id int64 0 25k | interval listlengths 2 2 | len_words int64 6 2.21k | len_tokens int64 8 2.75k | text stringlengths 32 13k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10,490 | [
300,
400
] | 251 | 309 | Being a gay man who lived through the time period examined in this tedious documentary, I was eager to see how the subject matter was handled. Unfortunately, the film makers wasted what could have been an energetic and insightful opportunity to shed some light on our collective gay history. This film only concerns itself with the period within New York City, ignoring the rest of the country. While I spent a fair amount of time in NYC at that time, I can assure you that there was a gay life outside Manhattan! The men interviewed here are the same "A-list" queens who thought they were better than anyone else during the 70s, and here they are again, waxing nostalgic and still throwing attitude. The film should have at least tried to cover larger topics, such as race, ageism, the burgeoning gay "caste system" based on wealth, body image, and the rise of the "clones", discrimination of sub-groups within the community, and the ability to grow a decent mustache (which was very important in the 70s!). Alas, we have none of this presented, and the recollections of those interviewed are no different than my own memories. If you were there in that decade, you'll enjoy the archival photos and grainy home-movies of the bars and discos we haunted. If you weren't there, this film will undoubtedly seem dull. It should have been so much more, but sadly, it's not. Two stars for jogging my memory...I still miss going to the Anvil! | 0 |
10,504 | [
300,
400
] | 213 | 304 | There are movies that are leaders, and movies that are followers.<br /><br />"Meatballs" was a leader. And here's one of its followers.<br /><br />"Party Camp" is about as interchangeable as any of its brethern who plumbed the depths that "Meatballs" (the original) had so successfully mined. Of course, that one had Bill Murray. So, what does "Party Camp" have?<br /><br />I'm glad you asked that question.<br /><br />Jewel Sheperd has made these flicks her bread and butter, and what a side dish SHE provides! Even as an innocent (wink, wink) girlfriend to a rich twerp (Cribb), she provides that sultry steam she gives to all her parts. And yes, guys, she shows (if you know what I mean and I think you do). My gosh, that smile of hers could melt through titanium.<br /><br />What? Oh yeah, the movie. Nothing special as I said; every cheap joke is aimed for and hit (at about crotch-level). And eternal teen Jayne is good for a laugh or two. But instead of a sense of humor there's just nudity, lame sex jokes, more, nudity, a soft-core dream sequence, a sex symbol nurse simply for (CLOTHED!) leering purposes, even more nudity....<br /><br />Hmmm... Maybe it's a good idea Bill Murray WASN'T in this.<br /><br />Two stars. For Jewel, naturally. Plenty of "Camp", but not much of a "Party". | 0 |
10,506 | [
300,
400
] | 265 | 330 | Young writers, young auteur, young cast, busload of producers, what could go wrong? Everything. Even lame is too good a description, that suggests that three of four legs were functioning, when actually, none of them were. Barely enough recycled plotline for a 48 and a half minute television hour, gratingly stretched to ninety minutes. The audience was talking back to the screen, so bad was the story. Dirty cops steal drugs from the evidence locker. How many thousands of times has this been done on television? Bad cops frame good cops. Again, how many times? There was not an original shred in this entire concoction. Giovanni Ribisi made a valiant effort to prop up the lack of script, drawing the only laughs of the entire movie. And the thought of he and Claire Danes working from a real script with a grown-up director and photographed by an actual cinematographer intrigues me. Note to screenwriters: Buy one of those story generators. It can't possibly be as bad as ripping off bad television. Note to auteur: There are shots available to you other than closeups. Even the lovely and interesting face of Claire Danes eventually grows tiresome in closeup. Note to cinematographer: Apprentice yourself to a professional for a few years--you have much to learn. Note to color timer at the lab: At least try to persuade the auteur and the cinematographer that they don't know what they're talking about. Note to Claire: I hope this paid for your new condo. It's time to get some professional management and start actually reading the scripts before signing on. | 0 |
10,507 | [
300,
400
] | 288 | 362 | I'm not one of those folks who bemoans everytime a film based on an old TV show comes out. Rather, I usually run out and see it (If I had watched the show) and try to get nostalgic. But if anyone feels like running down films based on old shows, this is exhibit A (So you can actually say something more than just "McHale's Navy"). "Mod Squad" is dreary, tiring, and lethargic. At least the original series was angst riddled long before anyone knew teens could be so glum, making it groundbreaking. This is just tedious. Claire Danes is nice to look at, but does nothing else but mood swing and sneak around spying on the baddies. Giovanni Ribisi's acting extent in this flick is that Droopy the Dog look for an hour and forty five minutes. And Omar Epps looks like he wants to flee the set, but the script's chlostraphobia has trapped him. Sure, the production is nice, with the now seemingly obligitory "rave" nightclub opening action sequence and shootouts galore. Oh, and the kids yell and get mad at each other and their superiors a lot too. It's kind of like deciding to use the Scooby Doo Mystery Machine to go on a family vacation to Hollywood with your teenage kids who you and your spouse know need heavy therapy and prescription drugs. I really wanted to like this movie, and there were promising moments, but the next scene would suck the life out of it. You can knock another Spelling remake, "Charlie's Angels", all you want, but at least that film knew it wanted to have fun with itself. "The Mod Squad" makes you wonder where the inspiration from the original series went. | 0 |
10,523 | [
300,
400
] | 217 | 310 | The DVD sleeve explains the premise: "Three problem teens are headed for jail," and are "set to do time until Captain Greer offers them a deal to work for him - undercover." The film opens with definitions of the words "Mod" and "Squad", so you won't have to look them up in the dictionary. For a visual definition of "Cool", search for photographs of the original threesome: Michael Cole (as Pete Cochran), Clarence Williams III (as Linc Hayes), and Peggy Lipton (as Julie Barnes). <br /><br />One black. One white. One blonde. Once they defined cool.<br /><br />The three who make up Scott Silver's version of Aaron Spelling's "The Mod Squad" are twentysomethings: Claire Danes (as Julie Barnes), Giovanni Ribisi (as Pete Cochran), and Omar Epps (as Linc Hayes). They aren't able to do much with the material given. Mr. Ribisi's portrayal is the most "far out", meaning he digresses most from the original characterization. Ms. Danes romances Josh Brolin (as Billy Waites), who looks like he could be in a re-make of "Marcus Welby, MD". You won't believe hefty Michael Lerner dancing with Mr. Epps' "Linc". He explains, "I'm not a fairy, I just like to dance!" and requests, "Spin me!" <br /><br />*** The Mod Squad (1999) Scott Silver ~ Claire Danes, Giovanni Ribisi, Omar Epps | 0 |
10,534 | [
300,
400
] | 298 | 365 | When a loser teen is bitten by an insect, he becomes the superhero Dragonfly...<br /><br />Superhero Movie is the latest spoof movie to hit the screens. Sadly however, despite the presence of David Zucker (who was involved with Airplane!, Top Secret and The Naked Gun movies) it still suffers from the fault most recent spoofs have...mainly it's more dumb than fun! The fault mainly lies with the gags. It's simply not funny enough. Some of the jokes do work, such as the nail gun scene, but other parts simply fall flat. The X-men spoof for example, or the whole farting sequence. Blazing Saddles this isn't! One of the key things about the best spoof movies, like Airplane is that although the dialog is extremely funny, the cast for the most part play is completely straight. This makes it even funnier. Even when there is simple dialog in the foreground, there may well be funny things happening behind the cast. Again funny. The other key thing is that they all have a plot of sorts, to hang the gags on.<br /><br />The recent trend seems to be to take scenes from various movies, THEN try and spoof them. As a result the so-called plot of these movies very rarely exist. Another flaw these movies have, is that some of the scenes were actually funny in the original versions, and in most cases even funnier than the spoof scene! The cast try to get into the spirit required, but with a lot of unfunny dialog and scenes, it's hard to get worked up about it.<br /><br />As recent spoof movies go, it's not as bad as Epic Movie, Date Movie, or the awful Meet The Spartans, but considering that some people involved here have made good, funny movies in the past, it's nowhere near good enough. | 0 |
10,545 | [
300,
400
] | 265 | 343 | And so it started with "Shreik" a send up of horror films, then we had Scary Movie, a genuinely good attempt at a new kind of genre, the illustrious send up. however....now we have: Scary Movie* Scary Movie 2 Scary Movie 3 Scary Movie 4* Date Movie Meet The Spartans Not Another Team movie* plus many more (genuinely funny movies marked with *)<br /><br />and.....Super hero movie.... it seems the people that make these movies cannot yet grasp what makes the send-ups funny. using the rip-offs from other movies in a funny way is all well and good if done properly, but not many producers seem to know how to do that. Scary movie(1) did it well, the following sequels were then horrendous as the tried to over play the franchise, but it was redeemed by Scary Movie 4. Not another teen movie was good because it used the spoofs well...and to its credit i am sick of teen movies. however, this movie plays like a bad version of all of these. it relies on slap stick the would make even the 3 stooges cringe, violating the image of Stephen hawking, and then when people begin to get bored (and the producers knew when this would be) we are treated to Pamela Anderson in a skin tight suit. to conclude, spoofs should be about making a homage-like mock-up of an original movie with an original storyline, not plastering random take offs of legitimate film onto the storyline of a real film. <br /><br />...i shudder at the thought of "SCI-FI MOVIE" and get my seppuku knife ready | 0 |
10,548 | [
300,
400
] | 277 | 369 | This movie is funny if you're the gentleman who was sitting about three rows behind me (repeating every punchline, laughing when there were no gags on-screen, and issuing a gravelly "haaaa" at every scene involving a computer or mobile device).<br /><br />For everyone else, it's a mean-spirited, bungled "comedy." The movie strictly follows the formula of the later "Scary Movie" films, as well as "Epic Movie" and "Meet the Spartans," though without the flood of heartless pop culture references that made the latter two so irritating. Still, the lampooning of intellectual and peacemaking figures the world over makes it clear that the film knows its audience: people who envy brainpower. "Superhero Movie" is particularly and consistently nasty to Stephen Hawking, introducing him as a sex-starved druggie and using his disability as a vehicle for slapstick.<br /><br />The plot is based on "Spider-Man," with "Batman Begins" and "X-Men" thrown in just to deliver some physical comedy. Much of the movie is slapstick, but not in any invigorating or interesting way. The longest-running gag is a fart joke, and early on the scriptwriters seem to believe that having the main character get thrown in conspicuous piles of fake animal poo automatically enlivens an otherwise uninspired rehash of the spider bite scene from "Spider-Man." Perhaps the only redeeming feature of this feature is the energy in it, notably absent in other recent parodies. The filmmakers act as though they're doing something new, and the audience can feel the influence in the way the actors bounce around the screen. An extremely abbreviated length (about an hour and fifteen minutes) and the zest of the presentation makes "Superhero Movie" tolerable rather than horrifying. | 0 |
10,558 | [
300,
400
] | 329 | 397 | Perhaps if only to laugh at the way my favorite of Jane Austen's works has been portrayed. Perhaps I am too severe on this adaptation, but I'm afraid I am biased to the A&E version. I have a hard time imagining Mr. Darcy portrayed by anyone other than Colin Firth.<br /><br />The characters seemed shallow, and often dialogue forced. Lizzy seemed to lack the real feeling that is so evident in the book. Her fancy for Wickham was overplayed, and then her sudden like for Darcy was not believable.<br /><br />Darcy was portrayed tolerably well, I will grant him. He managed to maintain the aloofness that is required, but I felt he did not project the feeling and inner struggle that makes his character so delightful, especially in the proposal scene.<br /><br />Mr. and Mrs. Bennet were also played well, but seemed lacking in many ways. The mean temper of Mrs. Bennet was not completely captured in her performance.<br /><br />Mr. Collins' was a good portrayal. Very much in line with the book.<br /><br />I will refrain from commenting on Lady Catherine except to say that she is possibly the worst portrayal in the entire film.<br /><br />Other problems I saw were the few liberties they took with the order of events such as Darcy being present at the first meeting with Lady C., and also that Miss Lucas and Sir William did not join Lizzy on her visit to the Collins'.<br /><br />The choreography was dreadful during the dancing scenes. The scene where Lizzy and Darcy dance loses much of its intensity because one cannot get past the feeling that they look akward on the ballroom floor. At least this BBC version left out the dialogue between Lizzy, Darcy and Sir William when he commends the two on their dancing, as they performed very ill indeed.<br /><br />There were occasional moments that it kept me interested, but overall I find this version to be a disappointment. I would not advise this film unless you're like me, and you are excessively diverted by such follies.<br /><br /> | 0 |
10,564 | [
300,
400
] | 313 | 398 | This is an oft-used line, but it really sums up this movie..."If this is the current state of gay cinema, then we're in real trouble". I saw this film at SIFF because of the high IMDb rating (7.6) and if there was ever a case of vote stacking on IMDb, then this is it. Just watch the number fall over the release weeks of the film.<br /><br />Easy plot...Boy finds out his high school ex (boyfriend) is getting married to a female friend of theirs so he goes back to his old hometown (still carrying a 10 year old torch) to see what happened.<br /><br />First off, I liked "Latter Days", the director's last feature, despite its cookie cutter characters and plot contrivances, but you're supposed to become a better director with each subsequent release. I don't know how you get horrible supporting performances out of so many TV veterans (Robert Foxworth, Joanna Cassidy, Tori Spelling), but somehow he managed to. The writing was Lifetime Network quality (way back when they were REALLY bad) and the situations were unbelievable AND uncomfortably hard to watch. I kept reaching for a non-existent remote control to fast forward, but ultimately made myself stay to the end, hoping for a decent ending. Ugh...no. Even the gratuitous male nudity that popped up during the movie was so blatantly gratuitous that it seemed to be there to keep people in their seats. <br /><br />To be fair...the 2 leads, especially in the gratuitous nude scenes, were gorgeous. There was also a real sweetness between them during their rekindling friendship as they uncovered how they went separate ways. And the film looked great...good quality and color saturation for an independent film.<br /><br />How is it that network TV can give week after week of great, entertaining weekly episodes (Like "Ugly Betty", "Desp. Housewives", etc.), but so many feature releases in similar genres can be as bad as this? | 0 |
10,571 | [
300,
400
] | 265 | 315 | The Toxic Avenger... <br /><br />The idea of this movie is that a person that the common population would call this person a looser and then after being thrown into a barrel of toxic waste, mutated into a superhero that is completely disfigured sounded OK even for 1985. This movie is listed as a horror... I even have read of a cult following with this series.... <br /><br />Now this movie even given when it was made was so bad that I couldn't stop watching... the acting is horrible even for an independent film that I think was to be the horror part of this movie...<br /><br />drug dealing, sumo, Godzilla entrance.... I'm all for movies that promote anti-drugs... heck I even like Godzilla and well sumo... I'm not into it but even still I think that the heights of sumo would love to give this movie the 1000 hand slap and ground salt into the eyes of the people that made this movie... <br /><br />Personally I am almost ready to write to the film company that made this and ask them for the 87mins or so of my life back.<br /><br />To me 1 out of 10 is too high it's too bad that there isn't a 0 (zero) or even negative integers to place on a movie here.<br /><br />In other words this movie is J-U-N-K...... would rather watch paint dry and deal with explosive diarrhea then have to watch this movie ever again... I would be the first person that would use not only the packaging of this movie as kindling but I would be up for a good'ol movie and script burning. | 0 |
10,579 | [
300,
400
] | 296 | 361 | The best thing about the movie is the name, as it both describes the plot and the acting. At least they cannot say they didn't warn you... Kind of like the button labeled, "Don't push this".<br /><br />Segal must have run out of things that move like planes, trains, and ships but the plot remains the same. Under cover guy who fights slowly, but still beats like 40 mercenary types and doesn't even blink when doing so. What amazes me is that Segal is now as big as a barn and the bad guys still cannot hit him in a hallway with a machine gun and 50 clips of ammo. Where do all these bullets actually go to? The only redeeming feature of this movie is watching Nia Peeples pound Ja Rule (real name Jeffrey Atkins doesn't quite sound so punk) into the floor. I could spend days watching that woman kick her foot over her shoulder like that... especially wearing an outfit like that! It was just a bonus watching Jeffy get is *ss kicked, and fun hoping one of those kicks actually landed. Sorry, it's just time we get stupid wannabe tough guy can't act rappers out of the movies. PLEEEEEASE! Who came up with idea anyway? I'd lay odds it was the person who decided that Cameron Diaz and Drew Barrymore would pass as witty athletic Angels.<br /><br />The only surprising twist in this movie is that they don't do the politically correct thing and have Jeffy come in and save the day. No doubt if Snoop (otherwise known by his momma as Calvin Broadus which again doesn't sound so cool when you refer to him as Cal) had been in the movie, he'd throw some signs down on her and probably saved Segal's life or something. | 0 |
10,588 | [
300,
400
] | 286 | 332 | Steven Segal has done some awful films, but this is probably one of the best since his career took a dive about ten years ago. The cast is better than usual, and while the story and the plot are a total joke, at least most of the action scenes look pretty good.<br /><br />The plot is probably one of the worst in film history. Someone is being executed because he stole some money? Some Mercenary types kidnap a Supreme Court Justice? Their goal is to exchange the Judge for the prisoner so they can find out where he has the money? Meanwhile the Execution chamber is full of trap doors and false floors and looks like a set from one of the Cirque Du Soleil Circus Shows.<br /><br />Then there is the issue of the prison. Here, the Warden is a Homie, played by Tony Plana. The prisoners all have their gang colors and signs, and the guards are there to serve the meals and keep the prison clean. Nothing like a bunch of prisoners fighting and beating up some guards while the Warden is watching. What happens? The Warden gives them a stern talking to. He might punish them next time.<br /><br />There are a lot of moments in this movie that are good for laughs. However, Nia Peeples looks pretty good, and Ja Rule tries to be an action hero. Lots of fun watching the prisoners all "do the right thing" and get armed so that they can free the Supreme Court Justice from her captors. Regardless of how bad Half Past Dead may be, when you watch it keep in mind that it is easily the best movie that Steven Segal has starred in since Under Siege in 1992. | 0 |
10,605 | [
300,
400
] | 295 | 376 | I've spent a year deployed in Iraq, and amongst the hundreds of movies I've seen here was this little gem called Vampire Assassin. Judging from the cover (African-American with corn-rows with a curved blade, leather coat and the demeanor of a badass), I expected a Blade rip-off. Fair enough.<br /><br />So I pop it in and observed a borderlined overweight African-American with no blade, no cornrows and, well, nothing at all really except...I don't know. If you've read any of these other reviews, you get the gist of the flick. It sucks. Bad. Really bad.<br /><br />I don't know if it was the Highlander-esquire lightning after killing an immortal vampire, or the karate-kick sound effects for camera zooms, or the twenty dollar budget on props, or the "ok, we have 90 minutes to film this before we're caught filming in a Johnson & Johnson parking lot," or the martial arts that is as exciting and fast-paced as two old people having sex, or the 7th grade acting talent, or the eccentric Asian Master who's either senial or on acid, or what, but the movie manages to force you to question your existence. And that's awesome.<br /><br />Not many movies can be so bad that your head will explode like Scanners. If you heckle (or MST3K) with your friends, this is the flick for you. I've seen it three times already, and I think it might've caused permanent damage on my psyche. If you STILL don't have any clue as to the quality of the film, people were trying to give it away for free and no one would take it. Not even by force.<br /><br />Long story short, watch it. Either as masochistic pleasure or punishment. It will rock your skull (and for the most part, for all the wrong reasons). | 0 |
10,618 | [
300,
400
] | 285 | 377 | So, this is the WORST movie you will probably ever see. It's up there with "Crossbones" and "Southern Comfort", but if your a bad movie fan like I am, this atrocity of a film will be the most fun you've had in years. WHY does the camera make old-school kung fu noises when it zooms? WHY does that random guy stuff a nascar commemorative plate in his bag? And who is he anyway? WHY do the vampires shoot lightning after they die? What is this? Highlander? Dracula McCloud? Who cares! Just laugh at it. This movie has no continuity, no plot, no anything, really. Ron Hall's range of emotions are always off. He looks happy when he should be sad, angry when he should be confused. The rest of the cast couldn't act their way out of a paper bag. The special ("Short bus" kinda special) effects are randomly placed, and never needed. Most scenes are lit with a desk lamp, if they are lit at all. Mel Novak has the AUDACITY to look off-camera for his line, and it's not even edited out. They just keep on filming. In fact, half of this movie isn't even on film at all. It's 1/2 film, 1/2 sony hand-cam. For most of the film it seems that they left their boom mike at home. This movie doesn't just have a few plot holes, it's a mine field of confusion and mental pain! But OH do I love it! Thank you Ron Hall, for this cinematic abomination. I went out and bought it, cause it's just so damn funny. ($1.99 on Amazon, and I had it rush delivered!)<br /><br />"I have weapons! I have weapons! I have WEAPONS!" | 0 |
10,619 | [
300,
400
] | 308 | 391 | I don't normally give movies a "1." Although I am a HEARTLESS critic, I try to find anything that makes the movie worthwhile (that is to say, watchable). The main thing I look for is a coherent plot. If it has that alone, I can watch it! Let me start by saying, this doesn't even deserve to be called a movie, this is more like an elementary school project...gone horribly wrong! And I've seen every Sci-Fi movie special that was ever made.<br /><br />Many times I've read professional critic reviews that say crap like "This played like a Made-for-TV...(etc, etc)" and I kept saying "Oh come on, I wish they'd think of a REAL criticism." Well this is worse...much worse! This is truly the worst "thing" I've seen that's lasted the length of a movie (if I DID consider it a movie it would be my new worst movie of all time), and I've seen every movie Uwe Boll made! This movie makes Uwe Boll look like Francis Ford Coppola! :) I'd rather watch Jaws the Revenge all day then see this one more time...even 5 minutes of it...there was one good scene and it was the END! ;-P OK enough bashing the works of Ron Hall, now for the serious criticism.<br /><br />The script is poorly written, the dialog is delivered in a wooden manner, the effects are cheesier than those in a Power Rangers show, and don't even get me started on the screen zoom-in transitions (ugh). Someone actually watched this thing, edited it, and then said, "ok release it"? I would have rather burned this than release it! In closing all I can say is "Thank goodness DVD and VHS players have a Stop and Eject feature!" My advice...don't rent it, if you do, you'll be glad you have stop and eject too! :) | 0 |
10,622 | [
300,
400
] | 302 | 390 | Incredibly, "Vampire Assassin" is significantly worse than such atrocities as "Tequila Body Shots" and "Zombie Nation" - and those movies are TERRIBLE. Writer/director/star Ron Hall is devoid of both charisma and acting ability, and is also clearly incapable of the most basic directorial concepts. Possibly the worst camera-work, editing, lighting, sound, visual effects, music and fight choreography I have ever seen in a movie. Rarely do two shots cut together, nor can you see much in the beyond-dim lighting. The terrible dialogue is spoken extremely slowly by a supremely untalented cast, stretching the movie to a near-deadly 87 minutes. This is a truly laughable embarrassment for everyone involved. Obviously, aficionados of terrible film-making will want to see this, but it's very hard to sit through no matter how experienced a bad-movie viewer you are. The fact that Ron Hall thought this was actually releasable is astounding. If you are a movie director, and you actually think it's OK for the opening credits of your movie to include a few frames of the words SLUG before the title appears, left over from your rough edit - and you apparently can't muster the energy to edit those frames out - then your standards are obviously so low as to be insulting. I am astounded that Lions Gate/Maple agreed to release this movie on DVD. In spite of Rudy Ray Moore's very brief cameo, this movie is a work of supreme self-indulgence on Ron Hall's part - he clearly thinks he is a formidable actor, and must also believe he possesses superior writing and directing skills - but the movie is so unbelievably inept that it's hard to believe he'd actually want people to see it for fear of being brutally excoriated like I'm doing right now. A jaw-dropping, insanely terrible movie. I'm not kidding. | 0 |
10,626 | [
300,
400
] | 264 | 335 | I disagree 100% with the reviewer who disagreed 100% with the reviewer who gave this short movie an "F" grade. Cashing in heavily on political propaganda only obscures Joe Dante's lack of ability to pull another Howling out of his bag of tricks. The Masters of Horror series was a phenomenal collection of truly horrifying tales, save for this episode.<br /><br />Despite gaining acclaim from those who wish to promote it's political slant, "Homecoming" is the least effective episode of MOH season one. Unlike the rest of the series, Dante's entry is a parody of the genre, falling short of both horror and humor in it's ham-fisted delivery of a hackneyed political point.<br /><br />Dante can really only be blamed for pulling this stinker off the shelf, as it wasn't his creation. The zombie sub-genre is very popular this decade, and among the crop of predictable George Romero tributes and vacuous fantasies are a number of works designed to push political or (ir)religeous messages. Such works are not written by or intended for true horror fans. Maybe Dante really isn't a a Master of Horror, either. What has he been up to since The Howling, after all?<br /><br />If you want a lame anti-war zombie flick with a few pop culture references passed off as humor, Homecoming may be just your thing. If you are a horror fan looking for something Masterful, pick up... most any other episode of the series. My personal favorite was Dario Argento's "Jenifer," based loosely on a classic comic short by the team of Bruce Jones and Berni Wrightson -- truly creepy. | 0 |
10,642 | [
300,
400
] | 241 | 314 | Detective Sergent Vince De Carlo (James Luisi) and company are on the case of a vicious Serial Killer/Rapist. Can Psychologist Carol (Susan Sullivan) help, or will she become the killer's next victim? And what is with the killer's hilarious White Dude Afro? <br /><br />Inspired by the case of serial killer Ted Bundy, "Killer's Delight" aka "The Dark Ride" is a rather dull Serial Killer tale from 1978 that doesn't offer much. If anything, it's more of a police procedural flick than a horror movie, as much of the violence occurs off camera. Sure, we get mutilated bodies, but we don't get a whole lot in the exploitation department-especially considering that they are from the aftermath, and not during the crime. Those hoping for the likes of "The Toolbox Murders" or "Maniac" will be very disappointed.<br /><br />Fortunately, there is an impressive scene involving a woman trying to escape the killer that get's the tone right, and is quite suspenseful to boot. Also, John Karlen is quite effective as the killer, though his hilarious hairstyle (white guys with Afros are always worth a chuckle) is more than a bit distracting.<br /><br />"The Dark Ride" is too routine and mediocre to really warrant a recommendation, as it lacks the proper exploitation elements, and is dated even by the standards of the time. Those looking for a better example should probably turn to "Don't Go In The House" and a few others instead, as this just doesn't cut it. | 0 |
10,647 | [
300,
400
] | 243 | 333 | See Dick work.<br /><br />See Jane work.<br /><br />Dick and Jane are married.<br /><br />They are successful.<br /><br />They have a son. <br /><br />They have a nice house.<br /><br />They have a Latino housekeeper.<br /><br />The housekeeper teaches Spanish to the son.<br /><br />The son speaks Spanish.<br /><br />Ha-ha.<br /><br />See Dick get promoted.<br /><br />The pompous CEO is a crook.<br /><br />See Dick take the fall for the pompous CEO.<br /><br />Jane quits her job.<br /><br />Oops.<br /><br />See Dick and Jane out of work.<br /><br />Dick & Jane turn to crime.<br /><br />As a plot device, they decide to rob the CEO.<br /><br />See the robbery get botched.<br /><br />See Dick & Jane fund the company's pension plan with the money from the robbery.<br /><br />Yay. See the end credits.<br /><br />Okay, so you've got the plot. Beyond that, Dick and Jane careens from one scene to the next. One barely connecting with the last one or the next one. The whole thing is terribly episodic in nature. <br /><br />Jim Carrey didn't bother to bring his "A" material, he just seems bored and slightly ashamed of the whole thing. But heck, when you're getting paid $20 million plus, why bother. Tea Leoni is frantic. I guess I would be frantic not to get blamed for this flop.<br /><br />There's just something sort of off about Dick & Jane. Carrey and Leoni aren't funny and have little chemistry. The script isn't funny. And it's not well-plotted.<br /><br />But it may be bigger than that. The reality of Dick and Jane is, perhaps, a little too real. Maybe it's just not funny for people to lose their jobs in an Enron-like situation, when real-life still lacks a happy ending. | 0 |
10,648 | [
300,
400
] | 278 | 347 | Jim Carrey is a particular brand of humour and I personally think he's a great actor (Eternal Sunshine, for example).<br /><br />However, this movie is presumably intended to be nothing more than a Jim Carrey vehicle, so be aware straight off that if you don't think his style of comedy is funny, you will sit stony-faced throughout this film, as it has NOTHING else to recommend it.<br /><br />Even if you do like Carrey's comedy, I am not sure you will find this film amusing. I went to see it on a Saturday night at 10:30pm and the audience was definitely ready to laugh. They giggled throughout the trailers, which weren't particularly funny, but when it came to the film, stony silence. I think it raised about five genuine laughs.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is it doesn't know what it wants to be. It can't make up its mind whether it's going for slapstick or serious. If it were stupid throughout it could be forgiven but (I'm guessing) it's also trying to make a point about the relationship between the two central characters.<br /><br />The strong point of the film is the hold-ups, and there was plenty of potential here. But these didn't start until about halfway through and remained largely undeveloped. Meanwhile, you have to sit through the first excruciating 40 minutes as the couple's life deteriorates.<br /><br />Four separate groups walked out of this film while I was there, and if my flatmate hadn't asked me to keep away from the house (his girlfriend having just returned from a month-long vacation!), I would have done the same. And in my entire 25 years of movie going, I have done that just once before. | 0 |
10,653 | [
300,
400
] | 340 | 398 | Part of the movie's low rating is the emphasis on unemployment and the suffering we have to endure. While this is good for drama, in comedy, we know the pains it need not be emphasized. As a result Fun with Dick and Jane is not an appropriate title and I was just plain disappointed failing to see any fun with Dick and Jane. It is true that this is a copy from the movie of the same name, but it fails on the execution and the title was not appropriate for the story line.<br /><br />However, if the movie was retitled to be "The Art of the Steal" and the emphasis on bungling slapstick comedy more takes on the robbery and the plans to steal (stupidly of course) would have given the movie a major boost. While, at the same time the movie should show the CEO at least in the beginning to be a crook, so it will be easier to project the pains to someone responsible early on and just leave it at that. The movie suffers a viewpoint issue and with that in mind, a comedy cannot work if the viewpoint is not done properly. A scheming husband character who is that of a Wile E. Coyote on the Road Runner would be more funny, including the slapstick comedy. But in this case, a steal instead of the capture of the bird with complicate contraptions would be extremely funny here. I mean you can make many of these and put them in the movie. But since the viewpoint was done wrongly, the robbery part had to be limited.<br /><br />You will enjoy the movie the first 15 minutes (during Jim Carrey's great rise), but to make the problems they had to faced to be more comical since it is a comedy, that is the part that needs a major overhaul. It can be funnier, if problems were faced more like John Travolta's Civil Action during the downfall. That movie was a serious one but the problems they faced were somewhat comical. | 0 |
10,654 | [
300,
400
] | 323 | 361 | As a big Jim Carey fan I took my seat in the cinema with optimism. After all, Fun With Dick And Jane appeared to have all the raw materials to make this another Carey success. After the opening five minutes of good humour it seemed that this film would provide but it went wrong as soon as the plot kicked in. The idea that a charming, charismatic, top V.I.P employee could suddenly find himself turning up to work in his nearest supermarket is just so hard to believe and then to get your head round the fact that this guy has also become a master criminal is virtually impossible. The actors seem confused with the situation as well. Of course, the stereotypical, rich, uncaring head of the operation doesn't struggle one bit to pull off his one dimensional character but for Carey and others around him the job is a whole lot harder. One minute Dick is seen as a cocky office pro, obsessed with possessions, the next minute he's a bumbling mess who can barely string two words together, and ultimately he becomes a petty thief who is able, quite happily, to put a gun to another man's head. Jane is equally confused with her role and her character never really gets going. <br /><br />The idea behind the story is such a good one and it is a shame that this film has not managed to make it work. The odd moment of laugh out loud comedy can be found but it is usually more physical humour than anything witty or clever. Carey tries his best in parts to save a sinking ship but his comic talent can never flourish in a character that has so many gaping holes to his personality. Carey shines when he is presented with a strong, daring character (Man on the Moon, The Truman Show, Ace Ventura) which this film never presented him with, despite its best efforts. | 0 |
10,666 | [
300,
400
] | 261 | 318 | It's a male bashing bonanza. I saw this on Sci-Fi a while ago, and the idea seemed interesting. It could have been a good movie, and the plot itself I don't see as male bashing, but certain specific references to men get really annoying. I might still watch the movie again though because it does at least try to redeem itself by hinting that maybe the women in the movie aren't really as non-violent as they claim, but it still doesn't compensate for the really tiring male-bashing. I mean, I can understand a little, it's part of the movie's plot, but come on, it gets really tiring after awhile. Not only that, but to assume that the majority of women in the world would accept becoming homosexual that easily and that the few remaining heterosexuals would be such a minority as to go "in the closet". It's just too unbelievable. There are far too many women out there with cultural or religious restrictions that would balk at this it is totally implausible. I mean I know its sci-fi, and I love sci-fi, but the best sci-fi has at least a hint of it being possible, and this is too implausible. The phrase "Truth is stranger than fiction" came about because fiction has to at least seem plausible to be welcomed, but truth isn't always. This movie is not that. Other than that, the movie does have some good acting and the eventual morals of the story, that something like what happened was wrong, do redeem it a little, but not enough. | 0 |
10,685 | [
300,
400
] | 305 | 363 | my friends and i watched this movie last night. it was pretty incredible. by all means, this was probably the worst movie i have ever seen. at first, it was tolerable. it stunk of BAD IMPROV but it was pretty friggin hilarious, despite the scenes being too long & drawn out and the terrible quality (i read $400 budget above... sounds about right) of the film itself.<br /><br />the biggest problem came from the lack of a script; with a background in improv, i know how hard it can be to keep scenes short & efficient. what happened in this film was that the actors were left to improvise the scenes and they didn't know when to stop, they just kept going for ages on stupid topics. at first i thought this was because the movie was short and they needed long, useless scenes to flesh it out. as the movie progressed, i realized it was just a really bad movie.<br /><br />there were a lot of parts where i could see that the film maker had a really good idea for a shot but not the resources (or talent!?) to pull it off effectively. a lot of the scenes were taken from a single shot (cause, you know, improv) for what felt like a really long time. so boring! if you can stand to put up with and hour and a half of terrible improv, watch it. it's really funny at parts but also really stupid and annoying. the acting ranges from alright to absolutely terrible. it seemed like the only good parts were the parts that really had nothing to do with the main plot; the ballsy kid who swore lots, the barbershop, etc etc.<br /><br />but yeah. painfully bad. like, i was literally hurting. after an hour or so, my friends and i just got bored and left. | 0 |
10,702 | [
300,
400
] | 239 | 315 | Frank Tashlin's 'Censored' is a so-so Private Snafu short which aims to teach the importance of the Censor in stopping military secrets from leaking out. Snafu attempts to get word out to his girlfriend that he's to be stationed in the South Pacific but the Censor foils each attempt he makes to send the letter. These early scenes are the best, with the unseen Censor plucking the letter out of the sky with long mechanical arms, nets and even a specially employed eagle! The second half of the cartoon, in which Snafu manages to send the letter with the aid of Technical Fairy, First Class (who is actually teaching him a lesson), is less funny and climaxes with a disappointing only-a-dream finale. The main point of interest in this part of the cartoon is the appearance of Snafu's extremely scantily clad girlfriend who is even seen bare-breasted, albeit with strategically placed limbs at all times! Aimed at the military, the Snafu shorts were often characterised by a heightened bawdiness but these scenes, crowbarred in as they may be, are by far the most erotic I've come across in any of these shorts thus far. Despite all this, I prefer the Snafu shorts that go for the jugular a little more, usually resulting in the death of the main character. For great examples of this, seek out Tashlin's 'The Goldbrick' or Chuck Jones's 'Spies'. 'Censored' is fairly weak by comparison. | 0 |
10,705 | [
300,
400
] | 250 | 310 | First things first, how can someone with his creativity on the right side believe in a movie like this. I saw this movie and after end of couple of hours was left scratching my head, what exactly is director trying to say.<br /><br />If its a thriller, there are no thrills, if its action, there is no action barring a chase sequence, there is no Drama, and the much touted love story, it actually never takes off. No passion, emotion nothing is there.<br /><br />Actually I never expected wonders from the movie, however after the bumper opening it took, I thought of giving it a chance. I have no problems with Himesh Reshamiya whatsoever, and I am not one of the guys who will bash him at every given opportunity. I went in with an Open mind and came out with a closed one.<br /><br />Let's not put the blame of Himesh Reshamiya, he is just a Debutant Actor. But direction, screenplay, writing, makeup, everything has gone for a toss.<br /><br />Himesh is very stiff and would take a lot of time to come up the curve. He can do the don kind of roles. Hansika is just a kid, and it shows on screen with her baby fat and the way she walks.<br /><br />The only actor who was good was the friend of Himesh in the movie, I don't know his name, but he looks promising.<br /><br />Watch it at your own risk, not even good to watch it for a time pass viewing.<br /><br />** Strongly recommend to avoid this Movie.** | 0 |
10,714 | [
300,
400
] | 285 | 337 | This movie has to be the worst film of 2007, it was just really bad and i don't think i have ever seen a film that is just so bad, i mean the don't make really bad Hollywood films do they?? Hamish really should stick to singing instead of acting cause he just can't act at all, god he was just so bad, i mean he was that bad in the film that he made Mallika Sherawat look like a better actress than him, as for her performance, she plays the same role in every movie, god it is just so boring watching her, i mean what do men see in this woman?, yeah she has a god body but where is that talent???? i have not seen it yet and at this rate i don't think that i ever will.<br /><br />Anyway Hamish falls in love with Ria now this 15 year old girl can act, my god she was the best actor in the film and she does not look 15 at all, to me she looks about 21, but her performance was brilliant in the film. bless her she was really good, i hope to see more of her in the future. So Ria falls in love with Himash, but her father wants her to marry someone else, a typical bollywood film anyways there is a hiccup (can only happen in a bollywood film) and the both get married in the end.<br /><br />Well i would give th music 10/10 it was superb, that made the movie a hit, the songs were truly amazing and brilliant. anyways the only thing that i can say is to go and buy the music and not watch the film. | 0 |
10,722 | [
300,
400
] | 246 | 316 | Not to be confused with Michael Ritchie's nasty 1975 beauty pageant spoof, this "Smile" is a down-turned example of those good intentions paving the road to hell.<br /><br />The film parallels two stories: an impoverished Chinese father sacrifices his wife and son to raise a facially-deformed orphan named Ling (Yi Ding), and a TV-spawned Malibu family act out "Gidget Get Birth Control." Katie (Mika Booram, the third Olsen twin) plays a spoiled, self-absorbed high schooler distanced from reality. Her teacher (Sean Astin) paves the way for a school trip to China aimed at showing students how to work with deformed children.<br /><br />The film uses deformity as a means of suspense by treating Ling like the Frankenstein monster. Kramer continually masks her deformity through hats, hoods and camera placement. This approach exploits the freak show quality inherent in the material. She may be uncomfortable with the way society views her and Kramer's answer is to cover her up until the big reveal. Why disturb your audience with such unpleasantness? We see her face briefly at the end and only minutes before closing-credit snapshots of her after surgery disclose a swan beneath the harelip. It is not good enough to give the girl a reason to live; what is imperative is Ling being equally as hot and popular as Katie.<br /><br />Funding for the film came from a trust established by the late Roy Rogers and Dale Evans. They envisioned a heritage of quality family films. Give me "Son of Paleface" any day. | 0 |
10,723 | [
300,
400
] | 260 | 310 | I just purchased this movie because I love to donate to Operation Smile, the charity on which the movie was based...but I found the writing of the movie to be very strange. It t does not really focus so much on Operation Smile or similar organizations like The Smile Train and their Herculean efforts to relieve the suffering of children born with facial deformities in third world countries. No, it concentrates on an American teenage volunteer, Katie, whose "over-privileged" life in Malibu, California, includes a mother who brings her to a doctor so that she'll have birth control pills in her before she sleeps with her boyfriend. What is this birth control nonsense supposed to do, titillate the audience? It's 2005. I'd be more surprised if in 2005 a Malibu teen wasn't on birth control, and even if she is, so what and who cares? Contrasting Katie is the character of Lin in China, a girl with a facial deformity who missed last year's chance to get an operation and this year does not want to have one. Neither character is written in such a way that the audience can really identify with, let alone understand the motivations of, either girl. On the other hand, the actors do an adequate job of trying to play the bad hand they were dealt by whoever wrote this ridiculous script. The best performance was by the gentleman playing Lin's father although much of his dialogue is in Chinese and subtitled. Operation Smile deserved to be honored by a much better movie than this! | 0 |
10,725 | [
300,
400
] | 309 | 397 | Rarely seen a movie that deviates so much from the original premise and still remains (more or less) acceptable
Bloodline is a rather short (which is a good thing in this case) escapade that focuses on the mysterious Hellraiser box. Who wanted it to be made and how it cast a spell on the entire bloodline of the man who eventually created it. We're introduced to 3 generations of the Merchant family (all played by Bruce Ramsey); one in 18th century Paris, one in the present day and the last one in a future galaxy far, far away
Opinions on this storyline may differ a lot
either you think it's very idiotic and far-fetched or
original and dared. The initial atmosphere and setting by Clive Barker has completely vanished, yet the morbid surrounding remains and several sequences are still very creepy and unsettling. Hellraiser: Bloodline contains quite a lot of exquisite slaughtering and the charismatic presence of Pinhead (Doug Bradley) still is an extra horror-value. Pinhead accompanied by a pet puppy this time still knows how to kill
too bad he talks too much and his vicious speeches tend to get boring quickly. Best aspects in this production are the newly introduced `cenobites' and the occult Parisian portrait. Giant turn-offs are the weak script, the absence of the typical macabre humor and the lack of references to Barker's initial masterpiece. <br /><br />Although not highly memorable itself, Bloodline stands as the last watchable Hellraiser film. After this sequel, the series went downhill completely. So far, 2 more sequels came out (2 more are still in process) and neither of those is worth seeing. Hellraiser:Bloodline suffered from a lot of production difficulties and the director eventually preferred to be credited as Alan Smithee
Meaning he doesn't want to be remembered as the director of it. Who could blame him? | 0 |
10,729 | [
300,
400
] | 315 | 388 | In the XXII century an architect by the name of Merchant (Bruce Ramsay) commandeers a space station, which he personally designed. As can be predicted a special force is sent to retake the expensive station and put Merchant into custody. Upon arrival they find him partaking in a weird ritual with the use of a mysterious cubical. During interrogation he reveals that they must let him finish, what he has started or else the hell he has released will bathe in blood... In order to convince the officers holding him captive he reminisces about his heritage, about the toymaker who built the box and about the reasons as to why he is here in space...<br /><br />The movie that is essentially the same to Hellraiser, that The Quickening was to Highlander. Something to be ignored and forgotten, as so it won't influence the lore of Hellraiser to much. By far the most trashy of the franchise with a much more low-grade feel to it than its predecessors (who let's face it were B or C class films).<br /><br />Acting at times seems to be influenced by a mid-budget porn-flick with wooden unbelievable performances, that actually have you thinking: So when are they going to undress and start with the intercourse? Surprisingly not much sex in the movie, albeit the introduction of the seductress-demon Angelique (a totally superfluous character that unnecessarily messes with what we know of the world of Hellraiser) offers ample opportunities for the love-making.<br /><br />Basically the movie consists of three abruptly pasted together separate short stories (one in the future, one in the present and one in the past) which lack focus and are rushed along in amateurish fashion. The end result is extremely poor, basically underlined by the fact you have no interest into what happens to any of the characters in the film.<br /><br />Some decent gore in the flick, but apart from that an utter failure. | 0 |
10,738 | [
300,
400
] | 249 | 308 | When I first saw this movie in the theater I was so angry. It completely blew in my opinion. I didn't see it for a decade then decided what the hell, let's see. I'm watching all hellraiser movies now to see where it went wrong. My guess is it was with sequel 5 that was the first to implement the whole "i am in a dream omg i see weird stuff, oh noes what is happening, oh its a dream, oh its not a dream, oh wait i see something spooky, oh never mind"-sucky storyline. Those sequels don't even require the box to be opened, or stick to the rules from the first 4 movies that if you saw pinhead you are pretty much screwed and dead. The first 3 hellraisers sticked to this storyline which made it so scary in the first place. Nothing fantasy, nothing weird, the box got opened boom they came. Kirstey was the only one that could bargain her way out of it, first because of uncle Frank. Then because she had information about the cenobites. This movie at least attempts to stick to all that, even though it was a bad story it was still somewhat hellraiser. No I'm pretty sure part 5 was the first part to completely and utterly destroy the hellraiser series. Now they are remaking 1, and I don't even think I will watch it. Oh who am I kidding I probably will and probably will be disappointed.... again. | 0 |
10,741 | [
300,
400
] | 274 | 357 | Great subject matter, director, and cast somehow adds up to a truly abysmal film, told in that flat, semi-documentary style that was so popular around the time this film was made. (And hello, this is NOT a film-noir!) The lackluster, overly complicated, over-populated story has no arc, no focus point, little excitement, and staggers from one scene to the next with no discernible purpose, other than as a valentine to the supposed and highly doubtful cooperation between the American and Mexican governments on the issue of illegal immigration. <br /><br />The scene that made me HATE this film is when Montalban and Mitchell make a daring escape from their captors, race to presumably save Montalban's injured partner from being murdered by a goon with a gun driving a piece of farm machinery, Montalban says something like, "quick - we must try to save him," but instead of doing so they lie on their stomachs and watch in agony for about 5 (!) minutes of screen time as the machine bears down on Murphy and FINALLY runs him over (or so we assume - the machine simply stops, another goon detects the presence of the two "rescuers" and shoots at them as they run off again.) Scene over. The whole thing is so horribly filmed and utterly anticlimatic. There's nothing worse than a protagonist (ostensibly, Montalban, though he's off screen for over half the film) who doesn't even try. Jeez, Ricardo, do SOMETHING!<br /><br />I know it's Anthony Mann, but hell, not ALL of his films are classics, people. How bad does an old movie have to be around here to get anything lower than a 6 rating? | 0 |
10,750 | [
300,
400
] | 315 | 370 | I received this movie as a birthday gift because all of my friends know I'm a big fan of low budget Horror flicks. Kaufman Studios have always made the cheesy gory flicks that delivered. I loved to watch their films at home on rainy nights with my family...until I saw Bugged...WHAT HAPPENED?<br /><br />This Movie started out with a pretty good concept about mutating bugs and even added some slick comedy but overall the writing is just bad and that was mistake number one. Ronald K. Armstrong should learn to first be a better writer before becoming a filmmaker. After reading the Credits we discover he gave himself the most important role in the film!?! two words Mr. Director "Acting Lessons" OK? Mr. Armstrong joins the ranks of other writer/directors who cast themselves in their own movies and that's mistake number two. <br /><br />The only thing that I believed saved this film was the artistic camera work and the musical score, (let's hear it for the crew!) The cast of other actors who in the beginning of this production seemed a bit cold, really warmed up toward the middle and end of this production. Everyone pulled together and helped to pull this film off. Ronald Armstrong may lack the talent to ever become a decent Director or Actor but, I'll say this of him-He seems to know how to organize people to get them all to come together and pull his productions off.<br /><br />This film, I have to say can be an inspiration to any young filmmaker who dreams of making their own movie because if Mr. Armstrong was able to pull this off, Any one else can too. If you get a chance to see this film, watch it for the sake of getting inspired to do "Better" in the future. Hollywood needs bigger and better Horror Flicks to keep this genre coming back from it's grave. | 0 |
10,752 | [
300,
400
] | 307 | 362 | First of all, just let me say this... Ghost Story....hello!?!<br /><br />If any of the other people who trashed this movie from beginning to end realized this fact, their reviews would have been very different. The fact that characters kept disappearing whenever the protagonist turned back to look, should have been a dead giveaway. This movie was not billed as a ghost story when you went to rent it in the video store, not even a hint, and that is the BIGGEST mistake that was made by the studio who marketed it. It was deliberate on their part not to market it as a ghost story in order to confuse you like the main character is confused as you try to make sense of it. The problem in this is that they lost too many viewers; the ghosts appeared "too human and real" without any of the usual telltale signs, imagery or special effects that Hollywood usually uses to let you know you are now seeing a ghost...and that, is what they were trying to do. The main character does not know she is seeing ghosts and neither does the viewer. Now do you get it? As long as you understand that the main character is seeing ghosts, then you'll understand the movie and not be so irritated by what is perceived as major oversights in continuity or plot flaws.<br /><br />I admit, this being said, it still was not a good movie, just not as bad a just about everyone else made it out to be. Just understand, if you plan on watching this movie, everything you see, "ain't" always what what you think it is. 4 out of 10 for acting, 3 for originality, 5 for plot and 5 for scare factor, though there was some gore and spooky moments. Still not a good movie, just way misunderstood. | 0 |
10,761 | [
300,
400
] | 295 | 370 | This film is so bad it's hilarious. I watched Hell Ride half thinking it was a comedy, although I couldn't quite work out if they were actually taking the p*ss, or if this really was a serious attempt at making something decent. I notice it isn't listed here as a comedy so they must be serious! It's basically seems to be about a gang of pensioners who ride round on motorcycles shooting at each other and exchanging the most hilariously bad dialogue you can imagine. One scene inexplicably has two characters smashing bottles over each others heads, then showing each other 'get out of jail free' cards that they've made! Also check out Vinnie Jones' accent, where the hell is he meant to be from?!? Oh and there's a load of naked girls in it too, who for some unfathomable reason seem to want nothing more than to have none stop sex with these leathery skinned b*stards! The guy who wrote and directed it - a Pee Wee Herman lookalike with a Greeshan 2000'd beard and an orange sunbed tan - has for some reason cast himself in the lead role, maybe this is part of the joke, I don't know. Actually, the more I think about it the more I'm sure this film is a p*ss take. It's produced by Quentin Tarantino and it's possible he's released this in humour as a bit of a laugh. It is a total rip off of Tarantino's style, but just done really really badly. It is very amusing though, and I guess either way it could go down as a cult classic, either from being an amusing parody of the Tarantino/Rodriguez style, or something that is very very unintentionally funny. Has to be seen to be believed. | 0 |
10,770 | [
300,
400
] | 242 | 302 | This is my first "awful" rating ever on IMDb and I couldn't think of a more deserving film to honor it with. I hoped for entertaining trash and found trash of the saddest, dullest kind. I found a film which no one can possibly have cared a bit about, including its creator.<br /><br />"Hell Ride", directed, written by and starring Larry "Friend of QT" Bishop, has a simple plot about a hidden treasure and a trio of keys, two bands of bikers and a gruesome murder in 1976 which has yet to be avenged. Larry seems fiercely determined not to tell this story, focusing instead of putting his swaying, strangely grimacing main character into situations where he can fondle women who pretend to like it. He also has a dialog containing enough horrible fire puns/metaphors to put one off the word "fire" for life.<br /><br />Dennis Hopper escapes complete humiliation, others are not so lucky. Sometimes they hit the road on their bikes, making one feel even more sorry for Michael Madsen, since his high handles seems to add insult to the injury of having to appear in this film. There is plenty of silicon-enhanced nudity, but fairly little action and no humor whatsoever, making one wonder just what kind of an audience they had in mind.<br /><br />My guess is that most people who watch this film, including fans of trashy 60s biker movies, will feel cheated. Do yourself a favor and revisit the real stuff instead. | 0 |
10,840 | [
300,
400
] | 254 | 351 | This story is about a safari in Africa that meets some guy named Trent--who convinces them to look for a tribe of white babes. Naturally, they turn out to be amazon warriors and capture the men. The rest is pretty predictable.<br /><br />This movie has everything you'd expect in a bargain basement movie about Africa--the substantial use of often irrelevant stock footage, film of animals that are NOT native to the continent (such as Orangutans, Moose, Coatamundis and Ground Hogs),a white actor in dark makeup playing a native, bad acting (particularly from Trent--a handsome man with the personality of balsa wood), comic relief (sounding like Chico Marx), a guy dressed up in a gorilla suit and bikini-clad white women with perms who are supposedly fierce jungle warriors--like a tribe of angry female Tarzans. By the look of it, my assumption is that the movie was made for under $49.95--including developing costs and paying for rental of the gorilla suit! But, what I didn't expect was an IMDb score of 4.9. This is poor, but not that poor considering that this is a schlock production in every possible sense and there is no conceivable reason why the film is rated that high! Now I am NOT saying the film isn't worth seeing--it's campy and stupid enough to make enjoyable viewing--particularly with friends. Just don't expect anything resembling a professionally made or competent film.<br /><br />Finally, here's a smattering of the dialog from this jungle classic:<br /><br />"Oolama like strong white man. Oolama want strong white man..."<br /><br />"oonga-bunga" <br /><br />"me-te-tonga....no,....keeel ('kill') man" | 0 |
10,842 | [
300,
400
] | 282 | 347 | I'll have to admit that I'm at a disadvantage here; when I learn more about a film from other reviewers than from watching it myself, then that's a problem. Although the plot of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" seems generally straightforward, the movie allows too many cryptic elements to get in the way of what could have been a satisfying mystery. By the time we get to the scene where a witchy looking woman establishes the secrecy of "the first degree of the seven fold ray", I didn't know whether to laugh or rewind to see if I missed something.<br /><br />In retrospect, the cryptic note retrieved by Mr. Lawrence (Leslie Banks) from the handle of a shaving brush was a craftily written message, leading to a dentist named Barbor, and eventually to the Albert Hall, a place, not a person as indicated by "A. Hall". But for all the intrigue, it's never made clear why the assassination target was being eliminated. Okay, so Louis Bernard was killed because he knew of a plot to assassinate a diplomat named Ropa, but why was Ropa a target? Come to think of it, why was the note even written and secured in the shaving brush? Did Bernard have to refer to it every now and then to remind himself what was going to happen?<br /><br />With it's disjointed scenes, "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is hard to follow and a bit disorienting, however I'll give Alfred Hitchcock credit for this early effort. For perspective, I'll have to watch some of his other work of the same era, though this movie certainly can't hold a candle to his later works like "Psycho" or "North by Northwest". | 0 |
10,845 | [
300,
400
] | 285 | 372 | Jeremy Irons and Forrest Whitaker are good actors. But this movie was badly written. First of all, during the hijack scene, Irons sits too comfortably in his chair...he appears to be READING something, and rather calmly too! Perhaps the director shot the actor in between takes? Also, the violence at the hijacking was a big letdown. Slow-mo, bullets flying--how his wife and daughter get killed is just not that interesting and the tension is lost. His grieving afterward wasted another 10 minutes. Then he decided to "get revenge" and talk to all his industry journalist friends and ambassadors (he's a journalist for the stuffy Economist rag) and lo and behold, they actually give him tips on where to find the bad guys! How do they know? But what really made me turn the movie off halfway through was when Irons finds his way into a warehouse where baddies are hanging out--BUT NOT THE BADDIES WHO KILLED HIS WIFE--and blows them away anyway. so he's just a murderer. he gets away and, well...I shut it off. I mean I couldn't figure out how his friends knew anything, and also I thought he was after the remaining 2 guys in custody who were the original hijackers. Instead he's going after their friends, I guess, or anyone who hangs out in warehouses and leaves automatic weapons laying around. The suspense was just totally conventional and the dialog was lame ("it's OK son, crying helps," he says to his son. Son says "no it doesn't" and father says "You're right..it doesn't.")Irons takes on questionable roles--like that one dragon movie he did. He was excellent in Brideshead Revisited, which is a completely different animal than this lukewarm thriller. | 0 |
10,857 | [
300,
400
] | 252 | 314 | I tried watching this movie, but I didn't make it past the first 15 minutes. It's a terrible disappointment, considering the cast, but I can't look past the fact that the dialogue is in English and some of the actors pretending to be Indian are not even close (read: Kristin Kreuk). Considering that India alone has 1/6th of the world's population and one of the biggest movie industries, I don't think it would have been hard for the film-makers to have found an excellent Indian actress to play the part. And I don't say so because of some blind patriotism, but because it's absolutely and totally absurd for a non-Indian to play the role of an Indian/Pakistani. Now some people say that 'as long as she's convincing who cares?' but my point is exactly that she's NOT convincing and never can be - not due to her acting skills, but due to her ethnicity. For example, however good an actor Tom Hanks may be, he'll never be able to play an Australian Aborigine!<br /><br />But that is still minor to the biggest faux pas the film-makers made: having the dialogue in English. It totally destroys the mood, as well as any semblance of authenticity. Had the same movie been made in native languages (Hindi, Urdu, Punjabi) with English subtitles, this may have been an excellent movie. Unfortunately, as things stand, I would not recommend anyone seeing it, apart from film students who want to study "What not to do" in movies. | 0 |
10,873 | [
300,
400
] | 275 | 375 | How anyone can praise this crude film version after seeing the marvelous WATERLOO BRIDGE with Vivien Leigh and Robert Taylor, is beyond comprehension.<br /><br />MAE CLARKE's Myra is a far cry from the role as played by VIVIEN LEIGH in the remake. She plays a common American girl with a Brooklyn accent and the "Yeah" responses are a bit jarring when one is expecting a less coarse character. DOUGLASS MONTGOMERY (billed in final credits as KENT DOUGLASS) is wildly improbable as a soldier smitten with her no matter how many times she lets him down. BETTE DAVIS has a nothing role in a bit part.<br /><br />Their melodramatic confrontations during the last twenty minutes of the film are beyond belief (extravagant bits of overacting)--even given the fact that this is a cruder version of the story when sound was only a few years old and silent acting was still the rage.<br /><br />Just awful. And it ends abruptly with Clarke losing her life during a bombing on the bridge. The End.<br /><br />It has none of the beautifully shaded performances in the MGM remake of 1940, including a sterling supporting cast. Instead, this one is mounted with low-budget production values (and I mean a shoe-string budget) with no subtlety at all. And there's no pre-code braveness in the scene where Myra tells the aristocratic lady why she must not marry her son, Roy. She simply says, "I picked him up on Waterloo Bridge." Explanation over. Nothing bold there.<br /><br />Summing up: For once, the original is not the best version by any means. VIVIEN LEIGH and ROBERT TAYLOR have never been surpassed as Myra and Roy in the tender, exquisitely acted 1940 film classic. | 0 |
10,875 | [
300,
400
] | 298 | 378 | "Opposing Force [1986]" wasn't as good as "Dr. Strangelove" and it wasn't as good as "The Bridge on the River Kwai". Heck, it wasn't even as good as "G.I. Jane", which is pretty sad.<br /><br />The film revolves around a basic ethical problem: In a simulated prisoner-of-war situation, how far can you go before you start breaking the law? What exactly IS the law in such a situation? How can you simulate the torture of someone without actually torturing someone? Can you intentionally inflict pain? How about breaking bones? Mock executions? Sexual abuse? Severe blood loss? Real guns with bullets? Death? Somewhere between these is a really fuzzy line dividing "acceptable" from "atrocious".<br /><br />Now, what could you do if you found yourself in such a training program and the lines between simulation and reality begin to vanish? What could you do? This movie attempts to portray this dilemma.<br /><br />I found it interesting to see the types of tactics used in "resistance training". I have a brother who went through the USAF's POW training program. According to him, it was pretty close to the mark technically.<br /><br />The film has a fairly good premise, but it doesn't have a particularly good story. I wondered if it might be based on some actual event, but it became pretty apparent that it wasn't when the explosions started. They must have changed scriptwriters three quarters into the film, because it takes a real extreme turn and devolves into a somewhat pointless shoot-em-up with lots of distracting explosions. <br /><br />I found it to have a rather unsatisfying ending; again, kind of pointless. I'm left wondering what the point of the whole thing was - I'm beginning to suspect there simply wasn't one. It could have been much better with just a little more story to go along with the fireworks. | 0 |
10,876 | [
300,
400
] | 289 | 377 | What we know of Caravaggio suggests a strutting brawler with a healthy sense of entitlement who lived amongst whores and thieves and hustlers and put them on canvas. His works' themes were sex, death, redemption, above all, finding the sacred within the profane. He lived at a time where homosexuality carried a death sentence and political intrigue normally involved fatalities in a society defined by the maxim "strangling the boy for the purity of his scream".<br /><br />You can't fault Derek Jarman for his cinematography, nor his recreations of Caravaggio's paintings and you certainly can't accuse the man of shying away from the homosexuality. But frankly, Jarman never strays beyond 80s caricature. Italian patronage becomes the 80s London art scene complete with pretty waiters and calculators. Sean Bean is a sexy bit of Northern rough oiling his motorbike. Tilda Swinton performs a transformation worthy of a Mills and Boons ("Why, Miss Lena, without that gypsy headscarf, you're beautiful..."). Jarman provides Caravaggio with a particularly trite motive for the murder which left him exiled.<br /><br />This could have been a visually stunning treatment of a man whose life was dangerous, exciting, violent and decadent but who nonetheless elevated the lives of ordinary people to the status of Renaissance masterpieces, looked on by Emperors and Kings. Instead, what you get is Pierre et Gilles do Italy. The pretty bodies of young boys are shown to perfection, but never the men who inhabit them. Jarman appears to satirise the London art scene, showing it shallow and pretentious. To use Caravaggio and Renaissance Italy to make the point is to use a silk purse to make a pig's ear. In fairness, this film remains visually stunning, but ultimately as two dimensional as the paintings it describes. | 0 |
10,905 | [
300,
400
] | 272 | 343 | It's awful.<br /><br />Pretty succinct review I know, but it has been a long time since a film has left me in such a bewildered state - wondering how the hell a film like that gets made.<br /><br />The last time it happened was last years turkey 'Mission to Mars'.<br /><br />Salvatore Coco is an ex-con - trying to better himself through self help videos, endless seminars and betterment courses. He lives by the catchphrases these courses expound.<br /><br />He stumbles across a washed up nightclub singer, played by Nikki Bennett, and has an epiphany; his new career is going to be that of a talent agent - with the singer as his one and only client.<br /><br />Financed by his gospel singing, paraplegic girlfriend, played by Sasha Horler - he sets up shop and tries to relaunch Nikki's career, with disastarous results.<br /><br />'Walk the Talk' is the reason why Australians are so contemptuous of Australian cinema. It is poorly constructed, lame and way wayyy too long (111 minutes for a comedy that should barely have scraped the 80 minute mark).<br /><br />Every scene is too long, and are very repetitive. The audience is not given a character to empathise with; a vital ingredient in a film like this supposedly about an 'underdog' giving it a go.<br /><br />The downbeat and frankly poor ending comes at the end of 30 minutes of the most mind numbing dialogue and scenes that have you crying out for a power failure.<br /><br />This film is a failure on all levels - made worse for Queensland audiences by its liberal and innacurate use of various Gold Coast/Palm Beach location; and its laughable use of Brisbane suburb names like Norman Park and Caboolture. | 0 |
10,917 | [
300,
400
] | 284 | 328 | Even though he only made his debut film in Australia and left for Great Britain and then America to continue his career, Australians will tell you that the greatest film star they ever produced was Errol Flynn. I'm not sure he ever even went back to Australia after his breakout success in Captain Blood. Still I attribute this film to the well known Aussie irreverence for trashing the reputation of one of their own.<br /><br />Part of the problem in telling Errol Flynn's life story was that he told enough tall tales in his life right up to the very end in his memoir, My Wicked Wicked Ways. I could see that a lot of the film was based on that and upon reading between the lines of that book.<br /><br />His mother's infidelity to his father was not written, but could have been inferred in reading My Wicked Wicked Ways. He didn't particularly like the woman, that is clear from a few sources. <br /><br />I wish the film had dealt more with his New Guinea adventures, that to me was the most interesting part of My Wicked Wicked Ways. As for his street fighting in the Depression, I tend to disbelieve that. Even if he had been successful at it, I guarantee that enough of that would have ruined his looks and he would never have had a career as a leading man.<br /><br />Still the folks down under seem to think the atmosphere of Sydney during the Depression was captured well and Guy Pearce is a charismatic Errol Flynn. American audiences know him best as the uptight, but honest Lieutenant Exley in LA Confidential which came out the same year as Flynn.<br /><br />But LA Confidential was a far better film. | 0 |
10,918 | [
300,
400
] | 288 | 332 | I have no idea how accurate the portrayal of Flynn appears in this film but even as a work of fiction it is one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />The script is all over the place and leaves you wondering how he got from one scene to the next - you are just not given the minimum information needed to keep some continuity and understand his present situation, and it is difficult to understand Flynn's and other characters' motives behind some of their behaviour.<br /><br />Add to that a series of silly and implausible situations and you have film that comes across as one of your dreams that seems to make sense while you are asleep, but when you wake up and you try to remember it, it is just strange, disjointed and totally unrealistic.<br /><br />There are many long, boring musical sections of the film that to me are either bad direction or a bad director trying and failing to be artistic.<br /><br />None of the characters are even likable and the Flynn character comes across as a self serving liar, thug, thief, robber, murderer, bear fist fighter, gigolo and impostor who will do anything and step on anyone to further his own dreams, and somehow, despite all that, great opportunities just seem to miraculously fall into his lap.<br /><br />This film is not entertaining nor satisfying in any way and by all accounts not even historically accurate, so why even watch it? To rub salt into the wound, the DVD had one of the worst transfers I have ever seen, it wasn't even in wide-screen or Dolby 5.1, it had terrible telecine wobble and many, many artifacts from what looked like a film reel that had been gathering dust and scratches somewhere. | 0 |
10,926 | [
300,
400
] | 324 | 384 | Well, here we have a zombie movie that perhaps isn't even being much of a zombie movie. The entire movie is set in a zombie-plagued near future but yet the movie does very little with this concept. Instead it focuses on a zombie hunter who is trying to get revenge and his money back from a group of other bounty hunters. What good is money anyway when almost the entire world has gone to hell and towns are mostly desolate. And why pay money to people for killing zombies in the first place. As if people would not go on to kill this dangerous threatening monsters when they are not getting paid.<br /><br />Needless to say that the story for "The Quick and the Undead" is far from a tight one. It of course also isn't being filled with the most logical and interesting moments, characters or dialog.<br /><br />Still it's not a completely horrible movie. It certainly ain't as bad as some people try to make you believe it is. It's a rather good looking one, or rather said the movie at least doesn't have a cheap look over it. It's effects may be a bit overused but nevertheless they are quite good looking, as are the make-up effects as well.<br /><br />Still the movie was not what I hoped of it. Its title might suggest that the movie is set in the wild, wild west, during the days of the cowboys but its title is just a misleading one, no doubt picked to cash in on it. I fell for it, expecting this movie to be a combination of a western and a gory zombie-horror-flick.<br /><br />For the fans of the zombie movies this movie will mostly be a disappointment to watch. It of course adds nothing new to the genre but it also doesn't has enough of the genre itself in it to be considered a good one to watch.<br /><br />Not totally unwatchable but also far from a recommendable one.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
10,933 | [
300,
400
] | 278 | 377 | This movie baffled me. I could not get a grip on it. Thought I might be missing something. Glad to see that most of you agree with me. This isn't always the case (see my recent review of RE: Extinction).<br /><br />To expound upon the faults of this film any further would be a glorious waste of time...so I will...<br /><br />They're dressed like cowboys, but it's modern times, right? No? I don't get it??? When I picked up the box, I thought: ZOMBIE WESTERN! COOL! That's how it was presented. Haven't seen that yet. Hope they did a good job.<br /><br />They DIDN'T! They tried to create an iconic character that would spawn a series. They didn't.<br /><br />They tried to make an Aussie indie zombie flick on the caliber (and perhaps riding on the coat tails) of the very well done "UNDEAD". They didn't.<br /><br />Okay, maybe they just wanted to make a confusing, disjointed, mess of film salad that might ultimately be edited into something watchable. They DIDN'T! This is the new number 2 on my list of Worst Zombie Movies Ever. There are really just the two so far, "DAY OF THE DEAD: CONTAGIUM" being the first (not to be confused with "DAY OF THE DEAD", which is one of my favorite zombie movies of all time). If you're gonna make a zombie movie (and I'm not a zombie movie maker, I'm just a connoisseur) make a good one. Flight of the Living Dead is a good example of decent recent zombie filmaking. FYI.<br /><br />If you're really forgiving, you might think, well, didn't they at least throw in something to make us feel like we didn't want our money back? Guess what...THEY DIDN'T! | 0 |
10,942 | [
300,
400
] | 277 | 354 | Now, I like the Bollywood films and I'm very glad they have recently gained success in the UK. However, Suneel Darshan's latest effort is a deeply flawed film from start to finish.<br /><br />The idea of a modern-Bollywood take on Amadeus was quite an exciting one, that is until the two supposed 'musicians' appear on the scene looking as if they have never touched a piece of manuscript in their lives. Upen Patel is a very good looking man, and the film plays to his narcissistic sensibilities, but he is never once believable as a modern Mozart. In terms of acting, all he can do is stand there and pout. His expressions, hair and clothes all look the same throughout, including the scene where he is supposedly 'dying', when in fact he appears to have nothing but a slight sniffle. Bobby Deol, playing the Salieri role, does his best to liven up what little wooden script there is but, alas, just comes across as a little bit angry when he is supposed to be fuming with jealousy.<br /><br />Bollywood films are widely renowned for their stunning set-pieces and colour schemes, but Shaklaka looks like a drab BBC drama reproduction. In fact, the closest thing Shakalaka comes to is Hollyoaks, as it blatantly hides a really bad script behind beautiful people looking, well, beautiful. "He has yet to reach mediocrity" - the same could be said for the totally forgetful songs.<br /><br />In short, Darshan's latest offering has no boom, bang, wallop or twang. Instead it merely plods along with its head held low hoping to catch your attention with a soft tap on the shoulder. And that is not good enough at all. | 0 |
10,943 | [
300,
400
] | 291 | 373 | Most people get the luxury of typing in the title of a film, and finding out about the film before watching it but unfortunately I've just never been one of those kind of people. I wouldn't even read the synopsis for fear of spoilers but there are two sides to that because if you ignore such warnings and even give a film a chance after it has flopped in theatres, you're entering at your own risk and might just end up with a bad taste in your mouth which is exactly how I feel about this stupid movie.<br /><br />Honestly, the only thing good about Shakalaka-Crap-Crap are some of it songs (and seriously excluding the title track). Even the ever promising Kangana Renaut's talent (Metro, Gangster, Woh Lamhe) is seriously wasted here as she plays Ruhi, the woman who has captured the attention of both the leading male characters played by Bobby Deol (who plays A.J. a rootless music producer) and Upen Patel (who plays Reggi, an upcoming artist who crosses A.J.'s path). Celina Jaitley provides the right amount of OOMPH required of a socialite who gets jilted by Reggi (whom she helped get his foot in the record industry's door). This doesn't sound like a mix or movie that should include Anupam Kher right? Well, you're wrong because he's in it as Reggi's father (another wasted talent).<br /><br />The film might not have been so bad had their not over-killed the writing behind Deol's character. The moral message was too preachy (revenge had a deadly dark side) and the ending was way too overblown that it will make you wonder why you sat down to such a foolish movie in the first place. Truly, this is the epitome of crap. | 0 |
10,945 | [
300,
400
] | 278 | 342 | Shakalaka Boom Boom is a rip off from the movie Amadeus. I personally rate Amadeus as one of my favorites not only because it is about music, which is my favorite subject, but also because it tells us the real story of a musical genius who is not only remembered for the voluminous works of beautiful music he produced during his life-time, but for his own self-destructive nature and his tragic death at a young age of 35, being virtually uncelebrated during his life time because of the politics played by some people, particularly Saliere, the Italian composer, who was jealous of him.<br /><br />Personally, I was shocked to see Shakalaka.., as the director has invariably cut-pasted most of the scenes from the movie Amadeus. I see the worst kind of plagiarism in this movie and am skeptic about the kind of movies Bollywood keeps on churning day by day. The movie is a disaster, the two musicians in the movie don't give you any feeling of being realistic, the film is tasteless, meaningless and total failure on every count. The only person who makes an impact is Bobby Deol, who at least knows how to act. Otherwise, the whole cast looks like a bunch of amateurs.<br /><br />The irony is that while watching the movie, the first screen in the movie says that all characters in this movie are fictitious and that any resemblance with anyone is purely coincidental which is a blatant lie, because all resemblances are very much clear and they are very much intended. I wish I could take Darshan and Co. to court not only for Copyright Infringement, but also for mutilating a beautiful work of art. | 0 |
10,949 | [
300,
400
] | 249 | 346 | Oh, my. Oh, this is a *really* bad movie. The acting is absolutely atrocious, the script is god-awful, and the photography is simply dreadful.<br /><br />What does make this movie stand out, however, is that you never once care about a single soul-- good guy or bad guy, living, dying or dead-- in the entire 87 minutes. "Oh, s/he died? Huh... Figured they would" was the best reaction I could muster after each murder. Characters are so black-or-white that with the volume turned off, you could still figure out who was who. While the cast's voices had an odd monotone quality throughout, their faces give the impression that you're looking at an old silent movie with a lot of eyebrow waggling, exaggerated frowns and "pensive looks". Each character is a humorless, passionless, one-dimensional one-trick pony; once they fulfill whatever their particular role in this fiasco demanded their creation, they are summarily dismissed.<br /><br />It vaguely made me think of what would happen if Thomas Borch Nielsen (director/writer of "Skyggen", American title: "Webmaster") decided to do a low-budget version of "American Psycho" and got kind of distracted along the way.<br /><br />This isn't a particularly gruesome movie; the cold, passionless cast ensures that. It isn't an offensive movie; the director plays it so safe that no one could possibly find it so. It is, simply and after all, a bad movie.<br /><br />Avoid it. We were not so fortunate and actually paid to watch this bomb on Pay-per-View. As part of my penance, I'm writing this review.<br /><br />Enough said. | 0 |
10,959 | [
300,
400
] | 319 | 391 | It looks like people involved with this movie are stuffing the ballot box to boost its ratings. The good news that apparently only 18 people have seen it. I suppose that makes me the 19th. I have no involvement with the flick and don't know anyone who did and I'm a long-time IMDb user (check my vote record and reviews over the past seven years), so I promise I'm giving an honest and unbiased opinion. It's coming to you from a 30-year horror fan who has also appeared in a couple of low-budget flicks himself.<br /><br />Aside from a couple of interesting video effects, "Frankensteins Bloody Nightmare" is incoherent, boring, and technically flawed beyond all reason. It was apparently shot on silent stock and the audio then dubbed in; most of it sounds like it was recorded with a tin can and a piece of string, anyhow. More than three quarters of the dialog is inaudible.<br /><br />I watched this from beginning to end and have no idea of what the story was, or even if there was one. It seems like the director is mostly impressing himself with long, panning shots of the corners of table and dead black spaces that do nothing but pad the film out. That would be a problem if one were actually developing a plot and making a film that had some sense of pacing. In this case, though, the rule doesn't apply. It doesn't matter how scenes are shot because they don't add up to a story.<br /><br />Watching this video is an exercise in futility at every level. Whatever people who worked on it are writing and however they're trying to influence the ratings here on IMDb, this is just bad, tedious stuff.<br /><br />That's the honest truth. If you're thinking of spending your money or time on this one, think again. It's easy to find something better because you won't find much worse.<br /><br />And that's the unbiased, unvarnished truth. | 0 |
10,961 | [
300,
400
] | 275 | 359 | One of the commentators on the subject of Lil' Pimp (dbborroughs of Glen Cove), got it right when he/she stated that the movie is really bad but I take exception when he/she commented on the animation.<br /><br />The animation wasn't bad because of Macromedia Flash. It was bad animation because it was directed wrong. Flash is just a tool. In the right hands, an artist can create animation as full and fluid as any Disney film and, in the wrong hands, it can look as bad as the stuff on the internet, which is where Lil' Pimp originated and should've stayed there.<br /><br />Studios such as Cartoon Network, Nickelodeon, Disney, and Warner Bros., create wonderful animation using Flash (i.e., Puffy Ami Yumi, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Mucha Lucha, etc.).<br /><br />Lil' Pimp was an ill conceived piece of tripe that was made because Revolution Studios bought Media Tripp and Lil' Pimp was one of the properties included. Roth and company thought they'd make a quick buck exploiting a turd like Lil' Pimp and the sham was perpetuated by it's producer, Amy Pell. The reason for this third trimester abortion of an animated film is that none of the executives at Revolution Studios had the pragmatic brains to sideline Mark Brooks and Peter Gilstrap (they really tried their best but were way in over their heads), and hire real writers, directors and at least a semi-competent producer. They did one thing correctly though, they hired some of the best storyboarders, designers, and animators in LA, but as Lil' Pimp demonstrates, one can buy the best sports car on the floor but if you're a moron, you'll wreck it for sure. | 0 |
10,964 | [
300,
400
] | 280 | 325 | First things first, I am by no means a picky movie watcher. I'm not one of those people who gets movies just to pick apart the flaws and criticize, I, like most other people, watch to be entertained. I'll basically watch any type of movie of, no matter how bad anyone says it is (sometimes a movie's so terribly made and written that it invokes a sort of pity humor which i get a kick out of). With all that aside, lil pimp was simply pathetic. I saw it on TV and just didn't know what I was watching. It was too poorly written and cheesy to be an adult movie, and had way too much sex, innuendo and swearing to be a kid's movie, in fact, I doubt even kids would be amused by it. The humor (pretty generous even calling it that) was so pretentious and campy, I couldn't see how anyone with half a mind could even find it funny. The only thing that made me laugh was how people like Bernie mac and ludicrous could put their name and time onto/into something so hurting. Luda's character was such a cheap ploy for laughs, which fell extremely short of its goal. The plot didn't make any sense whatsoever, the storyline has got to be the worst sequence of events ever put together on screen. I could keep going on, but I want to see what people think of my reaction before I start discussing specific instances of pathetic scenes. All I have to say is it really has to make ya wonder how much time these writers spent on their knees trying ta get it made.<br /><br />J | 0 |
10,967 | [
300,
400
] | 271 | 331 | Why, oh why, is this trash considered a classic? I've seen higher body counts on episodes of The Simpsons. Virtually nothing happens in this film and much of it's running time is filled with nearly unbearable melodrama straight out of a low-rent soap opera.<br /><br />The Trenton family are going through tough times and when dad is away mommy and little boy go to get the car fixed. But when they get to the ranch they discover that the guard dog has gone mad. The rest of the film is just them sitting in the car while the slobbering St. Bernard circles them over and over.<br /><br />Regarding the kid, I have never, ever seen a more annoying child in a film in my life. And obviously he's completely Aryan since blonde-haired and blue-eyed kids, such as the one prominently featured on packets of Kinder chocolate, are apparently more sympathetic than people with brown eyes and dark hair, like me. All he does is cry and whine. Same goes for mommy. She gets out the car, she gets in the car, she gets out the car, she gets in the car.<br /><br />I know this was made in 1983 but I just sick to death of horror films where the characters make stupid, illogical decisions. If mommy just used some common sense she'd be able to get away from the icky dog.<br /><br />It's very poorly written and there's zero tension. If you want to see a good "bad dog" movie then check out John Lafia's Man's Best Friend. It's funny, inventive, has a better dog, a higher body count and a more involving story. Leave this garbage be. | 0 |
10,970 | [
300,
400
] | 259 | 346 | It takes an eternity for this typically over-simplistic and idiotic Stephen King-based film to finally get out of the starting blocks. About half-an-hour is spent on needless introductions to various boring characters and their irrelevant little personal problems that might excite bored housewives and apathetic pensioners in soapy dramas, but this is supposed to be the horror genre (or so I naively thought). The mutt fails to look all that fearsome, which Leonard Maltin, the notoriously clueless/hopeless and always grinning film critic, would disagree with: he considers Cujo to be "genuinely frightening". (I often do have to wonder if Maltin is genuinely thick - or merely likes to do favors for his Hollywood friends...) It's both illogical and inconsistent the way Wallace survives an attack with only a leg injury. And, naturally, her car breaks down just when she needs it to save her life: this is one of the oldest horror-film clichés; trust King to use it to minimum effect. The premise is imbecilic, too banal, even for a horror film: a rabid mutt attacks a family. Is that it? This sort of thing barely constitutes a 3-minute sub-sub-plot in your average zombie film. I think even Cujo must have sensed that he was starring in a turkey. Mutts have terrible agents... But what I really don't understand is how people can actually throw themselves at the "Cujo" book and read it from cover to cover? These SK fans must be immortal: that's the only explanation, i.e. why they treat time as such a meaningless commodity.<br /><br />Bodycount: 3. | 0 |
10,972 | [
300,
400
] | 288 | 336 | Don't get me wrong, I love Stephen King! And this is a pretty good movie over all. The rabid Cujo is very scary and the movie is suspenseful. But after the first few minutes that poor Donna and her little son Tad were held captive in their Pinto by the rabid St. Bernard, I began to wonder why she didn't do something to help herself.<br /><br />She could have stuck her foot out the door and pushed the car backwards (I mean, it was a Pinto for Pete's sake and they were on a downhill incline) and rolled to safety, but then it would have been a very short movie. When she got the car started, did she pop it into reverse and hope that she could get at least get part way down the driveway? No, she tries to make a three point turn in a car with a bad alternator. She did manage to get out of the car and look around for 45 seconds or so at one point to try and get to a baseball bat that was lying on the ground nearby--what a waste of time! I mean, if you're going to make a run for the bat, do it and at least you'll have something to hit the dog with. But, forget the bat. Were there no tools in the car, like a tire iron or something? I didn't see her looking in the spare tire well of the car. Really, why wait until you're bitten and weak from dehydration and your son is having seizures before you make a stand against the animal?<br /><br />At the end of the movie she was battered and torn, but by God she was still wearing high heels! | 0 |
10,983 | [
300,
400
] | 248 | 305 | If only he hadn't bowed to cliché, Mr Shiban could have actually made a good film from this story. It was just different enough to keep you interested, so for the same amount of time, energy and money as was spent on this stinker, we might have had something good instead of eye-rolling.<br /><br />Production-wise, it is as good as one could really expect from a hand-held camcorder, so he gets good marks there. It's really the script that's at fault, as the acting wasn't all that bad, either, considering what the actors had to work with.<br /><br />I thought the days were long gone when we would see someone, finding a radio transceiver they desperately wish to operate, first turn every knob on the thing from end to end, bash it on top 6 or 7 times, and then expect it to work. This story is ruined by a continuous string of stupid moves by all the characters except the bad guy. It's as though we are thought to be too shallow to grasp all the plot devices, so they are all spoon-fed to us to make sure we get them.<br /><br />I don't know about you, but that doesn't work on me. My attention ends up being occupied by the plot holes and over-dramatizations, not the story.<br /><br />So, since I found this to be not so bad in the technical sense, I think Mr. Shiban should try again, only with a proper script next time; then he might give us something worth watching. | 0 |
10,999 | [
300,
400
] | 258 | 322 | This movie has to rank with "Welcome to the Jungle" and "The Hitcher" and "Dream Catcher" for sheer god-awfulness. You've got the most irritating heroine in gore history who spends most of her time sobbing and wailing and shrieking--all the time in the most horrendous rest stop toilet ever put on film. Why she spends so much time in this ghastly bathroom from hell is never explained. Even when the usual killer truck driver is trying to murder her, she refuses to leave the crapper. When a motorcycle cop comes to her rescue, the killer truck driver runs over the cop's legs while the heroine just looks on. Instead of grabbing his gun for protection, she drags the poor slob into the crapper and locks the door. Then the cop orders her to blow his brains out because of the pain. She does so--while wailing and sobbing and keening--and blows the back of his head off. Then--the cop, still alive, beg her to shoot him again because he's still in pain. He says this while the entire back of his head is all over the floor. The sobbing, wailing heroine shoots him again. The movie goes on and on like this, none of it making any sense. The heroine is so dislikable you really want the killer to off her early on. I saw this flick on the Sci-Fi channel so it didn't cost me anything to watch, but still I did watch, out of sheer fascination as to how a movie could end up so terribly bad. | 0 |
11,006 | [
300,
400
] | 253 | 355 | Continuing in the string of "stalker/slasher" flicks in the vein of "Wolf Creek," "Hostel," "Joy Ride," etc., comes "Rest Stop." The most unoriginal and useless one of them all.<br /><br />We start, reasonably promising, with the violent death of a pretty young girl in a filthy restroom.<br /><br />This is where our interest is lost. We, then, move to the cliché road trip couple, on their way to LA with their eyes on acting stardom. . . which, doing movies like this, they'll never achieve.<br /><br />From the sexual romp in the park, the couple drives, arguing all the way, to a deserted and disgusting rest area for the girl to use the bathroom. Harmless enough until she exits and finds her boyfriend missing and realizes she's being stalked by a lame version of "Joy Ride"'s Rusty Nail. . . only driving around in Mater from "Cars".<br /><br />Honestly, if this had been directed/written/produced/acted by anyone else, it might've been fairly good. But no.<br /><br />Because then comes the ghost story. Yup. . . you guessed it. Plenty of "oh, i'll help you, but wait, you're dead" to "wait is this stalker a person, monster, or ghost?".<br /><br />But wait? Who comes to the rescue to save the girl's life and possibly the movie? That one Lawerence brother. Excellent. We're saved. (sarcasm) Oh wait, no we're not.<br /><br />You know. . . if you want to laugh off a pretty bad, or if you get free rentals like I do, give it a try.<br /><br />If anything, you'll learn how NOT to make a movie.<br /><br />-AP3- | 0 |
11,019 | [
300,
400
] | 248 | 340 | Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito), a "crypto-zoologist" (fancy term for one of those self-deluded losers who likes to study extremely rare - read: nonexistent - animals) and his crew of hunters manage to trap a Chupacabra, a big, scaly, elusive fast-moving beast. To get it to the mainland, they smuggle it on a Grecian cruise ship and some idiots open up the crate containing it despite being told specifically not to. I guess the strange growling noises coming from inside weren't a good enough deterrent either. The monster then does the monster thang; running around biting chunks out of various passengers until the ship's captain (John Rhys-Davies), a square-jawed special agent pretending to be an insurance salesman for some reason (Dylan Neal), a squeaky-voiced blonde Tai Bo instructor (Chelan Simmons), a bunch of guys with machine guns and others try to stop it. The main victims (who I think are supposed to be the comic relief but it's hard to tell) are an old rich bitch (Paula Shaw) with a yippy terrier and a snobby effete gold-digger (David Millbern). Apparently the monster can be knocked out with a single tranquilizer dart, but can live through dozens of bullet hits. The Chupacabra design is acceptable (though unoriginal) but the rest of the movie is devoid of suspense, surprise or interest. A boring Sci-Fi Channel "original" movie; they've made dozens of movies just like this with nearly interchangeable characters and plots, but with slight alterations on the creature. Enough already! | 0 |
11,020 | [
300,
400
] | 297 | 380 | Chupacabra: Dark Waters has to rank as one of the most insipidly moronic movies ever made. I had expected at least some passable entertainment because John Rhys Davies was involved, and after seeing this movie, I can honestly say I lowered my opinion of Mr. Davies substantially.<br /><br />Why? The acting is incredibly poor. An excellent actor like Davies should have demanded more from the cast and the director. It was painfully obvious that Mr. Davies was just clock-watching and hoping the check would not bounce. To say that he just showed up would be an understatement. But at least he did show up. The rest of the cast looks like they mailed it in from their respective jobs at the various Los Angeles restaurants where they work as waiters. Talk about a cast of unknowns! This is the kind of cast that never appears in movies again. They act as if they were auditioned while waiting at the unemployment office.<br /><br />What about the special effects? Store bought firecrackers, Styrofoam, a cheap rubber suit and CGI effects that look like they came from my 1980 Atari Game. I have seen some horrible special effects used on Sci-Fi Channel movies, but this stuff looked like cut-and-paste done at the kindergarten by someones' child. I expected Mr. Crabs and Sponge-Bob would show up at the end to battle the Chupacabra. Not to mention that all the accounts of the creature describe it as a small gremlin-like critter. It would have been a good film for a Leprechaun-like character. Instead, we get a gigantic hulking creature that is shown walking with stop-action speeded-up effects that are laughable. The chupacabra is in one place and then it shuffles at super-speed down the hall and it is worth a few laughs just to see this. | 0 |
11,024 | [
300,
400
] | 305 | 374 | I found this movie to be a big disappointment, especially considering the cast. The characters are not believable, as are the ridiculous circumstances in which they find themselves. The only part of the film I enjoyed was when the most annoying characters finally get killed. The special effects consist mostly of scenes of gory dead or dying bodies. A typical unimaginative slasher flick.<br /><br />It's hard to believe, make that impossible to believe that a reclusive creature that sneaks up on goats in the middle of the night could be captured by a group of clumsy, noisy idiots. Equally impossible to believe is how they knew exactly were to find it, in spite of the fact the creature has evaded capture, or even photographing.<br /><br />The man that pulls off the impossible in capturing the Chupacabra alive is our one dimensional Dr. Pena (Giancarlo Esposito). The only thing Dr. Pena is more obsessed with than the creature is his dart gun. A dart gun that works were mere bullets fail.<br /><br />The captain of the ship (John Rhys-Davies) is introduced as a 'war veteran'. He employs his military prowess by having his men shoot at the creature, regardless of were on the ship they happen to be. The Navy Seals that show up from nowhere repeat the pattern of shooting at everything.<br /><br />Dylan Neal plays an insurance investigator brought on board the cruise ship to catch a thief. He spends most of the movie tagging along with whomever is trying to kill the creature at the moment.<br /><br />The creature doesn't even closely resemble a Chupacabra. It doesn't behave like one either. Instead of a small, shy, secretive animal that hunts by stealth at night, we get a bulletproof Freddy Kruger, killing everything in sight. A simple search on Google would have been very helpful to the writers and the special effects crew. | 0 |
11,059 | [
300,
400
] | 263 | 317 | The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left. In between these things, you get to enjoy blank, black screen. These are not quick but rather several seconds long. I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.<br /><br />I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy. However, this movie takes that to the extreme. Every single time the characters move the camera is bouncing. Sometimes so much that you can't make heads or tales as to what you are looking at. That brings us to lighting. Way too dark in some areas. I get that they are trying to make us feel like we are in a cave, but Helllloo... I'm watching a movie here, it would be nice to be able to see.<br /><br />Then there is the ending. I actually blurted out loud, "Are you kidding me?!" (I was watching alone too). Dumb, dumb. I think the ending was purely the effort of the people who made this disaster to shock us after so much time of boredom with a so called "twist". At this point of the movie you could have seen the "monster" picking his nose and it would be considered a "twist". Truly horrible. You have been warned. | 0 |
11,061 | [
300,
400
] | 262 | 309 | The Cavern: 2 out of 10: Blair Witch meets The Cave and gives me a headache.<br /><br />I have something to ask all film schools, could you please teach future directors how to hold a camera steady. Flailing the camera around like Aunt Betty with 12 drinks is headache inducing.<br /><br />Also film is primarily a visual medium directors may want to point their camera's in the general direction of the action. Film also requires light to work. Perhaps a light source should be employed so one can see the action on the screen. I know it is a cave movie but there is absolutely nothing frightening about watching pitch blackness for minutes at a time.<br /><br />For that matter showing the film upside down doesn't indicate confusion on screen it indicates confusion in the editing booth.<br /><br />A last note to the director I'm sure there was a good reason to have a horribly fake CGI campfire. I honestly can't for the life of me think of one.<br /><br />Now on to the screenwriter. Try to make at least one character likable. I'd prefer two or more but one decent person I can root for or care about might help. Also if you are going to have flashbacks make them relevant to the story.<br /><br />If you are going to have a surprise ending it is probably best if it doesn't contradict every single thing that comes before it. And try adding some fancy spelunking terms to a cave movie. You might have wanted to start with spelunking.<br /><br />The Cavern is a pretty bad film, poorly shot with a confusing, improbable and anticlimactic ending. | 0 |
11,062 | [
300,
400
] | 273 | 357 | When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.<br /><br />This is a film of bad camera-work. Everything 'frightening' happens off screen, usually accompanied with a closeup of someone yelling "Did you see/hear that?" Well, no, we didn't see that! We can't! And when there weren't any close-ups, the camera was doing something weird like rotating upside down, or shaking back and forth really, really quickly, to either convey action or to make us physically sick.<br /><br />The characters were unlikeable because every two minutes, they started screaming the same thing over and over again. I don't care if that's what it would 'really' be like, I did not rent a scary movie to see reasonable things! I expect unreasonable things, like aliens, demons, or good acting! They were stupid, too- Let's go have intimate relations in a cave! With all of our clothes on! Speaking of which, the ending somewhat contradicts what Domingo said immediately before he died. This bugged me a bit, though not nearly as much as the fact that the ending resulted in a... serious invasion of one girl's privacy.<br /><br />No plot, no climax, no good acting, terrible camera-work. What's left? Oh, right. The ending may have had a 'twist' but generally with horror movies, the twist at the end actually has understandable relevance to what occurred during the film. Sixth Sense does- it explains a lot. Hide and Seek did, too. But the Cavern had a lame twist that served as an 'explanation', if you could call it that as it doesn't. Explain. Anything.<br /><br />Don't see it. Please. | 0 |
11,064 | [
300,
400
] | 321 | 370 | A group of cavers with a sad history take an author on a 'hairy' adventure through an uncharted cave in Kazakhstan. In these times of remakes and sequels and film companies trying to cash in on any winning combination of cinematic components, The Cavern has only one relatively different twist on the previous eight cave movies over the last few years, and that twist seems to be taken from an X-File. I like to give every film the benefit of the doubt, but there were just too many little annoyances for me here. The camera work can give you a headache as they seem to constantly confuse which way is up. Not being a caver, it doesn't really matter to me whether the filming was realistic. There is entirely too much unnecessary PANNICK from supposedly experienced cavers, by the last half you're saying out loud one of two things oh just shut up and concentrate on saving yourselves, or I hope you all die by the end. It must have been very tiring for these decent actors to make this film. A moderate amount of gore and nothing special in the dialog or characters. While you're pretty confident you know what's going on by the end, the last five minutes explain all the details. But I would have had a better opinion of the movie if they would have left the last minute on the cutting room floor. It just wasn't necessary. I suggest you hit eject immediately after your suspicions are confirmed and save yourself the setup for the sequel. I've long thought that the film industry should share a modified restaurant industry's checkout scheme. You pay for the materials to make the film before you go in, but any profits for the film come from the tips you give when you leave the cinema. I can't blame what I don't like about this film on its low budget. | 0 |
11,066 | [
300,
400
] | 257 | 337 | I can't say if "The Cavern" is a ripoff of "The Cave" because I haven't seen that. I've seen "The Descent" and that's not terrible but it is very hard to watch and so is this one. Hard to watch, as in, there's very little light and lots of fast motion so you're hard pressed to say what you're looking at. There are times when I guess, you're supposed to be scared, judging from the music, but scared of what? Bad camera work? Poor lighting? If that's the case than this should be the scariest movie made. The story is that a bunch of cave explorers go to a cave in Kazakhstan (home of Borat) and make their descent, but something is (of course) in there with them. And what is it? One guy says it's a wolf/bear hybrid, that is, just before he gets ripped apart, but whatever it is, you can't see it. And just when you think (or hope) the film is ending, since the screen goes dark for a bit, you see the two remaining cavers (the two women) wake up somewhere in Betty and Wilma attire and start trying to find their way out of wherever they are. They do drink some water and start eating SOMETHING until they figure out what it is and start puking....and then the mystery of what's in the cave appears, and you'll just be astounded. Maybe, maybe not. Dumb dumb dumb....I think I'm pretty well done with cave movies at this point, 2 out of 10. | 0 |
11,067 | [
300,
400
] | 284 | 340 | Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're "The Cavern".<br /><br />A good horror/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die. However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.<br /><br />All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.<br /><br />(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.<br /><br />I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch "The Descent", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either. | 0 |
11,074 | [
300,
400
] | 297 | 344 | I have recently seen a string of caving movies and this film managed to cobble together all the worst aspects of this kind of film. You get very little appreciation for the caving surrounds or the monster that they face, while the characters are clichéd (spiritual guy, leader with tragedy in recent past etc) and the ending was just weak. It really annoyed me that the director kept shaking the camera or showing almost total darkness to create atmosphere. I have read that this movie gave a real representation of caving and yeah, I imagine that caves are dark. Showing near total blackness for half the film really brought that home. I quite enjoyed "the descent" which, for my money had better acting, showed more tight caving situations, better monsters and had a good ending.<br /><br />****spoiler******<br /><br />The monster turns out to be some guy whose plane crashed and parents were killed, leaving him to grow up in the caves. He seems to have developed super strength and speed, but why is never addressed - maybe the same force that drained their torch batteries caused this but during the film whenever someone is killed you get the impression of something large with claws that tears up each victim (see how much blood splatters the walls!) but in the end its just some dude with a fur draped over him and a mask? I would be willing to overlook this if great heights of suspense were reached but this was hardly the case. Then he starts raping the last remaining caver and roll credits... Almost absurdly bad I thought. Sometimes a film is soo bad you can appreciate it and maybe have a laugh, but this films fails to take itself lightly as well. <br /><br />You watched it, you can't unwatch it! | 0 |
11,078 | [
300,
400
] | 287 | 355 | There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.<br /><br />To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up. Since the actors are wearing helmet lights, this means all we see are glaring lights alternating with utter darkness - we never get to see what the characters see; so when they shout out "Look there!" we are left to beg "What?! Where?!". Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.<br /><br />And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest"Eegah!" with Richard Kiel.<br /><br />But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like "Eegah!"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?! But that's what we have here, folks. Except that, unlike "Eegah!", "The Cavern" is not anyone's idea of goofy fun. It is unwatchable. (I ran it at x2 the normal speed, just to get it over with, hoping I would actually be able to see something by the end of the film; but when I did, it was just stupid.) This film did provide me with one satisfying moment, though; since it only cost a couple bucks, after I got it out of the DVD player, I was able to smash it with my own hands - what a relief! | 0 |
11,092 | [
300,
400
] | 244 | 333 | By Jove, what an unholy mess! Revenge, incestuous love, mechanical games-like fighting, ceaseless and utterly unnecessary violence, some primitive "music" hammering away at the bewildered victims, big "surprises" (which actually tend to be about as "revelatory" as The National Enquirer's headlines). Add some shoddy camera movements pretending to be stylish and creative and you've already impressed the crowds. This movie's totally undeserved popularity powerfully indicates the very low level pop sub-culture has succeeded not only in achieving in the last decades, but also in imposing as dominant taste on an impotent audience. (For by far deeper insights into human sufferance under mental sickness, without "Oldboy"s vulgar excesses, I recommend an older Dutch/French movie, "The Vanishing".) <br /><br />Well, don't believe there's absolutely nothing good to say about this movie. In fact there is. The (in)famous scene in which the hero (is really a "hero", an abject father who sleeps with his daughter and then attempts to obtain forgetfulness rather than redemption?) eats a live octopus benefits greatly from the vivid presence of the best actor in the entire cast: the octopus itself. Too bad the poor beast, having been eaten, couldn't survive its one and only act in order to obtain yet another worthless diploma, for the "best actor", at the Cannes festival. <br /><br />Which festival, by the way, between Moore's propaganda nonsense and this epitome of worthless if somewhat exotic weirdness, became a festival of the vapid and of the ludicrous.<br /><br />Sic transit gloria mundi! | 0 |
11,120 | [
300,
400
] | 241 | 311 | Since I'd bought the DVD, I watched as much of this as I did out of a sense of obligation to my wallet.<br /><br />The plot has Kirk Douglas as a successful first novelist who hired Laraine Day as a secretary, falls in love, and marries her. Complications ensue.<br /><br />Douglas is usually thought of as an intense actor, given to heavily dramatic roles, sometimes hero, sometimes rat. He's not bad in this thoroughly comic part. The problem is that the part isn't particularly comic and neither is anything else.<br /><br />The plot rambles on. A dozen "quirky" characters come and go -- most prominently Keenan Wynn as Douglas's friend who does nothing but make wry comments. Thelma Ritter was better at this sort of thing.<br /><br />Well, if the plot is weak it could still have been rescued by some sparkle in the dialog but there is none to speak of. Some gags are silly. Others don't clear that bar. Here's what I thought of as an amusing line. Douglas has just hired Day and wants to get her down to the beach house and seduce her. Day is disturbed and remarks that she's never heard of a writer working in a beach house. Wynn asks if she liked Douglas's previous book, "Last Year's Love." Yes, of course she did. "Well, most of 'Last Year's Love' was done in the beach house." Ha ha.<br /><br />Nice cast, including support, but a failed comedy. There have been better sitcoms on television. | 0 |
11,130 | [
300,
400
] | 274 | 346 | If you really really REALLY enjoy movies featuring ants building dirt-mirrors, eating non-ants, and conquering the world with a voice-over narrative, then this is the movie for you. Basically, a couple of scientists working out of a bio-dome communicate with highly intelligent ants (the most intelligent actors in this film) in an attempt to try to thwart their plans of conquest and extermination. Throughout the movie the two scientists (and a girl they rescued from the ants) use everything at their disposal (computers, green dye, and horrid acting), but to no avail. I guess they just couldn't afford any pesticides because the movie would be over too quickly.<br /><br />The title of the movie "Phase IV" is something of a mystery. This is not a spoiler, but "Phase I" starts right after the opening credits whereas you don't reach "Phase IV" until the end credits roll. Apparently the director knew the movie would be tedious to get through and so placed Phases 1 - 3 throughout the movie as a kind of progress report: "Hang in there buddy! Only 1 more phase until final credits!" As a MST3K episode, this one wasn't very good for two reasons: 1) This one is from the Season 0 on KTMA when they were first starting out so the riffing is not as good as in later seasons; and 2) This movie is so bad not even J&TB can lighten it up. There are one or two Gamera references as they had just finished riffing 5 Gamera movies.<br /><br />The movie does have a trick/surprise ending, but I was so glad to reach the end the effect was lost on me. | 0 |
11,136 | [
300,
400
] | 291 | 347 | This is bad movie. There is no denying it as much as I'd like to. Tommy Lee Jones is about as good as he possible can be with the script they gave him, and he had a couple of decent action sequences that felt really out of place due to their acceptable quality.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line someone figured that all of the shortcomings of script could be counteracted if they were to hire every single workhorse actor in the business, unfortunately even truly, deeply talented actors like Goodman, Beatty, Sarsgaard, Gammon, Steenburgen, MacDonald, Pruitt Taylor Vince, and lest we forget Mr. Jones himself can't fix the wooden dialogue, and plot progression that went absolutely nowhere.<br /><br />In fact at one point I looked up, sure that the movie had been running for the past 2 hours only to find that I was 51 minutes into it.<br /><br />Perhaps the most painful point of the movie was the subplot about the ghost confederate soldiers that seem to be of little to no help to the story. Other than slightly detracting from the confusing business at the end with the picture. *if you haven't seen this movie disregard this past statement which may seem tantalizing and know that it is not, you will not understand it any better after having watched the movie.<br /><br />The most interesting thing about this movie may be that it is actually a sequel to the movie "Heaven's Prisoners" starring Alec Baldwin in the same role carried by Tommy Lee Jones in this movie. I may have to watch it now, first to see if it is as bad as In the Electric Mist, and second because I can't seem to (no matter how hard I try) break my man crush on Alec Baldwin. | 0 |
11,169 | [
300,
400
] | 261 | 314 | Ken Russell directed this weird ( Not very ) erotic thriller and if I hadn't known that I would have staked my life that the director was Brian DePalma . Absolutely everything about CRIMES OF PASSION screams DePalma , from the gaudy cinematography that is lit a little too brightly , to the domestic storyline that turns into a stalk and slash plot , to even the title this screams " Depalma , DePalma , Depalma "<br /><br />Unfortunately since Brian DePalma is increasingly seen as a poor mans Hitchcock over the years Russell should have tried emulating a style of his own . Sure an erotic thriller in the style of TOMMY or BILLION DOLLAR BRAIN would have been bizarre with a capital B but at least it would have been a unique cinematic experience . Stories about prostitutes living a dangerous double life and being stalked by a religious maniac were an all too common sight in the 1980s video market . Oh and Anthony Perkins plays the same role he played in almost every movie he made in the 1980s . Yawn <br /><br />The only thing of any real note to CRIMES OF PASSION is the controversy it caused . I guess the studio were the happiest people to hear this since no publicity is bad publicity , but as for the controversial sex scenes ... What controversial sex scenes ? There aren't any and the only controversy I can think of is of China Blue dominating an on duty policeman with a truncheon . Needless to say he didn't come quietly HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA | 0 |
11,181 | [
300,
400
] | 250 | 307 | There are actually some good reasons, why a person should take the risk of going totally insane by watching this show. The breasts are nice, even though some of them aren't that real, but they usually come in pairs, which is good. Watching the beach on your screen is also a very relaxing experience, as it is an ideal place for just taking it easy and not worrying too much about getting eaten by a rubber shark. It's always good to remember, that David Hasselhoff is a god. Not the god, but a god. It's not so much about his acting skills, since there are none, but his chesthair does a lot of talking. Also, there's no KITT hanging out in this series, which is good, since Mr Hasselhoff told in an interview, that he always thought KITT was gay. Naturally that might make him to look like an idiot, but considering the other statements he has made lately, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone.<br /><br />In a nutshell, this is the kind of show, that is totally harmless to people. It gives us a lot to stare at and a lot to laugh at, which is something many intentionally humoristic shows really don't give us. I have to say, it's no wonder that Borat fell in love with Pamela Anderson. I enjoy watching the show. No, it's not a great show, actually it's quite horrible, but I enjoy watching it. It's basically like a B-movie stretched to last for a decade. | 0 |
11,183 | [
300,
400
] | 302 | 364 | Young Michael Dudikoff like young Lord Greystoke was abandoned in the jungle on a Pacific island as an infant. But instead of being raised by the apes, he fell into the hands of a Japanese soldier who was still living there because he hadn't heard the war was over. And like young Luke Skywalker it turns out he fell into the hands and learned the fighting skills of a Ninja.<br /><br />Good thing because they were separated and the young kid came down with a case of amnesia, but those fighting skills didn't go away. The orphaned kid, now named Joe Armstrong enlists in the Army and gets himself stationed in the Phillipines. Meanwhile his Obi Wan Kenobe played by John Fujioka gets rescued himself and goes to work as a gardener on the estate of planter and terrorist go between Don Stewart using a cheesy accent that seems to vary between French and Spanish.<br /><br />As these things happen everybody meets and Dudikoff both solves the mystery of part of his past and saves the commanding officer's daughter from the bad guys in this Golan-Globus Production. Charles Bronson was getting a bit long in the tooth now and Golan-Globus needed a new star for their action flicks. Michael Dudikoff filled the bill quite nicely and made quite a few films for them including several American Ninja sequels.<br /><br />This film is all action and Dudikoff dispatches bad guys at a record pace. What he doesn't do, Steve James does doing his best Rambo imitation and showing his considerable martial arts skills.<br /><br />The film has enough holes in the plot to drive one of those army vehicles through you see in the story. But that's what the ticket buying public doesn't care about. Dudikoff certainly looks magnificent stripped to his fighting clothes. No wonder so many sequels were made. | 0 |
11,184 | [
300,
400
] | 294 | 349 | I have seen cheesy kung fu fight films. Living in Taiwan they come on in lieu of sitcoms in America. I have seen movies make fun of themselves, but this film belongs in the sad category of fight films that try too hard with awful actors, awful props, and awful music to be taken seriously. I seriously felt pity for the person who composed the music for this movie. How sad it must be to be a composer who has to churn out crap like what I thought should have been titled "Generic Ninja Fight Scene, Op. 1" or "Variations on A Bad Guy Pointing a Gun at a Girl's Head When Backed into a Corner" or the daring "Flight of the Helicopter". Then the fight scenes were over and the credits rolled. Those actually had me in tears laughing. If the "special effects" weren't proof enough that this was low-budget, the fact that only two or three of the crew members, presumably locals which although good for the much-needed Phillipino economy was probably done solely to save money, have ever done anything since this series of movies. They rented equipment, despite making sequels to this movie. That was pretty funny too. The thing that really had me going though, was not the music (which left me half expecting an animated Sargeant Slaughter from G.I. Joe to pop up), but the ending...I suppose this would be a spoiler if there was really a plot to spoil, but when the American Ninja drops the girl into Jackson's arms and then takes off his mask, I wanted to see him jump off the roof and Jackson drop the girl to catch him.<br /><br />I think that would have been the perfect punchline for this joke of a movie. | 0 |
11,200 | [
300,
400
] | 341 | 398 | I went to see this on the strength of Albert Finney alone. He's one of my favorite actors and he rarely fails to deliver. I'm not sure if the plot is interesting or just silly: it's about a little boy who is about to be born, but as his mother goes into labor, he refuses to come out! This sends God and the whole human being factory into a crisis and Albert Finney is called out of purgatory to try and convince the boy to change his mind and decide to want to be born. So Finney takes the unborn boy for an adventure in the Big Apple in hopes of showing him all the reasons he should want to live.<br /><br />Despite the ridiculousness of the plot, I could have accepted it if the director had not tried to turn this into your typical Hollywood sentimental moralistic message film. Directorially, the film was rendered unbearable by a horrible soundtrack of the stock sentimental music that Hollywood directors seem incapable of resisting.<br /><br />He further butchered the somewhat unconventional story by giving away its hand at every moment. Whatever twists and turns were in store in the plot were completely given away by the way the story unraveled. It was as if the director assumed the audience is just a bunch of idiots who cannot see the obvious hints coming from a mile away.<br /><br />Even Finney in his performance, though satisfactory, seemed a bit awkward and out of place; and the little boy with curly locks, though he was supposed to be cute, was in fact rather dull. Bridget Fonda seemed intent on trying to duplicate Demi Moore's performance in 'Ghost', shedding tears at a moment's notice.<br /><br />I understand that the film has been unsuccessful thus far at getting distribution in the U.S., which surprises me as I think it has the box office potential to be a modest hit, appealing to both kids and sentimental adults. As far as the quality goes, it's not an awful film, it's just not very good. (4 out of 10) | 0 |
11,202 | [
300,
400
] | 292 | 347 | I mean, come on! This movie had such nice potential but it's like they ran out of money to finish the script and just telegraphed the whole damn rest of the movie about 2/3rds of the way through. Characters start spouting this movies whole reason for existence to other characters who didn't ask for the information on extremely flimsy premises. They also fall into some stereotypical behavior because that must be what's expected in this genre of movie. It's really pretty sad because this movie could have been so much more.<br /><br />I was really hoping this would be a good movie. There was some good acting. Mark Hamill does an excellent job until the movie falls apart, so does Sally Struthers. It was fun to see them working and succeeding at their craft. Majandra Delfino was pretty good for awhile until her lines just became untenable. I felt sad for her that she had to say these lines that just shot the whole movies credibility for any thinking movie goers. Brad Hunt does an excellent job. He really has a surprising range of talent judging from another of his movies I recently saw, Lucky 13. (which was a piece of crap). This guy could be a star if he could pick the right scripts and get lucky with the right director.<br /><br />Almost forgot! The music was so heavy handed you might think this project was handed to some minor film school to be scored. I call this kind of music "Teller Music" because you can just tell what's coming next based on the music. Less is more sometimes.<br /><br />Cut half of the music from this movie, get a good film editor, a small rewrite or two and this would be a very good movie. | 0 |
11,207 | [
300,
400
] | 269 | 333 | If you'd like a great April Fool's joke, then please by all means show this film to someone. However, it is important that you in no way criticize the film but instead talk about what an artistic triumph it is and how "they just don't make great films like this any more". As your victim watches many disconnected and nonsensical scenes (such as a cute dog getting punted for no apparent reason, a cow standing on the bed, a woman licking a statue's feet or Jesus apparently raping a woman), make lots of comments using words like "brilliance", "juxtaposed" or "transcendent"--all the while acting as if the film actually makes perfect sense and isn't a complete waste of an hour of your life. Also be sure to keep a straight face and feign shock when (and if) they say that they either didn't understand it or thought it had all the artistry of a cow patty. Then, to further mess with them, show them all the comments on IMDb, as nearly all (except for a few trouble-makers like almagz and rooprect) talk glowingly about what genius and artistry this film is! By the time you are done with this little charade, they'll most likely think they are idiots and will make an appointment with a psychologist. <br /><br />This, to me, is the ONLY possible reason to watch this horrid mess of a film!!! That, or you could show it to the prisoners at Guantanamo in order to get them to talk!<br /><br />If you ask me, the famous painting of dogs playing poker or a velvet Elvis painting are superior artistically. | 0 |
11,209 | [
300,
400
] | 271 | 362 | A man kicks a dog 2' in the air.<br /><br />A woman kicks a cow out of her bed.<br /><br />A man kicks a violin down the sidewalk.<br /><br />A woman sucks on a statue's toe for 15 seconds.<br /><br />A man kicks a blind man in the stomach.<br /><br />Jesus rapes a young girl.<br /><br />There you have it. I just saved you an hour of your life. Surely there are those to whom this "shocking vanguard of cinematic expression" would appeal. But I found it no different from the puerile, disconnected videos I used to shoot with my friends in the 9th grade. Except we never had a real cow.<br /><br />Having heard endless sermons from beard-stroking art connaisseurs of how this is such an important film, I thought it would be worth my time. Make no mistake, this is crap. If I hear one more person call Buñuel the "father of cinematic Surrealism", I think I'm going to punch someone. If anything, he issued a major step backward from the Surrealist beginnings pioneered by his seniors Fritz Lang (Metropolis), F.W. Murnau (Faust) and Robert Weine (Caligari) 10 years earlier. This made a joke out of the whole thing, as if Buñuel didn't have the confidence to truly embrace the art sans sarcasm, sans l'absurdité. It would take Buñuel another 40 years before he would refine his style into something admirable. Skip the early stuff and hop straight to 1970 if you want to be more impressed by his work.<br /><br />I'm sure he would agree. In 1977, Buñuel himself stated that he would happily burn all the prints of his old movies. In this case I would be happy to pour the lighter fluid. | 0 |
11,210 | [
300,
400
] | 279 | 372 | I'm a big fan of surrealist art, but this film by Bunuel (with some ideas from Dali) left me cold. Bunuel had a life-long grudge against the Catholic church and delighted in trying to offend Catholics in fairly silly ways. This is one of the silliest; almost like what you'd expect from a smart-aleck 18-year-old in film class. The last few minutes of the movie, which have nothing to do with anything else, are a final nose-thumbing at religion.<br /><br />If you read the "scholars" regarding this slow-paced, occasionally amusing film, it's all about how the church and society are guilty of sexual repression. If that is indeed the point, then Bunuel expresses it in the most roundabout fashion possible. The central male character is a nasty brute who loves kicking dogs and knocking blind men down in the street, and who mentally turns billboard ads into strange sexual fantasies. Is this behavior the church's fault (for interrupting his lovemaking), or is he just a jerk? I vote for the latter. I think Bunuel must have had a lot of personal hangups and chose the Catholics as the ones to blame.<br /><br />There are a few moments where you might cry, "Aha! surrealism!": a cow in a bed, a giraffe falling out a window (a poor model), a man shredding a feather pillow, a woman flushing a toilet while we watch pictures of seething lava (or a mud pit...hard to tell in B/W). The rest is forgettable self-indulgence. Unfortunately, Bunuel was still chasing the same bogey-men through the rest of his career (Viridiana, Discreet Charm...). If you're interested in seeing surrealism on the screen, check out Jean Cocteau's early work. | 0 |
11,214 | [
300,
400
] | 284 | 389 | How do I describe the horrors?!!! First, some points: First, this review should be taken with a grain of salt -- I saw this over 20 years ago, when I was a boy, at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.<br /><br />Secondly, I am giving away some scenes and plot points. However, it does not have much of a plot.<br /><br />Finally, I don't enjoy these type of art films anyway.<br /><br />This film was directed by proto-auteur Luis Bunuel. He was a surrealist and dadaist. These were modernist themes or movements popular critically in the 1920's and early 1930's. Surealism was the school of art that made things hyper-real, yet often had Freudian symbolism. Dadaism is based on what is supposedly the first word made by an infant -- Dada, or father.<br /><br />Made in black and white, it was also made by a band of communists (or as they preferred the term, socialists). Bunuel and his group of fellow film-makers and artistes had been working on a number of symbolic ideas and issues in Spain and France between the world wars.<br /><br />Dadaism and surrealism influenced a lot of artists -- The Police (Doo doo doo da), poet Arthur Rambaud, Edvard Munch (The Scream), Rene Magritte (floating hats in space), Salvador Dali (melting clocks), and even Hitchcock (Psycho). No Norman Rockwell.<br /><br />Here's what I recall most about this film: a girl meets up with a cow; her eye gets slashed by a razor; clownish men cavort in a meadow. There is not, as I said, much of a plot, but then again, that must be the point.<br /><br />This was attacked as porn back then, and would be again today. One of the trade-marks of surrealism is a significant anti-feminism. | 0 |
11,234 | [
300,
400
] | 292 | 342 | I have recently found this film on one of my husband's VHS tapes (the blank variety which he uses to record stuff from the telly). The film looks as if it was last shown in the eighties and I don't remember having seen it since. It has not (to my knowledge) been released on DVD or VHS although I shall browse around for a copy.<br /><br />The film tells the story of three young people: two girls, one on the edge of puberty and the other much younger, and a young boy who go to live with their mother's brother and his young, mute Irish wife. His wife also has two brothers who live with them. The children's uncle is an unpleasant control freak who forces his young wife to wear a silver collar whilst she watches a marionette show put on by him and her brothers in his toyshop.<br /><br />The eldest girl and one of the Irishmen (the younger) develop a love for each other whilst they live in the same house. The girl helps her aunt out in the shop whilst her brother helps his uncle to make things in the workshop.<br /><br />There are a lot of very disturbing elements to the film. There is the uncle's treatment of his wife as some kind of dumb (literally) possession (illustrated by the collar) whilst the Irish indulge dancing, drinking and somewhat forbidden love. Interestingly, though, I have seen far more explicit themes played out in other movies made in Hollywood today.<br /><br />Makes you wonder whether the British film industry and the BBC have some kind of hidden agenda going on.<br /><br />Still, despite it not being a children's movie, there are a lot of playful, magic moments in it and the one Irishman does some beautiful paintings. | 0 |
11,236 | [
300,
400
] | 272 | 366 | It purports to be the life of Paul the apostle. It opens with him involved in a loin-cloth wrestling match with a priest. The Pharisees were called that because they "separated" themselves from the Hellenism being forced upon the Jews by their Gentile rulers. The point is that Saul would never have been involved in Greco-Roman wrestling. PERIOD.<br /><br />Then we have the two men (Saul and the Priest, Reuben - a totally extra-biblical fictitious character) shown being washed down in the nude in a Roman style bath house. Again, the Torah, which Saul adhered to religiously, condemned in the strongest possible terms looking upon the nakedness of another man.<br /><br />Reuben is shown being the one that pushes Saul into destroying the church. Again, the text of scripture doesn't matter, for their it is PAUL that says that he laid waste of the church and breathed out threatenings and slaughter against the church.<br /><br />The movie shows Barnabas "sprinkling" Paul - not baptizing (immersing) him, when the Text of Scripture says it was Ananias that did it.<br /><br />Their is no mention of Mark or his turning back so the writers of the script are forced to have Paul and Barnabas argue over Paul's desire to preach in Rome as the basis of their separation.<br /><br />No Silas on Paul's Second and Third Missions; No Timothy... EVER. No Titus; No Apollos... No, NO, NOOOO!!! James is said to have "known Jesus for a long time" rather than it saying, as the Text of Scripture does, that he is Jesus' brother.<br /><br />Why not just call the movie "Frank, the fictitious Apostle?!?!" At least that would be closer to the text of scripture. | 0 |
11,244 | [
300,
400
] | 266 | 337 | I really don't know why I'm writting this. I think most people agree that this movie is bad. Well, let me say this:<br /><br />When I first get done watching some movies, I like them. Then as time goes on, my opinion changes about the movie. this happened with End of Days. I liked it the first time I saw it. I thought it was entertaining. But, a few weeks later, my opinion has changed. So, to resolve this, I watched it again at a friends house. Well, it's bad.<br /><br />I'm a logic person. If I see a logic hole in a movie, I try to ignore it. If I see two, then I start to get annoyed. More than two and I'm p***ed off. End of Days made me p***ed off after my second viewing.<br /><br />First off, the movie is a bit depressing. Everything about it is sad. Everything from Arnold's acting to the movie's colors. But dark looking movies don't bother me, but some thing else did...<br /><br />If Satan can regenerate his wounds, how can you possible kill him in his mortal form? If you shoot him, his skin grows back. If you cut off his head, a new one should pop back up. So question: what's the point of even trying to kill him? I'll tell you why: because this is a stupid movie that has a recycled villain. This isn't the devil my friends. This is a human being reminescent of those Bond villains who give away there entire scheme to the hero.<br /><br />Like I said it's worth a look, but don't see it twice, because it's crap. | 0 |
11,263 | [
300,
400
] | 288 | 396 | I HATE MOVIES THAT END LIKE THIS!!!!<br /><br />This 16mm disaster is full of clichés, stereotypical characters, a generic, over done "plot" and terrible dialog.<br /><br />In this "Movie" we have the Aggressive Black Guy, The Black Guys Girlfriend, The Blonde Bitch, The Possible Lesbian "hacker chick", the Pedophilic teacher...Blah, Blah, Blah....And then the Pumpkin Man.<br /><br />"Do you think someone is taking the legend too far?" This question is asked towards the end of the film. Taking the Tagline of Scream 2 too far.<br /><br />SPOILERS*****Typically I don't go into spoilers but I have to rant....<br /><br />A dream? The whole thing was a Dream!!!!! This is the most sissified way to end a movie. "I don't know how to explain all of this, and we don't have any more money...Let's make the whole thing a dream." This is what the director/producer/actor/FX guy must have been thinking. Yes, the director is the character of Mr. E He did almost everything on this garbage movie. This is such a cope out ending....And what of the principal, okay, so he has been doing all the kidnapping! What did that have to do with the movie? Of course the Black people are killed, the bitchy girl is killed, the teacher that has a past of sexual harassment with students gets killed ( he is main suspect)....YUCK YUCK YUCK!!! This movie gave me heart burn.<br /><br />Pointless, senseless, and made with parents Visa and Mastercards (which tells me it is probably still being paid off), this movie is dumb, boring and just plain stupid....<br /><br />The only thing I liked was the credits. The way they presented the names, etc, in the beginning and at the end. It had a creepy feel to it. Too bad the movie didn't!<br /><br />1 out of 10 | 0 |
11,265 | [
300,
400
] | 253 | 344 | Brainy, cross-dressing little boy finds success on the Spelling Bee circuit despite an unconventional and dysfunctional upbringing. Shirley MacLaine directed and stars as the child's grandmother, and it is always fascinating to see long-time actors getting their chance at directing a film, the material that they're drawn to and the actors they choose to work with. Here, the only person well-cast in "Bruno" is MacLaine. The child actors seem to have been picked for their twinkle and cuteness, and squishy-hearted MacLaine holds their close-ups for excruciatingly long periods; nothing about these cherubs seems natural, not the lines that fall without consciousness out of their mouths or the interaction they have with adults or even each other. As the boy's disgruntled father, poor Gary Sinise hovers around the edges, in mock shame, always with a pained look on his face. Towards the end of the film, MacLaine turns the whole thing into a passel of hugging scenes, and even concludes with the kid hugging the Pope in Rome! Another ungodly treatise from a talented actress-turned-director who, much like Sally Field and her film "Beautiful", cannot seem to stop winking at and nudging the audience. Shirley uses ethnicity for shtick, and childhood innocence as a punchline. The children in this cast roll their eyes, crack wise with mature comments, use big words--but when one mealy-mouthed boy calls our pint-sized hero "gay", MacLaine's granny instructs him to go over and punch the kid out (in front the media!). How's that for progression? * from **** | 0 |
11,266 | [
300,
400
] | 311 | 380 | *****Spoiler or two, not that is matters******<br /><br />Two things stand out about this movie. First is it's been titled both "Bruno" and "The Dress Code," and if you've seen this movie you'll catch the irony in that.<br /><br />Second is it's addressing issues completely off the wall. The adventures of a grade school cross dresser isn't something that there was a crying need for a movie about, nor a topic that I think most people would be interested in. Shirley MacLaine manages to walk around the issues of gender by tying Bruno's desire to wear a dress to religion, which probably opens up an even thornier can of worms--what was she thinking? <br /><br />Yes, there's some humor and it's not directly offensive, but the kind of unsettling feeling in the beginning just keeps on growing. It doesn't do much except repeat the liberal mantra that "different" people should be accepted (or maybe excepted?) no matter what. <br /><br />Which is fine----but in order for people to live in a society everyone has to give a little to get along. Bruno doesn't just want to wear a dress, he wants to show up looking like a miniature Gladys Knight on awards night, and his final costume makes him resemble a Cabbage Patch Cowgirl Doll. Yet all the other kids dress and behave, well, like regular kids. So what gives? If it came down to it we all could declare ourselves special or different and behave any way we felt like, and the result would be total chaos. <br /><br />This accepting of people who are "different" is also pretty narrowly defined, I doubt we will ever see a movie about a kid finding his true self and wanting to wear overalls, hunt geese, and go to tractor pulls, and demanding everyone else just accept him as he is. "Bruno" is one stupid movie, and a complete waste of time. | 0 |
11,282 | [
300,
400
] | 275 | 333 | I gave it a rating of 3 out of 10.<br /><br />And what's sad is, I made a point of looking up the movie schedule for that channel so I wouldn't miss seeing it. I wanted to watch this film because it is based on a book by one of my favorite authors, Barbara Wilson. As a lesbian, I expected to love this film.<br /><br />I don't know how Ms. Wilson felt about the film, but I found it a major disappointment.<br /><br />It should have been intriguing - it was a mystery - set in Spain, and the main character, Cassandra, is a language translator who gets contacted by a mysterious, beautiful woman who offers Cassandra a great deal of money to locate her ex-husband, Ben.<br /><br />There are secrets galore revealed, but for some reason it just didn't matter. It was like, oh, so what. I could not get involved with these characters or come to care about them, or feel for them. I couldn't even identify with these characters.<br /><br />I think a large part of the film's failure was the actress playing the main character. She looked old, tired, worn out, and as dull as dishwater. Her hair was a perpetual mess, her baggy clothes were boring, and she just was not appealing or interesting.<br /><br />The best part of the film was getting to hear a Dean Martin recording, but even that was ruined by the weird make-up worn by the man who was dancing and lip-synching to the song. Believe me - it was nothing like getting to see the suavely handsome Mr. Martin performing it.<br /><br />The ending is so syrupy you'll wish you had some pancakes to go with the syrup.<br /><br /> | 0 |
11,301 | [
300,
400
] | 279 | 326 | I was looking forward to this based on the reviews on this and the fairly good rating. This was a big disappointment. This doesn't hold a candle to contemporary zombie flicks like Shaun of the dead,day of the dead, land of the dead etc. Horror flicks sometimes take a while to get going, you have to build up the characters so when they snuff it,you feel some empathy etc but even so, there's a full 45 minutes to sit through here even before you sniff a corpse, up to that point,its like watching a bad soap opera, nothing of any interest or relevance happens and if you are going to watch this for the first time,you can honestly start watching after 45 minutes, you won't miss anything plot- wise. When things do get going, its all very sub-par stuff. Some of the kills and make up are done well, others are done very poorly, consistency is lacking here and there are some really shocking continuity errors and some of the most wooden acting i've ever seen.<br /><br />This could all be passable if you really believed this was all taking place on a plane but with guns being fired, firebombs being let off,no pilots in the cockpit in a violent storm yet the plane stays in the air, c'mon, we're not all simpletons.<br /><br />Oh, and does it really take a whole minute for a fighter jet's missile to hit a plane that is a few hundred yards away. I know its a zombie film and you have to stretch things but this film along with the other main defects listed above had zero credibility. One to miss. | 0 |
11,305 | [
300,
400
] | 300 | 363 | One Chinese gang attacks and wipes out another gang in the beginning of the film. Unfortunately, the patriarch of the winning family is killed in the process. Oddly, and without any discernible reason, the gang solicits a volunteer to blame the massacre on and he leaves until the police decide to stop investigating. Now how ONE MAN ALONE is the one responsible for about 50 deaths is beyond me, so sending this one guy away just seemed silly, but that's the plot. Later, when this man comes home, betrayals and scheming have occurred--leading to almost one hour and fifteen minutes of non-stop killing.<br /><br />If you are looking for a Chinese martial arts film with much of a plot, then you should probably skip this movie, as its practically non-stop action and practically no plot or character development--even when compared to other martial arts films. I would estimate that 80-90% of the film are fight scenes--endless and reasonably well made fight scenes using knives. Again and again and again, fight scenes! If you want a film with a body count perhaps running into the hundreds as people are slashed, kicked, and slashed, then this is the film for you. The problem was by the end of the film there are literally no people left to kill and the film really lost my interest!! Deep it ain't, but if you want to see excitement and action ONLY, then this film is for you! <br /><br />By the way, this movie is set in contemporary times and no one thinks of shooting the hero until just near the end. And, when they FINALLY do the logical thing, it's too late and the effort is really, really lame! Logical errors like this and the lady's suicide (why???) make this a "turn off your brain" type of film. | 0 |
11,311 | [
300,
400
] | 253 | 330 | I am a regular reader of Kathy Reichs' Temperance Brennan novels. As such I am extremely surprised she even consulted on this show.<br /><br />It is HORRIBLE by comparison to the books. The Temperance Brennan character is, in the books, a down to earth recovering alcoholic and divorced mom of a college aged daughter. In 'Bones', she is an arrogant (rhymes with rich), who, in typical P C fashion, is not a mother. The emphasis on her assisting staff, complete with lurid details of who has had how many sexual exploits, is totally in contrast with the books.<br /><br />In total deference to the P C movement, she portrays the enemies of the U S as peace lovers (!). Some of the information isn't even correct, for example, having a character from Afghanistan as an active member of an Arab-American friendship group. Since when is an Afghan an Arab?! I'm sure if negative references were made to 'disadvantaged minorities', or women, or GLBT's, the show's producers/writers/directors would have to issue an apology. However, in typical far left fashion, all of the racial slurs go to the highest achieving minority group--Asians, as David Boreanaz' Agent Booth continually refers to Angela Montenegro as a 'squint'.<br /><br />Forget that stuff, and forget this show. After 'The Man in the SUV' episode, I thought I'd try a second episode to see if it got any better. It only got worse! I don't even care if the teenager in question was murdered or committed suicide, and I won't be watching the show ever again. | 0 |
11,330 | [
300,
400
] | 304 | 375 | . . . and that is only if you like the sight of beautiful woman with nice, bouncy jugs running around the so called African jungle. So no problems there for most males out there.<br /><br />I watched it as one of those bundled together package. Forget about the plot which is essentially just a flimsy storyline to get our heroine flashing her jugs on screen at every opportunity possible. Just to give you a sense, our heroine swings from vine to vine and climb on top animals at every chance possible for no good reason at all just to let you see her jugs at all angles. Again, no complaints.<br /><br />The "fight scenes" are laughable and borderline on the pornographic. Our heroine got caught by the baddies at least five times in the movie. On occasions when she has to fight, the "fighting" involves rolling around in the dirt, grunting unconvincingly and basically fighting like kittens. I am surprised no hair pulling is involved. It get so bad that the chief baddie had to remind the "combatants" that "I said, the one that draw first blood wins!" in order to avoid watching anymore stupid fighting.<br /><br />The witch doctor Kuku was a bloody blast. From being a big, cuddly bear in the beginning, he became manic depressive when captured and then, outright psycho. He spent the whole movie muttering lines with no irrelevance.<br /><br />Beside Liana (our heroine)bouncing around topless, you also get to see plenty of other Amazonians as well as one woman who decided to jump naked into the lake to take a swim for no good reasons. Yeah, it is that kind of movie.<br /><br />Watch the beautiful Liane in her bouncy glory. Despite the movie being more than 20 years old, the allure of watching blond women flashing their nice jugs on screen never gets old. | 0 |
11,355 | [
300,
400
] | 301 | 356 | I have witnessed some atrocities of cinema. In the past couple of years, it seems producers and directors are bent on making films that drive me closer and closer to insanity. Hannibal was not an exception. I wasn't expecting much, when I went in to see the movie. The book was ridiculous, and the saying, "The Book is always better than the movie" did not assure me at all that this movie would be anything but trash. But what I came to see was a movie that made all other bad movies seem better in comparison.<br /><br /> Usually, when I see a terrible movie, I find myself more amused than anything else. Sadly though, I could not even laugh at the sad excuse for a film that Hannibal is. The movie was filmed with promise, I guess. It had Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, and Gary Oldman. And for directing, there was Ridley Scott. There have been movies with significantly less talent that have been tremendously better. There was so much I would have cut from this film that I doubt anything would have remained. It was pathetic. The storyline was so ludicrous that it seemed like a complete idiot had written it. What's worse is that the book was even crazier, and there were some scenes that were too extreme to be included, which is sad in the case of a movie where<br /><br />***SPOILER AHEAD*** <br /><br />Ray Liotta's brain was being cooked in pieces. That scene more than any other made me want to cry, because it tarnished its predecessor to such a monumental level. Silence of the Lambs was one of my favorite films of all time. But Hannibal was a two hour plus joke. This movie should only be watched, if people want to learn how not to write a good movie. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.