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
9,923	[ 500, 600 ]	436	568	I hope that Matt Dorff's original script for this was much better (there are signs of it - dialogue that should happen well before big f/x scenes (to introduce characters) that would make sense much earlier, is jammed in later in the time-line; perhaps the original script was for a longer running-time. But maybe not -- in any case, this reeks. Every character is uninteresting, and everybody speaks expository passages as if they are speaking the word of god. There are characters that are entirely expository -- Dianne Wiest's "Secretary Abbot" is just awful, explaining things to her assistant (and incidentally us), in endless speeches that NO ONE would say to anyone, ever, in real life (when she isn't explaining things to her assistant that she already knows, her assistant explains things to HER that SHE already knows._ There are characters who are entirely one-dimensional -- the evil power company guy; the pilot who will just NOT SHUT UP about his personal life and concentrate on his job. The "well-meaning" power-company superdooperuber hacker-guy who can crash<br /><br />everything in Chicago (including the phones) -- and then gives the oh-no-what-have-I- done speech (but not leave himself a back door?). The crusading reporter who abandons her principles at the drop of a hat? The power-company shift supervisor who ABANDONS HIS POST in the middle of the worst crisis in Chicago since the Fire -- with no consequences? Hospitals ABANDONED by the doctors and nurses during the crisis (I'm not kidding, that's in the movie.) <br /><br />Oh yeah, and it's filled with Hollywood morality clichés -- generally women are good, men are evil, unless influenced by a woman (the ultimate is the punk with the gun -- deprived of a woman's influence, he literally goes insane); an evil stupid act (like what the reporter did with hacker-bozo) is all right, so long as you 'mean well'. Evil men die, capitalist evil men die as horribly as possible, everybody else lives (well, except Randy Quaid). And did I hear someone say that the nuclear electrical power generating stations had to shut down because there wasn't electricity to run the safety systems (think about that one)?<br /><br />There is one ray of sunshine (if you'll pardon the expression) -- Randy Quaid basically plays his character from "Independence Day" (you know -- "Hello boys - I'm baaaack!") -- this time as a storm chaser with an infinite-range SUV and superdooper batteries for his camcorders. Nevertheless, they kill him -- mostly, it seems, so that the audience will appreciate that tornados are pretty dangerous things (kinda shallow, that.)<br /><br />Give this one a pass.
9,950	[ 500, 600 ]	453	552	This straight to video cheap flick is based on a true story. I don't doubt it. Doesn't mean it's particularly interesting (unless you are one of the main characters who actually lived though this experience). A young woman named Angela buys a great, big old country home really really cheap. Well, as we all know from watching Horror movies, when you buy a big house cheap it usually means it's haunted in some way, shape or form. In fact, the second the house is being handed over to Angela the wise guy kid who lived in the house up to now takes a moment to "introduce" Angela to one of the ghosts! Nice guy, huh? Angela gets in touch with a psychic and a paranormal expert and tells them that her house is haunted and invites them to come over and see the ghosts for themselves. They come to a party and sure enough there are ghosts walking around, sitting on the couch, hanging in the garage and trying to seduce people in the bathroom. A few friends sleep over the night of the party, see the ghosts and vow never to come back in the house again. (Check out the girl who deadpans "I'm so scared. I'm so scared." totally emotionless. If she was so scared why didn't she get up, turn the knob and leave?!) The ghosts don't really do anything menacing aside from show up (And there is no blurriness or aura about them. They look just like regular people). They steal celery from the kitchen, move chairs around a la POLTERGEIST and one bisexual female ghost seduces Angela, who, get this, doesn't seem to mind! This scene plays like the kind of soft-core porn you see on the SPICE channel. (Ummm...not that I'd KNOW! Hahaha). The actresses aren't your typical porn stars though. They should hit the beach and the gym more. When Angela'ss NOT making love to the dead she gets mad at them and stands alone in a room screaming "Why won't you leave?! This is MY house! Get out!" They don't leave. I couldn't help but think of all the times I've heard psychic Sylvia Brown on TV saying that if you have a ghost in your house you should calmly rationalize with the ghost and say "Look, you're dead. It's time to cross over to the other side. In other words, get out!" According to Sylvia Brown, as long as your not hostile and nasty about it, they'll leave! This movie looks like it cost about $50 to make. It has a really cheap feel, and bad acting. I could have made this movie with 5 friends and a camcorder.
9,962	[ 500, 600 ]	408	507	I'm going to talk about this movie from two different perspectives here. First is from the view of if someone sees the movie and never read (and may not ever read) the book. The second is from someone who has.<br /><br />(Movie without book) From a movie standpoint, it was an okay movie. Nowhere near as good as either of the Underworlds but much better than UltraViolet. And I'm not just talking plot line either. The visual effects were iffy in many of the parts, though the wolf transformation was very nice. The characters has very little development and Vivian didn't even seem to truly care that her "love" was killing off what was left of her species. Some of the other characters could have had more air-time, like The Five. The plot was way to similar to Underworld for my tastes.<br /><br />(Movie WITH book) As many have stated, other than the title, character names and a few minor parts, the movie and the book are nothing alike. In the movie, Gabriel was a lot older and was the father of Rafe (thus Astrid was once his mate). In the book, Gab was about 24, never mated with anyone since wolves mate for life (Astrid is trying to win his affection) and Astrid was the mother of Ulf, not Rafe. Another important thing is the location. The book took place in Riverview, Maryland. Also, why they moved from West Virginia is very different. The movie has it being Vivian's fault and her entire family was killed due to it. In the book, the original leader of The Five, named Axel, killed a girl from their school. Hunters tracked down the wolves and killed many of them (Viv's father included), forcing them to move. Also, Viv's mom, Esme was a major character.<br /><br />One thing from the book that would have made the movie better would have been the "bitch's dance". For those who don't know, it's the ordeal where all the bitches (females of the pack) fight to see who is the one to be the mate of the new leader (since earlier there was a fight for the males). Vivian won it, trying to save her mother from Astrid (who is a horrid evil woman in the book) and thus was supposed to mate with Gab. There was no prophecy! Anyway, if you've read the book and you liked the book, I highly suggest NOT seeing this film.
9,965	[ 500, 600 ]	456	585	I am almost a two decade old human who's been reading comics most of my life. I'm not a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, but I'm fairly familiar with them. In 1994, Roger Corman (B-movie legend) produced the first, I think, feature length Fantastic Four film. The result was such pure schlock that it was never given a release. Still, copies exist, mostly on the net and at conventions. If you're looking for a laugh and can find a copy do yourself a favor and check this thing out.<br /><br />The film basically retells the FF's origin and an encounter with Doctor Doom and a villain named The Jeweler, essentially the Mole Man with a penchant for petty larceny. As is the case with these comic book movies, everything has to tie into everything, so the FF play a vital role in Dr. Doom's creation, and he and the Jeweler play a vital role in theirs.<br /><br />First, I'd just like to mention that despite everything that went bad in this movie, I actually sort of liked the guy that played Doom. He doesn't get many decent lines, but when he does he hits them. The armor looks pretty good too.<br /><br />As for the rest...it's a dirty, dirty mess. Bad plots, bad acting, bad effects, bad everything basically. Boos especially to Jay Underwood, bringing new meaning to the word overacting as Johnny Storm. He's not overacting, he's ultracting.<br /><br />As for the FF, well they all sort of look right, and Sue's played by a very attractive actress, but they just don't seem like a real team. For one thing they have no reason for Sue and Johnny to go into space. In an early section Ben and Reed go to visit the two, Johnny's like 8 and Sue's about 12. It only stands to make their eventual romantic pairing a helluva lot creepier. The Thing costume looks more reptilian than anything else, not very rocky, and the only time the Human Torch is really a Human Torch he looks like the Silver Surfer tinted red.<br /><br />I could type for hours, but I think the scene that best sums it up is a climactic encounter featuring the aforementioned not-so-Human Torch. He's racing a laser beam, and he eventually destroys it with a punch. Yes, a punch. A laser beam. With a punch. Then he flies around and goes "Yippeee!" a whole lot, whereupon the camera tilts down and he flies back TOWARD EARTH. Evidently Reed the intellectual forgot to inform Johnny that fire doesn't exist in the vacuum of space. This and many other scenes operate like Looney Toones, if the character doesn't know they are over a cliff, they don't fall.<br /><br />I laughed, I cried, I was glad it was never released.
9,973	[ 500, 600 ]	415	522	Drifting around on bootlegs, sometimes thought an urban comic book legend, the first FF movie is pretty much as bad as everyone fears. I guess Marvel Comics now pretends it doesn't exist, what with the 2005 version out in theaters earlier this year. But it's out there, a reminder and the last of the first wave of bad, low budget Marvel super-hero adaptations (Captain America, Punisher, most of the TV movies). 'Low budget' is too easy a description for this FF pic. Due to basically no funds, showing the powers of the super foursome was limited to very quick shots (Mr.Fantastic), quasi-animation (Torch), and fades (Invisible Girl-the easiest to do). The Thing suit was not bad and probably half the budget; the face part was especially almost convincing. The acting? Alex Hyde-White as Reed is pretty good; the other 3 are OK, tho Jay as Johnny acts like a spaz at times to sort of show off his 'fiery' temper. The dialog is comic-book style, and it's the supporting cast which ends up floundering trying to make it work. Dr.Doom is way over melodramatic and unintentionally comical, and his two main henchmen are a case study of how not to act or write dialog.<br /><br />The plot? Not too good. It was quite faithful to the origin story of the FF (more so than the later big budget version), and even though the non-budget, again, restricted showing, for example, the actual crash landing, it kept the essential ingredients of how they discovered their powers in an isolated area - it's the best part of the picture, tho you have to wait a full half-hour for it. I also found the music odd in places; when the 4 are bathed in those cosmic rays, a kind of church choir is heard, as if it's a religious experience. The rest of it, however, is hopeless. Even with no budget, the story could have done without the Jeweler character (resembling the Mole Man villain of the books); it spends way too much time with him and his underground gang, as well as the blind Alicia. These sections are a waste of celluloid and very boring. The climactic struggle with Doom & his men starts fine, but degenerates into an awful mess as the Torch races a laser beam (cool animation but belonging in a cartoon). Fans can have a laugh at the bad FF FX and witless storyline, if they don't get depressed & outraged first.
10,010	[ 500, 600 ]	435	514	In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.<br /><br />I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.<br /><br />Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.<br /><br />This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.<br /><br />I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.<br /><br />But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.
10,013	[ 500, 600 ]	425	535	How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.<br /><br />But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The "new" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector "Joe Johnston" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new "Punk" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! Phew they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague
10,056	[ 500, 600 ]	466	523	I am not understanding why people are praising this movie. I didn't like it at all. I watch it with several people. None of them cared for it either. First of all. It is just plain that another low budget studio is trying to cash in on a big name story. The actual filming looks like a live TV interview. The makeup is bad. When you watch the movie along with the DVD extras. You will see there is a lot of enthusiasm from the people who participated in it. There is no talent. There are facts that do appear in the book. The facts are distorted by the invention of comedy and skits added to it. I have read several books and have watched several shows on this story. What I have always caught from all the material on this is that it was a serious horror story. I really wish someone could really do a good film on this one. It has always fascinated me. The bad acting really ruined the story. The little boys situation really hammed it up even more. When you watch this movie. The little boy and his problem is the thing you and your friends will remember and laugh about. It didn't make any sense why his brothers were laughing at what had happened to him. It was like the witch was supposed to be so threatening but it was OK to throw baby brother to her. It is a whopping tale with him and his little problem. I can't still get over the little girl saying "Mom said tobacco will rot your teeth." Frank Fox's statement and facial expression is so bad. The scene out in the yard with him getting food is pretty stupid to. The sound from parts of it seems to be from the movie psycho. Also, The girl hovering over the bed and her little "Bladder control problem" are from The Exorcist. This movie is lacking from the talent of creativity. We put the movie in for a couple of minutes and knew right away it was a bummer. I also noticed that their was defects in the film quality. Parts of it looked like what a person might film on a Home video camera. I noticed a lot of the people in the credits had many multiple jobs. This is probably how this movie was put together. Someone said I like this story. I will get all my friends and make a movie about with a video camera and a computer. Doesn't matter if we don't know how to act. As long as we get it on film and say it is good. We got the family together and prepared food. Then sat down and watched this failed attempt to make a movie.
10,113	[ 500, 600 ]	364	528	Sammi Cheng & Andy Lau are coupled yet again in their 3rd film -- YESTERDAY ONCE MORE -- directed by HK's actioneer Johnnie To...fans of To's action films will be disappointed to find not a single gun was used in the filming...furthermore, fans of Cheng & Lau's previous films, NEEDING YOU & LOVE ON A DIET, will also be disappointed to find that YESTERDAY is no where near as funny or endearing...<br /><br />Mr. & Mrs. To (Lau & Cheng) are a divorced couple...both affluent HK citizens...both incredibly mischievous...both just happened to be professional thieves -- 'two birds of the same feather'....A couple years earlier, they divorced over an inability to find middle ground on splitting the loot...Now she's remarrying...to the son of a rich heiress -- a total momma's boy (Carl Ng) through & through...The soon-to-be mother-in-law (Jenny Woo) is suspicious of Mrs. To's past & thinks she's only marrying her son for the family jewels -- the heiress' priceless ruby necklace...<br /><br />The necklace is stolen...is it Mrs. To's materialistic eye that gets the best of her?... or is it her ex-husband, Mr. To's way of sabotaging the marriage to steal the jewels for himself?...<br /><br />This is not a movie about two pple falling in love or rekindling a love...its about two pple who have always been in love but have somehow been to foolish to realize it...they let pride & greed overwhelm them...<br /><br />Overall: YESTERDAY is one part caper/heist film & one part homage to classic Hollywood glamour from its golden years -- i.e. Cary Grant & Grace Kelly's TO CATCH A THIEF...Johnnie To is riding too heavily on Cheng/Lau's chemistry from their previous films...hoping Cheng/Lau's immense popularity & fan base will be enough justification for this third film....I think Sammi Cheng is one of the most likable/charming entertainers working t'day...& Lau is definitely the Tom Cruise of Asian cinema...<br /><br />I really enjoyed their first two films & consider the Cheng/Lau pairing comparable to those classic Hollywood couples of the 40's & 50's...but YESTERDAY falls very short of expectations...terrible writing, ridiculous situations, product placements galore, & all the subplots & supporting characters were unnecessary...come to think of it...this film was unnecessary...unless you just love celebrity watching...
10,136	[ 500, 600 ]	425	544	Mind you, it's not supposed to be, but it is. As a wee tot, I watched this movie in the theatre (Being a huge wrestling and Hulk Hogan fan). All I remember from the night is we were the only ones in the theater, and that I didn't really like it very much. I blacked the rest out, and for good reason.<br /><br />A poor film on par with the greats like "Gymkata" and "The Pumaman," "No Holds Barred" is a movie set in the high stakes world of pro wrestling. Well maybe the stakes aren't all that high...and quite frankly I feel dirty just calling these people "professionals" at anything. And really, except for the first scene, there's no wrestling to speak of. So I guess movie is about the marginally low stakes world of amateurish beating-the-c***-out-of-people. Sounds good, right?<br /><br />Hulk Hogan plays Rip, the champion of the WWF (Never let it be said that Hulk Hogan was typecast, this and movies like Thunder in Paradise showed how he challenged himself with deep roles that really pushed the limits of his talents). Essentially he's playing himself, but with a wardrobe that's more black and blue than the Hulkster's red and yellow. He also has this hand gesture he does. It's kinda like the ozzy devil sign people make at rock concerts, except you stick your thumb in the air, and you curl your index finger in. My friend claimed that it was supposed to look like an "R." Try and see for yourself. If that looks like an "R," well, then, Mars needs women. But anyway.<br /><br />Kurt Fuller, with his overacting detector obviously on the fritz, plays a TV exec with his slightly homoerotic heart set on getting Rip, who's evidentally bigger than Elvis, on his network. He won't have any of it (And exits the office with a triumphant hand gesture to no one but the camera), and so the movie follows Fuller trying to boost ratings and get back at Rip. He does so when he creates his brilliantly titled "Battle of the Tough Guys." Marketing genius, this guy.<br /><br />From the numerous hand gestures, to the rather idiotic fight scenes (All played as if wrestling is very real and deadly serious) to the overacting, to the far too frequent shots of Hulk in nothing but undies, this movie has everything you'd ever want in a dumb movie. It's frivolous, not too taxing on the mind, violent, and includes the phrase "What's that smell?" "DOOKIE!" "Dookie?"<br /><br />A classic for all time.
10,174	[ 500, 600 ]	443	566	My wife spotted this film on the aisle at a local video store. From the cover it looked like a science-fiction film, but upon turning it over my wife saw Rebecca St. James was in the film, realized it was a Christian movie, and suggested we watch it. We are conservative evangelicals but we also know that "Christian" films have a poor reputation in the mainstream. Nevertheless, we decided to give it a screening.<br /><br />To be fair, there were a few things I liked about the film. The musical score - much of which was orchestrated - was quite good. The cinematography was also pretty good considering it was a lower-budget movie.<br /><br />Unfortunately, any virtue in this film's production work was lost on a regrettable script. The film begins with an interesting premise - UFO abductions - but by midway through the feature the storyline veers wildly into an evangelistic crusade spearheaded by the movie's two main characters... which then veers wildly into a treatise on the Rapture. At least the Frank Peretti-inspired "The Visitation" (which was itself a deeply flawed film) had an endgame that tied together the movie's premise. "Unidentified" ends nowhere even close to where it started, which is a huge letdown.<br /><br />As for the acting? The supporting acting ranges from decent to awful. (Rebecca St. James plays a bit part and is passable.) For their part, a few of the main characters are manned capably enough. Sadly, their talents are wasted on characters so one-dimensional in their personalities so as to be unbelievable. The "protagonists" are anything but; you know it's bad when two Christian viewers find the most vocal Christian character in the film to be the most annoying.<br /><br />A final note on the evangelistic tone of this movie, which will be of more interest to Christian than non-Christian readers. In a word, it is embarrassing. Other Christian films like Carmen's "The Champion" and Peretti's "The Hangman's Curse" have managed to communicate a genuinely uncompromising portrait of the Christian faith without sounding preachy or oppressive. This film, by contrast, is a sledgehammer that feels so heavy-handed and lacking in tact that a non-Christian would have a hard time taking it seriously.<br /><br />I do believe that the filmmaker's heart is in the right place, and I applaud efforts to create good Christian film. Unfortunately, this is not one of them. If your church is looking for a screening of a good Christian film, consider "Mercy Streets," the aforementioned "The Champion," or (if you're Pentecostal) Robert Duvall's provocative "The Apostle." <br /><br />As for "Unidentified?" Rent it if you must, but screen it before you show it to a non-Christian or a larger audience.
10,192	[ 500, 600 ]	428	554	Okay, now I know where all those boring cop/homicide TV shows came from. I do believe they can be traced back to this movie. "Scene Of The Crime" feels more like a TV episode, or an episode of a serial. Complete with stock characters and situations - the hotshot cop who clashes with his superiors... the aging cop who doesn't want a desk job, despite failing eyesight... the reckless rookie... the double-crossing dame, etc.<br /><br />I like many of the actors here, and they do a good job, but overall I found this movie dull as I'm not a fan of the genre. I kept tuning out when they were discussing the case ...something about bookies and informers. And oh yeah, there was a stripper, played by the previously wholesome Gloria DeHaven. What I want to know is: Why did she keep calling Van Johnson "Uncle Wiggly"? Wasn't Uncle Wiggly a rabbit? A character from a children's book? What the heck does that have to do with anything? I guess I just don't get tough-guy Film Noir-ish kinda jargon.<br /><br />In fact, much of the dialogue made me mutter "nobody talks like that!" However, I could relate to one scene where the cop's wife (Arlene Dahl), who worries every time he goes to work, realizes that maybe she shouldn't have made her husband the center of her life. Yeah, I know that feeling of loving someone so much, being so dependent on them, that there's a constant fear for their safety. So there are moments of truth in this film, underneath the stylized dialogue and atmosphere which is trying so self-consciously to be gritty and REAL, that it actually seems unreal to me.<br /><br />A little background: this movie was made when Dore Schary took over MGM from Louis B. Mayer, and began to put an end to the wholesome musicals that made MGM so great. Dore Schary was determined to bring more "realism" to movies. I kinda hate Dore Schary. Maybe we can blame him for all the pretentious, bleak movies being made today, wallowing in the ugly "truths" about life, focusing on (and, in my opinion, helping to perpetuate) the worst of humanity rather than the best. No longer uplifting us the way classic movies were designed to do - providing a necessary distraction during the Great Depression and World War II.<br /><br />Well, damn it, we still need that kind of distraction today! There's still plenty of depression and plenty of war. And what are people turning to nowadays when they want to escape? Trashy, brain-deadening Reality TV. Thanks a lot, Dore!
10,196	[ 500, 600 ]	446	540	O boy, was this really bad.<br /><br />I saw this on videotape.<br /><br />In scenes that had soundtrack music, it was hard to hear the dialog. When people were on the telephone, it was hard to hear the person on the other end. It appeared that at least two different kinds of film or video stock were used, because the colors and focus sometimes shifted drastically between edits. And there were a lot of out of focus shots that didn't seem intentional.<br /><br />One indicator of the budget (one of many) was when a news report comes on TV. There is just a "news flash" title card badly superimposed with a video effect onto a TV screen, and a voice-over by a newscaster. They couldn't shoot footage of a newscaster, and then actually show it on the TV?<br /><br />The movie starts off with a killer wearing surgical scrubs and mask, wielding a scalpel. Supposedly he's a paranoid schizophrenic who escapes from the hospital to avoid having a lobotomy performed on him.<br /><br />Students are let out of school for a break, and three young women decide to have a slumber party. Three guys decide to crash the party, and a geek named Science decides to crash it too. The slumber party is pretty boring, and the guys just keep showing up randomly wearing masks, taking the masks off, and then disappearing. The mother and father (the surgeon who was to do the lobotomy) of one of the girls keep showing up too. The killer knocks slices people's throats without anyone really noticing. The apparent lead of the movie more or less sleepwalks through the movie. Perhaps that was bad acting, or maybe it was intentional, since much of the movie is a nightmare, and some of it a nightmare within a nightmare.<br /><br />The ending is really horrible too.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is the cheesy United Home Video VHS box art, which was revived for the DVD release (a double feature with Terror at Tenkiller). I honestly can't tell if it is a photo, or a painting, or a combination of both. The women pictured on the cover are not in the movie, and the clothing they're wearing is way more revealing than anything the women in the movie wore. The throat slicing on the cover is scarier than the ones in the movie - where people tend to affect a goofy pop-eyed look. For that matter, that's what the killer has most of the time: head cocked, and eyes bugging out, mugging for the camera. Frequently the scalpel was held up close to the camera in focus, while the killer's mask-covered face was in close-up but out of focus in the background.
10,204	[ 500, 600 ]	455	588	Now I've seen it all. Just when I thought it couldn't get any more pathetic and cheesy than "Woodchipper Massacre," just when I thought dialogue and acting couldn't get worse than "Nail Gun Massacre," just when I thought "Don't Go In The Woods" would retain its title as Lousiest Slasher Film Ever, along comes "THE LAST SLUMBER PARTY!" Somehow, this cheap, wretched manure manages to avoid lewdness, but it remains terrible! I couldn't believe my eyes--for once I can't complain about excessive (or in this case, any) nudity in a slasher film, but it still managed to make me crimson with embarrassment for renting it. Never before have I seen such horrible acting, dialect, direction, writing,....I could go on forever with this list! Here's a quick run-down:<br /><br />A mental patient somehow escapes from the loony bin, dresses up like a surgeon, somehow finds out where his doctor lives, and breaks in while the doctor's daughter is having friends over for the night. Then begins the most stupid killing spree (ripped off from other movies such as "Slumber Party Massacre" and Halloween") this side of the universe. The characters have negative IQs, which suggests they are not human. Then again, I guess they are not, since they have the tendency to bleed Kool-Aid when they get cut, as the slasher likes to show use when he holds up his scapel to the camera in WAY too many scenes. It is only 80 minutes...how many times must we look at that scapel like that before it consumes the whole movie?...which I suppose wouldn't be all that bad of an idea in this case! There is one moment where I thought maybe, just maybe, the director would make it interesting (a second killer was added), but alas! It was not to be! And then to insult even further, there is a stupid super cop-out sub-ending and an even stupider final conclusion. That probably doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but I would hate to give away the dumbest few scenes in movie history to those two or three fools (like me) dumb enough to rent this sewage.<br /><br />I sure hope that, by writing this, I have saved 80 minutes of someone's life. I get on my hands and knees to beg anyone still thinking about renting this: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DON'T! This is a fan of the slasher genre talking; I know what is good for you! The only real victims in this rattlebrained, asinine nonsense are the poor morons that have sat through the whole toilet tank! Zanatos's score...since there is no negative point scale, I have to give it a 1, but a below-average 1 at that. Avoid it at all costs....please!!!!
10,208	[ 500, 600 ]	376	511	Does anyone else think that "Reba" is basically a ripoff of "Roseanne"? Just look at the characters from the two families, Connors (Roseanne) and Harts (Reba) ; the blonde bombshell elder daughter (Becky Connor and Cheyenne Hart) who's married to a moron (Mark Healy and Van Montgomery), the sarcastic brunette younger daughter (Darlene Connor and Kyra Hart), the little brother (DJ Connor and Jake Hart), and the quirky relative (Jackie Connor and Barbara-Jean Booker Hart). <br /><br />And then, of course, there is the biggest similarity, Reba Hart and Roseanne Connor. "Reba" tried to copy the sarcastic and tough-love style mom without giving her the same lovable qualities as Roseanne had. Or, perhaps, they made her too lovable, for Reba Hart seems to waver between being mean and scary (hence Van's line to his wife Cheyenne "I'm not afraid of you, I'm afraid of your mother!") and being sweet and caring with little transition in between. Roseanne at least managed to get it across that she was being cruel to be kind, since she was always mean and sarcastic and, whenever she tried to open up, it was hard for her. As inconsistent as Reba's character is, it's hard for her to be believable. <br /><br />But even if the characters weren't completely ripped off of "Roseanne", nothing could've saved the show from being sub-par in the plot area. The writers try to give the show substance but they really can't lay off the corny jokes long enough to give any impact. And you'd better believe the jokes are corny; it's as if they were written by a twelve-year-old who thinks that any joke is hilarious. While occasionally they come out with something that's funny (I don't pretend that I didn't laugh at a few episodes) these gems are too few and far between to make "Reba" witty. <br /><br />Overall, "Reba" is a very mediocre show with obvious ripoffs of "Roseanne", sub-par plots and sub-sub-par humor, and (let's face it) terrible acting. The show might be a bit better, actually, if they replaced all the actors, especially Reba herself, who is more community- theater quality than prime-time sitcom quality. <br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 just to be fair to the good jokes that make it in.
10,305	[ 500, 600 ]	452	512	This movie starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.<br /><br />It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.<br /><br />As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.<br /><br />The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.<br /><br />1/2 out of ****
10,329	[ 500, 600 ]	448	538	I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and must say: I was not impressed, not at all. I do side with the other posters when it comes to the fine performances, but some good performances do not make a good movie.<br /><br />On the discussion board, I found a review by an anonymous poster that captured some of the main points. It says: "'Deed Poll' is a movie that raises many questions but hardly answers even a few; a movie that is disturbing and above every attempt at categorizing; an experiment and a very conventional sexual drama despite some shocking scenes. The brilliant acting of Barbara Kowa and André Schneider, the partly very impressive editing and the good camera work (Steffen Ritter) make up for gross plot holes and some technical slips (especially in sound). However, the boredom the audiences have to deal with for 40 minutes remains." Unfortunately, this is true. I wasn't intrigued by the story at all. The protagonists are cold, ambition-less people. They do a lot of drugs and have a lot of (incestuous) sex. So what? For many times, the direction seemed to be virtually non-existent, not to mention the technical aspect: the poor sound quality was enormously disturbing.<br /><br />What's the point of the movie? What's the message behind it all? The anonymous reviewer said: "Somehow Biermann failed to make a clear point and so the movie remains hanging in mid-air without a message. Thus the boredom I blame on the movie. The movie is reserved and emotionless, cold, almost neutral and it doesn't take long to see the flaws: for long stretches the characters of Sean and Ivy are not credible (they clearly have difficulties with the English pronunciation), the character of the mute brother is not developed very well. Some moments are very promising though - in the scene where the call boy is skinned (the one and only true love scene) an intensity is reached that one would love to see the whole movie long. As a spectator one has to regret the chances given away." Again, I must agree. I did like the final scene, especially because of the beautifully captured faces of Gianni Meurer and André Schneider, but it was nothing compared to the boredom I had to suffer for the first thirty minutes. (The sex scenes, though, were aesthetically staged and perfectly edited.)<br /><br />All in all, "Deed Poll" was not my cup of tea - a good, controversial idea wasted -, but it was a interesting to see how a movie can be made with practically no money. Maybe if they had a bigger budget and a more experienced director, this would have become a better movie.
10,340	[ 500, 600 ]	408	519	When the word "presents" finds its way into a title, preceded by a famous name, the work is usually immediately dismissible. For some reason, people who are capable of creating good art don't seem to be able to see it in others. However, I've always been willing to give the second installment of the Demons trilogy a try. For one thing, the soundtracks are absolutely to die for. Most American directors would have sacrificed small animals to line up the kind of talent on the soundtrack of Demons 2. For another, well, two words: Asia Argento. (Of course, she was eleven when this film was made, and a number of years away from her seeming decision that she would style her acting after early Helen Mirren: steamy looks and little clothing.) As well, Lamberto Bava comes from one of Italy's finest dynasties in that odd horror sub genre known as Giallo (he's the son of Mario Bava, who may well have invented the genre in the sixties). And the original Demons is an absolute must-see for fans of eighties B-horror films. So how bad can this be, right? Well, bad. The demons continue their assault on Italian media, as the movie opens in a modern Italian high-rise where many people going about their lives have their televisions on in the background. They're all watching a kind of combination news report/mater video of some investigative reporter types trying to get proof of the events of the first film (which would seem to put the time frame of this one no more than a few days after the first film). Through the usual horror-film extra inability to concentrate, the reporters manage to bring a demon back to life, and he comes through the TV screen to start the plague anew.<br /><br />Yeah. It's that bad. About the only thing good one can say about the film is that the soundtrack (when you're not being buffeted about by the likes of The Smiths, The Cult, Gene Loves Jezebel, etc.) is stunning. It comes from the keyboard of Simon Boswell, who got his start as a part of the Argento Dynasty and has since gone on to score such films as Lord of Illusions and Hackers.<br /><br />Makes a half-decent free rental if you're planning on drinking heavily, but it's certainly nowhere near the fun the original was. Cronenberg's wonderfully funny high-rise-nasty-creature romp, Shivers (aka They Came From Within), is a whole lot better.
10,383	[ 500, 600 ]	438	558	Lame rip-off of THE QUATERMASS XPERIMENT (1955): the first half is deadly dull, even dreary - but the latter stages improve considerably with the scenes involving the rampaging 'monster'. In the accompanying featurette (a rather dry affair at a mere 9 minutes, when compared to the ones created for the other titles in Criterion's "Monsters & Madmen" set), director Day - who admits to not being a fan of the sci-fi genre - tries to justify the film's shortcomings by saying that he had a zero-budget to work with (where all the outer space scenes were composed of stock footage!)...and I'd have been inclined to be more lenient with the film had I not recently watched CALTIKI, THE IMMORTAL MONSTER (1959) - a similar (and similarly threadbare) but far more stylish venture from Italy! <br /><br />Bill Edwards as the cocky but unlucky astronaut - obsessed with achieving the titular feat - is positively boring at first, but he eventually manages to garner audience sympathy when his physical features are deformed and the character develops a taste for blood! Marshall Thompson as his commanding officer and elder brother is O.K. as a leaner Glenn Ford type; he had previously starred in FIEND WITHOUT A FACE (1958), another (and more successful) Richard Gordon-produced sci-fi which, incidentally, is also available on DVD through Criterion. Italian starlet Marla Landi, struggling with the English language, makes for an inadequate female lead; even her input in the featurette proves to be of little lasting value! <br /><br />The Audio Commentary is yet another enjoyable Tom Weaver/Richard Gordon track where, among many things, the fact that FIRST MAN INTO SPACE was intended as a double-feature with CORRIDORS OF BLOOD (1958) is brought up - but it was eventually put out as a standalone release, so as to exploit the topical news value of the current space race; it's also mentioned that the monster dialogue was actually dubbed by Bonar Colleano (who, tragically, died in a traffic accident prior to the film's release!). Weaver even recalls a couple of anecdotes from the time when he was involved in the production of the DVD featurette shot by, of all people, ex-cult-ish film-maker Norman J. Warren: Landi, who by then had become a lady of title, was still ready to help out in carrying the equipment necessary to film the interview down several flights of stairs!; Edwards was supposed to have contributed to the featurette but, once in London, he proved reluctant to co-operate with Weaver - eventually, the latter learned that the actor had been recently diagnosed with cancer and, in fact, he died in 2002!
10,460	[ 500, 600 ]	468	596	Stanley Kubrick, a director who I hold in the highest of esteems for his masterpieces (Clockwork Orange, 2001, The Killing, the Shining, Dr. Strangelove, etc) took the film out of circulation, leaving it to be found by only the hardcore fans and completists. After seeing the film for myself, I could see why. At the age of 24, Kubrick had already honed his craft of still photography for LOOK magazine, and had done a few short documentaries. Like many first-time filmmakers that came in the decades after him, his ambition for Fear and Desire was, in short, to just go and make a film, cheaply, more than likely to see if he could do it. On that level, he was successful. However, the film itself definitely is not.<br /><br />I can't really say that the film is a failure because there was something I did like about it throughout. Even as the film's story went on the wayside, and the actors (whom Kubrick didn't have any idea how to direct, not being a man of the theater), his knack for producing and capturing some great images gets its seeds in this film. At times, there are some shots of close-ups and quick-shots in suspense/action scenes that are eye-catching. Unfortunately, this is all the good I can really say of the film. Although there are a couple of 'name' actors in the film (Frank Slivera, who also appeared in Killer's Kiss, and Paul Mazursky, a director in his own right), the performances overall are dull and very routine.<br /><br />In fact, that is the film's main demise for me; whenever I watch any Kubrick film, even his early film noirs Killer's Kiss and the Killing, I can tell who made it, as his style by then became distinct, which would continue as he evolved as an artist. It wasn't 'artsy' like I might have pictured (which is usually the case with first-time directors like Scorsese and Spielberg), but watching this film not only did it feel like it wasn't Kubrick, it felt like a lot of the time I was watching some B (or even C) grade movie by a director that time forgot- not quite 'Ed Wood' bad, but close. The music is as standard as can be, the fades are pedestrian, and the plot seems to not really hold that much attention.<br /><br />In short, as others have said and which I can agree, this is a "doodle pad" of a future ground-breaker, who shows some shots and a few edits that grab some attention (the best scene overall being when the soldiers take the dumb girl hostage), but not enough to really recommend except to those, like myself, who end up seeing everything by Kubrick (or, perhaps, have to see every ultra-low budget war film ever made), if only out of curiosity.
10,492	[ 500, 600 ]	444	575	*SLIGHT SPOILERS* This installment of the Full Moon franchise changes the storyline a bit and implements some new elements. First off a new puppet master is established. Secondly, the puppets turn good in this sequel. Finally, It introduces some scifi/fantasy elements as well.<br /><br />A new tenant of the infamous hotel by the bay, his girlfriend, her psychic friend, and that psychics boyfriend, stumble upon Andre Toulon's puppet trunk. They also learn about some demon from another dimension that holds Toulon responsible for stealing the secret to animating the unliving. So Sutekh (the demon) sends the totems, a bunch of craven little creatures that look like ear-less gremlins. Then it's up to the puppet troupe to take care of the inter-dimensional threat that's trying to kill there new friends.<br /><br />Like most low budget movies this film is rife with continuity problems. How did the puppets get put back in the trunk? How come nobody remembers the last rasche of killngs in the hotel? Who bought the hotel? Why would a contractor by a building with a history of mass murders? All this and many more questions, will not be answered...ever.<br /><br />The real suprise of this movie is the acting. It's actually pretty good. The actors take it with a enthusiasm unusual especially for a bunch of Full Moon nonames. Teresa Hill was especially impressive as the shy, nervous, psychic Lauren. Chandra West (Susie) was also a pleasant suprise also. Gordon Hill was a tolerable protagonist. But Cameron was far too annoying to stomach. Thank the norse god he dies before halfway through.<br /><br />The puppets are there usual animated selves. With some improvements as well. There emotions (especially Jester's) are much more human due to the sounds that have been given to them. Blade's hisses, Pinhead's grunts, and Six-Shooter's snicker have all been improved and sound much better. The stop-motion animation is only average at best, especially the totems. They just don't seem to move as fluidly as the previous installment in the series. Also the Sutekh costume is absolutely awefull. How are we supposed to afraid of a creature so humorous looking.<br /><br />The story seems a bit juvinile for the series. I think Charlie Band was looking to focus in on a younger demographic. The violence being toned down in this movie also seems to speak the same. Gore fans will be disappointed.<br /><br />I think the above is the main problem this movie can't really stick with many people. It doesn't have the violence for gorewhores. The language is a little cleaner. Yet it's too violent and harsh for the wee ones. Which is why the movie gets low ratings. I have to say that the common reviews are mostly fair.
10,495	[ 500, 600 ]	412	510	So I decided to watch the entire Puppet Master series, and had just watched parts 1-3, which I thought were ALL excellent. They had a unique charm to them, and a certain intelligence that I really appreciated. About a year ago, I even saw Puppet Master Vs. Demonic Toys, which of course was bad, but still a terrific guilty pleasure and fun to watch.<br /><br />From the very beginning of this film, I knew it was in trouble. The cheesy Power Rangers-style Egyptian skull villain who watches the Puppets 'Rita Repulsa-style' through his pyramid glass came straight out of left field! All of the additions to this franchise in this story were completely absurd! Suddenly we have a grand assortment of all kinds of new and random characters and plots that are a far cry from the first three films. I seriously doubt that when the first Puppet Master was being penned, the writers had visions of someday seeing an Egyptian Power Rangers villain, totem monsters, annoying twenty-somethings who seriously can't act (and are supposed to be brilliant scientists but never say anything intelligent), and a lame "Decapitron" puppet who's head can morph into the ghost of Toulon.<br /><br />Another thing that greatly disappointed me in this film was that it completely ignores what happened in the last entry (Part II, since III was a prequel). Suddenly, the puppets are back at Bodega Bay Inn, back in their case (minus Blade), and Toulon for some reason is willing to help his puppets again (he betrays them in part II for his love of Elsa). This isn't explained AT ALL...and so with that, and all of this other junk thrown in, I was no longer amused.<br /><br />I'm a huge fan of ridiculous B movies, a connoisseur if you will. I even collect laser discs of rare B movies you can't find on DVD, and so it takes a lot for me to say that this was one of the most absurd movies I have ever seen in my life. I still love those puppets, the original ones, Blade, Tunneler, Pinhead, Jester and the rest, and if they had only stuck with what they had rather than trying to fix something that wasn't broken, well, the series might still be alive and in good health. That being said, even though the reviews aren't so great, I'm really interested in checking out Puppet Master Retro, sounds like an interesting one that pays great tribute to the original themes.
10,561	[ 500, 600 ]	440	516	What a cast...and what a waste of it. Seriously, when a movie has Gabriel Byrne, Jamie Foxx, Thandie Newton, Stuart Townsend, Hal Holbrook, Melanie Griffith and Sylvester Stallone in it you would expect some quality. The movie is however one big mess with a unlikely story that can't seem to stop putting twist and turns in it. Yeah, I think that they thought they were really being clever with all of it.<br /><br />The story is not only messy and unlikely, it also isn't exactly terribly original. It uses elements from earlier and much better poker game based movies. But to me it were really the many pointless twist and turns in the movie that did it. It made the story such an unlikely one to watch. On top of that the script remains filled with a lot of holes silly poker game errors and things that just don't make an awful lot of sense. Why would any one above all things want to play against a card player that is known as the best cheater in the game. This is what the movie is about and builds up to but just didn't ever made a lot of sense to me.<br /><br />Despite that the movie has a great cast, it still feels as if most actors were miscast in their roles. I don't know what it is about Stuart Townsend. He is a good actor but in most roles he plays he always feels out of place. Perhaps it are his looks, I don't known. This basically also was the reason why he got replaced in "The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring". Also Thandie Newton isn't much good and actually quite annoying in her 'strong' female role. And what was the point of having Melanie Griffith in this? Oh, I guess I could go on about the movie its casting and could complaining even some more about the way too limited screen time the Jamie Foxx character gets but I guess you get my point by now.<br /><br />Damian Nieman just isn't much of an original writer/director and on top of that he also doesn't handle his own material very well. Scenes often feel disjointed, it tries to put in way too many characters and everything about the movie is shallow and in a way predictable. On top of that the movie features some bad editing at times, which also doesn't help to make this movie look like one seamless whole. The movie was also one major box office bomb and no wonder that Damian Nieman hasn't made a movie ever since.<br /><br />A too big mess to make you enjoy this movie.<br /><br />4/10
10,577	[ 500, 600 ]	455	584	Oh dear! What can I say about Half Past Dead? I was really disappointed in it. I was thinking....A Steven Seagal movie! Cool! We'll get to see him kick people and flip people and break bones. We might even get to see him have a stick fight with somebody! Excellent!<br /><br />However, I was in for a rude awakening. This film can be summed up as follows:<br /><br />Take an episode of the A-Team, remove the lovable and roguish characters such as Murdoch, Hannibal, Mr T and Face. Then get a writer/director to pen a plot even Ed Wood would be ashamed of and who's too big a fan of The Matrix and John Woo movies for his own good. Throw in a bunch of people with really bad acting ability and who don't have real names. Finally, add in a main star who's getting saggy around the midriff and doesn't appear to be able to do his own stunts anymore. <br /><br />The result? Half Past Dead. An action movie so ridiculous that it at least made me smile right the way through. The plot holes are stupendously, glaringly large - for example, prisoners who, when the jail is invaded, fight the invaders rather than attempting to escape. Or how about the prison itself, which has an armoury that contains heavy machineguns and rocket-propelled grenade launchers? You also have a helicopter (bearing a striking resemblance to a Huey) with some kind of video game machinegun mounted in the nose.<br /><br />Then there's Seagal himself. I like the guy. He CAN fight. He's even witty in a way that Jean-Claude Van Damme will never be. But all through the movie I kept hoping for that one great, defining fight scene. Never happened. Instead we got people firing guns a lot and not hitting a whole Hell of a lot. I mean, when someone runs down a narrow corridor and you fire a sub-machinegun at them, there isn't a whole lot of places the bullets can go other than down the corridor and into the target. Yet somehow they miss? Even the A-Team would cringe at this foolishness. And then when it gets to any kind of one-on-one physical stuff, we get treated to a shabby Matrix rip-off, without the benefit of bullet-time. People getting kicked twenty feet through the air and sundry other ludicrous acrobatic nonsense.<br /><br />C'mon Steven, you're better than this. Your career can't be over. Say it ain't so!<br /><br />This is instantly forgettable (except I'm forcing myself to remember for the purposes of this review) and if you watch it, try to find it amusing in an A-Team kind of way. But I doubt it'll be high on anyone's "re-watchable" list. Out for Justice this ain't. More like Out to Lunch.
10,581	[ 500, 600 ]	445	572	My Take: Steven Seagal is obviously too boring to be a lead in an action thriller, even a totally dull one. <br /><br />Remember Steven Seagal? You don't? Don't worry, there's not much to catch up on. After starring in admittedly enjoyable crowd-pleasing films like UNDER SIEGE and EXECUTIVE DECISION, Seagal hits the low grounds of the bad movie abyss. Now, he stars in low-budgeted B-level action vehicles, some of which are made-for-TV "Movie of the Week" entries that lost their way to the big screen. HALF PAST DEAD is among these, shall we say, dead action movies. A loud and lousy action film, sloppily directed and lazily written (and worse, badly acted). This is one of those bad movies that I don't need to watch until the ending to know it's bad. I didn't have the guts to have all my braincells die while wasting my time with this. It it this kind of bad films in which you realize, those other films you hate are not bad after all.<br /><br />The plot (and the locale) is completely lifted from a similar picture, Michael Bay's THE ROCK, although similar may not be the word to describe it. Both movies are summer movies, and not meant to be taken so seriously. But in comparison, even THE ROCK (which isn't much in the writing department as much as the lights and sounds) has better characters, a more compelling plot, better action sequences and overall, a more entertaining atmosphere. Although there are action scenes in HALF PAST DEAD, none of them are exciting. All of which are sometimes tedious and predictable.<br /><br />Although predictability seemed to be a welcome asset in summer action films, predictability has never tasted more sour in ones that aren't fun, and HALF PAST DEAD is never really fun, a lot of times it's just a pain in the head (hearing the bad rap music repeat over and over again throughout this film makes me yearn for an aspirin every second I hear them). The acting is horrendously mediocre, the plot is derivative, with no compelling or appealing characters whatsoever. Seagal's character, an undercover agent sent to Alcatraz to stop a criminal mastermind (Morris Chestnut), a very boring villain, is nothing to get excited about. Seagal's character is also provided with a sidekick (played by rap star Ja Rule) and a bunch of amigo inmates, and there's no chemistry going on here.<br /><br />If starring in a series of other forgotten action vehicles (what were those films again?) killed of Seagal's career for good, HALF PAST DEAD is overkill. And audiences be warned: you're invited to feel the pain. Advice: avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />Rating: 0 out of 5.
10,601	[ 500, 600 ]	486	580	There are some great Canadian films. There are some crappy ones. Last night, I watched one of the crappy ones. It wasn't the typical Canadian film where it tried to be so different by being arty. This film tried to be some type of Hollywood gangster movie. It was terrible.<br /><br />From the beginning I had a sense that it would be a bad movie. It had some of the cheesiest dialouge a movie can have. There was this voice over for one scene and then it never returned. That always bugs me, when filmmakers just use voice over when they can't think of another creative way to tell a story.<br /><br />I know being in the Canadian film industry, I should support my fellow brothers, but this movie is junk. The premise is something like a Soprano's episode only not realistic. Some banker's mafia boss dad is on his death bed and orders the son to make the business legit. Not so original. And the workers complain about it, but they just take the fact that they will soon be out of jobs like nothing. To make it legit they use extortion. Irony. But not the good kind. Then some freak show girl who had an awful Elvis wig and birthmark that covered half of her face robs the main character and kinda rapes him. Anyways, this guy for whatever reason now likes to dress up as girls. Then this banker hooks up with a hooker, when he has a beautiful future wife at home. But he falls for the hooker because the hooker dresses like a man and puts make-up on him. She blackmails him with some photos of him wearing bra and panties. Yet, he still loves her. He also has no reason to leave his fiancé, but he does in order to be with the hooker.<br /><br />For a movie about organize crime and sexual fetish, there was neither action nor sex. It was like a late night Cinemax porn movie without the good stuff. The would-be sex scenes weren't hot or sexy. It was all too amateurish. The movie had nothing going for it, just the lame plot.<br /><br />I don't think it was the actor's fault. I think they had a terrible script to work with. What stuck out the most was the ridiculous characters. The bad guy's name was Uncle Bunny or something. But the name wasn't important. It was they all were cliché. The dialouge was laughable throughout the movie, and fellow movie-goers laughed aloud at some of the movies "serious" moments. Then, the worst of it all. It had to be the cheapest ending. If you can ever remember playing shoot out as a kid with either imaginary guns or toy guns. That was basically the ending of the movie. But I was more than happy it ended, and I had to warn my fellow Canadians to not waste time or money watching this film.
10,609	[ 500, 600 ]	463	506	i don't really know where to start here.just imagine a movie that is so bad in every way from the acting to the props to the story that it makes you angry. This is one of the worst movies that i have ever seen and that is saying a lot because i have seen some bad ones. when i saw this movie i knew it was a blade knock off, but i thought that hey its got kung fu and vampires, a combination that i thought could not fail. That is until i popped this into my DVD player. How Ron hall managed to mess up something as cool as vampires and martial arts is beyond me. first the acting. i didn't expect to much here to begin with because its an action movie and a B one at that, but the acting here is so bad i couldn't help but be bothered by it. expressions and vocal tones were way out of place, there was absolutely no emotion in almost the entire film and when there was it was so laughable it thought i was watching Mad TV.for example that girly man scream Derek lets out when he has to kill master kao who should have never been born in the first place. all in all I've seen better acting at elementary school plays.then there is the action. not even sub par compared to the things that have been done in action cinema as of late. but still the action was not a total let down as Ron hall does seem to posses some martial arts skills. but even the skill he does have is over shadowed by the stupid things he does, for instance the part of the movie where he starts spinning and then the camera changes. i almost ripped a pillow in half.and the fight scene where his prison buddy fights off vampires by swinging his arms at them. WOW.OR how about the part in the jail where Derek all of a sudden knows magic and can preform chants that make tap water holy water. and as far as the props go. the guns look like walmart toys, the teeth were stolen from Halloween costumes, and words cant describe how bad the CG graphics are. i could go on for hours about all the things wrong with this movie and trust me this is just the tip of the iceberg. its only getting a 2 because it made me laugh. even though i was laughing at how badly the movie was done, a laugh is a laugh. i would say steer clear of vampire assassin unless you want to laugh at a horrible movie or are planning on getting tortured for long periods of time and want to practice
10,696	[ 500, 600 ]	514	594	Just as the whole cast and crew knows f*** all about film making.<br /><br />This film concerns the adventures and predicaments of a modern day cockney vampire assassin, and an age old spat with her seemingly jaded vampire lover. That plot in itself reeks of clichés and promises of boredom when on as small a scale a film as this, and that's exactly what you get.<br /><br />First off let me say that I by no means dismiss films because they are B movies, in fact some of my favourite films are B movies such as Jesus Christ: Vampire Hunter, but this one misses the mark by a mile.<br /><br />Anyone with any knowledge of small budget films will know that the acting is rarely gripping and emotional, but Razor Blade Smile creates a whole new dimension of hamming it up on screen. Some of the so called acting is just indescribably bad, with characters spewing cheesy one liners that fall flat, and discourse expressing about as much emotion and conviction as the terminator after a couple of horse tranquillisers.<br /><br />A vast portion of the film is also taken up by the vampiric characters, the protagonist in particular, unnecessarily flapping their mouths, showing off their ridiculously large vampire teeth and exhaling very loudly. It literally must happen in almost every scene at least once, and quickly became annoying and pointless, as if that many looks of slack jawed supposedly scary vampire faces were used to merely fill a little bit of time and pad out the rest of this turd sandwich of a film.<br /><br />Contrary to what some of the other reviewers believe on here, I feel this film (the director in particular) is really trying to take this film seriously in many parts. The sheer number of overly dramatic action shots and extreme close-ups seems to indicate to me that the director really wanted people to feel this film and make it legitimate to its genre and not spoof it, and he fails miserably. The attempts at supposedly tasteful sex scenes come out as comic and silly and the action sequences are sometimes just plain stupid.<br /><br />Also the ending of this film was one of the weakest and most pathetic conclusions I have seen to a film, B movie or not. When films such as this force you to sit through hours of themselves only to be rewarded with a "oh it was all a game" ending it is actually sickening. It the conclusion to the "plot" feels like an afterthought of the director that he figured out on the last day of shooting because they had run to the end of their shoestring budget.<br /><br />But I have not rated this film as one star despite the overwhelming crappiness, and this is because of the only plus point I can really give this film. Intentionally or not, it was funny. I am fairly sure the parts I found humorous were not intended to be, and I found most of the efforts at genuine gags to be fruitless, but when watched with friends it is a good film to take the mickey out of.
10,716	[ 500, 600 ]	438	529	The pace of this movie is quite slow. It takes about 70 minutes to get Katie to China (which we know that she will) and leaves 30 minutes to wrap things up. The storyline is so predictable that you know everything after about 5 minutes. Nothing surprises you. I guess that the movie is a coming of age movie but the movie is full of stereotypes that are quite over the top:<br /><br />Katie - A beauty that realizes that looks, boys and shopping isn't everything. She realizes that she can "feel" and "see the real world". Touching.<br /><br />The mother - high strung, nervous, screaming mother (wow very innovative) that need taking care of by a strong man.<br /><br />The father - patient and always understanding and takes care of the incapable woman.<br /><br />The boyfriend that only wants to get into her pants.<br /><br />The comedian clown Chinese guy that doesn't know how to speak English properly and made a laughing stock. Thought Hollywood dropped those characters in the mid fifties.<br /><br />The nurse that at times knows everything how to get around in China that in the next moment is a carbon copy of The mother i.e. a woman who cant handle the situation or knows anything.<br /><br />The deformed Chinese girl that with the help of us westerns get help and become a beautiful girl. Because in China (a third world country according to the film) don't have anything and hence needs our charity. Gah, wake up and smell what you are shoveling.<br /><br />Sure that there are some poverty in China but the portrayal of the aid from western countries (read USA) is so shallow and happy ending-ish that it is sad and revolting. Shanghai (where the movie is set) is the most expanding and evolving city in the world at the moment.<br /><br />The Chinese father that is so nice and goodhearted that in the end has one wish ... to be a cowboy with a white hat ...<br /><br />The teacher (Sean Astin) that has this really heart ripping story (not) that he tells without feel. Why Sean? WHY!?<br /><br />Etc etc. It is difficult to actually finding a "real" person in the entire movie.<br /><br />This is nothing but a feel good movie for Americans below age 15. If you want to learn anything about the world watch e.g. Hotel Rwanda instead. For a better life story or coming of age movie I suggest you watch the Italian "Cinema Paradiso" that won the best foreign film academy reward some years back.<br /><br />The only nice thing in the movie were the small town sceneries that truly capture some (not all) of the beautiful Chinese country side. I have been there and seen some of it.
10,766	[ 500, 600 ]	433	548	Okay, so writer/director Larry Bishop obviously has some important connections and knows the right people in Hollywood in order to produce his own film and fill up the cast with eye-catching names. Good for him! Now what he really still needs is inspiration and talent in order to come up with an actually worthwhile scenario rather than the overly pretentious and wannabe convoluted crap he penned down here. "Hell Ride" isn't a movie; it's a hectic and hopelessly inept fan-boy endeavor to bring homage to the notorious biker-flicks of the 60's and to the recently revived Grindhouse cinema formula in general. With "Hell Ride", Larry Bishop embarrassingly fails in his set-up and there are many obvious reasons for this. He hasn't got a story to tell or at least not a very interesting one but gravely tries to cover this up through numerous redundant plot twists, loads of gratuitous and very women-unfriendly sleaze, overlong and piteous dialogs aspiring to be cool and giant amounts of senseless violence. The plot looks complex but can actually be summarized in one sentence. The ancient vendetta between two rivaling biker gangs flares up again with the arrival of a new member; a boy who may or not be the long lost son of a double-crossing wench that got executed back in 1976. That's it, seriously! All the rest, going from betraying gang members over to the recruitment of old timer members over to toying with his nymphomaniac informant girl, is all completely pointless and confusing padding material. Another major problem in "Hell Ride" is Larry Bishop's very own tremendous and seemingly insatiable ego. He definitely shouldn't have rewarded himself with the role of tough and relentless gang leader, as that only comes across as incredibly pretentious and narrow-minded; especially when there are so many other and more experienced stars in the movie. Granted, Bishop starred in a couple of genuine 60's biker exploitation movies (like "The Savage Seven" and "Angel Unchained"), but that was a long time ago and he honestly isn't any good as an actor. Maybe it simply was Bishop's life-long dream to play a character that always outsmarts his enemies and for which every hot babe sexually craves, and just wrote a whole screenplay around it. The veterans in the cast, like Dennis Hopper and Michael Madsen, don't really bother to leave a plausible impression and I can't say I blame them. This whole production is lame and pathetic and I can't bring myself to recommending it to anyone, regardless of many beautiful babes parade around with bare breasts and naked butts.
10,780	[ 500, 600 ]	459	568	Publicity for this film suggests that it is shocking and sensational. Well, we opera lovers see some strange sights in opera houses so we are not shocked by the Duke of Mantua urinating during his reprise of La Donna è Mobile, nor is it sensational to see Gilda sing Caro Nome in the bath. It is just crass and boring. What stands out about this film is its lack of imagination. Director Corina Van Eijk sets the Duke's palace in a seedy swimming pool. In fact, he is not the Duke, he is just a character named Duka, so it's difficult to see why he has lots of hangers-on and his own jester, Rigoletto. Rigoletto lives in a council flat that is furnished with the orange sofa and decorated in the spotted wallpaper that is de rigeur among avant-garde directors.The Duke's, sorry Duka's heavies ride around on motor scooters (Yawn). <br /><br />Concepts imposed on an opera like this can produce unexpected, and unintentional humour. What can we make of the fact that Gilda has a maid, even though she lives in a council flat.? When the call goes out that Monterone is being taken to prison we see him being marched out of the swimming pool by two attendants in pink shorts. One imagines that he is going to be charged with urinating in a public swimming pool.<br /><br />It was common for opera films to be lip-synced 20 years ago but there is just no excuse for it today. A dubbed opera is like soft porn. You don't believe in what is happening because the performers are not making enough effort. The actress in Gilda's role does not seem to have learned her lines properly. She barely moves her lips when she is supposed to be singing. When she sings Caro Nome in the bath she lies back with her legs slightly parted. It is difficult to tell which orifice the sound is supposed to be emanating from. The Duke, later caps this by singing while engaging in cunnilingus with Maddalena, giving a new meaning to the phrase yodelling in the canyon.<br /><br />The ambiance of the sound never seems right with the orchestra sometimes sounding as though it is being played through a transistor radio. Fairly slow, rumpity-tumpity tempi are preferred so that the overall effect is of a karaoke in your local pub.<br /><br />This is a film of a production by Opera Spanga. Spanga is a village in Friesland in the Netherlands. They normally perform in a tent in a field. If I had been watching this performance in a tent in a field in Friesland I would have been fairly indulgent. By filming this production and giving it a worldwide audience, the villagers also hold themselves open to worldwide ridicule.
10,782	[ 500, 600 ]	447	538	As I mentioned in other comments, I became a real big fan of David Bradley ever since I saw him in "American Ninja 3". The guy is great doing martial arts, has some kind of charisma and is a cool looking dude on screen. Sadfully, he went to the DTV department ever since his debut and has remained as one of the king of TV movies until 2001 where he apparently stopped making movies. Now, one thing is watching Cyborg Cop or Hard Justice which are crappy clichéd movies but real fun to watch (coz they're entertainingly bad if that has any sort of meaning) but another thing is watching a tasteless piece of boredom like Total Reality. I mean, this and Crisis are the two biggest pieces of horse-dung this guy ever did. I wouldn't recommend this not even to the biggest Bradly hardcore fans. If I had known this and Crisis were going to be so f*****g crap, I wouldn't have spent the 3 or 4 euros they cost me. Total Reality is just as boring as Crisis although funnily, it starts promising. A group of military prisoners in the future are given a chance to stop some kind of disaster in the past (I'm sorry, I didn't really pay much attention to this atrociousness) and they only have 24 hours to get back or something like that. If they don't, they're stranded there forever. The poor director who oversaw this, "tries" some humorous (?) clichés like the convicts arriving on Earth and not knowing what a truck is for example (wow, hilarious...). The movie follows up with David Bradley teaming up with some Earth girl for the rest of the flick. This bored me so much that I had to force myself to watch it in like 3 or 4 installments to at least make use of the 4 or 5 euros it cost me. That's coz every time I tried, I fell asleep. And if you get a movie with David Bradley with just one crappy 10-second fight scene in it, then that's the final touch which would contribute to you throwing it off a hundred foot cliff so as never to see it again. I wish I could meet the "director" of this pile of poo on the street and I swear to God I'd ask him back for mi 5 euros. I'd also love to meet David Bradley to ask him why in God's name did he choose to star in this poor excuse for a movie. Don't even bother with this film, I mean it from the bottom of my heart, not renting borrowing it and specially not buying it.
10,784	[ 500, 600 ]	431	502	There is no reason to watch this film.<br /><br />Why? Many reasons. First up, the acting is awful. There is hardly a line that isn't misread - but that is hardly surprising given the banality, stupidity, and repetitiveness of the dialogue the actors are asked to mouth. It is awfully written. One of the most annoying things about the script is that the writers only seem to know one way of keeping their characters talking after a certain point and that is to have them repeat the most important words of the previous character's line.<br /><br />"Repeat?" <br /><br />"Yes, they repeat it. For the whole movie." <br /><br />"The whole movie?" <br /><br />"Yes, the whole movie." <br /><br />Etc. <br /><br />In movies like this you generally know who the bad guys are and what they are after. (All the good guys usually have to do is stop the bad guys. Setting up a good "Mwahahaha! with X in my grasp I will rule the Universe!" villain is the first stop in any cheapo SF plot) but in this turkey? - you tell me.<br /><br />As I understand it our "heros" are a bunch of mass murderers sent into the past on a Dirty Dozen type mission. They are sent by a fascistic totalitarian state to stop some other mass murderers from altering the course of history. The new history would not include the rise of totalitarianism, and a war that kills 30 billion people and leaves the Earth a dead planet (we know all this because this movie has one of those handy long on-screen situation reports just before the action starts, telling you who is who and what is what. It's an indication of who the producers think their target audience will be, that it is narrated as well as appearing on screen - just to save the audience from taxing their brains too much by doing a lot of reading.) So just who are we supposed to be rooting for here? I guess we are asked to believe our hero undertakes some sort of journey from totalitarianism to love, peace, and understanding while shooting loads of people - but that doesn't work as an arc because we are shown he is a decent(ish) human being right at the start when he tries to rescue all the civilians aboard the rebel station.<br /><br />I guess the makers were aiming at some sort of deeper than normal complexity in this film but they just ended up with an unholy mess with more plot holes and logical inconsistencies than a dozen or so of your average crap SF movies.<br /><br />The opening credits were nice.
10,827	[ 500, 600 ]	431	544	Soultaker was written by and starred Vivian Schilling. It also starred Joe Estevez, Gregg Thomsen, and Robert D'Zar as the Angel of Death.<br /><br />The story begins with introduction to Soultaker, played by Joe Estevez. We quickly learn what Soultaker's role will be in this movie.<br /><br />Next the college aged young people are getting ready for a summer festival, aptly named "Summerfest". In this film, the battle of the classes is omni-present throughout the film. The girls come from a wealthy class, and the guys come from roughly middle or lower class. The class roles seem to play a role in the film for some reason which isn't really clear or pertinent to the story.<br /><br />At Summerfest we learn more about the apparent class struggles of why Zach isn't encouraged to date Natalie. Soultaker makes an appearance as well, with apparently his boss the Angel of Death. Here D'Zar's character points out who is to die and who's souls are to be taken. It's revealed as well, that Soultaker will have a character conflict regarding Natalie, and how he deals with her because of someone in his past.<br /><br />Meanwhile Natalie is ditched by her ride to Summerfest, and Zach convinces her to ride home with them. During the ride home, Soultaker takes an active role causing them to wreck horribly at high speeds.<br /><br />The rest of the story surrounds the Soultaker collecting the souls of the dead passengers, and Zach and Natalie trying to outwit him to return to their bodies so they can continue to live. The class and character conflicts lay in the story, but are really never brought to the forefront or resolved.<br /><br />There's an attempt towards the end to drag out some of the drama, there's a lot of chasing and running which does tend to be really boring. It's not really acceptable, and it would've been nice had this been dealt with differently, somehow to maybe increase the drama but not bore the audience.<br /><br />The story and acting are decent. The soundtrack is OK, and even the production values are good.<br /><br />Robert D'Zar in his brief on screen appearances does a nice job as the Angel of Death. Joe Estevez does OK, however sometimes his role acting a bit flat. Vivian is pretty and does a decent job as Natalie, although perhaps over acting a bit in a few scenes.<br /><br />This may sound odd, but this movie definitely could've benefited from some pointless nudity. Vivian teases us a bit but that wasn't enough.<br /><br />In my opinion this was a pretty serious attempt at making a movie. The results, it's worth watching. Just don't expect a perfect production.<br /><br />3/10
10,853	[ 500, 600 ]	421	504	Yawn, that is my reaction to this film. I was really hoping this would have been a good modern day slasher but it doesn't even fall into the category of slashers. Instead, it tries to be something it isn't, which is a psychological thriller, and it fails so miserably at this. Even the title "Freak" suggests that this might be interesting. Match this with the cover art on the DVD and you think "OK, maybe I will give this one a try". Not worth the time.<br /><br />The story actually starts up a bit interesting with a poor deformed child with bandages wrapped around his head being chained up by his fat Mother. She yells at him and probably beats him since in one scene we see her actually slap him for no reason. After all this, he decides he has had enough and smashes her face in with (I believe) a rock. Present day, he is now in insane asylum and is being transfered. On his way he breaks out of the van he is in and escapes. Introduce also the 2 leads characters, a little girl and her older sister. They are moving and hit the road. So most of the movie is them riding around in the car talking amongst themselves. But, the bandaged "Freak" is now on the loose and is about go on a rampage of grueling murder! (This is me being totally sarcastic)<br /><br />I can't believe how boring this movie turned out to be. The budget was on the smallest ever with absolutely no special effects and the dialog I could just care less about. This is one of those movie where the packaging is better then the flick itself. And to compare this to Halloween?! Rubbish! I am not even a fan of the the Halloween series (except the 3rd one) but Halloween is far superior than this. At least with Halloween we have a great score and some genuinely creepy moments. With this, there is virtually no music except some piano here and there and there is nothing creepy about this movie. Maybe this movie would have fared better if it had a solid score because even the worst of movies are tolerable if the music is good.<br /><br />Well, that is just my opinion on the movie. I thought it was just a complete waist of time and money. But, since the movie has over a 4/10 rating on IMDb, there must be people that like this movie. I am not one of those people. 2/10
10,862	[ 500, 600 ]	445	552	I have read almost all the books by now, and have seen the musical production in two different languages. I absolutely adored everything that I have been acquainted previously. But lately I've been running out of resources to sustain my fancy. I still have couple of books left, but they are either in transit or they are the sequels which I am not in a hurry to read. So an idea dawned on me - Sink me! There are movies which I have not watched! Thus, I must watch them immediately.<br /><br />The first five minutes of these series were... acceptable. In fact, I quite enjoyed the variation of the reason for the denunciation, however different it had seemed. It went all downhill from there, though. Chauvelin was too... foppish? And, I daresay, too old for this role. Not nearly that dark and dashing figure with his dreadful either-or. (And what was that with random bed scene featuring him? It was way too creepy - wasn't his only love the Madame Guillotine, and his only interest - his job, and his only obsession - Sir Percy?) Marguerite... Prettiest woman in France? Cleverest woman in Europe? I think not. Although, whatever compelled her to break into the study of Sir Percy I haven't the faintest idea. And whatever my Lord Tony has done to deserve this death? Yes, every member of the League did pledge his life to Sir Percy, but he would have never endangered any of them nor would have run away like a coward when his dear friend faces mortal danger. And if by any means he had to mourn his companion, he would have done that, mourn, not just move on as if nothing had happened. Which brings me to another point, Sir Percy. His portrayal was most dreadful. He was neither a lazy fop, nor a gallant and elusive hero who is a master of transformations. Nor did he care too much about cravats (his pronunciation of that word alone made my ears bleed) And with his own hands he had never killed anyone. So what was that with him randomly walking around and slaughtering people?<br /><br />The costumes were just too flashy for that time period as well. This is post-revolutionary France we are talking about! Not pre-revolutionary. People in dresses like that stand out in a crowd quite easily. It was all just... gah!<br /><br />Although, I must admit, after I watched other parts my opinion did change slightly. Watching it as a separate work, independent of Scarlet Pimpernel series, it was tolerable. Just your other average hero in the mask. But for what they tried to pass it, it is still miserable.
10,867	[ 500, 600 ]	426	511	Back in college I studied marketing and, even though I missed a whole lot of classes and never really paid any attention, I will always remember the main and most essential principle of marketing, namely: it's not what you sell; it's HOW you sell it! This principle fully applies to "The Devil's Triangle", as it's basically a beautifully wrapped and enticing yet empty package. Writer/director Richard Winer knew exactly that he had to divert the viewer's attention away from the major inaccuracies, so he threw in some elements that never fail when it comes to providing a creepy atmosphere, like the sinister voice of narrator Vincent Price and the oddball music of King Crimson. And I'm guessing Richard Winer's dirty little tricks worked very efficiently, as there was a huge Bermuda Triangle hype going on during the mid-70's and literally every movie production whether it was an inaccurate documentary or a sleazy exploitation flick covering the topic earned big money at the box office. "The Devil's Triangle" overwhelms you with data that is unstructured and often irrelevant, but the severe dramatization of the facts and of course the intimidating stark voice of the almighty Vincent Price generates an ambiance of fright and creepiness. The narration constantly jumps back and forward in time and covers a massive amount of "strange occurrences" and "mysterious vanishings" of ships and airplanes in the Bermuda Triangle throughout a period of nearly one whole century, but the reports remain extremely vague at all times and the eloquent Mr. Price invariably ends every chapter with the sinister words " just another unsolved mystery of the Devil's Triangle". After a couple of cases the whole formula simply becomes laughable and almost pathetic, but I guess it caused genuine mass hysteria back in 1974. The documentary expands a little more on the most notorious Bermuda Triangle mysteries, like the five planes of military Flight 19 that inexplicably disappeared all at once and the peculiar case of the vessel USS Cyclops, but still even in these chapters only a minimum of serviceable information is given. The cameras never at one point go underwater to explore the depths of the Bermuda area, for example, and the testimonies of the supposedly real-life witnesses of the dramas suspiciously look like staged acting scenes. If you're looking for an informative and objective documentary on the Bermuda Triangle, I certainly wouldn't recommend this movie, but in case you want to sit back and listen to Vincent Price's hypnotizing voice for nearly a full hour, this is your chance!
10,930	[ 500, 600 ]	448	571	Unreal !!!!!!!!. After reading the initial reviews posted by alleged reviewers ,I was shocked to find that almost all of the initial reviews, 38 , all rated this film a 10. Upon comparison with other great films, these reviewers felt that the Quick and the Undead is a better film than,The 6th Sense(8.2), Saving Private Ryan(8.4), Lord of the Rings( 8.7),Godfather(9.5), Gladiator(8.1) and Dawn of the Dead ( 7.8) to name a few. Hopefully these shills utilize their next discounted lasik procedure, that they hear of, because it is completely obvious that these reviews have been falsified.<br /><br />I was led to believe that this film featured a unique concept in the genre of Zombie film making. Sadly upon watching the Quick and the Undead , It is obvious that these reviews were generated by people who either were involved in the production, or have a vested interest in the films marketability / financial success. Nothing cements this in my mind more than hearing that a portion of this film was shot in Texas, were, coincidentally allot of the early posting praising the film are from. The Zombie film / Horror B movie culture on a whole is a forgiving group, but this film is sadly beyond any redemption. The characters are recycled,and the plot poor.The film quality was not bad enough to be labeled camcorder,and at least they used a film quality camera . The acting is horrible, the star trying unsuccessfully to come off as a Clint Eastwood wanna be clone. Christ on a Bike !!!!!! Even the lead actor's name is Clint. He was just terrible. The only resemblance to Clint Eastwood, is that the lead is using the "wood" from Eastwood's name in his style of acting. The Zombie makeup was above Halloween party quality , but not applied completely to the full undead cast members. Allot of zombies were not made up on their hands. The plot was so hokey that it had me hoping for a power outage, a blemish on the DVD disk, or that the zombies would turn their attention on the director. Maybe the film has worth to some viewers, but not for my hard earned dollar. Luckily I used my free rental coupon to check out this DVD. Maybe this film will be rescued by Nott entertainment ( aptly named) releasing a special collectors DVD, which will tie up loose flaws, and deliver the promised goods??? Some how , I think NOTT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Lets just hope that their next release , The Flesh Keeper is truly a "keeper" of a film ..and not a 5th generation recycled version of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Fingers crossed here folks...but only if you care.
10,937	[ 500, 600 ]	423	552	After watching this movie on a boring Saturday afternoon, I couldn't quite figure out why so many people liked it. It wasn't "heartwarming" or "clever"; it was merely an amalgam of every other "mismatched people coming together during a holiday and despite their ideological differences learning something about each other" movie ever made.<br /><br />The characters are a stereotype bouillabaisse -- We have the Blacks, the Hispanics, The Jews, The Asians, and the Homosexuals -- and they never do anything except what everyone expects characters in a movie like this to do. The black mother declares that it's "all right, then" when it's mentioned that another black character is at church instead of helping prepare dinner (because all blacks love church), the Hispanics seem only capable of speaking Spanish when the greet each other or make exclamations, the lesbians do nothing but cuddle and kiss (and one of them wears a bandanna. Because all lesbians dress like Ani DiFranco), and the Vietnamese family owns a video store. In L.A. Imagine that.<br /><br />Oh, and the movie is called "What's Cooking" because each ethnic family cooks a different version of what they think Thanksgiving dinner should be! The Black mother wants cornbread and macaroni and cheese, the Hispanics are shown rolling tortillas, the Vietnamese family is deep frying spring rolls; I'm surprised there wasn't a bottle of Manischewitz on the Jewish table. This is all shown via the time-honored tradition of the "musical-montage", where they play the Surfari's "Wipeout", rapidly switching the instruments used in the melody to reflect the respective cultures. Isn't that cute? Anyway, once the director is finished establishing how different everyone is, he attempts to show the inner humanity that we, as all people of every race, religion and culture share, by inventing implausible and overly dramatic conflicts for each of the families to deal with. It would be a plot-killer to mention what each of these conflicts are, but rest assured that they are indeed surprises, that is if you have been sleeping for the first half of the movie. The theme of "disgracing the family" runs pretty strong throughout.<br /><br />All in all, if you're the type of person who enjoys those new-fangled movies that revolve around the stories of unlikely characters intertwining, well, you still won't like this movie. If you like extended montages of food being passed around a table, then you need to put this in your Netflix queue. But if stereotypes and clichés are endearing to you, then make sure you ask for this for Christmas. Or Hanukkah. Or Kwanzaa.
10,952	[ 500, 600 ]	454	592	Astounding that something like this could find its way to be viewed by the public. I knew it was by Uwe Boll, & I found it in the bargain bin at a store for $2 (still pretty steep, considering) but morbid curiosity led me to view this, and: <br /><br />1). I am fairly sure this is a rip-off of Seven, Silence of the Lambs, and American Psycho, all rolled into one, with dialog that may have been written by preteens.<br /><br />2). Casper Van Dien plays the main character, and he's so absolutely bizarre and creepy that just about anyone would KNOW he must be the crazed serial killer.<br /><br />3). Jennifer Rubin plays the "good cop" that invites a serial killer to her apartment for a home cooked dinner, and what does she get for her trouble? I'll let you guess.<br /><br />4). Michael Pare plays an "intense" cop, who drives a VW Bug, new-style, that is, with a siren on it. A VW Bug...that'll strike fear into criminal's hearts when they see THAT coming.<br /><br />5). Van Dien breaks up with his fiancé, but she still has an "not engaged" party, complete with "not a wedding cake". Imagine everyone's surprise he shows up (he was, of course, invited) and they all get shot.<br /><br />6). Actually, this should have been #1, really. The killer in this is known as "The Monkey Maker". This is, without a doubt, the stupidest killer name anyone could have come up with in a million years. Presumably it has something to do with the "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" saying, complete with monkeys. It's possible that monkeys had something to do with the script, too.<br /><br />7). Oh yeah, and there's a club that Van Dien visits near the beginning of the film. There's bad disco music, I mean, really bad, and a chain-link fenced cage with, uh, gang members beating the crap out of each other with baseball bats? That's what it looked like. And of course, this is only the tip of the iceberg, the really cool stuff (?!) goes on in the basement, where some questionable "actor" talks some woman into signing a confession before she gets shot, this being, I guess, a snuff movie? Not quite sure how this fits in with the rest of the film, and Boll probably wasn't either, so if he wasn't worried, then I won't worry.<br /><br />An incredible piece of non-entertainment that will make you feel like you're watching something from a parallel universe. A parallel universe that's KIND of like ours, but where things are just enough off where they don't seem right. You have entered "The Boll Zone". Exit as quickly as possible, & don't look back.<br /><br />2 out of 10.
10,971	[ 500, 600 ]	462	585	1983 was a bumper year for Stephen King books making it to the big screen. Christine, The Dead Zone and Cujo were all released within a few months of each other. While The Dead Zone was easily the pick of the bunch, Christine and Cujo were both pretty bad, and it's a close-run thing as to which is the lesser of the two. If pushed for an answer I'd say Cujo - marginally - is the weakest.<br /><br />Donna Trenton (Dee Wallace, fresh from success as Elliot's mom in "E.T - The Extra Terrestrial") is a mother whose marriage to husband Vic (Daniel Hugh-Kelly) is hanging by a thread. She's been having an affair with a local worker, and is now dwelling on whether or not to leave her husband. Dragged into the marital heartache is young Tad Trenton (Danny Pintauro), son of Donna and Vic, and a pretty messed-up kid with a chronic phobia of the dark which often leads to severe panic attacks. Donna and Tad take the family car to a nearby mechanics' yard for repairs, but as they arrive their car splutters to a halt. Things get a heck of a lot worse when they discover that the mechanic, Joe Camber (Ed Lauter), isn't there (he has been savagely killed by his pet dog Cujo, a gigantic St. Bernard which was recently bitten and infected by a rabid bat.) Soon, the dog has them trapped in their car and is trying everything to get inside the vehicle to tear apart these two hapless victims. The weather is swelteringly hot; not a living soul knows they're there; the car won't start; and the dog seriously wants their blood......<br /><br />Cujo has potential to be a genuinely taut siege thriller, but it never really clicks into gear. I've read the book and it is quite disappointing - certainly for King - so it's hardly surprising that the film version amounts to so little. On the printed page, King was at least able to generate a degree of tension, but the film is critically hampered by the fact that a St. Bernard simply isn't very scary. The "visualness" of the film medium serves as a constant reminder that Cujo IS a St. Bernard. In the book, it was possible to forget this. In the book, Cujo sometimes almost seemed to assume the guise of a monster. Even with the relatively short running-time of an hour-and-a-half, Cujo becomes a tedious and patience-straining experience, occasionally unintentionally funny and certainly never as suspenseful as it would like to be. They've even omitted the book's cruelly downbeat ending and replaced it with an "all's well that ends well" conclusion so that audiences can go home in a cheerful mood!!! Chalk this one down as yet another inferior King adaptation.
10,986	[ 500, 600 ]	455	575	Young couple on the road, minding their own business and having casual sex in their car during broad daylight. Yet, suddenly, they're being menaced and terrorized by a deranged psychopath in an old and rusty pick-up truck. Hmm, where have I seen this premise before? Oh yeah, now I remember, we've seen this a THOUSAND times before already, and approximately nine hundred and ninety-nine of the other cases were much better than "Rest Stop"! This weak and pitiable new movie is insulting even to the intellect of the most undemanding horror fans, as it doesn't feature a single original twist or memorable gimmick. It's very sadistic and nasty, but every teenkill-slasher flick is sadistic and nasty nowadays, so that's no real surprise anymore, neither. The absolute main problem with this production is the incredibly large amount of dumb plot holes and meaningless sub plots. Writer/director John Shiban damn well realized that the ultra-thin basic storyline nearly wasn't enough to fill a whole movie with, and thus he stuffs up his film like a Thanksgiving turkey with imbecile and nonsensical padding material. Nicole's boyfriend vanishes at an abandoned and filthy rest stop in California. Killing off her character right away wouldn't result in a very long movie and thus she subsequently encounters a motor home family of freaks, suffers from visions (?) in which she talks to the deranged killer's previous victims and she has deeply emotional (and boring) conversations with a police officer who just won't die even though a truck ran over him...twice! The dumb sub plots never lead anywhere and they're definitely the most pathetic and desperate attempts to stretch a movie's length I've ever seen. Instead of all the pointless padding, Shiban should have paid more attention to building up tension and make his lead characters a little more likable. Jaimie Alexander's character Nicole is an annoying and brainless girl, and you won't really care whether she'll survive the ordeal or not. Her boyfriend Jesse as well as the cop are both whining losers and their brutal deaths still weren't painful enough, if you ask me. I counted exactly three sequences, all including torture and gratuitous mutilation, that were gory and exciting enough to bring a sadist smile on my face. That's still way too few for a nowadays horror movie. Basically, "Rest Stop" is simply a miserable attempt to cash in on the success of such films like "Wolf Creek" and "Hostel", but you're better off watching the originals. This was the first film of the new production company called 'Raw Feed'. They're promoting themselves as the new name in great horror, but they'll have to come up with something much better than "Rest Stop" if they want us to believe that.
10,994	[ 500, 600 ]	438	515	A young couple decides to runaway to sunny California. They never reach their destination as they decide to pull over at the Rest Stop.<br /><br />After a fight with her boyfriend, Nicole Carrow insists on pulling in to a rest stop. When she is ready to leave, she exits the bathroom to find her boyfriend has disappeared with their car, leaving her trapped on the back roads of Texas with only an abandoned camper van to keep her company.<br /><br />Rest Stop is one of those cheap and tacky horror movies that could become a cult classic. Will Rest Stop become a cult classic you may ask? Well the three elements that you need to become a cult classic are gore, sex and artistic merit. Rest stop has bucket loads of gore, and while I do not want to give too much away, it contains oodles of blood-soaked nastiness. This movie has everything from the bad guy running over a cop's legs with his car several times to him making use of a pneumatic drill on a girl's leg. At times, it can be about as bloody as a film can get. It also has a gratuitous and yet somehow quite intimate love scene in the opening minutes of the film. Therefore, the sex is covered. Now the hard one does it have any artistic merit? You never get to see the bad guy's face you see glimpses, profiles, shadowy silhouettes. He is a faceless, relentless, monster, which alone scores highly on the artistic merit scale. The movie has very few characters in it apart from the main protagonist Nicole Carrow (Jaimie Alexander). Since she spends a large part of the film on her own, she cannot reveal her thoughts in the course of a conversation, but must speak them aloud so that we, the audience, know what she is thinking. At times, this can be slightly irritating; however, it is a brave step by the writer (John Shiban) and it does work for the majority of the film. As an audience knows, being completely alone and isolated from civilisation is frightening enough even when you are not being chased by psychotic killers.<br /><br />So, will Rest Stop become a cult classic? It probably will because along the gore, sex and arguable artistic merit, it also has plenty of chills, an interesting and inventive plot and gives rise to a lot of shouting at the screen as the main character does plenty of things you should definitely not do when running from a psychotic killer. (What fun are horror movies if you cannot complain about the stupidity of the victims?)
11,018	[ 500, 600 ]	400	519	First, and foremost, I take issue to the title of this movie. 'Chupacabra' is not a Spanish word. The name to which they are referring is 'Chupacabras'. I imagine they dropped the 's' because it sounds plural that way, but I assure you, it is singular in Spanish.<br /><br />Next, I thought this movie had been done years ago. It came off as one of those B horror flicks I watched when I was an early teenager at home when my stepdad was out of town. Then it would have been kind of scary.<br /><br />Let's talk about the special effects. The most important 'effect' is the costume used for the Chupacabras. Given that it is the main character, you would think some serious money would have been put into it, but that isn't so. The shape, color, and texture were all goofy like some stupid haunted house at Disney World.<br /><br />There were times when the Chupacabras was walking where no man could walk. His movement were jerky and strange at these times, but moving around on the floor looked like any normal man.<br /><br />Another thing I take issue to is that there is no animal in the world that goes around slaughtering everything it sees with no regard to actually eating it. The Chupacrabas would kill one, then the next, but it never seemed to actually eat the victim. You say, "It's just a movie," and I agree. But the idea is so far out there that it's stupid.<br /><br />What country is Dr. Pena from? He sounds sort of Jamaincan/Hawaiian/British/Something-Else, but I think he's supposed to be Latino. The problem is, his accent is so bad that even a Russian could tell he wasn't Latino.<br /><br />The soldiers fired round after round at this thing, and weren't making a dent, yet the continued to fire. I'm no military man, but don't soldiers, especially the special tactical forces such as this, have to have some wit about them to perform their duties? Wouldn't they figure out that it was a waste of time to shoot and try something new? They didn't. They just kept firing away while the Chupacabras continued to slaughter, and not eat, them.<br /><br />Did they have to kill the little dog? :) Anyway, my vote was 3 for this flick, because it was bad. Why did I watch the whole thing? I'm sure you've done the same on occasion, so don't give me an flack. ;)
11,044	[ 500, 600 ]	482	566	The movie is apparently based on a popular French horror novel, by Arthur Bernède, from 1927. Not that I had ever heard about it before but Belphégor has been a popular subject before for movies and mini-series. The first movie got released way back in 1927, simultaneously with the novel. Arthur Bernède was a part of a group of writers who wrote and produced films and novels simultaneously. The character Belphégor is one of his best known creations.<br /><br />Once upon a time Sophie Marceau was a promising new European actress who would conquer Hollywood. She has now however dropped back again to movies like this one. Nothing wrong with playing in French quality movies, since it's the country she originates from but this movie is just ridicules.<br /><br />Problem is mostly that the movie relies on its special effects, to make the movie good and scary. Well, horror and special effects never really have been a good combination though, with some exceptions here and there. It's not like the special effects are bad in this one. Especially for an European movie it is simply good but it;s just misplaced, since the movie gave the feeling it could had easily done without its effect. It would had actually made the movie a better and scarier one to watch, no doubt about that really. <br /><br />The movie is just not ever tense or engaging to watch, also since the movie seems to have difficulties picking the right approach. At times the movie picks a light and just less serious approach, while at others it clearly attempts to be a good scary horror movie. This is mostly the reason why the movie just doesn't work out on any level. You can say that the movie is even a bit boring. It all also definitely gets worse toward the ending. After a while you just stop caring about this movie and its story and you start wishing you had decided to watch something else instead.<br /><br />The editing seems totally off. It uses too fast cuts, without much style, while the fast editing was obviously intended to give the movie a good, modern style. Also the time-line is just plain messed up at times, as if some sequences got edited in the wrong order.<br /><br />The musical score is also really annoying and at times doesn't even sounds to fit the movie, as if it all long got scored before the movie finished shooting. I can't believe composer Bruno Coulais is an Oscar nominated composer. The musical score is almost just as annoying as the movie its sound effects.<br /><br />The movie is filled with many characters, which you however just couldn't care less about. It also just seems very unlikely that a woman like Sophie Marceau would ever fall for a man such as Frédéric Diefenthal. The movie also features Julie Christie, which is nice but just doesn't add much to the movie.<br /><br />A horrible watch.<br /><br />3/10
11,054	[ 500, 600 ]	431	528	Very odd, this seems like a very average movie to me, if not slightly less. It is brilliantly shot but, together with the performance of R. Lee Ermey, that's about the only redeeming aspect I found in the movie which consists of two separate parts. <br /><br />The first part covers the basic marine-training which, watching it in 2007, comes off like something I've see a zillion times before in dozens of other movies and series and it's not particularly gripping. After 30 minutes I got the idea and wished they could just get on with it. The drill sergeant is about the only believable character while everyone else seem to be just cardboard cut-outs. The general acting is staggeringly haggard and the screenplay is devoid of anything interesting and consists of little more than the Sergeant shouting. The boys make it through their training and end up in Vietnam. Oh, and the fat weirdo shoots the sergeant (what a surprise..), probably in the mistaken belief that it was actually the scriptwriter. <br /><br />So, one hour passed and nothing worthy of note happened. Nothing...<br /><br />Then we have the Vietnam-part.<br /><br />It opens with a bunk-scene where reporters of Stars and Stripes are bored and are making small talk to pass the time. At first I thought they were re-enacting some movie scenes from old films, it sounded pretty bad. But no, they were actually muttering their script lines. Then the camp is besieged. Some 20 Vietcong enter the camp through the main gate. Too bad for them they are being dropped like flies because they simply walk into several manned gun posts with no means of cover. Is that normal behaviour? Were the Vietnamese all suicidal? If so, how come the US didn't win this war during the first two months of engagement? The rest of the movie continues with even more completely illogical war scenes. <br /><br />Furthermore, the whole plot is altogether pointless. None of the characters inspire much sympathy and the story is frankly rather uneventful. It shows little more other than some war-reporters hooking up with a platoon with some guys getting shot because they are disobedient morons and who also seem to think that somehow a gaping hole in a wall will protect you from bullets.<br /><br />What was the message of this movie..that people died in Vietnam? That people are animals in war situations? That if you want to dispose of really dumb people, you send them to a war zone? Or that somehow in Vietnam concrete can actually burn? <br /><br />I'm sorry, but if this movie deserves an 8.3, then Apocalypse Now deserves a 38.3<br /><br />5/10
11,057	[ 500, 600 ]	453	558	So you have the spoiler warning---but I would argue that you cannot spoil what is already rotten. I assume they changed the name to "The Cavern" just in case "WIthIn"s reputation had preceded it.<br /><br />After paying the cable rental for this movie, I considered saving my household garbage for a month and mailing it to the writer/director. He had his garbage delivered to my home, so I thought it only fair that I return the favor.<br /><br />The movie opens with a suggestion that the scene is in the desert of Kazakhstan. I'm not sure why they picked Kazakhstan; maybe the writer is a fan of the Ali G Show. But they should have just started inside the cave, because the outside was obviously not Kazakhstan. It was the first clue that I was going to hate the movie.<br /><br />The movie has no redeeming qualities, save one: it's consistent. Everything is terrible. The writing, the directing, the acting, the cinematography---every aspect of this film is just bad. And I like bad films, goofy films, B-horror films . . . but this was just plain bad. And stupid. And hackneyed. And predictable. And boring.<br /><br />To get a feel for the film, go into your laundry room with 5 of your friends, and turn off the lights. Put a flashlight (turned on) into your dryer and start it tumbling. Now all of you start screaming and yelling at the top of your lungs. That's it.<br /><br />For a complete re-enactment, have 5 of the 6 people in the laundry room play dead on the floor. Toss Karo syrup on them. Turn the lights back on (stop the dryer). Now have a guy in a gorilla costume enter the room and rape the last person standing.<br /><br />FIN<br /><br />ADDENDUM: Reading through the other comments, many find it remarkable this movie was made on a low budget. That's not remarkable. Making a crap movie on a HUGE budget is remarkable (Waterworld). Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed). Making a crap movie on a low budget isn't a bit surprising, and you can expect more of the same if these people are still making movies, because I can't imagine anybody would hand them a pile of cash after watching this.<br /><br />Is the low budget an excuse for a terrible film? No, and it's certainly no reason to watch it. Would you eat a dog-dung sandwich just because it was cheap to make?<br /><br />The IMDb rating for this film over time will be interesting to watch. It should trend farther downward, but only if the number of unsuspecting innocent viewers can outpace the movie makers' ability to beg their personal friends to give it 10 stars.
11,087	[ 500, 600 ]	402	541	Bottom-of-the-barrel stinker is so bad it's beyond funny. The "plot" is about an American mercenary, played by Reb Brown (in the film he's called a "military adviser" but it's not really clear if he's in the American military or not), helping the army of a Latin-American country fight guerrillas who winds up joining the guerrillas when the government turns on him, imprisons and tortures him. Shannon Tweed is a "sports equipment saleswoman" he picks up in a bar who gets caught up in all the intrigue. That description actually makes the movie sound better than it is, because it's really a stinker of almost Biblical proportions. How bad is it? Well, Shannon Tweed turns in the movie's most professional acting job. If that isn't an indication of just what a 12th-rate piece of junk this turkey is, nothing is From mismatched sound effects to a music score that sounds like it's from a 1940s "Z"-grade horror flick (and may very well be) to the same footage (i.e., armored personnel carriers going down the same jungle trail) reused constantly to some of the most ineptly staged "action" scenes in recent memory, this laugh-a-minute sludgefest has to be seen to be disbelieved. Tweed looks bored, Brown looks hung over, and by the time this thing is finished--if you can last that long; I couldn't--you'll know just how they feel.<br /><br />Although there are a lot of explosions and gunfights, this can't be considered an "action" picture by any stretch of the imagination. It's boring (there's a scene in the back of a truck where everybody just stares at each other for three or four minutes), repetitive (the same "rebels" and "soldiers" being killed over and over), illogical (when a group of rebels is caught in an open field by a government helicopter gunship, instead of breaking for cover they just stand there staring up at it), inept (soldiers and rebels falling "dead" when no gunshots are heard, a gun battle inside a house where combatants standing against walls are machine-gunned but miraculously the walls escape undamaged) predictable (when the "Governor" says to offer a reward for Brown's capture because "someone" might turn him in, you know exactly who that "someone" will be, and it turns out to be exactly who you thought it was) and just downright stupid (pretty much everything else in the picture). Inept, brainless and stupid beyond belief. Don't waste your time.
11,093	[ 500, 600 ]	494	569	This movie was awful, plain and simple. It will probably be revered by those who only see "films" and not "movies" and will therefore feel sorry for me for having such a limited understanding of the theatrical brilliance of this film, but I am secure enough in my intellect to say that this boring, self-aggrandizing and painfully drawn-out movie was a waste of two hours and nine dollars.<br /><br />I was suckered into seeing this by the inexplicable good reviews it had been receiving and came out of the theater thinking that those reviews had to have been written by over-excited film students and the aforementioned group of individuals who shun regular movies, perhaps for fear that they may actually enjoy one someday.<br /><br />The storyline is quite a promising one - a man is imprisoned for 15 years, never knowing his captor nor his crime. He is then abruptly released and given just five days to discover the identity and reason of the man who imprisoned him. However, the great concept soon disintegrates into a pathetic joke as Oh Dae-Su runs around beating people up, trying to have sex with a young girl who is attempting to use the toilet and eating a live, writhing squid (presumably for dramatic effect, as there is absolutely no other reason for it). All the while he is trying to figure out this horrible thing he did to earn himself fifteen years in jail, and when he finally finds out it is both ridiculous and a major letdown. His nemesis, a man who supposedly went to school with him when he was a young man, looks like a Banana Republic model twenty years younger than him. Hey, I know prison has been hard on Oh Dae-Su, but is it too much to ask to find an actor that looks a bit closer to his age? Of all the things wrong with this movie, this one seems like the easiest one to fix.<br /><br />And the big secret - the one that kept me in my seat for 90 minutes when I could have been out doing something productive - is some joke of a plot line involving incest and a rumor started in high school. Come on! Throw us a bone here - was that really the best they could do? I sat through stupid dialogue, over-acting, gloomy sets and gratuitous violence for this? (By the way - I'm not at all against violence in a film if it seems to fit the story, but in this case it seems I was forced to watch our hero knock out someone's front teeth and cut off his own tongue with a pair of scissors in order to distract me from figuring out I was wasting my afternoon watching a pretentious piece of garbage).<br /><br />Take my advice - do something else with your time and money. Or take your nine dollars and go see a lowly "movie" - one that you might actually enjoy.
11,094	[ 500, 600 ]	456	571	This comment is meant mainly as a warning to the people who might be attracted to the title by its (temporarily)high user rating which I find frankly puzzling. The reasons why I didn't like this title are following:<br /><br />1. The directer must have had some doubts whether to make a Jackie-Chan-type of a flick or a dark Oedipian tragedy. As a result, in terms of genre, the film falls between two stools, as the tragic and comic elements clash and cancel out each other rather than make a harmonious whole.<br /><br />2. The characters' motives and behaviors are incoherent and unconvincing. Psychological truth and logic are sadly missing.<br /><br />3. Absurd casting. I don't blame the actors, for it is a hard thing to create a convincing character by acting alone, if there is scarce logic in the script. However, why is there an apparent age difference of about 15 years between the leading two actors, whose ages in the film can't differ by more than 3-4?<br /><br />4. To me the film was poor entertainment primarily because of point 2. If you can't find a character you could sympathize with it is hard to follow the story with interest. When you finally learn the reason of what happened to the main protagonist, it turns out to make no sense.<br /><br />5. Some films apart from being entertaining are also thought-provoking. Having seen this film, I began to wonder whether the thought the director tried to provoke was not that incestuous relationships could be perfectly wholesome and delightful. I cannot put any other construction on the ending. <br /><br />6. The film is rife with totally unnecessary violence. Violence in a film (and elsewhere) is a good thing, if it serves an important and worthy purpose. Purposes can be different and I don't want to enter into this broad subject. Let me just say I don't object to violence in such films as "Saving Private Ryan", "The Passion of the Christ" or "The Pulp Fiction". In "Oldboy" the scenes of torture and suffering are prolonged and graphic (or aural). What for? I do not know. Personally, I don't derive any satisfaction from watching teeth being extracted with a hammer or hear a man cut off his tongue with scissors and then see him choking on his own blood etc. etc. <br /><br />7. The film reminds me a little of Japanese porno mangas in its fixation on incest and young Asian girls' panties, urinating and the like. It appears there is a minority who actually enjoy this kind of thing. If you're one of them, you might find this film enjoyable.<br /><br />In short, I do not recommend this film either as entertainment or "food for thought". Where it isn't silly, it is disgusting. Don't waste your time.
11,095	[ 500, 600 ]	450	589	I am sorry to rain on everybody's parade. Just a little background about me: I like and know a lot about Asian cinema, especially Japanese, Chinese and Indian. Admittedly I am a novice when it comes to South-Korean cinema but, if this is the best of the best, sorry. I just want you to know that I am not at all narrow-minded when it comes to appreciating foreign movies and I do not fit the stereotype of the "dumb American" . . . well, not perfectly.<br /><br />I cannot believe the high praise this piece of nothing is bestowed upon. This is a disgusting and ludicrous movie. Hammy acting - everything is badly done and overdone, like begging for the uneducated viewer's attention. Horrible camera-work, with an insistence on meaningless close-ups derived from the MTV aesthetics.<br /><br />The plot is more full of holes than a gigantic piece of Swiss cheese. Nobody expects a thriller to be 100% realistic, and for the sake of entertainment I'd be happy to close my eyes to small unfitting details. But, excuse me, what's happening here that can stand even summary scrutiny? This story of an unbelievably intricate and contrite act of revenge is worse than the worst tabloid story one can read in a line at the supermarket. (Don't want to spoil your "enjoyment", if that's the word, so won't go into details of the plot.) The fighting scenes are violent, unbelievable, downright stupid (the main "hero" taking on dozens and dozens of opponents in the same time, after he ONLY trained while imprisoned, punching a wall ! ) The truly "outstanding" features of this movie are two: the lurid and incestuous sex (brother on sister and father on daughter, well, we've evolved since Oedipus, didn't we?) and the graphic violence. The cut off body parts - hands, teeth, tongues - together with industrial quantities of spilled blood (how many tens of thousands of tomatoes had to die for this movie to be made?) have no esthetical function/motivation whatsoever.<br /><br />A feast for the S & M inclined, admittedly, but, even for those, a feast of no merit nor subtlety. Heavens, even Mel Gibson's recent and much-discussed work on an almost similar theme wasn't THAT bad.<br /><br />The invariably good press this pretentious, overblown, overlong piece of gratuitous gore coming from Korean shores obtains makes me wonder what's happening. I don't think of myself as being the ultimate paragon of taste and often I am ready to accept that a movie I didn't enjoy may be better than I was able to perceive. However, I have no scruples whatsoever in calling this one as I see it: bad, bad, bad. No redeeming qualities. My 2c? Find something better to do with your time.
11,118	[ 500, 600 ]	432	544	I decided to watch this movie because I'd not seen Carol Lombard before in any movie. I'm sorry it had to be this one because, quite frankly, this is a dog and even with Jimmy Stewart and Charles Coburn, both of whom were great actors.<br /><br />The problem with the film is simple: it tries to put too much, too quickly, in to a story about a young lawyer (John Manson played by Stewart) who marries Jane (played by Lombard) within an hour of meeting her. What's that cliché? Marry in haste, repent at leisure... <br /><br />In short, the story is a series of episodes that show the couples' worsening financial status, their troubles with John's live-in mother, their struggles to pay the bills, John's diminished status at the office, the arrival of their baby son, John Jnr (unexpected and causing additional friction at home with mother), the couples' angst about their marriage, the baby's sickness which worsens, thus necessitating an heroic flight by a lone pilot (in a fierce storm) to bring a special serum to save the child, and finally John being accepted as a junior partner at the law firm.<br /><br />How many more clichéd situations could the writers include? Maybe Mother dying soon after? There wasn't much comedy; the drama was lacklustre, at best; the dialog was painful to hear. Only the acting of the four main players was adequate.<br /><br />This was the period at the end of the Great Depression with the USA coming out of its long downturn during which many people experienced all of the events portrayed in the movie.<br /><br />So, it made sense for Selznick to reaffirm good ol' home spun American values of family, relationships, heroism, perseverance, and initiative all against the backdrop of the "average" American family. Who better to use than Jimmy Stewart and Carol Lombard? <br /><br />And, it should be noted that the film was released in early 1939; so, it was planned in 1938 soon after the USA began to get production going for the coming World War II. Hence, this sort of film was a great booster for the general public, at that time, many of who would soon have to join England in war. As many here would know, Hollywood and Washington formed an uneasy alliance before, during and after the war.<br /><br />However, I'm glad I saw it as a piece of disguised socio-political propaganda. But, I'll have to see other Lombard films to gain a better appreciation of her acting range.<br /><br />As another reviewer noted: see this one just to say that you've seen all of Stewart's movies; otherwise, don't bother.
11,129	[ 500, 600 ]	424	515	This is another of those films I can remember from when I was a kid and I recently managed to acquire it off ebay - 20 years on, it's nowhere near as good as I remember it being.<br /><br />The story is 'vaguely' kick started, by a 'cosmic event' (there's another extra film-crew member in the credits for 'weak story development') which makes collective ants become super intelligent. Ant species who used to war with each other have ceased rivalries and are now working together. The thing I wanted to know throughout was, TO DO WHAT EXACTLY? You never find out what they want. Nigel Davenport and his sidekick travel out to the desert where bizarre ant activity has been noted, and begin to study the ants from an impregnable igloo shaped laboratory. Probably the most chilling scene in my opinion was when the two scientists visit the giant square in the crops (like a square version of a crop circle) a result of the ants chomping away.<br /><br />This film was not very scary quite simply because you don't know whether to fear the ants or like them. All you know is that the ants want people to leave the area so they can get on with their hijinks - but you don't find out whether they are really baddies. It ain't a sci-fi because the 'cosmic event' explanation is too vague to be properly taken into account. It is deffo more of a chiller. TBH the flares, daft hairstyles, tight shirts with big collars and Nigel Davenports unnaturally big facial hair-do freaked me out more than the ants! Did you notice that there are only six actors listed in the credits? Yup, that right - SIX, and you won't see any other human beings in this film at all. Not even in the distance! This is a plainly obviously low budget film which is a bit watchable because you probably won't have seen one like it. I can't think of any anyway. The filming of the ants is pretty good, they must have done months and months of filming before they had the shots they needed to stick in the film. You may well say to yourself 'how the Hell do they get the ants to do that?' over and over, but it is all quite simple. You will also notice that the film makers sacrificed millions of innocent lickle ants to make the film too, so animal rights peeps STAY AWAY! Good for novelty value, but you may not watch it more than once.
11,196	[ 500, 600 ]	406	532	Tarzan, the environmental awareness leader, faces four trappers who by most unorthodox means abduct animals to get them to Zoos. Tarzan has a bland but sexy enough wife with an impeccable hairdo, and a kid. No one should fault Tarzan for being grieved by the vicious actions of the hunters.<br /><br />This Gordon Scott Tarzan flick is one of the silliest, completely and unnecessarily silly; for one reason or another, the team did not find anything charming to sustain the movie, and so it's just some silly rubbish. Tarzan and his family are threatened by a group of evil trappers ,because Tarzan's environmental awareness brought him into open conflict with the evildoers. The kid and the chimpanzee, both belonging to Tarzan, are kidnapped by the malevolent trappers; so Tarzan summons the unleashed animal forces of the jungle to release the kid and the chimpwith Tarzan leading the attack. TARZAN AND THE TRAPPERS is silly, unappealing, quite uninteresting. Maybe as a kid I would have liked it? Now one has to be too meanas viciously mean as those pathetic trappers punished by Tarzanto ask a Tarzan flick not to be silly; this I concede. But one is also truly entitled to ask these Tarzan flicks, however silly, to have and to show some gustoa bit of gustoeven a tiny bit of gusto. Some kick, some excitement, some fun. Now the Gordon Scott Tarzan failure is too silly exactly in the sense of not having any gusto at all, of lacking all excitement. (Yes, I liked the sequence of the jungle beast eating a snake. What beast? Watch the movie, kiddos, now here I just gave you one excuse to do so.) For one reason or another, the villains look somewhat pathetic and elicit mercy rather than virtuous anger.<br /><br />The books leave the impression that Tarzan seemed quite bright in his own way; and if finding a decent bodybuilder or another sportsman to look clever enough for the role might prove a too demanding, next to impossible task, Gordon Scott was anyway too far from meeting that ideal.<br /><br />The wife chides Tarzan for disliking books.<br /><br />The script suggests Tarzan was uneducated, almost illiterate, and adverse to learning; but the book says otherwise, and we know that Tarzan studied much, by himself, using the books of his gone family, before even meeting white people.<br /><br />And I did not like that yell.<br /><br />(It's supposed, dear kiddos, to be a genuine wild yell, not a missed yodeler.)
11,205	[ 500, 600 ]	415	523	(This review will have some very obvious spoilers, so beware.)<br /><br />A friend brought this over, and we made it through 45 minutes of the movie before we decided that Fast Forward 8x Speed was the only way that this film should be watched. There were points when we were watching the movie at normal speed where I would leave, prepare part of lunch, and return, to find that literally nothing had happened. 2 lines of meaningless dialogue were exchanged. Nothing happened the background, no important facial gestures were made, nothing but mind-numbing awkward silence.<br /><br />This is NOT how to make a thoughtful film, especially when the movie's plot follows all the same basic Hollywood movie tropes. If I told you that Disney was making a film about 4 girls starting a band, and the singer was a French exchange student, what you would expect to be the "conflicts" that arise?<br /><br />The lead singer has to overcome stage fright? Someone has an unspoken crush? The band is late for their performance, and a side-character has to buy them time?<br /><br />SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />All of those things happen in this movie.<br /><br />At no point in this film do you have even the slightest fraction of concern that these girls won't be able to accomplish their goal.<br /><br />THIS ENDS THE SECTION OF SPOILERS<br /><br />I like Japanese films. I've spent a lot of time in Japan. I work for a Japanese company. Heck, I even know all the bands referenced in the record collections and MDs that they're going through, and I've sung along to the title track with friends at karaoke.<br /><br />This is probably the worst film from Japan I've ever seen. Do not be confused. Though the characters will have points in the movie where they do typical Japanese high school things, this is not a "typical day in the life of" movie. This is "a day in the life of 4 extremely random, heavily-conflicted, awkward Japanese students."<br /><br />There are noticeable problems with the DVD, as well. Viz decided that a great extra would be a producer reading aloud the Wikipedia entry about the Blue Hearts. What a value! In addition, they care so little about the subtitling that the band's name in the subtitles, "Paran Maum" is different than it is in the chapter selection menu, "Paran Marum". In the final auditorium scene, there is a VERY visible reflection/ghosting effect on everything, but this seems to be the fault of the original film.<br /><br />2/10, do NOT view if you do not absolutely love awkward silences.
11,218	[ 500, 600 ]	465	559	The thesis of Father Brown is that a good dose of Roman Catholicism will solve all of life's problems. A little proselytizing I don't mind, but this gets a bit ridiculous at times.<br /><br />Some fine actors have played Father Brown over the years, Kenneth More and Barnard Hughes are two good examples. Alec Guinness plays him in this film and does all right by him, but you didn't see any great demand for future Father Brown films.<br /><br />I suppose if you are a committed Roman Catholic it all makes perfectly good sense. It's far more important to catch the thief and convert him to your religion than see he's brought to justice. <br /><br />But that's what were asked to accept here. In fact there is a preliminary story before the main action of the film. Guinness in clerical garb is caught trying to put back stolen articles that one of his parishioners Sidney James had heisted during a robbery.<br /><br />That's the story he gives the local cops and of course this is something that James has confided in him so he can't break the confessional. <br /><br />Now on to bigger game. Master thief Flambeau, played by Peter Finch has stolen a cross that is entrusted to Father Brown and was said to belong to St. Augustine back in the day. But Father Brown is more interested in getting Flambeau to go back to his faith than seeing him brought to justice. So he misleads the cops so he can accomplish his mission.<br /><br />I'm sorry but this whole thing was just too much for me to swallow. Father Brown I'd hate to say it was guilty of obstruction and ought to have been arrested. And he was under no obligation not to reveal anything he knew about Flambeau, the man had not come to him as a penitent seeking absolution and spiritual advice.<br /><br />Author G.K. Chesterton, a very noted Catholic lay person in his day, finds all this very reasonable. Carried to his logical conclusion we should replace all police forces with an army of priests.<br /><br />Guinness borrows from his own Reverend Ascoyne D'Ascoyne from Kind Hearts and Coronets and from Barry Fitzgerald in Going My Way to create Father Brown. Granted though Brown is a lot shrewder than the other two. There's also a bit of Colonel Nicholson in this portrayal. In The Bridge on the River Kwai, Guinness also was playing a character who's rather weird interpretation of the rules caused him to lose sight of what was important in the situation Nicholson was in. <br /><br />Father Brown's an entertaining fellow when he's solving mysteries and making the authorities look foolish. We've enjoyed Brother Cadfael do it in a medieval setting and American audiences liked Father Dowling played by Tom Bosley a few years back. <br /><br />This film should have stuck to being entertaining.
11,226	[ 500, 600 ]	385	509	This is only the fourth effort I’ve watched from this director (whom I met and found quite genial at the 2004 Venice Film Festival Italian B-movie retrospective) and also, possibly, the worst. As was the case with THE BRONX EXECUTIONER (1989), which preceded it, this is a prime example from the tail end of the Euro-Cult era – prime because it shows the depths to which the previously invigorating style had fallen by this time! <br /><br />Here, in fact, we get a plot revolving around – I’m not kidding, folks – a killer phone! Pretty but bland Charlotte Lewis – in her third film after PIRATES (1986) and THE GOLDEN CHILD (1986) – is a model who, apparently, has just ended an affair; she keeps expecting her architect lover to call her back but, every time the phone rings, all she gets is static accompanied by voices from the beyond (or some such crap). She befriends a new tenant at her apartment block who, conveniently, knows of an authority on paranormal activity (William Berger) – who, hilariously, explains that the negative energy which is unleashed, say, during family arguments can manifest itself via home appliances into a deadly force (I swear I ain’t making this up)! <br /><br />Among the highlights...er...lowpoints of the film are: the grumpy bartender from whose dingy place the heroine calls a couple of times (it seems that the chain-of-events can only be broken by having Lewis go through her paces again, EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962)-style!), the sheer variety of preposterous-looking phones on display, the apparatus of the heroine’s photographer friend sneaking up on her before the kill, the sarcastic cop who greets Lewis on reporting the strange occurrences (“And what’s the toaster up to, I wonder?”), the would-be rapist killed by a barrage of coins shooting out from a telephone booth, and Berger’s own bloody demise (with the phone affecting the pacemaker he’s fitted with and causing the doctor’s heart to explode)! <br /><br />The film’s climax is rather confusing and, apparently, finally sees all the ‘lost souls’ inhabiting a flock of doves and flying out the window of the ‘possessed’ office (a lonelyhearts service!). For what it’s worth, the score – by ex-Goblin Claudio Simonetti no less – is effective enough, despite the inclusion of dated heavy-metal numbers on the soundtrack.
11,303	[ 500, 600 ]	405	541	"You can survive anything". Anything except a dumb horror flick. The director couldn't even decide whether he wanted a demon or just a plain ol' backwoods serial killer. You can't have both. It's like Michael Moore trying to have his cake and eat it too (or in his case 1500 cakes) by making his particular charlatan brand of "docu-comedies": they're supposed to be oh-so hilarious and zany, and yet you're also meant to treat them as truth-based, earth-shattering, hard-hitting documentaries. Some genres cannot be mixed.<br /><br />"Anything can happen to anyone, any time, any place." (Translation: this is the horror genre, so we can do any kind of nonsense we want.) This sounds not so much like something "wise" found on a paper of a Chinese fortune cookie, but more like the credo of every bad horror film director. We get this baloney of a statement served to us early on, sort of as a preparation/justification of the absurd buffoonery to come.<br /><br />"My phone isn't working!" Well, of course it isn't. There is a far greater chance that Sean Penn's brain starts working (after decades of catatonic apathy) than that a horror-film cell-phone does. The single most dreary and predictable horror cliché of the past decade. Why even say it? We KNOW help will never come via a phone-call, so ye horror-making dimwits might as well just not even mention it. The last 50 horror films I saw use this plot device. It's becoming embarrassing.<br /><br />"You always have to expect the unexpected." The final twist was rather surprising, I'll give them that much... However, plenty of nonsense on the way there.<br /><br />Check out the elaborate traps the heroine sets up with the speed of a drugged-up lab rat - in the cold, wet, and almost totally dark conditions. I just love horror-film realism...<br /><br />When a blood-thirsty demon starts trying to be funny (by "shshshing" his victims) then you know your horror-viewing pleasure is in doubt. The less said about the old geezer "cracking wise", the better... Another stupid cliché served by a tired, lazy, uninspired director.<br /><br />What are the odds of being attacked by your husband and then by an eye-hating demon - on the same day? "Expect the unexpected". They might as well have squeezed in an event in which she survives a plane crash, and then another in which she encounters aliens who tried to anal-probe her...<br /><br />The fast-forward button needs a temple or a shrine built in its image.
11,309	[ 500, 600 ]	401	513	This is so bad I don't know where to begin.<br /><br />The lead role is a good starting point. It is a supreme Mary Sue character that has few things in common with the original one from the book, who was (a bit) more credible. No, this one is invincible, infallible, indomitable, and insipid even beyond the overinflated standards that this "chicks with swords" era that our medias are spinning out of late. She is a twenty-something top-model, thin as a match yet rich, already a leader in her academic field, a kung-fu master, a natural sniper and seems to have enough authority to naturally trump anyone official like puny FBI agents. She is God.<br /><br />To balance it out, she is supposed to be socially awkward (due to her typically harsh upbringing that transformed her into a "Spock") which gives us some delighted moments where she wonders what is "Star Wars", or "American Idol", but yet when it's really important she can conveniently reveal herself as a top negotiator and diplomat, because she is so superior, ya know. To top it out, she is played by a wooden actress.<br /><br />The more talented Boreanaz serves as a faire-valoir token for this construct, acting as a bumbling comic-relief and house "Watson". In fact, everything in there is a pop-parody of better works like Sherlock Holmes, CSI and X-Files, from which it tries to emulate the sexual tension between main protagonists. It is however cheaper, as this is delivered with all the subtlety of an elbow poke in the ribs, but a million million poor factory girls will doubtlessly buy into it, hence the crazy rating this turkey gets.<br /><br />In fact, the lowest common denominator goes a long way in this sad puppy, resulting in titillating sex details from the legion of sidekicks that aim to pass it out as daring and trendy, while the overall tone of the show carries an obvious neo-conservative view on things.<br /><br />Story-wise, there's not much here to feast upon, as crimes (that always start out with some gruesome remains) are resolved using non-existent technology while the "squints", lovable but so wrong (the women less than the guys) goes on varied theories, all of them futile as the main character has it all from the start, and once it is established she goes out and then punch the guy, typically a real tough hombre, with a spin kick here and a slapper there. The end.
11,312	[ 500, 600 ]	394	545	Ladies and Gentlemen.. Be sad (or be glad !).. We are in the disgusting forensic T.V Series-ERA !! Now count with me and anathematize our Luck :<br /><br />"CSI: Crime Scene Investigation", "CSI: Miami", "CSI: NY", "NCIS", "Crossing Jordan", "Da Vinci's Inquest", EVEN "The Cosby Mysteries" !..Didn't we Already Have ENOUGH ?!<br /><br />From the late 1990 till the late 2000s we've got almost the same sick series about the genius criminologist with a partner (or a team) who go to solve crimes by scrutiny the autopsy ..and what a nauseating mission to do. So you will have for sure lots and lots of repellent scenes where we see clearly, accurately and awfully the most horrific shots in the history of T.V.<br /><br />OH GOD.. Once we had the great days; the good cop (or detective)ERA such as Columbo, Kojak, Magnum, and Simon & Simon. Or the good old Sci-Fi ERA, like The Six Million Dollar Man, The Bionic Woman, Knight Rider. And oh boy we've got also the hot & sexy such :cover up, The Love Boat, Baywatch, even a flop as Thunder in Paradise.<br /><br />All of those were unforgettable, original, had good..real good thoughts, action, women ..Till THE X FILES came.. And then it was the beginning of the misfortune or to be exact : The Catastrophe!<br /><br />X Files Undoubtedly was one of the greatest, but there was a few slight disadvantages, we had have agent Dana Scully (medical doctor and FBI agent) at every episode doing an autopsy ..,and of course her lap (as the series succeed) became part of our living room, so the thirsty-for-money producers loved it with all the physical terror + the exciting hunt for the truth.. Therefore they tried to repeat it in another not too far classification : The Forensic !<br /><br />But it became so ugly, full of deformation, and very cruddy just like BONES. Plus the unsexy present of Emily Deschanel, and bleeder as David Boreanaz (he was much better in angel), and all of these corpses .. To the extent that every time i've watched it I found my self screaming AAAAHHHHHH !! What a terrible gross !!..<br /><br />Cancel it please.. You've canceled before real good shows such as (The Lone Gunmen) or (A Man Called Hawk). Here it's a bad one.. So please.. Little Mercy and enough with the Bones-ERA !!!.. or we'll drop dead ourselves of Nausea and Monotony !!
11,366	[ 500, 600 ]	458	555	Ty Cobb is, by far, the most interesting and belligerently insane athlete to ever live. His baseball career was unparalleled in absurd statistics, brilliant strategy, and pure unadulterated violence. Every game he played in was a spectacle in human ability and cruelty. So of course, the film about him deals with none of that, instead focusing on the writing of his biography by author Al Stump. Now this isn't such a horrible idea in theory, as Cobb himself slid even further into paranoid dementia as years progressed and the stories of his crazed outbursts even as a senior are shocking even by today's desensitized standards. But instead of focusing on these events, which I guess was simply too interesting, the film is a pseudo fictionalized road film with clichéd a clichéd plot that will cause any knowledgeable Cobb fan to cry vinegar tears. <br /><br />Tommy Lee Jones does quite well as a crotchety Cobb, but somehow manages to overplay his cartoon supervillainy. Most stories about Cobb are barely believable, but to make him even crazier seems both impossible and unnecessary. Robert Wuhl, portraying the writer Al Stump, is a dark vortex of nonexistent talent. He sucks the life out of every scene, trying to make this film his own Nagasaki. There is a reason we never see him as a leading man anymore (Arliss doesn't count. It's barely a show). Even the played out, inevitable "role reversal" of Cobb and Stump by the end is made even worse by his pure inability to utter words that don't sound like a poor book on tape narration voice. <br /><br />For all the awful writing and bland film-making on display, there is one sequence which stands out as so far superior to the rest of this failure that accepting it's from the same film is near impossible. A hyper stylized flashback sequence displaying Cobb's overpowering psychology and brutal athleticism while actually playing the game of baseball is pure brilliance. The camera moves in bizarre fashion and the whole event seems like a dream due to the unique playing style of the monster Cobb. Every slide, hit, and tackle are rendered even more forceful due to enhanced sound, and Tommy Lee Jones OWNS the intensity of the master player. It makes the viewer drool over the possibilities of a true biopic of Cobb in his prime with the same actor. It's worth watching the film for this incredible few minutes alone, just to see what could have been. <br /><br />I may be slightly unfair to this film due to my own knowledge of Ty Cobb and wanting it to be something it isn't, but to make such boring, neutered movie about this maniac is nonsensical. I'm glad Ron Shelton's career has slid ever since.
11,394	[ 500, 600 ]	384	524	When I saw this movie three years ago, I thought it exemplified a lot of the traits found in Singapore art-house movies: slow-moving, with a minimal of plot and dialogue, depending on film composition to make it work.<br /><br />During then, amongst local cineastes, the inability to appreciate "Be With Me" is tantamount to panning "Citizen Kane" or any of Ozu's late films. I've no idea how "Be With Me" reached such hallowed heights in Singapore's cinematic consciousness, but I always felt that Khoo's "12 Storeys" is a better film, even though the latter film does not boast as good a cinematographer as Adrian Tan, Khoo's DP for "Be With Me". "12 Storeys" has a story that better relates to most Singaporeans and has bite too, something that "Be With Me"'s threadbare wistfulness doesn't have.<br /><br />"Be With Me" is basically a barely interlinked trio of narratives strung together into a film by Khoo and his screenwriter Wong Kim Hoh. It deals with a security guard who falls in love with a girl whom he only sees in the distance; two girls in a horoerotic relationship; and the story of deaf-and-blind Teresa Chan.<br /><br />"Be With Me" is very well filmed by Tan, using a Varicam camera. The film compositions are masterful. The film, almost entirely silent, has next to no dialogue. Characters move around, not in a realistic manner, but almost as if they are models under the instruction of a director, almost always looking into the screen and emoting: either loneliness or sadness. Unfortunately the characters don't act against each other. This kind of film has been seen before many times: in Tsai Ming-liang's films, in Khoo's protégé Royston Tan's "4:30" and elsewhere. Sadly, its ultra-slowness (essentially plot less) and use of a lento piano soundtrack simply doesn't appeal to me.<br /><br />To criticize "Be With Me" seems almost to negate the inspirational story behind it, that of Teresa Chan, who is blind and deaf and yet lives a fulfilling life despite all this, yet I'm afraid this film doesn't do anything much to me. I'm willing to applaud Chan's steadfast and courageous march in life and Tan's striking cinematography, but for a better take on the same subject-matter with more meat (without the two other tedious and distracting subplots), try Werner Herzog's "Land of Silence and Darkness" (1971).
11,496	[ 500, 600 ]	436	531	The key scene in Rodrigo Garcia's "Nine Lives" comes when Sissy Spacek, hidden away in a hotel room where she is carrying on an affair with Aiden Quinn, find a nature documentary on television, at which point Quinn notes the contrivance of such things--disparate footage is edited into one scene, predators and preys are thrown together in order to capture the moment--all to force connections where none actually exist. Characters in the nine shorts that make up this film occasionally spill over into each others stories, but none of them ever seem to really connect. A woman preparing for a violent confrontation with her abusive father is later seen working in a hospital room where another woman is preparing for a mastectomy. A man who runs into an old girlfriend in a supermarket and sees how his life should have been later hosts, with his current wife, a dinner party for an unhappy couple. Garcia arranges some of his characters in front of each other, but none of the subsequent stories ever really build on what came before.<br /><br />Garcia's first film, the wonderful, overlooked "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her," also had a short-story structure and overlapping characters, but there were fewer of them and they had a lot more room to breathe and grow. The gimmicky premise of "Nine Lives," that each of its nine stories is told in a single, unbroken take in real time, never allows the film to build up any real dramatic tension or momentum. It's also a fairly visually ugly movie. Interior shots are often murky and hard to watch, while other scenes--particularly one where a girl walks back and forth between rooms to talk to her uncommunicative parents--are rendered annoying by the camera-work. Given that this is Garcia's third film and that he has a respectable history of directing for television, the direction in this film is rather surprisingly amateurish. Like fellow filmmaker-child-of-a-great-writer Rebecca Miller, Garcia (son of Gabriel Garcia Marquez) is focused on the writing and character aspects of his films often to the detriment of the film-making ones.<br /><br />Individual scenes are touching and even affecting. I did like Jason Issacs kissing Robin Wright Penn's pregnant belly. And Joe Mantegna whispering lovingly to his wife as she slips into pre-surgery sedation. And Sissy Spacek stealing a few happy moments away from her life with Aiden Quinn before brought back to it with a phone call from her daughter. But the film (unlike "Things You Can Tell Just By Looking At Her") feels more like an exercise than actual drama. We are just watching people act.
11,507	[ 500, 600 ]	427	510	From 2002 on Dutch cinema finally got better again. This movie is still part- and a schoolbook example of the bad period of Dutch cinema.<br /><br />The story is needlessly told in flashback style. All of the 'present' sequences set in France are completely redundant and add nothing to the story, emotions or power. For some reason European filmmakers often find it necessary to tell the story not chronological. I never understood why, or what the appeal of it is.<br /><br />The story self also isn't exactly the greatest. It isn't always clear were the movie is trying to go to and what it tries to tell. The story of a young unexperienced boy falling in love with a wild young girl, who later turns out to be quite psychotic might sound good enough on paper and even shows some parallels to Paul Verhoeven's "Turks fruit", to which this movie often was compared to before and at the time of its release. However the end result is far from comparable. The story fails to capture the right emotions, which is also due to the unimaginative performances from the actors. The way the story is told also makes the movie far from always interesting or compelling. I lost interest for this movie at about 40 minutes through the movie.<br /><br />At the time this movie was made, both Antonie Kamerling and Angela Schijf were promising rising stars, with great potential and ambitions but both their careers have pretty much dried up by now. Angela Schijf seems to give her family more attention than her career (that is not a bad thing of course), while Antonie Kamerling tried to start a career in Hollywood. He never got any further than playing some small bit parts in 2 Renny Harlin flops. To be honest I'm not surprised. It's not that he is a bad actor and he certainly has got the right looks but his English just isn't good enough, to put it mildly. Just listen to him speaking English in the beginning of this movie and you'll understand what I mean. They are really not bad actors but for some reason it doesn't show in this movie. It's probably also due to the poor dialog. I still kind of liked Beau van Erven Dorens. He's been criticized a lot but his acting seems very natural. He always keeps the characters close to who he self is.<br /><br />It by no means is one of the worst movies ever made but it's not exactly one I would recommend either. Bad and uninteresting storytelling makes this a bad movie.<br /><br />4/10
11,541	[ 500, 600 ]	451	550	Mickey Rourke ( who was once a famous movie star ) plays Martin Fallon an IRA terrorist who accidentally blows up a school bus full of children who is so disgusted by his actions decides to leave the IRA and goes on the run in London <br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The movie's opening is rather disturbing as the lives of little children are ended in a fireball . Things like this happened throughout the 1970s and 1980s and into the 1990s in Northern Ireland which gives A PRAYER FOR THE DYING a stark realism . However as soon as Fallon decides he's going to give up violence ( What ? He's a terrorist and he's never blown up innocent passerbys before ? ) realism disappears and clichés and ridiculous plot twists take place . Martin is employed by the London underworld ( Don't they have their own hit men ? )to commit a hit while he wears an IRA " uniform " ( Never knew the provos wore uniforms ) at a cemetery in broad daylight ( Wouldn't an IRA man use a bomb placed under a car ? ) where he's spotted by a priest who recognises him while he was in the SAS . Hands up who thinks I'm lying ? I'm not and we're half way through the running time and there's still several clichés to come <br /><br />This all sounds very silly and it is but what do you expect from a novel by Jack Higgins ? Everything is clichéd , contrived and stereotypical and the bits that aren't are just plain bizarre . The critics slaughtered this movie when it came out , most notably they stated that it might have some potential if the movie had Bob Hoskins playing gangster Jack Meehan and Alan Bates playing the SAS soldier turned priest and for once the critics would have been right . They should also noted the film might have been less dire if Fallon was played by someone who was capable of doing an Irish accent . Rourke might be hunky and macho ( Oh gawd another movie with an IRA uberhunk ) but accents aren't his strong point any more than character acting is . To give you an idea how disappointing PRAYER FOR THE DYING IS the director ended up disowning it which is always a bad sign <br /><br />As a footnote the original release of PRAYER FOR THE DYING in Britain was delayed for several months because of " The Enniskillen bombing " . In November 1987 the Provisional IRA exploded a bomb in the centre of Enniskillen where a Remembrance Day parade which commemorates Britain's war dead was being held . Eleven ( 11 ) people were killed and scores more injured . It wasn't an accident and no one left the IRA because of it
11,553	[ 500, 600 ]	401	507	After an intriguing start, this little drama quickly descends into the ranks of sheer mediocrity. The start of the movie sees two women (Heather Graham and Natasha Gregson Wagner) meet each other while waiting for their boyfriends to get home from their holidays. Natasha Gregson Wagner is a lovely looking actress, and she plays Louise; a cute girl whose beloved boyfriend is an all round entertainer; music, movies you name it, he does it. While she's telling the other girl, Carla (Heather Graham) all about her wonderful boyfriend, it soon becomes apparent that the similarities between their two male friends are too much.... and it's obvious that the two girls are dating the same guy. Oh Dear. Enter Robert Downey Jnr, the sleaze-bag that has two girlfriends while some poor guy somewhere has to go without one. Downey plays the sort of guy that the ladies like, but men find repulsively annoying; he is, basically, a mummy's boy. The worst kind too; on the phone ringing mother all the time, continually showering his girlfriends with ambitious (albeit empty) promises etc. It's enough to make a normal guy sick.<br /><br />The film knowingly rips off superior three-way love triangle films such as Jules et Jim. This film doesn't work though; mostly due to the fact that it's story is so unbelievable. Seriously, if two women had just found that they were dating the same guy...they wouldn't stick around to talk about it. Another reason why it falls down is that it's just so turgid. There's no end of possibilities for the outcome of the situation that this movie presents, especially with the claustrophobia of setting it all in a small apartment; but all the movie does is get lost in masses of dialogue; badly written and poorly delivered dialogue, that is. The film is also massively overacted; it just isn't believable that people would act like they do in this film after finding themselves in this situation. Robert Downey Jnr is one of the many things that is wasted in the film. With Natural Born Killers, he proved that he could give brilliantly entertaining performances, and that is something that this movie could do with. The two females aren't wasted because nobody expected anything from them anyway, but Downey could definitely have been better utilised. Overall? A waste of time. Don't bother, see Jules et Jim or Natural Born Killers instead. That's my advice.
11,583	[ 500, 600 ]	406	523	When moviegoers hear two popular villains/characters will be fighting, they flock to the theaters to see how the battle will end. There's Freddy vs. Jason, in which two very popular horror icons try to kill each other. And, more similarly to this, there's Godzilla vs. (Insert Name Here). But the very generic Komodo vs. Python is just a horrible title, and an even worse premise. Obviously, the movie's a D-list picture, but, at least come up with a more compelling name, maybe something that can trick the unsuspecting viewer into watching it. With a name like this, you know what you're getting in to.<br /><br />A group of military men/women, including a 20-something year old sexy scientist woman are left for dead by the military on an island inhabited by a giant komodo dragon. As long as they can make it off the island and to the boat, they'll be fine, but...no...there's a giant python guarding the ocean and the way off. Let's hope all these guys can make it off the island, and that the python and komodo don't verse each other in some sort of horrible special effect battle.<br /><br />Really, this movie is bad in almost every way. The acting is pretty bad, or maybe it's that the special effects are so cheesy, that the acting is unbelievable because no one believes that these people are in any danger with creatures that look like they were made on an early 90s computer. Nonetheless, this movie is actually pretty funny. The creatures are so clunky looking, and the actors really give it their all pretending like they're in danger.<br /><br />I'd like to say that this movie is a steaming pile of shsquawk!...but I can't. This PG-13 rated film actually bleeps itself out. Every time a curse word comes, a parrot noise beeps out the word. Even words that can be said on network television. How squawking cheap that they bleep out words, and with a parrot no less. Eventually these parrot noises got to me and I couldn't help but laugh at the incompetence.<br /><br />This movie is bad, from the silly beginning to the ridiculous Night of the Living Dead style ending, but it's also kind of funny. As a horror movie it fails miserably, as an action movie, it fails slightly less, but still pretty bad, and as a comedy it shines.<br /><br />My rating: * out of ****. 95 mins. PG-13 for some violence and Squawked out cursing.
11,622	[ 500, 600 ]	371	513	One of the problems with popular culture, especially when discussing the popular culture of the 1970s, is that mass media - especially television - is usually about four years behind 'underground' media, primarily music. Many people think the 'Woodstock Generation" remained important throughout the 1970s; actually, it was all over at Altamont in 1970. By 1972, 'underground' rock or the 'counterculture' had moved east to England and Led Zepplin, Black sabbath, and David Bowie, early metal-heads and the so-called 'glam-rockers,' who were all 'peace and love' - not. Neither, in a darkly different vein, was Charles Manson's 'family.' <br /><br />This obvious pilot for a television show (that, thankfully, was never picked up by the networks) is attempting to come to terms with a culture that was already as withered as yesterday's flowers. The script must have been lying around a few years - by the time it was produced, writer Carlino had already achieved recognition for tough Mafia revenge tales. And the cultural references are all to "Easy Rider" and Woodstock (1969). The music referenced on the soundtrack is actually earlier, 1966/67 - at Woodstock Hendrix, Canned Heat, and Sly and the Family Stone had blasted this kind of folk-pop into oblivion.<br /><br />The movie is about a middle-class family that goes on the road in order to meet hippies. Wow, man, farout, outasight, it's a groovy mind-blowing happening of a bag. However, politics count for nothing - Vietnam? some place in Asia, right? <br /><br />This average (meaning stale and vacuous) TV movie is only redeemed by Jeff Bridges' surprisingly mature performance as the young college drop-out who convinces his parents and grandma to 'discover' (hippie) America. All the rest of the performances are standard TV fair by standard TV actors of the time. The director avails himself of some nice location cinematography, but otherwise the film is a poor way to spend 90 minutes.<br /><br />I knew it was all over when Sal Mineo remarks of a young runaway (who tells the other characters they are not really there): "She's a latent existentialist." Wow, far out, groovy. <br /><br />A couple extra points for being 'so bad it's funny,' but if you don't care about the '70's TV version of the '60's, stay away.
11,625	[ 500, 600 ]	359	506	Just awful. It's almost unbelievable that, with characters and situations provided by Dashiell Hammett, such a plodding, passionless mishmash could result. But that's television for you -- filler between commercials. The first warning signal sounds from the fussiness of the period re-creation, which screams "1928" in banner type. Flivvers and touring cars, fedoras and waistcoats, cloches and speakeasy jazz (jarringly played) -- with all the attention paid to pointless, arty detail, the important matters get ignored.<br /><br />Like narrative clarity, or plausibility, or competent writing and acting. The plot sets one of Hammett's operatives ("Hamilton Nash" so whether he's called "Ham" or "Nash" we think of "Hammett" or "Dash") investigating a bogus diamond theft. Thus is introduced the young woman who supposedly carries the Dain Curse (the charmless and talentless Nancy Addison, who went back to soaps where she belonged); she belongs to a crackpot religious cult led by Jean Simmons and seems addicted to "drugs" as well; there's also a Mysterious Gaseous Drug which seeps into rooms....<br /><br />But enough. The writing is never more pedestrian than when it reaches for the poetic or high-flown, and the cast parrots it the only way they know how: by grotesquely overacting. Simmons gets treated like minor royalty from Old Hollywood, but the grande-dame treatment doesn't wash. Hector Elizondo for some reason enjoys second billing (after Coburn) for a dispensable part. Other familiar faces drift through, doing little good for their resumes.<br /><br />The actors aren't even photographed to look good; Jason Miller is an especial fright, but extreme close-ups of Coburn are pitiless, too. Coburn probably copped this role because, with mustache, he bears a strong resemblance to Hammett. He needed more guidance than that; nobody has given him the vaguest hint as to how to play his character, or of the story's tone, or of how the different strands of the plot mesh together (they don't, at least not in this telling). So he flashes his big Chesire-cat grin whether called for or not.<br /><br />The Dain Curse is available on videotape, in a variety of lengths. For those foolhardy enough to "see for themselves," the shortest abridgement is the kindest cut of all.
11,634	[ 500, 600 ]	427	520	The only reason any of the hundred or so users watched this movie was because they belong to the crew, were friends to the crew, or were obsessive fans of either Lance Henriksen or Lorenzo Lamas. I personally follow the "cult of Lance", so I was disappointed to see that despite being the headliner, it's in name only. Playing rich criminal Newcastle, Lance is a joy to watch but all of his screen time is relegated to the beginning of the movie. Newcastle sets up a 747 heist which includes Ketchum (Lamas) and a bunch of forgettable characters. The biggest shock to this viewer was that the pre-heist scenes were not all that bad. With the exception of somewhat obnoxious and rather confused looking Aviva Gale, who times every line with the finesse of a grade school play actress, acting was decent all around, and none of the lines really made me cringe.<br /><br />But once the heist occurs, the movie falls asleep. Not only is their plan the most ridiculous thing ever captured on film, but it's dragged out for far too long. This isn't a very deep movie, and you have to fill out your 90 minutes, but these scenes are so boring I nearly nodded off at two in the afternoon. One particular sequence in which we watch each and every one of the characters perform the same task over and over again is especially difficult to get through. The movie's name is "Rapid Exchange", but the exchange is far from rapid - it's overlong and bloated to extremes. Perhaps it would have worked if any of the characters had real personalities, but come on, there's only so much you can ask out of a straight-to-video movie airing of Showtime Extreme.<br /><br />Thankfully, there are several laughs, intentional and unintentional (Lorenzo Lamas is seemingly a master of disguise, which makes for a couple of incredibly bizarre scenarios), and Lance returns in the film's end, albeit for a brief period of time. It's a bad movie, and I probably didn't have to tell you that myself, but it's far from the worst thing I've ever seen. I wouldn't put it too high on the list of Henriksen films, since he's been in some real gems with greater screen time, and either way the movie loses a lot of steam once the heist begins, but the best thing I can say for Rapid Exchange is that the last two films I watched before it were the mainstream Hostage and the overrated, pretentious Crash - and this was better than both.
11,635	[ 500, 600 ]	458	523	I found this to be a watchable all be it very predictable movie. There was some good stunt work that gave a fair degree of excitement and suspense to the story. One did however have to suspend ones credulity on a number of occasions for the plot to work. For example despite losing their transfer cable, couplings and harness when the pilot retracted the undercarriage manually, they fortunately found a spare on-board the aircraft complete with Caribbeans. According to the plot drilling a hole in the ceiling of the vault would disable the alarm system in the vault when the system was reactivated (I can't think why), according to Daltry there battery operated drill would be unable to drill through the vault ceiling however they just happened to have a hydraulic drill complete with hoses and fittings to fit the equally convenient take off points in the planes hydraulic system located above the vault. As the plane has a closed hydraulic system it is hard to see how this could be accomplished without affecting the control systems or at least setting hydraulic pressure alarms in the cockpit. Accepting this for the sake of the plot it takes them several minutes to drill a small hole through the top of the vault (tension will they be able to drill through before FED's get there to check the false alarm), yet from the time the vault door closed and before the FED's had walked the few feet to the second security door they had cut a squire hole in the roof of the vault big enough for them to get through. One can accept all theses and other inconsistencies for the sake of a good yarn, however what spoiled the movie for me was when what appears to have been an effort by the script writers to discuses what up to that point was a fairly predictable ending, they killed off the two hero's (If one can refer to crocks as hero's) Ketchum & Brooks one was shot and thrown out of a 747 at 10,000 feet the other wiliest sliding down the cable between the two planes the villain Daltry with one hand manages to unhook the cable carrying the weight of a full grown man with the air pressure of several hundred miles per hour pressing on him, and letting him fall to his death. And yet in the next sequence these two without any kind of explanation (however tenuous or implausible) have miraculously survived the full from 10.000 feet and had time to set up an elaborate scam to get the money. The only comment on there survival was to Sophie that her brother is a bad shot. Don't expect an Oscar nomination for this one.
11,642	[ 500, 600 ]	406	503	I knew it was going to be awful but not this awful!!, as it's one of the most boring movies i have ever seen, not a damn thing happens!. All the characters are dull, and the story is stupid and incredibly boring!,plus The ending is especially lame!. The only reason i rented this piece of crap because i am a big fan of Michael Dudikoff, however he is wasted here, and looks extremely bored and shows no emotion what so ever!, plus i cheered out loud when the movie was over!. It's like the movie had no plot and it was all about nothing, and Ice-T is god awful(even though he is OK in some stuff), plus Dudikoff and Yvette Nipar had no chemistry together at all. There's one scene that the director tried to make emotional but he fails miserably as Yvette Nipar didn't really show all that much emotion, however there is a decent Car chase scene, but that's not enough for me to recommend this god awful film!, plus the dialog is atrocious. Avoid this movie like the plague not a damn thing happens, please avoid and trust me on this one you may thank me afterwords. The Direction is horrible!. Fred Olen Ray does a horrible job here, with shoddy camera work, laughably cheap looking set pieces, terrible angles, laughable use of stock footage, and keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is terrible!. Michael Dudikoff is nowhere near his usual amazing self, he looks extremely bored, and shows no emotion what so ever, his character is also extremely dull, as i can't believe he signed on for this piece of garbage, he also had no chemistry with Yvette Nipar(Dudikoff still rules!!!). Ice-T has barely anything to do and also looks bored, and he didn't convince me one bit. Hannes Jaenicke is not very good here, he had somewhat of a wimpy character, i didn't like him. Yvette Nipar is pretty but was really terrible here, she didn't show much emotion, and had no chemistry with Dudikoff, and as a result i didn't give a damn about her character!. Art Hindle,(Owen Marsh),Kathy Harren(Katharine Marsh), and the rest of the cast are bad as well. Overall Please avoid like the plague!, Fred Olen Ray and Steve Lathshaw should be ashamed of themselves!. BOMB out of 5
11,677	[ 500, 600 ]	462	541	OK, first of all, who in their right mind would remake Hitchcock and second, who would do it shot for shot? I admit I had no intention of ever watching this movie for that very reason. The original Psycho is one of my favorite films ever and this just seemed like a degrading photocopy of it. I did watch it because my girlfriend wanted to compare it to the original and we both agreed less than five minutes into this crap that it was awful. First, as mentioned, they did it shot for shot. Where's originality? Why remake a movie that is almost perfect EXACTLY the way it was done the first time? Why remake such a movie to begin with? If you ARE going to remake something, remake something that doesn't work and make it BETTER!<br /><br />Second, they used the exact same script from the 1960 version. The dialog no longer works. It works fine and sounds perfect for the 1960 version, but seems odd and stilted coming out of modern actors. Why not update the dialog? Hitch didn't write the script, you could have rewritten. <br /><br />This film had some very good talent and they were wasted by imitation of the original actors. The actor who played the car salesman seemed like he was just playing John Anderson's performance as the car salesman in the original. All the actors seemed like the only direction they were given was be the characters from the original movie. Vince Vaughn may have seemed a little creepier than Anthony Perkins, but in doing so, you loose the sympathy you are supposed to have for Norman. Having Norman masturbate while watching Marion undress was going too far and lost the innocence of the character that I think Tony Perkins captured so well in his performance. Viggo Mortensen's accent was annoying and Rita Wilson was far too old to play Caroline. Her lines came off as someone desperate rather than just young and fun like Patricia Hitchcock's performance. <br /><br />The only good thing I saw about the film was that Gus Van Sant was able to open the movie with the shot Hitch had envisioned. Hitch wanted to open with 1 long shot going over Phoenix but couldn't at the time so he had to settle for a series of shots cross-dissolved together. This film fulfilled that vision with a helicopter shot going into the window of the hotel. After that, though the film became a worthless waste of celluloid. <br /><br />If you are curious about how to destroy a wonderful film, watch this, but do NOT under any circumstances watch this BEFORE you watch the original. This is a faded photocopy of the original and should never have been green-lit. Stick to the master's film, not the imitation.
11,770	[ 500, 600 ]	430	538	Based on the comments made so far, everyone seems to either hate this movie or love it. I think it would be fair to point out that although this is not a GREAT movie, it has its interesting moments. For one thing, it was filmed on location in Colorado (was it Breckinridge or Telluride? I can't remember, but it is in the credits). The location is absolutely stunning and spectacular. It's beautiful, even to me who lived in Colorado for several years.<br /><br />Next, it has Disney's penchant for wonderful character actors. Harry Morgan has never been in better form than when he plays in a Disney movie. He is literally hysterical. Also, remember the wonderful Mary Wickes? Although she has a "bit part" in this movie, she is great, as always. If you don't know who she is, think of the animated Disney version of Hunchback from Notre Dame (she was one of the gargoyles), and she was also the most interesting nun in "Sister Act", as well as the best nun in "The Trouble With Angels." She has always been a great character actress and most character actors never receive the recognition they deserve.<br /><br />In addition to character actors and all-star casts, in the 1960s-1970s Disney may have not had the "greatest" movies, but, if you really watch some of them from beginning to end, you will NOTICE that every movie has some really funny or hysterical moment in it. The entire movie may not be funny, but there is always a comic gem (at least 1 or 2) in every single "live-action" movie Disney ever made. Whether it's Harry Morgan in one of his bellowing tones of voice, or Tim Conway floundering around, or Joe Flynn giving one of his priceless looks of horror, it is all good. The whole film may not be good, but there are ALWAYS hysterical moments in every Disney film from this period that I have ever seen. Disney in this time period always managed to make a person smile, despite the dumbness of the film.<br /><br />Bsed on these comments, I disagree with viewers who say every Disney movie in this time period is awful. That statement it not quite accurate. Rather, it is easier for me to give credit to the funny moments and overlook the weaknesses in the plots.<br /><br />Some live-action Disney movies are true classics (Old Yeller, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Mary Poppins), but for those that aren't, I am able to appreciate them for what they were -- good clean family fun in a time when movies had become vulgar, crude and offensive.
11,797	[ 500, 600 ]	433	571	In terms of historical accuracy, this is the absolute worst Roman film I have ever seen. The list not only of errors but of plot ideas that are flat impossible would run longer than the three-hour film, but just to give you an idea...<br /><br />Julius Caesar and Augustus are presented as liberal Democrats, taking the side of "the people" against "the nobles." This is patently absurd. The Caesars were as noble as you could get. Their interest was in consolidating power and stabilizing a country that had been wrecked by 150 years of civil war. There had been reformers, notably the Gracchi brothers, who lived about 100 years earlier, and to some extent advocated for the rights of ordinary citizens.<br /><br />There are several scenes that are utterly ridiculous, if you know anything about the period. "Cleopatra", with Richard Burton, will give you a much better idea of how events unfolded, fanciful though it is.<br /><br />Historical accuracy is one thing. Acting and dialogue are something else, and here this film veers perilously close to being a bad junior high school production. I burst out laughing several times, especially when Julia, the daughter of Augustus, meets a lover. They clutch passionately, as she breathes: "My father..." "Ah, your father, your father.... your father would disapprove." Peter O'Toole is at his worst, forced to gnaw his way through some very pompous and silly lines. The actor who plays Augustus as a young man is such a nebbish --- and the character is written as such --- it's impossible to envision him as the cunning, crafty, Machiavellian politician who created the Roman Empire. Here, he's just a whiner who has to be told what to do most of the time.<br /><br />Charlotte Rampling does manage to emerge from an underwritten role as Livia, Augustus's wife, with dignity. Had she been given a fuller role to play, she might have rescued this production from absurdity.<br /><br />There is some nice photography and battle footage, helped by plenty of standard issue CGI. Oddly, this was made for British TV (and appears to be a British-Italian co-production) but is labeled with an "R" rating.<br /><br />The DVD picture is excellent and the Dolby Digital soundtrack is very nice, although you only notice it during the few action sequences, as the movie is mostly talk.<br /><br />Almost any Roman movie, even "Cleopatra" or "The Fall of the Roman Empire", has more historicity --- to say nothing of compelling drama --- than this bizarre Classics Illustrated, Jr. adaptation. This one gives new meaning to the much-abused phrase, "Based on a true story." In this case they could have said, "Suggested by real events."
11,824	[ 500, 600 ]	426	563	The only reason there is a question mark in parenthesis is NOT because I haven't seen every film released in 2001 thus far. It's because this film was only made PARTLY in 2001. The rest of it was stolen from Roger Corman's OTHER dinosaur films, Carnosaur 1-3.<br /><br />I have a confession to make. "Carnosaur 2" is perhaps one of my favorite B-movies. It borrows so much from James Cameron's "Aliens" it's not even funny. But I love it. I can't explain exactly why. It just WORKS for me. I liked the sets, I liked the cinematography, I liked how they borrowed from "Aliens". It's all a bit ironic that Cameron at one point was an understudy of Corman's, with films like "Battle Beyond the Stars" (1980).<br /><br />I own the Carnosaur trilogy on DVD, and the most I can say for part one is that it has moments. The most I can say for the third is that it took me five years to find it watchable.<br /><br />Now we have "Raptor," which does NOT continue that series. Instead, it borrows ENTIRE scenes from the Carnosaur Trilogy and BUILDS a movie around it. And somehow Roger Corman was able to get Eric Roberts and Corbin Bernsen to do it. Now, I'm not saying either Roberts or Bernsen are at any kind of career high. But they were both at one point what could be called RESPECTABLE actors. Not here. Sure, actors react to effects they won't even see while filming all the time. Here, however, they are reacting to mismatched footage from films that are between five and eight years old. There's even a sherrif whose costume was modeled directly after a character in "Carnosaur 1." Apparently it made too much sense to get the original guy back.<br /><br />When "Raptor" was announced I was a wee bit excited. I was however disappointed when Corman said that they'd be using the old dinosaur models from "Carnosaur." Apparently Corman decided after this interview was conducted that he wouldn't even do that. And its not that he couldn't find an FX crew to do it. The script for this was clearly written keeping in mind that the story had to be built around pre-existing stock footage.<br /><br />Don't compare this to Ed Wood. Ed did better than this. At least he only used the stock footage of Bela once, in one film. There are ways of incorporating stock footage into a movie, and "Raptor" takes this frowned-upon technique to a new low. Even if you liked "Carnosaur 3: Primal Species," stay away from "Raptor."
11,863	[ 500, 600 ]	394	510	The title pretty much lets you know what you're getting. It's a grade-C howler but not as blatantly funny as I was hoping. Directed by exploitation film specialist Eddie Romero from a story that originally came from Jonathan Demme (long before directing "Silence of the Lambs" and "Philadelphia"), this low-budget 1972 action movie was obviously filmed in the Philippines but set in some anonymous third world country. Playing hooker and small-time drug dealer Lee Daniels, blaxploitation superstar Pam Grier plays the first half of the title role, while long-forgotten Margaret Markov is the other half, Karen Brent, an unlikely Patty Hearst-like political revolutionary looking to partner with her comrades to overthrow the oppressive local government. Naturally antagonistic toward each other, they are in a women's prison camp where they wear inexplicably bright yellow mini-skirts as uniforms. Run by a closeted warden and lecherous matron, the prison is just an excuse for a lengthy shower scene and some half-hearted cat-fighting as Lee and Karen are pitted against each other. Of course, they escape but shackled together a la "The Defiant Ones" and continue the cat-fighting until they attack a couple of nuns to steal their habits.<br /><br />Meanwhile, various groups of unsavory men are in pursuit - the loutish drug lord looking for Lee who stole $40K from him, the rather passive revolutionaries looking for Karen, and the incompetent police (who suffer the humiliation of exposing their privates to the drug lord). Needless to say, everything eventually comes to a head but not before gratuitous nudity by a number of Filipino women, a dog wears Karen's panties and some of the worst of 1970's men's fashion (one beer-bellied revolutionary wears a leather halter top with a straight face). There is a rather sad ending, but what's truly sad is how much of the potential black comedy is missed entirely in this hilariously preposterous exercise. Sadly, Grier is disappointing in this outing because her character is not allowed much to do beyond dealing with all the "jive", while Markov is an Amazonian blonde whom I am convinced is trying desperately to be credible. Since no one displays any talent for acting, the rest of the cast is not worth noting, except balding, bug-eyed Sid Haig, who uses his standard psycho persona as the drug lord. The 2003 DVD contains only the original trailer as an extra.
11,878	[ 500, 600 ]	415	526	The St. Francisville Experiment claims "this ain't no walk in the woods", a direct slap in the face of Blair Witch. Where Blair Witch proved to be a film that overworked the viewer's imagination through simple suggestion, The St. Francisville Experiement overworks the viewer's patience. One must say, however, that this is destined to be a camp classic.<br /><br />Warning: Spoiler is forthcoming!!<br /><br />I viewed this movie in a local theater in which the movie's "paranormal consultant" Troy Taylor spoke about the making of the movie. Should anyone want to see this movie without knowing the forthcoming information, stop reading here. For those of you who can't resist, read on my friends and all shall be told.<br /><br />Mr. Taylor, a writer of rather unintriguing ghost stories which he claims are all true, informed the audience at this video screening that The St. Francisville Experiment was not a documentary. Shock! Amazing! As if we didn't know... He informed us that all of the frightening discoveries the participants made were all staged and prearranged by the film's producers. Matter of fact, he informed us that the last 15 minutes were not even filmed in Louisiana, but rather in California. All four participants were true actors (notice I didn't say good...). One of the participants is actually a special effects technician on ER.<br /><br />What infuriates me about this film is that it proclaims everything is true. It feebly attempts to outdo The Blair Witch Project by claiming it's true whereas Blair Witch was a hoax. The amazing thing is that no one could have belief this film for an instant. Filled with dreadful acting and hilarious lines such as "surround yourself with the white light" and "I love the ghosts", The St. Francisville Experiment belongs at midnight movies everywhere so the crowd can properly heckle, boo, jeer and chant "I love the ghosts!"<br /><br />Talk about false advertising. True stories are not filmed with staged special effects that look as if the neighborhood Boy Scouts troop set up a haunted house. From the bug in the sandwich (ooh...scary...) to the annoying Madison, from the "seance" which is nothing more than the foursome playing on an Oujia Board to the two mice being found under a bed, The St. Francisville Experiement is one embarrassing hoax of a movie. Lion's Gate would be wise to dump this thing into the nearest trash compactor or advertise it as it really should be:<br /><br />"The St. Francisville Experiment: A comedic look at how not to make a movie".
11,892	[ 500, 600 ]	473	581	Irwin Allen, past master of cinematic schlock, pulled out all the stops in VOYAGE TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SEA. A badly aged Walter Pidgeon, who actually may have been dead when he played this role, is the commander of an atomic submarine that must be the size of the Empire State Building. Every room is gigantic and some even appear to have no ceilings. You could bowl and hold a formal ball simultaneously in some of these rooms. The sub, called the Seaview, is on its maiden run when all hell breaks loose: the Van Allen radiation belt catches fire and the Seaview must launch a missile into the belt by a certain time or the world will go down in global warming flames! Along for the ride are a bunch of truly terrible character actors, many borrowed from TV. This makes them TV hack-tors. The worst is probably that poor man's Stella Stevens, Barbara Eden, as a naval secretary, squeezed into too-tight clothes, sporting high heels and acting like she's appearing in a beach party flick. Maybe that's because Frankie Avalon is also along for the ride. A badly aged Joan Fontaine, almost unrecognizable here, plays a visiting doctor with a big bad secret, but in truth who cares? VOYAGE is a truly bad movie obviously made for small children, but what child is going to sit still for endless shots of a miniature Seaview model moving over and over again from right to left across the screen in what is obviously a studio tank? There is not one scene where we believe these folks are actually aboard a sub. When the Seaview shakes, the actors fling themselves about, sometimes in opposite directions to one another. Just like on the good old STAR TREK TV series, when the bridge shakes. If I remember correctly, not one fish or sea creature is seen -- except for an octopus that momentarily latches onto the sub, a nod to 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. The octopus, if it was real, was probably about a foot long and it shows. Worse, when folks are standing at the Seaview's glass nose, the ocean they are supposedly watching is obviously a closeup involving an unseen air hose spouting bubbles, probably filmed in a fish tank. You have never seen bigger bubbles in your life. You'd think these bubbles alone would smash the damned sub to pieces. Sadly, a badly aged Peter Lorre is also along for the ride. Near the end, when the missile is entering the flaming belt, Lorre is seen enthusiastically congratulating Pidgeon while everyone else is still waiting for their cue to start shaking hands and embracing one another in victory. A one-take scene if I've ever seen one. What a stinker. It's not even good for a laugh. Stick with SILENT RUNNING.
11,913	[ 500, 600 ]	448	515	I am coming out fighting here because this film was so well shot and so well cast that I am twice as angry about its de-evolution than I would have been with a lesser work. Without revealing too much of the plot, I can only say that part one of my 2 VHS set was an unnerving, unfolding delight of bizarre but plausible plot developments. The lead character was suitably naif-like but also intelligent and very very open. The events that he is rapidly forced to come to terms with are the separation of his parents, the culture shock when his Pakistani roots collide with a complete breakdown of English straitlaced society in the sixties, his father's dubious transformation into the revered Buddha of Suburbia, and the turning of his cousin into a feminist militant as his best friend suddenly becomes an icon of the burgeoning punk movement in the seventies. Among other things.<br /><br />What made me so angry was the amount of detailed work each actor put into creating and establishing their characters in the first part, only to have the whole thing devolve into very bad porn episodes in the second part, far too many to justify plot development, and far too explicit to even seem erotic. My biggest pet peeve is when directors let their private fetishes interfere with the truth of their movie, and this to me was a supreme example.<br /><br />I felt a bit like I'd been invited to a party of very clever, funny strangers, only to have the doors locked and the guests not allowed to interact, and all of us forced to watch bad seventies sexploitation films instead. What an insult to the hard work of these amazing actors! Why not just make a cheeseball flick to begin with? And why cast a great lead character who can actually act, and then cut away from him whenever he is building up to a great performance? I almost felt as if he too was growing tired of the endless sex scenes where all he did was lie there pumping his pelvis for yet another breathy naked actress.<br /><br />Bottom line - Part One is minor genius, Part Two is second tier soap opera perversion. I know the book is quite explicit, but I felt that these fine actors were as exploited in real life as their characters were in the movie, and it made me quite angry and very uncomfortable. Only John Waters can pull off such a dubious degrading of actors and plot and have it seem artistic. My suggestion is to only watch the first part, toss the second in the proverbial rubbish heap, and you will love the Buddha forever. Score A+F=0
11,924	[ 500, 600 ]	404	504	"Problem Child" was an okay movie, but did it really merit a sequel? I don't think it did. The original movie's only redeeming asset was Gilbert Gottfried, and he wasn't even good in this sequel.<br /><br />I can't really put my finger on why this movie was bad. For starters, it just wasn't funny. Even when I saw this as a nine-year-old, I didn't sympathize with Junior (Michael Oliver) at all. His character came off to me as whiny, self-loathing, and perhaps most importantly, a rebel without a clue. He appeared to hate every woman that his father Ben (John Ritter) dated for the sole sake of hating them. It also doesn't send a good message to kids with divorced parents (who constitute over half children in the U.S. these days) when the one woman Ben decides to (almost) marry is a Southern aristocrat who is vindictive and who happens to hate children as it is.<br /><br />And as cool as I thought it would have been to see original SNL cast mate Laraine Newman come back to the big screen, she couldn't even save this movie. I also found it strange that she was a white Southern débutante whose name was Lawanda. That sounds more like an African-American woman's name. But of course, that has nothing to do with why I disliked this movie.<br /><br />I think the movie didn't work because you had antagonists you were supposed to hate, along with protagonists you weren't supposed to hate. John Ritter's character was supposed to be a good parent who tried desperately to teach his child right from wrong without conforming to authoritative parenting. Instead, he came off not only as a wimpy parent, but also one who was desperate to find a wife in a matter of days, regardless of how well he knew the woman. Did I mention this sends a bad message to children of divorced parents?<br /><br />In a nutshell, the rest of the things that went wrong with this movie included Amy Yasbeck unnecessary and unexplained return to play an entirely different character, that young girl who was even more obnoxious than Junior, completely uncalled for toilet humor, and even more outrageous and outdated homophobic humor (involving the dog catchers). The movie was just a mess, and really doesn't deserve a DVD release if it hasn't been given one already. It should just rot on VHS along with all the other bad, forgettable 90's comedies.
11,936	[ 500, 600 ]	446	592	Ladies and gentlemen, allow us to introduce to you . The Toltecs! This ancient Latin American tribe, even preceding the Aztecs, supposedly had the most malevolent and bloodthirsty sorcerers, yet they get their asses whooped by a couple of college floozies and a one-hundred-and-seven-year old lawman with a whip! But before you get to see this, however, you have to struggle through more than 40 minutes of sheer boredom, infantile pranks and sleazy sequences that don't contain any actual sleaze. In case I haven't made myself entirely clear yet: "The Dark Power" is an indescribably cheesy and inept piece of 80's horror crap that still manages to be amusing because of its sheer and somewhat charming stupidity factor. Writer/director Phil Smoot's intentions were obviously admirable, but he as well as the rest of the cast & crew lacked the talent and financial means to deliver something even half-decent. Smoot carefully watched "The Evil Dead" and other similar demonic-themed movies, and somehow must have thought he could pull this off as well. The movie opens with an old Indian guy dying in his isolated countryside house; barely speaking out his last word above a whisper Toltecs. His grandson promptly rents out house to a bunch of college chicks, including a typically 80's aerobics babe, a cute black girl and a racist redneck gal. Soon they will discover why exactly the old Indian lived like a hermit, as he was actually the guardian of an ancient Toltec burial ground. Toltec sorcerers buried themselves alive, only to emerge again thousands of years later and feed on the flesh of the living. And, honestly, is there any better tasting flesh than that of bimbos? As hinted at before already, the first half of "The Dark Power" is terribly lame and sleep-inducing. The clichéd pranks, the retarded dialogs and the ridiculously overlong footage of Lash LaRue swinging around his whip seem to go on forever. Then, the movie loses its last smidgen of credibility when the Toltec sorcerers emerge from the ground. Instead of menacing, they look like drugged out hard rock stars with imbecile masks and drunken gestures. Exactly ONE gory moment is worth mentioning, when a guy's lips are stretched out over his entire skull, but overall even the carnage aspect of this movie is disappointing. The only remotely worthwhile moments are utterly senseless, like when a 9-year-old kid (named Cletus!) goes joyriding with his uncle's truck or when the vulgar naked chick sips beer in the bathtub after working out. Seriously, unless you get turned on by the sight of a 1940's western veteran swinging around his whip at nothing, I'd advise to skip this film.
11,937	[ 500, 600 ]	413	539	Wow... I suspected this one to be bad... But now I find myself just at a loss for words... Honestly, no words of mine can do this movie any justice...<br /><br />I'll try to say something anyway...<br /><br />This truly is one unique gem. One of the worst kind.<br /><br />Lash La Rue - given his background as an actor - doing a whip-fight with a Toltec sorcerer-zombie during the movie's climax...??? A true stroke of genius, without a doubt.<br /><br />It rarely happens that I laugh out loud when watching a movie alone. It happened numerous times with this one.<br /><br />The accents of the actors, man, the accents... And the dialogues I heard them speak... And the acting itself... I just couldn't believe what I was hearing.<br /><br />That fat uncle farting so loudly (when walking up to the house together with his little nephew) for no apparent reason whatsoever...<br /><br />Tits! Yes, there's titties! And female ass! There's even a naked chick in a bathtub sipping a beer...<br /><br />That one "stretch his mouth over his face"-kill was the bomb! A true highlight.<br /><br />The comedy-aspects were just totally bonkers. I just couldn't believe what I was seeing and hearing. For a while I even thought that they were unintentional, shaking my head in disbelief. But about halfway in the movie, I started to get the bigger picture. Guess it took me half a movie to dumb-down half of my brain, to finally get it.<br /><br />I had a really hard time believing this movie... But it's good, really, I think. It had one black chick walking up to a very tiny cupboard, opening it and then saying "Wooow, look at all the storage space!". And she said it like she meant it. I mean, that's good dialogue and good acting, right?<br /><br />Oh, and perhaps needless to say: Lash La Rue's whip-skills suck major ass in THE DARK POWER. It's really sad and pathetic to behold. That's all part of the comedy, of course. Or wait, I might be wrong. No, yes, I'm wrong. Lash La Rue was amazing with the whip! It was the editor's fault. He messed it up, cutting his lashes together and all. Or wait, it might have been the camera operator. He filmed from the wrong angles... Then why didn't Phil Smoot say anything? That's it, it's the director's fault.<br /><br />But it's a good movie.<br /><br />I'm just gonna quit talking about it. I have nothing meaningful to say anyway, except for the fact that I hope my brain will recover from this experience... some time soon.
11,957	[ 500, 600 ]	392	505	So im not a big fan of Boll's work but then again not many are. I enjoyed his movie Postal (maybe im the only one). Boll apparently bought the rights to use Far Cry long ago even before the game itself was even finsished. <br /><br />People who have enjoyed killing mercs and infiltrating secret research labs located on a tropical island should be warned, that this is not Far Cry... This is something Mr Boll have schemed together along with his legion of schmucks.. Feeling loneley on the set Mr Boll invites three of his countrymen to play with. These players go by the names of Til Schweiger, Udo Kier and Ralf Moeller.<br /><br />Three names that actually have made them selfs pretty big in the movie biz. So the tale goes like this, Jack Carver played by Til Schweiger (yes Carver is German all hail the bratwurst eating dudes!!) However I find that Tils acting in this movie is pretty badass.. People have complained about how he's not really staying true to the whole Carver agenda but we only saw carver in a first person perspective so we don't really know what he looked like when he was kicking a**.. <br /><br />However, the storyline in this film is beyond demented. We see the evil mad scientist Dr. Krieger played by Udo Kier, making Genetically-Mutated-soldiers or GMS as they are called. Performing his top-secret research on an island that reminds me of "SPOILER" Vancouver for some reason. Thats right no palm trees here. Instead we got some nice rich lumberjack-woods. We haven't even gone FAR before I started to CRY (mehehe) I cannot go on any more.. If you wanna stay true to Bolls shenanigans then go and see this movie you will not be disappointed it delivers the true Boll experience, meaning most of it will suck.<br /><br />There are some things worth mentioning that would imply that Boll did a good work on some areas of the film such as some nice boat and fighting scenes. Until the whole cromed/albino GMS squad enters the scene and everything just makes me laugh.. The movie Far Cry reeks of scheisse (that's poop for you simpletons) from a fa,r if you wanna take a wiff go ahead.. BTW Carver gets a very annoying sidekick who makes you wanna shoot him the first three minutes he's on screen.
11,972	[ 500, 600 ]	427	522	So me and my friend are carousing our local movie rental store and are looking for something to pick up to go along with Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, so why not pick up the third installment in the Scarecrow series!?! Keep in mind that this is not just Scarecrow Three; this is, Scarecrow: Gone Wild. Now both of us had seen to the first two Scarecrows so we felt obligated to finish the job. Let's start with the cover of the DVD first. First we notice a picture of Ken Shamrock ("The World's Most Dangerous Man") on the cover. Apparently he was used to market the movie as the "lead actor". By the way, he has the least screen time of any member of the credited class. Next we notice a picture of a very attractive and very scantily clad woman in the middle ground of the cover. I can assure you that she is not in the movie....at all. At the time of rental we assumed that this was to reiterate the fact that the scarecrow was "going wild". In the background we noticed a large carnival on an island out in the ocean. I can also assure you that the carnival is also not in the movie...at all. Looking back me and my friend should have known something was up. I mean really, who the heck puts a carnival on an island. Now on to the actual movie. We start when a young man is inexplicably fused to a scarecrow in the middle of a corn field. Don't ask me how they were fused but think of when Brandon Lee waking up from the dead in The Crow. It's just that stupid. But in the scarecrow's defense, he has "gone wild". Anyhoo, the scarecrow, who now lives vicariously through the young man, takes a trip to his local beach to brutalize those who had done him wrong. Because yes, in the world of The Scarecrow, beaches are conveniently located in the same general vicinity as cornfields. To make a long story short the scarecrow kills all who stand in his path without any warning except for the scarecrow's trademark whistle that signals a slashing. This is however rather impossible to believe because the scarecrow's costume's mouth is clearly sewn shut. Several tracking shots that would make Kubrick roll over in his grave later, and we have one of the worst third installments in a series ever. Well except for maybe the third Matrix. As Joel Siegel would say, "This Scarecrow is wildly bad."
11,989	[ 500, 600 ]	455	573	There really is only one reason to watch this barely adequate and utterly predictable movie about an uptight chef Kate Armstrong (Catherine Zeta Jones) whose life changes when she inherits her orphaned niece Zoe (Abigail Breslin) after her sister is killed in a car wreck. And that reason is to watch Aaron Eckhart (Nick) who, with his floppy haircut and appealingly laddish attitude, looks good enough to slap between two slices of organic Pannini and eat with an olive oil and balsamic vinaigrette dip and a few finely diced sun dried tomatoes. He reminds me of Sean Bean. The thought that he might take his shirt off really was the only thing that kept me awake until the end. He removed his apron petulantly several times, but to my disappointment, never went further.<br /><br />I can't be too critical because I was watching it on pay per view at home, so it hadn't cost me the price of two movie tickets at least, and I was brought up to be grateful for small mercies. But really, this is Rom Com at its most formulaic. Zeta Jones gives a very flat, monotonous performance, she seemed utterly lacking in passion, (possibly due to the amount of time she apparently spent in the cold store at the restaurant? Thirty takes in there can't have been fun) and her face barely changed expression throughout the whole movie. Abigail Breslin was pretty good as the niece, she's such an appealing little girl that it's quite impossible to criticize her, and anyway I loved her in Little Miss Sunshine. Patricia Clarkson is always good value and I can't really fault her performance as the restaurant owner, because she seemed very underused, given what a good actor she is and how little she had to do here. But the whole thing is just so clichéd, much of the dialog banal, and the outcome so obvious. This is the cinematic equivalent of paint by numbers, and Zeta Jones and Eckhart generate little heat on screen.<br /><br />Nick likes Italian food (doubtless indicating his burning inner passion) and cooks to the sound of Puccini. His appearance in Kate's kitchen at 22 Bleecker (the restaurant's name) predictably ruffles her feathers but his uncanny ability to bond with her niece by cooking pizza and building a Bedouin tent in the living room, brings Kate around and, despite a few stumbles along the way, she ends up giving him her prized possession. No, not her honour. But her recipe for saffron sauce.<br /><br />I'm being very unfair here, aren't I? I mean Rom Com is Rom Com, and we all know what we are letting ourselves in for when we sign up. But does it always have to be so mind numbingly dull?
12,001	[ 500, 600 ]	408	564	I would bet a month's salary "The Magnificent Seven Returns" (MSR) was made-for-TV. Other reviewers attest that MSR was a theatrical movie, and I'll take their word for it. The logical answer must assume it was originally shot for TV, and after a change-of-studio-heart, it was released theatrically instead. Every actor is primarily a TV actor: Mariette Hartley, Michael Callen, Ralfe Waite, Stephanie Powers... TV performers all. Lee Van Cleef split his time between TV and theater screens. Stephanie Powers has only made 3 or 4 "real" movie appearances in the last thirty years of a very prolific television career - proof positive this was shot for TV. Minor players are veteran small-screen actors who can be seen on old reruns of "Gunsmoke", "Wild Wild West," "Streets of San Francisco," and so on.<br /><br />The ho-hum sets are identical to the Universal Studios Tour sets, often seen in old episodic TV. And the editing betrays the one-or-two-takes-hurriedness of TV, with limited camera movements, positioning, cutting, and lighting. The sound track, exclusive of the original Berstein themes, are straight from seventies television. Yep, I'd bet money it was shot for TV.<br /><br />That's an important point in evaluating MSR. Initially I watched MSR on cable assuming it was an old theatrical release. In comparison to the original "Magnificent Seven", it's a joke, a cartoon, an amateurish attempt at movie making. Acting, lighting, writing, settings, action, cinematography, music (exempting the Berstein themes), editing, pacing,...on and on....all pale in comparison to the classic "Magnificent Seven" which is close to the perfect 60's western, and one of the great action movies of all time. <br /><br />However, viewed as an early 70's made-for-TV movie, as I suspect, the film is actually better than average. Those unfortunate enough to live through the 70's as an adult, know what I'm talking about. MSR would have competed against "Alias Smith and Jones" and similarly bland network shows. During the seventies, "Gunsmoke" was a quality show, concentrating on character development rather than action, deemphasizing gun play to two shootouts a week. The first shooting, usually a murder, sets the hour's plot into motion - the second shootout climaxes the episode by killing the guest star, his nemesis, or otherwise resolving the conflict with Marshal Matt Dillon. MSR has more action than a whole season of "Gunsmoke." In this light - in this frame of reference - MSR is passable entertainment, a cut above the TV fare from that decade.
12,007	[ 500, 600 ]	428	555	If you're a fan of the original series, do NOT see this movie.<br /><br />I should have been skeptical from the previews when Aeon expresses her motives for murder. In the series Aeon had no family and no motive for her adventures save selfish interests. Obviously the chimp-writer in charge felt the movie needed to cater to the "bad grrl" demographic by making the character deadly, but have a good reason to kill people.<br /><br />You wouldn't have thought it possible, but the movie is more two dimensional than the cartoon. The characters are all portrayed as inherently good with some conflict of interest that eventually gets resolved. All dogs go to heaven, and same for every character that dies in this movie.<br /><br />The selfish,twisted,perverted, dominating personas of Aeon and Trevor are nowhere to be seen. In the end they literally develop into a cutesy couple ala Annie Hall. The only character who remained true to the show was the Relicle, the floating machine in the sky. I suppose if you ever thought "gee, I like Aeon Flux, but I wish it were more like every other faceless good-v-evil sci-fi Hollywood slop out there", then you are in for a treat.<br /><br />They didn't even get the look right. I suppose a black metal bikini was too much to ask for, but the whole setting is wrong. 400 years into the future sure looks like 30 years into the past. Instead of a distinctly urban post-apocalyptic world, the viewer's eyes are offended with a 70's mod-squad frutopia of egg-shaped furniture, wood paneled walls, earth tones, and lots of plants. Bregna was a dystopia, not a utopia.<br /><br />Speaking of Bregna, that's the only city on earth according to the movie. The show is clear that there are two cities, Bregna and Monica, which used to be one. In the movie, the "Monicans" are just Hollywood storybook freedom-fighters. They also have as much technology as the Bregnans, which is not the case from the show.<br /><br />The only possible conclusion is that the real writer for this movie was a high school kid, and that he wrote it the day before it was due to the studio execs, and he's never seen an entire Aeon Flux all the way through. The overwhelming amount of inconsistency with the cartoon is baffling. Beyond using certain names like Aeon Flux, Trevor Goodchild, and Bregna, the movie is nothing like the show.<br /><br />The actual bulk of the movie seems to try to blend the colorful plots of soy-lent green, blade runner, Logan's run, and tomb raider, which came out a dull brown mess.
12,020	[ 500, 600 ]	396	525	Loosely based on novels by Earl Derr Biggers, 20th Century Fox's Charlie Chan series proved an audience favorite--but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor the studio feared audiences would turn against its Asian hero. This was a miscalculation: actor Sidney Toler took the role to "poverty row" Monogram Studios, where he continued to portray the character in eleven more films made between 1944 and his death in 1947.<br /><br />20th Century Fox had regarded the Chan films as inexpensive "B" movies, but even so the studio took considerable care with them: the plots were often silly, but the pace was sharp, the dialogue witty, and the casts (which featured the likes of Bela Lugosi and Ray Milland) always expert. The result was a kindly charm which has stood the test of time. Monogram was a different matter: Chan films were "B" movies plain and simple. Little care was taken with scripts or cast and resulting films were flat, mediocre at best, virtually unwatchable at worst.<br /><br />Thanks to an adequate cast and a few interesting plot devices, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is among the best of the Monogram-made Chan films--but even so it barely manages to achieve a consistent mediocrity. In this particularly entry, Chan (Sidney Toler) is called upon to investigate a murderer who kills with what appears to be a cobra-like bite; at the same time, he decides to make certain that a government supply of radium tucked away in a bank vault, of all places, remains secure. Do these two seemingly unrelated plot lines come together? Well... could be! Sidney Toler is always enjoyable as Chan, but most of his Monogram performances seemed "phoned in"--and that is as true of COBRA as it is of any Monogram Chan film. As usual, the really enjoyable performer is Mantan Mooreland. Changing times have led us to look upon Moreland's brand of comedy as demeaning to African-Americans, but he was an expert actor and comic, and taken within the context of what was possible for a black actor in the 1940s his work has tremendous charm and innocence.<br /><br />Fans of the 20th Century Fox series are likely to find Monogram's Chan a significant disappointment and newcomers who like the Monogram films will probably consider them third-rate after encountering the Fox films. Like other Monogram Chan films, THE SHANGHAI COBRA is best left to determined collectors. Four stars, and that's being generous.<br /><br />GFT, Amazon Reviewer
12,037	[ 500, 600 ]	438	552	I'm really amazed that this got an 88% on Rotten Tomatoes and a nomination for best foreign film at the Oscars. The 7.3 rating on IMDb... that's not so much of a surprise, seeing the way IMDb users have been voting recently. I just can't get into a film in which the actual facts about its main character have clearly been distorted, and not at all in a way to make the movie artistic, but rather to make it melodramatic and less boring. Which, it turns out, actually makes it very boring for anyone who was expecting to see a serious and credible interpretation of the life of Genghis Khan. The far-fetched and over-dramatized Mongol often echoes the likes of 300, a film that couldn't be happier to be ridiculously inaccurate; but unlike 300, Mongol takes itself seriously. It's stoic seriousness, mixed with the obvious inaccuracies, is what makes it truly the most boring film I've seen this year; possibly the most action or biopic movie I've EVER seen. The characters were pathetically written. Honestly, I doubt Genghis Khan was as boring and passive as shown in this film. Which is funny to me, because if there's anything that I'd think should be changed for the sake of theatricality, it's making a boring person into an interesting person. The romance between Khan and Borte is similarly boring, simple, and stupid. Also, without giving anything away, Mongol contains the single stupidest scene I have seen in a LONG time- where there should be a good 20 minutes of plot development, the film just skips forward without any explanation. It looked like something out of a Saturday Night Live skit that parodies epic action movies with horrible pacing. (Did I mention how seriously Mongol takes itself?) Meanwhile, it drags like no film I've ever seen before. Even now, I could swear it was three hours long. About 45 minutes into it, I checked the time, being pretty certain that it was almost finished. Besides some pretty scenery and quality acting from Asano (naturally), Mongol is honestly just a disaster. It completely failed to entertain me or enlighten me in anyway. I would never give this film a second chance. And not to sound racist or patriotic or whatever, but give me a trashy and mindless American epic over Mongol any day. At least then I know what I'm getting, unlike with Mongol, where the reviews and ratings led me to believe it was actually something worth seeing.<br /><br />The saddest thing about how much I hated Mongol is that I have friends who I know, without a doubt, would simply love it.
12,176	[ 500, 600 ]	427	550	For those of you who don't remember movies -- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/ -- this came out in '79 ( I guess enough time has gone by so naturally Nunzio figured he could just redo this and say he wrote it - yea, right! ).<br /><br />The acting in this is way overboard - the "tough guys" walk around with their shoulders hunched forward to give the impression they are bigger than they really are, also the "hero' seems to have a passion for snorting, and rolling his eyes in a bug-eyed kind of way to express angst/anger to the celluloid eye.<br /><br />There is a sort of racial message here, from the Sicilian perspective (mind you this is about 3rd generation down the line... the original "wogs" arrived in OZ after the war and during my childhood - yep I'm an Aussie. So the "wogg-iness" has been diluted a lot - they even sound like true-blue Aussies - not a flicker of the "dago accent" anywhere ( there, there's another slang for ya, Nun! )<br /><br />Maori's with sunnies (sunglasses) at 4am - must be cool to be sun-blinded in the middle of the night and it looks like Redfern... this is at this movie's tedious end. Nunzio tried to copy the flavor of the Warriors but, left too many holes in the story. How about coincidences ?<br /><br />The warriors had a gang of baseball guys wielding bats, with white face makeup chase the heroes to a train station and fight them - Nunzios gang get chased on a railway station by a gang of stick wielding guys wearing whitish face masks. The warriors were mistakenly accused of shooting/murdering another gang-member -- Nunzios gang are mistakenly accused of raping the sister of the big Maori gang boss. The warriors are lured into a room by a gang of girls who attack them - Nunzios crowd want to crash at a friends house, which is populated by, yep, a gang of girls -- there are almost too many copies from the Warriors to keep on about here.<br /><br />I am saddened that people don't want to see other moves from OZ because of this tripe - how about Mad Max - Commander and Master of the World? Not all movies are made by actors who are so bad, they have to fund their own movies. <br /><br />As far as the other actors in this show are concerned, they seem to have taken their cue from "the Nun" as they all are as bad as each other - don't bother with this movie! I can't get my money back - so save yours!
12,180	[ 500, 600 ]	457	531	Everything about this movie is awful.<br /><br />You can tell in the first five minutes that this movie is going to be terrible. You can't however, gauge how bad it's going to be.<br /><br />We start the movie with a seemingly endless intro scene aided with gay music and no dialogue. Having the camera move up and down big guys who are trying too hard to look like mentals doesn't provoke the slightest emotion.<br /><br />What then starts seems to be one of two separate stories. The first half of the movie consists of the wogs going around competing in paid, midnight fights with other ethnic groups. The wogs always win of course, because they apparently lift weights and have "respect". It is in these scenes that we first get to see the degree of bad acting, editing, scripting and hatred for the people who funded this film.<br /><br />Eventually the main character and his mate get sent to prison. The entire prison part of the movie is unrelated to what I assume is the plot, and consists of a bunch of fights.<br /><br />Once out of prison(3 years for murder?) The main character and his mate reunite with the wogs. They then go to the "other side of town" and try to lay low, because apparently everyone wants to kill them.<br /><br />soon the wogs get set up for the rape of another gang members girl , and run around town fighting off hordes of different gangs. This point of the movie can be compared to an arcade game, as the wogs simply run around and fight off enemies who seemingly get worse and worse as the movie goes on.<br /><br />Anyway the movie ends with some massive climatic fight scene in which the remaining wogs (the two main characters) take on every gang they've fought so far. Apparently the other gangs don't have a problem uniting to take on the remaining wogs(the skinheads don't mind Asians). After about a million more people get beaten up by the invincible wog brothers the movie ends with the main characters heading home. They don't make it home however, because they are burned to death by the the thousands of angry film critics who storm the set and leave angry letters everywhere.<br /><br />This movie may be more like a computer game then a movie, because that would explain how two guys can take about a million punches to the face from a million different people who the majority of the time are twice their size.<br /><br />There are also tonnes more stupid unexplainable events in this movie, such as an Asian fighting off his own gang and taking a katana to the head just to let the wogs get away.<br /><br />Like someone else mentioned, this movie isn't so bad its funny, it's just so bad.
12,191	[ 500, 600 ]	355	500	PREY <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />A lesbian couple (Sally Faulkner and Glory Annan) living in a remote country house are driven apart by the arrival of a young man (Barry Stokes) who turns out to be a flesh-eating alien, the vanguard of a massive invasion...<br /><br />Despite its shoestring budget and leaden pacing, Norman J. Warren's follow-up to SATAN'S SLAVE (1976) amounts to a great deal more than the sum of its meager parts, thanks to a surprisingly complex script by Max Cuff (apparently, his only writing credit): Faulkner and Annan indulge an obsessive relationship whilst living in isolated splendor within the English countryside (rendered alternately beautiful and ominous by Derek V. Browne's eye-catching cinematography), though Annan's discovery of bloodstained clothing in an upstairs room marks one (or both) of these doe-eyed lovelies as psychologically disturbed, which may explain the absence of their respective families, some of whom appear to have lived in the house at one time or another and 'left' under mysterious circumstances. Stokes' unexpected arrival throws the relationship into disarray, partly because Faulkner has a pathological hatred of men and partly because Annan is attracted to him, creating tensions which result in a climactic whirlwind of violence. There's an extraordinary, multi-layered sequence in which Faulkner attempts to 'emasculate' their clueless visitor by dressing him in women's clothing, though Stokes' alien mentality allows him to rise above the intended mockery.<br /><br />In the early scenes, at least, the relationship between Faulkner and Annan is depicted with uncommon grace and dignity, but this heartfelt sapphic liaison quickly devolves into crowd-pleasing episodes of sex and pulchritude, culminating in an explosion of horror when Annan allows herself to be ravished by Stokes following a violent argument with Faulkner. The closing sequences are (quite literally) gut-wrenching, especially Annan's final scene, which appears to have been clipped for censorship reasons in 1977 and never fully restored (what remains is still pretty vivid, so brace yourselves!). Excellent performances by the three leads, bolstered by Warren's unobtrusive direction, which takes full advantage of the stunning woodland locations, thereby compensating for the film's budgetary shortcomings. Originally released in the US as ALIEN PREY.
12,241	[ 500, 600 ]	431	531	Director Delbert Mann was a much better director than this film indicates. He directed ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT, THAT TOUCH OF MINK, and THE LAST DAYS OF PATTON among others. This mediocre, made for television retelling of Dicken's masterpiece is so bad, even those unfamiliar with the often filmed tale, will be unsatisfied.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the movie is available from only two known suppliers (Brentwood and BCI Eclipse LLC) the poor quality of the transfer, and the scratchy and muddied sound track make the task of finding this film on video not worth the effort.<br /><br />I have always believed that if a company is going to put a film on video and charge the public money to buy it, then they should at least have a descent copy of the film and do a good job on the transfer. Unfortunately neither of the two suppliers have such a work ethic and the result is only fit for the bargain bin in the local discount store.<br /><br />The story is told mainly through flashbacks, making the film episodic and talky. Much of the rich detail of the novel is lost in this translation. The characters of Martha, Traddles and others have been cut and the relationship of young David and Steerforth is not explored enough, so we are left wondering why David would hang out with the guy.<br /><br />The relationship between David the boy, and young Agnes is never developed and it is hard to understand why she and David eventually marry. Since Martha is left out, it is a mystery how Dan Peggoty finds his niece. And the absence of Traddles makes David a very lonely fellow.<br /><br />Some have credited this film with doing a good job of abridging the lengthy novel. I disagree, this is at best a hatchet job on the book. Anyone who has seen the 1935 George Cukor version will agree.<br /><br />The performances in that version by Fields as Micawber and Rathbone as Murdstone, are definitely worth the trouble of watching it. And the more recent Masterpiece Theatre version (April 2000) and Hallmark (2000) versions are both outstanding achievements in made for television adaptations of classic novels. Directors Simon Curtis and Peter Medak who are responsible for those films are deserving of the highest praise.<br /><br />My final comment on David COPPERFIELD 1969 is Don't buy it, there are several much better versions of the film available. If it is on television, turn the channel to something else. It is a waste of one hour and twenty minutes of your life. Sorry folks, but I can't praise such an appallingly bad film.
12,306	[ 500, 600 ]	385	507	After a meteorite lands in "Boston" (really somewhere in the Isle of Man), a hideous, fanged alien monster is released and is on the loose in a local girl's school, causing mayhem and turning the students into zombie-like creatures. This film is apparently a loose (and I stress loose) remake of the 1986 film with the same name, as it features the same monster but a different plot. Both films are terrible, but to the credit of the 1986 version, it was watchable. This isn't. Let's start with all the problemsthe acting, especially from the lead professor, was very, very bad. This film is supposed to take place in Boston (we know this because the film makers had the ingenious idea of putting "Boston police" or "Boston gas company" on everything), yet everyone seems to have rather muddled British accents (At least they didn't try using Boston accents, thank God). The script is a big flawed mess. The best example of how dumb the writing is when it's established that you can turn the zombie-students back into humans by removing a necklace containing a piece of the meteorite. Is that what our brave heroes do? No, they run around SHOOTING the zombie-students instead. Nice. Director Paul Matthews, who also wrote/directed the weak 1995 monster movie "Grim", clearly doesn't know how to pace his films. The movie is terribly boring in places. The lighting is awful. The film looks cheap and bland. One of the most disappointing aspects is the lack of notable gore. 99% of the death scenes involve the creature popping out of a dark corner and dragging someone away, while we hear they're "horrified" screams off in the distance. This convention never worked well in the past, and certainly doesn't work here. The visual effects were AWFUL. The CG opening sequence in space looked like it could have been created on Microsoft Slideshow for God's sake! The "explosion" of the Gas tanks at the end was just as awful. Okay, I like to consider myself a fair critic, so I'll give credit where credit's due--the creature effects were actually pretty cool. Gotta love those close-ups of slimy, drooling teeth!<br /><br />To sum the film up, "Breeders" is a terrible, cheaply made horror movie that should be avoided like the Ebola virus. Not recommended.<br /><br />1.5/10.
12,313	[ 500, 600 ]	457	558	The title doesn't make much sense to me. I'm not sure what door in the movie shouldn't have been opened.<br /><br />The movie starts uneventfully, with a conversation between a man and a woman in a room that looks like a richly furnished train car, complete with the sound of the train traveling. In fact, the man's house is a train car, and he has a cassette of train sounds. The woman leaves, and calls a young woman. The young woman tells her boyfriend, a doctor, that she's been told her grandmother is ill, and she needs to return to her home town. She hasn't been there in thirteen years.<br /><br />Flash back to thirteen years ago. A shadowy figure enters a house. He caresses a sleeping young girl, then goes into another room and stabs the girl's mother. The girl wakes up and enters her mother's room and finds her dead with a knife in her. She screams, and an arm comes out of nowhere and claps a hand over her mouth. She looks up in fear. That early scene in the movie of the killer muffling her scream, and the girl's look is one of the few effective shots in the movie.<br /><br />It doesn't have much going for it in the visuals department. Occasionally there's some strange use of sound, and there's some weird lighting in an attic scene where many of the panes of glass are red and blue.<br /><br />Back to the present day. The young woman arrives in her grandmother's house. An old doctor is there, who she doesn't trust, along with the man from the opening scene "Judge" and Kearn, the town's museum operator. She doesn't trust any of them, and it's true they don't inspire any trust. She's rather crabby throughout the whole movie. She wants to check her grandmother into a hospital. The men in the town want her house, and the museum operator wants the things in it (his museum is already filled with many of the grandmother's things). Inexplicably, the woman wants to keep the house.<br /><br />The young woman starts getting phone calls from a man speaking in a sinister whisper. He makes various threats, and wants her to do things to arouse him. Such scenes recur often. Unfortunately, there are so few characters in the movie, that the possibilities of who it could be are limited. Worse still, we see right from the beginning who is making the phone calls. So, while the young woman doesn't know (even though the caller occasionally drops into his normal voice), the audience always knows: no suspense. Each call rattles her more and more.<br /><br />The ending was unexpected for me, so maybe gets points for not going with the obvious, but I'm not sure I cared for it.
12,330	[ 500, 600 ]	456	591	This is a truly terrible sci-fi/horror film from 1957. In fact, despite Ed Wood, Jr.and his dreadful films getting a lot of publicity, this turkey is every bit as bad as the worst of Wood. Now the acting is a bit better than you'd find in the Wood epics (such as PLAN 9 and BRIDE OF THE MONSTER), but the special effects managed to be significantly worse than Wood's! However, bad movie aficionados will be happy to hear that it's so bad that it's still excellent viewing. Like a Wood film, it's great to watch this crap-fest and laugh along with your friends.<br /><br />The film begins with a scientist flying about doing some testing in his jet. However, out of nowhere, a UFO streaks by and his report of this over the radio triggers a panic by the Air Force. However, later, they realized that the UFO didn't appear on the radio and they think the scientist is a nut! But, when soon after this planes start disappearing all over, they realize there must be something to his sighting.<br /><br />So far, the film isn't great but it's watchable. However, by the time the horrible flying monster appears, you know you're watching a turkey. First, through horrid use of stock film and crappy models, airplanes keep changing mid-flight. Some may not be bothered by this, but with airplane lovers like me, seeing an F-80 turning into an F-86 to an F-102 fighter plane made me crazy--especially since the planes look nothing like each other. Second, through "clever" cinematography, all you really see of the monster is a ball of fuzz for half the film! This is frustrating and you hope that when you finally do see it clearly, it will be worth the wait. Well, no such luck!! The "monster" looks less realistic or scary than the duck from Groucho's "You Bet Your Life" TV show!! In fact, it's significantly less realistic than any of the Japanese giant monsters!! In fact, Big Bird from "Sesame Street" is even a bit scarier and realistic!!! It's just god-awful in every way and might just be the dumbest movie monster in history--about as bad (or worse) as the monsters in ROBOT MONSTER or TEENAGERS FROM OUTER SPACE!!! The bottom line is that this is an absolutely dreadful film that sane people won't like. Bad film fans like me (who are a crazy bunch) will probably love it! All others...be afraid,....be VERY afraid!!<br /><br />FYI--You might notice that some clips in this film are from other sci-fi movies!! I am positive the crashing Washington Monument scene was stolen from EARTH VS. THE FLYING SAUCERS but I also saw a couple other scenes that I swear are from other films. What a hack job!
12,420	[ 500, 600 ]	472	580	CyberTracker is set in Los Angeles sometime in the near future where bodyguard Eric Phillips (co-producer Don 'The Dragon' Wilson) saves senator Robert Dilly (John Aprea) from an assassination attempt by a group known as the UHR, the Union of Human Rights, who are angry at Dilly for spearheading the Computerised Judicial System in which robots called CyberTrackers are sent out to determine & dispense justice on the guilty. Anyway, Eric saves Dilly who is very impressed & decides to see if he can trust Eric in his shady activities like the cold blooded murder of a traitor, being the fine upstanding guy that he is Eric isn't impressed when Dilly kills a woman & he is asked to keep it quiet. Eric escapes & sets out to bring Dilly down, however Dilly has lots of powerful friends & he uses his influence to frame Eric & have his CyberTrackers sent out in pursuit of him...<br /><br />Co-produced & directed by Richard Pepin I think films like CyberTracker give films a bad name, I didn't like it that much at all. The script by Jacobsen Hart is pretty predictable, it doesn't excite, it steals most of it's ideas & theme from other better sci-fi films & the heady mix of martial arts action & sci-fi don't gel that well. There a few fights, some car chases & a couple of shoot outs but it's all rather bland & forgettable. The film lacks imagination considering the film is set in the future & it deals with robots, technology & the way society is run & it's judicial system in particular. Speaking of which the fantastic Robocop (1987) mixed it's violent action & clever social commentary brilliantly but CyberTracker doesn't even try to make any relevant social statement or try to portray any meaningful moral message about law enforcement, the script basically uses the concept to have robots & shoot outs which Robocop did as well but also managed to include a good story. There is very little in CyberTracker that I can say was entertaining & that's what films are about right?<br /><br />Director Pepin does OK but nothing stands out, it's all rather forgettable & it's not particularly exciting. The sci-fi elements are nothing more than the robot side of things & as a whole the film doesn't look that futuristic. The action scenes are alright, there's some exploding cars & some shoot outs but nothing spectacular.<br /><br />Technically CyberTracker is average, for a film supposedly set in the future it already looks dated & the special effects are poor. The acting was bad, I wonder if Don 'The Dragon' Wilson signs cheques with that name?<br /><br />CyberTracker was a waste of my time, there is nothing here original or exciting & the action is instantly forgettable. Poor & that's all that needs to be said, not recommended.
12,424	[ 500, 600 ]	399	519	It is disappointing to see as talented an actor as Amitabh Bachchan in such a weak role, especially when he was beyond sensational in BLACK (which I highly recommend). One line in the film states: "Sakar is not a mere man, he is a thought and a philosophy." Director Ram Gopal Varma credits THE GODFATHER as an inspiration for this movie, and perhaps that is the problem. It seems like a badly mangled American movie set in India. The Left Elbow Index considers seven elements of film-making--acting, continuity, plot, character development, dialogue, artistry, and production sets--on a scale from a high of 10 to a low of 1, with 5 given as a average score. The film continuity seems high, an 8, by maintaining a violent tone infused with drama in places, and using justice outside the legal system as motivation. However, there seems to be a lack of emotion connected with the evil of organized crime. The acting rates a 4, it appears too weak, even when someone is being beaten or murdered, it seems hoohum. For example, when one character is shot in the forehead, I found myself wondering if, or when, he was going to fall. He does not, and ala Ronald Reagan he is placed in an automobile, with his bleeding face cradled ala John F. Kennedy. The plot rates a 5 as an example of American-style gangsterism, with a family oriented Robinhood at its head. Character development appears static, and the characters seem like chess pieces on an abandoned chess board, thereby earning a rank of 3. The dialogue seems stilted, and appears to be forced to fit some Bowery pattern of speech--a 4 for dialogue. Production sets look to be below average--a 4. And, artistry is puzzling, with far too many close-ups, too rapid panning, and too many group scenes where the actors seem over rehearsed--a 3. To me, too much camera movement is disruptive. The average of the Left Elbow Index is 4.4, and with a slight deduction based on poor derivatism it moves down to a 4. Two questions continually arise in the film: one, why are so many people eating so often: and, two, does not India have its own brand of organized crime? Do films like this have to be so dependent on Western cultural examples? As much as I like Amitabh Bachchan, I cannot recommend this film.
12,436	[ 500, 600 ]	469	587	There are certain horror directors for whom I've built up so much respect & admiration over the years, that they can't possibly disappoint me know matter what garbage to decide to put on film. Lucio Fulci is surely one of them, but damned, he's trying to disappoint me with his later efforts! You can easily afford yourself to skip most of the films Fulci directed or produced during the late 80's and simply watch "Cat in the Brain" instead, because that one title gathers and repeats the best and absolute goriest footage of no less than SEVEN other Fulci-flicks, including the sickest murders sequences featuring in "When Alice Broke the Mirror". As a whole, this movie definitely ranks among our director's weakest and most pointless achievements. The script is incoherent as hell, the basic premise is totally implausible and somewhat stupid and there's absolutely no suspense to enjoy. I love the title, but it's actually quite meaningless. There is a character named Alice in the story, but it's only a supportive role and she certainly doesn't break any mirrors. I suppose she could break stuff simply using her voice, as she's an opera singer, but she doesn't. The plot revolves on a middle-aged and gambling-addicted playboy who spends his days seducing wealthy widows and killing them for their money. Lester Parson butchers the ladies (as well as unwelcome witnesses) in gruesome ways, makes steaks out of their juiciest body parts and feeds the remainders to his cat. There's also a silly psychological sub plot in which he thinks his own shadow is responsible for the murders instead of him. The difference between "When Alice Broke the Mirror" and some of Fulci's greatest horror films ("The Beyond", "City of the Living Dead", ") lies in the fact that he totally doesn't bother to create a horrific atmosphere. The characters, Lester included, are colorless and boring and the murders are ordinarily depicted; like it's the most common thing in the world to put a woman's head in a microwave or repeatedly run back and forth over a human body with a car. The lighting is poor, the cinematography super-ugly, the editing clumsy and amateurish and the acting performances are downright miserable. If I didn't know any better, I would think Lucio deliberately made a lousy film in order to protest against all the harsh critics that dislike his repertoire no matter how much spirit and effort he put into it. The obvious element to enjoy here is simply the outrageous gore & bloodshed, because even the attempt to blend in black comedy doesn't work properly. As long as Lester swings around his chainsaw and cuts off women's feet, "When Alice Broke the Mirror" is an undemanding piece of horror entertainment, but other than that, there's isn't a whole lot to recommend.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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