Split (11)

imdb_test · 25k rows

id int64 0 25k	interval listlengths 2 2	len_words int64 6 2.21k	len_tokens int64 8 2.75k	text stringlengths 32 13k
5,263	[ 500, 600 ]	492	580	Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.<br /><br />What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one "Bible", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion. <br /><br />Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, "Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament." If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, "Is no other way." The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher. <br /><br />But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of "Ghost Hunters" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching "Ghost Hunters", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a "right place at the right time" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to "perform" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.<br /><br />Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.
5,269	[ 500, 600 ]	418	520	A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by "The Firm"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.<br /><br />But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, "A Time To Kill" sets you up.<br /><br />Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.<br /><br />In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting "Free Carl Lee".<br /><br />But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.<br /><br />And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.<br /><br />This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.
5,271	[ 500, 600 ]	369	517	First things first - though I believe Joel Schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad, the lion's share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to John Grisham whose novel this is based on.<br /><br />Set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s? the 70s? now?), the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that "at least we're not that bad" Cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father, Samuel L Jackson, fearful they will get off on some technicality, guns them down in cold blood before the trial. <br /><br />The setting is a 'deep south' that probably never existed - the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton, the dyed-in-the-wool racists (Kiefer Sutherland is a cartoon version of a Klansman) are laughable in their villainy. The set-piece is the trial: for the defence, are the "good guys" - a milquetoast lawyer played by Matthew McConaughey as though in a coma, his assistant played by Sandra Bullock's breasts (she doesn't seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and Donald Sutherland as the requisite drunk-lawyer-who-sobers-up-to-fight-the-good-fight. For the prosecution, Kevin Spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn, while in the town at large, crosses are burned, witness are intimidated and the local citizens don't seem to care <br /><br />Some of the reviews here claim the film immoral, since surely Samuel Jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart-tugging piece of oratory by Matthew McConaughey. To be honest, objectionable though the underlying message "Vigilante justice is good" might be, everything about the movie stinks: the characterizations are pitiful, the acting leaden, the direction plodding, the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. Peter Menzies lush, 50s Technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative. <br /><br />And it goes on for nearly two and a half hours!! <br /><br />What's left to say? This is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone's life, it is tedious, vacuous and hammy, and, almost as an afterthought, it is morally repugnant.
5,297	[ 500, 600 ]	398	542	One of the dumbest movies in the history of cinema. Wait, I take that back-- this movie can't be included in any category related to "cinema"; it belongs in categories like "waste", turds, or similar categories. Ironically, it's even _about_ two garbagemen. The movie is "Men At Work", a lightweight crime comedy starring the Estevez (Sheen) brothers from 1990. Setting aside the asinine and implausible plot line, bad acting, bad dialogue, poorly executed stunts and slapstick, continuity errors, and high rate of no-name actors never to be seen again, all in all it was a pretty bad movie anyway (at its core, I mean). It was the kind of movie that might be good for one thing: you can watch it about 200 times, learn every line, and in a campy kind of way repeat them back and forth in public with your wasted friends, thus securing your status as the biggest dorks in your tenth grade class.<br /><br />To make matters worse, I actually submitted an IMDb trivia entry (along with this bad review) to the movie's IMDb web page, if only because I spotted a silly little punk music joke that apparently nobody else spotted yet(about the Butthole Surfer statue). I'm so conflicted about why I should even waste my time submitting what looks like a supportive trivia note, when what I really want to do is blow up Emilio's acting career (no, wait, he's already done that himself. Thanks, dude!) I'm so glad I wasted only time on this, not real money. For that matter, can I maybe have at least one tenth of their budget? Anyone other than this director (Emilio) could have made two or three much better movies with just what they spent blowing up cars, carefully placing bikini-clad bimbos in the background, and beating up useless extras (henchmen) in haz-mat suits. I'd mention Emilio's writing credit, but it would be a stretch to call this screenplay "writing" -- it's more like crayon-scrawled cartoon ideas. And Charlie Sheen, if you're reading this, I assume M.A.W. must have been made during the part of your career in which you were a coked-up, hooker-loving Hollywood brat who had not grown up yet. (Oops! Sorry, I guess that part of your life isn't over yet. Get well soon, you "half a man". Such a promising talent, so wasted oh look, there's that word again.)
5,341	[ 500, 600 ]	412	533	First of all, I'm upset there's no choice of a "0" out of 10. <br /><br />I was bored tonight, and while flipping through the channels, I see Dr. Chopper. With there being nothing else on, I decide to watch it, expecting it to be just another crappy horror movie, with a similar plot to Cabin Fever. <br /><br />Man was I wrong...Dr. Chopper made Cabin Fever look like it should have won numerous Academy Awards. May I remind you, Cabin Fever contains a scene of a little hick boy doing roundhouse kicks off of a porch screaming, "pancakes!!", characters who leave their dying friend in a tiny shack to bleed to death, and Shawn from Boy Meets World mistakenly fingering a hole in a girl's thigh.<br /><br />So needless to say, Dr. Chopper was a big, smelly pile-o-crap. It wasn't even funny crap. It reminded me of a horror movie I had to make in 8th grade, called "The Campout". Except for the fact that "The Campout" had a better script (we wrote it about an hour before filming), better actors, plots, bloody scenes, and camera work. I was hoping to get some laughs out of a poorly-made horror film, but instead I could only watch in astonishment as I thought to myself, "Was this made by 8th graders?". <br /><br />The acting was horrible, the events and different little subplots were thrown together and didn't make sense, and the gore and violence was very minimal. I liked how that from a small stab wound, people died instantly, and the only weapons the killers had were small pocket knives...if you're going to make a horror movie, at least give the killer(s) an insane killing device.<br /><br />Also, what the hell was the point of the sorority girls hazing their pledges? Good way to bring in some scenes of girls running around in their bras, even if they have no relevance to the story whatsoever. And I must say, my favorite line was when the blonde says to Dr. Chopper, "I'd like to introduce you to someone....my inner bitch." Her "inner bitch" then proceeds to grab a garbage can, throw it at Dr. Chopper, miss, and back up in terror of the killer.<br /><br />Wheww....well that was a long one, but I felt that I needed to express my feelings on how absolutely horrible this "movie" was. I know that everyone has their own opinions, but if anyone rates this movie higher than a 2, they should be shot to Hell...<br /><br />...seriously.
5,350	[ 500, 600 ]	397	501	Kevin Spacey is without a doubt one of the best actors of the 90s. After his performances in The Usual Suspect, Se7en and American Beauty, you expect more and more from him. That is why Ordinary Decent Criminal is a huge disappointment.<br /><br />Michael Lynch is the most artful criminal in Dublin who is never in a bad mood. His next heist becomes an obsession when his partners start questioning Michael's ability to plan everything perfectly, although this is the only thing he does when he isn't playing good father at home.<br /><br />I guess, it's partly my fault for not paying enough attention to the thousand plot details which sadly turn out to be the "essence" of the film. I gave the movie a chance by calling it a parody and.... well, parodies are always funny, no matter what they spoof or how they do it. So, it wasn't after all a complete parody on purpose. It's just a different con movie that desperately tries to be funny and fails.<br /><br />Unlike some of his "colleagues", Ordinary Decent Criminal depends too much on story development and logical continuity, forgetting what's the main reason, the viewer has picked this kind of movie - to be entertained. This is definitely not entertainment. It includes one of the most ridiculous scenes ever - the introduction of Michael's TWO wives. I don't know whether it's some kind of a mindless metaphor or strange, dark humor, but the chicks are sisters. Remember, Spacey's character has kids.<br /><br />Ordinary Decent Criminal is complex and confusing. You are not waiting for a funny scene. Instead, you carefully follow the dialog, because there is a big possibility of losing yourself into the boring, pale universe, the film has inhabited.<br /><br />Let's go back to Spacey. I wonder in what condition he has been, signing for that movie. It's not miscasting, but something much worse. An insult to his work in American Beauty, released an year before Ordinary Decent Criminal. The character Michael is eccentric and talkative. Spacey is almost pathetic at times. The only cure for this, is thinking of Lester Burnham and Roger Kint.<br /><br />Writer, Gerrard Stembridge should definitely re-consider his screen writing abilities and be more objective this time. Because, the dialog is very weak and the scenes are often pointless. And we are still talking about a comedy.<br /><br />Ordinary Decent Criminal is a really bad crime comedy which does not deserve your attention.
5,354	[ 500, 600 ]	390	507	"Ordinary Decent Criminal" is sort of based on the exploits of Martin Cahill, already the subject of John Boorman's 1998 film "The General". Cahill had a rough upbringing in a slum area and graduated from petty crime to armed robbery with honours. He justified his criminal career by pointing out his poor background at every opportunity. This is a common excuse for criminals that conveniently overlooks the thousands of slum-dwellers who don't turn to robbing post offices and selling guns in order to make ends meet. Cahill made fools of the police and local authorities, not to mention the IRA, which earned him a sort of "Folk Hero" status as well as making him many enemies. However, he was basically an amoral, self-serving thief.<br /><br />My primary problem with "ODC" is that the protagonist is made out to be a lovable Irish rogue. Kevin Spacey does a good job portraying Michael Lynch with a blend of oily charm and quiet menace, but the character is too amoral and selfish to be seen as any sort of hero, even an anti-hero. <br /><br />The film is well shot and well acted by a fine cast, but what lets it down is the script. Writer Gerard Stembridge can't make up his mind; is he writing an Irish "Lock Stock" or a grittier treatment of Martin Cahill's thieving career? That's the problem when a writer bases his central character on a real person. <br /><br />It's also unfortunate that "ODC" followed the cinema release of John Boorman's "The General", which was a more accurate portrayal of Martin Cahill's story. Cahill was a cunning thief who knew the value of good publicity, so it's not surprising that his exploits got the movie treatment.<br /><br />What IS surprising is that a studio was prepared to take Cahill's story and give it a happy Hollywood-style ending. Kevin Spacey's charismatic-twinkly-bigamist-thief Michael Lynch gets to ride off into anonymity on his motorcycle in "ODC". In the real world, Martin Cahill was executed by the IRA, just to prove that no-one makes fools of an out-dated, sectarian and corrupt para-military organisation and gets away with it. <br /><br />The real Cahill would never have walked away from his notoriety because it bolstered his "Man of The People" self-image. Having Michael Lynch give up everything to avoid death in "ODC" is a cop-out ending to a weak and shallow movie.
5,376	[ 500, 600 ]	411	561	The original review I had planned for this movie was perhaps a little over-harsh, so I'll preface with the good: Sleepy Hollow is a perfectly acceptable beer-and-pizza or sleepover movie, the kind you watch with a good group of people when the mood is light and no-one's really focusing on the movie. The visual elements are beautiful, and it is kinda fun, in parts. But horror, my friends, it is not. I made the mistake of watching it expecting something to shiver at with all the lights off. If this is your intention, send me a personal message and I'll offer you a list of alternate recommendations. (That's a serious offer, by the way. True horror fans deserve better.) Now my complaints, complete with SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Why bother even making a movie "based" on a classic story if you're not even going to attempt to stay true to the sense, feel, tone, or theme of the original? Listen carefully between the lines of ill-written dialogue and you'll hear the slow churn of Washington Irving rolling over in his grave. I will even accept the Big-City Detective bit, but... Ricci drawing warding-hexes around the bed? Come, now. Not only is there nothing even vaguely like this in "The Legend of Sleepy Hollow", but it's historical BUNK. I don't care what neo-pagan axe you have to grind, but in the 18th century, "witchcraft" meant selling your soul to the Devil in exchange for diabolical powers; this whole fluffy white-witch goddess-worship "an'-it-harm-none" approach to witchcraft dates back, historically, about as far as the British Invasion. (Parties interested in real old-school pagan practices are referred to James Frazer's "The Golden Bough", if you don't believe me.) This creates such a discordant element thrown into the context of the film that the very framework of the Sleepy Hollow legend is shattered. So we wind up with a totally different story altogether. If that was Burton's idea, I wish he'd warned us in advance. Also, I wish he'd come up with a better story than the rather pedestrian one witnessed here. And he might as well have dropped the Irving pretensions altogether. And, at any rate, the movie isn't scary. Not once. Not at all. The warped tree came close, but was more than counterbalanced by the laughable effect of the Hessian's farce-comedy bellowing. And finally, yes, I too wanted Christina Ricci for Christmas, but God clearly never meant her to be a blonde.
5,399	[ 500, 600 ]	411	523	This game was terrible. I think they worked too hard on the visuals and didn't do much with the gameplay, which is the most important part. I mean, the visuals look incredible, but is the game really "fun"? NO! I mean it's like "hey let's jump off buildings" and all I'm doing is holding up and A/X. The game play just isn't there, and I don't agree with what Ubisoft did, because they had this hot girl (the producer of the game, Jade Raymond), and they were like "OK we've got this hot girl, let's pimp her" and if you go to gaming websites, you're not gonna see gameplay stuff of Assassin's Creed, you'll see her face with a microphone and it'll be like "We interviewed Jade Raymond about her favorite cookies!" It's like man, shut the F*@K UP WHO CARES?! Apparently...a lot of people do, because they bought the game and like it...I mean compare this game with Super Mario Galaxy. A Wii game that really doesn't abuse the Wii Remote, but STILL is very innovative and delivers in the most important part, GAMEPLAY! They were able to do a bit of everything with Mario Galaxy, the graphics were still stunning, the music in the game was orchestrated and sounded amazing, and THAT'S a game that deserves game of the year. NOT Assassin's Creed, man, it doesn't even deserve to even be a NOMINEE for Game of the Year. The hype around this game where it was like "oh it's the next generation of gaming"....really? I think not! So let me get this straight here, because I think the people liking this game are only liking it because they're Jade fans, so I'll tell you guys, JADE WILL NOT MAKE OUT WITH YOU OR ANYTHING IF YOU LOVE OR DEFEND THIS GAME! If you want a REAL game on the PS3, get Uncharted: Drake's Fortune, if you want a REAL game for the Xbox 360, get Call of Duty 4 (and a ton of other games too), and if you want a REAL game just in all the systems? GET SUPER MARIO GALAXY! I know this comment will be hated by many, but seriously, pressing two buttons for doing all this cool stuff, is that REALLY a fun game? The only reason why other games make it more complicated is because after it'll end up being more innovative and fun. And this game just isn't it.<br /><br />1.3/10 A LIVING HELL!
5,405	[ 500, 600 ]	435	553	The Devil's Men represents what turned out to be one of the last gasps of the occult obsessed horror scene of the 70's shortly before Halloween came along, tore up the rule book, set fire to it and kicked it screaming through a plate glass window.<br /><br />To cut a long story short a couple of enterprising Greek film makers fancy their chances of nailing together a new film franchise featuring the unlikely double act of womanising, wise talking American investigator Milo and stuffy but kind hearted priest Father Roche. An exiled nobleman is mixed up in some satanic jiggery pokery - offering up tourists as sacrifices to an extremely unfrightening effigy of the minotaur and only Milo and Roche can stop him! <br /><br />Or something like that.<br /><br />The reality is however horribly dull, frustrating and loaded with wasted opportunities. I strongly suspect that the fledgling film makers blew most of the budget on getting Donald Plesance, Peter Cushing and Brian Eno (for the soundtrack) onboard and hoped that would be enough to sway audiences in the English speaking world.<br /><br />It isn't. The Devil's Men looks beautiful with assured, camera-work and fantastic locations. Eno's score, though basically just a one chord drone that he probably cranked out in an afternoon is suitably atmospheric and the movie is laden with cracking 70's crumpet including that Austrailian sort from Fawlty Towers and uber hottie Jane Lyle of Island of Death infamy. But there the positives end. Cushing sleepwalks through it, looking like he has a corn cob up his bum and Pleasance fusses about trying his best, but never quite getting things right. To make matters worse the character of Milo is appallingly flimsy and unlikeable.<br /><br />Okay, so it doesn't look that good. But from there the film simply refuses to go anywhere. There is an insinuation that the local villagers are possessed, but to be fair to them, they never really do anything very much other than shuffle about looking glassy eyed. Perhaps they were just tired? Just when you are sure things will come to some kind of a head Milo and Roche interrupt the Baron's satanic party with laughable ease, sending him on to meet his maker. The statue of the minotaur falls silent and hey presto! Satan is defeated.<br /><br />Yeah right.<br /><br />The inane optimism that The Devil's Men might be the first of a series of films is hammered home by Father Roche's final line mere seconds before the ridiculously rushed ending. <br /><br />"Who knows Milo? Perhaps one day I may call upon you again to help defeat the Antichrist." <br /><br />I'm sure you'll be putting that call in any day now Donald.
5,423	[ 500, 600 ]	436	566	The use of "astral projection"(wandering soul), to exist outside of body, with the result inflicting horrible death(..crushing the insides of victims leading to broken spine and ruptured organs)on those close to the one with such ability, is the threat of ETERNAL EVIL, providing Karen Black(..as Janus) with another "unique" character to fool around with as a woman who influences a commercial director, Paul Sharpe(Winston Rekert) tired of his waning marriage and dull career. In actuality, she's dying and needs his body, her spirit potentially harmful to his wife and son(..his son has a "special friend" who talks him into things, even poisoning himself at one point). A detective, Kauffman(John Novak) investigating the unusual homicides concerning those killed by the benevolent spirit, links Paul to the deaths and through him uncovers Janus. Soon both realize that Janus must be stopped or she'll simply move to another human host. What Paul doesn't know is that his new secretary is Janus' lover, both were actually older intellectuals featured in his documentary of astral projection called WANDERING SOUL.<br /><br />Director George Mihalka(My Bloody Valentine)certainly creates a weird atmosphere with this movie which contains a rather bizarre premise. It seems that Paul's boy can see the spirit moving in the shape of a "blue man", manipulating the kid into disorderly conduct. Black, despite the star treatment, rarely is shot close up taking advantage of her face which can produce the type of malevolent evil her character warrants. Instead, she's shot from afar, her voice dubbed, and she never quite establishes herself with the proper menace which is an opportunity lost, in my opinion. For some reason, despite the intriguing(..if oddball)idea of astral projection causing a spirit to kill folks from within, the film just never takes off. The soundtrack is very "Yanni-ish" and the lighting(..and sound), while at times moody and effective, often is quite murky. The pacing is a problem, also, as the story mules along. The cast is rather limp, especially Rekert in the lead, his performance erratic, at best. It doesn't help that there are few characters(..except Paul's wife)we could care less about, and what really hurts is that Paul himself isn't exactly the most lovable person in the world..he can be quite difficult and moody, his unfulfilled career a reason for such behavior. Black should've been a more prominent figure in the film, yet remains mostly in the background, talked about in dialogue between Paul and Kauffman, but rarely does she get a chance to amuse us with her histrionics, which is a shame.
5,479	[ 500, 600 ]	417	507	A Delta Force Army unit, assigned to find a batch of missing Green Beret bad-asses not known for going completely missing, will be in a fight for survival against a cloaked skeleton man, the supposed spirit of an ancient Indian warrior who was revived when archaeologists disturbed his grave. The Skeleton Man rides a horse and has the ability to propel to and fro using a type of dimensional portal, and seems unaffected by bullet-fire and explosives. The Skeleton Man's horse leaves no hoof prints and he can ride from behind and around his prey silently. The film's point-of-view through the Skeleton Man's eyes looks at his prey with a different color. In other words, he's not seemingly human, so how can Captain Leary(Michael Rooker, as grizzled and intense as ever)and his gang of would-be commandos stop this menace? For some reason, the Skeleton Man murders employees of a nearby chemical plant. What are the Skeleton Man's motives for slaughtering endless human beings? And, why is a blind Indian living in the forest our commandos inhabit spared if the Skeleton Man, as a human, slaughtered his entire tribe to prove himself? <br /><br />As completely stupid as it sounds. Just unbelievable horrible. This is the kind of film that can deaden brain cells. Casper Van Dien gets second billing in the credits just under Rooker, yet is saddled with a ridiculously underwritten character who exits the film quite early. Rooker deserves better than this. If I were an actor, I wouldn't want this movie in my resume. The Skeleton Man is a reject Templer Knight from a de Ossorio film. He has a spear which can merely knock certain people down while exploding the head of a woman on impact. An arrow shot from the Skeleton Man's bow actually destroys the propeller of a chopper plane. For nearly 99 % of the film, bullets are shot at the Skeleton Man and he can go in and out of that portal thingee yet, at the end, all of a sudden, he becomes vulnerable to attack. Oh, and the horses also change as the Skeleton Man freely moves through the forest from that portal.The film is written and edited by clowns. The attack scenes are poorly constructed and the characters, who are supposed to be experienced pros, make really bad decisions throughout this film. The mind boggles with this film. Good for some laughs, and some gore scenes make this hunk of pure crap watchable as a trash movie.
5,557	[ 500, 600 ]	469	578	Predator Island starts as six friends, Eric (Tom Dahl), Chris (Dan Gordon) along with Heather (Iris McQuillan-Grace), Kim (Iana Baker) & Denise (Melissa Roby) get invited to spend sometime on Kevin's (Michael Wrann) father's boat partying in the open sea. What could go wrong with such a super sounding idea? Well for starters a big green meteorite could crash into the sea near your boat & an alien life-force could emerge from it & try to kill all of you, then again that's just a ridiculously stupid idea, isn't it?<br /><br />Co-edited, written & directed by Steven Castle I thought Predator Island was crap & it's a simple & straight forward as that really. The script is of the worst kind, you know the sort of abomination that's full of highly annoying teenage character's who do & say the most stupid things, it's full of clichés & is utterly predictable, it makes next-to-no sense, things just suddenly happen without any build up or explanation, it's boring even at only 70 odd minutes & it has virtually no entertainment value whatsoever, not even unintentional laugh value. The film doesn't really have much of what I would call a plot, there's no explanation given as to why or how this alien creature can take over people's minds or why it can be selective in the sense that one moment the person will be 'normal' the next, when the story calls for it & with no apparent cause, they suddenly get green glowing eyes & a sudden urge to turn cannibal. There's not enough horror in it, the so-called action scenes are pitiful & I really don't want to waste another second thinking about Predator Island let alone wasting my precious energy typing these words...<br /><br />Director Castle doesn't do anything to make this thing watchable & the 'special effects' are absolutely terrible, this alien creature dude wouldn't even get into a 50's sci-fi film. The filmmakers even play some blooper footage over the end credits but this has to be the least funny collection of mistakes ever, I mean they can't even get it wrong right if you know what I mean! Forget about any decent gore as there isn't any, there's a bit of cannibalism & some intestines placed on the unfortunate actors stomach so another unfortunate actor can pick them up & pretend to eat them.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $150,000 I have to concede that the filmmakers were working on a seriously low budget, that's still no excuse for making such a poor film. The whole thing looks very cheap & the acting is pretty bad.<br /><br />Predator Island is crap, I'm sorry but that's the way it is & I just fail to see what anyone would get out of it. In my humble opinion this probably one to avoid.
5,565	[ 500, 600 ]	485	593	I only watched this because I saw a couple of good reviews for this, so I was expecting at the very least a half-way cheesy movie. Toybox doesn't even deliver that. There are so many problems with this flick, that I don't even know where to start, so I will list a couple of main issues (Once again, spoiler warning. Just read them, it'll save you the trouble of watching this later).<br /><br />One, this movie starts out with, and often mentions, the mythical folklore of both Celeste Noir (A witch, who the main character claims she is the reincarnation of), and the mid-folker (or something like that, an evil man with a big smile who cuts people open with hooks and sells their innards in pies). I liked that, it was a cute concept, anything to do with pies is simply enjoyable. But then you watch the movie and it's all about this idiot girl and her boyfriend (And what was the deal with him? Was he psychic? Did he have powers? Why did he keep seeing visions that even the so called 'Witch' didn't notice??), and them meeting their insane family. Not really insane, they just argue a lot. That's what most of this movie is, arguing, and they barely touch on the supposed myth ever again except in a couple of confusing scenes that you can't make heads or tails of.<br /><br />In one scene, Berenice (The main witch-related character) wanders off and does some sort of ritual by candle light. It seemed rather important, but absolutely NOTHING happened after she did it, it just wasted more of my time.<br /><br />And who the hell was that guy with his dog? You see him walking towards the house from the very start of the movie with that evil red-eyed dog, and then he finally gets there and gets killed? What the hell?? Was he the mid-folker? Was his dog possessed? Did someone kill the dog? They never really showed that. Also, any scene involving the Vicar was completely pointless and only served to weakly explain the lame ending. It was like they had all these interesting character ideas and they all went nowhere! The boyfriend, who obviously had some sort of powers but never explains them. The grandmother, who appeared to also have some sort of witch powers, but never used them. The Vicar, who...OK, never mind, there really was no point for his existence at all. And then there was Berenice and her stupid amulet. Could she really do magic, or did she just use it to reflect light and blind people? This was a complete waste of time, and the only reason I give it two stars at all is because a) Berenice is kinda cute, and b) It mentioned pies. Save yourself the money of renting this and dear god don't even think about buying it, unless wasting money is a new fad.
5,593	[ 500, 600 ]	487	595	Writer/Director Michael Hurst's Sci-Fi Channel sequel to Stan Winston's classic horror tale of revenge gone awry has its moments and some decent gore, but ultimately falls short in comparison to the original.<br /><br />I'm pretty sure the filmmakers weren't trying to make a comedy, but I caught myself laughing throughout. A family feud started over a car accident is the basis for this entry into the franchise. The Hatfield and McCoy families live in a backwoods town with dirt roads, drive pickup trucks, drink moonshine, and kick each others asses every chance they get. Just when they thought it was safe to hate each other and live happily ever after, Jodie Hatfield (Amy Manson) and Ricky McCoy (Bradley Taylor) decided to fall in love causing the fit to hit the shan. One night the two lovebirds decide to head out into the woods for some quality time while Ricky's sister plays lookout, but it just so happens that on that very night some of the Hatfields accidentally kill Ricky's sister and catch him and Jodie together. You know what happens next. Ricky finds his sisters body and decides to pay a visit to Haggis so that he can exact his revenge through the mighty Pumpkinhead. Ye Haw! Also, Harley (Lance Henriksen) is back to warn potential damned souls against using Pumpkinhead to ease their pain. Which really put a kink in the story because Harley is supposed to have called on Pumpkinhead years before this story takes place, but the setting and characters look like dirty Pilgrims that somehow traveled through time in order to bring the pickup truck back to Plymouth. Then there's the Sheriff (Rob Freeman) who has his own ties to the demon and looks like he belongs in a 70's revenge movie instead of a made-for-cable horror flick.<br /><br />Some of the gore and special effects were cool, but instead of sticking to the man-in-a-suit way of thinking Hurst used some terrible looking 3D shots for certain scenes. One particularly embarrassing shot shows Pumpkinhead jumping from tree branches like a badly rendered 3D monkey. The cinematography was exceptional and elevated the quality of the movie quite a bit. The acting was pretty decent also, with the exception of a few poorly executed accents.<br /><br />Family feuds never end well, especially when the families involved in the feud have to deal with Pumpkinhead. I didn't enjoy every minute of this flick, but it was much better than most of the movies the Sci-Fi Channel spits out. Maybe it's a sign that the Channel is trying to bring the quality of its movies up to match the quality of its original series'. I wouldn't waste any coin on a rental, but if you get the chance to catch a rerun of it on the boob-tube I would say to check it out. It's a not-so-killer-film but it rises slightly above the level of trash that makes it onto DVD these days.
5,640	[ 500, 600 ]	453	573	At the beginning of 'Loggerheads', we're introduced to three pairs of seemingly unrelated characters. To make matters even more confusing, we're informed (via titles on the screen) that the action is taking place in three separate time lines (between the years 1999 and 2001). It takes a great deal of time but eventually we come to see how the three pairs are related: Mark Austin, a young man in his 20s, gay and HIV Positive is estranged from his conservative parents, Elizabeth and Rev. Robert Austin. <br /><br />Mark is now a drifter and arrives in Kure Beach, North Carolina, a seaside town, where he meets George (sensitively played by Michael Kelly), a gay motel owner and they eventually become involved with each other. Meanwhile, Mark's birth mother, Grace (played by Bonnie Hunt) has come to the point in her life where she has decided to find the son she gave up for adoption when she was 17. Similarly, Mark's adoptive mother, also has decided to track her estranged son as she misses him (despite the misgivings of her homophobic minister husband).<br /><br />'Loggerheads' we're told is based on a true story and that perhaps is its Achilles Heel. Director/Writer Tim Kirkman tries too hard to create scenes fraught with dramatic tension where there is very little to be found. Take Mark and Georgethey're both sensitive souls who have little to disagree about. There's some slight tension when Grace faces off against an Adoption Agency Director who is forbidden by law to give her any information about her lost son as well as a slight conflict with her mother who denies that she disapproved of her when she became pregnant as a teenager. No sparks fly either between Elizabeth and Robert since the good Reverend has adamantly insisted from the beginning that he has no intention of reconciling with his son. <br /><br />'Loggerheads' is similar to 'Brokeback Mountain' in that the gay couple are the good guys and the straight males (for example, the Kure Beach cop and the Reverend) are the baddies. The biggest letdown of the movie is that there is no interaction (and hence no dramatic conflict) between Mark and either one of his 'mothers'. Mark is already dead before either the birth or adoptive mother has a chance to reconcile with him. <br /><br />Kirkman's theme is both a plea for tolerance and an exhortation for family members to express their heartfelt feelings before it's too late! Kirkman's sentiments are for the most part well-intentioned but they do not make for good drama. Loggerheads moves along at a snail's pace without providing any new revelations (or suspense) regarding such topics as AIDS, Adoption and Homophobia. Ultimately 'Loggerheads' fails due to a lack of originality.
5,643	[ 500, 600 ]	406	517	First off, I would like to make it clear that I voluntarily subject myself to the viewing of terrible movies. I have seen what I thought were the worst of the worst. In my mind, movies could not get any worse than the likes of D.E.B.S., Leprechaun 6: Back 2 Tha Hood, and Terror Storm. Until I saw this movie.<br /><br />The Pirate Movie, without any exaggeration, is the WORST MOVIE IN THE WORLD. I was informed prior to watching that the movie was, indeed, awful, but I did not believe the allegations. Believe me when I tell you that this movie is simply an abomination to film.<br /><br />It starts out with a 3 minute clip of a boat of pirates apparently in the middle of a battle with themselves. "The End" splashes across the screen. Unfortunately, it is not the actual end of the movie. The movie is about an unpopular, awkwardly nerdy girl named Mabel, who carries around a ghetto blaster and is attracted to ambiguously homosexual pirate boys. She drowns and has a overly drawn out hallucination in which she stars as a scantily dressed skank who falls in love with Frederic, who happens to have just crawled out of the ocean. He might actually be homosexual. The Pirate King has a ruby and diamond studded codpiece. It honks and squeaks when he squeezes it.<br /><br />There is singing in this movie. You might have the impression that this is a hilarious musical. It isn't. Trust me. They are the worst songs that you've ever heard, and by the end of the first original tune you will be searching for objects to pierce your eardrums with.<br /><br />There are "references" to other movies in here. By references, of course, I mean "obvious rip-offs." The inclusion of Indiana Jones, Inspector Clouseau, and the lightsaber were, in fact, anti-hilarious.<br /><br />The dialogue is, in its better moments, painful to hear. The direction is flat out awful, and at one point you can see the stunt pad in the scene, which isn't very well hidden at all.<br /><br />In conclusion, if there is even the shadow of curiosity in your mind about this movie, get rid of it. There are times when people want to see how bad something really is, but this movie is not worth it. Put it completely out of your mind and never think about it again. If you cherish your mental capacity then I beg of you, NEVER EVER WATCH THIS MOVIE.
5,652	[ 500, 600 ]	381	512	This proved to be a rare case of a poliziottesco made with British funding; unfortunately, the result is undistinguished (except by its exceeding unpleasantness and borderline-camp approach) despite stars and director. The former is led by a wooden Franco Nero and an ultra-hammy Telly Savalas as a couple of would-be robbers (if anyone is able to believe either actor who generally exude cool as a duo of bumbling crooks, he's more gullible than I am!).<br /><br />Their 'job' goes awry (ending in murder and saddled with cases of cutlery instead of jewels!) however, the mismatched criminals see an opening to their dilemma when they inadvertently 'kidnap' the son of a British diplomat (a miscast Lester, who even gets to kick trigger-happy Savalas where it hurts at one point). Still, they never actually ransom him and their sole intent is to cross the border into France; tagging along with them is Nero's girlfriend (a wasted Ely Galleani): soon enough, though, she's had enough and decides to run away while the others are sleeping; the crazy Savalas notices this and, following the girl, kills her. In the meantime, Nero and Lester have woken up the former thinks his accomplices may have double-crossed him, so he goes on the lam with the boy in tow; after a brief spell at a rich old lady's country estate (which features totally gratuitous rear nudes by both Nero and Lester!), Savalas catches up with them. They continue their trek, where the trio run into a family of German campers: the situation degenerates to the point where Savalas shuts them inside their trailer and tosses the lot into the river though he's badly hurt in the process himself; typically, it all ends with the 'heavies' getting killed just as they're about to reach the border.<br /><br />The film, therefore, contains most of the genre's typical elements sleaze, sadism, violence, chases (the aftermath of the opening robbery when the getaway car causes havoc in the city's narrow back-streets and even disrupts a funeral procession is downright farcical), etc.; one mildly interesting aspect to it is that, by the end, Lester himself is seen to have been definitely (irrevocably?) marked by the experience coming to feel excitement when an act of violence is committed.
5,665	[ 500, 600 ]	403	501	This, in my opinion, is a very poor movie that advertises Arnold Schwarzenegger as starring (despite him being the co-star) only to sell more copies. Obviously taking influence from the similarly themed Conan' movies, this film fails to prove as enjoyable and eventually fails to entertain at all.<br /><br />Bridgette Neilsen stars as Sonja, a beautiful woman who has been given unbelievable strength by a ghostly figure after her village was pillaged, her family killed and she herself raped by the soldiers of Queen Gedran (Sandahl Bergman). Gedran is a tyrant Queen who wants control over the barbaric world and seeks out a talisman protected by Sonja's sister to do it. After discovering what has happened Sonja sets out for revenge and at the same time she must save the world from the wrath of Gedran. Kalidor (Schwarzenegger), the master of the talisman, sets out to protect her whether she wants him there or not.<br /><br />The first major problem with this movie is the beginning. The events leading up to the point where Sonja receives her powers could have easily made a good ten to fifteen minutes of enjoyable film. However, the beginnings are rushed into what seems like a quick one-minute `Previously on.' segment from a television show. Had they actually made these events part of the story and cut out some of the filler later on they may have been able to start redeeming this movie but unfortunately they didn't (I wonder why director Richard Fleischer has only currently directed two movies since Red Sonja).<br /><br />This film also features some of the most annoying characters in history like Tarn (Ernie Reyes Jr.) who is a stupid character and just adds an over abundance of camp to the movie, which sometimes works but in this case fails miserably. He was quite obviously written into the movie for some comic relief but with the overall absurdity of the film anyway this was another costly mistake for Red Sonja'.<br /><br />For all it's faults there were some good fight scenes involving both Neilsen and Arnie which are worth noting but these are nowhere enough to save this turkey. The acting is about as good as it gets for movies of this quality and even Arnie didn't seem too bothered about his performance. I don't recommend this film at all; to me it's a waste of an hour and a half. My rating for Red Sonja' 3/10
5,673	[ 500, 600 ]	441	561	After a long hard night being partied away at the Walkabout in Islington, I needed a pick-me-up. My throat hurt, my wallet was empty and I ended up chatting to a drug addict at a bus-stop trying to sell me some petrol. Today, I watched "Red Sonja" and I can honestly say that I felt much better last night than I do right now. Brigitte Nielsen leads a bunch of ass-kicking warriors in various shapes and sizes to recover a green rock from some evil queen whose motives are never fully explained. Yep, it's that good.<br /><br />"Red Sonja" isn't in a genre known for great films until Peter Jackson came along with a certain Oscar-winning trilogy. In fact, the best swords-and-sorcery film I could think of before "Lord Of The Rings" was George Lucas's kiddie-friendly "Willow". Perhaps, in view of this, one should go a little easy on this film. But I can't - it's poorly written, badly acted (with the exception of Paul Smith, who's just average) and dreadfully put together. The film is as convincing as an episode of the Flintstones, with costumes and scenery seemingly lifted straight outta Bedrock. Considering the comic-book source material, it is easy to forgive the various plot inconsistencies. Why Sonja insists on saving the most annoying kid, in this world or that one, is bewildering. His personality seems to flick from spoilt brat to polite gentleman at the flick of a switch. Schwarzenegger displays less charisma than a field full of cows and just goes through the motions, a perfect actor for his breakthrough role in "The Terminator".<br /><br />It's simple to kick a film when you're down but the fact remains that this is not a good film, by any stretch of the imagination. When Nielsen mourns the death of her sister and Schwarzenegger tenderly places his hand on her shoulder to comfort her and then blurts out, in that distinctive Germanic accent, "she's dead" then you know you're in for a rough ride. A few smiles were raised at inappropriate points, such as the priestesses of a temple who, when sent plunging to their deaths in a hole in the ground, seemed to enjoy the experience - at least, judging from the orgasmic moans that seemed to echo around the place. If you have to watch an Eighties fantasy film that wasn't porn, watch "Willow" (but never take that as a ringing endorsement). For the real thing, take yourself to your local multiplex and show Peter Jackson what a great job he did with "Lord Of The Rings". Trust me, 11 Oscars really does mean it's a great film - unlike bloody "Titanic".
5,693	[ 500, 600 ]	426	518	It amazes me that someone would actually consider spending some money on a movie like this. Really. Let's forget for a second that the plot doesn't even give a single hint of originality... Most of the movies today are based on other movies' stories, so a "simple" lack of originality is not that big a deal. <br /><br />But I can hardly believe that none of the guys involved in the movie had never even got on a plane before shooting this. Because, let's be honest, that would be the only excuse to come up with something so ridiculous. To be sincere I think a 6-years-old child with a fake camera could have come up with something technically much more believable. Some examples following.<br /><br />The scene that really drove me crazy is when the engines turn off when they regain control of the plane. When they have to turn them on again the guy on the radio says something like "Ok, push the 1 and 2 buttons on the dashboard". Now, those are not buttons. They should not be pushed, they should actually be pulled up and toward the pilot. That's something only plane-addicted would know, you say? Wrong. The next scene you can see their fingers pushing the "buttons"... And of course the so called "buttons" don't move at all! Not even a single millimeter! (And note that I haven't even mentioned the fact that aircraft engines are not like cars engine, that you just turn the key and the magic happens... You have to do quite a complicated procedure to turn them on...) Come on guys! You could have faked the movements at least!! Not to mention the hilarious final impact, where the plane crashes against every single thing along the runway (Light poles along the runway? What where they thinking?!)... And the wings don't even get ripped off! It happened to me too, once... Except the plane was made of Lego! What about the flight attendant? She's actually so skilled that she perfectly knows where the "aux 1" and "aux 2" fuses are, in the middle of the wires behind the cockpit. Should we mention, then, the guy that can drive an ambulance _and_ fly a plane behind the ambulance using his computer? And how did he turn the other airplane engines on?<br /><br />Really, I could go on hours with this stuff. This is the dumbest movie I've ever come across, and I'm including garbage like Alone In The Dark and other stuff in the list. Want to do yourself a favor? Don't watch it.
5,701	[ 500, 600 ]	422	521	Let me break down this film for you...<br /><br />The first fifteen minutes are a showcase for terrible special effects. I'm not one to nitpick about special effects, but what you've got to understand is that if you can't afford good special effects, you shouldn't anchor your film around special effects. Starships fire blobs of color at each other, flaring into stock explosions, and careening past moons with polygon counts low enough to count with your fingers. You will have no idea what is happening. It will not make sense.<br /><br />The second act involves a woman walking in the desert. At this point you will be treated to drab scenery, and illogical, boring fight scenes. Nobody speaks. Nothing interesting happens. The protagonist's goals are unclear, and are not very compelling. This goes on for about 45 minutes.<br /><br />Then in a five-minute montage, she sneaks into an enemy base, straps herself to a rocket, tries to destroy a doomsday weapon, fails, and dies.<br /><br />None of this has any bearing on the eventual direction of the film.<br /><br />In the last twenty minutes, basically the chick's memories get transferred to her daughter, who goes into stasis for a very large number of years, learning the secrets of mankind. After this, we see the first, and last five-minute segment of human interaction in the film, then the new heroine is forced to choose whether she wants to become part of the material that causes the big bang or not. You know. Because when the universe is collapsing, you get to decide if you want to be a part of it.<br /><br />She chooses yes. BUT THE MEMORIES OF MANKIND SURVIVE IN A CAPSULE. Maybe we won't make the same mistakes again, huh? If you like movies with characters, then this is not a good movie for you. The lead roles could have been fulfilled nicely by any old wind-up toy capable of staying right-side-up while walking through sand. All of the story is told through painfully dull narration.<br /><br />The film tries to seem deep by throwing together a whole bunch of undeveloped science-fiction ideas. There are enough concepts here to fuel a number of films, but as it stands, it's bloated with completely irrelevant details. Two-thirds of this film could have been reduced to a 45-second montage. Instead, the narrator fills in a novella's worth of backstory without ever giving us a reason to care what happens to the characters.<br /><br />There are good ideas in here, but nobody watches films to see ideas ineptly explained. People watched films to be entertained. This film does not entertain.
5,711	[ 500, 600 ]	494	592	Nothing to spoil here at all but this could be a SPOILER so beware.<br /><br />Special effects were on the level of a video game -- about five years ago, or perhaps of the original Star Trek. The acting was just pathetic -- some cheesy looking blonde treking across the desert while a voice in the background droned on. And on. And on. This was the trek and drone half that I actually made it through. Progress is interrupted by a few fights. Ships blow each other up for no real reason that is apparent episodically. Again, it's not that there is a real fight that you would expect from a movie, more like a cheap video game. Boi-ing! Boi-ing! Ship explodes. Next ship. Apparently some of the ships are looking for the blonde. Here in the far future, ships must be nearsighted and astigmatic because many of them pass directly overhead of the stylishly dressed futuristic babe in black but never see her. <br /><br />Then there are a couple of choreographed fights that look like something put on by high school kids. Again, the crude video game mentality is prominent. The combatants shift to "Fight Mode" by flipping something on their wrists, and a loud computerized voice echoes and flashes "Fight Mode". That must be a dandy design if you are trying to sneak up on somebody. Then you go to a big power station which looks just like a current day power line tower and plug in to charge back up. LOL, I'm not kidding, you can't make this stuff up, it's like watching a freaking video game from about 2000 only the acting is better in the game.<br /><br />More trekking. Then she shows up at "The City". (Lame sound trek gets even lamer here.) She gets into a fight with a mech robot of the future who cannot hit her with his big gun, even though she runs right in front of him, about five feet in front of him. Obviously robots of the far future are about as useful as toaster ovens in a fight. She throws sand in its eyes and beats it to death by throwing rocks at it. rofl, I was at about 95% of tolerance by that point, my nausea circuits flashing red.<br /><br />In the next scene she ends up strapped to a rocket with some rope. I kid you not, tied right to the outside of a rocket. This is supposed to be an advanced form of transportation. At that point I bailed. <br /><br />This movie is an utter disgrace for a movie made at the present time. Just a freaking disgrace. There was a drippy story but the movie distracted from it -- somebody droning on about "mother" constantly. <br /><br />I gave it a two because there were a few scenes which displayed some pretty nice artwork of a science fiction nature as background. Unfortunately the plot, acting, action, cinematography, and narrative distracted from this artwork and degraded it. No kidding.
5,732	[ 500, 600 ]	377	553	The actresses bra in a changing room--well I guess they are preparing young children for changing room time? (Boys you must close your eyes at that scene A humongous bra (34C which definitely neither of the actresses size) dangling and supposedly talking--oh don't worry if your son takes your bra then Stripping boys (a girl pulls down a boys pants) to reveal his boxers--kids try that at home and in school Beating a girl with male briefs--nothing wrong. The show likes to show underwear--panties next?? Actress--at an age below 18 in a revealing bikini--mom can you buy me one when i reach puberty? So many sexual innuendos to learn:eg: "Don't doubt my ball skills."<br /><br />"I like to dance. With my shirt off."<br /><br />"Wet and sticky is very icky. Sticky and wet make Mommy upset."<br /><br />"I just wanna stick my face in this pie and go 'bbbbbbuuuub.'"<br /><br />"I come up with my best ideas when I'm wet."<br /><br />"He sliced my banana!"<br /><br />"Come on boy, let's do it"<br /><br />you'll never guess where I found this fish"<br /><br />"I'll leave you two to do..it"<br /><br />"Carly (about Sam): She just ditched iCarly to go play with Jonah?!"<br /><br />"You won't get respect if your back's not erect."<br /><br />"How's it hanging"<br /><br />"What can I say, I'm a great ball handler"<br /><br />"Watch me spank your daddy!"<br /><br />Spencer: That's big. Freddie's mom: Thank you<br /><br />"Hey! Could you keep your hands off my equipment?"<br /><br />Freddie: Oh, and last night, slept with my socks on. Sam or Carly: So? Freddie: JUST my socks<br /><br />"They wanted no part of me or my fudgeballs"<br /><br />"Freddie, you know how I feel about you handling tools!"<br /><br />"You don't even wanna know where the batteries go"<br /><br />"It's like she stuffs waffle cones in her bra!"<br /><br />Spencer: "Well, it spread...to places." Freddie: "Where?" Spencer motions for Freddie to come near, then whispers in his ear. Freddie: "Ugh!"<br /><br />"Wow, it's just that you've always seemed . . . so willing."<br /><br />"I have to take my daughter to a special doctor"<br /><br />"I send a lot of guys, a lot of places"<br /><br />"Yeah, you've been having all kinds of fun this morning."<br /><br />"I'm looking for some 'cheap entertainment'..." <br /><br />(mom I learn how to say **** indirectly today!!) All in all very educational for young children. Lesson to be taken: if you want to know more than where babies come from kids, watch this show!!!
5,778	[ 500, 600 ]	428	545	After reading other reviews on this site, we weren't sure if we were going to be able to critique this movie because it didn't sound bad enough. However, 2 minutes into the movie, we knew we were in for another flop. No summer is complete without ice cream, but this movie served up a melted, sour, broken-bottomed ice cream cone (you know, the kind that leaves you sticky and dirty and looking for a wet-nap). The biggest problem with this movie was the plot. What was it? It appeared to be a psychotic ice cream man driving around the neighborhood. That's it. Nothing else happens. First of all, what are the qualifications for becoming an ice-cream man in this crap town? 1. Spend several years in the most ridiculous mental hospital known to man. This hospital was plagued with clowns, graffiti, fake plastic sunflowers, and oversized syringes to the head. 2. Have extremely poor hygiene and a mutant face to scare the kids away. 3. Make sure your truck is stocked with severed body parts, roaches, and don't forget the eye whites!<br /><br />The actors in this movie are pure B-Movie caliber. Mixed in with a bunch of unknowns is, who other than....a trailer-trash version of Macaulay Culkin!! Even his bratty charm couldn't save this kick in the pants. There seemed to be no rhyme or reason for any of the murders in this movie. The whole concept of the movie reeked! Who would kill an ice cream man in a drive-by shooting? Gangsters? Fiends? Vanna White? Who? We are still struggling with this question.<br /><br />Whoever was in charge of the wardrobe for this movie should be immediately blacklisted from Hollywood. Did they honestly think a pillow under a kid's shirt would make the audience believe that he was really fat? Did they forget about the arms, face, legs, and all other body parts? Second of all, this movie was made in 1995, yet the wardrobe seemed to be picked from a lame 80's movie, evidenced by the big brother's white, crotch-hugging high-water pants.<br /><br />While we were watching this shotty production, we both developed severe cases of ADD. We found ourselves leaving the room to walk around aimlessly. At many points it the movie, we found that staring at a blank wall behind the T.V. set was more entertaining than the actual movie. We were stunned that this movie didn't make it to the Bottom 100. Afterwards, we took the tape out of the VCR and left it on the black top to melt like a sub-standard ice cream cone.
5,804	[ 500, 600 ]	470	558	This was one of the biggest pieces of crap I have ever had to watch. I mean, seriously. How would anybody else feel if they were in Woody Harrelson's shoes and your wife was even CONSIDERING it would be a good idea to sleep with the other guy even for a million bucks. After all, she was the one talking about it in bed and saying how it would be good for them since he can build his house or whatever with that money. Woody never fully agreed to it until she talked him into it. How CAN you trust her? Who the hell would actually even consider that if they were married? I don't care how desperate they were. That's the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard in my life. Then, he flips out on her. Apparently, he had no right to mistrust her, other than the fact that his wife just slept with another dude who is extremely rich and handsome. Oh and wait, then he's supposed to apologize to HER after she files for the divorce so she can be with the guy she slept with. Of course Woody has no right to say anything to her or mistrust her especially after she still has Roy Hobb's card in her wallet. Then, at the end of the movie, she's apparently so in love with Woody still and misses him so much, that she was not going to leave Hobbs until he made some ridiculously stupid story up to try to hint to her to leave, and she bleeping thanks Hobbs???? Are you bleeping kidding me? Was she under contract as his sex slave or something?? I mean what the bleep?? Oh and wait it gets better. She bleeping kisses him passionately before she gets out of the car. Yea, she's not a whore. Oh, thank you for letting me go, let me go make out with you one last time for good ole' sake. Smooch smooch, smooch even though I'm still married to a guy I left for a rich guy. I have never seen such a piece of crap in my life. How the hell are we supposed to feel good after that horrible ending? What was this movie supposed to represent? NOTHING CAME OUT OF THIS! This was the most pointless movie I have ever seen in my life. Two pathetic desperate people. If I were Woody, I would tell her to go drown herself in that body of water they were near. Apparently, he had no self respect. What the hell was Roy Hobbs thinking by taking this horrible role. I feel like puking after watching this. This movie was so bad, it was seriously laughable. I want those two hours of my life back that I wasted watching this piece of ****.
5,815	[ 500, 600 ]	425	586	I come from Bangladesh, and here, C.C.Costigan is a goddess of awesome sex. All kidding aside, a friend and I were awake in the middle of the night, watching movies on the Encore: Action channel, when we came across a series of sci-fi-esquire flicks. There was RoboCop 2 (not bad,...not bad at all) ... then Judge Dredd, (Stalone almost ruins his career) then a movie called Lethal Target. One would think the title "Lethal Target" could only be awarded to a really cool, and really cheesy Rambo knock-off. But nay, what is delivered is what I would like to call a "Semi-softcore, semi-pseudo action, semi-sci-fi film" ... actually, I think I can say that this isn't even a film at all. If it wasn't for the main character's sheer hotness, my friend and I would've turned off the movie as the opening credits rolled.<br /><br />I have a few questions to the people (I wouldn't even dare say "professionals") who made this film. -One, In the future, why are they using the weaponry we used in 1999? Oh, wait, I get it, it's all that they could get their hands on,... right???... well then,.. why is the main character wearing what looks like a normal everyday linen shirt and a vest, kinda like what people wore in the late nineties? .... oh ... I get it ... in space, it MUST have been a fashion statement.... well, then... WHY,OH, WHY does the main character pull out a 3.5 floppy disk at one point in the film so that she can upload some bullshit ?! wtf !? ...we've progressed so far that we have space travel, but we still haven't progressed past 1.44megabytes of space..?<br /><br />I guess I'm just asking for too much.<br /><br />Question two, Let's just say...that yes... this is a softcore porn. Then why is there only ONE real sex scene, and why does it last for 2 minutes?<br /><br />I mean, you're taking the REASON people are staying up in the middle of the night to see this crap (dare I say 'movie' anymore?) ... and whittling it down to 2 minutes. Hell, they should've just taken that sex scene and sold it to another porn movie, and they would've STILL made more money off of this "crap" than they did.<br /><br />C.C.Cortigan is hot. And no offense to the actress, but she acts about as well as I do. and I'm mentally retarded, and only have one testicle... (C.C. Cortigan,...e-mail me ...we'll have lunch) I would write more, but I've run out of space.
5,839	[ 500, 600 ]	464	580	Creating a comedy is like walking a pretty thin tight-rope. It either works, or it does not. Grandma's Boy is one of those movies that does not work. It may have a few very funny parts, but for the majority, it's just a terribly unfunny comedy from the usual supporting characters in Adam Sandler films (sans Sandler himself, he's just a producer).<br /><br />Alex (Allen Covert) is a game tester. He's 35, and is the best tester and game player at his otherwise kid-filled workplace. He ends up getting his apartment and his stuff taken from him for not paying the bills (as it turns out, his roommate had just been spending the rent money on Philipino hookers and not paying the landlord). Desperate, he moves in with his grandmother, Lilly (Doris Roberts of Everybody Loves Raymond) and her two roommates.<br /><br />That's the basic plot of the film, thrown in with subplots about a hot new girl named Samantha (Linda Cardelli, unrecognizable from her days as Velma in Scooby Doo) trying to get the testers to complete a new game as fast as they can, a robot-like game creating prodigy J.P. (Joel Moore) who works with Alex and wears much of the same clothes as Neo in The Matrix, and of course, all sorts of sex and drug related jokes. That's it.<br /><br />The problem with the film, besides the fact that the real conflict in the film occurs and is resolved within the last fifteen minutes of the film, is that it just is not funny. It is totally mind-numbingly boring, and only sparingly funny. Nothing really happens at all. No emotion, no real sense of direction, and a whole ton of intense swearing. You find yourself maybe laughing at a few funny quips that the actors say, but otherwise sit in complete boredom, wishing you had not even bothered with the film. How this film was greenlit and how Fox thought it could make money will always remain a mystery to me.<br /><br />There's just no entertainment value to come from it. None of the actors are actually putting in good performances, they are just acting like idiots for the camera, and hoping for the best. Stoner comedy has been done before multiple times, and on occasion, actually works (Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle and Dazed and Confused come to mind). Here, it just makes for making the film even less funny than it is already. The random inclusion of a monkey and a pair of bare breasts really does not make the film any better either.<br /><br />Other than a few funny one-liners, this movie should just be out-right missed altogether. It's not very funny, the entire plot is silly, it's boring, and it just makes for one horrendous film. Avoid it like the plague.<br /><br />1.5/10.
5,846	[ 500, 600 ]	422	527	Alright, how someone can actually think this movie is awesome, is so beyond me... I can't even comprehend how someone can find this movie remotely funny, the only character it has going for it, is the evil super nerd game designer, and that gets old after a while. This movie is so predictable, the punchlines are not funny they're forced, you see better acting at the red light district, and the story sucks it's so predictable, you know EXACTLY what's going to happen. Even the characters do not react like they should, try going to the hot chick that is your boss at work and telling her that you're banging 2 crazy chicks that you live with at the same time, her response wouldn't be (smile) "ok let's get back to work". I didn't laugh once during this movie, and I wish I had never seen it or spent 3$ to rent it because that's not even worth it. Adam Sandler produced this movie, I have lost all respect for him. All his movies are the same, his comedy style got old ever since The Waterboy came out, if I knew Adam Sandler had produced this before I rented it...there's no way I would have wasted my time on it. This movie is as bad as it can possibly get from every aspect... ace ventura wasn't a smart comedy movie, it didn't have a killer plot...but it was original and it was hilarious. I'm not knocking the movie because it has 'low-level' humor, i'm knocking it because it sucks, it's a piece of Hollywood crap. If this movie was presented to a production company and din't have "ADAM SANDLER" behind it, it would be thrown in the garbage quicker than a used condom. If you want a good movie about pot-culture watch Cheech and Chong, or Whitecastle. If you rent this movie all you will get is a generic comedy that targets 14-17 year olds, with loud rock music at every possible cut, acting that will make your eyes squint and your stomach turn, and comedy that is equivalent to watching your stoned friend eating mcdonalds for an hour and a half. Don't do it.... for the love of God...this movie sucks, treat it for what it is and look past all the Hollywood glory behind it.....Hercules in New York used to be the worst movie I had ever seen, but it's actually so bad it's good. This instead was a very expensive movie that sucked just as much, if not more.
5,869	[ 500, 600 ]	402	502	(There Are Spoilers) Usual slasher film with the story taking place in and around this God-forsaken mine outside the almost deserted town of Sutterille. After receiving a letter map and gold nugget from her brother Jared, Shadrach Smith, Clair and her husband Nick Breman, Carrie Bradac & Sean Hines, drive to the village together with four other friends and armature gold-prospectors Alx & Tori, Steve Wastell & Sangie, and Hayden & Rox Ann, Rick Majeske & Elina to stake their claim. <br /><br />It later turns out that the fact that Jared disturbed the long-forgotten gold mine caused the ghost of the notorious Jeremiah Stone, Vernon Wells, to come back to life and with that restart his reign of terror. Stone, or 49er, is about the most ridicules slasher/killer in motion picture history. Stone looks like he was buried for years under a few tons of coal runs around with this hook slicing people in two. After doing in almost the entire cast local hermit Aunt Nelly, (Karen Black), who's daughter Eve (Alexandra Ford) was also one of Stone's victims, tells those still alive that unless they return the gold back to the Stone mine the crazed miner will never rest until he kills all those who still have it.<br /><br />Aunt Nelly is given just enough time to tell her story before she's turned into a human torch by Stone and ends up jumping into a nearby stream.The movie goes on endlessly with the killer miner on the rampage looking like he's about as scary as burnt toast and just as dark. Even those in the film seemed to show no real fear of him. In one scene when he broke into Aunt Nelly's house everyone inside all charged, instead of running away, him causing the ghost miner to lose his right arm; Stone spent the rest of the movie with a miner's pick attached to his "stump". <br /><br />Besides Actress Karen Black the film "Miners Massacre" also has veteran actors John Phillip Law and Richard Lynch as the town Sheriff Murphy and Old Man Prichard. Passable stuff but nothing special the movie has a predictable ending with the entire gold mine going up in flames. The audience given a hint by the makers of "Miners Massacre" that the end to this mindless lunacy is nowhere in sight and may very well resurface in the very near future in a possible sequel, God help us all!
5,883	[ 500, 600 ]	442	590	A group of friends discover gold deep inside an old mine. But by taking the gold and thinking they've hit it big, they awaken a long dead miner who's Hell Bent on protecting his treasure. "Miner's Massacre" is a chintzy b-horror movie in the extreme. You've got all your familiar clichés, your group of intellectually-impaired teenagers, characters going off on their own to investigate strange noises, a few pop-scares, the mysterious sheriff, the old lady who everyone thinks is nuts (Played by top-billed Karen Black no less), and so on. Nevertheless, it's done in an amusing, non-pretentious fashion that makes the film mindlessly entertaining in a "so bad, it's good" kind of way. The characters and dialog are what you'd expect from this type of filmfamiliar, routine and unoriginal. The actors all do a decent job though, consideringI've actually seen bigger-budget films of it's type with worse acting (I know what you did last summer, anyone?) and add a bit of credibility to the film itself. The villain in this film (The 49'er) is obviously derived from the creeper from Jeepers Creepers, all the way down to the brown overcoat, the hat and the long white hair. Like the creeper he never talks, and is butt-ugly to boot. The gore is somewhat disappointing in my opinion. There are a couple of fairly gruesome moments, but too much is off-screen and the death scenes are often laughable (Spoiler ahead!). There's one truly hilarious moment where a girl gets decapitated by the said villain, and to achieve this 'effect', the filmmakers hid the actress's body beneath the villain's coat, with her head poking out, and put some fake blood on her neck. Seriously, you could see the outline of her shoulders! I think they could have done a little better there, even if the budget was low (And I'm sure it was, but, still). The special effects are cheap but sufficiently effective and for the most part, moderately well done for a low-budget film. Either the effects guys or the director seem to have a thing for explosions and fire. Almost every scene towards the end of the film has at least a couple of characters being burn to death (Always filmed in slow motion) or SOMETHING exploding, be it a car or an old mine cave. Seriously, hasn't anyone ever heard the term; "Stop, drop and roll"!?!?!?<br /><br />"Miner's Massacre" (Or "Curse of the forty-niner", what ever you want to call it) is cheesy and dumb, albeit entertaining, and as long as you don't have expectations through the roof, you'll be sufficiently entertained. <br /><br />I'm feeling generous, so I'll give it a 4/10.
5,965	[ 500, 600 ]	441	534	Maybe being a government bureaucrat is not the most glamorous way of making a living but it's still a way to make a living. However, after watching this movie, one may come away believing that every government bureaucrat is a lazy, bloated, conceited, paper pusher who lives exclusively to partake of his next lunch break. Not exactly a pretty picture, but this is the picture that the audience has to endure when watching what is nothing more than another tedious, noisy, overacted action movie. Just what the doctor ordered ... right? How many more of these movies has Hollywood made? One thousand? Two thousand? The formula for making these movies is so beaten into the dust that by now it should be completely unrecognizable. The locales change but the plots remain the same, and with the same shallow character development and the equally shallow acting as trained performers are asked to devolve into pseudo-cartoon characters and act accordingly. This movie seemed to run-on interminably. "When will this movie end?" I repeatedly thought to myself. Leonardo DiCaprio was totally unbelievable as a CIA operative, but what has to be one of the great gaffs of miscasting, an overweight Russell Crowe plays a CIA bureaucrat. Please note that in this movie the on site operative is "lean and mean" while his desk jockey supervisor is fat. This is called stereotyping. What was the casting director thinking? Why not have Jack Nicholson play an overweight office clerk? Or Nicole Kidman play a frumpy department store saleswoman? And the story was so fantastic that no amount of literary license could afford it credibility. An obviously non-Arab American (Mr. DiCaprio) trying to pass himself off as an Arab ... speaking fluent Arabic ... concocting all kinds of hair brain schemes that are doomed to failure ... trying to out think and outfox real Arabs who are completely unfooled by his laughable Arab masquerade ... trying to romance a Palestinian woman while in the middle of conducting a highly sensitive and complex espionage mission ... etc. By now you get the point. Next time try casting an actual Arab in the role. Not even the most naive movie goer can believe all that. There should be a rough balance between the protagonist and antagonist. In this movie the protagonist is so transparent and incompetent that it leaves the story in shambles. Next stop for this movie - DVD land and oblivion. And one other thing. Don;t let this movie discourage you from working for the government. The pay may not be great, but the fringe benefits are excellent, a critical fact that this movie conveniently omits.
5,970	[ 500, 600 ]	399	509	Lou Gossett, Jr. is an excellent and captivating actor, but to have him take the role of a "president" and then have him act like he's James Bond, running around carrying a Gun and entering a warehouse to uncover a plot to kill Christians, and then being able to Escape the supposedly High Security Facility to live another day, does Not do him Justice - this movie has so many Unresolved Issues<br /><br />I will attempt to list just a few: <br /><br />1 - what was the purpose of "stockpiling" a Vaccine if no one is Vaccinated? - for example, the preacher could have been Vaccinated if the "tribulation force" already had Vaccine on hand - later, buck Williams' wife goes to be with the sick preacher and she herself becomes sick; so, was the Virus, therefore, Contagious? - IF it was Contagious, then why did Ray and his wife go into the church without Proper Protection? - why didn't they become Sick too? - and when Chloe drank the wine and was "cured", how did she suddenly know the wine was the "antidote"? - was it California wine, ordinary Red Table Wine? - could Red Grape Juice been adequate - and,if the preacher had received "communion" at least every time he preached, maybe he would have had anti-dote flowing through his body already? - buck and Chloe got a "heavy" box of vaccine that was never used - what mysterious message should we see in that? <br /><br />2 - the presentation of "evil" forces who are working with the Anti-Christ Nicolai to destroy the world, as being Russian, Chinese, etc., is really a Relic of the 1950's and the early James Bond era, and shows an Ignorance of Modern Society and of Humanity - are we to believe that Russians and Chinese are perpetually trying to destroy this Planet? - and for what Purpose, mere Destruction? - this was such a Narrow-Minded view of this world and was so Cliché as to be Laughable<br /><br />3 - the main purpose of this movie was the scene near the very end where Kirk Cameron and Lou Gossett, Jr. are proselytizing the non-believers in the audience (by showing Kirk proselytizing Lou) - it was a movie with no meaningful storyline, too many disconnects with reality, and a completely inappropriate plot for a great actor<br /><br />I, therefore, rank this as a 1, since Zero is not available
5,975	[ 500, 600 ]	401	503	Sometimes I think that somewhere in the "Lifetime" Channel's office complex there is a room where the writer's hang-out, with a large wheel on the wall - sort of like the Big Six ones in casinos. The latter have a lot of spots where you win even money, and fewer for higher amounts, until there are perhaps a couple which pay bigger bucks.<br /><br />But I picture the channel's wheel having about six different genres on its wheel, with two of them, appearing the most, labeled "The Psychotic Neighbor," or "The Spouse with a Hidden Past or Secret or Both." "Lifetime" movies have a few repetitive story lines, and these two seem to be the most ubiquitous.<br /><br />The "Spouse..." category can have a spouse of long-standing, but some person appears, or an event occurs, exposing that the good wife was once a hooker, one of the couple was involved in some nefarious act long ago, or that something else in one of the background in different than presumed -- etc., etc., or, as in this flick, one of them has entered the marriage with the most nefarious of aims.<br /><br />One constant, in all of their genres is that the husband or other males are usually clueless, vacuous, and slow to have any idea what in the hell is going until the climax, or at best, very late in the proceedings (unless the male is the miscreant). Not the case here.<br /><br />Whether the referenced miscreant might be the "neighbor," or as in this offering, "the wife," it is always fascinating how easily, successfully and effortlessly they proceed with their dastardly deeds. They manipulate many of the others, whack them as necessary, assume various poses, and juggle more deceptions than you can count - with unfailing success until just before the end.<br /><br />The lead actor here, like many in this channel's movies, is an old hand. I noticed that another film in which he starred was titled "The Perfect Neighbor."<br /><br />Finally, the vengeful "perfect wife" in this flick dispatches those in her path with more expertise and ease than the most experienced and competent "button man" in Don Corleone's family could muster. And I couldn't help but imagine that Jack Nocholson's Melvin Udall character fro "As Good As It Gets," with his massive OCD affliction, could provide counsel to the anti-heroine to assist in dealing with he obsession which was the basis of this opus.
5,986	[ 500, 600 ]	427	549	In the 1930s, Hal Roach Studios was on top of the comedy world with such stars as Laurel and Hardy, Charley Chase and the Little Rascals. Most of these films are exceptional and have withstood the passing of time. However, a lesser-known Roach product was the pairing of Thelma Todd and Zasu Pitts (later, Todd was paired with the equally untalented Patsy Kelly). Try as I might, I just can't stand these pictures--they just aren't funny. Plus, unlike Laurel and Hardy, there was not an ounce of chemistry between Todd and her two co-stars. Before you just think I am a crank, understand that I have seen and reviewed several hundred Roach films as well as many other early comedies, so I am well acquainted with the genre and within the genre, this team is among the worst. Part of the reason I think I am right about the team is that as a lower-tier team at Roach, they were given all the scripts no one else wanted. If Stan or Ollie hated a given plot idea, it was often given to Todd and Pitts/Kelly--and usually it showed.<br /><br />In this film, however, the team is at their absolute lowest. It's hard to imagine a comedy with less laughs and a more contrived plot. The film begins with Zasu in the jury and Thelma as a defense lawyer. As for Zasu, she's a completely annoying moron. NOT the lovable type moron (like Stan Laurel or Lou Costello), but just a totally annoying and grating person who is pushy and obnoxious. As for Thelma, as usual, she's the rather bland "straight man" and as such has little to do but react to Zasu's boorish behavior.<br /><br />The plot involves Thelma defending a client who is accused of selling exploding diet pills. Considering that the pills are highly dangerous, when the attorney asks Zasu to try swallowing one it just seems dumb. And, while they were called "pills", they were more like giant black blobs that were larger than golf balls. Swallowing them only seemed contrived and made no sense--even for a low-brow comedy. When they find she has swallowed the pill and it really is explosive, everyone panics and runs about like idiots until the film ends.<br /><br />As I said, I am not a fan of this team. However, even for those who want to like the film, there isn't one legitimate laugh in the entire short! When I talked over this review with my wife (who also saw the movie with me), she thought my score of 2 was overly generous!!
6,006	[ 500, 600 ]	421	543	I tried. Lord help me, how I tried. But there are just some people almost incapable of creating quality. Brett Ratner, Uwe Boll, Britney Spears, and Asylum. To their credit "The 9/11 Commission Report" seems like an honest attempt by the company to advance into a more sophisticated state of storytelling and movie making. But for all intents and purposes, it comes off as another truly film in their gallery. At the opening, the disclaimer notifies audiences that all the names have been changed, but the names of the terrorists remain relatively the same. A man named Mussaui attempts to learn how to fly a plane. With a stone cold grimace that would instantly make anyone uneasy, this "undercover" agent is able to learn how to fly on a small computer. And you have to wonder, not how he was able to get into this program so easily, but on how these people didn't even ask questions; because this scene is so far-fetched in its presentation, and the actor playing this man is extremely over the top. And you can see that director Scott attempts to mimic Paul Greengrass with a bright grainy photography that's followed by an awfully dizzying and irritating hand-held direction that, throughout the entire film, attempts to take off from Greengrass's gung-ho guerrilla film-making techniques. <br /><br />You can sense Scott emulating Greengrass's technique for realism, but it becomes rather lame-brained halfway in. Meanwhile the film comes off less a "Traffic" take off, and more a take off on "Law & Order" in which we'll have the disclaimer notifying us the names have been changed, the logo almost reminiscent of the "Law & Order" logo, and then ninety minutes of the actors pumping their chests and discussing politics.<br /><br />Neither of which are ever as compelling as it tries to be. And then when the film seems as if its attempting to be an adult drama, Scott relies on his old failsafe, the sex scene. Scott's new film looks like it really wants to be thought of as a low budget "Munich" but it's not, and it manages to be underwhelming on every such occasion possible. "The 9/11 Commission Report" falls flat, and that's because its limited in its attempts to imitate other films.<br /><br />While I appreciate the ambition inherent behind the camera, this new perspective of the events leading up to 9/11 is flat, and dull. Hard as it may try to be a low-budget "Munich" it's only really as entertaining as a normal Dolph Lundgren film you'd find on Cinemax.
6,011	[ 500, 600 ]	424	512	This movie was very disappointing in that several elements of the book were wrongly done. The main story is the same but there are several flaws that hurt the movie.<br /><br />1) Boobie Miles gets injured in the beginning of the story in a preseason game at Texas Tech. This means he won't get anything done during the season at all and Chris Comer comes up sooner on the team.<br /><br />2) The game against Marshall was lost at Marshall. The team depicted as Marshall was actually Midland High one of Permian's main rivals and here is the proof- Marshall High is the Mavericks colored Scarlet and Silver, Midland High is the Bulldogs colored Purple and Gold. Look at the jerseys and you will see who it is. Also the real Marshall High's football roster is overwhelmingly Black, the team shown was racially mixed like Midland High. <br /><br />3) Permian only loses to Midland Lee by one point in district play. Midland Lee loses to Midland High and Midland High loses to Permian. These are the teams that set up the coin toss as such.<br /><br />4) Boobie comes back on the team as a reserve to Chris Comer and after not getting any playing time in the Midland Lee game, he quits the team completely at half time and never stands on the sideline or goes to any games again. <br /><br />5) Brian Chavez was a Tight End and Defensive End who wore #85 not a Tight End and Strong Safety. In addition, Boobie wore #35 and Ivory Christian wore #62. <br /><br />6) The coaches end up liking Chris Comer as a player more than Boobie because he has a better lifting ethic and runs more straight up plays the way the staff prefers him too, this is in part why Boobie quits the team. <br /><br />7) Dallas Carter is played in Austin at Darrell K. Royal Memorial stadium where UT plays in the state semi-finals not the state finals. Carter wins the state title but is forced to forfeit due to an ineligible player.<br /><br />The acting is done pretty well but if you read the book, you will see these flaws are pretty true. I am also tired of hearing all the PC hypocrites out there complain about the depiction of Dallas Carter's football team. The team according to the book is as large, monstrous, talented, and black as the movie shows. People say it is a racist depiction but reading the book, you see a true depiction of the team. The story is very altered giving this movie a score of 3.5/10.
6,015	[ 500, 600 ]	475	578	I'm at a loss. This entire movie made absolutely no sense. It was like watching a Soderburg film for football. The camera cutting, the pace, all so copied. I thought the subject was too not serious for them to treat it like it was. Yes, we all know Southerners like football and beauty pageants. Must we be inundated with it as an audience? I watched because of Lee and Jay. I was expecting young talent assembled in the style of Dead Poet's Society or similar to Remember the Titans. I was completely put off by the film. You didn't get the characters. It was character driven, but you didn't understand anyone's motivations or their actions for the most part. The one kid who's mom is obsessed with him being a football player. Why is he so silent? What's his deal? Did we really need the scene with him "proving" his heterosexuality? Why should we care? The movie gave us insights into these kids lives, and offered no pay-off for caring. It just made no sense. <br /><br />And why show a movie about a team that lost? I know it's real life, but who makes movies about losers? Give us some pay-off for these guys working as hard as they did with all their "conceivable" problems, darnit. We got nothing. We got a little blip at the end of the film telling us that Mojo won the next year with the 3rd stringer (Lee). Why didn't you follow that story? What were we to get out of this one? The movie led you along, but didn't lead you anywhere. I just felt like something was missing. It felt like a bad genetic cross between Varsity Blues and Remember the Titans. At least those two movies led you somewhere. Friday Night Lights was about a loser team that lost their star player early in the movie. The actor who played him was great. You were completely annoyed by him, which was the point, but at least you understood why. They made sure you understood him, but he couldn't play, so why make sure we get his issues? <br /><br />And the other team in the play-offs...are we to believe those are high school teens? Those men looked like college seniors or professional player in their 30s. Who were they trying to kid? I know the other team was to look intimidating, but that was crossing the line a little. I liked the gritty element of them negotiating with the black team, but again, how did this fit into the overall theme of the film. Nothing pieced together. The characters knew more about each other than we did, and that settles weird with me. Jay's characters had absolutely nothing to add, but he was showcased. It was all just a mess. Not worth a movie ticket or a rental fee.
6,029	[ 500, 600 ]	455	549	Before going any further, I have to admit that I only saw the first episode of this show. If I had the time, I might have considered watching it every week, if only to see how the season played out. However, it was very clear to me from the beginning that Martha Stewart's version of "The Apprentice" just doesn't "fit in." Martha Stewart made a career of being a happy homemaker, a domestic diva of the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Julia Child. It was only since her scandalous legal troubles and subsequent incarceration that her public image began to reflect the true roughness of her character. Sure, she was compelling for a while, and this entire series poses the interesting question of what it means to be a woman in business. Does she have to come off as cold and tough? Shouldn't she?<br /><br />But the truth was, by the time Stewart came out of prison, her attempts for a public comeback, though certainly warranted, were never going to seize viewers' interest for very long. Perhaps a true comeback would have worked had she returned home peacefully and waited a year or so after her often mocked ankle bracelet was removed. Instead, she frantically dove into overkill with 2 series at once, the other being her syndicated daytime series Martha, much like her old show, but more mainstream, with famous guests like Bette Midler. Of course, even at her peak Stewart was never mainstream, so it's too much to ask that American audiences immediately accept her foray into reality TV. Maybe America wants Stewart to make a comeback on her own rather than be the basis for it.<br /><br />The show was basically a tired retread of Trump's "Apprentice," which still holds my interest, depending on the tasks, the cast, and Trump's firing decisions (often controversial - likely for that reason). The letter bit was certainly not cliché but obnoxious in the least. The fact that Stewart never says, "You're fired!" - mentioned in the message board on this site - is particularly distressing. Producer Mark Burnett should be admired for dealing with Stewart's jail time honestly while trying to make her a hero, but the truth is that anyone watching can tell that she's basically trying to put on a show of being this nice businesswoman. Again never mainstream, Stewart lacks the agreeability and identifiability of Oprah Winfrey and the admirable, charismatic "toughness" of Donald Trump. Yes, this can be a gender-biased assessment of her character, but I mean it to be more about the nature of her business.<br /><br />It comes as no shock that Stewart has been fired, but I wonder if they really always intended it to only last for one season?
6,045	[ 500, 600 ]	505	563	I love how everyone treats this show like it was the next great American sitcom. I watched five episodes of this abomination, and the only person that came close to an actual teacher was the old guy that sort of loved and hated his job. The rest of them were just pretty people trying to read the lines written by people who never actually went inside of a real classroom. I loved how every episode consisted of the two idiots (one who got laid and the other who didn't) getting into some form of zany trouble that indirectly involved their students. The British girl who thought she found an likable quality in the main idiot, but in the end was somehow shocked that he turned out to be a jackass. The hot chick that was there for the particular purpose of being hot, and the principal and her lackey that served to somehow move the almost non-existent plot forward. I loved how almost all the teachers on this show were very young, but I ask you to think back to your high school days and remember the teachers that you had . . . did they look like that? Or did you go to the high school that had middle-aged people teaching in it? That is the high school that everyone else went to. The show lacked any form of research into what goes on in schools. In public schools, principals do not have the power to higher and fire teachers, the school board does, but in every episode that I watched the principal made threats to fire her teachers. Think back to your history class . . . . . or think of any history class, did you ever see an incredibly hot British chick teach an American History class? No. Did you ever see a teacher's lounge that is so huge that you could actually play basketball in? No.<br /><br />Teachers could have been a great show had it actually of based itself in some form of reality. What makes teaching funny is the stories that you get from interaction with students, and the teachers find it funny because they deal with the students day in and day out. The overemphasis on their lives outside of teaching just made it another four camera sitcom that had unrealistic people in an unrealistic environment saying unrealistic lines, and I'm sorry, I just didn't buy it. The show could have modeled itself after other currently successful sitcoms and used a single-camera format, and it should have centered more around the teacher's relationships with their students and not with each other.<br /><br />It gets a star for trying and a star for the hot chick (she was really hot).<br /><br />In the end, it was a failed sitcom that will go down in history as a hacks attempt to understand a profession. I only hope that if they make another sitcom based on teaching that they learn from their mistakes so that a monstrosity such as this never touches the television screen.
6,082	[ 500, 600 ]	434	528	I find myself alarmed that people are not so critical of a work that deserves criticism. The many similarities, both structurally and literally, with 'Amadeus' aside the 'Copying Beethoven' deliberately chooses the easy path by putting audience before art. And therefore denying the world a discerning, intelligent and creative work.<br /><br />Now consider the following: Is it not possible that the real story of the creation of the ninth symphony may actually be an engaging and powerful story itself and equally so in a dramatic telling? Beethoven was completely deaf by the writing of the symphony isn't that more interesting? How WAS the symphony conducted? Wouldn't it be great to know? So ask yourself, what possible motivation could a filmmaker have for introducing a woman as the copyist? If there was a copyist, he would certainly be a man. What was his story? (please try to be a little critical here even if you like the invention of a woman composer). <br /><br />Fantasy should be much MORE than a distortion of reality to serve a writers purpose. For those who find themselves comparing and justifying the invention of Anna Holtz with the invention of Salieri's claim to have murdered Mozart in 'Amadeus', consider that he confessing to a priest in a lunatic asylum (Schaffer uses this device to great affect in the film). 'Copying Beethoven' may have worked if Anna was a figment of Ludwig's fevered imagination. But we are meant to believe she is 'possible'... Yes and that Strauss was assisted by aliens.<br /><br />Most of the positive reviews I've read here so far are often expressions of a DESIRE for the film to be good; almost a deliberate amnesia. Remembering the film for what you wish it to be rather than what it is.<br /><br />For those who believe that fantasy justifies the means then consider you are not only accepting an inferior interpretation of real events but also sacrificing the truth for the sake of a triviality.<br /><br />Finally, a short note on the acting here that may surprise some of you. Ed Harris is NOT good as Ludwig Van Beethoven. Does that shock you? He looks awkward throughout the film, much like an actor dressed up, but off set and standing at the catering table. Most of his lines are said as cues rather than replies to Anna Holtz's lines (i.e. he is not listening to the actor). He is quite clearly an actor masquerading as the character rather than BEING the character.<br /><br />Really, how many times does Beethoven have to roll in his grave before we get it right? Just ask yourself, would Ludwig approve?
6,086	[ 500, 600 ]	414	584	Yes, I realize that half a dozen other reviewers have called this movie "Copying Amadeus", but it cannot be said enough. Scenes seemed to have been lifted directly from Milos Forman's script with only superficial changes. You can expect to see:<br /><br />-The maestro's arrogant scene ("I am the voice of god. Everything else is meaningless!")<br /><br />-The maestro making fun of the mediocre composer's work (complete with raspberries & simulated flatulence, just like in Amadeus)<br /><br />-The mediocre composer's dialogue with god ("Why do you instill me with music but deny me the ability to compose?")<br /><br />-The musical dictation from the deathbed scene ("Common time. Begin with the violins... cough cough")<br /><br />-and the list goes on...<br /><br />The problem is even worse. Not only were these scenes shamelessly copied, they weren't even done very well. Jeepers, if you're going to rip off an original, at least you should try to improve upon it in your own creative way.<br /><br />No wait, there's something even worse than that. It's the fact that the director tried to beat the story of Mozart into the story of Beethoven. Folks, Beethoven was not a crass, vulgar slob the way this movie portrays him. Furthermore, Beethoven was not a babbling idiot who takes pointers from his copyist, a 23 year old music student. Unfortunately, films like this are responsible for butchering history.<br /><br />And another thing, Beethoven (in real life) never called it the "Moonlight Sonata" the way he does in the movie. That name was given by a confused critic some years AFTER BEETHOVEN DIED, and unfortunately it stuck. But Beethoven's original title was "Quasi una Fantasia".<br /><br />AND ANOTHER THING, when Beethoven (in the movie) yells "B-flat! B-flat! B-flat!" and hits the note on the piano, he's hitting a white key!<br /><br />AND ANOTHER THINGGG!!! Beethoven (in real life) was completely deaf for several years before the composition of his 9th Symphony. This movie shows him as having barely a minor disability (saying "what?" every other line, just enough to be annoying).<br /><br />AAAND!! ANNNOTHER!!! THINGGGG...!! The American accents...! Oh never mind. Just... never mind. I've wasted enough time on this already. Go see "Amadeus" again. Then, if you want to see an interesting biopic on the life of Beethoven see "Immortal Beloved" which takes poetic liberties, but at least they're interesting ideas. Lastly, if you want to see something on the lighter side, check out "Impromptu", a film about Chopin. But aside from those three, I've never seen a good homage to a classical composer.
6,106	[ 500, 600 ]	450	582	I hadn't heard anything about this project until I saw that it was going to be on, so I watched it with a completely open mind. And, gee, the cast is full of strong players.<br /><br />Unfortunately . . . it's awful. I don't mean it isn't good; I mean it's extraordinarily bad -- sometimes laughably so, but mostly it's just boring. Its strongest appeal comes from having attractive people as naked as US network TV will allow, but it's all tease and no substance, and having nymphs as backup characters can't justify several hours of bad TV.<br /><br />There are two basic problems that the cast can't overcome. First, the script is awful. Yes, making changes to the Hercules myth (which is certainly not a single monolithic story in the first place) is traditional, but this version is relentlessly dull and much too frequently dumb (and sometimes downright head-shakingly peculiar), with terrible pacing, bits borrowed from here and there (and several parts seemingly belonging in different films), and truly awful dialogue. The dialogue is frequently unbearably bad, in fact, to the point where you feel embarrassed for the actors. Sean Astin, apparently now typecast as second-banana, seems especially burdened by one awful line after another. There's no consistency of tone or atmosphere and little cohesion to the plot.<br /><br />Second, most of the special effects are really bad. REALLY bad. There's occasionally a decent bit of CGI, but mostly, again, you feel really embarrassed on behalf of the cast. I have no idea what the budget for this project was, but it sure looks like crap compared to "Clash of the Titans" or even "Hercules: The Legendary Journeys" and doesn't even compare very favorably with the old Lou Ferrigno and Italian 'spaghetti' Hercules movies. Just painfully miserable.<br /><br />There are plenty of other problems -- the story is needlessly complex and can't keep up with itself, and Hercules himself isn't presented as a very interesting character. Almost everyone who doesn't have a European accent tries to fake one of some kind, which is not merely amateurish and dated but never really made sense in the first place: drama doesn't become better just because the actors use British accents, after all. But the terrible script and equally terrible effects sink the whole thing right off the bat.<br /><br />In fairness, "Hercules" was apparently intended as a four-hour miniseries but truncated (for this airing, anyway) to a three-hour TV movie. I don't know what they cut, but it's possible the edits made things worse. I don't think you could make "Hercules" good by adding to it, but that doesn't mean that the continuity, say, hasn't suffered from the network edits. There's no way I'll watch the USA version to see, though.
6,145	[ 500, 600 ]	456	562	Why does C Thomas Howell do these movies? Cruise (Howell's one time co-star) does a huge blockbuster of WOTW and Howell follows with this lame effort.<br /><br />Where do I start here? Production Values - I'll start with the good stuff. The look and feel of some of the scenes in this movie are not too bad to be honest. The set-ups are okay in spots and the direction not too bad.<br /><br />Script - Terrible. A series of clunky scenes that could have been put in any order you like permeate throughout the movie. The amount of times the scene faded to black and reemerged a second later in the same room was uncountable. Very poor storyline (but so was the Cruise WOTW) takes some blame but an abysmal screenplay kills it off.<br /><br />Special FX - Okay, I don't want to be too harsh here as I imagine the budget was smaller than Cruise's lunch bill - but in the overall context of the film the effects are badly done. Some shots are quite impressive - mainly far off destruction shots of bridges, Washington, liner. But in the main the "alien" machines and tentacles themselves are dreadful. Also the camera quality is fuzzy on some shots and cuts away entirely on others.<br /><br />Acting - I'm a fan of Howell but as he has reduced himself to acting in these low-budget flicks - he has succumbed to the "over-acting" bug a long time ago. Look at his performance in The Hitcher and compare it to this movie. There is no comparison. He overdoes his facial expressions, his flailing arms and legs (where did he get that running style???) and for a final coup-de-gras look at the scene where he loses the photo of his family. Hysterical. But after saying all that - he is still the best actor on show here. Busey is embarrassing to look at and Peter Green (Zed is truly dead now baby) mumbles incoherently through his one and only scene. I honestly could not understand one word he said - I even went so far as trying to enable the subtitles on that scene - but the DVD did not have subtitles. This seems to be a real keep-it-in-the-family affair too as Howell's son, the director's wife and the line producer all make it into the film. None of them are good.<br /><br />Direction - not bad but not good either.<br /><br />Score - Dismal.<br /><br />Overall, a lame duck effort that will do nothing for Howell in his attempt to make it back to the big time. He should take a look at Rourke and try to figure out how he made in back to the A list but if he keeps doing stuff like this, he won't have a career soon enough.<br /><br />3/10.
6,220	[ 500, 600 ]	415	513	Okay, I sensed that a film by Mormons, about Mormons, for Mormons would be a disaster waiting to happen, but little did I know how so very painful it would be. A little known fact is that Mormons have always made exceptionally fine propaganda films. The Church's official cinematic campaign has produced rare and lasting gems that transcend the Mormon community, including the wonderful short film "Cipher in the Snow" which ended up making the rounds as an educational film in the late 70's. Then there's Neil LaBute's disturbingly masterful ouvre....<br /><br />However, the success of these films depended largely on the fact that they didn't focus on Mormons or any specific Mormon theology. Instead they opt to focus on a universal theme and deal with it on a basic human level. "God's Army" abandons any pretext of universality and runs headlong into the stilted and myopic world of the orthodox. While this might be enough to alienate anyone but the most devoted Mormon, director Richard Ductcher's ineptitude as a filmmaker and his juvenile approach to storytelling are sufficient grounds to judge "God's Army" unwatchable by almost any standard.<br /><br />Dutcher's own appallingly wooden acting sets the tone for his army of the least interesting Mormons you're ever likely to meet. Of course the cast's sorry performances aren't helped any by Dutcher's pathetic script. He should be given credit for not avoiding some of the more controversial aspects of the Church, but, as can be expected, he conveniently frames these controversies in a sympathetic light. It should also come as no surprise that most of the answers to the Church's darker side are addressed with little other than faith. At one point an African-American missionary is scolded by a black couple for joining a church that was segregated up until 1978 (some ten to twenty years after nearly every congregation in the most degenerate parts of the deep South had already done so). Instead of addressing the Church's actively racist history, perhaps the sorest spot in Mormon theology which even Church leaders don't defend anymore, Dutcher's troubled character instead ponders Joseph Smith's murder--an obvious and perhaps outrageous allusion to lynching. Top off this syruppy milktoast with third grader leper jokes passing as comic relief and you have a strong case for the revival of silent films.<br /><br />If you knew little about Mormons before watching this film, you might become prone to avoiding them at all costs. If you are Mormon, this film offers absolutely nothing to be proud about.
6,242	[ 500, 600 ]	434	539	Truly appalling waste of space. Me and my friend tried to watch this film to its conclusion but had to switch it off about 30 minutes from the end. And i can count the films I have switched off before the end on one hand.<br /><br />The script and direction are leaden and deeply uninspiring. I wouldn't be surprised if they found the script in a pile of cast off scripts from 1983. For example the irritating scroat threatening the real estate guy from his house phone. I mean seriously. The police would be beating his door down in minutes. The scenes and events just wash by you like turds in a river. It is difficult to understand the actual thrust of the film. The narrative flicks between characters in a seemingly random manner breaking up the pathetic attempts at building the characters. Oh and what "characters" they are. The protagonist played by Rourke is dreadful. He could have just sent a cardboard cut out of himself and stayed in bed. After 60 or so minutes of the film I had built absolutely zero attachment to this character. He is neither sympathetic nor hateful. Just a disfigured dummy from a shop window blundering through every single scene. His motivation is impossible to discern from his generally mumbled and emotionless delivery. Is he happy? Is he sad? Angry? No idea. Just those same dead eyes staring out at you from a disfigured chunk of flesh. And the native American theme is just awful and pointless.<br /><br />The good guys are at best unlikeable. A dull white collar stereotype and a simpering neurotic ex-wife stereotype. Cue archetypal wife with shotgun face off with bad guy, "you aren't going to shoot me" that is both tiresomely unoriginal and annoying.<br /><br />The richie nix character seems interesting at first but soon descends into an irritating one sided psycho character. Which seems at odds with the seeming intention of making the bad guys in some way sympathetic or at least realistically motivated.<br /><br />Roasario Dawsons character starts with some promise but soon descends into a sickening and childlike parody of the gangsters chick scenes from Jackie Brown. You really want me to believe her character was SO attracted to Rourke's? Or worse she is just a floozy who sleeps with anything that moves? Realistic female characters FTW! <br /><br />In summary a complete mess of a film. Hopeless characterisations and performances. A leaden and hackneyed script along with uninspired direction. And ultimately extremely dull. Its not even comedy bad either. Laughing at Rourkes haggard face gets pretty old after sitting through the first 15 turgid minutes of the film.
6,245	[ 500, 600 ]	397	529	Mickey Rourke hunts Diane Lane in Elmore Leonard's Killshot It is not like Mickey Rourke ever really disappeared. He has had a steady string of appearances before he burst back on the scene. He was memorable in: Domino, Sin City, Man on Fire, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, and Get Carter. But in his powerful dramatic performance in The Wrestler (2008), we see a full blown presentation of the character only hinted at in Get Carter. Whenever we get to know him, Rourke remains a cool, but sleazy, muscle bound slim ball.<br /><br />This is an Elmore Leonard story, and production. Leonard wrote such notable movies as taunt western thriller 3:10 to Yuma, Be Cool, Jackie Brown, Get Shorty, 52 Pick-Up, and Joe Kidd. This means that we get tough guys, some good, some not so good.<br /><br />It also means we get tight, realistic plots with characters doing what is best for them in each situation, weaving complications into violent conclusions. Killshot is no different. Tough, slim ball killer Rourke stalks unhappily married witness Lane. Think History of Violence meets No Country for Old Men. It is not as intense, bloody or gory as those two, but it is almost as good. If you like those two, including David Croneberg's equally wonderful Eastern Promises, you will like Killshot also.<br /><br />Director John Madden has not done a lot of movies. His last few were enjoyable, if not successful: Proof, Captain Corelli's Mandolin and Shakespeare in Love.<br /><br />Diana Lane hasn't had a powerful movie role since she and Richard Gere gave incredible performances in Unfaithful. Lately she is charming and appealing in romantic stories such as Nights in Rodanthe, Must Love Dogs, and Under the Tuscan Sun. Here she is right on mark, balancing her sexy appeal with reserved tension.<br /><br />This is a small part for Rosario Dawson. Yet Dawson does a good job with it. You see a lot more of Lane, including an underwear scene to rival Sigourney Weaver in Aliens and Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut.<br /><br />While you are in the crime drama section, also pick up Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang, and Gone Baby Gone, and Before the Devil Knows Your Dead. The last has wonderful performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Ethan Hawke, Marisa Tomei and Albert Finney.<br /><br />Killshot flopped at the box office. More is our luck. It is certainly worth a 3-4 dollar rental, if you like this genre. 6/20/2009
6,249	[ 500, 600 ]	466	583	Based on the Elmore Leonard novel of the same name, Killshot suffers from a lack of focus, direction, and creativity all elements which the original story likely had, and negative test screenings forced severe edits, (including the complete excising of a character) resulting in a film that feels almost nothing like a Leonard story. Far too many characters populate a storyline too simplistic and straightforward (not a typical trait of the author's work) and the focus continually switches between two hit men who are difficult to like and a troubled couple who don't command our sympathy. While the story itself provides precious few twists and turns, sadly by the end of the film its appeal still remains a mystery. <br /><br />Washed-up hit-man Armand "The Blackbird" Degas (Mickey Rourke) follows a strict code during his missions that inadvertently sours his latest assignment. Now on the run from his former employer, he haphazardly joins forces with inept misfit criminal Richie Nix (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) to gain some quick cash by extorting a wealthy realtor. When struggling couple Carmen and Wayne Colson (Diane Lane and Thomas Jane) are privy to the thieves' blundered plot, they are forced into hiding as the crazed killers will stop at nothing to silence the two witnesses. <br /><br />Killshot proves that being based on an Elmore Leonard novel isn't grounds for immediate success or even a promising adaptation. The characters, situations, and even resolutions in the film are all tired and unoriginal and only very randomly hint at something more. It's not that there wasn't potential, especially when Rourke's black-garbed, calm and collected assassin perfectly executes a hit during the opening scene purpose and principals are just continually abandoned as each minute ticks away. The style and manner in which each character is introduced is the most intriguing; visually the roles of Bird and even Wayne are fleshed out befittingly, giving immediate interest and depth to personas that typically end in a creative impasse.<br /><br />The pairing of the cold and calculating Black Bird with the irrational and explosive Richie is an enticing combination (comparisons to Fargo would be extravagantly too kind), except that each character seems to slowly lose track of the traits that kept them initially interesting. As Richie starts picking up the more experienced killer's habits, Bird loosens his grip on his own methods of murder. Regardless of what he sees in his momentary lighthearted fling with Donna (Rosario Dawson), it's hard to imagine that his final confrontation with panicky Carmen would provoke a confession of his true nature and subsequent carelessness that drastically affects his outcome. Likely or not, this is Killshot's unfortunate downfall and little entertainment can be garnered from these characters who steadily lose their originality by continually contradicting the habits that once made them intriguing. <br /><br />- The Massie Twins
6,253	[ 500, 600 ]	467	573	They say David Duchovny took six days to write the script for this movie. That sounds about right.<br /><br />This movie is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I've seen Gigli. It's not as bad as Gigli, but that's like saying Saddam Hussein wasn't as bad as Adolf Hitler.<br /><br />Tom Warshaw has been living in France with his French wife and 13-year old son. He has been pretending to be French all this time. He reveals to his wife that he is actually American. For some reason, this comes as an earth-shattering reveal for her, despite the fact that she always commented on her husband's American accent. Also, their son - remember, he was born in France and never knew his father was American - speaks perfect American English without a hint of French accent. That's just one of several huge plot holes in this movie.<br /><br />The main bulk of the movie is a flashback to Tommy's youth in New York City during the 1970's, as he explains to his wife why he has been hiding in France. His best friend as a boy was Pappas, a retarded adult played terribly by Robin Williams. I assume Duchovny thinks that "retarded" is someone who is just sort of dumb, because Pappas comes off only mildly slow at times, while other times he comes off as just Robin Williams. Yes, Williams actually fits in his tired improv schtick although he is supposed to play a person who is mentally slow.<br /><br />Tommy's mother, played by Duchovny's wife Tea Leoni, is a pill-popping nurse who is distraught over the recent death of her husband. Leoni does a good job, but she mainly just smokes a lot and yells at Tommy for things that don't seem to be too important. The script didn't give her much to work with. Tommy also befriends a lady (whom he calls "Lady") who is in prison and offers him advice through her jail window (this house of detention is called "House of D" for short, thus the title). Tommy has no qualms yelling his personal problems out loud on a city street so this incarcerated felon can offer him advice, and he does so many times without care.<br /><br />I don't want to bore you with the entire summary of the movie, but plot holes are abound in this film that tries way too hard to be touching but comes off as, well, bad. Real bad. Real real bad. Near the end of this train wreck, the script gets cornier and cornier and ends with a laughably crappy ending.<br /><br />Critics tore "House of D" apart and rightfully so. I can't believe some people actually like this movie. It is a painful film to sit through and I felt weak afterwards - not from emotion, but from how terrible it was.
6,346	[ 500, 600 ]	439	552	If you read the plot summary for "Mad Max," you've just ruined the first 1 hour and 10 minutes of the film. You've also found out that "Mad Max" takes place in post-apocalyptic Australia, which will be helpful because otherwise you won't have any idea what's going on. The film, made in 1979, tries really hard to be Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange" (1971) only that film, in all its strangeness, actually makes sense and leaves an impact. This film does neither and ends up being a car/bike stunt-filled romp that crashes like every vehicle in the film does.<br /><br />The first thing wrong with "Mad Max" is that it tries to sell itself as a revenge tale when no vigilante appears to take revenge until the final 20 minutes. If the first hour were condensed to 20-30 minutes and then the final 20 added on and then another hour added after that, "Mad Max would be a cool action film with a great vigilante protagonist. Instead, Mel Gibson has to wait around and act like a sissy for 2/3 of the film and then have a sudden epiphany to seek revenge. I've yet to watch the sequel "Road Warrior" and I have to admit I'm excited for it only because I want to know what he does next. This first film was mostly a waste of time.<br /><br />George Miller does some great action stuff here, but his over-the-top symbolism is absurd and the unbearable cheesy reaction sequences every time a character discovers something horrifying like a burnt hand or what have you completely ruins those moments. Its a terribly cliché B-movie technique.<br /><br />There is absolutely no thematic value or subtle critique of society in this film no matter what you might think. A great action sci-fi movie at least makes a point, but the gratuitous violence done by random, weird bikers doesn't say anything of value. Even the villain Toecutter feels modeled off Alex of "Clockwork" only uglier and completely unimposing. The PG violence just does not allow the violence of this gang to settle in and get a reaction from the viewer, it just cheeses it up if anything.<br /><br />I'll give credit for the amount of stuff the film crew blew up and crashed into things and Miller does a great job making you feel the intensity of the collisions. Everything else is mediocre at best and then after an hour of mediocrity, you get something good and the film ends 20 minutes later. I'm just crossing my fingers "Road Warrior" will fulfill the expectations of where this film ends, otherwise that's more time wasted. ~Steven C<br /><br />Visit my site at http://moviemusereviews.blogspot.com
6,398	[ 500, 600 ]	449	557	My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.<br /><br />This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.<br /><br />But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.<br /><br />Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:<br /><br />- The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.<br /><br />- A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"<br /><br />- After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:<br /><br />"What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."<br /><br />- A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.<br /><br />And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.
6,411	[ 500, 600 ]	474	575	If you never have read the book and never intend to read it in the future, go on and watch the movie (6/10). It is a nice fantasy movie with well done CGI, nice acting, a beautiful environment and an above-average fantasy story.<br /><br />If you have read the book like me about 10 times or more and really love it, don't expect too much (or better: don't expect anything at all). The story is totally different from the original book. This may explain that the movie is voted 1/10 from people around 40 or more (like me) and much better from people who most probably never read the book before and thus expect nothing.<br /><br />Most of the differences between movie and book are not really necessary and change the setting (in my opinion much to the worse): <br /><br />- The magic in the book works with rituals for classic magical effects. (Changing weather, creating illusions, transform into animals, ...) In the movie the magic is more like "jedi-school for the middle ages" (TM) (wooden sticks instead of lightsabers). That the devil is looking like emperor palpatine (after part III) doesn't make it really better.<br /><br />- The mill in the book is not totally cut off the world like in the movie. In the book the story is set near Dresden, which Krabat visits one time with his master and also he visits some nearby villages for festivities. (This part might have been changed to cut costs.) I also don't understand why in the movie the mill is located in the hills while the nearby graveyard is set in the high mountains.<br /><br />- The whole surrounding is the average run of the mill fantasy medieval style. Lots of mud everywhere, dirty faces, not an orderly kitchen, only very rough houses. The book never suggested such an environment.<br /><br />- In the book the master tries to make Krabat his successor but Krabat rejects. Krabat is somewhere between admiration, distance and silent rejection. In the movie Krabat rejects the master always openly like a stubborn schoolboy.<br /><br />- The movie is set in 1647 instead of around 1720. This makes it impossible for the master to tell some stories from his youth probably around 170x. OK, the stories are missing anyway in the movie.<br /><br />Also some explanations given in the book would have been helpful and would not cost so much minutes: <br /><br />- In the book all work done at day is effortless and work in the night is like normal work. This explanation is missing in the movie. Sometimes the boys are sweating and sometimes they are happy.<br /><br />- The book explains why only a few "Gesellen" try to confront the master: If the master dies by any mundane reasons, the "Gesellen" are free AND keep their magical powers. If the master dies at the confrontation, all will lose their power forever.
6,444	[ 500, 600 ]	442	549	With Al Jolson at the height of his popularity and Warner Brothers's the Jazz Singer having been the highest grossing film of 1927, it was inevitable that the other studios would churn out a few vehicles for their own Jolson-esquire characters. But while the Jazz Singer was a sensation for its being the first part-talkie, the Matinée Idol lacks the singing voice of its star (the now obscure Johnnie Walker), and has to make do with just his visual antics.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol was an early directorial assignment for the renowned Frank Capra. Capra's first couple of full-length features for Harry Langdon reveal a very showy, excessive style, which made Langdon's already mediocre slapstick almost unwatchable. A couple of pictures later and Capra has learnt to ease off a bit, with some fairly regular and decent camera-work. However he still shows no aptitude for shooting physical comedy. The longest comic routine - the stage performance - seems to have a few good gags, but it's all cut up into lots of different camera angles, and there is no chance for the comedy to flow naturally from the performances. Theoretically, a good portion of the jokes are in the intertitles, but there are far too many of these and none of them is especially funny.<br /><br />Of course, Capra would eventually mature into a fine dramatic and romantic director, and you can see him beginning to develop in this respect. He cuts down the line, closing in on Walker and Bessie love in the scene where she first lays eyes on him in his Don Wilson get up, neatly establishing the wordless connection between them. Then there is some beautiful and tender framing of the couple in their scene together at the masquerade, which is all very reminiscent of the love scenes in Capra's early 30s output.<br /><br />Johnnie Walker, Columbia's answer to Al Jolson, is not an exceptional talent. His comic timing is good but there is nothing to make him stand out. Bessie Love on the other hand is a pretty good actress too, with a very expressive face. Kudos to her for getting involved with the physical comedy and losing her dignity with the boys. There's also a good role for Lionel Belmore, that rotund and jolly character actor who seems to turn up in absolutely everything in the late 20s and early 30s.<br /><br />The Matinée Idol is one of those pictures that has gained more than its fair share of attention thanks to its director later having made a handful of masterpieces. In and of itself it is a very uninteresting piece, and like most of Capra's work before he met Robert Riskin, a disappointment.
6,486	[ 500, 600 ]	428	564	Eastenders has gone full circle from unmissable in 1985 to totally abysmal now. It's such a bad reflection of the nation this crap tops the ratings.<br /><br />The ideas for plots can consist of nothing more trivial than putting ever characters name in a hat. The first two out (regardless of their sex) will sleep with each other, the 3rd & 4th out will have a fight in the Vic, the 5th one will be arrested, the 6th develop an addiction, 7th get pregnant etc etc.<br /><br />The producers are clever though. The 30 minute show is only actually ever comprised of 3 lines.<br /><br />1) Someone will walk in the Vic & say "What's goin on?" 2) Someone else will stand up say "leave it aht" (out) 3) Then a woman will say "Doan choo come in ere 'n' insult mah fam'ly"<br /><br />That's it. That's every show. Apart from the occasional "Get it sort-id / Is it sort-id?"<br /><br />The show was once a realistic portrayal of East End folk & their way of life. The buffers came off when 1) They extended it from two nights a week & 2) The Slater family turned up. How they attract viewers is beyond me. The Kat character symbolizes everything that's gone wrong with society, treating anyone else like something she's pulled off the bottom of her shoe.<br /><br />The people who vote her the best character, in these polls, must the same as the ones that vote Jamie Redknapp 'Best Sportsman' despite the fact he hasn't played a game for 3 years.<br /><br />What I can never understand is if the show is the pinnacle of British TV why do all the biggest names leave? Ross Kemp, Martin Kemp, the list is endless.<br /><br />How long has the longest couple's marriage lasted, with them being faithful to each other? Yes, people leave, but until the script writers realise that characters, couple can be interesting & likeable without sleeping around the show will continue to deteriorate. An episode last week had 3 separate plots of exactly that. And Zoe & the doctor top even Lofty & 'Shell' as 'Most Unconvincing Couple Ever to appear on TV.'<br /><br />Yes, Eastenders is the most watched show, thats undisputed. But many external factors contribute to that. 19.30 / 20.00 is the perfect time of day to gain the most audience figures, it has an omnibus edition for 2 hours, and more than that, millions of the viewers watch it, out of nothing more than habit, but if they were completely honest to themselves, they would admit that (in 2002, more than ever), it can be absolutely pitiful.
6,498	[ 500, 600 ]	456	579	What can be said about such a pathetic movie ? <br /><br />- Very bad acting ! The main actress seems to know only one facial expression : fear mixed with weakness. Like a poor beaten dog... The other actress (the one who plays the evil) looks like the female double of Ozzy Osbourne, with an awful red wig. The other actors are so pitiful that they don't even worth being described. <br /><br />- There's absolutely no plot. The story begins with possibilities but goes nowhere : we don't know anything about the meaning of "11:11", nor who Rayden really is, excepted the simple "she's evil" or "she's a child of Apocalypse"... which is not an explanation. We don't know why the parents have been killed, what kind of danger is growing and why Sara was chosen. As the film goes on, we just watch pseudo-scary scenes, with a bad music. Moreover, the end doesn't tell anything : we just see two possibilities as if one of them was a bonus scene or the director's cut... There's no plot, so no possible interpretation. <br /><br />- "11:11" is just full of clichés ! It is so obvious that i couldn't help laughing. For example : the deserted library or the bathroom scenes, ghost silhouettes walking with a blast of wind, ... there's even the fashionable "little scary girl" as in "Dark Water" or "The Ring". Of course, the main character is bullied at school and looks like a stereotyped Gothic girl (dark hair, red lips, skinny, black clothes). Is it an obligation to make her credible ? I don't think so. The psychology of Sara is so few developed and so typical that it doesn't make her credible, nor endearing.<br /><br />- Terrible direction : as i said, nothing original, everything has already been seen a thousand times and is used here without any real purpose. <br /><br />- There are some funny incoherences. For example, i don't know if "ghost science", "paranormal course" or whatever is taught in American universities... In Europe it is really not the case : teachers talking about negative energies or using "unmaterial" creatures sensors... ridiculous. Also : how can you watch a movie shot in the sixties with a Super-8 camera on a computer screen without spending hours of your time for a digitalization (in the movie they watch it immediately on the computer screen) AND how can you, on this old film, isolate a tiny detail then zoom in and see a perfectly identifiable face ? I wonder if the director has ever tried to digitize an old analogical film...<br /><br />Eventually, "11:11" just worths being watched if you like to laugh at silly movies, or maybe if you want to fall asleep on your couch... But it's an expensive way to fall asleep !
6,511	[ 500, 600 ]	410	514	In a word, god-awful... too many plot holes.. um, yeah... Who takes their kid to dig up a dead body in the middle of the night? and what's up with his wife stealing the skeleton.. who does that? why, exactly did the shrink stab himself in the neck? and that whole dog thing.. i mean, really! Having Sparrow narrate from the beginning also just completely destroyed the suspense for me.. i mean, if he's narrating the story, clearly he's lived to tell it, so there's no chance of him getting offed.. where's the suspense there? <br /><br />Of course, you expect plot holes in a film like this. But, there are so many I lost track of the story completely because of them. What kind of name is Fingerling? Or Toppsy? Why did the wife dig up the body? (Who does that?) or go into that crazy spooky asylum alone? and where'd all those candles come from? Why does the writer have his PO BOX in the freaking book??? I mean come on... And the book just happens to find its way to the bookstore next door to the wife's bakery?? Way too convenient... Oh and Happy Birthday Honey, here's a book about a serial killer.. What a THOUGHTFUL gift! The book is like 20 pages long, half of which are blank, and it takes him freaking FOREVER to read it. If he's truly obsessed with this book, wouldn't he have read it all in one shot?<br /><br />A bit convenient for him to bump into his future wife (carrying a cake!) about 23 seconds after being released from a mental hospital.. how old was he playing? 36?? <br /><br />Was I the only one at the end rooting for the bus to actually run the guy down? Not good when you're rooting for the protagonist to bite it in the end.<br /><br />It seems like this was written by committee.. I imagine that the first draft probably had nothing to do with the number 23... It seems as if they needed a gimmicky hook to bait the audience into thinking there was some supernatural thing going on, when in the end it really didn't seem to have anything to do with anything. I mean, I wasn't expecting the Godfather or anything, but everything about this film was a total let-down. Without all the numerology stuff, this movie could actually have been OK, instead of some hackneyed Se7en knockoff.<br /><br />Not scary, unintentionally hilarious and otherwise a total snoozer.
6,517	[ 500, 600 ]	393	514	out of ** stars<br /><br />Let's see...14 divided by 20 times the square root of 13 equals 23, which was my departed grandmother's favorite number and the year she was born, 23 minutes past the 23rd hour. Assign the number any way you choose and ooh be very scared. Be EXTREMELY scared when you throw in a brain-dead looking mutt to go with 23, and you have Schumacher's latest attempt at a dark suspense fest with The Number 23. Oh yeah, 23 is also my record in Cuervo shots at my favorite dive on 23rd street in the 23rd state in the union.<br /><br />Carrey carries the film to about it's halfway point, then we lose sight of him, not caring much. Don't look for any crazy expressions to come from the comedian Carrey, as you have seen in The Mask and Me, Myself and Irene. No. And don't expect an embodiment of a character as he did with Andy Kaufman. This role is a sad and peculiar devolvement for Jimbo. Where's The Riddler when you need him! I know, we don't need him. Virginia Madsen, like usual, is underused as the supportive, speculative and peculiar wife. Her talent, like Carrey's, is suppressed, and it's almost painful to watch her try to rescue her underdeveloped character from near anonymity. <br /><br />To give credit where credit is due, there are a couple of interesting scenes in The Number 23 that showcase some very crafty cinematography. They are arresting enough on their own without having to be convoluted within the incoherent narrative of this silly story.<br /><br />I don't know about you, (and I realize this is a work of absolute fiction) but I don't know of anyone who often reads his novel in a dank, dark basement, or spends his time at graveyards on a regular basis like Carrey does in this movie. Schumacher keeps his film dark and blood-red and gloomy and rainy and smoggy and gloomy and rainy and dank and on and on and on from beginning to end. Even Flatliners and The Lost Boys had a little more daylight in them, and we're talking about medical students obsessed with death and teenage vampires!<br /><br />If you feel like watching this film, even if it's out of mere curiosity...make sure you do it while enjoying about 23 catnaps, that way you can kill 23 birds with one stone.
6,521	[ 500, 600 ]	456	587	There was a time when Joel Schumacher was ranked quite high on my list of favorite directors. Back in the late 80's and early 90's, when his name was attached to several great films like "The Lost Boys", "Flatliners" and "Falling Down", he truly was one of the most gifted directors in Hollywood. Then came the stupid "Batman" sequels, unfortunately, and after that it seemed as if every potentially sublime screenplay turned into a gigantic mess in Schumacher's hands. Both "8MM" and "Phone Booth" could have been much better films and even the incredibly imbecilic concept of "The Number 23" should have been processed into a slightly more compelling and entertaining movie. Literally from start to finish, "The Number 23" desperately attempts to be a mysterious and uncanny thriller and therefore uses all the dreadful clichés from the big book of cinema history, including heavy-voiced narration, flashbacks, disorderly structure, characters with multiple personalities, numerous plot twists that grow increasingly absurd and sinister asylum settings. Nothing helps, however, simply due to the sheer silliness of the basic formula and the clearly uninspired engagement of cast & crew. As much as you try to associate with the lead character and be open-minded regarding the insane theories, this still remains a movie about a two-digit number and two-digit numbers aren't scary. Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey in a rare non-comical role) is a bored animal trapper whose wife Agatha gives him a bizarre book on his birthday. The book tells about all sorts of devilish theories and strange coincidences that are linked to the number 23. Walter almost promptly identifies himself with the book's protagonist (a sleazy detective investigating a grim case of suicide) and begins to spot copious examples of the 23 enigma in his own private life. I did some research on Google and Wikipedia and, apparently, this whole 23 numerology nonsense really exists and certain people honestly believe that most catastrophes and accidents are directly connected to this evil number. Well, that's just crazy! But hey, I'm not here to judge people's beliefs and fears, regardless of how demented they are, and I can only share my humble opinion on a movie that is based on an out-and-out berserk enigma. "The Number 23" is not suspenseful, in spite of several gloomy set pieces and nasty make-up effects, and never at one point manages to make you contemplate about the role of numbers in your own life. All cast members perform below their normal capacities, but it was still nevertheless a joy to see the lovely Mrs. Virginia Madsen in a relatively big production again. Definitely not recommended in case you're looking for a solid and creepy evening of thriller fun, but endurable and not entirely without merit.
6,522	[ 500, 600 ]	452	597	One would make you believe that this game is about a man obsessed with a number. And sure, it's an interesting subject - can a person become so obsessed by something marginal as a simple number that he completely loses touch with reality and becomes hopelessly delusional and paranoid? <br /><br />Well, perhaps someone will make a movie about that sometime. This one unfortunately doesn't have anything to do with the above, never mind what the trailers (or even the movie itself) would like you to believe. I would like to say that this number is just a MacGuffin, but it isn't even that. It's pointless. A gimmick. A hook for unsuspecting audience.<br /><br />Well what IS the movie about? A dog-catcher (Carrey) who becomes obsessed with a cheesy noir crime book because he feels it somehow reflects his own life. There. Sure, the character in the book - detective Fingerling (sigh) - is (for some reason) obsessed with number 23, and Carrey himself becomes obsessed and starts seeing the number everywhere.. but it's just padding, and totally irrelevant to the story. In fact, you can cut out all the 23 references and have the main character(s) obsess about cheese or something and you'll have the exactly same story. It is painfully obvious that all the "23" stuff was written in waay after the story was already finished, rejected and sent for "rewrites".<br /><br />Which would be OK.. I guess.. if the movie wasn't dull, dull, dull. Half of the movie is narrated, for chrissakes. You aren't watching the movie, you are listening to Jim Carrey narrating the movie. About a quarter-in Carrey starts reading the book, and from then until the horribly cliché ending we are forced to watch "real-life" scenes from dog-catcher's life (where nothing happens) interspersed with narrated artsy film noir-ish "book" scenes which will either leave you snickering or just plain depressed. It's like a poor man's "Sin City" with all the violence cut out, narrated by Carrey and shown in slow-motion. Ugh.<br /><br />This is a simple case of a C-movie script somehow being filmed with an A-movie cast.. probably because of the "number 23" hook which I guess sounded intriguing enough on paper to warrant the premium Hollywood treatment. However, since - as I said already - the movie is about number 23 as much as it is about cheese production in Switzerland, one cannot feel anything but cheated.<br /><br />I give "Fingerling - the movie" 3 out of 10, because I guess it didn't insult my intelligence as much as "Forsaken" did or made me downright suicidal like "Battlefield Earth" did and the bottom of the scale must be reserved for abominations like those. But fear not, this is still a pretty lousy flick.
6,584	[ 500, 600 ]	460	557	This movie is like so many biopic TV movies I have seen: formulaic, exaggerating, poorly acted, and most importantly, happening too soon.<br /><br />What I mean by that is the movie was filmed and, for that matter, aired before Michael Jackson's acquittal from his child molestation charges, which I think was one of the most significant periods of Jackson's life and career so far. It probably would have made a great ending to this docu-drama. However, this movie already bites off more than it can chew, cramming too many details in this overly ambitious project.<br /><br />It's no doubt that Michael Jackson has led perhaps the most interesting life so far of any musician, let alone modern day pop star, to date, and his story would probably take six Behind The Music specials to tell accurately. This movie tried to tell too much in three hours, and needless to say, it failed.<br /><br />Flex Alexander did what he could in playing Jackson, but he came off more like an SNL caricature by the likes of Tim Meadows and Amy Poehler. It would admittedly be pretty hard to find someone who accurately portrays Jackson without meeting with the King of Pop himself and studying his methods of madness. On a shoestring budget, though, one can only depend on what they see in the tabloids, and those do not necessarily give an accurate representation.<br /><br />Furthermore, the director's efforts to make Alexander look like Jackson are completely foolish. The Caucasian makeup on Alexander's face makes him look more like a reverse minstrel show, and everyone who has been in a grocery store knows that Jackson's nose is not as big as Alexander's. It's also amazing to me that the film documents Jackson going under the knife to get cosmetic surgery, yet in the next scene, Alexander still has the same size nose. This kind of suspension of disbelief that the director expects can't hold up to TV viewers in the 21st century.<br /><br />It was even more distracting when footage of the real Michael Jackson (i.e. the time he hung his infant child over a balcony in Germany) was interspersed into the movie in real time. It was a nice try, but it just didn't work.<br /><br />If this movie as it is was released into theaters, it would gain a profit only because of its tackiness. It even pales in comparison to "Mommie Dearest", and that's saying a lot. Above all, this was a movie that was probably rushed into making, like many TV movies that aren't on HBO. It could have been done a lot better if it had just told of one aspect of Jackson's life. Even if it just covered the child molestation allegations, it probably would have been done a lot better and would have even been more intriguing.
6,587	[ 500, 600 ]	455	561	Okay, first of all, I missed like the first 15 minutes of the movie, so I missed credits and stuff. SO when I finally got to it, I was like "Who the hell is this dude?". I found out it was Flex like hours after watching the movie. <br /><br />Flex didn't look like Michael Jackson. Not one bit. He couldn't dance like him, or move like him, the only thing he almost had was the voice. People commented on Elizabeth Taylor, but I can't really comment on that because I don't know much about her. <br /><br />The whole movie was like just plain wack. The dialogue sucked. The cinematography-if it can be called that-sucked. The soundtrack sucked. The acting sucked. Yes even Flex...I'm so upset about it though. I didn't want it to suck. I'm so sad that Flex got told he can get away with it. But the whole thing looked like dress-up. You know? It's like, nobody looked like they were supposed to except for Joseph Jackson. <br /><br />The concert sequences just sucked. I'm sorry, but Flex just can't dance like Michael. I mean, like what the hell was VH1 thinking? The makeup didn't even match like the time of whatever Michael was going through. For example, in the movie he was still dark when Neverland got raided the first time around. In real life, MJ was white as hell. There was some sort of stupid delay in his skin discoloring. <br /><br />The movie wasn't boring, well for me it wasn't. It wasn't really anything. I was just so upset about everything that was wrong with it. I wanted to see how it turned out and if Flex could redeem himself. He didn't, really. The only part I found like a bit interesting was the whole Lisa Marie thing. When they fell in love. That was nice. But I had to turn my face away when they kissed. Heh. And only two parts made me collapse with laughter. The first time was when they cut from Michael with short hair, you know the Thriller era, to Michael with long flowing hair from the Dangerous era AND HE WAS STILL BLACK! That was funny. The second time I laughed was when they showed all of the posters and memorabilia of Michael but they had Flex's face instead! It was so funny. <br /><br />Overall, this movie was cheap trash. It was simply two hours of dress-up and could have been so much better. But no, VH1 is cheap. Watch if you want. But this movie is not funny, considering the ridiculousness of it. I came out of it feeling angry. And when I found out it was Flex, I just started to feel so bad. So...watch if you want.
6,594	[ 500, 600 ]	395	512	First, I'm sorry for my English. Second, the true story of this episode: 39 soldiers, operation "Magistral'". 6 soldiers were killed. Hundreds of insurgents were killed too. Within 10 years the Soviet Army has lost less than 15 thousand person and killed over 900000 insurgents and civilians. There is no insurgents without permanent help of USA The veteran of war: "Traditions. There are no traditions in this film. There is no military oath, there is no first jump, no farewell to the Fighting Banner. There is no delivery of awards and medals. There is nothing sacred. There is only a hatred to Soviet army. Being in this area on investigation, we have revealed start-up jet shells by insurgents . An exact place could not define. So gunners have asked to give easier square. Also have covered it. Through pair minutes. Here it was the reality of fights. So there was no feeling "oblivion". These feelings have appeared then. Already on other war and in other state (Chechnya). Others were children. More kindly. More humanly. And "prapors" were as fathers. Well and culmination fight - full orgy. Shooting in anywhere. Mental attacks young Ben-Ladens, not killed both not broken through. And full absence of mutual aid. That there was a main thing on this war. Even Americans accused us of inadequate application of force against insurgents. And here it is direct on the contrary. In the summer 1981 I about myself have firmly solved, that personally should fill up a minimum 50 insurgents. As a result accepted "plan" has been under-fulfilled, and on a demobilization I departed strongly contused and malicious as fig. After returning the first months there was a feeling of that I not was at war up to the end, not business there have completed all how follow. There was any vague, but an oppressive sensation of discontent with itself and caustic irritation. Such here night ideas, can be and out of place at all. Officers really in film are not present absolutely. In occasion of that, what is the time they spent with staff. On fighting-is constant. New Year on fighting. From where did they take beds? In mountains? And so on..."<br /><br />If you want a fairy tale about war, "9 rota" and "Shtrafbat" is for you. If you want truth, you must see "Come and see" or "Batallions Ask for Fire".
6,596	[ 500, 600 ]	463	547	I borrowed this on DVD from a friend the other day. I didn't really know what to expect. I haven't seen a lot of Russian movies, and i don't think i've ever seen a Russian war movie. Maybe that made me expect something different, something more along the line of an imagined Russian mentality. But whatever those expectations came from, they were put to shame as this is a quite ordinary war movie.<br /><br />The whole formula of following a few young people from their recruitment, through training, to deployment and through some battles, is well known. We have seen it done both many years ago, as well as more recently (as with Jarhead). Sure, there's a difference here because the movie is about Russian soldiers instead of Americans as is almost always the case. But in general this could just as easily have been a Vietnam-movie. I guess that just underscores my feeling that Afghanistan was the Soviet unions Vietnam. A country that should have been a pushover for a superpower made the war drag on for years with terrible loss of life both for soldiers and civilians.<br /><br />The good points in this movie i felt were good photography (there are some beautiful ambiance shots) and decent effects for what i guess must have been a rather low budget movie. What made me disappointed is mostly the story itself. It just doesn't manage to stir any emotion in me. Mostly because the character development is lousy. And to really feel something when people are gunned down you have to make them people, not just faceless cardboard cutouts. They fail to do that in this movie. Also it's overly long, and that seems to a kind of trend lately. In my opinion a movie that's more than two hours long has to have a lot to offer, and this movie doesn't cut it. Also there is a disturbing music that's put like a wet blanket over every scene. Especially in the action scenes this is highly disturbing, not that you need action-music but something more than just slow keyboard-music would be nice. Otherwise the production values were good enough, that was not where the problem was.<br /><br />I don't know how to view this movie. As a reminder of the fact that no matter where you are, war sucks? That Russian film-makers have already watched too many American war-movies to make something original? Regardless of which, this movie is rather clichéd, lacks in spirit and while it has acceptable technical qualities, it lacks in script and character development. In the end it just becomes another of all those war-movies that fails to make you think, and fails to add something to the genre. I've seen a lot worse, but a lot better too. I rate this 4/10.
6,607	[ 500, 600 ]	439	562	I find it almost touching how Star Trek fans try desperately to like this film in spite of its unbelievable number of flaws.<br /><br />To begin with, none of the familiar characters are really in character so to speak. Scotty is depicted as a bumbling tinkerer instead of the competent engineer he was in the original series. Uhura...Gods, I can't even think about what they did to her character. All of her dialog was painful to listen to. McCoy seemed like a neurotic stepfather to Kirk instead of his trusted friend. Spock...well, let's just say that Leonard Nimoy was terribly wasted. He was given bad dialog ("I do not believe you have grasped the gravity of your situation Captain." Gravity, get it? Get it?) and made almost into a buffoon. Kirk...oh man, don't get me started. William Shatner is a hammy actor to begin with, so to allow him to direct really is to invite disaster which is what we got.<br /><br />The plot is beyond ridiculous. Giving Spock a brother is a pretty desperate story line and unnecessarily soap operaish. But hey, let's go with it. The search for God. Again, a weak plot basis. You don't think so? OK, let's go with that too. So assuming that the two aforementioned plot elements are sound, what's wrong with the script? Well, for one thing, it recycles way too much. The Enterprise, for example, is yet again, not working properly. Are we to assume that Starfleet would send a grossly malfunctioning ship with a skeleton crew into a potentially dangerous situation just because they want James Kirk to handle the situation? If that's the case, then why not put him on a better ship as an adviser? Adding to that...the crew is grossly incompetent. Scotty has the ship in pieces (and apparently is cloddish enough to bump his head knocking himself into unconsciousness WHILE there are hostiles on board!), no one seem to notice the Klingon ship decloaking at a crucial moment (despite the fact that the sensors are clearly showing the ship in weapons range) and the crew all seem way too familiar with each other. In other words, there is no sense of discipline. If this is the flagship of Starfleet, then it's a wonder that the Klingons hadn't already overthrown the Federation.<br /><br />As to the personal struggles with pain, it was crap. Lawrence Luckenbill is a competent actor, but even he couldn't save this turkey. In short no one could. Of all the people involved, I imagine Leonard Nimoy is the most embarrassed by it. I hope he is, anyway.<br /><br />Thank god the original cast didn't bow out on this cloddish opus.
6,625	[ 500, 600 ]	396	567	Welcome to the Plan 9 From Outer Space of Star Trek movies. Come on, trekkers, admit it. This movie is so bad, so staggeringly inept in every department, it's become something of a classic.<br /><br />The Shat gives the worst performance ever committed to celluloid. "BOONES! Hi, Bones" Brilliant! This isn't just Ham - it's several large pig farms in Kentucky! <br /><br />The "Special" Effects. Should be done under the trade descriptions act for using such a term. The Enterprise is a moving piece of cardboard in this film. Really! Even the Star Trek TV show had better.<br /><br />Bones, Spock and The Shat sing! Yeah, Spock sings Row Row Row Your Boat. After struggling over the meaning of the words!!!! "Capt. Life is Not A Dream" Poor Leonard Nimoy, he must really want to strangle Shatner for this. Could The Shat not have given us his rendition of Mr. Tambourine Man, or harmonised with Nimoy on Ballad of Bilbo Baggins? Sorely disappointed.<br /><br />A Sean Connery look-a-like plays Spock's half-brother. Only cos they couldn't get Sean Connery! Uhura does a fan dance! That would have been sexy in 1966. In 1989 it's like watching your drunk granny embarrass herself at a Christmas Party.<br /><br />Cat Woman Jumps on Shatner's back! Shat twirls her around a few times like a WWF Wrestler, and chucks her off. Yayy The Shat! Seems Connery 2.0 was a bit of a Vulcan rebel. Which explains why Spock hasn't previously mentioned him in 79 t.v episodes and 4 movies. McCoy apparently mercy-killed his Dad, BUT AFTERWARDS THEY FOUND A CURE. Tell me this isn't hysterically funny.<br /><br />The 11 deck Enterprise suddenly grows another 400 decks for an escape sequence in an elevator shaft. Spock's antigrav boots amazingly support Bones and The Shat as well. Should also have used em on the humped-back whales in Star Trek IV! Shatner meets God! Or what purports to be God, but I assume is really some kind of alien being. God looks a bit like Charlton Heston in The 10 Commandments. Sean Connery the 2nd calls on God to share his pain, and promptly dies. Or something. God punishes the Shat for questioning his identity. So Spock kills God with a photon torpedo. I'd love to know what Jehovah's Witnesses made of this scene.<br /><br />The Shat, having killed God, promptly goes back to his sing-song with Spock and Bones. Altogether now, Row Row Row Your Boat.....
6,639	[ 500, 600 ]	386	502	This low-budget indie film redefines the word "blah". It will surprise most that this word can actually be found in the dictionary, defined as: "nonsense.. uninteresting, dull, lifeless". The movie redefines the word because I would have to add to those four words: "PC crap", "pretentious on a pathetic level", and "pointless".<br /><br />The film tries so hard to be "hip" and "in touch" with contemporary beautiful-people-struggling-for-je-ne-sais-quoi behaviour and "thinking" (do they think?). There is almost no plot to speak of, though there IS one to sleep to. The phoniest and most politically-correct things about it are how a white woman is great friends with a young, black stud, the black street-sax-player with a penchant for oh-so wise council and advice, and the fat black psychic. Isn't it beautiful how the races can get along after all?... Ahhhh... In the end, the woman reads out "poetry", which is nothing more than one of her dull "dear diary" entries. She gets a standing ovation(!!!), although in real life her listeners would have more likely than not dozed off into deep slumber. But this movie has little to do with real life, even though that is where it's supposed to be happening. In real life her "poetry" reading would have gotten standing ovations only if she had the sense to include the juicy, sexual details. "And then I rubbed his huge penis against my sweaty, impatient pink little vagina..." Cheers! What's worse, the lead actress has a dozen scenes in which she either bathes or screws with someone, yet they never have the sense to show her breasts, which was clearly the only thing left to save this mess.<br /><br />The black guy and the blonde, who are separated by about a meter in height, hook up: they look like a cheap variation of Rodman and Madonna (as if the latter two aren't a cheap enough combination already). Nicole Eggert, mentioned by Howard Stern in his "Miss America" book, is the blonde. Stern writes of Eggert that she took her implants out. Yet I believe that when they took her implants out they also sucked most of the meat out of her flesh and muscles by mistake, for she looks starved here.<br /><br />The sax player in one scene develops angel-like wings; he looks like Al Roker advertising angel food cakes.
6,690	[ 500, 600 ]	435	515	This film was actually shot and made in 1987 but it didn't hit the theaters until 1990. As I watched this film I could see the good intentions that it had but I'm afraid there wasn't much talent or experience behind the camera to make it work. Story takes place in California in the 1890's and some Italian immigrants who own vineyards are told they have to leave their land so a railroad can come through. Dennis Hopper plays William Berrigan who has offered money for the land but has been turned down. Giancarlo Giannini is Sebastian Collogero and he is to proud to leave and asks the other farmers to stand up and fight to keep their land. Berrigan grows impatient and hires a bunch of thugs to force everyone to vacate. These thugs are headed by a man named Andrews (Burt Young) and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone who gives him problems. Andrews and his men kill Collogero one night and his son Marco (Eric Roberts) vows to seek revenge and get the land back for everyone. Marco blows up the bridge that the railroad was going to need and they also destroy a tunnel and this sets back the project for several months and Berrigan now starts to get heat from other investors. This film was directed by Peter Masterson and besides "The Trip To Bountiful" he has at best a spotty career in directing. He's a fine actor but here he seems to be in over his head. This was a film that desperately needed more attention to detail and its easy to see that it didn't occur. Roberts hairstyle is perfect for the 1980's but this is suppose to be 1890! The cinematographer is Toyomichi Kurita who ended up being a good cameraman but this was only his fourth film and he certainly had not learned everything at that time. Its not a sharp looking film at all and I noticed in several shots during the day that the sun would be glaring off of something and the scenes just don't have the crispness that would have helped the overall look. The script is just a revenge story and no surprises take place during the course of the film. We know Giannini is going to get it and it seemed just a matter of time. The cast is top notch and they do their best but the whole film comes across as uninspired. This was promoted as Julia Roberts film debut but I'm not sure that is correct. She might have appeared in a film called "Firehouse" before this.
6,730	[ 500, 600 ]	445	543	To call a film boring is not something I would usually count as a valid criticism. However, when a film is crassly made of spare parts from other films that weren't that good to begin with, and it is slow as molasses with no real payoff, I think it's fair to call a spade a spade. And The Ghost is a very boring film.<br /><br />A movie that is about as original as its' name, The Ghost tells the story of a young girl with amnesia being haunted by a ghost that holds the secret to her past. Only, it's a whole lot more complicated and less interesting than one would think.<br /><br />The plot line is almost incomprehensible for most of the picture and the hook, the amnesia element, only makes things worse. It seems that no one, including the screenwriter and director have any clue what the hell is happening at any given moment. Instead they chose to do what roughly amounts to the filmic equivalent of a sitcom clip show. There are scenes taken directly from Ringu, Dark Water, Shutter, The Grudge series, and a smattering of Pulse for good measure. Making matters worse, the half dozen female leads all dress and read their lines alike, making them impossible to tell apart.<br /><br />There is just nothing to grasp onto with this film. The story isn't all that well thought out. The amnesia gimmick is lazy. The mystery element is un-involving and handled with little grace. The characters never deduce anything, all the information is just handed out through the lead remembering her past whenever it is convenient for the plot.<br /><br />The cinematography, full of reflections and shots of water at least attempts to add to the subtext, a thematic link with the amnesia and the final twist (which I won't reveal) is nice, but often overwrought. Even the score feels borrowed and cliché.<br /><br />Worst of all, the inciting action for the curse isn't very interesting and the final twist is predictable and lame. "Wait, you mean that one character who has 15 minutes of screen time but appeared to have nothing to do with the plot comes back in the end? No!" Audiences are too savvy for this kind of tripe. Anyone who has seen any of the films that this rips off will find very little to even keep them awake with this feature. I used to think Shimizu was the bottom of the barrel for this kind of crap (remaking his grudge film no less than 5 times) but even his second rate work like Reincarnation, a film I couldn't even bring my self to finish, is miles ahead of this.<br /><br />For more reviews please visit www.collider.com
6,733	[ 500, 600 ]	371	549	CORRIDORS OF BLOOD <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.66:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.<br /><br />Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.<br /><br />Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).
6,787	[ 500, 600 ]	461	567	Hello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie. <br /><br />Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie<br /><br />and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him). <br /><br />Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.<br /><br />Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.
6,832	[ 500, 600 ]	471	582	I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.<br /><br />Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.<br /><br />And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.<br /><br />The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.<br /><br />The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.<br /><br />What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!<br /><br />But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.
6,857	[ 500, 600 ]	373	503	Spoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of "The Crying Game" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down "The Jackal." What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film "Day of The Jackal" but this movie is just a dumber version of "Assassins" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say "Wow! isn't he smart!" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. "The Jackal" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! "The Jackal" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as "other" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, "The Jackal" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before "The Jackal" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, "Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins." Overall, the "Jackal" has no redeeming qualities.
6,914	[ 500, 600 ]	412	520	Although I have rarely flown myself, I am keenly interested in aviation... and this film has added to the precious laughing stock in aviation cinema.<br /><br />1. Why is the captain doing the ground checks? Why does he even measure the oil levels in the engines? With turnaround times as low as 15 minutes in commercial aviation this is not a typical pre-flight check.<br /><br />2. WHY does the captain KICK against the aircraft tire? Strange kind of pressure check. Or anger management :-)<br /><br />3. The cockpit has a crew of 3. All large, western, two-engined jets built since the 1980ies have a crew of 2 people. Now try a guess at how old the movie script is.<br /><br />4. A helicopter manages to fly alongside the crippled airliner. Must be a fast one... and the captain's words to explain the "maneuver" to the passengers are indeed hilarious ones!<br /><br />5. With arrested elevator rudders it is always possible to lower the nose of the aircraft. It happens, for example, when any aircraft moves slower than the stall speed.<br /><br />6. The elevator rudders have hydraulic actuators. After the collision with the business plane it would, most probably, have severed the hydraulic lines and thus make them useless for steering, but it would NOT fix them in certain position.<br /><br />7. The fire in the aft galley was a stupid idea. It was designed to show that only gentlemen ask for the extinguisher and fight the fire, regardless of who was actually trained to do that the flight attendant.<br /><br />8. At the time of collision, the aircraft's elevators would have been in a neutral position. The film could have ended here...<br /><br />9. The flight engineer (the third person in the cockpit) has three bars on his uniform. In reality, flight engineers have two.<br /><br />10. Why does the captain slash the cabin casing with an axe to examine the damage behind? I thought it would have been the flight engineer's duty, as he is already supposed to perform technical checks before and after flight.<br /><br />11. In any aircraft, there is no unused space. At least commercial airplanes cannot afford the luxury of a compartment that can be filled with tons of water.<br /><br />I could go on and on... but at last I laughed hysterically about how the screenwriters imagine aircraft disasters! Woooohooo! Most aircraft disasters happen in such a short time span that you simply cannot make 90-minute flicks out of them. But you can always fill 90 minutes with mind-boggling and insane crap, irrespective of the genre.
6,926	[ 500, 600 ]	450	589	Up until around 1970 Lucille Ball was one great comedienne. She was such a perfect clown I only wish more people could have seen her with Bob Hope in "The Facts of Life" because she could do dry deadpan, too. as well as slapstick..<br /><br />Yep, Lucille Ball was wonderful . . . until "Mame."<br /><br />Trying to see Lucille Ball in "Mame" is physically impossible because there is so much Vaseline on the already filtered lenses that you'd need Windex to see Lucille Ball in some scenes. So even if you see Lucille Ball in "Mame," you can't really see Lucille Ball in "Mame". Which is a blessing.<br /><br />That's about the nicest thing I can say about "Mame," the movie of the musical of the movie of the play (this could go on, but it started with a perfectly funny book called "Auntie Mame"). Giving this a bad rap is like beating a sponge. So it does not matter that the music is croaked rather than sung. Most of the songs weren't much, anyway. There isn't any difference in the first three. "It's Today," "Open a New Window," and "We Need a Little Christmas" are all the same song. Celene Dion should do an album with them, they're so big and dull. The killer ballad "If He Walked Into My Life Today" needs a confident gorgeous voice (Edyie Gorme won a Grammy for doing it in 1967) that poor Lucille Ball did not possess when she made this movie. (True, Elaine Stritch can't carry a tune in a bucket, either, but at least Stritch can put over a song.)<br /><br />If you still feel your life is not going to be complete unless you see the movie musical "Mame," notice how there IS dancing in it, but whenever Lucy/Mame starts to do anything beyond a palsied shuffle the camera cuts away, returning right when the number is over and the star poses with the dancers. Again, it's just as well. Jane Connell got to reprise the role of pathetic Agnes Gooch after Lucille Ball had Madeline Kahn fired to ensure no comic originality would upstage the star. Connell is a stage performer who, like Carol Channing and Ethyl Merman, can't scale down her performances for films, so she joins Lucille Ball in being embarrassing, though for different reasons.<br /><br />The lavish gowns are by Theadora Van Runkle (Van Wrinkle?) and they provide the color missing in all but one of the cast. <br /><br />Bea Arthur as the actress Vera Charles, Mame's best friend, ignores everyone and does her own fun thing. If only she was in more scenes. She's too old for her role, too, but at least she didn't maim it.
6,941	[ 500, 600 ]	457	547	*SPOILERS* A hot and sexy Linda Blair as the Witch Amelia Reynolds is very upset with her friend and rival Witch across town Erica Barens, Julie Strain. Amelia getting her husband Hal, Edward Albert, to get a promotion at his job at the Giger & Greengrass law-firm over the more deserving Larry Barnes, Larry Poindexter, who happens to be married to Erica has her cast a spell on Hal causing him to lose control of his car and end up almost killing himself.<br /><br />Larry finding out about Erica's attempt on his best friend Larry's life has a violent fight with her causing Erica to fall from the balcony to her death. It's when Larry goes back to his ex-wife Carol, Rochelle Sanson, that things begin to really heat up, emotional and sexually. The wicked Amelia tries to have the dead spirit of Erica take over Carol's body and end up murdering Larry who she holds as being responsible for her husband Hal's injury that left him permanently confined to a wheelchair.<br /><br />Not much of a story but lot's of cheese and soft-core action with poor Larry getting manipulated by Amelia through the resurrection of Erica who plans to kill him the first chance he turns his back on her. Amelia is a bit whacked out herself not exactly knowing who is and who isn't a threat to her. Amelia even gets her poor and innocent gardener Stan, Michael Parks to first lose him family in a bloody house invasion break-in, then his mind, by being accused by the police as being the murderer, and finally is life, by getting blasted by Ameila herself. As he's made to runs into the Reynolds' house, under her control, as mad as a hatter trying to murder both her and the crippled Hal. <br /><br />Larry Parks looked and acted so weird that you had the feeling that he accidentally walked onto the set of "Sorceress" and ended up being in the cast playing his part as Stan. Without the help or benefit of a script he improvised his way through and then slowly realized just how god-awful bad the movie really is. Stan getting killed off early in the film was a big plus for him since he didn't have to suffer,like those of us watching, through the entire brainless and mind-numbing movie.<br /><br />It becomes evident to you as well as it did to the makers of "Sorceress" that all this shenanigan's on the screen has to come to some kind of hopeful and successful conclusion and a trick ending is put in to finally end the movie. The ending is about the best thing, besides Miss Blair and the rest of the very well-endowed woman cast, that one can say about the film.
6,952	[ 500, 600 ]	402	535	Dare Rudd (John Wayne) and sidekick Dink Hooley (Syd Saylor) are itinerant cowpunchers who can't seem to stay in one place very long. In "Helltown", the boys are headed to Montana, where they meet up with Rudd's cousin Tom Fillmore (Johnny Mack Brown), who offers them a job. It's a hoot to see the boys wearing aprons as they start out as cooks with the herd, although Dare becomes self conscious when Miss Judith (Marsha Hunt) rides into camp. Judy is Tom's girl, but the attraction between her and Dare is evident early on.<br /><br />Fillmore has a cattle herd to move, and promotes Dare to running the drive, partly to prove to Judy that he may not be up to the task. Meanwhile, bad guy Bart Hammond (Monte Blue) has his eyes on Fillmore's cattle, but when his henchmen fail to rustle the herd, he figures it's easier to win the money that Dare was paid at the end of the trail. Conning Dare into a rigged card game with his man Brady (James Craig), Dare's money begins to evaporate hand after hand. It's only when Dare fails to show up back at Fillmore's ranch that Tom goes out to find his cousin. Exposing the cheats, Tom, Dare and Dink high tail it before the bad guys can get their revenge.<br /><br />"Helltown", also known as "Born to the West", was released in 1937 by Favorite Films Corporation, a couple of years after Wayne's series of Westerns for Lone Star Productions. It only slightly alters the Lone Star formula; Wayne does get the girl at the end of the film, but here he was trying. There's a great runaway horse scene where Wayne rescues Marsha Hunt, in which Johnny Mack Brown's horse does a complete somersault spill. Syd Saylor does a nice job as the comic relief pal, doing his best to sell lightning rods to unsuspecting victims. He replaces familiar faces George "Gabby" Hayes and Yakima Canutt here, staples of the Lone Star films. John Wayne's charisma is beginning to develop here, preparing him for the leap to super star status that he eventually achieved. <br /><br />"Helltown" was based on a novel by legendary Western author Zane Grey. If you're looking for more films based on Grey's stories, try "Fighting Caravans" with Gary Cooper, "The Light of Western Stars" with Victor Jory, "Drift Fence" with Buster Crabbe, and "Heritage of the Desert" with Randolph Scott.
6,981	[ 500, 600 ]	409	585	Considering the film’s reputation as truly the worst of the worst, I was looking forward to watching Wood’s Crappus Opus (my word); it’s not necessarily any more inept than the other Woods I’ve watched – however, being from the REEFER MADNESS (1938) school of film-making, GLEN OR GLENDA doesn’t come across as readily ‘enjoyable’ as his genre efforts.<br /><br />Also, this surely emerges as Horror legend Bela Lugosi’s nadir (his first of three ‘collaborations’ with the director): one wonders whether he was really aware what kind of film it was (considering the actor’s history of heavy medication and the sheer senselessness of his cameo). Besides, Lugosi’s idiosyncratic delivery is perhaps at its most awkward here…though Wood’s script is mostly to blame for this – given the impossible dialogue (with repeated nonsensical allusions to “puppy-dog tails” and “big fat snails”) he handed the ailing star! By the way, Wood himself plays the central role (under the pseudonym Daniel Davis) – and, being just as worthless in this area, proves to have been an all-round dog!; Dolores Fuller – his wife and co-star – was similarly untalented (she would also appear in JAIL BAIT [1954])…but, at the very least, the image where the latter finally lets Glen wear her angora sweater did give Tim Burton’s affectionate biopic ED WOOD (1994) its famous poster! <br /><br />Incidentally, the latter film features a presumably fictionalized meeting between Wood and Orson Welles – well, for all intents and purposes, GLEN OR GLENDA constitutes Ed Wood’s CITIZEN KANE (1941) given its gleeful propensity for gimmicky narrative techniques: in fact, the barest thread of plot is padded with stock footage galore (many of it irrelevant, such as the bewildering instances of S&M) and inane dream sequences (highlighted by the presence of an impish demon sporting outrageous bushy eyebrows that would make Martin Scorsese weep with envy)! The film’s sincere attempt at a plea for tolerance and psychological probing into the affliction/phenomenon of transvestism is, however, sabotaged at every turn by the sheer amateurishness of the approach.<br /><br />For what it’s worth, the edition I watched was the “Extended Re-issue Version” which included six minutes of ‘depraved’ footage (directed by W. Merle Connell) censored on original release! Furthermore, my copy went out-of-synch every so often (which forced me to rewind it slightly to get the audio back on track) – though, thankfully, this was the fault of the source conversion to DivX as opposed to the film itself.
6,985	[ 500, 600 ]	453	533	Like other movies from the worst director ever, Ed Wood, this movie is very bad but because of that it is also very funny. May be not for everyone, but I laughed a lot. It is a strange thing when you enjoy a bad movie. How do you rate it? As a movie very low, as entertainment at least a little higher.<br /><br />The movie tries to explain what a transvestite is and it does this through a scientist (Bela Lugosi) and an inspector (Lyle Talbot) who talks to a doctor (Timothy Farrell) who knows about these things. The doctor tells the detective two stories and that is what we, and apparently the scientist, see. The doctor tels these stories because a dead transvestite is found, suicide, and because of a headline in the news paper about a sex-change. The first and longest story is about Glen (Ed Wood himself) who is in love and about to marry Barbara (Dolores Fuller) but he has never told her he like to dress as a woman, when he is named Glenda. The movie tells the same thing over and over again, especially the fact that a transvestite is not necessarily a homosexual. The movie almost says that being a transvestite is not a bad thing, but being homosexual is, since it keeps telling us the fact that a transvestite is not a homosexual. The second story is about a transvestite who really wants a sex-change and not just wants to dress up as a woman, but it is much shorter and less interesting.<br /><br />A couple of things make this movie very bad, and therefore laughable. How the story is presented is the first thing, the way the same things are told over and over again and the conclusion of it all are others. This is not where it ends. The acting is very bad, especially Dolores Fuller seems to be reading her lines directly from a little screen somewhere. Every thing she says is funny. The whole dialogue actually gave me quite some laughs.<br /><br />There is also a sequence where someone walks into a room. The door stays half open and we see something hanging on the wall, not completely straight. Then the door, in what seems to be the same shot although we know it is not, is a little less open and suddenly the thing on the wall hangs straight. Ed Wood didn't mind to leave this kind of continuity errors in his movie. May be a good thing, because basically it is just another laugh for the modern audience. I think you understand that it is a bad movie and I think there is a good chance you will laugh at the ridiculous mistakes as well.
7,007	[ 500, 600 ]	438	533	This is far the most worst film I've seen this year from Bollywood so far. I may not lie, my wife liked this film very much. It was not Bobby Deol or Arjun Rampal what made this film become unbelievable, but it was Amisha Patel. She performs the role of a blind woman who get in trouble when she almost fall from a mountain where (luckily for her) the hero Arjun Rampal comes to rescue her (in the middle of nowhere). It amazes me here how a blind girl is aware of danger when she is about to fall from a mountain, because she cannot see her environment. From this scene I started to watch the movie very closely and in every scene there was a flaw in the acting of Amisha Patel. The way she plays a blind girl is very bad. The only way she does that is by not to look into the eyes of the person she talks with. When I saw this film, I respected Rani Mukherjee more with her performance in the movie Black. Amisha will never reach this level in performing as an actress.<br /><br />Anyway, she falls in love with Arjun Rampal. It is the cliché story. Sudden Arjun gets killed by a man who is madly in love with Amisha. Amisha is in despair, but then Bobby enters the movie. He also falls in love with the blind girl. Bobby Deol is a great actor in my point of view, but he cannot pull the film to a higher level where Amisha Patel buries it deep into the ground. I must say Bobby deserves better roles in better movies than he got so far. Bobby grew in acting from the first movie his lovely daddy gave him. He was so bad in acting in Barsaat, but when you see him acting now, you get the shivers and believe every word he says. Only a movie with high potential like a Yash Copra film has to meet his way.<br /><br />Okay, when Amisha also falls in love with Bobby, someones enters her life. Arjun Rampal is not dead! Who believes this crap? I don't. Why didn't they give his role to one of the ugly guys from the movie family (Shushant Singh or Aryeman Ramsay) and give Bobby a role in one of the blockbusters with Amitabh Bachchan? I'm sorry if my comment sounds like a cry for an actor like Bobby to give him a great role, but he deserves so much better than a movie with Amisha (bigscreen t.v. face) Patel. This movie was so awful, that I regret buying it.
7,016	[ 500, 600 ]	421	532	Eugene O'Neill is acclaimed by some as America's leading playwright, but for things like The Iceman Cometh, Long Day's Journey Into Night, The Emperor Jones. Strange Interlude was a piece of experimentation he concocted where the characters on stage, look aside to the audience and say what they really are thinking and then resume conversation. It was a nine hour production with a dinner break on Broadway, so you can safely assume a lot has been sacrificed here.<br /><br />For the screen the voice over regarding the thoughts is used for all the characters. It probably is a technique better suited to the screen. Sir Laurence Olivier did very well with it in his version of Hamlet. But Bill Shakespeare gave Olivier a lot better story than O'Neill gave his players in this instance.<br /><br />Players like Clark Gable, Norma Shearer, Ralph Morgan, May Robson, etc. are a lot more animated in most of their films than they are in Strange Interlude. The story takes place over a 20 year period. Norma Shearer is a young woman whose intended is killed in World War I. She starts playing around quite a bit, although that part is not shown in this version. She makes the acquaintance of Alexander Kirkland and his friend Clark Gable. She also has as a perennial suitor, Ralph Morgan, a friend of her father's Henry B. Walthall.<br /><br />She marries Kirkland, but then is warned by his mother May Robson and shown that insanity gallops in that family to quote another literary work. Since Kirkland wants kids and Shearer and Robson think Kirkland's train will slip the track if he doesn't get one, Gable is recruited for breeding purposes. Of course you can see all the complications this can cause and O'Neill explores them all.<br /><br />Gable is so terribly miscast in an O'Neill production, but he was an up and coming player at MGM and did what they told him. Shearer does what she can to lift a very dreary story, but she seems defeated at the start. Best in the film is possibly Robson who puts some real bite in her dialog.<br /><br />Strange Interlude ran for 426 showings on Broadway in 1928-1929 and starred Glenn Anders and Lynn Fontanne in the Gable and Shearer parts. Perhaps no one could really have saved the film because two years earlier, Groucho Marx lampooned the stuffings out of it in Animal Crackers. After seeing what he did, I don't think the movie going public took it too seriously.<br /><br />And since it's not the best of O'Neill, neither could I.
7,022	[ 500, 600 ]	431	517	I have loved the book "A Little Princess" for most of my life, and was very excited that there was a movie. But I was appalled at this adaptation. Not only is the acting wooden, and the plot a convoluted mish mash of various incidents in the book, but the theme is all wrong. The real theme of the story should be that a girl can be a princess only when she behaves like one, as Sara does when she gives 5 of her 6 buns to a beggar child, even when she herself is very hungry. The theme of the movie seems to be that all girls are princesses, which cheapens Sara's actions considerably, and seems more like it should be written on a Hallmark card than applied to this story.<br /><br />There are many other things wrong with this movie- too many to list, but here are just a few of the larger ones: This story should be set in Britian in the mid 1800s, not America during the first world war. Miss Minchen is harsh to Sara from the start, making her actions when Sara is left penniless much less startling than they would be if she was syrupy sweet at the beginning, as she is supposed to be. Nowhere is it mentioned that Becky is black. Sara's father does not come back, he is dead. It is his closest friend, and collaborator in the diamond mines who finds Sara, and restores her to her proper place. In fact, the diamond mines are not even mentioned at all, though they are the source of Sara's wealth.<br /><br />All through everything that Sara has faced, she always acts like a Princess, giving what she can, and forgiving those who hurt her. She would never have called Lavinia a "snotty two faced bully". Such a thing is completely out of character for her, and undermines the entire philosophy that she is to be well behaved no matter what.<br /><br />This is by far the worst adaptation of a book to the screen that I have ever seen (with the notable exceptions of "Ella Enchanted", and "Anne of Green Gables the Continuing Story")The plot of the book is wonderful, and skillfully written, so I do not understand why the director felt that it needed to be changed to make it interesting. I would suggest that anyone wishing to know this story should watch the 1987 version, which is far superior. Or better still, read the book. It will be more worth your time than the hour and a half wasted on this version on the movie.
7,025	[ 500, 600 ]	409	519	I was looking forward to this so much, being a big fan of the book. However, when it came out I remember thinking it was one of the biggest wastes of money and time I've ever spent at the cinema.<br /><br />In principle, the acting, the sets and the music were excellent, and are the main reason why I'm rating this a 4.<br /><br />In this version, Sara is a little too self-sacrificing for my taste. There is no way she would have deliberately lied to Miss Minchin just to stop her punishing the other girls; in the book she makes a point of describing lies as "not just wicked, but vulgar." <br /><br />There's also far too much of a Disneyfied ending for me; Sara's father coming back from the dead and all of them trotting off into the Indian sunset. While the book does have a happy (and critics might say equally improbable) ending, it doesn't leave you thinking, "Oh puh-leeze."<br /><br />About the only things true to the book were:<br /><br />1. Sara's father being a soldier 2. The lines between Sara and her father ("Are you learning me by heart?"/"No. I know you by heart. You are inside my heart.") 3. Sara's friendship with Becky, and her 'adopting' Lottie (although this last one wasn't developed as much as it could have been) 4. The changing of her room by adding various luxury items. That part was brilliantly done. 5. The basic core - a rich girl being flung into poverty suddenly - is there, but that's about all that is.<br /><br />People might say that this adaptation is more for the younger audience. Possibly. All I can say to that is I have two cousins - aged 7 and 12 respectively - who were big fans of this film until they read the book.<br /><br />If all you want is a 'feel-good' family film, then this delivers. If you're looking for a film that actually tells the story of A Little Princess (in fact, if you've read the book) don't waste time with this one. It's such a shame; with a cast like this, if they'd stuck to at least the basic story it could have been fantastic.<br /><br />Am I harping on about 'read the book' this and 'read the book' that a little too much? Very probably. But if someone attempts to adapt a book - especially such a classic - into a movie, then they should at least have done the same thing. Preferably more than once.
7,041	[ 500, 600 ]	456	537	I saw bits and pieces of this on TV once, and when a friend recommended it, I began looking for it even though it seemed no place nearby had it. I finally got a hold of it in an antique store, and couldn't wait to watch it...Oh, that I had seen it a couple years earlier and could've really enjoyed it. I was surprised that this movie was only 80 or so minutes long, and I think this is what made the plot and story so lacking. The plot really does sound like a good one, both on the trailer and the movie comments: a teenager, Angus (Jesse Bradford) and his newfound stray lab Yellow are marooned on an island during a storm on a boat trip with his father (Bruce Davison). Together, they manage to survive the wilderness and wait to be found and rescued. Still, what is never mentioned is that everything is shortened and the events of the plot are very rushed. There is a possible love interest between Angus and Sara, but they're never shown together for more than a moment. Yellow is a mischievous dog the parents are reluctant to keep, but in a few days he seems to be appreciated enough to join a boat trip. The scene of the mother (Mimi Rogers) mentioning vaguely what death is like to the younger boy (Joel Palmer) doesn't go anywhere. In no time, we learn that 9 days have been spent on the island, then suddenly it's 14, then 19. Of all the animals a castaway could be exposed to in the wild, only 1 kind - a wolf - attacks them. Why couldn't something else have been a problem instead of having the same type of animal - maybe even the same one - strike twice? There are few views of how Angus prepares food, except when he discovers fruit and roots, and when he roasts a trapped rat. If he knows so much about survival skills, why weren't more scenes with it shown? The one thing that made me blank was why the dog didn't have much part alone. When he is rescued, and the dog is left behind on the island, there is no scene showing how he survives without a human's help. I wished I was more open to this when watching it, but I did enjoy some of this. The acting was good, and the score was enjoyable. Though, I found myself wondering why the father looked so much older than his family, and why he and the main search and rescue conductor share names. This is a good movie for kids, but though the protagonist is 14, nobody over 10 would be interested with this.
7,081	[ 500, 600 ]	450	546	I went into this movie with very little in terms of expectations. I went with my girlfriend and two friends, and none of them could explain the story of the Grudge 1 to me. Well, if the first one couldn't leave an impression on them to explain the plot, then I doubted this one would be any better.<br /><br />Let me summarize what the trailers let you know: The Asian lady is back and so is Sarah Michelle Gellar. Luckily for her, she isn't around very long. That decision may have saved her career.<br /><br />The movie has three story lines, and none of them make sense. And even worse, none of them are developed. You almost start to understand, and then someone dies and the story gets left behind. Okay, killing people could be scary, but I was left more confused over the attempted plot development than I was frightened. They jump back and forth between all three story lines, which aren't related... OR ARE THEY?!?! SOUND EFFECTTT~~~ The timing of the three stories are displaced, and you can tell right at the start that the movie is going to have a twist at the end. BE PREPAREDDD. Oh Wait. Sorry, this isn't a Fight Club or Vertigo quality twist, you could see this one coming from miles away. And probably envisioned a MUCH better twist in your head... they should've hired me. Instead of the girl making her "SURPRISING" appearance, maybe it could've been Michael Jackson instead? That part of Scary Movie 4 scared the crap out of me.<br /><br />The killing sequences were terribly done. Unlike horror movies of the past, where a killer pops out of nowhere, a closet or behind a door for example, and everyone in the theatre jumps (and subsequently the fat guy behind you spills popcorn down your neck)- this lacked any frightening pop ups. They zoomed in on where the random Asian woman or kid would show up, and you knew exactly what was coming. Instead of having the music get really loud, then quiet, then a pop out to psyche you out, the music actually gave you timing for the scary scene. If I know it's coming, it won't scare me.<br /><br />The movie began with explaining what the "Grudge" is; when a person is killed during a fit of rage, a curse is placed on the location where she was killed. So why does the Asian lady being cursed by her mother have any significance to the story? And why is the grudge now moving countries? This movie was absolutely terrible.<br /><br />All it did was leave me begrudging my friends for making me go- we should've seen one of those animated Pixar movies. It would've been scarier.
7,093	[ 500, 600 ]	443	544	When you first sit down to watch this movie, keep in mind that you are about to see something you've probably never seen before. Keep in mind that this is a movie where they obviously spent INSANE amounts of cash on explosions and not enough on acting or anything else for that matter. The crazy thing I noticed is that every character is completely over-portrayed, and it seems (most of the time anyhow) that the film had been 'sped-up' to make the characters move faster! (I wonder if the Hong Kong version was dubbed too?) I understand the cartoon had this, but it doesn't work for live-action. It just looks odd... as if the camera crew decided to act because they couldn't afford real actors.<br /><br />The English version is horribly dubbed, and the character's words do not match the mouths at all. I would have preffered subtitles, but since this is a kids movie, and since some kids cannot read well, I'll let it go. But there is something extremely odd about this movie. It's supposedly a kids movie, but there's a lot of material about SEX, RAPE, and STRIPPING which isn't exactly for young Western audiences. (In the Orient, they have different laws and sexuality in children's movies is much more accepted). But parents be warned! There is a scene where two characters talk about rape, multiple scenes where people say 'sex maniac' and a scene where this insanely young japanese girl does a sexy dance for one of the 'sex maniacs' and shows him her breasts! Who was this movie made for anyway?<br /><br />Oh, and the special effects are laughable. You can tell the spaceship-like things that bomb the village are cardboard cutouts (or animation, I wasn't sure) that look unconvincing, even to a kid. The makers of this movie left out a lot of cool things from the cartoon, simply because they couldn't budget the kind of money they'd need. I didn't like how the names of all the characters were changed... it made me wonder if this movie was made by the same people as Dragon Ball Z.<br /><br />I don't really recommed this movie to anyone. Kids, adults, or Dragon Ball Z fans. It's just a poor representation of the cartoon, and obviously, one will be able to tell that this movie was rushed and no care whatsoever was put into it. I won't even get into the camerawork... just wait until the end credits at the still picture that sits there for 2 minutes... most of the shots are not framed correctly AT ALL and the movie just seems made by amateurs. Grainy film quality too.<br /><br />Just all around horrible!!!!<br /><br />
7,123	[ 500, 600 ]	418	512	This movie has lots of action and little heart. Let's forget for a minute that it gets just about every aspect of the Russian Revolution wrong - after all we only have only under an hour here to tell our story. In fact, the czar abdicated after World War I proved a disaster for the country, and a provisional government tried to rule as a pseudo-democracy until the Leninists took power nine months later, mainly because they promised to immediately withdraw Russia from the war. Now, back to our story.<br /><br />Here we have the revolution being "rumored" in Russian newspapers in what appears to still be a functioning country until violence erupts suddenly and upends the life of nobleman Baron Nikita 'Nikki' Krasnoff (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.). He flees his home with his former servant girl Tanyusha (Nancy Carroll) in tow, and they start to make a new life in Constantinople. Before the revolution the Baron made a regular habit out of making a play for the girl, not out of any real passion, but out of boredom as a diversion of sorts. The revolution doesn't change this, and he continues to try to take advantage of what is obviously a very simple girl. It certainly doesn't make the audience like this guy to see him toying with her so. Tanyusha follows the Baron because she literally has no place to go after the revolutionaries take over the Baron's home, and she has known no other life other than waiting on Nikki hand and foot. Once in Constantinople, Nikki quickly wearies of life as a penniless laborer, and that is when he meets up with his former lover, Russian aristocrat Vera Zimina, who has a plan for getting them to Paris where the Tsarists have congregated after the revolution. Unfortunately for Tanyusha, Vera's plan does not include her.<br /><br />This film manages to completely waste the considerable acting talents of early talkie actress Nancy Carroll. She does a good job with what little she is given to do, but that is not much. Lilyan Tashman is the standout here, even though she has only a small role as Russian vamp Vera. Lilyan was so often given supporting roles just as she is here, but her earthy voice and glamorous looks make her the center of attention in every scene in which she appears. Guy Kibbee even shows up in a humorous bit as an American tourist who is curious about the Russian royalty that has been forcefully ejected from their homeland.
7,158	[ 500, 600 ]	444	583	Before the days of home video, Stan Laurel's pre-Hardy comedy 'Kill or Cure' was known -- to the extent that it was known at all -- only because a few sequences were included in Robert Youngson's compilation film 'Laurel and Hardy's Laughing 20's'. Youngson knew what he was doing: the best gags in 'Kill or Cure' were brought intact into his compilation, while the rest of this only mildly funny comedy remained on Youngson's cutting-room floor.<br /><br />Laurel portrays a commercial traveller, hawking a patent medicine cried Professor I.O. Dine's Knox-All: that name is the funniest joke in this movie, which ain't sayin' much. I should point out that this movie dates from 1923, the shank of Prohibition. During Prohibition, quite a lot of Americans purchased patent medicine if it had (ahem!) 'medicinal' properties, so -- if Knox-All contains alcohol -- Stan's job in this movie is less desperate than the one which he and Ollie famously had in 'Big Business', selling Christmas trees in the summer. Too bad for this movie that it's not nearly so funny as 'Big Business'.<br /><br />We see Stan (but don't hear him, in this silent film) delivering a spirited sales talk to a man who seems to be paying attention ... until we learn that they're standing outside a deaf-mute institution, and this man is deaf. A haughty woman emerges from the gates: Stan quickly tries to engage her attention by wiggling his fingers at her. Of course she's not deaf, and she promptly whacks him with her umbrella. I found this sequence offensive, NOT because it involves deaf people (the deaf aren't the butt of the joke) but because it abets the very widely-held misconception among hearing people that they can communicate with the deaf by merely waggling their fingers randomly and performing Charades without actually learning the highly complex grammar of sign language.<br /><br />More amusingly, a spinster in this movie has a pet canary named Rudolph (as in Valentino), and there's a gag involving trick photography to enable a man to hide behind an object that's narrower than his body. I've seen this device in several cartoons and live-action movies but 'Kill or Cure' is, I think, the earliest movie to use it that I've seen so far.<br /><br />Stan Laurel, an under-rated actor, does one bit of physical business here that's worthy of Chaplin or Keaton, in which he conveys his emotions -- and a change in his demeanour -- while walking away from the camera with his back to us. Still, Laurel never really became a first-rate comedian until he united with Oliver Hardy to form the greatest comedy team ever. 'Kill or Cure' barely rates 3 out of 10.
7,160	[ 500, 600 ]	485	576	Why bother to see this movie? It probably rates an award for being the worst career move of a major movie star since Clark Gable's laughable playing of an Irish patriot in Parnell.<br /><br />It's inconceivable that Bergman would choose both this movie and its director over a lucrative Hollywood career where she could choose among the finest scripts and directors being offered at that time. To begin with, there was no script to work with except a few notes. Then we are supposed to believe the polished Bergman as a poor refugee willing to do anything to be released from a refugee camp, including marriage to a poor Italian fisherman she doesn't even love. I read where Anna Magnani was the original choice for this part. If so, that made a lot more sense than to cast the luminous Bergman in such a proletarian part. But since she was in love with her director, common sense flew out the window.<br /><br />So she goes to live in this poor village where the men must toil to extract a meager living from the sea. A place she obviously hates to be and where she doesn't fit in.<br /><br />Her only friend is the village priest who knows she's not suited to the life of a poor fisherman's bride, but tells her that for the sake of love she must repress her true feelings of revulsion, and accept the poverty and despair she encounters each day. On top of all of this, there's this volcano always on the brink of erupting and drowning them all in hot lava. But like a true heroine, Bergman revolts against her misery by declaring war on just about everyone else in this dreary film. She even goes as far as trying to seduce the village priest, in a scene that would generate laughter if it were not so pathetic. Since her poor slob of a husband must lock her in a room to keep her from running away, she's forced to use her body to bribe a married man to take her off the island. To her, no sacrifice is too great; no man unapproachable if he is willing to help her to escape the island and her misery. I won't bother to tell you how this all ends. The no-script movie ending is as plausible as the rest of STROMBOLI. I even remember (from seeing it on late night TV) that it had two different endings! So be warned if you should feel brave enough to sit through this king-size turkey and catch the miscast Bergman. It led to her downfall in Hollywood for the next seven years and she was condemned for sleeping with her director while still married to Peter Lindstrom. None of the movies she made with this director(whom she later married) are noteworthy except as proof of a career gone berserk. I kid you not. It's pretty embarrassing.<br /><br />- - SoundTrack
7,180	[ 500, 600 ]	466	537	HANA-BI has many quiet moments and fairly slow pacing. Unfortunately, during the many thoughtful interludes the viewer is left to ponder about the recent scenes just watched and many questions surface and annoy.<br /><br />For example, why didn't the wheelchair guy drown in the ocean when he was stuck in the sand and the tide came up around him? There was no rescue seen or hinted at.<br /><br />Can it be true that Japanese police are so inept and unskilled at arrest procedures as to not first remove the suspect's ability to reach for a weapon? These detective-level Japanese police seemed to have no experience dealing with a suspect.<br /><br />Why doesn't the right eye of the lead character blink? Having one eye blinking was distracting and it went unexplained.<br /><br />What exactly was the lead character spending all his money on to have to borrow so much from loan sharks? He was not seen gambling. Being a non entry-level government employee his wife must have had full health insurance.<br /><br />What was the single man doing all by himself in the middle of nowhere in the nature park? What was his reason for being there?<br /><br />How in the world could the gangsters find the lead character and his wife up in the far off nature reserve? It made no sense.<br /><br />And again, how could the gangsters later find the lead character and his wife up in the remote Mt. Fuji resort? There were absolutely no clues available for these gangsters to even know which country the lead character and his wife were in, let alone the correct specific location at the correct specific time!<br /><br />And a third same question, how could the junior detectives know which few feet of the Japanese coast line to find the lead character and his wife? The Japanese coast line must be vast. Were all of these characters supposed to have psychic powers?<br /><br />Two final questions: The cute girl trying to fly a kite on the beach -- WHERE did she come from? She seemed to have no transportation or companions with her. And why in the world did she still keep attempting to fly what was left of her kite after it was ripped in pieces?! This was weird. Unintentionally Python-esque.<br /><br />On the positive side, I loved the background music. It was dramatic and flowing and added much to this movie. The photography, imagery and art were pleasing to the eye.<br /><br />One final point, the wife was overly pleasing to the eye. Not once did she ever come close to looking like a dying sick person. She looked very healthy. If anything, these people seemed depressed and mentally ill and not physically sick. The husband treated his wife as perhaps a newly outed gay man would treat a respected wife... a love of friendship, but not close tenderness.<br /><br />A mixed movie for sure.
7,228	[ 500, 600 ]	461	545	I'd have to say that I've seen worse Sci Fi Channel originals, but this Nu Image shonker from Yossi Wein was still quite a drag. The big problem with it is that it simply isn't convincing, not just its creature, but acting, writing and any attempts at drama. The direction lacks any kind of flair and the script from Boaz Davidson and Danny Lerner never really works, predictable, often laughable, whilst it delivers less howlers than a fair few of these sorts of films it never offers anything to engage or raise the pulse. The actors do their best, but with such material their workmanlike efforts have little effect. Matthew Reilly Burke is a blandly watchable hero, Meredith Morton similar as a blandly watchable love interest. Actually she was a bit less convincing but at least she was easy on the eyes. The film at least has the dignity to bowl along at a reasonable pace, but its biggest plus is that the octopus isn't entirely CGI rendered. So even though it doesn't look good, at least there are a few legit scenes of characters inanely grappling with rubbery tentacles in pretty amusing fashion. I also chuckled at the disparities between different representations of the octopus, the cgi shots of the creature as a whole vary over the course of the film, they are also different not only in size but appearance to the practical shots of it, and there are scenes where the tentacle action suggests that the makers had abandoned pretending they were making a film about an octopus and just envisioned their creature as a bunch of miscellaneous tentacles. The scenes of the creature attacking people get old pretty swiftly, but there are a few funny scenes where it takes on other things, like a boat and a crane. Yes, these scenes are poor, but they did make me chuckle. Undisputable highlight though is a hilarious sequence in which the octopus takes on a New York landmark, the scene may not be much more than a minute but it really is inspired, and well worth looking up on youtube. Apart from that things are uninspired all round, (a PG level lack of gore or nastiness stops this one from even pulling off much in the trash good times) the film does take a turn into semi gripping disaster movie territory at the end, but I can't really give it credit because the best shots in the last few scenes were culled from the Stallone flick Daylight (which by my recollection is quite good). Altogether this was pretty rubbishy stuff and not something I'd really recommend to anyone except creature feature die hards. Better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick, but not by much.
7,240	[ 500, 600 ]	443	526	Richard Donner shows off his liberal credentials with this ludicrously overcooked simplistic attack on the politics of South Africa.It's not as if America is the cradle of racial harmony and brotherly love - and further irony is added by the fact that the movie is set in the city that was the home of Rodney King and glorifies the Police Department that did so much towards community relations with their brutal racist behaviour. So Donner's salt and pepper pairing who clearly have a late = developing teenage crush on one another do their own thing with fine disregard for the rule of law or the rules of evidence and no one worries because the bad guys are white South Africans - surely a worrying example of police racism in itself? Inside Rudd's (Joss Ackland - eminently hissable) office the decor is designed and lit to resemble as far as possible the Fuhrerbunker and just in case some rather dumb moviegoers miss the point,he and his men are referred to as "nazis" at regular intervals. For me the only bright spot in the movie was when Mel Gibson turned up at an anti - apartheid demonstration carrying a banner bearing the inscription "End Aparthied Now". The intensely irritating Joe Pesci is introduced into the franchise to take some of the weight off the boys' shoulders by following them around yapping incessantly like a badly-trained puppy.This would be bearable if there was the remotest possibility of him ending up in a concrete overcoat,but sadly he survives to irritate another day. Miss Patsy Kensit seems in a world of her own,perhaps not believing her luck at being cast opposite Mel Gibson who has little trouble sweeping her into bed in his mobile home which appears to have been washed up on a beach somewhere.Shortly after consummating their affair they come under fire from a number of helicopters that fire enough rounds into Mel's caravan to keep the U.S. Army in Iraq going for six months. Fortunately he has a pet dog who is not afraid to cause coitus interruptus just as they are going for seconds and his barking warns them of the imminent attack.I hope he got a special bone as a reward. The film climaxes(without interruption from Mel's dog) on a cargo ship bound for Nazi Germany (sorry,South Africa),when Mel and Danny murder so many members of the master race that I lost count.Despite jiggling around like Bonnie and Clyde under the impact of a hail of bullets,Mel survives,curled up in his partner's arms like a small child with a wise and benevolent father.Take that,Apartheid!
7,310	[ 500, 600 ]	461	551	This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the "Blair Witch" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from "Wolfen" and "Predator". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of "Starting back to one" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad "B" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ******SPOILER ALERT******<br /><br />And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that "The Creature From Black Lake" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish.
7,311	[ 500, 600 ]	466	567	I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10
7,312	[ 500, 600 ]	409	517	This comment may technically contain "spoilers" but it sure doesn't contain surprises<br /><br />My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.<br /><br />Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.<br /><br />For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.<br /><br />To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. "maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming". Sure enough, we later see he can. "There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked". And obviously it is. "Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of "Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.<br /><br />Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.<br /><br />Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.<br /><br />I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it.
7,344	[ 500, 600 ]	424	578	I absolutely could not believe the levels of ineptitude on display in this production. I honestly thought gay men had better taste than this. I know I do.<br /><br />The bulk of the blame doesn't lie with the cast, but let's get them out of the way first...the only one with real talent was Joe Souza (plus he had the best bod in the cast). He had a nice, clear theatre-style voice. Okay, and Jaymes Hodges' voice was so-so, but he had a vacant expression in every number. The rest couldn't hold a note in a bucket, even though the music was obviously dubbed in after the fact. Must have been really dreadful hearing them live. They were also all girly-boys except for maybe three. If I wanted to see naked WOMEN onstage I could go to the titty bars. Not sure why anyone would choose to film the L.A. production instead of New York. I would imagine NY has more readily available singing talent, though one would think in L.A. they would be able to find better-LOOKING guys. Apparently not.<br /><br />But I digress...the real blame here lies with the creators and producers. This score was the most banal, insipid tripe I have ever heard. It sounded like some theatre queens took all their musical cd's, threw them in a blender and poured the goo onto a page. Sadly, I'm sure there are many who can't tell the difference between good theatre writing and whatever this is. I mean seriously, I was laughing my ass off through the whole thing but not at the lame jokes. I think the morbid 'my-lover-has-died-of-AIDS-song' entitled "Kris, Look What You've Missed" was the most hysterical thing in the whole show. Genius writing...Kris / Missed...wow...they ALMOST rhyme...must be a good lyric. And Jesus...the END of that song..."Oh Kris, Ohhh Kris, OHHHH Kris..." OVER AND OVER!!! My other favorite was "You gotta be a Pumpy Junkie Boy to be a Humpy Hunkie Boy"...WTF??? The whole show was full of the most arbitrary lyrics JUST BECAUSE they rhymed. Where did these people learn to write songs? Apparently they listened to Sondheim and said "He's not so great, I can do that"...as evidenced by the retarded "Bobby, Bobby, Bobby" reference from COMPANY in one song. Another irk: why are 20-somethings singing about Robert Mitchum and Tab Hunter? Obviously coming from the mouths of the lyricists and not the actors...again, bad writing.<br /><br />If you love torture and pain, and I know many of you strange fetishists do, go ahead and watch it. But you've been warned.
7,471	[ 500, 600 ]	440	505	Set in the near future a dark stranger walks into some southern American city plagued by zombies. Settling with a group of friendly face inhabitants our stranger learns the harsh realities of city life. There are two groups of people; the upper classes who dwell safely behind the concrete walls of the city being provided by, at the right price, the state police. Then there are our friendly face inhabitants. These lower class folks live along side the zombies. There only means of survival is to trade goods, which they forage for during the day, with the police in exchange for tins of food. Our stranger discovers why his world is plague by zombies. A new dietary pill that suppressed the craving for carbohydrates was the foundation. The human race's desire to shed fat caused the down fall of society as we know it. These pills increased the desire for protein i.e. meat, even the pet poodle. However, there was one more grave side affect, after death people became reanimated with an even stronger craving for protein namely human flesh.<br /><br />With what I feel is an imaginative introduction I felt that this film many realise some inventive material. What better way could explain the cause of the zombie race than by a contemporary idea of people's desire to make any sacrifice to change their body without the hard work of the gym? However, the imagination of this film soon stopped after this exposition. This film falls into the old trap of 'I can not imagine what the world will be like when society collapses'. When you watch this film you do not escape to a different world as you do when you watch Planet of the Apes (original), Alien, Mad Max or Texas Chain Saw (original). In this film the alternate society is define by people with hair dyed orange and green. Face paint and charity shop leather jackets. There is no harshness about life in this alternate society, just healthy faces and over made-up zombies. Films should allow you to escape not remind you that you need to clear out your wardrobe and take your old cloths to the charity shop.<br /><br />Forget about some of the pitiful acting, or the over made-up zombies. This film fails because it is too polished, too congenial and too predictable. I have watch films like this since the early eighties. If you are going the make a film of this nature I suggest you need to watch again such films as Dawn of The Dead (original and remake), Threads or Fulci's Zombie to see and experience that feeling of desperation in a devastate society.
7,499	[ 500, 600 ]	432	512	Again, we're getting a melange of themes well covered by so many previous films. The good and the bad son story, courtesy East of Eden. The American marine hero story, who doesn't consider himself to be one due to what he knows. And the grieving wife potentially falling in love with another man story.<br /><br />The mere fact of those stories being that ubiquitous isn't so much of a problem though. Because theoretically they could still be better presented and dealt with each time around. No luck this time though, as all three of those threads ultimately fall flat all the same.<br /><br />As the bad son never really gets to talk to his father, so that conflict is never resolved properly. Apart from the father kind of starting to appreciate the bad son thanks to the latter renovating the kitchen of the grieving wife. Now, how satisfying is that.<br /><br />Next, the surprisingly homecoming marine suspecting his wife of unfaithfulness conflict never gets resolved. Because he never really talks to the man under suspicion, namely his own brother. So once more we're handed a loose end here.<br /><br />And finally, the American military heroism hypocrisy theme, where the marine is publicly considered a hero when, due to the dirtiness of war he went through, he shouldn't really be called one as to his own standards, that third theme falls flat just the same. Because the movie ends right when, for the first time, he's just able to talk to his wife about what he went through. Where the real story would actually begin at that very point, namely his process of recovery, how that would look like and how he would finally face the family he'd have some major guilt to admit to. All that, all the really interesting bits are passed over and getting ignored.<br /><br />So while story wise this film is a serious, and I mean serious, disappointment, I'd still give it points for the impressive cast. Although no film should use Maguire for a voice over, because that belongs to Spiderman. Especially a grown up Gyllenhaal seems to fulfill all the expectations he aroused as a young and aspiring actor. So much that I'd in fact love to see him entrusted with a really deep and demanding lead role of proper profile.<br /><br />So while the cast really seems to do what they can, I consider this film totally forgettable otherwise. A shallow and ultimately pretentious, utterly unsatisfying tear squeezer indeed. Message du jour to the writers: we know the wounds already, see the host of Vietnam films. You want to earn some credit, show us a believable healing.
7,519	[ 500, 600 ]	448	564	I...I don't know where to begin. Dragon Hunt might just be the worst film in cinematic history. Even Anus Magilicutty was better than this, as it was intentionally bad. Showgirls? No, it had kitsch value and was technically a well made film. But Dragon Hunt takes the cake, and eats it, then vomits it back up and feeds it to a homeless man. It's that much of a travesty.<br /><br />The acting, if it can even be called that, is rough. It doesn't have the charm of improvised acting, so it must be scripted, but it's recited with an almost malicious tone of poor quality. Several lines were delivered in a way that shows the actors (or basically, those people on screen) either regretted being connected to this film or were thinking of a particularly humorous joke from Saturday Night Live, which they had watched prior to getting in front of the camera. I could write another three paragraphs on the quality of acting in this film, but you and I both don't want to hear it.<br /><br />The make-up and special effects (which, with most films, is the only good thing) was laughably bad. The antagonist, whose name is so ridiculous I can't remember it, has a Mohawk glued to the top of his head. Yeah, glued to his head. And you can tell it's glued on too, if you look at the spot where it meets his pockmarked skull you can see a plastic strip, not unlike the ones on fake eyelashes. Thankfully he's pretty much the only example of make-up no-nos in the film.<br /><br />There's also some terrible character development, to put it lightly. The women, who are strangely rough handled by the supposedly benevolent fugly brothers (and I mean, they are really pushed around), are not only ugly but...gasp...they don't know what they're doing! In one scene they turn on their apparent lovers, join up with the even uglier bad guy, and then snort some coke. Apparently they managed to get their hands on some really good cocaine, because they started shaking and laughing EVEN before all of it went up their nostrils. Great timing girls! Plus they wear some truly horrible stuff, clothes that belong solely in the late 80s and early 90s.<br /><br />Overall this movie, this film, this waste of film I should say, is also a waste of time. Watching it will hurt you, and will require the suspension of not only your belief, but also of your entire brain. If you want to get stoned with your friends and have some good laughs, see if you can get this film (you'll probably have to download it) otherwise, don't even think about it. Hope I was helpful.
7,534	[ 500, 600 ]	415	558	Following which, the touted update goes and shoots itself through the head. Rather apt, considering the sorry state of this movie, a sequel to a film which patently didn't need one.<br /><br />What really irritates about Robocop 2 is that the makers obviously didn't understand why the original was so good in the first place. Robocop (7) was a witty, vibrant satire of bad action movies. Robocop 2 is just a bad action movie.<br /><br />Thin on dialogue, particularly towards the tedious, shoot-out finale, it attracts little interest and possesses none of the energy or spirit of the original. The spoof ads, now a little tasteless ("Warning: continued use will cause skin cancer") seem merely there as an afterthought. And calling a new designer drug "Nuke" is nowhere near as subtle or as funny as the original's family board game, "Nuke em!"<br /><br />The stop-motion animation the weakest element of the original is used more extensively, while this humourless sequel fails to include a credits sequence, which makes it look even more cheap and hurried. Ah, humourless? You might say. But what about the funny mayor, or the way Robo is reprogrammed to spout platitudes? Yes, these are attempts at light relief, as is Robo tightening himself up with a screwdriver ("we're only human") for the film's punchline, but none are likely to induce laughter. Like the rest of the film, they're staid and moronic attempts at entertainment.<br /><br />The third and final film in the series (imaginatively titled Robocop 3; 5) saw Peter Weller leave, to be replaced by Robert John Burke, who does well in a undemanding role. With toned-down language and violence, it was an obvious plea to the kiddie market, a Robo action figure much plugged throughout. With it's social conscience too overstated, and Robocop's new-found arm attachments and jetpack getting too silly, the final film was never destined to be a masterpiece. Yet fluid direction by Fred Dekker and a flowing pace make this one enjoyably throwaway viewing.<br /><br />Robocop, then, is the film proper. Robocop 3 is the sequel which you could watch if there was nothing better on. Which leaves the second movie hanging in the middle, an unwatchable dirge of a picture. A franchise vehicle that has nothing to say, save for the pound signs that rung up. Irvin Kershner is no Paul Verhoven, just as comic artist Frank Miller and partner Walon Green aren't the writers that Edward Neumeier and Michael Miner were. A tragic waste of a good, if limited, concept. 4/10.
7,552	[ 500, 600 ]	386	522	The original Airport (1970) was a classic of its kind, and the first two B-movie follow-ups (Airport 1975; Airport '77) were watchable fun at best, amusing camp at worst; but this crass and inept final entry lacks any entertainment value and displays a shocking contempt for its audience. It's unendurable and not even good for laughs. <br /><br />All of the three "Airport" sequels were theatrical releases made by Universal's television wing but this one is beneath even the modest standards of a TV movie of its day, with cheapjack production, grotesque casting, visual ugliness and tasteless, unfunny "comedy". The project was clearly doomed by the "creative" efforts of Universal executive Jennings Lang who personally produced and is given a "story" credit.<br /><br />Everyone starts somewhere, and writer Eric Roth (Forrest Gump) might have provided an element of self-burlesque, as had the previous films (especially the notorious Airport 1975), but there is nothing worth spoofing in Roth's turgid, incoherent script and even the comedy Airplane! left this crud untouched.<br /><br />What makes The Concorde: Airport '79 particularly offensive is its insulting misuse of professionals. The worst victim is the supremely gifted Cicily Tyson (Sounder; The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman), pitilessly reduced to a vomitous subplot involving her escorting a frozen heart transplant on the unfortunate flight. <br /><br />A special kick to the groin is reserved for the wonderful George Kennedy, who is the true lead despite being buried in the cast list. The official mascot of the "Airport" series and the only actor to appear in all four movies, Kennedy had more than earned the starring role and his turn in the Captain's seat would have been the only possible reason for this entry other than the squeezing of one last buck. Kennedy provides the only warmth and real humor in this mechanical muckup, briefly putting aside the bravura machismo and revealing a genuinely sweet and tender side to himself, and his lovable and heroic character of "Joe Patroni". Unfortunately we are never allowed to forget how fat and old and over-the-hill Kennedy is, and overage pretty-boy Alain Delon relentlessly calls him "Porky Pig" as part of a buddy-bonding that falls completely flat. Even Kennedy's Parisian romance, the only humane part of this plane-wreck, turns out to be merely a set-up for a hateful joke at Patroni's, Kennedy's, and the viewer's expense.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.