be right to emphasize that scarlet be young with her future ahead of her and then conveniently ignore the brick wall she face vi a vi represent uneducated and no white collar skill or experience and very poor and no family support and a lifetime of low self esteem . scarlet learns such life lesson from freeman a represent some people pay $ 100 for a t shirt and a revealing blouse may open door in lieu of her lack of education and white collar job skill . in the end freeman offer scarlet little more than strange diversion with a tar and not even pay for gas for scarlet dead of night return to her unchanged life in a town the name of which freeman care not to know . | 0neg |
after i watch this movie and i come to imdb and read some of the review and which compare it to lose in translation lite . when i read that i immediately could see the reviewer point . this movie be a poor attempt at a similar theme . interestingly and the format of the movie be nearly identical and but the pacing be incredibly different . 10 item rush the viewer through the 1 day time line of the movie and whereas the good plan lose in . seem to stretch out over a few long day . i be sure some people will see this because it have morgan freeman and and will be disappoint . it seem his good role now a day be support role in big blockbuster and rather than lead role in sub $ 10mil limited release movie and indie film . | 0neg |
i love morgan freeman . paz vega be an attractive and appeal and talented actress . i be sure that this would have be a good movie have anything happen in it . nothing do . it short ( less than 90 minute ) . it be 75 minute too long . after an hour of frustration and i scan through the remain 20 odd minute . excruciate . freeman play an actor who hasn not work in a while research a part that he might play and a a checkout clerk in a supermarket . he visit the supermarket where she work . nothing happen . she decide to give him a ride home and they go to an arby and a target and a car wash. nothing happen . they converse about their life . nothing happen . ever . i do not get it . but i also do not get the bill murray flick lose in translation and broken flower . if you like those movie and maybe you will like this . lot of people find movie like this whimsical and charming and or for reason that escape me find the dialog fascinating . a common device in movie of this ilk be to have a long take of stillness or silence after an actor deliver a line that suppose to be meaningful . we know it meaningful because it follow by two minute of nothing on the screen . sorry and i must be a philistine . i do not get it . to me and these kind of movie aren not funny and or charm and or think provoking . theyre just bore . why . because there no comedy . no drama . no tension . no laugh . no suspense . no action . nothing to watch . in short and none of the thing i go to the movie for . i can be bore for free . i see oddball or quirky character in real life . i go to target and and fast food restaurant and and car wash . these element do not a movie make and even if star be do this stuff . i pay to be entertain . if youre crazy about morgan freeman and just like to hear him ramble on about nothing and have fun . if you wan na drool over paz vega and you can look and listen to her . but nothing happens and i promise . a total snoozefest . | 0neg |
while watch this movie and i come up with a script for a movie and call the making of 10 item or less representproducer represent i have get good news and bad news . the good news be and we can get morgan freeman . writer represent that great . but what the bad news . producer represent we can only afford to hire him for one day . i guess we will have to get someone else . writer represent so we hire him for one day . a movie be an hour and a half long . a work day be eight hour long . i fail to see a problem . producer represent but . he will have to spend time get into character . writer represent so we have him play a character who be essentially himself . producer represent but he will still need to understand his motivation and all that . youre not say we have him play a big name actor that do a low budget movie and be you . writer represent why not . producer represent that ridiculous . but fine and at least we will have morgan freeman in our movie . and i guess we have to set the movie in los angeles too . writer represent of course . producer represent this script be a load of crap . we would better make money on this . just in case and have morgan freeman character plug wal mart or target or one of those store and so at least someone will want to sell the dvd . writer represent sure thing . producer represent wait a second . what this about a tiny bodega with a ten item or less express lane . writer represent oh and i guess that be pretty weird . but we can not change the title now . i doubt my script actually bear much resemblance to reality and but then neither do 10 item or less . this be a case of good acting and but bad writing and and i hate to see it happen . when watch an independent movie and you expect it to try to convey some sort of message . i think they might have be try for the tired old do not let anything hold you back message that have be do to death in much good film . in any case and with 10 item or less and the only message i get be look . look at morgan freeman . | 0neg |
this movie be great the first time i saw it and when it be call lose in translation . but somehow bill murray turn into an eccentric black man play by morgan freeman and scarlett johansson turn into a cranky latino woman play by paz vega and and tokyo and japan turn into carson and california . instead of meaningful conversation and silence we enjoy in translation and we get meaningless blabbering in 10 item that verge on annoy . instead of character that be pensive and introspective a in translation and we get character that spew pointless advice on topic they have no clue about . how can a character that wear hundred dollar t shirt and have never be inside a target department store expect to give advice to a work class woman on how to prepare for a job interview a an administrative assistant . don not think that stop him . if he isn not give her clothing advice and he tell her what she should eat . the most annoying part of the movie for me be how supposedly they be in a hurry to make an appointment and and yet the character keep find time to run another errand and be it wash the car and stopping at arby and or just lay around to list off their 10 item or less list of thing they love and hate . i keep want to yell at them say and didn not you say you have somewhere to be . what the heck be do . a minute ago you be practically late and now youre eat roast beef and ponder your life . until i saw this movie and i never truly understood how something could insist upon itself and but i think this movie do exactly that and and undeservedly so . the dialogue make the character cheesy and unsympathetic with the exception that i felt sorry for both of the actor for have sign onto this project . | 0neg |
a still famous but decadent actor ( morgan freeman ) have not film for four year . when he be invite to participate in a new project and he ask 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 see the gorgeous spanish cashier scarlet ( paz vega ) and he become attracted with her ability . his driver never return to catch him and scarlet give a ride to the actor . but first she have a job interview for the position of secretary in a construction company and the actor help her to be prepare while then they spend the afternoon together have a pleasant time . i be a big fan of morgan freeman and paz vega . however and the pointless 10 item or less be absolutely disappointing . this low budget movie do not seem to have a storyline and and be support by the chemistry and improvisation of morgan freeman and paz vega and actually nothing happen along 82 minute . the ambiguous open conclusion be simply ridiculous and with the character of morgan freeman return to his silver spoon world and tell the simple worker that they would never see each other again . be he afraid to have a love affair with her and destroy his perfect world with his family . or be a clash of class and and he realize that his fancy neighborhood would not be adequate to a simple worker from the low class . my vote be four . title ( brazil ) represent um astro em minha vida ( a star in my life ) . | 0neg |
not really spoiler in my opinion and but i want to cover myself and nevertheless . a the executive producer and morgan freeman want the audience to ignore the numerous absurdity of his character in 10 item or less and a movie with an intentional indie feel and and just be absorb in the mentor or be all that you can be theme . he play a alternate universe and semi wash up version of the real morgan freeman and who be chauffeur in an old econovan by a kid all the way into carson and ca from brentwood to research his next movie role . why carson and be a mystery to so . cal resident . he could have save the trip and go anywhere in the san fernando valley and find the same element . paz vega be pretty to watch and a cross between salma hayek and penelope cruz and play a disgruntled grocery checker at a large but slow local market that apparently be the ultimate source for moragn freeman research . his character be only know a him to allude to how actor be regard when encounter in real life by average people psst and that him and etc . unfortunately and i be too distract that him have all kind of worldly wisdom and advice but have no reliable return back to his home in brentwood and carry no cash or debit card and or have the wisdom to keep a cell phone with him . if one have such a high opinion of their self that they believe they possess an answer to everything like him do and then i get ta see cash and a blackberry which display intelligence and good survival instinct to preserve that big ego which him definitely have . nothing really happen in this movie . i do not believe that either of the main character be substantially change by their encounter with each other . it flirt with the idea of adultery and but then that think fizzle . this to me be similar to steve martin shopgirl and without the sexual affair . it be self indulgent for freeman and unconvincing to the audience . | 0neg |
i do not expect a lot from this movie and after the terrible life be a miracle . it turn out that this movie be ten time bad than life . i have impression that director or writer be just joke with the audience represent let me see how much emptiness can you ( audience ) sustain . dialogue be empty and . scenario be minimalistic . in few moment and photography be really nice . few sarcastic line be semi funny and but it be hard to genuinely laugh during this comedy . i have laugh to myself for be able to watch the movie until the end . if you can lift yourself above this director fiasco and . you will find good acting of few legend ( miki manojlovic and aleksandar bercek ) and and very good performance of emir son stribor kusturica . in short represent too bad for such a great director . emir kusturica be still young and should be make top rat movie . instead and he choose to do this low budget just for my private theater movie and with arrogant attitude toward the world trend and negligence toward his old fan . | 0neg |
first of all and this plot be way overdone girl want to make it and everyone love her and snobby girl intervenes and all look lose and girl pull through and everyone love her again etc . throw in the fitting in thing and an attractive male crush on the heroine and plus single parent trouble and it so predictable that you can practically recite along with it . second of all and i really hate how they keep on diss classical music . they send out the message that everyone involve in classical music be uptight and snobby and close mind in fact and i do not recall the quote exactly and but i remember at one point in the movie and holly say and why do they have to be so uptight . so classical . it really insult how label classical music in this way . third and i have go over it dozens of time and but the only reason that i can think of for make this movie be to promote britney spear . there just isn not any point at all . and oh yeah and while the actress who portray holly ( i be not sure whether that be really her singing or not ) have a reasonably good voice and it wasn not as amaze a they be make it out to be especially when she be belt . she be oversupporting the whole time . negative star . | 0neg |
this be no doubt one of the bad movie i have ever see . this make your run of the mill tv movie look like reservoir dog . base on a book by the one and only britney spear and her mother this be trash with nothing bar a reasonable performance from virginia madsen ( i hope you get pay well ) to save it . the story of a red neck country gill who win a scholarship in a prestigious music school be little but a vehicle to pedal ms spear pant music to the consumer and to generally agree that low brow must be the way . there be nothing good go on here with all the beat as predictable a night follow day . never ever again . | 0neg |
hello boy and girl . this isn not your regular movie review and because this be go to be the cold . hard . truth . be you serious . this movie suck so many ball i couldn not keep them out of my mouth . they might as well have spray me in the eye with monkey semen . you would need one seriously large douche to pump out all the vaginal fluid from this movie . the plot be very lack . the actor be terrible . i rewound the dance number several time and have to pause it even more because i be choke on my own spit . do boy and everyone . peace r and h besties4lyf . | 0neg |
extremity aspect ratio represent 1 . 85 represent1sound format represent monoa woman turn the table on a would be rapist when he mount an assault in her home and and be force to decide whether to kill him or inform the police and in which case he could be release and attack her again . exploitation fan who might be expect another rough n ready rape fantasy in the style of day of the woman ( 1978 ) will almost certainly be disappoint by extremity . true and farrah fawcett character be subject to two uncomfortably prolong assault before gain the upper hand on her attacker ( a suitably slimy james russo ) and but scriptwriter william mastrosimone and director robert m. young take these unpleasant scene only so far before unveil the dilemma which inform the moral core of this production . would their final solution hold up in a court of law . maybe . base on a stage play which reportedly leave it actor batter and bruise after every performance and the film make no attempt to open up the narrative and relies instead on a confined setting for the main action . acing and technical credit be fine and though fawcett overly subdue performance would not play effectively to viewer who might be rely on her to provide an outlet for their outraged indignation . | 0neg |
this movie be terrible . the suspense be spend wait for a point . there isn not much of one . aside from a few great line ( i find a tooth in my apartment ) and and the main character dedication to kill himself and it a collection of supposedly eerie sound . | 0neg |
this be possibly the most boring movie in history . i be really look forward to see this movie give the actor or director roman polanski . i think i would rather see the three amigo than ever watch this movie again . it promptly go from the dvd player straight into the garbage . my apology to those of you who apparently like this movie however you probably like new coke as well . i be at a loss to see why anyone would have enjoy this movie and it be slow and dull and have no real plot . you wait for 105 minute for the movie to get start . i understand this be make in 1976 however this be an era of bad television all around . thank god disco and three company be go along with stop sign glass and the bay city roller . oh well just my thought . | 0neg |
this movie be worth five punch on my hurter card . i saw this while station in virginia in the mid 70 . i saw it alone so i be not distract while i watch it . it suck . it be the most ridiculous and total waste of celluloid i have ever see . i know that others who have review this movie have think that it be awesome . i offer you this represent if it be so awesome what be it box office take . end of discussion . | 0neg |
it unlikely that anyone except those who adore silent film will appreciate any of the lyrical camera work and busy ( but scratchy ) background score that accompany this 1933 release . although sound come into general use in 1928 and there be no more than fifty word speak to tell the story of a woman and unhappily marry and who desert her husband for a young man after a romantic interlude in the wood . the most vividly photographed scene have the jealous husband give a lift to the young man for a ride into town and proceeding to drive normally until he realize the man be his wife lover . in a frenzy of jealousy and he drive at top speed toward a railroad cross but change his mind at the last moment and lose his nerve . it probably the most tension fill scene in the otherwise decidedly slow moving and obviously contrive story . hedy lamarr be give the sort of close up treatment lavish on marlene dietrich by her discoverer and but her beauty have not yet be refine by the cosmetician a they be when she be transport to hollywood . her performance consist mostly of look sad and morose while mourn the loss of her marriage with only brief glimpse of a smile when she find her true love ( aribert mog ) and the handsome young stud who retrieve her clothes after a nude swim . the swim scene be very brief and discreetly photograph and and not worth all the heat it apparently generate . the love make scene and later on and be also artfully photograph with the sort of lyrical photography evident throughout most of the film artfully so . more be leave to the imagination with the use of symbolism and this be the sort of thing that have others proclaim the film be some kind of lyrical masterpiece . not so . it disappointing and primitively crude in it sound portion ( include the laborious symphonic music in the background ) and certainly miss lamarr be fortunate that louis b. mayer saw the film and on the basis of it and give her a career in hollywood . he must have see something in her work that i do not . it apparent that this be conceive a a silent film with the camera do all the work . the jarring worker scene at the conclusion go on for too long and be a jarring intrusion where none be need . it fail to end the film on the proper note . | 0neg |
this movie really show it age . the print i saw be terrible due to age and but it be possible that there be good print out there . however and this be not the major problem with the movie . the problem be that although the film be make in 1933 and it be essentially a silent film with only the bare of dialog scatter ( only a few sentence ) in the film in the most amateur fashion . sometimes the character back be turn or they be talk with their hand over their face all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lip and cleaverly ( . ) hide the fact that the film be dub . well and it true that this czech film would need to be dub into many language but to do it this way be really stupid and obvious . it just look cheap . overall and the film look low budget and silly . it really a shame though and because there be a grain of a good story a young woman who marry an old man who be either gay and or or have no interest in woman . but in the 21st century and few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess . even with a few glimpse of the naked ( and somewhat chunky ) hedy lamarr and it isn not worth all the fuss that accompany the film when it debut . even by 1933 standard and this film be a poorly make dud . about the only interesting thing about the film be to see how different lamarr look in 1933 compare with the glamorous image hollywood create when she come to america she look like 2 completely different people . it such an incomplete look and technically inferior film and i do not see how it have get such rave review . for technical problem alone and the movie can not rate a 10 or anything near it . | 0neg |
final score represent 0 ( out of 10 ) possible scene specific spoiler ( but who the hell care ) yes and that right represent zero . and i rarely give 1 . even for the lame of movie i look for thing like music and cinematography and imagination and it humor and even a good pace to be a objective about the score a possible . look at it within it own genus or subgenus . but there be absolutely nothing redeeming here . i can not remember another time a movie actually send me pace up and down the room when it be over . the only reason i make it to the end be because i couldn not seem to change the channel i sit there simply aghast and watch to see what insultingly stupid bit it would come up with next . it be like watch a snake digest a rat . but let have some fun and pull this baby apart and shall we . first of all and there be nothing technical about whip that work . the visuals be all sitcom style . the cut scenes all just picture of the street traffic go by at night over and over . the music and score and not only doesn not contribute anything to the movie it obnoxious . not to mention it doesn not have anything to contribute to anyway . the acting be as cardboard a it come and all around and that go for amanda peet ( clearly the star that get this train wreck green light ) too . these guy and supposedly good friend and have no more chemistry or sense of purpose then if director peter m. cohen have round them up at a bus station minute before shoot . on the creative side and there isn not an original bone in it body . it have no imagination . it show u nothing we haven not see a thousand time before . the whole premise and or twist and of this movie be base on male bashing and the idea that an empowered woman can play men just a they get play . anybody and that think this be somehow a twist or be in any way original have obviously never turn on a tv before . twist and shallow woman be common . male bashing be the norm . it not steal from anything specifically and it bad represent it steal from clichés . i can not imagine a woman make a movie that depict other woman base so much on stereotype and with this sense of contempt . make me want to go rent in the company of men or good yet and there something about mary . this movie want to be a edgy version of there something about mary so bad you can see the sweat . the movie have no insight into woman and men and dating and sex and or really anything . cohen be simply content to regurgitate myth he have be indoctrinate with from other sexist movie . on the other end and the movie doesn not work a a satire either and because even though it be ripe with exaggeration one could view a satirical it doesn not have that grounding in reality that satires need . it doesn not even know what it satirize . then there the dialogue and which be little more then the character scream obscenity at each other . example represent character 1 represent fk you character 2 represent oh yeah and well fk you ( repeat ) and the bottom line and the thing that could excuse all the other discretion represent there be a lot of movie without plot and without good acting and with morally repulsive character and obscenity lace dialogue that have be funny and thus and be good . whip ain not funny . not for a second . it have no comic skill or timing . the situation be all completely phony and not base in any shred of truth and especially enough to wring laugh out of u . the character all broadly draw so they will seem relatable to the low of the low common denominator . just look at the marquee scene and cult classic hair gel scene . one of our bumble anti hero open the medicine cabinet and see mena ( peet ) vibrator . for some reason light shine down on it a if he find the holy grail . why cohen think men react this way to vibrator i do not know . while he rub it on himself and he drop it in the toilet and then attempt to fish it out with his bare hand when and oh my and mena walk in on him . oh and my side . but strangely enough and people actually like this movie . of course and people also like friend and reality dating show so i shouldn not be surprise . all of this have a common thread however . whip be big evidence to me that there be just a huge pocket of people in america that will laugh at any joke just because it be about sex . they will like any show or movie ( or think they like it ) just because it be about date or relationship . it lack of any quality have no baring on these people . just a people be indoctrinate to want whiter teeth and thinner body to sell toothbrush and weight loss program and they be also indoctrinate to blindly lap up anything date or relationship relate to sell them cheap and empty and effortless tv and movie and any number of product . the only consilation will be that when i die and because i saw this movie and i have get a credit to get 80 minute of my life back . . | 0neg |
it just seem bizarre that someone read this script and and think and this be funny . i mean and it so hilarious it just have to be make . who be this person . be he or she the person really responsible for this . be they the one who owe me for my time and more so than the director or writer . this film stink in most every way possible . there no one shred of good dialogue and and not one likable character . and the story . i prefer the 2nd bad movie ever and hulk hogan no hold bar to this by quite a considerable degree . it seem almost shakespearen in comparison . the end be pad out with several minute of outtake and and it still under 80 minute . the outtake include cast member laugh at the hilarious mistake they have make and and thing that go wrong on the set of this comedy . glad to see someone laugh in someway and with some connection to this film . nothing in this film be funny . nothing . it just go on and and on . it truly that lame . i love film that be so bad theyre good . this be so bad it . something and but i do not know what and and hopefully will never find out . amanda peet doesn not suck outright and and be in fact the only half good thing about this wannabe film . but and that really mean little . avoid at all cost . | 0neg |
i will be blunt and to the point . this film be not good at all . the film buff part of me hat the acting and script and story and direction and almost all of the editing . amanda peet have prove that she can act and a she be a high point of the whole nine yard . so she should have avoid this movie with a ten foot pole . however and the infantile part of me find this film to be very funny . if you can forget about how underpar the production quality be and and if you find smut joke funny and then you should be all right . and for those of you who can not get off your pedestal and thats your choice . my inner child hasen not die and and i laugh a fair bit . even then and only a 3 out of ten and because a a movie and it really do stink . | 0neg |
a poorly write script with no likeable character . a for it be a comedy and i forget to laugh . it about 2 conceited friend who scam to get woman in too bed with them ( no sex scene ) and another friend ( who be semi discustingly weird ) who sometimes also scams but mainly be consider a be the guy who masterbates . the 3 friend separately meet and fall for the same woman ( amanda peet ) . somehow this be do without really any romance . the 3 guy stop be friend a they separately date her . she scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed woman . a bad movie . | 0neg |
four best friend young male chauvinist pig ( with the emphasis on pig ) meet weekly at a nyc diner to recount their date sexploits in this misanthropic and visceral comedy . peet be the common denominator who date the three bachelor in the group which lead to conflict and the inevitable whipping . although the film premise have potential and there be some funny moment to be have and overall the flick doesn not work especially in the end where the girl be make to appear no good than the guy which run contrary to the crux of the story . one of those one man band flix with a dozen producer and whipped be likely to be enjoy only by the kind of young male who think the man show be emmy material . | 0neg |
every sunday and a trio of bud get together at a nyc diner to boast about their sexual conquest of the night before . sometimes theyre join by a newlywed ex comrade and hoochie hunter who hang on them like a puling barnacle . theyre unabashed horn dog or corn dog and mia and who witness them on the prowl and decides that they need to be teach a lesson and dammit . ergo and she will date and dump why not . all three of them . gasp . what a wild idea . what a radical and naughty gal . woman now have the right to date and sleep around as much a they want to . as much a men do and even . there be one solitary laughable element in whipped namely the fact that not once and during the amigo detailed discussion of their bodily function and the tantric talent of the bed partner they trash and do the other customer in the diner turn around and say and dude and be try to eat here . indeed and a heh heh gag have an old lady eagerly weigh in on the useful sexual property of certain beverage . a big fat kermit the frog sheesh to that . it truly unfortunate that a buddy movie with a great setting and a smart and cute heroine and three possible pairing have to have such a cop out end . p. s. 30 whip oosh sound effect to the screenwriter for use of the phrase you go and girl . it be tire in 2000 and and it tire now . save your time and watch some sex and the city rerun . | 0neg |
personally and while i be able to appreciate really good movie and i also have a strange ability to somewhat enjoy even the most crappiest of crap . you know and those time when you just want to sit there and watch some horrible cookie cutter action movie to kill time . this be the only movie that i can remember actually shut off in the middle and and i have absolutely no intention of go back to finish it . the plot be so contrived and predictable and i be call out what the next scene would be easily ( and i be usually not very good at this ) . the actor be horrible and i have see well act in middle school play . even the scene cut be bad and the flow be all wrong . this movie be like a parody that forget the funny . | 0neg |
first and foremost and zorie barber ( zeke ) and might be one of the bad actor i have ever see . a a character that suppose to be a hip and village writer into the martial art and proud of be mysterious and why be he so hyper and over dramatic and and plain horrible . do he know anything about his character before they start film . do the director . don not the martial art teach discipline . aside from that and this film miss the target with it lame joke and see it already gross out humor . hand in toilet . < i > trainspotting < or i > . masturbation . hmm . < i > fast time at ridgemont high < or i > and < i > american pie < or i > and the list go on . . bad dialogue represent in one sequence and eric say it none of my business < i > but < or i > . . and 30 second later mia say why be this any of your business . bad edit represent at least five minute worth of film be waste on nyc traffic shot . < hr > it also impossible to believe that the four main male character would be a tight knit group of friend in any world . i can not comment on what make everyone laugh and but if you enjoy low brow and basic bathroom humor and insult and by all mean and enjoy . if you want something a little smarter but on the same line and see < i > boomerang < or i > . if you want a solid what go around romantic comedy and go for < i > the tao of steve < or i > . but anyone who think < i > whip < or i > be witty and an accurate portrayal dating and well and i can not agree at all . | 0neg |
i like movie about morally corrupt character and but this be too much . the act wasn not great and but that wasn not the real problem . the issue be the sinking feeling i get in the pit of my stomach about 20 minute into the film . these character be hollow . they have almost no depth and and what little they do have be devote to the cruelty they display to each other in the guise of friendship . explore the darker side of a set of character can be fascinating and but you have to give those character actual personality or they be just cardboard cutout . these character be cardboard and the picture they give be just ugly . | 0neg |
i just watch this movie last night and and i have to put a warning out for anybody else consider to see this film . in a word do not . i seriously feel like this be something that a screenwriting student would have write in a quentin tarantino or eddie murphy phase and i. e. every other word be a curse word . i do not have a problem with profuse cursing and a in good will hunt and provide it help to delve more into the character . in this case it be just hollow banter with the attempt to draw an occassional gasp or laughter from the audience . the three lead character be all their own unique stereotype and the wall street jerk and the coffee house jerk and and the i be not gay just in touch with my feminine side slightly less of a jerk . you just do not give a damn about any of them . they be all shallow and unredemable loser who you want to see lose . for those who dare and this film do have a couple funny moment and the very beginning and and the very end . the toilet or vibrator scene be funny in a sick kinda uh and yeah way . really though and i would only recommend this film to my bad of enemy . | 0neg |
hand down the bad movie i have ever see . i think nothing would ever dethrone last action hero and but this do easily . the movie be about 3 single guy who meet on sunday to discuss their sexual escapade from the weekend . a fourth guy who be marry and that use to be a part of the group show up and talk about what he and his wife do . nothing work in this movie . the joke be not funny but they be repeat throughout the movie . the big kicker at the end of the movie be laughable . avoid at all cost . | 0neg |
whip be one of the most awful film of all time . it be a mean and hateful piece of garbage that have me force myself to stay in the theater more than any other movie of 2000 and besides maybe the grinch . it be not and a people have call it and an insightful portrait of modern relationship . that would be a little film call high fidelity . whereas that movie be honest and sympathetic and whip be hostile and cynical and misanthropic cinematic poison . avoid this like so many plague and unless you want to see how truly bad a comedy can get . | 0neg |
for month precede the release of this movie you saw it advertise in all sort of print medium and so i patiently wait for it video release to see what all the hype be about . after it be over i have to apologize to my roommate for occupy the vcr for the last hour and a half to watch such a horrible movie . it essentially fail because it be a character base movie about unredeemable character . with the possible exception of amanda peet ( whose only redeemable quality be that she be amanda peet ) you can not stand any of them . the film relies on it dialogue which be sophomoric and moronic and and crude . the only slightly amuse character be eric and whose portrayal of the sole married member of a group of friend be dead on . the final twist and design to make you laugh at the three main character and only instead inspire the same kind of resentment towards peet . all in all and only rent if you be desperate or possess a dark sense of humor . | 0neg |
this film be not funny . it be not entertaining . it do not contain one single second of originality or intelligence and nor do it lead you to take the slight interest in the character or situation . add to that it about a juvenile a movie a anything in recent memory . it a if a group of 14 or 15 year old high school kid who have never actually meet or have any type of relationship with a real girl have sit down and write a movie base on their incorrect fantasy about what be an adult man would be like . this movie be boring and obnoxiously mind numbing and and at time offensive and disgust . at most and it contain one or two moment that make you laugh . also and it seem twice as long a it 85 minute run time . | 0neg |
this movie lack . everything represent story and acting and surprise and ingenuity and a soul . fifteen minute in and i be star at the screen say and how could all of these guy get together and consider themselves friend ( even without the girl ) . another fifteen minute in and i be pray for as much amanda peet a possible . when a bad movie quietly rear it ugly head and eye candy be a nice consolation . but there wasn not much of that . cheat on all front . | 0neg |
whip be 82 minute long . this review be 82 word long . three unlikable new york lothario and ruthless scammer and end up woo the same woman and play by amanda peet and with disastrous result . that apply to the story and the film . too sophomoric to be misogynistic and flaccid and ridiculous and whip mix the philosophy of shock jock tom lykis with penthouse letter fantasy . though technically proficient it date and grate and poorly write and mean and and obvious . people do not act like this . people do not talk like this . really . | 0neg |
i be look forward to see amanda peet in another good role after recently rent the whole nine yard easily worth the rental and by the way but this wasn not it . i remember that the trailer for whipped be somewhat funny and the plot about three oversexed new yorker twenty somethings all fall for and get manipulate by the charm ms. peet be worth a shot . so and i convince two friend one afternoon to come see this movie with me . this review be my penance . in the first act we have the three lead stud and recount their conquest in a diner . what should have be funny and or at least tell and come out rather pathetic . be there any redeeming quality about the three men and their encounter that we be suppose to get out of this . [ and while i do not mind movie that be cheerfully vulgar and i keep wonder why no one in the diner turn around when the stud talk loudly about sexual and scatalogical detail . they do this every week at the same diner . you would think someone would complain . oh and wait and i forget represent two other diner do notice in one scene . but this be just a setup for a punchline . everyone else in the diner be deaf . ] the second act have the three stud all fall for mia and then develop brain rot and fail to ask each other or her about what really happen between the four of them . and i keep ask myself and a the studs keep act like they have be and what redeem quality do she see in them to stick with them long than one date . do she start out with brain rot . i keep hop for eric character and the married buddy and to become something more than simply the annoy punching bag in this act . his role be clearly to dispense advice on be marry . but why do they even bother to talk to him when they would not talk to each other . and his advice . sheeesh . the third act resolve what plot there be but by this time i be look at my watch . my friend tell me they be still wait for something genuinely funny to happen and i have to agree . the scene that explain all be adequate and manage to explain all of the question and mysterious dialogue bit throughout the movie but we be just check them off a list . ( oh and okay and that why brad have that happen and jonathan say this and . ) what laugh we make be from the stupidity of the plot than at anything amuse . even the outtake during the credit weren not very funny . ultimately i be leave with nothing except a desire to warn people away from this movie . rating represent 3 . | 0neg |
bad act . bad writing . this be a poorly write film . it too bad because it have some potential . it not even close to american pie or something about mary a previous comment might have you believe . rent it at dollar night from you local video store if youre kind of bored . | 0neg |
this movie will be a hit with those that enjoy sophomoronic and mindless and explicit brag about sexual exploit and f. in almost every sentence . like a good plot . like comedy . like romance or other human value . stay away from whip . it be so bad i leave after about half an hour . i saw two kid slip in that look to be about 10 very harmful this deserve an x . | 0neg |
i see quite a few positive review on this board and try to revive this film from it lackluster status and start a cult follow . i see the usual ranting i guess this movie be just not for the easily offend and this movie be not shakespeare and etc . guess what . neither be road trip . and i laugh my a off during that movie . there a way to make a crude and tasteless comedy and deliver laugh while and there a way to . just make it crude and tasteless . whipped try to be swinger without the wit or intelligence . it seem to have be write through the puerile eye of a 14 year old boy . for god sake and the character in this movie be suppose to be white collar and upright citizen and they talk like some of the idiot i know in freshman year of high school . the dialogue be lace more like drown with four letter word . you would think that people of their status would have some degree of intelligence and a more extensive vocabulary . just watch a whit stillman film and you will see the difference . not to mention the fact that the dialogue sound totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish . if you know any successful and white collar businessmen who speak like the character in this movie please let me know and introduce me to them . their annoy sexual banter be equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teen just arrive at puberty . there be absolutely no insight into relationship and sex or . anything . it just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely and do not take the word extremely for grant and because i mean it with all my heart crude gag . these be gag with no substance . gag that be mean more for groan than laugh . the scene at the end between amanda peet and her girlfriend be totally un call for and totally unconvincing . there be some movie that involve interaction among female that be write by ( straight ) men and play out wonderfully . this scene involve a barrage of sexual metaphor and gesture . it involve the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leave a woman mouth . it be one of those noticeably write by a guy scene . i wasn not believe it for a second . whip be purely a sick male fantasy that as flat a it be annoy . i get ( very ) few laugh out of this utterly forgettable comedy and and those be probably a result of desperation . when youre not laugh for a long period of time and you desperately look for humor in the most trivial thing . so i wouldn not mark that down a a positive . | 0neg |
begin spoiler represent fitfully funny and memorable for mr. chong literal roach smoke scene represent chong coolly mash a stray kitchen cockroach into his pipe bowl and light up and cough and hack violently for a seeming eternity and then with perfect aplomb and not skip a beat and re load the bowl properly and re light and re toke . end spoiler . ala and i begin to lose faith less than half way through the proceeding . it occur to me that the lackadaisical duo be way obnoxious and less than relatable . i have come to appreciate the relative sophistication of contemporary stoner and harold and kumar . i simply prefer bright company . yet and the movie be probably a perfect fit for baked frat bros or those viewer who be so feeble mind a to be outwit by a stoner when they the former be sober . notable guest appearance by paul reuben spout obscenity in pre pee wee form . | 0neg |
one of those el cheapo action adventure of the early 1980s that use to fill video rental store solely to be take out by adolescent boy in the hope of a cheap thrill . woeful down market attempt to cash in on the death wish phenomenon by substitute a moderately attractive woman for the visually challenging bronson . acting be terrible and set be cheap and the baddie be and well and bad . identification with any of the character be unlikely . only redeeming feature be modest amount of gratuitous female nudity and a smattering of which be full frontal . other than that and you can leave it . | 0neg |
an apparent vanity project for karin mani ( who . ) and a a hottie charles bronson go around wipe up the cum that mug her parent and or grandparent or something and and impress young hunk with her karate skill . in a pivotal scene she intervene to stop a rape and a moron cop throw her in jail and so after a couple cool shower scene and some abortive prison dyke seduction she have to take the law into her own hand blah blah blah . i guess there be a lot of movie like this . the script be dumber than usual if you can believe that . mani come off a exactly the kind of showbiz type that would co produce her own death wish star role and and i find that type sporadically endear and but the movie be an ungainly apparatus . competent actor would be waste on the scumbag roles here and and would actively undermine the fantastic mincing incompetent da and a judge that have get to be the producer uncle . | 0neg |
please humour me if you will and for a minute while i read you the back of the alley cat vhs box . it say that representin this part of the city every street be a dead end on every corner something to buy in every alley another way to die to survive youre get to be the best just like the alley cat . alley cat this lady own the night . on the street where even the predator become victim she know how to survive cross her and you have run out of luck . alley cat this animal be arouse . now isn not that one of the most pathetic blurb you have ever hear in your life . whoever write that must be insane if they think such a awful description could tempt u into view the video . yet unfortunately and whichever faceless individual be responsible for that tragic use of english be do their job only too well . the movie contain within the little plastic case be as bad a it sound and and then some . karin mani play the title role and and the script basically tell her during every give scene to either a ) pout like a goldfish b ) kick male butt or c ) show off her feminine attribute . no complaint about the latter and but in term of the other two . let just say she isn not much of an actress and and be even less convincing a a martial art expert . but even meryl streep with cynthia rothrock body ( what a scary thought ) would fail to save this movie . the unfolding of the plot be boring beyond belief and a we get one ineptly direct fight sequence after enough and pause only for hysterical courtroom shenanigan and the occasional gag induce love scene with the interestingly name robert torti . the camera work also follow a similar path of shame and with far too many unneeded close ups and continuity error abound . the part that i think really sum this scum bucket of a movie up be where our heroine be sexually assault and and find herself testify in front of a corrupt judge while her rich kid rapist leer at her from the box . not only do he get off scot free despite the overwhelming evidence against him and but she herself be then jail for dare to protest about the verdict in front of his honour . behind bar and she then have a group shower and a lesbian crush and a couple of cat fight and a nice and sweaty game of volleyball before be release on bail to continue her battle . this ten minute section have nothing to do with the rest of the movie and and the screenplay grind to a halt to encompass it . i can only imagine the producer want to add a bit more t and a to the mix and and come up with this needless sub plot a a mean to achieve that end . which kinds of begs the question and be this an exploitation film and or a serious drama . neither and be my response to that . it isn not sleazy or camp enough to appeal to fan of troma style cinema and and it certainly doesn not make the grade a an exploration of one woman fight against the system . purely because it be so appallingly make . so who on earth would want to see it . lunatic and i guess . or imdb reviewer who stay up till 3pm and watch any old rubbish on the box while try to get to sleep . sadly on this occasional i fail and and the horror will stay with me for quite some time . don not make the same mistake i do . have a hot milk and or something . negative . | 0neg |
mary pickford become the chieftain of a scottish clan after the death of her father and and then have a romance . a fellow commenter snow leopard say and the film be rather episodic to begin . some of it be amuse and such a pickford whip her clansman to church and while some of it be just there . all in all and the story be weak and especially the recycled and contrive romance plot line and it climax . the transfer be so dark it difficult to appreciate the scenery and but even accounting for that and this doesn not appear to be director maurice tourneur best work . pickford and tourneur collaborate once more in the somewhat more accessible the poor little rich girl and typecast pickford a a child character . | 0neg |
a routine mystery or thriller concern a killer that lurk in the swamp . during the early day of television and this one be show so often and when dad would say what on tv tonight . and we would tell him strangler of the swamp he would pack u off to the movie . we go to the movie a lot in those day . | 0neg |
without question one of the most embarrassing production of the 1970s and gaots seem to really and really want to be something important . the tragic truth be that it so entirely valueless on every level that one can not help but laugh . reach in desperation for the earthy element of ingmar bergman film and it follow a city couple day in the wilderness . they walk along a shady path and allthewhile pontificating like a u. c. berkeley coffee clatch . almost every line of tarradiddle dialog deliver here be uproariously bad ( i feel that life itself be make up of a many tiny compartment a this pomegranate . but be it a beautiful . ) after what seem like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening ( well . ok. we be treat to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene ) and there be finally a very anticlimactic confrontation involve a pair nam vet who be make the nature scene and perform some pretty harsh folk ballad with an acoustic guitar . nothing at all eventful or interesting happens in this entire film . i think the larry buchanan picture strawberry need rain be a weak example of a bergman homage . golden apple be every bit a bad and but the ceaseless random verbiage it present make it memorably awful . negative . | 0neg |
i use to review video for joe bob briggs legendary we be the weird newsletter . i saw a lot of stinker and but this by far be the bad and and the year have not be kind it remain the most indecent crime against cinema i have ever witness . don not get me wrong caged terror be nominally more technically competent than and say and monster a go go or the guy from harlem or something of that ilk . what solidify it claim a bad movie of all time for me be it unique blend of bare proficiency with crippling pretension . be it a vietnam commentary . an ecological protest . an incitement to race riot . a study of man inhumanity to man . a novel exercise in pad nature footage out to ( nearly ) feature length . in short represent a hep young urban professional ( possibly the most loathesome screen character ever ) somehow seduce a nubile asian american associate into camp in the wood with him . after brow beat her with quasi philosophical clap for the good part of an hour and they run across two wandering veteran and the unforgettable jarvis ( a righteous brother ) and the troubadour ( guitar tot manson family reject ) . hey and a plot twist . tension . action . suspense . well and no and just a climactic get lock in a makeshift wire chicken coop and lightly belittle scene . the victim in question stare listlessly at the captor and mutter and no . no . please . do not . meanwhile and jarvis address the troubadour a trouby once every two minute and bring to mind nothing so much a the alien star of juan picquer pod people . that about all that happen in caged terror and and such a synopsis perhaps make it seem almost tolerable . but trust me and i have see thousand of movie in my life and and this one have remain and for the past eight year since i first saw it and the absolute bad . ( i pop it in the old vcr once every two year or so just to reassure myself and and reassure myself i certainly do . ) i think the element which make cage terror so particularly hateful be this represent very little happens and and although what little do happen happen quite poorly and quite slowly and what truly make it compulsively unwatchable be the suffocate sense that the filmmaker really and really want to shove some kind of message down your throat . but because caged terror be so incompetent and ineffectual and what be intend a a civics lesson become a crash course in intense view discomfort . this film be 75 minute long and feel like three and a half hour . it terrible and truly truly terrible . folk and trust me and i saw ghost that still walk and this one be bad . go see it . you will thank me . and curse me . just for the record and my favorite line represent ( in cage terror but perhaps ever ) yeah and well and you probably think the song of solomon be an allegory for christ love for the church . ( note represent must be deliver in a tone of concerted condecension . ) . | 0neg |
this film turn up on local tv here in south africa recently and i think that i would warn even those who enjoy watch b grade bad movie ( which i do ) that this be not even amuse . the plot concern a couple visit a house in the country . some stranger appear and . the problem be that most of the film and obviously shoot in the early seventy and consists of extreme wide shot of people walk and in real time and awfully slowly and from a to b. this make the film tedious in the extreme and the expect blood and gore payoff just never happen . i be really curious how many people have actually watch this from begin to end . | 0neg |
when i be in school i make a film about a couple roam around in the tree and talk and and i realize halfway through edit that this be not just a failing aesthetic strategy but a cliché of canadian cinema represent sodden lyricism marry to vacant and metaphor burden stab at social commentary . but whatever my own film failing i feel much well after see this . this . thing . for one thing and mine run 20 minute and not 85 and and have more content at that represent every pointless bit of business here be fawn over for four and five and six relentless minute . the male lead be just incredible and a brow beating and loudmouthed creep give to outburst of drama class improv in between philosophical insight cull from the u of t pub and and he be give lot and lot of space to make u hate him . admittedly if he weren not such an ahole then the third act would make even less sense and a a couple snarky dude show up to provide distant and thoroughly unhelpful echo of exploitation value while but it doesn not make it any easy to watch the caged creep whimper please in closeup until the magazine run out . i take back what i say about autumn born and which at least have the courage of it own misbegotten lechery represent this cinematic crater be and will remain the very bad canadian movie of all time . at least and i really really hope so . | 0neg |
i saw this movie a couple year back . i couldnt sleep and there be nothing on . so i peep it . what really get me be it make no sense and thats why it disturbing . richard get tie up in chicken wire and jarvis start make out with richard girl while she unconscious . then jarvis buddy troubador be play some stupid song on his guitar . by the next morning it show richard girl talk to jarvis and trouby and then she walk back to richard and look at him while he still tie up . then they play some happy music and the movie be finish . i mean what happen . do they brake up . and what be she say to those 2 guy ( trouby and jarvis ) . it to puzzling and to poor to . i can not stand movie that be disturb and do not make sense . this be the bad film i have ever see since the 90 version of lord of the fly . | 0neg |
base a television series on a popular author work be no guarantee of success . yorkshire television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they buy the right to the book credit to dick francis and three of which be broadcast under the collective title the racing game . mike gwilym be sid halley and a former jockey turn private eye follow an accident in which he lose his right hand and only to have it replace by an artificial one . gwilym suffer from an acute lack of charisma ( and look like one of the bad guy ) while mick ford ( who play the irritate chico barnes ) make me think of a horse arse whenever he be on screen . for six week and this less than dynamic duo charge about the countryside and foil nefarious plot to fix race and usually by the same method blackmail and kidnap rider or dope horse . yorkshire television threw money at the show and but to no avail . violent and sexist and far fetched and repetitious and it be quickly cart off to the knacker yard . | 0neg |
the one reason i remember this be that it be show the week after nigel kneale brilliant quatermass serial be broadcast . the trailer make heavy emphasis that the main character have a mutilate arm which have me hop he ` d be like victor caroon from the quatermass experiment stalk the street of london . no such luck because the racing game be just a rather drab thriller with the gimmick of have a hero with a physical disability try to get to the bottom of investigation of corrupt horse racing . i suppose if you ` re a fan of dick francis you might enjoy it but set it in the context of the late 70 when the sweeney have just finish and the professional be still be produce and there something lack about the racing game . one trailer feature a car over take another on a motor way and if it ` d be a trailer for the sweeney you ` d see jack regan over take a car and beat a confession out of the slag who ` d do a blag while the professional would have over take a car and blow away the terrorist inside . i think that sum up what wrong with this series . | 0neg |
the fox and the child be the new film by french director luc jacquet and who bring u the oscar win documentary march of the penguin . it focus around a young girl ( wonderfully play by bertille noël bruneau ) and her blooming friendship with a fox . there be some truly mesmerizing moment here while badger muck about and a lynx chase the fox through a snow litter forest while one scene in particular when the fox be be torment by a pack of wolf be quite intense and even frighten at time . however and there simply not quite enough of them . beautifully shot while the cinematography be dazzle . the bubbly kind of look of the film be wonderful . it undeniably a very lush production . the english version be narrate by kate winslet and but what little dialogue there already be have be very poorly dub . the score be also far too fluffy and or at least it be for my liking while and the screenplay and while subtle and seemingly jump from one scenario to another and ultimately leave me almost baffle . while there a nice moral at the heart of the film and and the rather quiet performance from noël bruneau be quite lovely and the real star be the fox . those captivate moment focus solely around our furry little friend be tremendous . however and again and there simply not nearly enough of them . to keep up to date with all the late in film and include review and news and discussion and more and be sure to visit www . mybluray . com . au . | 0neg |
this film have little to recommend it and though that little be the breathtaking scenery and cinematography and direction of wildlife and it be difficult to bring up it weak point in the company of such rave review . it be precisely these thing and however and that make the lack of a satisfactory plot and it execution so disappointing . i watch this with my child and none of u be too impressed by the end . yes and the picture be great and the broad landscape across the forest and mountain magnificent and but what be go on in the foreground . the rather dull narration of the stupidity of an insipid girl who learn all too slowly a very basic lesson about befriend wildlife and get off quite easily give the track record of that sort of thing . it be certainly not a new story and in fact there be nothing remotely novel about the way it be tell and and we have all see this before and and and indeed and much more eloquently by antoine de saint exupéry . the only thing really to be glean from this film be a sense of how to work with these wonderful lens and forest light while the rest be a waste of time . | 0neg |
at the beginning of the movie and the beautiful photography and the scene of the fox be amaze . however and the story be so very slow and boring . and then the little girl begin to domesticate the fox and which lead to tragic event . we live in the forest and and frequently see fox . one thing anyone should know be that you leave wild animal to be wild and and enjoy them from afar . this movie set a terrible example to the child who will be watch it and in try to make a wild creature into a pet . i do not know what the point of the story be suppose to be . even after the terrible event with the main fox and the little girl be still want to play with the kit . do she never learn her lesson . and there be other scene feature predator animal to the fox and which only add to the trauma inflict on child watch this movie . what a disappointment this movie be . and what a horrible story it tell . the final narrated dialog be so stupid and by which time my wife and i be scream at the tv . i absolutely hat this movie and and would never recommend it to anyone . | 0neg |
i go to see this movie with the most positive expectation . i have see jacquet previous movie ( march of the penguin ) and have hear a very positive review of this one on the radio . however and i be severely disappointed . most of all and this movie be terribly boring . literally nothing happen . i try to describe the content of the movie to a friend and and we both end up laughing because i could only stammer thing like well then the winter come and and then spring and and then there an eagle and and a river and and one time it be dark and and the girl go into a cave and and another time the fox have baby and so on . after about half an hour i begin sigh and yawn and roll my eye and curse the reviewer at the radio station and and hop that it would be over soon . but the movie go on and on . when it finally end i have sink so deep into my chair that i must have look somewhat similar to stephen hawk . the most annoying part of the movie be ( a ) the girl and who be obviously there to give child someone to identify with . she wear the same clothes throughout the entire movie ( one year ) and and show exactly two facial expression represent joy and seriousness . she be cute and no question about that . however and a movie about the beauty of nature like this one would have do well without her all too human presence . i find myself constantly hop that she might get eat by a bear and drown in the river and or something similarly terrible . ( b ) the commentary by the girl adult voice and which tell u nothing but negligible and obvious and boring and redundant thing . ( c ) the music and which be desperately lacking subtlety . when the girl be happily jump around and the music jump around and too . when the fox be threaten by an eagle and the music become threatening and too . it remind me of the very early day of film making and and be just too predictable to enjoy . admittedly and many of the child who saw the movie with me do obviously like it and at least they get somehow involve . thus and my warning concern adult only represent if you be over ten year old and avoid this movie . you can get a good ( and cheap ) sleep in most other place . | 0neg |
what an unusual movie . absolutely no concession be make to hollywood special effect or entertainment . there be no background music and not special effect or enhance sound . facial expression be usually cover by thick beard and the spanish language be a strange monotonic lilt that sound the same whether in the midst of a battle or talk around a campfire . i sort of view these movie ( part 1 and 2 ) a an educational experience and not really something to go and get entertain by . it quite long and in place dull . but i suspect that give the lack of any plot development and i do not think it very educational either . it also difficult to perceive any story from the movie dialogue it would be a good idea to read up a little on the history so that you can understand the context of what be happen and since for some reason the director do not see fit to inform the audience why che band be move around the way they do a a result there seem to be group skulk around the woodland for no particular reason and get shot at . i would have love to give this movie more star for somehow generate more empathy with me and develop depth of character and but somehow all of the character be still stranger to me at the end . the star it get be for realism and show the hardship of guerrilla warfare . | 0neg |
star rating represent saturday night friday night friday morning sunday night monday morning this second instalment of the che film move the story forward to the late 60 and where the man have now move his resistance fighter into the hill of south america and survive without enough food and water and with tension mount between the group . everything come to a head when he cross the border into bolivia and the government force step up their campaign to bring him down . without the flitting between time and place of the last film and soderbergh second instalment focus solely on the action in the hill and and manages to be an even duller experience . and more pretentiously and the score have be drown out and give the second instalment more of an unwelcome air of artsieness that prove just a alienate . there just an unshakeable air of boredom to the film that never let up . you can not fault soderbergh ambition or del toro drive in the lead role and it just a shame that somewhere in the production thing manage to take such a disappointing turn . . | 0neg |
same old same old about che . it completely ignore the really interesting fact of che true character . sodeberg redo the same boring narrative of che . the silly seductive tale of an argentinean rich boy who be so shock by poverty he become a robin hood fight alongside the poor and until eventually he be murder by the cia . yeah and yeah and hear it all before and boring and untrue . the reality of che guevara be very different and far more explosive . the fact show that he be a totalitarian with a messiah streak and who openly want to impose maoist tyranny on the world . he be so fanatical that at the hot moment in the cold war and he even beg the soviet union to nuke new york and washington or los angeles and bring about the end of the world . che urge khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike against u city . for the rest of his life and he declare that if his finger have be on the button and he would have push it . when khrushchev back down and literally save the world and che be furious at the betrayal . if che recommendation have be follow and you would not be read this review now . how a homicidal maniac become a pop icon would have make a much more interesting film . incredible that no filmmaker have be dare enough to show the real side of che and his posthumous medium transformation . that would make an oscar winning film . i think make independent film mean take real risk and be groundbraking . they only stick to safe counterculture theme and to wit and che cool and wall street bad and republican equal nazi and bush ex hitler and nra be bad than kgb and christian be fanatic and stupid and etc . ad nauseum . oooh and how daring and how mind blowing . tres anti mainstream and edgy . i wish they would have some real cojones and tackle the independent film oligarchy . that would be truly dare . | 0neg |
the second half of steven soderbergh revolutionary bio on che guevara deal with his last campaign to export revolution to bolivia . in order to maintain his saintly visage of che soderbergh conveniently leap frog the mass execution he preside over after the revolution in cuba and the folly of his congo adventure ( this be the history of a failure he write in the preface of his congo journal ) to concentrate fully on che attempt to rally support to rise up against the government in bolivia . it would turn out to be a disaster and guevara final act . what plague the first chapter follow suit here a soderbergh slow his film to a crawl to study the beatific countenance of the contemplative guevara once again be play like james dean in east of eden by bernicio del toro . the problem be guevara have little success in gain convert and he soon find himself and his starving comrade be swallow up in the heart of darkness bolivian jungle . unlike werner herzog in the magnificent and aguirre and the wrath of god soderbergh fail to utilize the jungle metaphorical possibility to heighten the desperation of the guerrilla . he seem more concerned with keep che nimbus above his head than explore the panic setting in on the dead enders . there be one herzogian moment where che sit astride an obstinate horse kicking and scream to get it move but overall soderbergh mise en scene remain flat and sloppy and uninteresting . in both of his film soderbergh show he be clearly a che groupie and because of it his focus remain myopic and narrow . he spend too much time build his monument to che and too little in develop his relationship with key player in his saga and especially fidel castro . make matter worse he do it with a slow and dispassionate approach that never catch fire . one would think he be steep in enough eisenstein and vertov to realize that sweeping change be showcased a lot well with sweeping style . | 0neg |
now that che ( 2008 ) have finish it relatively short australian cinema run ( extremely limited release represent1 screen in sydney and after 6wks ) and i can guiltlessly join both host of at the movie in take steven soderbergh to task . it usually satisfy to watch a film director change his style or subject and but soderbergh most recent stinker and the girlfriend experience ( 2009 ) and be also miss a story and so narrative ( and edit . ) seem to suddenly be soderbergh main challenge . strange and after 20 odd year in the business . he be probably never much good at narrative and just hide it well inside edgy project . none of this excuse him this present and almost diabolical failure . a david stratton warns and two part of che do not ( even ) make a whole . epic biopic in name only and che ( 2008 ) barely qualify a a feature film . it certainly have no leg and inasmuch a except for it uncharacteristic ultimate resolution force upon it by history and soderbergh 4 . 5hrs long dirge just go nowhere . even margaret pomeranz and the more forgiving of australia at the movie duo and note about soderbergh repetitious waste of ( hd digital storage ) represent youre in the wood . youre in the wood . youre in the wood . i too be surprised soderbergh do not give u another 2 . 5hrs of that somewhere between his exist two part and because he still leave out massive chunk of che revolutionary life . for a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure and soderbergh unaccountably alienate and if not deliberately insult and his audience by1 . never provide most of che story while 2. impose unreasonable film length with mere dullard repetition while 3. ignore both true hindsight and a narrative of event while 4. barely develop an idea and or a character while 5. remain claustrophobically episodic while 6. ignore proper context for scene whatever we do get be mire in disruptive timeshifts while 7. linguistically dislocate all audience ( even spanish speaker will be confuse by the incongruous exposition in english ) while and 8. pointlessly whitewash his main subject into one dimension . why and at this late stage . the t shirt franchise have be a success . our sense of claustrophobia be surely due to peter buchman and benjamin vander veen base their screenplay solely on guevara memoir . so and like a poor student who have read only one of his allotted text for his assignment and soderbergh product be exceedingly limit in perspective . the audience be hold captive within the same constrain knowledge and scenery and circumstance of the revolutionary and but that doesn not elicit our sympathy . instead and it dawn on u that ah and soderbergh try to hobble his audience the same a the latino peasant be at the time . but these be the same illiterate latino peasant who sell out the good doctor to his enemy . why do soderbergh feel the need to equate u with them and and keep u equally mentally captive . such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose . part2 be more chronological than part1 and but it literally mind numb with it repetitive bush bashing and misery of outlook and and lack of variety or character arc . deltoro che have no opportunity to grow a a person while he struggle to educate his own ill discipline troop . the only letup be the humour a che deal with his sometimes deeply ignorant revolutionary and some of whom violently lack self control around local peasant or food . we certainly get no insight into what cause the condition and nor any strategic analysis of their guerrilla insurgency and such a it be . part2 excruciate countdown remain fearfully episodic represent again and nothing be telegraph or contextualized . thus even the scene with fidel castro ( demián bichir ) be unexpected and disconcert . any selected event be portray minimally and latino centrically and with part1 interview replace by time shift meeting between the corrupt bolivian president ( joaquim de almeida ) and u government official promise cia intervention ( . ) . the rest of part2 wood and day for night blue filter just exasperate the audience until theyre eye the exit . perhaps deltoro felt too keenly the frustration of many non american latino about never get a truthful and unspun history of che exploit within their own country . when foreign government still would not deliver a free press to their people for whatever reason then one can see how a popular american indie producer might set out to entice the not so well read ( i may not be able to read or write and but i be not illiterate . cf . the inspector general ( 1949 ) ) out to their own local cinema . the film obvious neglect and gross over simplification hint very strongly that it aim only at the comprehension of the less informed who still speak little english . if they do and they would have read tome on the subject already and and critique the relevant social issue amongst themselves learn the lesson of history a they should . such insight be precisely what society still need and not just the remain illiterate latino of central and south america yet it what che ( 2008 ) gleefully fail to deliver . soderbergh buries his lead because he weak on narrative . i be gobsmacked why benicio deltoro deliberately choose soderbergh for this project if he know this . it be 44yrs and hindsight about guevara be sorely wanted represent it what i go to see this film for and but the director diabolically rob u of that . david stratton and writing in the australian ( 03 oct 2009 ) observe that while part1 be uneven and part2 actually go rapidly downhill from there and chart che final campaign in bolivia in excruciate detail and which . feel almost unbearably slow and turgid . che representthe guerilla aka part2 be certainly no travelogue for bolivia and paint it a picture of misery and atavism . the entire second half be only redeem by the aforementioned humour and and the dramatic yet tragic capture and execution of the film subject . the rest of this interminable cinema verite be just confusing and irritating misery shockingly and for a soderbergh film and to be avoid at all cost . it be bind to break the heart of all who know even just a smatter about the subject . ( negative ) . | 0neg |
it be incredible that with all of the countless crime that have be uncover and lay unequivocally at the doorstep of marxism and from the berlin wall to the gulag archipelago to the cultural revolution to the khmer rouge and one still find admirer of communist totalitarianism in hollywood and be still make propaganda in it favor . it just show the moral depravity of hollywood . in this particular film a psychotic murderer be glorify . needless to say that neither his crime nor his psychotic proclamation be include . that both the director and the actor expect audience to sit through this seemingly interminable propagandistic film demonstrate the tunnel vision that they have in regard to their object of worship . | 0neg |
i think that this be awful produce and direct movie . benicio del toro shouldn not work in production of movie and he should put accent on his acting and that it . steven soderbergh miss the whole point of the idea about revolution and about it ideal and and most important about life of che guevara and so on . camera be awful and like someone with 2 day work experience be shoot with it and music be . i do not know . be there some music in the movie . i will not recommend this piece of sh . to no one . it just waste about 4 hour in front of the tv or whatever . i can not figure out how can someone rate this movie more than 3 star . disaster . disaster . disaster . disaster don not watch please . save yourself from this misery of movie . | 0neg |
what i find so curious about this film i saw the full 4 hour roadshow version and be how oddly dispassionate it be . for a film about 2 very charismatic men castro and che and engage in a gargantuan political struggle and it almost totally devoid of emotional fire . the scene between benicio del toro and demian bichir ( who be at best a second level actor and with a slightly high pitched voice ) have no drama or depth and basically come down to castro tell che represent go here and go there and do this and that and with no explanation a to what effect or use this action will result in . odder still be there be an actor in the cast who have the requisite power to play castro joaquim de almeida and but he shunt aside in a minor part in the second half . without the tension or passion that you would expect to fire these men and their follower and the film become a dullish epic length film about hairy and beard men run through various jungle shout and shoot to no particular purpose or end . several of the review i have read shower praise on the work of director steven soderbergh while ignore the actor almost completely . ( one in fact spend more time talk about soderbergh new digital film camera than the plot or actor or the fact that it entirely in spanish with english subtitle . ) this be an odd and odd thing to do since a ) soderbergh be only a hired gun on the film and b ) it no more than a competent job of work and with an unremarked upon nod to oliver stone jfk in the black and white cut up camera work when che visit new york . if you can imagine red direct by andrew mclaglen instead of warren beatty and you would get an idea of the dull competency of this movie . | 0neg |
the first part and che in cuba and be about that portion of his life . it contain too many indistinguishable battle and che ministering to too many indistinguishable wound ( remember that che be a physician ) . it end a castro win the revolution while che never get to havana . the second part and che in bolivia and be about guess what . it contain too many indistinguishable battle and che ministering to too many indistinguishable wound . when i realize this be suppose to be an epic ( i never know anything but the title before it start ) and i naturally think of the great epic of them all and david lean lawrence of arabia . more of that later . not to be a racist and but aside from what i have already mention be the fact that there be too many character who be and well and indistinguishable unknown hispanic actor who look alike and especially consider they all wear che beard and all wear che fatigue . this result in the viewer not be able to identify with anyone other than che and benicio del toro ( even fidel have a very minor role ) . while del toro terrific and think of lawrence with peter otoole a the only discernible character represent no alec guinness and no omar sharif and no anthony quinn and etc . you get the idea . because the other character be interchangeable and this result in a loss of reference . when top aide of che be kill and you feel no remorse since you do not know who they be . even when che be kill ( i do not think that a spoiler ) and there no empathy from the audience he just kill . he too one dimensional to relate to a a human be . aside from be a revolutionary and second only to jesus in moral rectitude and the only thing we learn about che be that he marry with five child ( he tell another character that near the end ) . what be his motivation . a complete enigma . maybe soderbergh be purposely aping lean . like soderbergh che and lean never let u know anything about lawrence and the mystery man of arabia . but at least lawrence have a friend ( sharif ) and associate ( guinness and quinn ) . he be as courageous a he be insecure i. e. and have human quality . che be like a machine and about as warm a the terminator . earlier this year there be another war epic and mongol . che make mongol look like it a wonderful life . | 0neg |
( 48 out of 278 people find this comment useful and and count . ) people be such sucker for image and look as much a for the intellectually hollow idealism that lurk behind communism . che charisma and look have as much to do with his iconic stature a the misinformation that have be spread by leftist propaganda ( such a this movie ) about him . i do not know what bad represent be capture by one of che murder squad or have to sit through 4 hour of this typically soderberghian garbage . the question isn not why this pet project be make but what take them so long . by them i be refer and of course and to leave wing hollywood and it secret love of marxist tyrant ( lenin and castro . take your pick ) . i be fascinate that it take decade for one of tinseltown least talented liberal director to finally take on such an irresistibly bias propaganda project . where be oliver stone all these year . robert redford . tim robbins . warren beatty . alan pakula . george clooney . barbra streisand even . it a mystery . all these overrate artist have often indulge themselves in similar and politically one side project and yet somehow che guevara and who be arguably the most popular and well know communist and hasn not be a film topic of theirs yet . guerrilla have all the hallmark of an american truth bend story of an epic scale while there be as much factual detail to be find here a in other similar hollywood big budget political fairy tale bios such a malcolm x or gandhi and i. e. almost none . the movie star del toro a the famous argentinian revolutionary . nevertheless and however controversial and criminal this man action may have be and one thing nobody could take away from him represent he be an intelligent manipulator who come from a rich family which be why del toro fit the bill only visually . del toro may be an interesting and charismatic actor and he may resemble guevara physically and but he exude no intellectual quality whatsoever and hence he make guevara come off a too primitive . cast such mediocrity a bratt and philip and franka incompetente only underline the director lack of sound judgment . the movie be to the most part extremely slow ( no surprise there ) and and visually uninteresting . even a director as brilliant a kubrick would have carefully consider release a movie that go beyond the 3 hour mark and so it quite tell that this soderbergh and who have only make one or two solid movie and early on in his career and would think that his oceanic grandness be up to the task . if you think the film length indicate that a bulk of che life have be show here then think again . soderbergh focus on che last phase and and a lot of the movie be tedious jungle nonsense and full of guevara allege idealism . ( psychopath do not have ideal . ) i do wonder what kind of a mind this highly esteem director have to have to actually choose to ignore some of che earlier life . do he actually consider it too uninteresting . a massacre of 600 people hold no interest for the viewer and huh . amazing . some much good director than this over praised charlatan would have easily fit not one but two complete biography into a 4 hour movie . soderbergh and in a sense and become an accomplice by never address the negative and dark side which be more than 90 % of guevara . by spread this kind of historical inaccuracy and consciously ignore the ugly truth ( god forbid he should taint the holy image of che ) and soderbergh prof himself not a humanist a fake image which most hollywood and pop music personality struggle very hard all their career to uphold but the opposite represent that he care only about idea and never about the people on whom these idea be test ( like on guinea pig ) . soderbergh and the like be elitist of the bad kind while such people often have a latent contempt for the proleteriat ( what a stupid term ) theyre supposedly side with . half of all student around the world wear che image on their red and orange shirt and but without ever know why . he have become an iconic figure for clueless and uninformed and very often young people and who think that by have this man face on their chest that somehow make them appear edgy and intellectual and hip or interesting . in reality and wear a che shirt only underline one overall shallowness and total disinterest in self education . ( wouldn not you want to find out more about a person before you start advertise his or her face to the world . ) wear che by now cliché image have become as common a have a bart simpson coffee cup . all those che wearer probably know more about marge blue hair than they will ever read up on about fidel castro dead ally . after everything that would be do in the name of marx and one would think that these mongrel ideal would be finally lay to rest . it seem mankind will never learn . stalin and mao and kim il and pol pot and castro and milosevic and ceausescu and the iron curtain and a hundred million dead and more than a billion ruin physically and or or mentally through this system . so none of that matter and huh . the fact that del toro win a cannes award should only surprise those who be absolutely clueless a to how cannes and other european festival work and vote . hint represent sean penn head a jury not long ago . for my music related rant and go to represent http represent or or rateyourmusic . com or collection or fedor8 or . | 0neg |
this documentary be a proof of talent be use for mean purpose . the fact that it be finance by the venezuelan government give it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of search for the truth of what really happen those horrible day of april 2002 in venezuela and something even we venezuelan do not know for sure . there be way of lying and and the director of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge . the venezuelan political process be too complex to be easily understand by foreign audience and and they take advantage of that . for instance possible spoiler they show pro chávez demonstrator shoot at an empty street ( what the hell they do that for . ) in a way of say they do not kill anyone and but do not bother show the image we all saw here and of opposition demonstrator ( and a journalist ) fall dead or injure at the other side of that empty street . they can not explain why the chopper of the political police be the only one authorise to fly over caracas that day and do nothing against the sniper that be all over the roof of the building nearby the presidential palace and something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measure to guard the president . a few day after the coup and the chief of the military guard in charge be ask at the national assembly ( our congress ) why do not they act against the sniper and he say cause they weren not there to act against the president and isn not that a confession . there be so much more and the fact that the high rank military announce that chávez have resign and 2 day later he say he have lie because that politics and nowadays be the minister of internal affair of chávez administration . it would take me thousand of word to explain all the lie depict in this documentary and make with the intention of sell the world an image of the good old hugo chávez who rule for the poor and the bad rich opposition that want him out at all cost and when the truth be that 60 70 % of people reject his government and and that percentage include the poor . i hope those of you who have see and buy this will be able to see a different version that be be make by a group of venezuelan people show no less than 30 lie . nazi propaganda have return . | 0neg |
in this movie and chávez supporter ( either venezuelan and not venezuelan ) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country . they do not say that the conflict start because of chávez announcement fire a lot of pdvsa best worker just for political issue . they do not say anything about more than 96 tv interruption transmit by chávez during only 3 day in cadena nacional ( a kind of confiscation o private tv signal ) . each one with about 20 minute of duration . they do not tell u anything about the quiting announcement make by general en jefe lucas rincon romero and inspector general of the army force and who be a traditional supporter of chávez . even now and in despite of his announcement and he be the ministro de interior y justicia . after chávez return he occuped the charge of ministro del defensa ( equal to defense secretary in u ) . they do not say anything about chávez order about shoot against a pacifical people concentration who be claim for election . they do not say anything about the people in this concentration that be kill by chávez supporter ( either civilian and military official force ) . they present some fact in a wrong order and in order to lie . they do not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats be even now claim for an election in order to solve the crisis and chávez action in order to avoid the election . that why i tell you . this movie be just a lot of lie or a big lie . | 0neg |
recently and i saw the documentary the revolution will not be televise and also know a chávez represent inside the coup . at first i think it show a genuine inside view of event during the venezuela coup of april 2002. what bother me though be the fact that the tone of the narration and the accompany music be suggestive and and that at no point any criticism be express about hugo chávez . this be peculiar because if a documentary be give an non bias account of what happen and there should have be some of that too . after all and chávez certainly be not a saint . fortunately and since the documentary be several year old and a lot of additional information be available on the internet nowadays and and it be not difficult to find for instance urgent investigation about chavez the coup by the 5 european tv corporation who finance the film which present blatant falsehood about venezuela . it list the many error and intend or unintended falsification in the documentary . ( just use the title a a search string in google and you will find it ) . another interesting document be the video registration of a presentation of the finding of the many error in this documentary and x ray of a lie . to me it seem to be a good counterweight to chávez represent inside the coup it available at video . google . i strongly advice you after watch chávez represent inside the coup to look at x ray of a lie and then form your opinion . my conclusion be that kim bartley and donnacha obrian be ( knowingly or not ) part in chávez propaganda . | 0neg |
remember a film you seem to enjoy in the past that doesn not quite meet those same feeling a an adult . that occur to me when i go back to school . the national lampoon class reunion . the film have a perfect opportunity for laugh and but surprisingly wanders aimlessly a we see a bizarre collection of character such a woman who sell her soul to the devil and can shoot out flame of fire from her mouth and a man who appear to be a vampire and and a lunatic killer dress a a woman and wear sack over his head . you have the class president who believe he the best thing since slice bread ( but a we see in the film and he a coward and joke ) and a couple of pot smoker who do not even know they be at their own class reunion and and a man name gary for whom know one even know exist ( and no one can seem to remember his name . this be the one run joke i enjoy ) . there be a plump pervert who like to grab woman in inappropriate place and a deaf and blind woman who have a screech holler when call for her dog and and the cook ( you know her from goony and throw mama from the train ) who love to place food on people plate with her hand . the film be essentially about a nutcase who be ( or at least attempt to ) take revenge on his classmate for a gag they pull on him ( they arrange for him to sleep with his own twin sister . ) . the film follow the character a they search for the killer canvasing darken and trash hallway of the old high school . they be tell of the killer by his psychologist who seem a bit odd himself . the film have a few good gag that work ( pretty much early on ) and but the film slowly get bad each pass minute . the film true problem be that it really doesn not know where to go . the film be pretty much a one joke premise for it have unassured direction . if it really have any direction at all . the cast be enthusiastic enough and but the material they be to make funny just doesn not have the quality to hold any interest . it a curio for fan of early 80 comedy relic that be forget ( this one rightfully so ) . | 0neg |
if it wasn not for the performance of barry diamond and art evans a the clueless stoner and i would have no reason to recommend this to anyone . the plot center around a 10 year high school reunion and which take place in a suppose abandon high school ( look more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick ) and and the deranged student the class pull a very traumatizing prank on . this student desire to kill off the entire class for revenge . john hughes fall in love with his character too much and a only one student be kill as well a the lunch lady ( goony anne ramsey ) . be lead to believe that the horny couple get kill and but never see a blasted thing . this be a horrible movie that continue national lampoon downward spiral throughout the 80 and 90 . | 0neg |
anyone who think this film have not be appreciate for it comic genius must have be smoke with the two stoner in the film . this film be not under rat . it be a bad movie . there should be no comparison between this film and the naked gun or airplane since the latter two film be well write and funny . class reunion be neither of those thing . the sad thing be it have such potential ( good cast and good story line ) but the good joke be few and far between . the scene that be suppose to be funny come off more annoying than amuse . the stoner guy and the vampire and the blind girl . not funny . the only funny character be delores ( the one who sell her soul to the devil ) . national lampoon have make some really good film ( animal house and vacation ) but this isn not one of them . i certainly expect more from john hughes . | 0neg |
stereotypical send up of slasher flick fall far short a supposed entertainment . gerrit graham and michael lerner and zane busby and and in fact the entire cast be totally waste . lame joke abound and and every punch line be well telegraph . the dumb one liners come at a fast pace and and almost every one fall flat a a squashed grape . the musical number only contribute to the boredom that set in and lingers for the entire movie . another negative be the claustrophobic setting entirely within the wall of an abandon high school . avoid this and seek out one of lampoon truly funny film like national lampoon golddiggers merk . | 0neg |
the big national lampoon hit remain animal house and and rightly so . it be funny and raucous and good natured . the exact opposite of every other national lampoon film . include class reunion . please do not be fool by the inclusion of stephen furst ( flounder ) from animal house . or by the fact that john hughes write this jumbled mess . this reunion be about as hilarious a root canal and twice as painful . one star and and that be generous . then again and i always think most of my old classmate be demon and vampire and serial killer and too . | 0neg |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.