id int64 0 25k | interval listlengths 2 2 | len_words int64 6 2.21k | len_tokens int64 8 2.75k | text stringlengths 32 13k | label int64 0 1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
590 | [
600,
700
] | 487 | 605 | The screenplay is the worst part of this film, as it lurches from one premise to the next, missing all the important bits that would have made a number of different stories possible. (This film is confusing, because the audience doesn't know what the story is.) I had no problem with the low-production values and the acting wasn't great, but this is telly, so it was fine. I don't mind if some scenes looked like they were done in one take. But having such a non-sensical screenplay is completely unnecessary. Did any executive actually read it before forking out the cash? Avoid this at all costs.<br /><br />The prologue in particular was so poorly written, it needed a voice-over to fill in all the details that had been left out. The prologue was rushed, it wasn't clear what was happening, ie. The Russian Revolution was reduced to "Some riots are happening in Petersburg", with the next scene being soldiers arresting them. I know the basic history of the Revolution, so I could fill in the details, "those pesky Communists". The prologue is best ignored.<br /><br />This could have been a thoughtful study of a person who is confused about who she is. It sets up this premise in the asylum. It could then have her struggling to identify herself for the rest of the film. No. Gone. The film assumes she is who she says she is (even though there is still no empirical evidence.) It sets up a melodramatic romance, a love so strong, it'll believe anything she says. Okay, a soppy romance. No, because it makes no sense. The love interest seems like a crazed (and incidentally, sleazy) lunatic, bursting out in wild gestures. This also doesn't work, because the film stupidly decides to tell the truth in the monologue at the end. They never got married and she returned to America. The love story collapses. Despite there being plenty of love scenes, I was never convinced of the reason that they were in love. I find rom-com romances more convincing, despite there only being one or two scenes which establish that they've even spent any time with each other.<br /><br />It could have been a thriller-type thing where the film assumes she is who she says she is, and she struggles to prove her identity. No, the court case is summed up rather than dealt with. The bizarre voice over comes back, again to fill in the details of a better film.<br /><br />The funniest thing to consider is what really happened. Anna Anderson was a loony who went to America and married another loony and they did crazy things together. Throughout her life, she had bouts of lunatic behaviour. None of this in the film either. There's a really annoying character in the asylum who crops up from nowhere and announces herself as a 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Next/'Twelve Monkeys'-type informant. Thankfully, she vanishes, having brought nothing to the story. | 0 |
619 | [
600,
700
] | 525 | 688 | This movie is a cyborg in and of itself: half nonsense/half Lifetime Original Movie.<br /><br />As a cyborg, this movie has but one objective: to make you wish that you had spent the duration of the film in a dark room punching yourself in the testicles.<br /><br />Unlike many people, I did not rent this movie because of Angelina Jolie(I'll explain why I rented it shortly). I am not a big fan of Ms. Jolie's, though I will say that her performance was stellar! Her blank stare and robotic acting really did have me believing that she was an android hooker. If anyone has a clip of her on 'Inside the Actor's Studio' explaining how she prepared for this role, please send it my way. I'll make sure to use it when I try James Lipton for Crimes against Integrity.<br /><br />So what drove me to rent this movie? One would think that it was the hope of seeing Angelina Jolie's nipples, but it wasn't. No, the reason behind this rental rested solely on one of the images on the cover of the DVD; that of Jack Palance's face! HALF OF HIS FACE WAS ROBOTIC! When I saw that, I imagined legions of "Palances" slowly marching through a fiery wasteland, laying waste to any humans that were foolish enough to resist. In my mind's eye, every member of this Unholy Army of Palances had a red, glowing eye; a red, glowing eye that looked at humans and saw only "meat". They were to be the Architects of Oblivion...a cold, steely Apocalypse...a Nightmare from which Humanity would never awaken. It's a beautiful image that I will cherish till the end of my years.<br /><br />Like most things in my life, the actual movie did not live up to my expectations. No, there was only 'one' Jack Palance, and the only visible cybernetic enhancements that he had were located on his legs. Sadly, those enhancements didn't really "enhance" anything. That is unless, you count WALKING LIKE A POLIO VICTIM as a super power. At least their was a scene where Jack--grinning like a trigger-happy Alzheimer's patient--got to shoot the hell out of some people. I was waiting for him to yell, "I'm damn tired of paying too much for prescription medication!" Unfortunately, any outbursts of geriatric rage were few and far between.<br /><br />What the movie did have an abundance of was a poorly developed love story about a man(Elias Koteas, a.k.a. poor man's De Niro) and a cyborg(Angelina Jolie, a.k.a. Demon Spawn of John Voigt). Oh man, can the love between a Romeo of Flesh and a Juliet of Silicon ever be able to last?!?!?! It can if you follow Jack Palance's simple advice: "You have to TASTE each other's TIME".<br /><br />Yeah, I'm not sure what that means. However, I am sure that I do not want Jack Palance to be the one to explain it to me. I sure as heck don't want him to show me! As an experiment, I suggest that you ask your significant other if he/she "thinks that we have reached a level in our relationship where we can begin to TASTE each other's TIME?" | 0 |
866 | [
600,
700
] | 535 | 672 | Be warned, the next time you see "Richard Kelly" involved in any production, run away. Fast.<br /><br />Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, "Southland Tales", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In "The Box", not much has changed.<br /><br />I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard "Twilight Zone" Matheson's old short stories.<br /><br />Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you: <br /><br />Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button. <br /><br />Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct "experiments" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.<br /><br />Kelly dances around his film's "message", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, "What if I was the person who dies?". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???<br /><br />If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be "easier" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.<br /><br />The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.<br /><br />It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like "Saw" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.<br /><br />By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money. | 0 |
918 | [
600,
700
] | 547 | 670 | I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.<br /><br />I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak / moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).<br /><br />This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.<br /><br />Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?<br /><br />My score: 4/10 | 0 |
922 | [
600,
700
] | 443 | 607 | Writer & director Robert Downey, Sr., a pioneer of the underground film movement in the 1960s, satirized the New York Madison Avenue advertising world with his avant-garde comedy "Putney Swope." Downey doesn't confine his ridicule to advertising, but tackles black militant culture, the dynamics in Hollywood's portrayal of race, the elite white power structure, and character of corruption in any power struggle. As audacious and ambitious as "Putney Swope" strives to be, it qualifies as a terrible film, amateurishly made on a shoe-string budget with a no-name cast and humor that lacks hilarity. Everything about this movie reeks with improvisation. "Putney Swope" stirred up controversy during its initial release with its politically incorrect handling of race issues and consumer culture. Like most Marx Brothers movies, the plot is thin, providing an excuse for Downey's anecdotal gags, most of which are terrible.<br /><br />The chairman of a prestigious Madison Avenue ad agency dies during a board meeting. Before the body has been removed, the board holds a secret ballot vote to determine who will replace him. Each member understands that they are forbidden to vote for himself. Sheer accident occurs when everyone votes for the token black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), since none thought anybody would cast a ballot for him. Swope pink slips all but one of the white executives, surrounds himself with black, pistol packing employees, and renames the firm "Truth and Soul Advertising." Swope decides to alter the face of American advertising. He refuses to accept clients whose products are alcohol, tobacco, or war toys. Swope's clients stage an exodus after he becomes the CEO, and grandstanding attracts a new line-up of clients that show up at his office lugging bags of money and prepared to suffer abuse from Swope's militant employees. Swope exploits his African-American staff, too, ruthlessly appropriating their ideas after he fires them and conjures up a number of offensive advertising campaigns, all of which are hailed as a 'new wave' of marketing genius. Incredibly, Swope's conservatism proves successful but the agency becomes the target of government operatives who argue Swope's advertising tactics constitute "a threat to the national security." The high point of this black & white, 85-minute comedy are the television commercials shot in color. Unfortunately, Downey doesn't know when to cut off these ads that consistently start out cleverly but wear out their welcome. The funniest part of "Putney Swope" involves our eponymous protagonist's dealings with U.S. President Mimeo in Washington D.C. (Pepi Hermine), a marihuana-toking midget with a Kissinger-like Teutonic adviser (Larry Wolf) spouting tasteless jokes while trying to convince Swope to come up with an advertising campaign for his new car, the Borman 6. | 0 |
950 | [
600,
700
] | 557 | 689 | Bubbling just beneath the surface of Showtime is a good idea. Actually, it's more like two or three ideas that constantly fight for screentime. This film doesn't just have its cake and eat it too; it has the whole bakery.<br /><br />Detective Mitch Preston (Robert De Niro) has a drug bust interrupted by the media and a brash, cop-slash-actor named Trey Sellars (Eddie Murphy). When Preston's partner is shot, he angrily shoots the camera out of the hands of a pestering newsman, and the tiff lands him in a new reality cop show produced by Chase Renzi (Rene Russo). In the first of many errors and oddities in the movie, that injured partner is never heard from again or alluded to for the remainder of the film.<br /><br />De Niro's best gag is his speech to a classroom of small children to open the picture about how TV cops don't act like real cops. Funny thing is, as the movie progresses, his character and Murphy's begin to act more and more like the clichés they supposedly clash so strongly with. In a smarter movie, De Niro's diatribe could have played as ironic comment; here, it only shows to point out how truly lame the movie is. While a spoof of a reality based cop show could be funny, the team of writers and director Tom Dey (Who made the far superior Shanghai Noon a few years ago; see that movie instead) seem to be on unsure footing, and instead of slamming the TV industry, they really let them off light (The harshest thing they seem to be able to say about network execs is they like to play ping pong at work). Russo's character has a glint of fiendish delight in her eye, but her dialogue and actions rarely match the actress' enthusiasm. <br /><br />With little on screen to keep my attention, my mind began to wander, and that's dangerous in a movie with this many plot holes. For instance; if Showtime (the name given to the cop show) is such a popular smash, why doesn't anyone seem to recognize De Niro and Murphy when they are on the job? For that matter, if their investigation of smuggler and all around mean guy Vargas is being televised, why the heck hasn't someone mentioned to him that they are on his trail? Then again, given this villain's actions maybe I shouldn't be surprised; this is the same joker who is very angry at an associate for using his new supergun without approval, jeopardizing a deal, and then dispatches him how? By using about ten of the superguns to level his entire house, of course! That's like putting out a fire with a bigger fire. <br /><br />Occasionally, Showtime gets laughs, but there simply aren't enough for the film's nearly two hour running time. Even worse, the really smart gags suggest that this movie really could have been on to something, if only they had put in a few more drafts of the script. Murphy mugs and talks as fast as he can with minimal results, and De Niro looks flat out bored through most of this. After a completely unnecessary fistfight between cops and gangsters (That remarkably results in no injuries and no arrests) Russo's character shouts `That's great television!' Perhaps it's great television, but it's far from a great movie. | 0 |
1,101 | [
600,
700
] | 500 | 639 | I caught 2:37 at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles. It's a very well shot first film (though the DV format begins to show itself in outside scenes), and I'm sure it has good intentions of showing us the "dark side" of high school - in other words every side of high school. But the filmmaker doesn't have the talent to write or direct up to the premise's promise. There are several characters, but none of them are any more than what the plot requires them to be. There's no depth to these caricatures beyond the machinations of "I am troubled teen X, I have Y problem." The perceived roles of men and women in this story are phenomenally troublesome.<br /><br />Let's start with the men. You have the stoner kid who's gay, the jock who's also gay, the boy who rapes his sister, and Mr. Peepants. As the stereotype requires, all gay men must be sexually unfulfilled and violent toward women and themselves. Naturally (or unnaturally as the stereotype assumes), the two gay male characters beat up women, Peepants, and themselves. I'd be perfectly fine with these characterizations if the stereotypes were turned on their heads, or if the characters somehow transcended them. Yet neither took place, and that's all there is to these characters' stories.<br /><br />Next, the ladies. One young woman wants to be a bulimic housewife, another is the pregnant rapee of the sister-raping brother, and there's the girl who kills herself (I'll get to that later). Again, I don't think there's a requirement of political correctness for filmmakers (I'd be out of a job were that the case), but I do think that it's only justified if there's more to that character or story. If that archetype were being used to reveal something about character other than "I'm a teenager and life sucks," I'd be happy as a clam. But nothing new is revealed! Nothing is subverted, or changed, or sublimated.<br /><br />Finally, the girl who kills herself. This is blunt and HIGHLY sloppy storytelling. We're supposed to sit through 5 minutes of a girl violently killing herself who we've seen for maybe 30 seconds through the whole film? We've followed all these other stories for an hour and a half, and now we're invited to torture ourselves for a character that isn't part of the story? It's cheap, exploitative, and sloppy. Despite the millions of crappy indie films that came before this, you have to EARN something like that. You can't simply purchase it on credit. So this suicide happens, we get wrap-ups from the characters that go similarly nowhere but down, and the film ends. What have I learned? I already knew high school sucked - been there, done that. I already knew people have stereotypical views of gay men and young women. I already knew that kids with disabilities are mocked.<br /><br />What else is there, then? Smoke, mirrors, and some really nice views of leaves. Oh, and the nastiest deus ex machina I've seen in a while. | 0 |
1,150 | [
600,
700
] | 447 | 609 | Although not a big Coen brothers fan, I am an admirer of their dark humor films like 'Fargo' and 'Miller's Crossing.' I have been much less impressed by their other comic mode, goofy-camp (or is that Camp Goofy?) Unfortunately, 'O Brother, Where Art Thou?' falls into the latter category and isn't even as good as 'The Big Lebowski' or 'The Hudsucker Proxy.'<br /><br />'O Brother' is basically an episodic series of in-jokes without much point, and not all that much humor or cleverness either. As most reviewers have noted, the film's plot is very loosely and, as far as I could tell, quite arbitrarily based on The Odyssey. Its main character, Ulysses Everett McGill (George Clooney), is an 'adventurer' like his Homeric namesake and has as his 'real' goal the return home to prevent the marriage of his wife Penny to a suitor. Of course, we don't discover that this is what the Clooney/Ulysses character really wants until long after we've stopped caring. And what does Homer have to do with "Cool Hand Luke" chain gangs, Ku Klux Klan meetings a la "Indiana Jones" cult gatherings, a disbarred lawyer's vocabulary, a talent for blue-grass country music singing, an association with Baby Face Nelson, a Clark Gable lookalike hairdo, and other random and sundry character traits and encounters? I leave that for others to discern.<br /><br />The allusion to Preston Sturges' 'Sullivan's Travels' in 'O Brother's' title is equally pointless. Yes, viewers familiar with the Sturges minor screwball comedy classic might find it mildly rewarding to recognize the title of the socially conscious Depression movie Sullivan abandons Hollywood and comedy hoping to make. And they might even be mildly amused by a couple of shot/scene riffs (e.g. hopping freight cars, and the chain gang shuffle into view a movie). But so what? The Coen brothers don't seem to have anything to add to the art-for-art's-sake versus moral high seriousness critical debate about the function of art. They obviously fall into the former school, but that doesn't seem to motivate the reference in the slightest. Is it an homage? If so, why make it? I like post-modern pop culture reference and textual play as much as the next person, but it's a lot nicer when it amounts to something at least tonally, if not thematically, consistent and not just an arbitrary concoction.<br /><br />This screenplay is simply a silly mess. The only consistent, and consistently pleasing, element is the folk/country music soundtrack. It doesn't have much to do with Homer or Preston Sturges, but, considering the rest of the film, that's probably a good thing. On the other hand, I'd recommend using the price of admission on the soundtrack CD. | 0 |
1,163 | [
600,
700
] | 533 | 690 | There are many so-called anti-war/anti-govt. policy films around now which start off as a mea culpa and end with 'our poor boys are getting hell out there so let the world sympathise with them, it's not their fault' - kind of stuff. I was half afraid that this would be another in that style even if it treated another subject/aspect of the same subject. I nearly didn't go and see it; for that matter, I almost did not write this review. What did we get here? An Egyptian gets taken off to a secret off-shore torture centre, on U.S. orders, but it is another Egyptian who has to do the torturing, not an American: 'see, we Americans have clean hands,' and the Egyptians are a bad lot anyway so let them harm their own. Oh, and the goody had to be an American with a conscience: indeed many Americans have them, but here the concept was misplaced. Yes, we all know it is called Extraordinary Rendition and it began in Clinton's time and it is now used for reasons well beyond control. Otherwise it was very hackneyed and nervous about really condemning the U.S. for being party to torture; as if the makers were afraid to go the whole way for fear of being slanged as unpatriotic or whatever (take a look at the message board! Anyone apologising gets a faceful of heavy verbal artillery). Torture is a terrible thing, whether one is guilty or not; in the 18th Century, FrederickII, King of Prussia, abolished it for convicted murderers - though I must say, a life sentence for a child molester is far less than what I want to see. All right, what about torture? This film did not really bring out its horror and hopelessness enough. When you are under torture,(now come the capitals for emphasis, I am not shouting) YOU WILL SAY ANYTHING, EVEN IF IT IS NOT TRUE, EVEN IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE THE THING YOU ARE ACCUSED OF, IN THE VAIN HOPE THAT IF YOU SAY AMEN TO WHATEVER THEY ARE PEDDLING, IT WILL STOP. IT DOES NOT, BUT YOU NEVER LEARN AND YOU KEEP ON SAYING THAT YOU DID WHATEVER IT IS THEY SAY YOU DID, THO' YOU DID'NT. Another thing the film did not bring out enough was that TORTURE IS EXCEEDINGLY, INDESCRIBABLY HUMILIATING, AND THAT FEELING STAYS WITH YOU YOUR WHOLE LIFE. It somehow changes people inside. How do I know all that? Don't ask.<br /><br />Re-edit: two things: the Arabic that was used in the film was not the Egyptian dialect. It's sort of worse than setting a film in New Zealand with locals as the characters and everyone has American accents. Also, the dreadful little preacher who was inciting his ignorant audience to violence was telling them things unknown to that religion, which should have been brought out. Nor was it anywhere explained that any nincompoop can become a mullah/imam; he doesn't need any special qualifications, and that is a hiatus which needs to be put right: many are acceptable because of their fundamentalist views and tne U.S.A.'s great ally, Saudi Arabia, finances so many of them. Many thanks for this space. | 0 |
1,207 | [
600,
700
] | 516 | 609 | Lonesome Dove is my favorite western second only to The Searchers with John Wayne. I watch Lonesome Dove about every 6 months and never get tired of it. I have read all the LD books, although I cannot remember much of Comanche Moon. I too looked forward to this mini-series and decided to tape it on our DVR so we could fast forward through commercials. Unfortunately, I messed up and didn't record the first part, but decided to watch the other parts and try to pick up.<br /><br />There is nobody that can ever compete with Robert Duvall or Tommy Lee Jones, and I was expecting to be disappointed and I was.<br /><br />Although there were so many things that didn't ring true, the most apparent to me was when Nellie died the day before and Gus was out on the range, it switched over to Clara writing him a letter from Nebraska telling him how sorry she was to hear of her death. How in the world could she have known the next day way out in Nebraska? Additionally, it was supposed to be 7 years later after her leaving and her children looked to be about 6-7 years old, maybe a little younger, yet more time went on before they actually moved to Lonesome Dove, and in Lonesome Dove they had been there about 10 years or longer before leaving to Montana. When they stopped at Clara's in Nebraska, which probably took another 6 months on the trail, the girls looked to be about 10-13, since they were playing in the yard like little children. The math just does not add up.<br /><br />I agree that the man who played Gus had a lot of his mannerisms and looked a little like Gus may have looked as a young man.<br /><br />I am also a little confused about one thing. The captive white girl that they brought back - was she the one they captured when they raided Austin? They said she had been captured 25 years ago, but if she was the one captured in Austin, it was only 7 years later when this took place in the movie. Was she captured earlier? I remember seeing a captive girl after they raided the town and don't know if this is the same one. If someone can explain since I missed Part 1. If it had been 25 years, she would probably be over 40 years old when they found her since she looked to be grown lying on the ground. Also, the way they were ravaging her when they captured her, it is hard to believe she would have lived to go on to be married and having Indian children.<br /><br />I have to admit though, nothing is worse than John Voight playing Call in the sequel to Lonesome Dove or the unbelievable marriage of Lorena to Pea Eye in the McMurty sequel to Lonesome Dove, which was never explained either. Also, the way he killed Newt off was I hear from spite for them doing the sequel with John Voight without his approval.<br /><br />If anyone can clear up these discrepancies, I would appreciate. | 0 |
1,261 | [
600,
700
] | 531 | 686 | The title tells it all -- Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield.<br /><br />It's not a zappy action-filled slasher movie made for teens high on energy drinks. That would fit it into a well-established genre, the kind that some people find entertaining, something along the lines of "Halloween" or "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre".<br /><br />This is dark, slow, filled with chopped-up corpses, and quietly evil. There are few shock cuts, no monster's point-of-view shots, no loud electronic score. I don't know who it's aimed at -- ghouls, maybe.<br /><br />Beneath the credits we already see still photos of skulls, carcasses hung up, skins draped across the backs of chairs, that sort of thing. And they're sufficiently revolting that I couldn't help thinking this movie had better be pretty good to make up for this Grand Guignol opening.<br /><br />Alas, it's not. The acting is uniformly terrible, as in a high school play. The script does its best to sink below vulgarity. Ed Gein, who killed only two middle-aged women and maybe his brother, chases a screaming, bloody young woman through the Woodland of Weir, and she's wearing only a modern bra and bikini, rather than period underwear. Gein also decapitates a night watchman, which he never did in any historical sense.<br /><br />The direction? You could do a better job. In the first few minutes, law officers discover an abandoned car with blood spattered all over the windshield. There is no body. The handsome young deputy sheriff turns to his boss and suggests they search for the victim, who may still be in the vicinity and living. The sheriff, lacking any motivation, shouts at him, "Now you just FORGET that! I don't want you going off HALF COCKED on anything!" It should be no more than a business-like exchange of views. Why does the director have the sheriff so angry? Characters of diverse sorts listen to radio programs or records that play old jazzy pop songs -- Louis Armstrong's "Ain't Misbehaving," for instance. This is -- what -- rural WISCONSIN in the 1950s? And the characters insist on music that would appeal to customers of the Cotton Club in Harlem in the 30s, or New York intellectuals like Woody Allen. Nope. The radio would be playing Kitty Kallen's "Wheel of Fortune" or Theresa Brewer or, equally likely, Lefty Frizell. Not that the dysfunction between the music and the events adds anything to our understanding of what's going on beneath the images. Someone involved in the production just liked old jazzy pop songs, that's all.<br /><br />Of course there's only so much you can do with a low budget, but it can be light years ahead of this butchery. See "Ed Gein," with Steven Railsback for an example of a much more sophisticated way of dealing with this lunatic and his penchant for dead bodies, and on a budget that couldn't have exceeded this one by much.<br /><br />These comments are all based on the first twenty minutes of the movie. That's about as far as I could get. If anyone finds this tale to be well-executed and fascinating in any way, he should try to find some insight into his tastes. It's beneath mine -- and I consider myself pretty warped. | 0 |
1,284 | [
600,
700
] | 468 | 605 | This wretched psychodrama uses every shabby device in the book to wheedle attention and sympathy from us for its characters, who, with one exception, are not worthy of any notice at all, let alone two precious hours of filmgoers' time.<br /><br />As in Robert Redford's "Ordinary People" (a superb film that, in comparison, clearly shows up the vacuity of "Heroes"), a late teenage boy has died, leaving his family in the throes of bereavement. In this case, the death was a suicide, an event that nearly always poisons the emotional well of the survivors in a particularly corrosive way. We follow these people over the next 8 or 9 months.<br /><br />The father (Jeff Daniels) becomes a withdrawn, virtually mute, usually drunken stiff who secretly takes leave from his job for months, sits instead on a park bench all day, and insists on setting a full plate of food at the deceased son's place for every meal. He treats everyone else in the family with unerring nastiness. He sees his doctor regularly but the issue of therapeutic intervention in his obviously dysfunctional state never comes up.<br /><br />The mother (Sigourney Weaver) yells at the neighbor woman, among others, gets busted when she stupidly tries to buy "marijuana" (her term) at a head shop (what adult in reality would ever try such a dumb stunt?), and, near the end, swoons into coma with a lung condition that everyone in the theater assumes is cancer (she's a heavy smoker). Ms. Weaver has a few flip lines but generally behaves too unintelligently to merit much empathy. <br /><br />It's not that there aren't people out there who behave in these silly ways when severely stressful circumstances arise. But why make a film of such drivel? What can anyone learn from this pair's conduct? <br /><br />The deceased's older sister (Michelle Williams) is away at college and all too happy to distance herself from the family zoo. The younger brother (played by Emile Hirsch) is the only credible member of the family. His suffering is genuine, its causes multifold, and his conduct is coherent within the circumstances. But Hirsch's character is too soft spoken, too morose and beaten down, to carry the movie. The other bit players, subtexts and cutesy, unreal dialogue don't help.<br /><br />The suicide theme is echoed in an almost nonchalant manner in the case of two other minor characters. So what is the writer-director, Dan Harris, trying to say about this subject? That it isn't a serious matter? Why Jeff Daniels agreed to play the sap of a father as written in this screenplay is something only his therapist might possibly be able to answer. Avoid this dog. Instead rent Redford's classic. My rating: 4/10 (C-). (Seen on 2/17/05). If you'd like to read more of my reviews, send me a message for directions to my websites. | 0 |
1,420 | [
600,
700
] | 477 | 645 | The first time I had heard of Guest House Paridiso was in the, er... "washroom" after having just seen Fight Club. In each urinal was deposited a small, round black circle. When the circle came into contact with moisture (to put it delicately), it caused a colour picture to form, with photographs of the two stars and the tag line "You'll P*** Yourself Laughing". When you'd finished washing your hands, the circle had dried and faded to black again, waiting to spring it's surprise on the next "victim".<br /><br />Okay, maybe the punchline wasn't terribly sophisticated, but you have to admit it was innovative. In fact, I think I can honestly say I've never seen anything like it in my life before, and these days of over a century of cinema and marketing, that's a real feat. What a pity the film that went with it failed to live up to the promise.<br /><br />I hate to pan Guest House Paridiso and I am indebted to Rik Mayall (Richard Twat) and Adrian Edmondson (Eddie Elizabeth Ndingombaba) for many years of laughter through their appealing television series, be it the invention of The Young Ones (1982-1984), the sitting room plays of Bottom (1991-1995), or even solo work, such as Rik in the New Statesman (1988-1993). In fact, this would have made an hilarious 45 minute tv special. Unfortunately, its an 89 minute film.<br /><br />There's definitely some merit to be had, and I laughed continuously throughout the protracted finale, which spoofed the Exorcist and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and involved... well, you'll have to see that bit for yourself. Yet often the pace is leaden, and a sterile atmosphere is throughout. The two stars (Edmondson taking his usual backseat, this time due to the fact that he adequately directs) never really get into first gear, Mayall only sporadically showing the foul-mouthed mania that makes us love him on the small screen. Indeed, the writers' presumption that we are already familiar with the characters leads to them being underdelivered to the audience. The slight hints of depth seen in the series (Richie's effeminate, failed social-climbing for example) are not present here, and instead we are left with parodies of parodies.<br /><br />The Fawlty Towers accusation does pass water, complete with drunken chef and unseen, called-for waiter "Pasquele", which uncannily rhymes with Manuel. Some of the ideas, such a hotel next to a nuclear reactor with a childrens' swing hanging over a cliff face, are very, very funny, but ultimately the frenetic pace is stolen, the two constantly looking for a studio audience that isn't there, and all the "dead laugh" areas patched up with incidental "comedy" music that would have been dated in a Carry On film two decades ago.<br /><br />Paridiso's brand of puerile, sadistic, perverse humour IS funny, and I feel sure it will make you laugh ... just not as often as it should. | 0 |
1,518 | [
600,
700
] | 480 | 647 | Not since "8 Heads in a Duffel Bag" and the "How High" previews<br /><br />have I laughed so little at something that the film makers thought<br /><br />would be hysterical.<br /><br />Jerry Lewis is the richest man in the world. He is rejected as 4-F<br /><br />by the army, and decides to use his money to raise his own army-<br /><br />of about half a dozen. He then impersonates a Nazi commander in<br /><br />Italy, and eventually tries to kill Hitler. That is the description of the<br /><br />flimsy plot.<br /><br />This film is as funny as a heart attack. This film makes "Hogan's<br /><br />Heroes" look like Shakespeare. If the money men of "The<br /><br />Producers" had really wanted to lose their cash, they should have<br /><br />shown this film. I cannot stress how bad this thing is.<br /><br />Lewis' direction consists of two different cameras shooting the<br /><br />action from two different angles, then being edited together. This<br /><br />sitcom type of direction works on television, but here it is an<br /><br />obvious attempt to cheat the audience. He ends most of his<br /><br />scenes with a still shot, as if giving the viewer a chance to double<br /><br />over in stitches before going to the next tired set up. I spent most of<br /><br />the movie doubled over in abdominal agony, accompanied with<br /><br />severe flatulence, over this thing.<br /><br />Lewis, the director and producer, sets the film in 1943, but makes<br /><br />no attempt to use period costumes or sets. Everyone wears the<br /><br />latest style and has the latest interior design...for 1970. The<br /><br />supporting cast is lost as Lewis goes off on his patented tangents,<br /><br />which last as long as major surgery and are just as painful to<br /><br />watch. When Lewis becomes the Nazi commander, he spends the<br /><br />last half of the film screaming at the top of his lungs in a<br /><br />performance so odious as to stink up any good will you try to bring<br /><br />in at the beginning.<br /><br />The final embarassing shot has Lewis and his cronies trying to<br /><br />put one over on the Japanese. They wear buck teeth, squint their<br /><br />eyes, and talk in a "funny" accent. It may be one of the most<br /><br />blatantly racist occurrences since the internment camps. I was<br /><br />slack jawed at what Lewis did through this whole thing, but that put<br /><br />me over the edge. Watch for Kaye Ballard's very tasteless scene<br /><br />where she tries to attempt suicide over and over again.<br /><br />"Star Trek"'s George Takei has two small scenes, then wisely<br /><br />drops out of the picture. This has less laughs than Mel Brooks' last<br /><br />three films combined. There is nothing sadder than watching a<br /><br />formerly respected comedian screw up a project so horribly, you<br /><br />actually feel ashamed for them. Jim Carrey learned that with "The<br /><br />Majestic," but Jerry Lewis still shows up on television once in a<br /><br />while pulling the same unfunny schtick. I feel sorry for him.<br /><br />"Which Way to the Front?" is cheap, unfunny, offensive, and stupid.<br /><br />I feel bad for everyone involved, and anyone who must endure this.<br /><br />I do not recommend it.<br /><br />Though rated (G), this contains some physical violence, some gun<br /><br />violence, and some adult situations. If your child shows interest in<br /><br />seeing this, please consult professional help.<br /><br /> | 0 |
1,519 | [
600,
700
] | 528 | 678 | As Ben Elton once observed, nothing goes quicker out of style than comedy. Steve Martin's latest offering - 'The Pink Panther 2' - recently opened to bad reviews and dismal box-office grosses, while Mike Myers' 'The Love Guru' seems to have won few admirers.<br /><br />In 1970, it was Jerry Lewis' turn to feel the pain of rejection ( ironically, his character in this film experiences a funny turn whenever anyone uses that word in his presence ) when 'Which Way To The Front?' effectively drove him off the big screen for almost a decade.<br /><br />In this World War Two comedy, he plays 'Brendan Byers 111', the richest man in the world, who wants to join the army to do his patriotic duty ( and also because he is bored with being successful ) but is rejected as he is medically unfit. He then decides to start his own privately funded army, recruiting other 4-F's.<br /><br />Decked out with ludicrous uniforms that look like those worn by 'International Rescue' in 'Thunderbirds', they go into training. Some good visual gags here. When they fire rocket launchers, they look pleased with themselves, until they learn they have just destroyed a Texaco oil station! Wishing to learn German, Brendan plays a long-playing record called 'Songs To Mein Kampf By'. When this army sits down to eat, instead of being in a draughty mess hall, they are in an opulent room decked out with a chandelier.<br /><br />John Wood is very funny as 'Finkel', Byers' ever-so English butler. His best scene is when he blackmails a Mafia-type gangster into teaching Byers' brigade to kill.<br /><br />The script was not by Jerry himself, but by Gerald Gardiner and Dee Caruso, author of a number of episodes of 'The Monkees'. 'Front' often has the look and feel of a television sitcom, indeed at times you almost expect to hear a laugh-track.<br /><br />Where it goes badly wrong is in the last thirty minutes when Byers replaces a top Nazi commander and, after ordering the Germans to withdraw from the front, gets involved in the plot to kill Hitler ( and Tom Cruise is nowhere in sight! ). As the commander, Jerry delivers a performance of such mind-numbing ineptitude as to defy description. He gives Brian Blessed a run for his money in the 'loudest man alive' stakes. It comes as a relief when the end credits appear.<br /><br />Perhaps the timing was just wrong - bringing out a war comedy when the Vietnam conflict was raging was not a good idea. Or the public simply had had enough of Jerry ( that beard probably did not help! ). What he needed here was a good producer, someone to take him in hand and say: "That gag stinks. Throw it out!". 'Don't Raise The Bridge, Lower The River' is a masterpiece by comparison with this picture.<br /><br />As the '70's got underway, the new comedy icons would be Woody Allen, Mel Brooks, and Monty Python - fresher, more biting and in Allen's case, more human styles of comedy replaced Jerry's brand of slapstick. It would not be until 1982 that he would make anything like a successful comeback - as the conceited talk-show host 'Jerry Langford' in Martin Scorcese's brilliant 'The King Of Comedy'. | 0 |
1,629 | [
600,
700
] | 512 | 632 | Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. The nature of class war was always going to be a subject worthy of poking fun at, but this TV series exploits it better than most. The chemistry between Yootha Joyce and Brian Murphy was always electrifying and the writers wrote almost entirely flawless episodes every time. In my opinion, it is the best British sitcom of the mid to late-1970s, surpassing the likes of RISING DAMP, ROBIN'S NEST, ARE YOU BEING SERVED? and so on. With the ON THE BUSES series having finished a few years earlier, GEORGE AND MILDRED became the next pride and joy of ITV (or ITV 1 as it's now known), enjoying a four-year run on the channel.<br /><br />The movie however is absolutely terrible in almost every respect. The general essence of the TV series has almost entirely been stripped by the writers of this abysmal movie (who anyone will immediately notice are not the same ones who worked on the series). As one commenter has already pointed out, Mildred lacks the sharpness she had on the TV series and does not come across as anywhere near as overbearing.<br /><br />The plot, instead of focusing on the class war with the Fourmiles that was the very foundation of the TV series, actually writes out the Fourmiles almost entirely after the first half-hour. The plot, if you can call it that, consists of George and Mildred going on holiday to some hotel and getting mixed up with gangsters. First rate talent in the form of Stratford Johns, Kenneth Cope, David Barry and Sue Bond are all wasted here. Most of these are well past their heyday and all of them look very embarrassed as if they very well know that the only thing worth hanging around for is a paycheck (which probably won't be much).<br /><br />The jokes and gags in the movie (if you can call them that) rely heavily upon traditional British farce, including mistaken identities, embarrassing situations, poorly-timed slapstick, characters losing control of what is happening to them and general confusion. And it all fails miserably. As another commenter has pointed out, it seems as though the writers of this movie have never seen an episode of the TV series and instead crafted out a something resembling a CARRY ON romp. The scene where George is stripped down by Sue Bond's character is particularly out of context.<br /><br />A mystery surrounding this movie is the BBFC certification provided - 15. Just why is it rated 15 when all there is to see is harmless, non-vulgar entertainment?<br /><br />Not surprisingly the era of sitcom spin-of came to an end not long after this movie was released (shortly after the sad death of Yootha Joyce). And the company behind this movie, Hammer, well known for producing first rate horror movies back in the 1950s to mid 1970s, soon disappeared into total obscurity.<br /><br />All in all, the movie is a near total washout. My advice - skip this and stick to the TV series. You won't be missing anything, I assure you. | 0 |
1,825 | [
600,
700
] | 478 | 601 | Okay -- the title "House of Frankenstein", was a reference to a line from the original Frankenstein movie. When they follow it up with a movie entitled "House of Dracula", which makes no real sense, you know that it's just beginning to turn into a franchise.<br /><br />Without explanation, Dracula is back, and he's calling himself Baron Latos. He infiltrates the home of a Doctor Edelmann, with the claim that he is seeking a cure for his vampirism. Edelmann has a hunchback nurse who assists him (what is it with hunchback assistants in these movies?), but what Dracula is really interested in is his other, more beautiful assistant. At this point, Larry "Wolf Man" Talbot returns (again, no explanation given) and just happens to be seeking the same doctor for a cure to his lycanthropy. And then he just happens to fall into a cave in which plants can be grown to help him, which also just so happens to contain the Frankenstein monster. Dear God, when will it end ... sure, the other Universal monster sequels were silly, but this is just ridiculous.<br /><br />First the good stuff. There are some great settings, and the vampire bat effects are slightly better than usual. Some of the other effects are pretty neat too. John Carradine isn't bad as Dracula once you get used to him, but still nothing like as brilliant as Lugosi was. In my opinion, Onslow Stevens plays a much better vampire in this movie, although he has exactly the opposite problem to Carradine -- all of the creepiness and none of the class. None of the performances are that great, but it's more due to the atrocious script than anything else -- the female parts are particularly badly written. But stupid as it is, it remains reasonably entertaining for the most part. The best thing about it is it's short length.<br /><br />Now the bad stuff ... it's not creepy, it's poorly written and it doesn't work. I was hoping the three monsters would begin some kind of a supernatural struggle for power, but it doesn't happen. The focus is almost entirely on Dracula, who isn't particularly well portrayed. On the other hand, this is the only movie in which Dracula infects another man, but it is done via a blood transfusion rather than a bite as Universal were always uncomfortable with the possible homosexual subtext. Larry Talbot is decent as always as the Wolf Man, but he plays a comparatively small part. Once again the part of Frankenstein's monster is reduced to the anti-climatic closing moments. For God's sake, Glenn Strange was fantastic as the creature! Why not give him more screen time? It's unfortunate that the series had to end on this note (not counting the classic comedy "Abbott & Costello Meet Frankenstein"). In the end it just fizzled in the sunlight and died, much like Dracula himself. | 0 |
1,841 | [
600,
700
] | 445 | 603 | I don't know why IMDb lists all the Ghoulies films as theatrical releases.. They were all straight to video films. Same with the Puppet Master series. Why hasn't anyone noticed this yet? Right, somehow you've stumbled across Ghoulies IV, probably raiding through an old abandoned video rental store from 1993. You looked in the discount section and found this...Look at the back and front covers. What do you expect, The Shawshank Redemption? There is no need to review this film so critically. It is the fourth GHOULIES film! I bought it on DVD for 6.50 because... it was 6.50.. I knew it wasn't Kubrick material. And I was right. An unremastered DVD with no extras, not even a trailer, boasts an uncared-for film.<br /><br />It actually contains the star of the first Ghoulies film, Peter Liapis... who really didn't get many 'big' roles apart from those two films. And I don't see why... He's not too bad an actor and is pretty fun. But I guess if you're gonna take a lead role in the Ghoulies films, Scorsese and Tarantino will lose interest. Also present is his idiot sidekick Bobby Di Cocco, who despite having a very small resemblance to Al Pacino (very small), retains none of his acting ability... A complete idiot who's just awkward to watch. Then there's Stacie Randall - obviously a porn star, I don't need to look that up. She does look quite sexy, though her costume, her character and everything she does drags down the films credibility, which is no easy task for such a film.<br /><br />Then there is the Ghoulies themselves! Who also manage to let us down. Ghoulies III made them start talking, mistake no. 1, but Ghoulies IV takes it a step further. Instead of being puppets, this time the Ghoulies are in fact KIDS in COSTUMES!!!! The filmmakers decided to run that extra mile to insult the films viewers. Also, there's only TWO of them, and they're not the main highlight of the film, as they don't appear in a lot of it. However, at times they are MILDLY amusing... And they're not evil this time either.<br /><br />This really is hilariously bad stuff, it's amazing that I was actually able to enjoy it. I dunno why... Some of the black humour is actually funny, though the script is mostly effortless. Imagine Satan's only threat to you being that he will "kill you, slowly...painfully...".<br /><br />But at least Full Moon had no involvement this time. Did they? Yeah, a very bad and cheaply made film with 0 production value, but not so bad as to be in the ranks of Puppet Master 1/2, Lawnmower Man 2, Surviving Christmas or even Ghoulies III. | 0 |
1,897 | [
600,
700
] | 498 | 607 | Overall, the movie "Heart of Darkness" was pitiful compared to the book. Anyone who has ever read the book and had a sufficient understanding of it would be able to see the countless obvious flaws. There is an immeasurable difference between the two. It seems to me that the director was walking into a losing battle. I couldn't imagine that someone would take on the monstrous task of recreating "Heart of Darkness." The immense detail and magic of the story would be impossible to justly interpret. Conrad's story had so many layers and so much depth that it would seem pointless to try to make a visual interpretation.<br /><br />First, capturing the details of the story is unattainable. The colossal fine points created by Joseph Conrad cannot be rightfully recreated through film. Marlow's feelings and emotions cannot be equally construed in the movie. If you have taken on the enormous task of tackling Conrad's work then, you know as well as I that Conrad only wrote half the story. The additional half is a series of connections made by the reader. You, as the reader are required to be capable of inferring and connecting Joseph Conrad's ideas. As a result, several crucial details are absent in the movie.<br /><br />Also, although the movie was an adequate length, the film seemed short. It seemed that Conrad was able to pack many more details into 75 pages than the movie could pack in an hour and a half. The speed of the movie kept the viewer from getting to know the characters. Marlow was much more of a stranger. The viewpoint of the book puts you into Marlow's shoes. However, in the movie, you're almost watching Marlow from a distance. I began to think that the director was trying to utilize the same "read between the lines" method as Conrad did. However, the connections were weak. I know that if I had not read the book then, I would, in no way, be able to begin to understand the depth of the situation and the characters.<br /><br />Finally, Kurtz also seemed to be interpreted incorrectly. His role was short and the details weren't all included. It was impossible to comprehend the true Kurtz in the length of time he was shown. An important detail in the book was that Kurtz had become a god to the Africans. I didn't think that significant detail was defined. Also, in the book, Kurtz represented a soulless being. He had died inside long ago. I believe the director comprehended this detail. However, instead of recreating it, he just had Kurtz mope around and mumble everything. Moreover, it seemed like the director attempted to make Kurtz seem mysterious, however, instead, he seemed entirely unidentified.<br /><br />Altogether, this movie reminded me of a teenager cramming to finish a science project, due the next day. It appeared to have been crafted effortlessly and in hardly any time. The characters were alienated, crucial details were left out, and, overall, the central plot was lost in translation. | 0 |
1,901 | [
600,
700
] | 557 | 682 | Taylor Deemer Mrs. Drake English 10 PIB B4 31 March 2010 <br /><br />A Shot in the Dark<br /><br />It is difficult to make it through the movie Heart of Darkness because it is incredibly unexciting. The book that this movie is based off of has little action to begin with. So the thought of turning it into a movie seems like a totally off-handed idea anyways, basically guaranteeing a fail. <br /><br />Most of the book is of the mental travel of a young seaman named Marlow on a job through the many darknesses of the Congo and people as a whole
I feel like the screenwriter failed massively at capturing the essence of Marlow's travels. It totally missed the biggest issue of light versus dark. That is the major point in the book and when that doesn't translate to the movie, all that's left is 100 minutes of boredom and monotony. <br /><br />This being the case, the question is posed, why would anyone make this into a movie? An even better question could then be asked, who would want to watch it? It is utterly a chore to watch. Had it not contributed to a grade in my English class, I would have never even considered watching the movie. I would never recommend this movie to anyone. Heart of Darkness is stripped of all its insight and meaning when it's taken from the pages of the book. The novella is torture to read until the last twenty pages or so, but the afterthought is that it is a pretty decent book. The movie is like a shot in the dark with no chance in the world of hitting its target. <br /><br />How can a book that's all about the mental processes and realizations of darkness be portrayed in a physical, visual sense? I feel like it's impossible to accurately show thoughts. Also, I feel like the time difference between the book and the movie creates major points that don't seem to add up at all. The novella Heart of Darkness was published in 1902, while the movie version of Heart of Darkness is from 1993. The 91 years between the two may be a reason behind the seemingly different terrains. The novella seems to have much harsher conditions, and the movie does not portray the prehistoric feel of the Congo. The Congo, in the movie, just seems like another place, not the dark, inhuman place that the book paints this setting of. I feel like this removes another major element that really contributes to the novella.<br /><br />With two of the biggest aspects of the storyline missing in the movie, the little bit of decency that is in the book Heart of Darkness is gone. When the controversy of light versus dark is the biggest theme, not including it in the movie makes it seem like the entire movie will be incredibly pointlessand it is. It's dull, unexciting, and a major waste of time. There's no reason to watch it. The book is stripped of any significance it has. If it's necessary, for some reason, read the book. Avoid the movie at all costs. <br /><br />Cast and Credits Marlow: Tim Roth Kurtz: John Malkovich The Russian:Morten Faldaas The Intended: Phoebe Nicholls<br /><br />Directed by: Nicolas Roeg Written by Benedict Fitzgerald, based on the novella by Joseph Conrad Running Time: 100 minutes Rated PG 13 (some sexuality and language) | 0 |
1,902 | [
600,
700
] | 537 | 637 | A made for television version of the Heart of Darkness seemed like a good way to add more insight to the book, well, that was the wrong assumption. The movie made it even worse. I was highly disappointed about almost everything in the movie. I hoped that the movie would possibly help put the pieces of the book together that I didn't comprehend, but it did no such thing. It still left me confused and hanging. It is one of those movies that makes one feel like it would be more fun to watch the grass grow instead of watching the movie. Not exactly anyone's cup of tea. It was an overall dreadful, boring, and slow movie.<br /><br />To begin with, Nicolas Roeg must have been pretty desperate when he decided that he wanted to undertake the task of making the already boring book into a movie. It's a guaranteed loss. It's like going into a knife fight, but forgetting the knife on the kitchen counter. The knifeless person is going to lose; and in the case, the knifeless person was Roeg. All I've heard about the movie are bad things, and the movie deserves those bad things to be said about it. From watching the movie, I got the impression that the people who made the movie, just skimmed over the book to get the key points.<br /><br />Furthermore, although the movie did follow the main story line of the book, it left out quite a few details, and it also changed the ending. I am not a fan of that. Roeg left out when Marlow and his crew came across the Russian sailor's camp, and at that camp they found the book. Also it didn't show when at the camp they came across the sign that says, "Wood for you. Hurry up. Approach cautiously" (Conrad 110). Also, at the end of the book Kurtz dies on the boat, not at the inner station.<br /><br />On the contrary, Nicolas Roeg did one good thing while he was making his movie; he managed to hire some pretty decent actors to play in the movie. For instance, he acquired Tim Roth and John Malkovich, both of whom would later go on to have successful careers. In doing so, he added a little something to the horrible movie. Also, though I am ripping his book to shreds, I do have some respect for him, because it takes a lot of courage to try to take on The Heart of Darkness. It isn't exactly the easiest novel to portray into a film. Twus a valiant effort, though! In conclusion, if for whatever reason someone actually wants to watch this movie, I suggest the reading of Heart of Darkness first. This way, you'll get all of the scenes that were left out of the movie and you won't be completely lost when you watch it. But I really suggest you don't read the book and that you really don't watch the movie; both will be a complete waste of your time. Trust me. I was forced to do both by my English teacher, and now I wish that the book and the movie didn't exist. If either the book or the movie are pursued, good luck! | 0 |
1,943 | [
600,
700
] | 496 | 650 | Have I seen a worse movie? No I can't say that I have. This was pathetic. If the director is still alive: 1. He shouldn't be. 2. He should be ashamed. 3. God, how I would like to take out my 2 completely wasted hours of time on his a$$.<br /><br />To give you guys a few pointers of the "film": <br /><br />1. (I'm a male) and I would rather give myself a papercut on the opening of my urethra before viewing this again (seriously).<br /><br />2. It does have a few known names in it (Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio). They don't help, and their careers in cinema after this "film" are officially over by the way.<br /><br />3. The dialog is the worst I've ever heard. "I want to ejaculate on your bozonkas."? What kind of writer did they have on this film? Was he still using hooked-on-phonics and just got his letters mixed up to make these horrible sentences?, or was he trying to get the Director killed by the few people who saw this? <br /><br />4. Watch this "film" backwards. Because I PROMISE you that you do not want to watch it forwards.<br /><br />5. This "film" would make Helen Keller get up and walk out of the theater.<br /><br />6. The set of the movie looks like an adult sized McDonald's playplace. I was just waiting for this so called "Dracula" to fall in the ball pit at some time in the movie.<br /><br />7. Also, I like that in the year 3000 they still have headsets with wires that go to their mouth. No bluetooth, no wireless headsets, no chips placed in the brain, but they use headsets borrowed from a telemarketing agency that went out of business in 1983(Nice job Set director on this one. Real professional. I hope you're currently unemployed and reading this.) <br /><br />8. I don't know who was in charge of special effects, but I could have done better in my backyard with my VHS camcorder that doesn't have a battery.<br /><br />9. I was a devout Catholic before this "film". But since viewing it, I know there is not a God, because if there was, he wouldn't have let this film be produced. I am now an atheist.<br /><br />10. I'll be honest I can't talk about the ending. Last time I tried to explain it I fell into a coma.<br /><br />Folks however bored you get, however curious(or brave) you are, however many laughs you THINK you will get out of this movie, please DO NOT WATCH THIS. It has literally ruined my life. AVOID AT ALL COSTS!<br /><br />Comment to the director: I hate you. You have ruined my life. After viewing this I feel empty inside. My wife and kids have left me and hate me because I couldn't speak or hardly move after seeing this. I lost my job, my dignity, and above all my pride. I will never forgive you in this life or the next(which is not looking good from my newfound beliefs) . | 0 |
1,997 | [
600,
700
] | 535 | 670 | After Kenneth Opel's rousing story of the invigorated me back into the pleasure of reading during grade school, I had high hopes for this series. The story of an underdog bat voyaging across country to reunite with his colony captivated my imagination and resonated deeply with my burgeoning imagination.Upon hearing of this series, I began browsing Bardel Animation's site and liked what I saw. The character design looked impressive and the fast-paced plot seemed to have been stretched respectably across a thirteen episode arc. Much was my disappointment, then, when I decided to watch a rerun early one morn.<br /><br />The opening episode shows our hero, Shade Silverwing, pursuing a tiger moth in the deep hours of the night. Chirruping an echolocatory song, we see a nifty if crude CGI effect illuminate the moth, and the chase takes on a frenetic turn as the tiny insect creates numerous illusory copies of itself do deceive its pursuer. As a lover of biology, I had a decent understanding of the principles in place (tiger moths can sense the sounds their predators use for echolocation and spin a sonic cover for themselves) but without such exposition I would have surely been lost. A minor quibble, I thought. Surely they director will fill us in momentarily. I waited in vain.<br /><br />Once our protagonist roosts down with some of his fellows, we are treated to some of the dullest dialog I've ever seen on television. Chinook, Shade's childhood rival, begin taunting the diminutive hero with the stupidest lines I've ever seen on a show. I can understand the writers not producing Shakespeare, but one would think they'd have had some social contact in their lives - surely enough to make communication seem natural. Oh, how wrong I was.<br /><br />The voice acting, while not horrendous, hardly was a shining example of human achievement. "Oh Shade, you're broken the law!" Shade's mother sighs emptily. "You must come with me, young one." croaks Frieda, the wizened elder of the Silverwing Colony. The actors try, but it hardly matters at this point, as the story becomes less and less compelling with each pass minute.<br /><br />While each episode deals with a problem of the week, as is typical of with most television series, overarching story arcs pervade the saga, for better and worse. While the main point of the story is Shade's reunion with his family, later episodes tack on other story arcs, involving cannibalistic bats from the Southern jungles and a brewing war between birds and beasts. The writers try to do too much at once, fighting to compress as many promising ideas as possible in the hopes that it will grab audience interest enough to keep the bloody show going on. Unfortunately, these attempts are futile to all but the eight to ten year olds at whom this show is aimed.<br /><br />While it's nice to see Canadian media be perpetuated, it would be all the sweeter if the enjoyability of the series wasn't limited to the immediate family of the animators or frothing fans of Kenneth Oppel's books. There are worse things out there your children could be watching than Silverwing, but far better programs are out there, too. Pass on the mediocrity and read the books instead. | 0 |
2,038 | [
600,
700
] | 466 | 603 | Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;<br /><br />I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop! <br /><br />If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful: <br /><br />1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.<br /><br />2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.<br /><br />3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.<br /><br />4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.<br /><br />5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.<br /><br />6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!") <br /><br />7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.<br /><br />8. And in other news, we get it.<br /><br />I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.<br /><br />In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you. | 0 |
2,075 | [
600,
700
] | 497 | 611 | You know you've got a bad film when you hear that the soundtrack is performed completely on a single cheap programmable synthesizer, without any melody or sense of rhythm.<br /><br />It's hard to see how anyone could take this film seriously, even while giving it a bad review. This film is way beneath 'bad'.<br /><br />The continuity of this film is outrageously butchered. In one fight scene, we the hero (wearing bluejeans and undershirt) turn a corner with two revolvers in his hand; he doubles back, only now he has two semi-automatics in his hands; he turns another corner and now he has an automatic rifle in his hands; he chases down a hallway and comes out (suddenly dressed in standard army fatigue jacket)with a shotgun; after which he exits the building with yet another automatic rifle. Or here's one for the books - a bus slams into a car at high speed; the car goes flying, thrown by a gigantic explosion - cut to the bus which is completely unscathed from the same explosion? The narrative continuity suffers from an equally numbing sense of unreality; the bad guys really want to kill the hero - obviously - but every time they knock him out or otherwise get him in a vulnerable position, they suddenly decide they want him "to live to see this!" Huh? One of the funnier moments of the film is when the hero is released from isolation because his lawyer has come to see him; then the bad guy decides he's not going to let the two meet after all; and this despite the fact that the the villain, the hero and his lawyer all know what's going on anyway, so the hero writes a note to the lawyer and next we see the note being passed to the lawyer by another prisoner, even though we never see the hero give it to him. (This lawyer, BTW, has complete access to the Offices of the ATF in California, including its confidential computer files.) Huh? Well, but it's a mindless action movie - so how're the action scenes? Not bad, surprisingly; unfortunately they happen to be stoled from about a dozen Hong Kong films made five or ten years previously. The opening scene, a shoot-out in a junker garage, actually has shots the composition of which are stolen directly from "Hard Boiled" - so clearly so that it's a wonder John Woo didn't sue for plagiarism.<br /><br />Other Hong Kong films stolen from include "Prison on Fire", "Island on Fire", "Burning Paradise", "Police Story" I, II, and III (aka "Supercop"). I thought I recognized a couple Sammo Hung clips here as well. In other words, the actions scenes are exciting only to the extent that they are successful duplications of action scenes from other films.<br /><br />There's nothing one can do with this film unless one shoots smack and just needs a lot of visual stimuli that needn't be make any sense.<br /><br />Very funny film, for all the wrong reasons. | 0 |
2,083 | [
600,
700
] | 447 | 613 | Italians movie-makers love to rip off American movies. All of our movies, and as often as possible. <br /><br />I'm not stating that as a slur against Italy as a whole, but I would like to further observe that the Italian film industry does itself great harm by allowing travesties like this to go overseas to be seen by the world at large. That's all I'm saying.<br /><br />And no more grave injury do the Italian people subject themselves to than by not sticking a harsh penalty upon those who made the world watch "Shark rosso nell'oceano" - which is, admittedly, a ripoff of the far-superior "Jaws" (as if you didn't know).<br /><br />Let's dive into the plot (Get it? Haw-haw...): this huge monstrous swimming thing that looks like a cross between an octopus, a shark and Steven Tyler attacks many innocent Americans (ie: Italians) off the coast of Florida (ie: Italy) and the intrepid, beer-swilling Peter (Sopkiw) sails out with his anorexic, beer-swilling girlfriend and other beer-swilling people whose main purposes are to be eaten by the creature, killed by mysterious forces who want the creature left alone or just stand around and be otherwise useless (and swill beer)...or be the doctor in this film who defibrilates dying patients repeatedly (20, maybe 30 times in a row) without waiting for his paddles to recharge (must be one heck of a good battery there, doc).<br /><br />Then there's the monster...brother, if you thought the "Jaws" shark was fake, look herein and have your mind changed IMMEDIATELY.<br /><br />This is a movie that was directed as an afterthought (by a Bava!), edited with an onion chopper, acted by ambulatory (beer-swilling) pieces of driftwood and written by (PRESUMABLY beer-swilling) people who should never ever ever ever be let near a typewriter, movie studio or major city in the world ever again. If this is how the people who made this film think real people act in such a situation, they've obviously made one too many of them zombie movies. Or swilled too much beer.<br /><br />Need I say this movie is bad? It is: bad like green cottage cheese; bad like a Hawaiian shirt at a formal wedding; bad like the "Bad Theatre" skits Dan Aykroyd used to host on "Saturday Night Live"; bad like Calista Flockhart Weight Gain Tablets - get it? Good.<br /><br />Mike and the SOL gang slap this beer-drunk beauty upside the head repeatedly and reveal this "horror" film as what it is: horrible. Though, with a certain European charm: it's charming, when watched by a European - preferably a beer-swilling one.<br /><br />No stars for the waterlogged, dead fish known as "Shark rosso nell'oceano"; six stars for the MST3K version. ...and now, anyone for a beer?<br /><br /> | 0 |
2,086 | [
600,
700
] | 502 | 637 | boring, horrible piece of Italian euro-trash about a scientist who seems to spend most of his time guzzling beer(this is what makes him American, right? Our scientists spend most of their academic life soused out of their minds, sure. That's where all the really great theories come from), who's studying something(dolphin calls, fish migration patterns, who knows). He hears a weird sound through his headphones, proving that his radio is picking up a station in Jamaica. At the same time, a Jack Skellington girl with one of the worst, most bleached manes of bad 80's hair that it has ever been my pleasure to witness is trying to calm down the dolphins in the Seaquarium she works at, as they're apparently upset about the amount of fish she's been doling out lately. The beginning of the film was a really badly colored storyline about two annoying, very Italian people who's boat is attacked by something unseen under the water. The whiny woman is never seen again(best part of the story), and the guys' corpse is found with no legs. The dim, alcoholic scientist(who has an inexplicable, English- American- Italian accent) and the stick girl with the hay hair begin to theorize that there's some kind of giant monster lurking under the seas off the coast of Italy...err..Florida.<br /><br />They enlist the help of an electrician to set up an underwater mike, so that the monster can sing karaoke. This guy has a beautiful girlfriend, who's only drawback is that she pronounces Peter "Pey-tah", but for some reason he's sexually drawn to the anatomical skeleton with the frizzly hair, a situation that leaves one blinking.<br /><br />The dubbing is awful, the editor a spaz, and the storyline generally a yawn. There's a bit about how this weird scientific corporation genetically engineered this monster giant shark-squid-barracuda thing for some reason that makes no sense, and a really unpleasant greasy haired guy goes around killing women, again for no apparent reason. A stupid sheriff and his bulked up deputy are along for the ride, along with a female scientist(who we know is smart because she wears huge glasses). At one time the woman scientist takes on the huge, terrible monster(yeah, right, Ed Wood's giant octopus was more believable) with only a small handaxe, and she wins the contest. Hooray for skinny little women, who obviously make the best monster hunters!<br /><br />The solution to the problem of the giant thing is to blow up half of the Everglades, leaving a dead zone for several miles in every direction. To Hell with ecology and the environment, right? We have to kill this giant monster! At the end, the electrician and his broomstick love ride off into the sunset on her Vespa, which is o.k. since she's gotten over her colleagues' death and he's not very upset that his girlfriend got whacked by the crazy guy with the greasy hair. Hooray for true love! Wait a minute, isn't there something fishy about all this... | 0 |
2,087 | [
600,
700
] | 511 | 634 | WARNING: MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS<br /><br /> The ripples in the wake of the first "Jaws" movie were still prominent in the 1980s as well as beyond. Movie monsters went from being radioactive monstrosities to unknown and voracious beasts lurking in the unexplored corners of human experience (ie: the ocean, deep space, genetics). Although "Jaws" was a milestone in this particular realm of film horror, few films have been able to match the visceral impact of the original. "Shark rosso nell'oceano" (aka Devil Fish or Red Ocean), is a dutiful follower of the original "Jaws" formula. After several hapless boats and seagoers are brutally murdered by some ocean creature, there is an initial drive to discover the beast, then a failure to study it without horrible results, and a final push to destroy it. Although the filmmakers attempted to inject some fresh life into the equation by adding elements of technology and corporate conspiracy, the result is nothing short of disastrous. This movie sinks under its own weight of ghastly editing, brittle acting, and cheap scares.<br /><br /> The most sickly compelling feature of "Devil Fish" is its cookie-cutter editing. From the onset of the film when 3 different scenes are mashed together, the viewer gets a sense that the film lacks any technical credibility. It appears as if the editors cut the scenes around a set musical score instead of cutting the film and then making necessary changes to the music. Furthermore, every cut is an intercut and it would appear as if the editors had never heard of the terms "fade", "wipe", or "dissolve". The impact of scenes can never settle in because they are immediately cut short after a final line and a new scene begins. Silly camera tricks abound such as when two of the principle characters share a private moment on the beach and a sort of time-lapse image of their act is composited over their bodies.<br /><br /> The music is equally bland. The creature theme is a hopeless duplicate of the "Jaws" theme with slight variation. Although I like to keep my reviews devoid of MST3K influence, Mike most aptly described the somber score as "soft core porn music". Failing to produce tension in a film that relies so heavily on it is a death blow to "Devil Fish". The acting is stale, the relationships baffling, and the whole conspiracy is laughable. The question remains that if genetics had advanced to such a level to create a huge chimera of a sea monster to protect oceanic interests, why couldn't a more practical use be administered to better mankind? One of the few positive aspects of this film is the idea of the monster, even though its film presence is less than stellar.<br /><br /> Overall, this movie is bad enough to dip below mediocre. If "Jaws" had never been made, then the film could be described as average because its subject matter would be new and exciting even if it was executed ineffectively. Sadly, as a carbon copy of Spielberg's original thriller it sits most comfortably on a garbage heap of cheese. | 0 |
2,116 | [
600,
700
] | 503 | 607 | For their credit, this is one of their more competent pieces of trash, and that's because there's considerably good gore, and an interesting take on ripping off "Snakes on a Plane." But, if there's any more of example of the inconsistency behind Asylum's newest rip-off it's the two characters at the beginning whom are illegal immigrants and can't understand nor speak English to a Texas man sneaking them across the border, yet when they get on a train and meet a friend, they begin understanding and speaking perfect English.<br /><br />Aside from being a pretty bad depiction of a Hollywood formula, "Snakes on a Train" is utterly boring. At least, with "Snakes on a Plane" we were given the chance to watch actors wax comedic and attempt to be remotely interesting. The Mallachi Brothers installment features some of the most boring characters I've ever seen, from an electrical engineer (gee, I wonder how he comes in handy later on), to some stoner surfers, right down to our two main characters attempting to fight off the snake curse that lurks in the husband's wife.<br /><br />"Snakes" is never entertaining, and even when it's very gory, it's still never as good as it has the chance to be, because "Snakes" could have been a funny short film, and instead just takes itself much too seriously, and never camps it up at any moment. Instead of taking their small budget and making original films that can set a precedent, they instead force their small budget to work against them in these knock offs. While the Mallachi brothers seem to be trying, the train just looks incredibly artificial.<br /><br />It seems almost like a stage play with these inconsistent and awfully bland set pieces that try desperately to look like actual train cars, while every so often it shakes, the background of the windows are blurred, and the sound effects go off every now and then to let us know they're actually on a train; not to mention that in such a large extended train there only seems to be about ten passengers on it. And beyond the train fight, and a drawn out sex scene, we're forced to be subjected to a plot that makes zero sense. And not even the directors can work around the fact that the "lethal" snakes that go on this train look far from venomous or dangerous.<br /><br />The rest of the film staggers onto only about a minute of snake carnage and a bad subplot of an ex drug agent trying to molest a passenger. All of this dull exposition ends with a really ridiculous climax in which a poorly computer generated snake (I saw better animation on the Super Nintendo) completely swallows the train whole, and is then dispensed in a method that should have been exercised from the very beginning. Asylum scores again.<br /><br />Asylum scores yet again with a hackneyed, lazy, horribly directed, and boring rip-off of another better film. "Snakes on a Train" takes itself way too seriously, and that's why it's never entertaining or memorable. | 0 |
2,132 | [
600,
700
] | 538 | 657 | This train-wreck begins with Brujo and Alma crossing the Mexican border. Alma is suffering from some horrid curse that causes her to vomit garden snakes and Nickelodeon Gac every few minutes as well as clench her teeth and mutter nonsense. So Apparently Alma has this uncle in Los Angeles who knows of a cure for her. They hop aboard a train to get there and luckily a friend of theirs pays their way. Alma and Brujo stay in the luggage cart the whole movie since they can't afford upper class seats. Meanwhile in the higher class we see a bunch of nobodies on their way to LA for whatever reasons. A balding guy on a business trip, two girls, one of whom is carrying $5 grand and a wad of cocaine, three stoners, and some Mexicans. The Mexicans rough it up with Brujo and try to take his "weed" which apparently is a sedative for Alma's snakes slithering inside her. They realize that the snakes don't attack, they Enter Your Body Through Your Veins! Very twisted and B-Movie. Brujo saves the guy by ripping out his heart (Temple Of Doom style) and procuring the snake. For some reason he cannot have the snakes harmed or it'll hurt Alma. While this is going on a narcotics expert tries to bust one of the girls and gets a little action (topless) in exchange for not telling about her shipment of drugs. A mystery guy shows up and has a gunfight with him. As a grand finale Alma turns into a vampire, bites her man and then becomes a giant pathetic excuse for a CG snake the size of the train, eats the train and is blasted into a nuclear bomb hurricane whirlwind and disappears. Everyone then heads to LA on foot.<br /><br />The credits actually say at the end "Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental, and very weird. We suggest moving and/or taking a plane". Odd since a line in the movie from the bald guy is "Yeah, I HATE planes!" The credits go on to say "No snakes were hurt during the production of this screenplay. Only a small child but it's cool." There actually were a LOT of real snakes used in the movie, and all of them very tame. There is actually no scene of CG snakes attacking anyone unless you count the large one, but then it just eats the train and the other fake snake is just the head and it looks like a muppet. The snakes don't really attack anything, they're just...there. One crawls out of toilet paper actually!<br /><br />the movie isn't funny, isn't scary (as there's no real snake attack), and is just a 'quickie cash-in' which is when a low-budget movie company hears about a big budget Hollywood release, then they rush to put out a similar film, or even a parodic version, for release just prior to, or simultaneously with, the big name flick. The effect of this being that many people will either confuse one for the other, and go see the quickie rather than the 'biggie' or, they will want to see both, for whatever reason... like myself. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
2,177 | [
600,
700
] | 563 | 679 | So I rented this movie hoping to learn about the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the beginnings of its independence from Belgian rule. I was excited to become familiar with the figures involved in its history, mainly Lumumba and Mobutu. I wanted to see how the new Congolese government attempted to bring together the various groups opposing colonial rule, the political motives behind each one, the reasons behind Belgium's decision to give the DRC its independence, and also how the United States and the former USSR were involved. Sadly, all of my questions went largely unanswered. My belief is that this movie was made by people who, through a passing familiarity with the story of the DRC's fight for freedom, saw a story filled with drama and emotion, and decided to exploit it. They then proceeded to try and stuff all the dramatic points into a storyline, briefly filled them out with dialogue, went to the set and shot it. I could be wrong, but if so it's all the sadder, because then the makers must have simply become too tied up in getting everything in, and ended up glossing over all details in an effort to create an encompassing history. Whatever the reason, the fact is that the movie could be a timeline of sentence-long statements and facts printed on the screen. The film goes through each major occurrence, and tells the viewer point-blank the main idea of what's going on, completely smoothing over the actual details in favor of getting across the big things. For instance, there is the scene when Lumumba is captured by the increasingly rebellious army controlled by Mobutu. In the situation the soldiers have three possible viewpoints: one that sympathizes with Lumumba, one that vilifies Lumumba, and one that stands in the middle, sympathizing and yet obeying orders. Correspondingly, there are three soldiers that speak in the scene, uttering lines that unadornedly show their points of view. Then, to avoid dealing with the actual tensions that these opposing viewpoints bring up, the scriptwriters simply inserted some random shooting, more army guys show up and they just end up beating everyone up. This is the extent of the reflectiveness of the movie. Most of the time, each character simply states their basic motives, the other characters respond with theirs, and that's that. There's little telling through actions; even the things they say are direct the point of painfulness. It's hard to believe that the people represented actually acted like that. Also, in the trend of this directness, things like political tension between factions is reduced to simple acknowledgement of the fact-- we never learn what these factions are, what they're fighting for, their power, basically anything except that they exist. The characters likewise are one-dimensional and flat; unfortunately I don't know whether Lumumba was actually a freedom fighter passionately devoted to ideals of Congolese unity, but after an hour or so of the movie I certainly didn't trust it to tell me so. The DRC, like many developing countries, has a complicated and important history, especially in the period leading up to and after independence. But the telling of these histories will not be useful unless there is recognition of the intricacy of the situations. Lumumba fails to give proper attention to these details, and ends up telling the viewer little except the most general of outlines. | 0 |
2,203 | [
600,
700
] | 534 | 664 | This four-hour miniseries production is about two hours longer than necessary, primarily because the filmmakers seemed not to have a clear idea how to adapt a novel to the screen. They seemed not to know what should be kept in and what might safely be left out. The film opens with Sir Walter reading from the Peerage book that is his primary solace in his troubles. This introduces the family - all of whom we get to know intimately over the next four hours anyway - but serves little other purpose. Similarly, the scenes where the Musgroves lament "poor Richard" serve no purpose but to drag the story down. Some of Austen's actual dialogue is allocated to different characters and some of her narrative is recycled as dialogue that falls awkwardly from the tongues of the characters. There is some fill-in dialogue, too, and this is uniformly dreadful. The scene where Charles Hayter is boring Henrietta with his concerns about getting Dr. Shirley's curacy was only barely interesting as narrative in the book; as a scene in this production, it is stultifying The scene on the Cobb, when Louisa falls and is "taken up lifeless!", is entirely without urgency, and I wondered whether Wentworth's line "Is there nobody to help me?" might have been directed at the writers, as well as the other actors.<br /><br />This production often looks and feels like a play that has been filmed, rather than an actual film, and this is most evident in the acting, which is the opposite of subtle: booming delivery of lines, exaggerated gestures, and actors who have no idea what to do with their hands, feet, or faces when they are not speaking their lines. Charles Musgrove stands in his parlour, feet shoulder width apart, and appears to project to the balcony (if there were one) when speaking to the other people in the room with him. Louisa Musgrove's face, when not actively simpering or giggling, seems to be in confused repose. Louisa is a giddy, giggly, ditzy creature, and I did not for a moment believe that Wentworth would be interested in her. <br /><br />The costumes are a mixed bunch, but mostly awful, and Anne Elliot's green tartan gown is quite possibly the most hideous alleged period costume ever devised. We are given the dates at the beginning of the show - it is the late 1790's or perhaps very early 1800s - and yet many of the costumes seem to be of Victorian design, and thus about 60 years too early! The hair is just so wrong that I won't even mention it here. Except to say that I won't mention it. :-)<br /><br />This production does do some things right, however. Mrs. Smith is given her proper importance, and her history with Mr. Elliot, his dissipation and his intrigues, are fully addressed. I was also pleased to see the fleshed out "reconciliation" scenes with Anne and Frederick at the end, which are precious reward for the reader but were glossed over in the 1995 production.<br /><br />If you love the book Persuasion, and even vaguely like the 1995 movie, don't waste a moment (or a penny) on this production; you will find it sorely wanting. | 0 |
2,209 | [
600,
700
] | 540 | 686 | The comparisons between the 1995 version and this are inevitable. Sadly, this version falls far short.<br /><br />The casting is uninspired and the acting wooden. One gets the impression the director did not read the book,so did not understand the characters.<br /><br />Sir Walter Elliot is portrayed as pompous but his inadvertent silliness which Redgrave brilliantly captured (in the 1995 version) is nowhere to be found.<br /><br />The Musgrove sisters are so unlikable, one doesn't understand why Wentworth or anybody else would give them a second glance.<br /><br />The relationship between Wentworth and Anne is devoid of feeling.<br /><br />In the 1995 version, Hinds and Root managed to convey the depth of emotion the two of them felt towards each other with their body language and facial expressions. In this one, it is hard to understand Anne spent years mired in regret unless one has read the book.<br /><br />This production does not capture the emotional complexity of the main characters' relationship.<br /><br />In the scene where Wentworth walks in on Anne and Mary having breakfast, it seems to the viewer, as Mary thinks, they are only slight acquaintances.<br /><br />In the 1995 version, when Wentworth walks in (the first time he sees her in years), the tension is thick. Resentment is coming off Wentworth in waves, while Anne is almost overcome.<br /><br />In this version, while Wentworth is courting Lousia, it is as if he is truly invested, the undercurrents are missing. In the 1995 version, the viewer sees Wentworth's anger at Anne. He is flaunting his courtship in front of Anne, as if to say, "see what you gave up, I don't need or want you anymore".<br /><br />Yet he still cares if she suffers, as the scene where he asks his sister and the Admiral to take Anne back to house illustrates. In the 1995 version the viewer feels Anne's shock that he would care if she was tired, we also feel Wentworth's discomfort that he does still care. In this version he just walks on with Lousia as if nothing happened.<br /><br />The pivotal scene where Anne is conversing with Harville about who loves longest, man or woman, is totally botched. The actors are just reciting lines with no emotional investment.<br /><br />When Anne reads the letter from Wentworth, it is as if she is reading a grocery list.<br /><br />Contrast this to the 1995 version, where the viewer feels Anne's joy at her second chance. We are there with her as she reads the letter. The director had both actors reading the letter and you hear both their voices. Wentworth is full of frustration, passion and hope, while Anne's is at first incredulous then evolves in to joy.<br /><br />This production has more scenes after the revelation, probably because it was needed to explain to the viewer what just happened. The 1995 version didn't need to explain, we knew and rejoiced for the characters The only thing this production has in it's favor is it kept the Mrs. Smith sub plot intact, while the 1995 version did not.<br /><br />The 1995 version however did include part of Austen's original ending. The scene where Wentworth is commissioned by the Admiral to find out if Anne and Mr. Elliot will want to move back to her house (which he & Mrs. Croft are renting) after they marry. <br /><br />This is a production to avoid at all costs. | 0 |
2,289 | [
600,
700
] | 537 | 688 | Los Angeles physician Tom Reed (Vincent Ventresca) survives a tragic auto accident but ends up going to prison in the high desert of California. When his time is up he lands in a small, wind-swept town named Purgatory Flats. His first stop is a bar, where he quickly slams a beer and gets hired as a bartender. So much for ex-cons having a tough time finding work. This is the first in a long line of absurdities that make up the plot of writer/director Harris Done's silly attempt at modern, desert-set, film noir.<br /><br />His first night on the job Tom meets a sexy femme fatal named Sunny (Alexandra Holden), who hangs out with a family of bad boys: the Mecklins, consisting of Uncle Dean (Gregg Henry) and his two nephews, the drug addicted Owen (Kevin Alejandro), who is Sunny's husband, and AWOL soldier Randy ("90210"s Brian Austin Greer). After his shift is finished there's a shooting, and Dr. Tom just happens to be nearby. He agrees to treat one of the wounded and, most importantly, not tell the cops. I'm not sure that's a good move for a guy fresh out of the pen, but this script (co-written by Diane Fine) has very little to do with logic.<br /><br />Tom makes a series of poor decisions that get him further and further entangled with the criminally inclined Mecklin Boys, including stealing medical supplies and hopping into the sack with Sunny. Everybody in the theater is screaming, "Don't do it! Walk away", but Tom does it anyway.<br /><br />In a classic film noir like "Body Heat" or "Double Indemnity" we root for and empathize with William Hurt and Fred McMurray as they get sucked into the web of bright, sexy, devious femme fatals like Kathleen Turner and Barbara Stanwyck. It's not their fault. We'd probably be tempted by all that money or that particular dame, too. But Dr. Tom's weakness seems to stem from stupidity more than circumstances. Sunny is sexy but not a very compelling character, and there's no money to tempt him. You're left wondering if he attended the same medical school as Dr. Nick Riveria from "The Simpsons".<br /><br />The silly script would have you believe that a redneck's rural home has almost everything you need to treat a gunshot to the stomach, and that one so wounded could easily hop to attention and effectively participate in a fist fight. It gives us an implausible car chase with one of those "The Club" things clamped to the steering wheel. Oh, that oil tanker that just exploded - no one noticed that.<br /><br />I wonder how such a ridiculous script ever got green-lighted? Perhaps Brian Austin Greer has more juice than I gave him credit for. It's obvious that he took the relatively small role of Randy - a hot-headed murder - to show producers that he had more acting range than he displayed on "90210".<br /><br />It's also sort of sad to see Nicholas Turturro playing a stereotypical Hispanic drug dealer. He deserves better than this.<br /><br />If you have an IQ over 50, "Purgatory Flats" will have you shaking your head in disbelief. I'll give it 3 stars for the unintentional laughs and the scenes with the sexy Miss Holden running around in her red panties. | 0 |
2,349 | [
600,
700
] | 477 | 615 | "The New Twenty" is one of the worst films I have ever seen. Yes, some may argue that formulaic small budget films that strive for less may seem worse, but I would argue that a pseudo-intellectual anti-formulaic "indie" film that pretends to be more is worse. <br /><br />"The New Twenty" was written and directed by Chris Mason Johnson, and I will never get back the 91 minutes of my life that I wasted on his film.<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY & CHARACTERS<br /><br />From beginning to end, the screenplay failed to provide an anti-hero or hero with a moral core that the audience would want to see succeed or fail. <br /><br />In story telling, the three dramatic conflicts are man vs. man, man vs. the world, and man vs. himself. <br /><br />The screenplay focuses on a group of college friends in New York, and is preoccupied with the dynamic of man vs. himself, where each of the film's characters are so self-absorbed in a stupor of depression and self-destructive behavior that the movie atrophies before the audiences very eyes. <br /><br />Each of the main characters indulge in unexplained bad behavior (heroin addiction with no history as to why the character is an addict; a fiancée who has sex with her fiancée's boss/investor, even though the character is written too smart to have sex with such a sleazy character; a man who begins as a decent guy, but is attracted to a foul-mouthed investor, and converts for some unknown reason into a similar foul-mouthed business jackass; a closeted chubby gay cyber geek, who does nothing, but find dates online; and a gay Asian man who dates an HIV positive older man, but has no scenes establishing why the relationship works and why love develops).<br /><br />Crucial scenes establishing the cause of the character's addiction, the suffering and self- loathing of the fiancée that might explain why she would sleep with a sleaze bag; the back story that would explain why a decent guy would be attracted to a "Gordon Gecko" type character and become a jackass; a story line for the chubby cyber geek; and more scenes of interaction between the Asian man and HIV positive boyfriend are all missing.<br /><br />Without proper establishing details, all of the characters' actions seem forced and contrived.<br /><br />DIRECTION, CINEMATOGRAPHY & SCORE<br /><br />I found Mr. Johnson's direction to be without a clear point of view, leaving the actors emotionally incoherent. <br /><br />The cinematography can be described as mundane at best. Mr. Johnson selected small spaces to shoot and failed to catch the grandeur of New York City. This failure created a claustrophobic film, that viewed like the filming of a stage play, and not a film.<br /><br />The score was embarrassingly absent from most of the film. I assume that Mr. Johnson is to blame, since he could have asked for full score to enhance understanding in each shot.<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br /><br />"The New Twenty" is an annoying and unmitigated failure in film-making. | 0 |
2,408 | [
600,
700
] | 508 | 605 | If you don't like bad acting, poor editing, ridiculous dialog and unbelievable characters you will hate this movie. If you like all of the above, that is to say if you are a Lynch fan, then you will love Mulholland Drive. This is quite possibly the worst film to be rated above an 7.0 on IMDB.<br /><br />Outside of Naomi Watts work, you will be hard pressed to find any competent acting in Mulholland Dr. The other female lead went to the "hide your face with your hands when you don't have the chops" school of acting. Given the script they had to work with it's a wonder all of the actors weren't holding their heads in their hands.<br /><br />Characters wander in and out of the film that do nothing to advance the storyline. You have a hitman, a mysterious cowboy, an adulterous wife and her cliche'd poolman lover, a mafioso type figure sitting in a darkened room who speaks through an external voice box and a host of others too numerous and tedious to mention. Suffice it to say that they manage to do little more than fill up screen time.<br /><br />This isn't so bad however in that it distracts the viewer from the fact that the movie has no discernable plot. You will wait and wait for for all of the loose threads to come together and in the end you will be abysmally disappointed. The hardest thing for a writer to do is to bring everything together in a believable fashion at the end of a movie in a way that leaves everyone feeling fulfilled. The easiest thing for a writer to do is to create a lot of odd characters and put them in scenes that are not connected to the movie as a whole and then to take what few coherent threads there are and jumble them up at the end for the sake of surprise. Guess which way Lynch goes. SURPRISE!!<br /><br />You know you have a bad script when you have to resort to dream sequences to make any sense out of it. After all, a dream sequence covers all sins. Dreams don't have to make sense. Anything can happen in a dream.<br /><br />The editing is similarly disjointed. Let's just say good editing does not call attention to itself. Much of the way this film is edited seems to be done for the sole purpose of calling attention to the editing. "Look at me... You can see my editing... Aren't I a genius?" Uh, well... NO! This movie has all of the earmarks of the worst and most self-indulgent French films.<br /><br />So why is this movie so popular? My theory is that it is just another sign of the decay of our culture. Melodies are hard to compose so let's listen to rap. Plots are hard to follow so let's dispense with them. Pictures are difficult to paint so let's pee in a cup and stick a crucifix in it. These are the symptoms of our times and Mulholland Drive is just another part of the affliction. | 0 |
2,427 | [
600,
700
] | 484 | 661 | I remember when "The Love Machine" was first released to theaters. I was a mere 13 years old, too young to see the much-ballyhooed motion picture release, but not too old to take my Mom's paperback copy of the Jacqueline Susann novel to school and pore over the 'naughty bits' with my schoolmates.<br /><br />Though I'm not sure what my problem was at such an early age, but I was very much into the book. I bought and wore an "ankh" ring just like on the paperback cover, and I remember the ads for the perfume, "Xanadu" that was cross-promoted and featured clumsily in the film. Despite such an interest I didn't actually see the film until several years later. I should have left things as they were.<br /><br />"The Love Machine" is hands down the worst of the many bad films adapted from Susann's novels...which of course makes it the most fun to watch. Its faults are many: from its hopscotching script that jumps choppily from one incident to another with nary a connecting thread; its dated, horny (brass instruments, I mean) music score of ersatz Bacharach; the flat, first-take performances; the boring sexuality -I've never seen bathrobes featured so prominently in a movie before. It's like a fetish! Whenever sex, nudity or something sleazy is called for, out pops somebody in a blue robe! Very odd, that; and most certainly, the circus train of awful 70's fashions that are on endless display. Poor Dyan Cannon's performance (which is no great shakes anyway, but heads over the rest of the cast) is consistently undermined by the jaw-dropping get ups she's called upon to wear. However, the film's chief liability is the stoic, stone-like John Philip Law as (appropriately enough) Robin Stone, the object of every girl's (and one overthe-top flaming male photographer's) affection.<br /><br />Law is just awful and performs as if he were pulled off the street, handed the pages of the script in hurry and told to give a cold reading on the spot. Just lifeless! Not only that, but he appears in desperate need of a blood transfusion or something. He looks wan and sickly throughout and is several pounds smaller than most of his female costars. Robin Stone should be a hunk, not a hankie.<br /><br />For anyone finding the film hard going (it's rather slow by today's standards) I beg you to stick around for the climactic "fight scene." Here Ms. Cannon (balancing 23 pounds of teased hair) finally abandons her heretofore starchy acting style and lets loose with that infectiously raucous laugh of hers, setting in motion a truly memorable free for all that should have become a cinema clip highlight by now. Trying to rival "Valley of the Dolls"'s infamous wig-down-the-toilet scene, "The Love Machine" finally does something right.<br /><br />Jacqueline Susann's unique brand of trash is sorely missed. Perhaps someone out there owns the rights to Rona Barrett's "The Lovomaniacs" and will revive the genre. | 0 |
2,447 | [
600,
700
] | 534 | 643 | This disaster flick is a remake of a 1973 movie of the same title, based on a novel by Sakyo Komatsu. Japan is located right alongside the Pacific Ring of Fire (active volcanoes) and also along the edges of plate tectonics, whose shifting will cause earthquakes and tsunamis (a Japanese term in itself for tidal wave). Naturally, this makes a natural premise for a disaster picture, what with Hollywood having a field day with films like Armageddon, Deep Impact, and more recently, The Day After Tomorrow, which tackles how global warming becomes the catalyst for natural disasters gone bonkers around the world.<br /><br />But I'll have to say this: The Sinking of Japan makes all the films mentioned earlier, look like classics. This disaster movie IS a disaster, and a massive one at that. Having to look at my watch every 10-15 minutes is a signal that the movie doesn't engage, and feels than it had over-clocked its runtime.<br /><br />The special effects are gorgeous to look at. From satellite styled outer space pictures, to the vivid recreation of every conceivable natural disaster that can strike the land of the rising sun, the effects are the star of the show. However, having spectacular computer generated graphics does not in itself make a movie palatable, as too much of a good thing just plain bores.<br /><br />If you had seen the trailer where you're enticed by the effects and specific scenes of chaos and mayhem, then yes, in fact those scenes are just that. There are no details, and everything is seen from afar, in a God-like mode. Things happen just like that on screen, with nary an attempt to try and delve deeper to look at issues up close. It's akin to Godzilla knocking over buildings, and it's as if there are no humans or loss of lives through that single act. Morbid as it might sound, show us the victims! A populous nation like Japan doesn't just suffer disaster after disaster with an extremely low fatality count, not when the filmmakers unleash mayhem in such an epic scale.<br /><br />Trying to weave a romance into the movie, it stood out like a sore thumb. There are many characters in the movie, but each one of them lacking real characteristics, or humanity, and look like wandering zombies, without expression, without emotion, and definitely very stiff and unconvincing. Heroes become stuck in generic control rooms issuing statements, instructions and form policies, and react to incidents like it was a computer game, all settled with a push of a button. These are characters that you don't give a hoot about.<br /><br />If I may just use The Day After Tomorrow as a comparison, while there are terrific effects, there is at least an attempt to provide a microscopic view of the entire disaster from different individual's point of views. And infused within are plenty of action sequences, big ones like the disasters themselves, and small ones with the focus on the triumph of the human spirit, that makes it relatively compelling.<br /><br />Unfortunately for The Sinking of Japan, this movie should preferably be one to sink and tank, and hopefully undergo a short and quick death at the local box office to make way for better stuff. | 0 |
2,459 | [
600,
700
] | 571 | 699 | I just saw Princess Raccoon at the Asian Film Festival in New York. The gentleman who introduced the film congratulated the audience on their fine taste. "You could be at Herbie: Fully Loaded," he said with a smug smile, "but instead you're here to watch Seijun Suzuki's Princess Raccoon." The audience applauded and cheered. Well let me tell you, I would have rather watched Herbie: Fully Loaded twice in a row. Princess Raccoon, an allegedly whimsical musical based on Japanese folklore, easily qualifies for one of the ten worst films that I have ever seen. It is so wretched that its wretchedness actually makes me dislike other Seijun Suzuki films, which is quite a feat.<br /><br />There is such a vast expanse of things wrong with Princess Raccoon that I hardly know where to start. Perhaps its worst faults are being both aggressively unintelligible and mind bogglingly monotonous. If the reels got mixed up or if half of them got lost in shipping the audience would not know the difference. If you don't believe me I dare you to steal a print and have someone run the reels in random order. If you can tell me which one goes where I will give you every penny I have.<br /><br />The first third of the film features a mishmash of scenes, songs (including a cringe inducing rap number), and images that don't seem to be related in any way at all. Horribly integrated computer animation is thrown into the bargain, adding yet another brick to the immense, and rapidly growing, wall of incomprehensibility. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that the writer wrote down any Japanese folklore that came to mind of on a bunch of note cards, stacked them up, shuffled them, dealt the cards out on a table, and then wrote the script according to their order.<br /><br />About thirty-five minutes into the film some semblance of a plot arrives on the scene. Something about a shape-shifting raccoon princess (in human form) and a regular human falling in love. I hoped that this was be a portent of the film being something other than a series of perplexing scenes, but no such luck. The film continues in the same absolutely baffling manner. I wish I had gotten out then, but I was trapped in the middle of a narrow row. In retrospect it would have been worth the awkward scene.<br /><br />I'm exhausted just thinking about the last couple of reels. I spent every moment hoping and praying that it would be over. Every big dolly move, swell in music, or scene that looked remotely like it was concluding things renewed my hopes that the credits were about to roll. For agonizing minute after agonizing minute it went on. And on and on and on. Finally, after dozens of false alarms, it cut to what I was sure must be an abstract pattern over which credits were about to appear. Then, in defiance of all reason, it cut to another scene. How could I forget? The completely unrelated subplot concerning a ninja being captured, urinated on, and boiled in a soup hadn't been wrapped up yet.<br /><br />I'm never going to get those 111 minutes back, but you can spare yourself the pain. Unless you want to taint your memory or future enjoyment of great Seijun Suzuki films like Youth of the Beast and Tokyo Drifter do not see Princess Raccoon. I would have rather spent my time vomiting. | 0 |
2,489 | [
600,
700
] | 527 | 661 | Joe D'Amato might have made some other notable movies in his very long and very prolific career- prolific, of course, by turns of making VERY cheap Z-grade movies in Italy's big exploitation boom of the late 70s early 70s- but Porno Holocaust isn't one of them, or at least shouldn't be. Granted, I should not expect much from a movie with such a title, but I thought considering the back of the box's description that it might have some fun horror scenes with the "horny, mutant, cannibal zombie". Turns out the zombie doesn't appear until more than halfway into the movie, and at every turn we get instead a tawdry sex scene as hardcore as one can imagine. Which is fine. But it's not very enjoyable, except in the most "what the f*** is this BS" kind of way. There's laughable dialog involving lobsters costing more from mail-order Japan than in Paris, hot, slim women play biologists and zoologists who have particular sexual hang-ups (letting the door be unlocked to be raped, and a bi-polar kind of enjoyment out of getting gang-banged).<br /><br />It all leads up to the island, where the "main attraction" is a guy who early on just spends an absolutely pathetic (forget ludicrous) amount of time just staring at the newcomers to the radioactive wasteland of the shot-on-Caribbean island, and once revealed has a face like one of the guards in Jabba's palace and has a sweet potato for a main genital. But much dumber than anything before it is the "relationship" that develops between the monster and a dark-skinned lady who has an inordinate amount of time to escape, but just sits there, blank-faced, as the monster brings gifts and for what must be a racially-motivated exploitation move on the part of the filmmakers the monster ONLY rapes and kills the white women, and not her. And it ends, of course, with a "happy" ending. I use quotes, of course, out of a kind of shock that this could have any kind of legitimate ending at all.<br /><br />Bottom line, this is NOT what you might expect, as possibly being a bloody horror movie with plenty of tacky but cool looking Italian monster-zombies devouring human flesh. If anything what violence is in the film is done on a shoe-string; a log hit to the face is immediately cut to the bloody aftermath, which is like the aftermath of a tomato hitting someone. So really, the last part of the title is meant more for market sake. Yet even as a porno movie it has little to go on except as a reason for the cast and crew to get a paid vacation to the Caribbean (as an interview with George Eastman suggests, this was just one of a few quickies made while on the island). Its got penny-bought schlocky camera-work and similar actors, filled with genitalia about 3/4 of the whole time and with wretched lip-syncing and music like Nino Rota forced at gun-point to make something snappy in a bordello, and it's STILL a piece of celluloid dung all the same; all of this could be an immense guilty pleasure, but it isn't. | 0 |
2,496 | [
600,
700
] | 469 | 610 | I've read just about every major book about the Manhattan Project. Most people know what it was, but few people understand the depth and breadth of the project. Its scope was immeasurably massive -- rivaled in US history perhaps only by the space program of the 1960's.<br /><br />There were -- literally -- MILLIONS of people involved from all walks of life at numerous sites (most clandestine) around the country, each involved in a specific and different aspect of the project that they couldn't talk about to the person sitting in the cubicle next to them, much less their family. The logistics are overwhelming, particularly given the considerations of wartime communication, security and transportation in the 1940's.<br /><br />As an example -- my colleague's father was a carpenter who worked for one of the companies that had a contract with the federal government for the Manhattan Project. His job was to supervise a crew of about 30 other carpenters, who were responsible for manufacturing forms for the pouring of concrete for the massive research installations at Hanford, Washington. That's "all" he did, six days a week for nearly two years. These carpenters needed food, housing, sanitary facilities, hospitals and materials just as much as did Oppenheimer and his crowd at the top of the pyramid. Just think about it! That being said, it's simply impossible to do the subject justice in a 2-hour movie. In defense of Joffe, however, I would say that they had an impossible task, particularly since he chose to have a diverse screenplay with multiple plots, multiple angles, and multiple characters. What, exactly, was he thinking, and how could he be so arrogant to think that this would work? That's Hollywood, I guess.<br /><br />FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY has so many flaws that it would take a book to list them all. Horrible casting. Dreadful (and politically-motivated) writing. Bad science. The portrayals of Groves and Oppie are particularly inaccurate and downright galling. Notwithstanding the screenplay's all-too-obvious agenda, it is STILL incredibly bland and sloppy.<br /><br />These flaws have been listed elsewhere on IMDb, but I was particularly struck by the fact that the scientists had so much time on their hands -- softball, horseback riding, parties, semi-formal dinners, ballet, etc., not to mention romance, and of course circulating political petitions. According to FM&LB, if these great brains had gotten off their duffs and actually spent some time in the lab instead of seducing Laura Dern, we might have won the war before D-Day.<br /><br />One final gripe -- FM&LB mentions that "Fat Man" and "Little Boy" were the code names of the two atomic bombs, but it doesn't mention that these names were a semi-good-natured jab at Groves ("Fat Man", for heavy stature) and Oppenheimer ("Little Boy," for his slight stature). Another reason Paul Newman should not have been in this movie... | 0 |
2,517 | [
600,
700
] | 442 | 629 | No, *Hitch* is decidedly NOT a romantic-comedy about bilious (and bibulous) former-Leftist-pundit-turned-reactionary-pundit Christopher Hitchens, though it sure would've made for a funnier movie. A dumpy little Englishman, teeth stained black from cigarettes and Guinness, barking out advice -- and acerbic political commentary -- to lovelorn men: "Look into her EYES when you speak to her, you nutter! And remember: calling someone a 'neo-conservative' makes you a de facto anti-Semite! Can't you get anything straight, you liberal pantywaist?"<br /><br />Oh well. Instead, we get Will Smith, whose continuing success remains a mystery to me, at least. I am apparently alone in this regard. Smith is the most powerful man in Hollywood as of this writing: Americans just can't help throwing their money at him. I, on the other hand, find his smugness insufferable, unmitigated by a scene here (spoiled by the trailer) where he suffers a drastic allergic reaction to seafood. We know Smith will bounce back to his bland, over-muscled good looks, because there's a fat sit-com actor (Kevin James) on hand making a fool of himself. We're supposed to laugh hysterically whenever the slob starts dancing like a jackass (cue "Everybody Dance Now!" by CC Music Factory), but why would a straight-arrow accountant behave in such a way? I've worked with several straight-arrow accountants for years, and I can tell you that if, in Norman Mailer's memorable phrase, "tough guys don't dance", neither do straight-arrow accountants. Am I taking all this too seriously? Or -- and here's a daring thought -- perhaps the writers couldn't conceive a logically-drawn character to save their lives?<br /><br />Speaking of the writers, they come up with a lousy idea for Smith's love interest: a writer for a tabloid (Eva Mendes). Since when do tabloid creeps deserve love? What universe am I in, anyway? -- everyone here at IMDb is actually gushing over this tripe. Either you all need to raise the bar, in terms of entertainment value for your buck, or I'm just a skunk at the garden party. (Me, and about 150 million other long-suffering boyfriends and husbands.) In any case, if I may imitate Smith's Hitch and offer my male readers some smooth advice: when you're dragged to see *Hitch*, say to your Better Half, "Hey, that was pretty good" after the movie is over. Don't be overenthusiastic; don't rave about it -- she'll know you're lying to her. Praise it in a lightly surprised way, as if the movie was better than you expected and wasn't the agonizing time-waster that it actually was. But what am I saying, eh, fellas? -- we dudes know all the moves. <br /><br />1 star out of 10. | 0 |
2,600 | [
600,
700
] | 494 | 656 | Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film. <br /><br />As Rod Stewart once sang, "look how wrong you can be."<br /><br />But the novice's artsy-fartsy, "E.T."-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life. <br /><br />Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?<br /><br />Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called "totally unusable" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.<br /><br />So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.<br /><br />Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. "Superman" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first "Lethal Weapon" was pretty good.<br /><br />So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.<br /><br />But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.<br /><br />The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.<br /><br />One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.<br /><br />Doubtful! | 0 |
2,641 | [
600,
700
] | 536 | 660 | When Family Guy first premiered, I was not in a discriminating mood. With the 1990s containing a wealth of clever, surreal cartoons, why should I be? Nickelodeon produced Doug; Ren and Stimpy and Rockos Modern Life among other fine cartoons(Yes, this includes Spongebob).All had quirky, dreamlike animation and surprisingly sophisticated stories and dialog. The Simpsons became an outright phenomenon, perhaps not as brilliant as its biggest defenders claim it to be, but a very fine investment of your time and certainly dismisses the false axiom that all TV is junk. South Park started out as a crude but hilarious attack on everything with unique and intelligent satire underneath. It evolved to become a Monty Python- esquire show with outrageous concepts and brutally swift and sharp societal critiques(Such as their defense of the noble underpants gnomes) and eventually settled to be entirely self referential and "meta" like the Simpsons did, and has unfortunately jumped the shark. Family Guy is superficially like The Simpsons and South Park. It pushes buttons and is a favorite among college students and bestiality enthusiasts. However, what it has in loquacity it lacks in true wit.<br /><br />The show is famous for its use of gimmicks, especially for flashbacks. Many are references to bad TV sitcoms or commercials. Some are funny(Especially from the first two seasons), most are not. Are references inherently funny? I'm not sure, but they are mostly what the show stands on considering that its characters are painfully uninteresting. Where Homer and Bart have charm, and Cartman has an artillery of self awareness and pure outrageousness to back up his awful behavior, Peter Griffin has no excuse. He's just a loud, obnoxious pig. Anything funny coming from his character is only because the writers forget how to be unfunny that day. Lois is also very shallow and dull; Meg is a prop, only to be abused; Chris is borderline retarded and only occasionally funny, and the two main stars of the show(Stewie and Brian) are so inconsistent in their characterizations that it all really kind of pointless.<br /><br />Other gimmicks I can't stand are when a character points to something obviously and lingers on it for an uncomfortably long time. This happens a lot lately, and I can't bear it any longer. Not just the oft mentioned chicken that likes to beat Peter up, I'm talking about the painful moments where they talk about pop culture and prod it as if they are alien spectators. That's not wit or even ironic humor, it's totally boring and lifeless.<br /><br />Not that the show can't be funny, in fact some of the earlier episodes had me rolling. Highlights include the pilot episode, where Peter loses touch with reality after losing his precious television; when Peters religious zealot father shows up and wreaks havoc; When Peter becomes a narc at Megs school, and the "pancake" episode. I suspect these are the episodes that accidentally incorporated actual human traits in its characters, or merely were times the writers had actual comedic inspiration.<br /><br />One last thing, the show is not offensive. It's only offensive to those who wouldn't watch the show in the first place, so it's almost like a circle jerk to the choir of hipsters. | 0 |
2,776 | [
600,
700
] | 481 | 600 | It's times like these I truly wish I was a more avid reader of Clive Barker's literary repertoire, since very few things feel worse than not being able to fully comprehend a movie of this stunningly 'visual' caliber. Based on the novella "Cabal", the story of "Nightbreed" involves a behemothic amount of lavish and bizarre creatures and settings in an underground society of demonic ghouls. A normal guy becomes linked to the strange world, called Midian, through his dreams and his psychiatrist coerces him into believing he is responsible for a series of gruesome murders of families in recent months... Thinking this to be true, he retreats to Midian - located under a rural cemetery - where he is reluctantly accepted. The shrink, however, is right on Homeboy's heals with a diabolical scheme to whip out the community of Nightbreeds...<br /><br />Wanting so much to love this movie, I was very let down in the long run. I have regretfully not read the story so Barker's fantasy world and the purpose of it and all these monsters was horribly confusing and the premise was painfully uneven. I understand how the final cut was diced to hell and even Barker show's moderate dislike for the overall product, but I just didn't "get" it. Even if it is crucial to read the story, I feel like it should at least be translated to film in a way that it is still comprehensible for those unfamiliar with the literature. If "Cabal" is as convoluted as this film than Barker really milked a dead concept. Couldn't help but feel a bit bored after a while, especially when things started getting increasingly ridiculous (somewhere around the jail scene I realized just how bored I was) - like a police department fearlessly going to war with Midian like it happens every week! No one seems to think the idea of immortal monsters is a tad... strange. I DID like the visual effects and all that crazy sh*t that went on in Midian, especially that porcupine lady and that big headed SOB... Definitely an epic flick when you consider the massive quantity of effects and convincingly morbid decor. David Cronenberg fills his position well as the loony shrink with his cool zipper-head potato sack mask, but we ALL wish he had done some behind-the-camera work to help save this heap... <br /><br />So, if you have a boner for Clive Barker material and fully grasp what exactly Midian is, why they show the creatures during the opening title sequence (terrible idea!), and why these creatures reside there and how some punk kid shares a telekinetic link to it, you should probably check out "Nightbreed". I'll look for "Cabal" one of these days and hopefully gain some perspective... Or maybe I'll just forget this travesty completely... Until then, this is a poorly constructed and fairly tedious mess of a movie... Watch "Hellraiser" instead. | 0 |
2,777 | [
600,
700
] | 514 | 680 | "The Vindicator" is a weird little Canadian B-Movie. At first glance it would appear to be just another cheap (extremely cheap!) "Terminator" knockoff, but strangely enough it also shares some qualities with the original "RoboCop," which hadn't even been released yet when "Vindicator" appeared (1986). Coincidence? Who knows? Anyway, the story is thus: scientist Carl Lehman seems to be a pretty nice guy who works for a super duper secret government high-tech research lab, reporting to a sleazy boss named Whyte, whom he butts heads with about project funding early in the movie. Carl's got a loving wife at home and a baby on the way, which makes it all the more tragic when he is suddenly killed in a "lab accident." But wait! Carl's not really dead after all! Whyte has extracted Carl's brain and inserted it into his pet project, some sort of experimental bio-mechanical space suit. When Carl wakes up inside his new body, he understandably goes a little nuts, trashes the lab, and escapes. This is a problem because Whyte (for reasons known only to himself) has programmed the mechanical suit with a "Rage Reaction" program, which will cause Carl to kill anybody who touches him for any reason. In hindsight, that little addition to Carl's psyche was probably not the best idea.<br /><br />So Robo-Carl wanders aimlessly through the movie for a while, killing a couple of random muggers and other assorted background characters, till he returns to his home and contacts his wife (this scene is supposed to be heartbreakingly touching, I guess, but turns out comical because Carl's robot voice is so heavily synthesized that you can barely understand a word he says). He of course tells her to leave the city and never come back because she's in danger, but she wants to stay and help him, yadda yadda yadda. Eventually Whyte hires a gang of commando thugs led by "Hunter," an apparent ninja assassin played by Pam Grier (!)to hunt down and destroy his runaway creation, using Carl's wife as bait, and predictable (but laughably cheap looking) mayhem ensues.<br /><br />I'm a B-Movie kind of guy but "The Vindicator" was so half-assed that it turned into high comedy pretty quickly. I'm assuming that a good hunk of the budget went into Stan Winston's robo-Carl suit design, because that actually looks pretty cool, but the rest of the movie suffers from a cheap, made-for-TV kind of look. The script could've used a LOT more work, but then maybe the filmmakers had gotten wind of "RoboCop" going into production and rushed to get "Vindicator" out so they couldn't be accused of ripping them off. Either way, judging by the other comments here on IMDb, I'm not the only one who's noticed the parallels between "Vindicator" and "RoboCop," and obviously "Robo" is the superior film, so there's no need to waste your time sitting through this piece of nonsense unless you want to see a film that can best be described, at best, as a rough draft of "RoboCop" if it were made by an 8th grader. | 0 |
2,809 | [
600,
700
] | 487 | 617 | I saw this film as a sneak preview before the Venice opening at the Telluride Film Festival. Your reaction to it will largely depend on your attitude about respecting the text of Shakespeare. On the plus side: Pacino gives a very good performance indeed as Shylock; Lynn Collins is a fine Portia; and the film has a sumptuous look. <br /><br />The negatives are predictable. "The Merchant of Venice" is arguably the most difficult of all of Shakespeare's plays to stage today, largely because we look at it through the distorting lens of 20th century history. The romantic plot with Bassanio and Portia presents no problem. The character of Shylock does, because we lack the original frame of reference of the Elizabethan audience. Shylock is simultaneously a human character with human qualities and motivations, and an abstraction of the pitiless quality of the Old Law. When he says "Hath not a Jew eyes?" he is a character; when he proclaims "I will have my bond!" he is an abstraction. The long passage on music and cosmic harmony in the final scene (here moved and cut to ribbons) is the key to the play, in that it re-establishes universal harmony after the disruptive and evil (the Shylock of the trial scene) forces are ejected. It is possible to make psychological sense of the character of Shylock by showing his gradually going mad and turning into a monomaniac by the time the trial scene rolls around--the key is that at a point he must cease being sympathetic.<br /><br />Pacino's performance almost does it, but not quite. The film can't quite make up its mind--on the one hand, there is the right movement in the character of Shylock, and on the other there is a great deal of extraneous footage of Jews being abused and Venetian whores with rouged nipples (no doubt to show the decadence of Antonio et al). Shakespeare was not writing an Ibsen-like social drama; he was writing a comedy following the classic pattern of disruption of social order and the restoration of social order, symbolized by marriage, with a theme of love versus law at the center of the Shylock plot.<br /><br />In this sense, the film is a travesty--Radford's surgery on the play and direction almost force us away from what the play really means. (Taking the beginning of the final scene, cutting most of it, and moving it before the trial scene is the most extreme example.) There are some other significant difficulties. Jeremy Irons, a fine actor, plays Antonio as if he were overdosed on sedatives. Joseph Fiennes is pretty but shallow as Bassanio. Most of the actors, with the exceptions of Collins, Pacino, and the actor playing the Duke in the trial scene, mumble their dialogue.<br /><br />Final verdict? A pretty film with a few decent performances. It's not Shakespeare, it's poor interpretation. Not really worth your time or money--although Lynn Collins as Portia almost redeems it. | 0 |
2,814 | [
600,
700
] | 542 | 678 | The discussion has been held a thousand times. Is the "Merchant of Venice" antisemitic? (I think it is.) Isn't it unfair to always point out this little bit of antisemitism in an otherwise great piece of art? (I think it isn't.) Does this play stain Shakespeare's reputation as the world's greatest playwright? (I think it does.) Does it play a role if he didn't do it on a particular racist purpose? (I think it doesn't.) Michael Radford knew all this and this is why he added to his movie a prologue about the pitiful situation of the Jews in Renaissance Venice.<br /><br />In vain; for the play remains what it has always been and the new make-up only gives a first (but futile) hope that someone has dared to set something right that remains a permanent outrage, not because its degree of antisemitism would be particularly shocking but because the play comes under the name of William Shakespeare.<br /><br />Why spend so much time in portraying the hatred of a man -- Shylock? Why employ a great and serious actor like Al Pacino, if in the end everything is getting ruined in this outrageous (but hey, I'm-not-responsible-Shakespeare-wrote-it) court room scene. And now I'd like to be very precise, just like Shylock himself.<br /><br />He's demanding his right, according to the contract which the -- not very responsible -- Christian Antonio, who always used to look down on him, signed in full awareness of the consequences. Sure, what Shylock demands is cruel and useless, but that's not the point. What we see (or should see) is a man who has been humiliated for all his life, to the point where all what remains on him is his hatred. I think, it is certainly a bit inappropriate to lecture such a man on things like compassion.<br /><br />But what the play/the movie (they are one and the same now) does at this point is... become a soap opera! The cruel madman with his knife, the horrified (but rather short-minded) audience, the poor "victim" tied to his chair. True, Antonio accepts his fate but why can't he just say one word, "sorry"? I think we need not lose many words on the ridiculous verdict of the young Dottore from Padua; it's a truly "popular verdict" not much different from what would be seen 400 years later in the show trials of the Nazis. From one minute to the next this Jew is robbed of everything he owned, sentenced to being baptized Christian, and kicked out.<br /><br />Isn't that outrageous??? Obviously not. The story moves on to the romantic intricacies of the rings and its happy end.<br /><br />What one can learn in Libeskind's Jewish Museum in Berlin and similar places all over the world is that antisemitism often goes unnoticed by the mass because what's so devastating for a minority or some individuals is embedded in the alleged greater good for the majority. It should be exactly the task of everyone of us to develop a sensitivity to detect and unmask such tendencies.<br /><br />I don't accept the excuse that this film was made to create empathy with the badly treated Shylock (it just doesn't work out). I don't think that anybody can be forced to be merciful.<br /><br />I don't recommend this movie; in particular not for an Oscar. | 0 |
2,890 | [
600,
700
] | 478 | 617 | I like CKY and Viva La Bam, so I couldn't resist this when I saw it for £1.99 in Gamestation. It is Bam Magera's debut scripted film, penned by himself and Brandon Dicimaillo, and stars the entire CKY crew (Ryan Dunn, Raab Himself, Rake Yohn, Jenn Rivell, Don Vito etc etc). Brandon also is in charge of the artistic direction - which is one of the film's greatest merits - its quite CKYish in its colour style - but also shows progression.<br /><br />Basically it follows (very loosely) Ryan Dunn's break up with girlfriend Glauren (played by Jenn). Vilo (played by Bam, named after Vilo Valo by any chance?) and Falcone (Bran) play his best mates who reek havoc by doing various stunts.<br /><br />Its a bit like the CKY films but with a linear storyline (which is very basic indeed) and poor acting. Its strange, the usually super charsmatic gang seem to have the life sucked out of them when they know what their meant to say next.<br /><br />The acting and script is pretty appalling for the most part, but the second half of the film is much better than the first (90 mins is a stretch for the flick though), and there are a number of redeeming factors, such as Tony Hawk's cameo, Dicimaillo's sub plots such as 'The Futurstic Invention Awards' and 'The Diamond Bike', the soundtrack is also very strong (its not ALL cKy and HIM - in fact Bomfunk MC's steal the film in terms of its use of music). In the second half of the film the sense of fun is much more real - especially since Don Vito has a fairly prominent role in the latter part - and he seems to steal every scene he is in.<br /><br />The film will appeal to those who like the CKY antics, but only because of the core material and not the filler or story line bullshit. Oh, and will someone tell Bam that skating montages, especially in films, is sooo 1998.<br /><br />However, the best part of the package on the DVD is not the film - but the 40 mins 'Making Of' doc.<br /><br />The last 20 minutes of the documentary deal with Raab Himself's alcholism and the crew's real feelings towards each other amazing candidly (as usual Bam comes across as a bit of a dick, especially towards Raab's drink problem and Ryan Dunn comes across as a really nice down to earth guy). The last ten mins of the documentary deal with a friend (who is an infrequent CKY member) trying to kick heroin whilst staying at the Magera household with the crew - and a caring unitary side of gang (espcially Ape and Ryan) really comes across - a startling gem in an otherwise dull DVD.<br /><br />For £1.99 I'm very satisified - although I hope Bam stays to the improvised and short skits from now on. | 0 |
2,918 | [
600,
700
] | 567 | 691 | (Some Spoilers) Dull as dishwater slasher flick that has this deranged homeless man Harry, Darwyn Swalve, out murdering real-estate agent all over the city of L.A because of the high prices that they charge for their proprieties. Looking like an extra from a Clint Eastwood "Spaghetti Western" Harry who's been living in abandoned houses eating dog food get's very upset where his quite lifestyle as a squatter is interrupted. This happens when a number of real-estate agents invaded his space in an attempt to sell the houses, that he's staying at to their potential clients.<br /><br />Joseph Bottome stars in this bottom-of-the-barrel horror movie as radio talk-show host Dr. David Kelly the handsome and popular host psychologist of the KDRX survival line. DR. Kelly is being sued by the family of one of his callers,Tracy, who ended up blowing her brains out while on the air with the doc who couldn't do anything to help her survive her ordeal of taking to him.<br /><br />The real-estate killer gets to talk with Dr. Kelly on the air about his adventures and the police try to get the doc to get his phone number and address, by keeping him on the line, but he refuses to in order not to hurt his rating by having potential callers not call in in fear of being monitored by the LADP. <br /><br />Kelly also is having a hot and heavy affair with a real-estate manager and agent the busty Lisa Grant, Adrienne Barbeau, who's office of sellers are Harry's main victims in he movie. Harry also gets to murder Lisa's main competition in the housing business the chubby and outrageous Barney Resnick, Barry Hope, who threatened to put Lisa out of business by any means possible even if he has to kill her. <br /><br />Getting Berney alone and with his pants down Harry slices his head off while he's being entertained by one of his clients, a hooker, whom he leaves dead and hanging together with the headless Barney. The movie ends with the deranged Harry taking Lisa hostage and having Dr. Kelly try to come to her rescue only to have Det. Shapiro (Robert Miano), looking like e hasn't slept in a week, pop out of nowhere and blow Harry's brains out. Harry quickly come back to life minus the gay matter between his ears and gets himself killed for the second time in the movie by being thrown from a balcony and landing on the ground as a dozen members of the LAPD, M16 cocked and ready, come on the scene.<br /><br />Nothing in the movie "Opean House" worked with the tension laughable to almost non-existent. Even the hot sex scenes between Dr. Kelly and Lisa didn't save the movie since there were far too few,only two, of them and and sexy Adrienne Barbeau was a bit too underexposed, with not enough light and too much clothes on, in all of them.<br /><br />Harry the killer in the movie was also a bit to comical to be taken seriously in trying to make a point, to Dr. Kelly on the phone and in person, about the high rents and real-estate prices in the country and how people like himself find it almost impossible to find a decent place to live in. You can sympathize with Harry's concern about the high cost of living but be very critical of him in how he crazily went on in correcting it. | 0 |
2,927 | [
600,
700
] | 504 | 644 | As a big fan of Brian Yuzna and the majority of the movies he's been involved in, I guessed I'd enjoy Progeny. I didn't, although in ways it has it's moments. However, if you're expecting something of the calibre of Society or Beyond ReAnimator, you could be in for a shock. In a way this is similar to Society, being a tale of a seemingly ordinary world with a horrific supernatural underbelly...but that's where it ends.<br /><br />I'm not covering for Yuzna when I say that the fault doesn't really lie with him, as bad direction is bad direction, but the direction is sound. What trips the movie up is both script and acting. Stuart Gordon (ReAnimator, Dagon) has written an intelligent script, but one that doesn't really work with Yuzna's style of direction, leaving him paused on actors delivering lengthy dialogue when really he wants to throw that camera around and get down with his bad self. This matter makes the movie awkward enough as it is, but there's worse.<br /><br />If the movie had been made with great actors, the movie would have probably held it's own. Unfortunately this is very far from the case. The acting is wooden, shockingly so even for a low-budget B feature. The inexplicably successful and renowned Arnold Vosloo wrecks every damn line with near pinpoint precision, handing in one of the worst performances I've seen in a long while. The man manages to turn every line of well considered dialogue into the kind of ham-line you'll be throwing drunkenly at mates next time you're in the pub. 'Hey Bob! GOOD GOD, AM I GOING MAD! WHAT'S...COME OVER ME! NOOOO!' In fact I may try that one myself next weekend. The last minute addition of genre veteran (and personal favourite) Brad Dourif, instead of enriching the film like it should, almost seems to hand Dourif the movie in a last ditch effort to stop Vosloo from hamming, but quite frankly Dourif looks deeply uncomfortable (possibly waiting for the next assault of bad acting) next to Vosloo, and even an eccentric turn from him fails to resuscitate the film.<br /><br />If the acting was better, this movie would have been okay. Hell, it might have been pretty enjoyable, but the lack of character makes the movie a soulless affair, and makes the horror element seem tacked on and tasteless instead of an organic part of the film. I found the alien torture/rape scenes a little difficult to stomach already, but the fact that the characters were so lacking made them seem gratuitous as well as unpleasant, leaving a nasty taste in the mouth.<br /><br />So, if you really like Sci-fi and don't have a problem with bad acting, pedestrian pacing and a really garish, nasty rape scene, Progeny will probably be your cup of tea. But since I do, I'm probably never going to watch it again. Once was enough. On the plus side, this is the only Sci-Fi movie Yuzna ever bothered to make, so he obviously wasn't really that pleased with it himself. | 0 |
2,951 | [
600,
700
] | 513 | 646 | As a Michigander, I got the Michigan jokes. Very funny - make fun of Pontiac, Ann Arbor, all those lame suburbs of Detroit. Yes, yes, I've heard these jokes a million times. I'll give them credit for accurately depicting the lameness of Grosse Pointe. It couldn't get more White. Did you hear those lovely Michigan nasal accents? Where the girls talk so fast you can't understand one word that comes out of their mouth (nose)...? As much as I love Michigan, I hated this movie. <br /><br />I have never met one person from Grosse Pointe that I liked. Listen to that awful live band and that annoying and horrid background music! What is that? One of your Gross Pointe homeboy's band? Probably. Wow, what a great "Detroit scene" you guys have over there. Funny how people from Grosse Pointe always say they're from Detroit. They're so White and rich, they wish they had something to complain about.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie blows. All the way from the lame jokes about girls in thongs to the terrible character development. Oh wait a minute, you mean the entire basis for a character is that he says the f-word a lot? What a deep personality. Great job, Grosse Pointers! And I love all the sexist lingo, like how the narrator calls the first girl who gets killed that we never even hear speak a "naive b*tch". That's really lovely.<br /><br />And those homemade masks with the Marilyn Manson contact lenses are really great. And I love how it made perfect sense as to why the bikers came by and killed people. And how their narrating master had such a obvious role in the movie... ?? The main boyfriend dude was so boring I fell asleep looking at him. The three idiot guys (or was it two or four? how can I tell, they all look and act the same!) were so desperately trying to make me laugh, but Beavis and Butthead already got out my butt humor laughs back in 1994. And what's with the gay jokes? No wonder this movie sucked - everyone involved must have some minor problems with their masculinity, eh boys?<br /><br />The only saving grace to this film was the main girl. Despite what the other people on here have said, she actually was a good actress. Teenage girls talk the way she talked. They really act the way she acted. Her acting was very natural and believable. I really thought she was a Grosse Pointe convenience store employee. .. maybe she is! And yeah she had big boobs, most the women here do. Michigan is the fattest state in the union, you know. In all aspects.<br /><br />So, those of you who think this is a representation of Detroit, it's not. It's the suburbs of Detroit. They are very White and full of aimless teen angst. Limp Bizkut, ICP (yes, ICP is from one of our suburbs) and $75 baggy khaki pants all the way! Lame rich kids who are mad because they have lots of money and nothing to complain about. And they make bad movies, too.<br /><br /> | 0 |
3,019 | [
600,
700
] | 505 | 614 | I was fairly lost throughout most of this film, and I am the one who usually understands the works of such enigmatic cinema greats as David Lynch (Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me) and Darren Aronofsky (Pi). Not to say that Northfork doesn't make sense on some level, it just doesn't combine to form a wholly coherent film. As time passes from watching the film, its themes and intentions become clearer, but during my initial viewing, I was really confounded, and I find that this is the major fault of the film...its lack of direction. The plot centers on the town of Northfork, Montana in the year 1955. The town has been emptied and will soon be flooded to make way for the creation of a hydro-electric dam. The major problem is that not all of its inhabitants are willing to be evacuated and relocated. A group of men are hired to coerce the remaining residents out of the town before it will be drowned, and for the most part they succeed amidst some fairly odd situations and townspeople. Simultaneously, the film tells the story of Irwin, a very sick young boy (or is he a fallen angel?) whose adopted parents gave him back, due to his illness, to the Northfork orphanage that they adopted him from. Father Harlan (Nick Nolte) cares for the dying Irwin, but Irwin imagines (or does he?!) that a group of angels (including Daryl Hannah and Anthony Edwards) have arrived in the desolate and empty town looking for a fallen angel. Irwin has scars on his back and on his head, and he tries to convince the angels that his scars are where the humans amputated his wings and halo. Oh yeah, and during all of this there is a strangely surreal walking animal on stilts that roams throughout the backdrop of the landscape. There are a lot of other small events that happen in the film, but none of them end up amounting to much more than momentary intrigue. One can appreciate the artistic quality of the film (it's obvious that the filmmakers cared deeply about this film) and its rich cinematography, but the film still tries too hard to be different and then gives up and whimpers to an end without making much of a statement. Like I wrote earlier, it becomes clearer, long after viewing, what has possibly taken place in the film. Irwin is dying, and so is Northfork, and in coping with his own loss and death, Irwin has most likely created characters, from ideas he gets from the objects that surround him at the orphanage, to console him as he is abandoned and his life nears its end. But then again, maybe he really is an angel, and he has found his kind and can now return home. I must emphasize that there are some truly beautiful moments in the film, heartbreaking, vivid and full of loneliness and sadness. Unfortunately, the film as a whole just ends up feeling disconnected and somehow incomplete. | 0 |
3,088 | [
600,
700
] | 541 | 695 | Before I took a job as a reviewer, I never went to films like this, and thus remained blissfully unaware that at the soul of the Hollywood film lies a deeply woman-hating spirit that thrives on putting its knocking little knees on the silver screen for all to either empathize with or revile. Or is this just a particularly bad year? An ugly trend? <br /><br />Here we have yet another seemingly sweet, innocent, beautiful woman turned lethal weapon. The kind that cautions us that beneath every pair of batting eyes and nesting instincts lies a wild-eyed beast guaranteed to make everyone's life within 50 miles a living hell.<br /><br />This month's specimen is Jewel Valentine's (Liv Tyler), whose simple dreams include having her own little house, a backyard fountain, and a mondo home entertainment system. Unfortunately, Randy (Matt Dillon, in his first film in 3 years), the dim-bulb bartender she picks up at McCool's one night intending to rob, is less materially oriented. The kind of guy who drinks beer out of a toilet plunger, he prefers to hunker down in his dead mother's house with few creature comforts save his snowglobe collection.<br /><br />In that same low-rent bar, the Devil in the Red Dress also bumps into Randy's cousin, Carl (the highly amusing Paul Reiser), a lawyer with an ego the size of St. Louis. When things go south within hours, enter the widowed detective with a heart of gold (John Goodman). The result? Three men sustain big, bad crushes on the leopard-clad progeny of Steven Tyler and Bebe Buell-crushes that make them do things that common sense would normally contraindicate. Like get involved in the first place.<br /><br />Multiple points of view and flashbacks patch together the front-page news about how easy it is to fall victim to one's libido, especially if you're male. As each of these men relates his perspective to a confidant, his desire to possess The Jewel colors the `truth' of the situation. About 70 minutes later, things come together in a reasonably amusing way. But it's amusement from the same source that tells you that the stuff on the popcorn actually tastes like butter.<br /><br />MCCOOL'S is the first film by Norwegian commercial and music-video director Harald Zwart, and his pedigree is clear during some of the fantasy segments, including one about a car wash, soap and a hose that you can probably extrapolate. It's also the debut project from the production company owned by Michael Douglas, who's found his niche as a toupeed sleezeball in a bingo parlor.<br /><br />Dillon and Tyler are unlikely to win any gold statues for this one, though given the one-dimensionality of their overdone film noir-type characters, you can't really fault them. Several minor roles drag out unexpected guests--Reba McEntire plays Carl's psychiatrist, and Andrew Dice Clay doubles as both the hoodlum Utah and his even-scarier brother. (Finally, an outlet for all that aggression.)<br /><br />This film unwittingly speaks volumes about the dynamics between men and women--or men and their mommies. But ultimately you'd probably find more lasting psychological truths in a Bugs Bunny episode. I will say that it's better, funnier, more sophisticated than other recent gems like TOMCATS, but should we really have to choose what to see based on what ranks lowest on the misogynism scale? | 0 |
3,142 | [
600,
700
] | 486 | 637 | Scenarist Frederick Fox's sometimes memorable dialogue and a study cast of old-pros cannot save this lukewarm western about whites pinned down in the desert by a band of bloodthirsty Cheyenne Indians. Other than his occasionally catchy dialogue, you won't find any surprises in Fox's screenplay about this run-in between whites and Indians. The characters in "Dakota Incident" generate only minor interest, certainly not enough to make them stand-out as much as some of Fox's choice dialogue. Unfortunately, good dialogue is Fox's only contribution because this conventional little sagebrusher withers with a lackluster ending that contradicts its previous 80 minutes. The ending is as contrived as they come and lacks credibility. Most of the characters are sympathetic, but some just plain lack common sense.<br /><br />Dale Robertson is appropriately tough and leathery as outlaw John Banner, one of three bank robbers who has to shoot it out with his low-down, no-account partners. Veteran western character actor John Doucette (Rick Largo) fares the best of the badmen, while Skip Homeier, wasted in an inconsequential role as Banner's brother Frank Banner, later dies from an Indian arrow. Doucette tries to gun down Banner at the outset of in the action, but our left-handed gun-toting hero fakes his own death, tracks down Largo down later and slaps leather with him in a town called Christian Flats. Naturally, Largo bites the dust this time, but Banner makes an interesting discovery. One of the passengers on a stagecoach from Christian Flats to Laramie turns out to be none other than the bank teller from whom he stole the money. Not only is John Carter (John Lund) on a quest himself to find Banner, but also he wants to clear his own good name with the bank that has issued wanted posters for his arrest. Evidently, the authorities have mistaken and enlarged Carter's role in the robbery. Carter is prepared to take Banner to Laramie and turn him over to the law, but Banner has other ideas about Laramie. Banner's ideas change when he crosses paths with Amy Clarke (former Twentieth Century Fox beauty Linda Darnell) who wears a bright red dress and still packs quite a bosom. As everybody else here has mentioned in their reviews, Republic Studio's Truecolor brings out the RED in everything, from Darnell's fetching outfit to the blood spilled on the ground. The problem with director Lewis Foster's handling of this run-of-the-mill oater is that everything bogs down after the stagecoach loses a wheel and our heroes hole up in a dry wash to defend themselves against the Cheyenne. The good guys and the Cheyenne eventually run out of ammunition, but "Dakota Incident" never runs out of clichés. Ward Bond has several interesting moments as a politically correct politician who defends the way of the redskin. By the time that this 88 minute dust-raiser concludes, you'll feel like you've been trapped in a gulch and menaced by marauding Cheyenne yourself. | 0 |
3,228 | [
600,
700
] | 474 | 620 | I watched the first episode of "The War at Home" because I thought it was worth replacing "Arrested Development", boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of "Grounded for Life", "Titus", and "Married...with Children" since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called "punch lines" are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those "punch lines" aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode "Gaza Strip").<br /><br />In the episode "Dream Crusher", Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend "Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine", that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. "The War at Home" is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.<br /><br />Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with "Boston Public". Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in "Malcolm in the Middle"}.<br /><br />So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker<br /><br />FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this. | 0 |
3,329 | [
600,
700
] | 572 | 685 | Having watched the first scene, I realized the acting was so bad that it couldn't possibly pick up later. Superficial and artificial, with frequent attempts to look professional through references to technology the way a five year-old tries to make it sound as if he knows what he's talking about. <br /><br />The second-to-second storyline is completely unrealistic and just about every single decision the screenwriter did, was the kind you expect from a below-average grade school student. The overall storyline was as unoriginal and predictable as a pack of sausages. The few attempts to make the dialogs sound intelligent, was limited to neurotic, apologetic behavior. A ten year-old might like it. But it would take a five year-old to accept the lack of realism; How does advanced cell function allow someone to bypass a code lock by touching it as if with a magic wand, pick out one out of 100s of voices through a ventilation system (thereby ripping off Superman), and repair a home computer by just sensing whats wrong instead of looking for faults? Actually, that scene is a neat example: The fault was that one of the cooling pipes (aluminum ribbons) on the CPU was broken, the way it would look if a exhaust pipe on a V8 engine is ripped off by an explosion. This is something that can't happen, and if it did, it wouldn't prevent the computer from working. There is no electrical current passing through this ribbon, but when he (without doing it himself, his arms worked by autopilot because the cells in his body was super efficient) put a push-pin into the rip, a desktop with icons appeared on the screen immediately without booting.<br /><br />And so it goes all the way. Like when he escaped an interrogation room in the NSA headquarters by lighting a lighter below a fire sensor, resulting in open doors throughout the building. Naturally, NSA didn't predict this sharp witted approach to escaping, nor did they put any guards outside his room (or anywhere else) to guard a living, walking breakthrough in military nanotechnology. So he walked out and got a cab. Examples like this one are not only numerous, there is in fact just about no single scene that makes sense. <br /><br />Also, the so-called great effects were terrible. He threw a basketball back to a kid in the park, and the kid was thrown back horizontally 20 feet into a tree. No acceleration or deceleration, but constant speed and height, like a motorized trolley. I'm sure if I paused and looked for the cables that kept the posture of this kid the way only cables can, they probably didn't know how to or bother to erase them completely. If someone is thrown that far into a tree, they would at least say ouch (or rather be hospitalized with broken bones), but the kid was just just confused and amazed.<br /><br />Moronic. That's the word for every creative decision made throughout the entire production. I'm going to put the director's name on my own personal blacklist, someone as poorly skilled as him cannot improve. I feel like demanding compensation for having wasted 45 minutes of my life for watching it, and the time it took to write this. Although it felt therapeutic, it was traumatic to realize how little it takes to get a pilot approved. The only excuse a slightly intelligent person could have to watch this voluntarily, would be imprisonment or lobotomy. | 0 |
3,360 | [
600,
700
] | 508 | 662 | Macbeth is one of the most frequently told stories in cinema and has been translated many times in numerous theater and celluloid settings. Originally written by William Shakespeare in the early 1600's, Macbeth tells the story of betrayal among royalty and one man's quest for power. Director Geoffrey Wright (Romper Stomper) tries his hand at updating Macbeth by setting it in the contemporary Melbourne underworld. A film where the characters substitute swords for guns (ala Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet) and royal vassals for gangsters, Macbeth is a gritty, violent, but critically flawed film.<br /><br />Macbeth (Sam Worthington)works for King Duncan (Gary Sweet). After being elevated to the Thane of Glamis by The King (as was prophesied to Macbeth by three witches), Macbeth starts setting his eyes on the throne. One night the King comes to stay at Macbeth's house and Lady Macbeth (Victoria Hill) talks him into killing The King to assume power. Macbeth kills his master and then assumes his crown. But success has it's downside, as Macbeth soon finds out, when he has to go to hideous lengths to protect his murderous secret. <br /><br />OK, first things first. The film's major fault is Sam Worthington. His portrayal of Macbeth is in a word... boring. I honestly didn't care about Macbeth while watching the film. I had more sympathy for Victoria Hill's Lady Macbeth because she bothered to act at least. Worthington sits sullen and wood faced throughout the entire film. I felt like he was doing his best impression of Johnny Deep's George Jung character from Blow... but without the charisma. I have never seen Worthington in a film before so I'm not sure if it was his or the Director's fault, but either way the glue that should have tied everything together into one cohesive unit is weak.<br /><br />The dialog is good, but when matched up to the Geoffrey Wright's Australian Gangster Motif seems a bit out of place. Frentically paced action sequences mixed with long Shaksperian musings creates pacing conflict within the film. I understand that this is Macbeth and that the director wanted to use the original dialog intact. But hard, fast action scenes following a three minute soliloquy tends to get annoying if not a bit pretentious. <br /><br />The camera-work is highly stylized, and for the most part, it works well. One thing that I found annoying was how the camera would slowly jostle back and forth, almost constantly. I don't mind shots like that it's just overdone. It's passes beyond the realm of being cool and stylish and instead becomes irritating. Other than that, the art direction and cinematography is fairly well-done. <br /><br />For all of the good qualities Macbeth possesses; stylish direction, Shakespearian dialog, a strong soundtrack, supernatural nude witches(the weird sisters), and good helpings of brutal, bloody violence. All of these strengths are forgotten when one considers Sam Worthington's uninspired portrayal of Macbeth. The role of Macbeth was essential for tying everything together and in this respect Geoffrey Wright and Sam Worthington failed miserably, making Macbeth a forgettable foray into Shakespeare. | 0 |
3,398 | [
600,
700
] | 521 | 654 | Wow, where do I begin? After suffering through this wretched $1.00 rental (thanks a LOT, Family Video) I just had to make a few comments. I did not bother to write down the names of the 3 actors in the film, but hopefully you will know who I am talking about.<br /><br />A monster truck terrorizes the countryside and chases two college-aged buddies to their doom. They encounter a hot girl wearing slutty clothes. I mean, this just sounds fantastic in theory. I was laughing hysterically at the DVD box while I walked it up to the girl behind the counter at the video store.<br /><br />Acting: the hot girl, played by Aimee Whatever, is visibly laughing through many scenes where she is supposed to be scared. The other two major actors in the film, the fat prankster and the vanilla straight-guy are both terrible. The fat guy thinks he's Jack Black. He's not. The other actor, our hero, over-emotes and misses all his cues and comes across as some generic character you might see in a made-for-Nickelodeon movie about skateboarding in the early 90's. Look: I don't expect great performances in movies like these, but at least the actors can make an effort to not be annoying. You can be an incompetent actor but still be agreeable (i.e. John Wayne). At least that Aimee gal is attractive.<br /><br />Script: Holy ****, who thought this dialogue was funny? I wouldn't have the nerve to play this out in front of my grade school drama class, much less pitch it as a film script. Unfathomably bad. More on this later.<br /><br />Production: OK, this is the one place where the film definitely succeeds. Production quality is amazingly high. The look of the film is very good. Apparently the only talented person who worked on the movie was the director of photography.<br /><br />OK, here are my biggest gripes: 1) The guy driving the car never drives faster than 25 miles an hour.<br /><br />2) The guy driving the car is well out into the country before he realizes there is a fat man in a mask in his back seat. He is supposedly meticulous about recording gas mileage and keeping his antique car in good condition but he does not notice a 300lb Jack Black impersonator in the back? Come on.<br /><br />4) Characters never change their clothes. There are two hotel scenes. Presumably, showers are available to our characters yet over the 3 days this movie takes place, none of the characters bothers to change their clothes.<br /><br />5) Comedy. Lighthearted, slapstick comedy does not mix with horror. Period. You can't have our characters running away from a monster truck one second and the next second have them verbally jousting one another with some dopey light/comedy music playing. This kind of pacing virtually ruins any tension in the movie. Movies like Evil Dead 2 which mix comedy and horror understand that tension can be loosened yet never completely eliminated with humor. Monster Man doesn't get it.<br /><br />I'm irritated that what could have been a VERY funny horror movie was ruined by a director who thought he was a lot more clever than he really was. Oh well. | 0 |
3,400 | [
600,
700
] | 509 | 633 | What an absolute joke of a movie. The case for this film would have you believe it is Duel meets Jeepers Creepers meets Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Three good films in their own right and you would think, using their blueprint, MM couldn't go far wrong. Well that's what I thought, and I was very, very mistaken! <br /><br />We follow two college students as they travel miles across the desert to reach a wedding. They pick up a girl (no she doesn't get her clothes off), then they get chased by a Leatherface rip-off in a Monster Truck, whom they aptly name F**kface (AKA Monster Man).<br /><br />The Monster Truck I will admit is a very cool vehicle, but the less than suspenseful chase scenes ruin it's potential.<br /><br />So MM decides he's got a bit of a grudge against these guys and chases them for a bit, they loose him for a while and stop at a bar full of amputees, then they go to a motel where lead character Adam sleeps with hitch-hiker Sarah (though they both wear underwear!). Then they are caught by MM, taken to his home where they escape death and try to kill MM, but fail, hence the set-up for the sequel. Apart from a minor 'twist', that's it.<br /><br />If you can get past the first 2 minutes where Adam's friend Harley pops up from hiding in the back of Adam's car to try to scare him, with no explanation as to how Harley even got there, how long ago or how Adam even failed to realise without thinking you hate it already, then you may just enjoy this film.<br /><br />Monster Man has very poor cinematography and direction which is immediately off-putting. This is the kind of movie that you'll be able to pick up as one of those films in a box set of 20 horror movies that you've never heard of.<br /><br />What is so irritating is Blockbuster stock so many of these poor quality films that are shot on digital by some amateur film students, and that's exactly what MM is (though IMDb states this particular director was born in 1961).<br /><br />The acting throughout this film is atrocious. The script, which the writer obviously considered to be funny, is irritating and childish. You get the impression only one draft was written before they started shooting. In fact, the script is do dire a lot of the film seems improvised, full of those boring, un-entertaining conversations that are only funny or important to the actual people involved. Imagine you filmed yourself and your buddies having a conversation, sure, points are funny TO YOU, but mostly it's trash. That's what the script for MM is like.<br /><br />Don't watch it for the gore either it's fairly minimal and there are much better gory films out there (Bad Taste, Evil Dead et al
) <br /><br />Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, even with their cheesiness and plot holes, are far superior to this film. Compare the intro of Jeepers Creepers to the intro of Monster Man and you'll see what I mean. | 0 |
3,471 | [
600,
700
] | 505 | 602 | For me this movie is essentially like a feature length pilot episode for a TV series. It reminds me particularly of the British remake of the TV series Wallander, starring Kenneth Brannagh. People interviewed by the police are hardy, and often as bitter as the weather, the lead investigator has huge family problems, investigations invariably lead to cruelties of the distant past, and the plotting is labyrinthine with strange occurrences and subplots making sense only at the end. Both have excellent cinematography.<br /><br />The plotting of Jar City is extraordinarily reminiscent of a standard UK or US crime series. Effectively you could take the plots of any of the episodes of Touch of Frost and transplant them on top of the bleak locale in this movie and have an effective sequel.<br /><br />Really the script couldn't be more obviously from the cookie cutter. You get even the most familiar of motifs, such as the police going to the local prison to interview a manipulative and dangerous psychopath, who inevitably explodes at the end of the interview.<br /><br />I'm absolutely convinced that this is scones and jam for many folk, but I feel it needs pointing out to people like myself who do not go to the cinema to watch television. What I felt a keen lack of was message. The movie takes as its theme the genetic studies in Iceland. Icelanders in genetic terms have remained largely isolated from the outside world, presenting a great opportunity for scientists to study their genetics. Lots of information concerning the heredity of the population has been kept, and many genetic diseases unique to Iceland can be traced effectively in a population that has refrained from interbreeding, and is remarkably genetically homogeneous (it's like trying to put together a jigsaw puzzle of the London underground map, instead of a jigsaw puzzle of a field of daisies). A company called deCODE genetics attempted to set up a database carrying all the genetic and hereditary information for the entire population of Iceland. Due to privacy concerns this project was terminated, and at the end of last year deCODE genetics went bankrupt in Iceland. The episode is a rich topic for debate.<br /><br />But in this movie genetics and medical science are not there for education's sake, they're there for weird atmosphere.<br /><br />It's a grisly movie if you are interested in that, and there's often a morbid focus on food to accompany events, like a coroner who eats lunch in between incisions. The most queasy for me was when the lead inspector devours a sheep's head. Unfortunately for me this occasionally became farcical. The movie attempts the rather delicate task of mixing the grisly with the sentimental, and ended up providing unintentional humour towards the end. This is the equivalent, in cinematic terms, of attempting to prepare fugu, if you're not well-qualified, deft of hand and sharp of eye, you poison the client. This rather novice director should have lowered the tariff on his performance.<br /><br />I walked out of this movie feeling rather bad about myself and about life in general. | 0 |
3,473 | [
600,
700
] | 543 | 667 | Surprisingly Kieslowski's this movie is disappointing to me because of the sometimes weird and sometimes cliché script that also seems a work of a poor observation sometimes. There is an isolated young boy. He lives with one of his relatives, but he is lonely and every night watches a woman who lives across their building. It seems! that he wants her. He is one of the youths who are not good at communication with the opposite sex. However, he likes that woman, when the woman comes to his house with a man, Tomek gets pain. Then, we understand that Kieslowski tells us a story about an isolated young boy who needs a female to flirt or who falls in love with a mature woman. He does not do something else, because may be he knows that it is his salvation. One day, he stops that woman, suddenly, he seems a shy boy, but proves that he is not, so he explains her almost everything. She lectures and refuses him. Everything is so realistic like the other Kieslowski films, no problem. The problems start when Tomek visits her, the story of a lonely young boy who falls in love with a mature woman (but an unrequited love) turns into the story of a lonely young boy falls in love with a mature woman, at the beginnings the woman refuses, but after a short time, she starts to change her mind. This U-Turn makes the movie cliché firstly. The personality of Tomek is weird? or a result of a poor observation? I disappointed with this character, this is my opinion and I will try to tell why. When he goes to her house, Magda treats him very friendly. She asks what do you want from me? To kiss me? to make love with me? to go out with me? At this point, I remember the people who say she is a femme fatale. See? Returning to the scene, Tomek rejects all the proposals. Why? Because he is shy? I don't think so, but his communication is blunt, OK. After the leg scene at home, some events make the movie misses its aim. I think that the aim of the movie is (should have been according to the story) to show us there are some people who suffer from lack of endearment and to save from this situation is not easy owing to lack of communication and being aloof especially for men. I mean that at this point, what does the movie say? It is blurred and disappointing. It is seen that he is not hunger for love or a female or sex. Then, what? And the suicide attempt scene support this weakness. So that he touches her legs, he wants to kill himself! By the way, as I mentioned before, some say Magda is a femme fatale. Totally not. She endeavors in order to make Tomek happy. Does she avoid having contact with him? No. Does she insult him? No. Does she amuse him? No. And Does she deceive him? No. She has some troubles with her (ex) lover, so she is not O.K. However, she does not take revenge for it from Tomek. She is not an angel, but not a femme fatale also. | 0 |
3,513 | [
600,
700
] | 542 | 655 | **SPOILERS** The killer in the movie doesn't wait a second as we see him sneaking into a girls shower and hacking her to death taking her severed and bloodied arm as he makes his getaway. We then get this official looking prologue, as if were watching a true story, stating that a number of gruesome murders were committed in the late fall of 1985 in a small mid-western collage.<br /><br />Grandfatherly looking, and hearing impaired, Sheriff Ron Delboys is baffled by this murder and later when the murders of local collage students, all women, continues his run for state senator is in jeopardy with him bumbling the investigation at every turn. There's at least two times when Delboys says that they'll never be another murder as long as he's on the case and within minutes another murder happens.<br /><br />Finding a golden amulet at the scene of each murder the sheriff's daughter, the collage librarian, Tina finds this reference book about Withcraft indicating that the amulet is a symbol of a witches cult that originated in the early 1700 just after the Salem Witch Trials. This cult was out to avenge the 19 accused witches hung by the local townspeople back in 1692 and they went out at night killing men and women of authority and taking off with a body part. When the body parts would form a complete person they would be burned in an occult midnight bonfire ritual.<br /><br />You never get a handle to what's exactly happening in the movie "Blood Cult" not just because it's totally disjointed story but it's ever more outrageous and grad-school level acing especially by Charles Ellis playing the butterfingered sheriff Ron Delboys. Getting himself into more trouble then even the on the loose killer could have gotten him into. The bumbling Sheriff Delboys ends up with his head busted coffee spiked as well as almost burned alive, after being dismembered. The only reason he wasn't is because he seemed to have dreamt it all up while under the influence of some strong and unnamed drug.<br /><br />There's a weird dream sequence in the movie suggesting that a number of highly respected members of the community are members of the Witches Cult that's responsible for the sorority murders. The movie doesn't bother to explain at all if the dream, that the drugged Sheriff Delboys had, was a dream or actually a real experience on his part by dropping the whole thing as if it were cut out of the movie!<br /><br />Getting out of the hospital and staking out the collage sorority house, while munching down a bag full of McDonald cheeseburgers, Sheriff Delboys finally comes face to face with the killer. Shefiff Delboys find out to his shock and amazement that not only does he know who he, or she, is but he's also willing to let the killer escape!<br /><br />The very first straight to video motion picture and it shows. Not only would no one it their right mind be crazy enough to pay admission, at least with the video you can tape over it Thank God, to see this disaster but no movie-house owner would dare play it on their screen without the danger of the outraged patrons, in a justifiable show of righteous indignation, tear the place apart! | 0 |
3,572 | [
600,
700
] | 497 | 636 | A lot of the negative reviews here concentrate on the historical accuracy of this film. OK, it had about as much to do with the actual NFL as your average war movie has to do with an actual war, or a Western has to do with the true "old west". So, I think we should give them an artistic license pass on that one.<br /><br />The problem here is, the director (Clooney) apparently thinks that making a screwball comedy means a) do stupid things, b) mug for the camera, and c) take stupid scenes full of mugging and stretch them out way too long. Screwball comedies need a fast pace, not necessarily frenetic, but moving briskly along at all times. Here, things drag, and drag, and drag. After you watch this movie, it will make you appreciate how brilliant Mack Sennett was when he pretty much pioneered the genre with his Keystone Cops. After 90 years, you would think that directors would have studied the old masters and learned a thing or two, maybe even improved on things a bit. But no, it's as if someone had watched an automobile pioneer build a Duesenberg, and nearly a century later, paid homage and "improved" on the concept by cobbling together a child's wagon with square wheels.<br /><br />I've enjoyed several of Clooney's movies, I consider him a gifted actor. But very few actors can competently direct themselves; Clint Eastwood notably took a while to get the hang of it. Clooney is clearly at the bottom of a very steep slope. The movie becomes more watchable during the very few times he is out of the frame, but when he's in the picture, he makes himself the centre of attention. In the fight scenes, his mugging is so obnoxious you wish somebody would thump him for real.<br /><br />If you are making a screwball comedy and want some romance thrown in, you need to develop some chemistry between the male and female leads. Clooney and Zellweger have all the chemistry of pair of dumpsters sitting in a parking lot. No spark, no sizzle, not even a post-mortem twitch. Zellweger, who has also turned out some pretty good movies, must have traded her botox injections for oak tannin, giving a stunningly wooden performance. She might just have pulled off the "tough broad in a man's world" act if just once, while trying to out-testosterone the guys, she had looked into the camera with a little half-smile and twinkle in her eye. But no, she kept her jockstrap cinched up tight to the very end.<br /><br />Of course, the biggest sin here is that the movie simply isn't funny. Doing stupid things is not the same as slapstick. Doing stupid things very inventively, like the Stooges, or very athletically, like Buster Keaton, can be hilarious. But otherwise it's boring and, well, stupid. I think I got one good laugh out of the entire movie.<br /><br />Avoid this one. I saw it for free on cable, and still wanted my money back. | 0 |
3,649 | [
600,
700
] | 513 | 624 | Well there's a few things about this movie. Everyone should see it. You see the nation of Iraq like you've never seen it covered by the media, and shot from a perspective that is hardly considered by most Americans, where the movie has its main audience. However all that glorious stuff in mind lets take a look at a few other facts of the movie. There were 150 cameras handed out to the Iraqi people most all of which view the war and subjugation of the occupying forces as a growing pain for the bettering of their nation. And in comparison to Saddam it is simply a feeble scratching at the skin. Also, Netflix as its main distributor advertised it before the fun election we just had by sending out a mass e-mail to its entire roster to see the film. Many of the, what should be labeled as opinions played out as facts listed off by the interviewed Iraqis are wrong. If one is to review the Red Cross' records of Abu Ghraib tortures it wasn't Saddam's henchmen who were being tortured it was a fine mix of a 80-90% innocent civilians and 10-20% rightfully detained people. Never was it disclosed that any of that 10-20% were Saddam's Henchmen or curfew violators. In addition the Arab world really has never listed 'Democracy' as one of their opponents, more correctly it is the USA's 6 Billion Dollars a year to Isreal, our military bases in Saudi Arabia and our interest in Oil. I agree that the media is a complete distortion, but this film shows that same distortion. I'm afraid that the Iraqi people that this film represents have been edited to speak with a Yankee voice. Yes its true that Saddam is a puke, and that his removal many see for the best. Its true that some Iraqis actually get paid a good wage. Just as its true that no Iraqi people have control of their most prized oil and US corporations do. Nor does it mention that 20,000 civilians have died due exclusively to US artillery. Still 15% of the country which once had running water and electiricity now does not. Nor does it mention that from 1993-2003 UN sanctions purposed and authored by the USA Government killed over 200,000 Iraqi civilians. Nor does it mention that Democracy in when people decide the government, not a massive war machine that sends the message, 'Be killed or Obey'. I am afraid that the cutting room floor must have quite a bit of Iraqis that aren't so happy with the Occupation. Just as the vast majority of the world was not for the war. In fact the America, Britian, Spain and the rest of them are not carriers of Democracy, they turned their back to it when they saw how full their pockets could be. Hurray, Saddam is out of power, but I'm afraid that no Iraqi is yet in power. Corporations are in power, the media is in power. Read, do your own research, and don't let them blindfold you. | 0 |
3,668 | [
600,
700
] | 507 | 631 | I actually belong to the demographic Zoey 101 specifically is trying to target, so I can see that as much as it tries to be relatable to people my age, the premise is simply too ludicrous for an average person to relate to. The show revolves around the wealthiest boarding school in existence, and the lovely, incredibly tan, attractive gang of one-sided characters who inhabit it. As is the tradition amongst kids networks, the cast is an array of skinny white kids, with the token black guy, of course.<br /><br />The story lines all revolve around Zoey and her gang of friends stumbling upon or creating some sort of minor dilemma, such as not wanting to attend gym class, resulting in Zoey devising a scheme to save the day for all her friends. There is generally a B-line revolving around either a one- sided guest character, or placing supporting characters in completely unrealistic situations, such as having a hive of wasps in a dorm room and no one noticing. These plots often play off stereotypes, such as any character who pulls good grades in math must by default completely lack social skills. The majority of episodes have the continuous and overused will-they won't-they Chase-Zoey dynamic.<br /><br />The characters, unfortunately, are all incredibly one-sided; there is Zoey, the perfect girl with a solution to literally everything,Chase, the constantly lovesick still but rather endearing Best Friend, Michael, the token black guy (kudos to Christopher Massey for managing some genuinely funny one-liners), Lola, the theater chick (meaning she dies her hair and 75% of her dialogue is about her dreams of stardom, despite the fact that she never does anything in the actual theater), Logan, the womanizing narcissist, Dustin, the spazzy little brother, and Quinn, the science geek. The few words I spent on each of these characters sum up each character entirely.<br /><br />Zoey 101 does manage to be entertaining at times, but the serious flaws in the system of values it promotes are a major turnoff. Zoey, who is set up as the obvious role model and quasi-feminist crusader and who is on the surface portrayed as flawless, still manages major character flaws. For example, when Lola was first introduced, she was believed to be a goth girl. Zoey tried to use this as an excuse to kick her out of their shared dorm room for being "freaky".<br /><br />As for the acting, it is quite clear that Jamie Lynn Spears landed this role because of her name, not because of talent. Although she has definitely improved as time goes by, it is clear she is not a born actress, which greatly affects the quality of the show, as most of the plot lines revolve around her character. The supporting cast is surprisingly good, especially considering the material they have to work with. They deliver quite a few good one-liners for comic relief, if the plot hasn't yet ventured into obscurity.<br /><br />All in all, Zoey 101 is a flawed view at high school life, and anyone past their Limited Too years shouldn't expect much from it. | 0 |
3,669 | [
600,
700
] | 494 | 643 | Okay people, I have to agree with almost everyone else's reviews here. The characters. Are. Stupid. They're ALL stereotypical, and yet have nice clothes and are always skinny.<br /><br />Don't even get me started on Jamie Lynn's role as ZOEY. Zoey is a pretty, popular, tan, blonde young teen who everyone just LOVES! She has a "rebellious", great, personality that everyone agrees with no matter how dumb or extreme it is. Most annoying of all: her voice is so darn bubbly and obnoxious. "OMG!"<br /><br />Take for example the first episode. The moment she steps onto the huge PCA campus, everyone seems to love her. The boys want to ask her out, the girls want to be her friend, etc. Thinking she's all that, the episode plays out with Zoey always being the center of attention; she is the so-called best player of the unofficial girls basketball team, confident, and has everyone pity her when she weakly gets hit in the face. Oh boo-hoo.<br /><br />My favorite character by far is this whole series is a girl that appears much later into the show, Lauren or something, who is the ONLY person ever introduced in the show to hate Zoey.<br /><br />And Zoey doesn't even seem to be very loyal to her friends sometimes. In one episodes she even calls her friend a freak without EVER apologizing and doesn't show the least bit regret in doing so.<br /><br />Zoey is ALWAYS the best:<br /><br />-Desiging professional T-shirts and backpacks (which become a big hit)<br /><br />-coming up with VERY elaborate schemes BY HERSELF to teach a single person a lesson. <br /><br />-Flawless grades <br /><br />-Taking the blame for stuff that wasn't even related to her just so everyone else could be happy.<br /><br />-Coming up with a commercial that was so good it was put on TV. The list goes on and on...<br /><br />Ugh. She has no acting talent. She's always the perfect person. She acts snotty and rebellious and preppy and...UGH! Can't stand her.<br /><br />Not only that, but everyone in the show always has great clothes. EVEN THE NERD! Her wardrobe is better than mine, and mine is pretty freaking decent.<br /><br />No one cares if everyone at PCA loves you, Zoey, and would do anything for you, even if it meant giving their right arm.<br /><br />BUT regardless of these cardboard characters, the plots are creative. Not everyday things. They're interesting and amusing. The humor is usually good-natured and fun, but the characters are so paper flat that it's hard to enjoy it.<br /><br />This show would be really good if Dan Schnieder put a bit more time thinking of the type of characters he wanted, because they are so typical, so boring that's it's lame and stupid.<br /><br />Point: No one's the least bit overweight, everyone has stylish clothes, Zoey is the definition of Mary-sue, the story lines are well-thought out, and the humor is laughable. But again, I want to emphasize that the characters taint the show. Watch the show if you must, but don't say I didn't warn you if your eyes start to bleed. | 0 |
3,679 | [
600,
700
] | 549 | 666 | I really don't think it's necessary that I write a review on a movie with a title as derisory as "Snake Island", but even in the abstract confines of its own genre, this hit a new low, so my anger must be known. The only reason why I even bothered to watch this unbelievably bad movie is because I knew it was going to be bad, it was really late at night, I could not sleep, and in the past, really bad movies would drain the energy out of me and make me long for slumber. It became very quickly very early on that this movie was going to be awful, but it condescended below even those expectations.<br /><br />The movie was directed and written by Wayne Crawford, who also stars in the movie as a tourist guide on the African river, who ends up having to strand his team on a remote island called Snake Island until another boat comes down to pick them up. They hang out, get drunk, and then become subject to the onslaught of poisonous snakes who are on a mission to purge their island of human beings.<br /><br />If your jaw dropped at the last sentence of my second paragraph, don't bother to reread it, you got it right the first time. Frankly, I prefer my creature features when the creature(s) just attack the nonsensically dumb humans out of hunger, not because they have some kind of a mission. These aren't mutant snakes. They're not giants like what you see in "Anaconda." They're just ordinary, everyday African snakes like mambas and vipers
only they have the brains to form armies, take up causes, work together to trap people, understand our language, and even dance! Did your draw drop again? Well, it's going to drop further. Amount midway through this awful B-movie, about the part where I'd already given up, the human characters start drinking around a campfire and then all of a sudden, they break down into some kind of an orgy. And while they dance nude and such, the snakes hunting them all of a sudden stop and start jamming along to it. The combination of this scene and the scene where we discover that snakes, some the most roguish creatures on the planet, have formed an alliance against human beings for some oddball reason, proved just too much for my poor brain. And just when I though the filmmakers couldn't take it to an even lower level, the snakes started to sing.<br /><br />The people in the movie? Well, let's just say that never before have I rooted for the creatures to kill everybody off so quickly. I just could not stand it any longer.<br /><br />I really don't think I need to keep going on; you get the picture. If there is anything that makes "Snake Island" any different from its other rivals, it's that it does dare to try to be even dumber and that's not a complimentary achievement. Whyjust whyI continue to subject myself to these really bad movies, I guess I'll never really know. But "Snake Island" hits a brand new low. It's a cheap, trashy excuse for a motion picture that makes "Anaconda," a brainless snake movie, look as brilliant and sophisticated and thrilling as Steven Spielberg's "Jaws." You have been warned. | 0 |
3,729 | [
600,
700
] | 545 | 660 | Any horror film that casts Robert Englund (Freddie Kruger!) then kills him in the opening 5 minutes before the opening credits have even run should be instantly viewed with nothing but suspicion.<br /><br />Tony Todd (Candyman!) as a swamp tour guide (his James Earl Jones voice impression is hysterical by the way, I don't know or care if he was trying to be funny but I was laughing at it). Sadly his role was all of 5 minutes long as well. More reasons for suspicion and quite rightly so.<br /><br />Mercedes McNab (AKA Harmony from Buffy & Angel, I had to look her up to see what I remembered her from but she gets semi-naked!), Marcus the token black guy (Not Another Teen Movie) is filling a comedy role that really isn't required in a horror movie unless it's intended as a spoof.<br /><br />Joel Murray (Bill Murray's brother & Pete from Dharma & Greg) plays Shapiro, the guy shooting the gonzo video with the 2 cute girls. As they take a "Spooky Swap Ghost Tour" the 2 lead male characters meet up with some other folks and get run aground on rocks and have to leave the boat. So their now all isolated in the swamp at night in the rain.<br /><br />Once the real story of Victor Crowley has been told (his make-up looked like Sloth from The Goonies) we have established he is dead (well you aren't coming back from being hit in the skull by an Axe!) Once the old guy is attacked, despite pulling her gun and having a very clear shot it takes Marybeth more than 30 seconds to actually start firing at a guy who is hacking an old man apart with a hatchet. Is she stupid? Thats 29 second too long! In terms of plot there really isn't one (I don't class undead psycho as a plot, sorry) and the pacing is really bad as well. You have a killing, some running away, some light relief then some slow dialogue before beginning the cycle again.<br /><br />After an extremely long scene investigating a wobbly bush with a raccoon in it Victor appears again (with some sort of power tool) and kills the dark haired porno girl, he also manages to slice the tour guide in half with a Shovel? Once Misty is left on her own to keep lookout for Ben I felt it was pretty obvious she was going to be the next to die (I was right but you don't get to see it).<br /><br />Film makers? Rain will NOT extinguish burning gasoline, OK? Idiots! Obviously after the 2 near misses in the cemetery Marcus was next to die and Ben was hurt in the foot with the spike but they managed to find a boat after impaling Victor on the spike.<br /><br />She's pulled into the water by something unseen, he's trying to save her then she's suddenly pulled into the boat by Victor and is screaming and the movie abruptly ends.<br /><br />Yeah, just like that. No clue if Ben was dead (he seemed to be missing an arm) and no clue if Marybeth was going to survive and what happened with Victor.<br /><br />It's an awful ending and no doubt my verbal attack at the film makers got the last review deleted. So much for free speech, eh? | 0 |
3,789 | [
600,
700
] | 537 | 698 | I bought "Rocketship X-M" on DVD in a two-pack with "Destination Moon." Now I see why the distributors did that: no one who had ever seen this movie would buy it on its own.<br /><br />I cannot fathom what school system turned out the reviewer who claimed that RXM is "great in its predictions of how space travel would take place..." Launch straight up, and then do a 90-degree right turn and circle faster and faster until you reach escape velocity... I don't think I recall that from the Apollo program. Never mind that the astronauts should be weightless once they shut off the engines, gravity changes directions every time they pass through the hatch to the engine room. Going to the moon, but "missed" it? No problem, it's just a hop-skip-and-a-jump (with a helping hand from divine providence) and you'll be at Mars! And OK, if you want to put life on Mars, given the state of planetary knowledge in 1950, it was a forgivable convention for the sake of the storytelling, but can you make them look at least a LITTLE alien? These Martians looked like extras from the cast of "10,000 B.C." I can accept some scientific mistakes, but this wouldn't pass muster with an above-average second-grader.<br /><br />And that's aside from the screaming plot holes: 12 minutes before launch (as you're reminded of constantly by the nagging P.A. voice saying "X minus so many minutes") the astronauts are giving a press conference! I guess the time crunch is why Dr. Eckstrom didn't change out of his coat and tie before launching into space. And how handy that, even though they were planning to go to the moon and had pressure suits for that, they brought hiking gear (and rifles!) just in case they ended up at Mars. They're lucky they landed anywhere, since apparently the method they had developed for landing was to have Dr.E look out the window and tell the "pilot" (Lloyd Bridges) to tweak down the throttles every now and then. Note to the designers of the XM-2: how about giving the pilot a window seat? <br /><br />Ditto the previous comments on the casual sexism that had eye-candy Dr. Lisa (Osa Massen) doom them all by repeatedly screwing up her fuel calculations, but hey that was the early '50s. She was there to fill her sweater, not a useful function.<br /><br />"Rocketship X-M" is notable for being one of the first of the first films to say "ohmigod we're all going to blow ourselves up with these here A-bombs", but one can note that about it without wasting 77 minutes watching such dreck. By the way, that message might have had a bit more impact had there been some money in the budget for actual sets of the Martian city ruins, rather than just matte paintings.<br /><br />I can appreciate "good" bad sci-fi, for the unique way the "future" used to look, and for the inherent (if condescending) humor you can find when when we look back on the naivety of audiences 60 years ago, but this film must have been insulting even then. "Rocketship X-M" isn't even suitable for an MST3K-style lampooning. Sometimes, bad is just... bad.<br /><br />Anybody want to buy a DVD? Used only once, I swear. | 0 |
3,791 | [
600,
700
] | 507 | 626 | To call "Rocketship X-M" a science fiction classic is due more to its release date (1950), its savvy ability to capitalize on the publicity for "Destination Moon", and the appearance of actors who would later star in television as Sea Hunt's Mike Nelson, Rockford's dad and Wyatt Earp.<br /><br />The movie itself is bad enough to be good fodder for MST3K and is best viewed with commentary from Joel and the robots. This is the type of movie best suited to added riffing from the MST3K characters; something preachy, slow-paced, poorly scripted, and full of painfully bad acting. While unintentionally funny stuff like "Plan 9 From Outer Space" don't lend themselves to satirical commentary (because the movie constantly upstages the hosts), really bad and dull movies like "Rocketship X-M" are ideal. So add some stars to the rating if you are watching the MST3K version.<br /><br />The basic story has the crew taking an unplanned right turn at the moon and ending up on Mars. What they find on that planet are the remnants of a human-like civilization devastated by an atomic war. Only one Martian is shown in close-up, a normal looking woman who is blind or at least has no pupils in her eyes. The men look like the "goons" in the old Popeye cartoons, they scamper agilely around the cliffs and throw boulders at the crew with amazing accuracy-especially if they are supposed to be blind. Of course none of this is ever explained as doing so would require some sign of logical analysis from the writers of the screenplay.<br /><br />The scenes on Mars are presented in something called "Sepia Color" to distinguish them from the rest of the B&W movie. If this has you thinking "Wizard of Oz" you will be disappointed because it is just black and white stuff with a slight brown tint added to the print in post-production.<br /><br />In keeping with the moronic sexism of the movie, the icy female scientist screws up her fuel calculations-both coming and going. Her failure to measure up to the men causes her feminine side to surface and she and Mike Nelson coo sweetly to each other as they face their doom (insert sound of gagging here).<br /><br />The real stars of the movie are the reporters at the command center. So much so that MST3K was inspired to specially salute these unheralded heroes. The intrepid squad of "newsies" are featured for the first 10 minutes of the movie, then take stations about 12 inches behind the technicians and monitoring equipment in the command center. Later they are called upon to ask the moronic questions needed by the mission director to expound on the movie's already too obvious message.<br /><br />The DVD has an extremely low audio level, is not captioned, and is accompanied by a trailer. Although you will be thankful that it is only 77 minutes, it is still about 60 minutes too long as any 30 minute episode of "The Twilight Zone" has several times more content than this entire movie.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child. | 0 |
3,806 | [
600,
700
] | 549 | 695 | it's unfortunate that many of the other detractors of this film seem influenced by prior biases. (i.e. anger at the gay characters, thinking french thrillers are bad, etc.) i will admit that i'm unfamiliar with the novel, but as a film, after about 45 minutes, i was rolling my eyes. hopefully i can explain in writing my complaints eloquently enough before i get sick of spending anymore time on this film over the 2 hours of its running length.(2 hours that felt like 3) don't get me wrong, i can sit through hour and a half silent films, 3 hour epics, i don't have a short attention span, nor am i so jaded by the mtv generation that i cant appreciate a subtle and slowly building film. here goes, my grocery list of complaints. first off, the ending. yes, it had a scooby-doo-esquire, character explains everything at the end. now i actually think for this movie, this was necessary.. the film had so many plot-twists, emotional revelations, new facts surfacing and being discovered.. one reviewer said it well: "..yes, it is a very logical story, but without the very essential back story (their childhood stories, the relationship amongst the 3 parents, the relationship amongst the two lovebirds and the son of the Big Man), it just doesn't feel right. I felt cheated " i won't throw in too many spoilers here, i could name specific revelations that i thought were unnecessary, but according to the reviews on here, there's a lot of people who seem to really love this, so i don't want to give anything away. i personally, can't stand soap operas. the complexity, and twists and turns, for me, snuffed out ANY impact the final revelations could possibly deliver. By the end, i seriously didn't care! there weren't any gaping plot holes necessarily; this seems like it could make a great book, in WRITING it is perfectly logical, but if i'm supposed to believe this is REALITY, something doesn't sit right with the pieces that have been haphazardly inserted. too often i felt crucial characters we were never able to get to know were thrown in to further complicate the plot, increase the emotion, and develop the mystery. the acting i had no complaints about, the directing, eh, not bad, but the plot, and especially its development, SEVERELY lacking. sorry to those that felt this was a perfect thriller, but i couldn't get into it. i gave this a 3 simply because i don't want to seem completely unfair, and it did have moments of slight intrigue and excitement. <br /><br />*MAJOR SPOILER* and i have to mention it.. but when the father is making his revelation to alexandre and JUST when you think the plot couldn't fit in another twist.. "your father didn't die in a hunting accident".. I ALMOST DIED.. when was the father at all developed or even really mentioned much in the back story?!! are you serious!! like the already complex plot involving characters from all the families and their relationship to one another wasn't enough!!? does the protagonist NEED another emotional whallop more than he has already been fed?! sorry i had to throw in such a spoiler, but that just bothered me as much as i've ever been bothered in ANY film. | 0 |
3,913 | [
600,
700
] | 533 | 657 | I have seen this movie twice, once a few years ago in college, and again this past weekend. Although I absolutely despised it the first time, I decided to give it another chance. Terrence Malick is clearly a well-respected director, and it seems that the IMDb viewers, at least, think very highly of the film. But, unfortunately, it seems my tastes haven't changed at all.<br /><br />Where to start? For one thing, Linda Manz's narration is horrific. Her voice is so irritating with that horrendous New York accent (please don't try and convince me that Chicagoans talk that way - they don't). She herself admitted to just sitting down and talking about random things, which does not make her a talented actress. She's not even acting! I came on IMDb expecting to see her ripped apart, since her performance is just so utterly laughable, but people actually seemed to like it! She's simply unappealing in every way - I kept hoping Malick would just kill her off.<br /><br />The other actors were fine, but certainly nothing special. Adams was probably the strongest in the cast, but she also had the only decent part. Except the old guy - he was pretty good.<br /><br />Speaking of acting, how could Shepard's character be so ridiculously stupid?? He bought the "brother and sister" act because...uh, why would he buy that? Bill and Abby took every single opportunity to be touchy-feely, as though they didn't realize that their lives depended on acting in a very platonic way. It was just completely unbelievable. And finally, after a considerable amount of time, the Farmer suddenly realizes that, "Oh my god, they're together!" Then he goes after Bill with a gun, but instead seems to trip into Bill's hand and ends up with a mortal stab wound.<br /><br />Speaking of which, the fate of the characters was similarly stupid (and, dare I say, lazy). Of course Bill has to die - could it be more boring than getting shot in a pond by a pack of cops? Abby goes on with her happy life, getting on a train and feeling really content about the way things worked out. And the irksome narrator randomly finds her deadbeat friend and they wander off into the sunset. But it's okay, because Malick never gave me any reason to care about the characters anyway.<br /><br />As for the plot, this film drags along endlessly with no real plot twists or development. I can't believe it's only 94 minutes long - I could have sworn I was sitting in my seat for a solid 3 hours. The sudden locust disaster was like throwing the Bible in my face; I'm totally fine with metaphors and allusions, but this was completely over the top. Clearly the message was, "Don't marry for money or bad things will happen to you." Very original.<br /><br />I understand that "Days of Heaven," like all of Terrence Malick's films, is meant to be a piece of art. And I will certainly agree that the cinematography is simply stunning, and the magic hour shots add a unique aura to the film. But I need more than nice pictures to enjoy a film, and this one just didn't do it for me. | 0 |
3,935 | [
600,
700
] | 469 | 663 | B. Kennedy tried to make a sequel by exaggerating and amplifyinga gargantuan leftist western (not as leftist as the G. Kennedy sequel, that came after this one).<br /><br />This is the ugliest film of the two sequelsvery ugly looking. It is slapdash. B. Kennedy made it amplifyingbut without having the genius for that. Hundreds of peons, hundreds of Mexican _compadres, hundreds of women, a desert, barren landscapes, a stormthe largest scale.<br /><br />Everything in this clumsy sequel, likable only in a weird way, is phony.<br /><br />The movie itself is very ugly looking. Brynner, who made the best part in the first film, doesn't look good at all in this one.<br /><br />Rey plays a priest; he will be a political leader, Quintero, in the next sequel of the franchise. <br /><br />It is true that when you have that many characters you may not need a very interesting storyline; sometimes. E.g., Brynner meets McQueen; then they pick other 'compadres'; or, B. Spencer meets Coburn; etc.. It's fun to see where and how they'll meet the rest of the crew, etc.. But you need at least these several characters. Unfortunately, Burt Kennedy's installment is not very good at that. <br /><br />Return of the Seven (1966) begins with a bullfighting. Vin and Chris meet there; they decide to rescue the third survivor of the original MagnificentsChico, who belongs to a huge group of 300 peons abducted by the Mexican bandits. We find out the name of Chico's appealing wifeit's Petra. Chris must constitute again a small armyand here we have a Dirty Dozen treatChris chooses his men from the convicts. Another member of the commando is a womanizer, who will take good care of the wives left without husbands. The sexual humor is especially displeasing and distasteful in this film. It strives to seem smart and spicy; it is simply boorish and dumb and gross.<br /><br />The choosing of the members of the small army was one of the greatest joys in the McQueen film. Unfortunately, in the first sequel there is the most unmemorable of the three crews assembled under the Magnificent Seven's name.<br /><br />Robert Fuller makes a lousy "Vin";Oates is the smiley womanizer.<br /><br />In this mockgargantuan attempt, a Mexican revolutionary leader has a gargantuan planhe kidnaps 300 peons and uses them to build a village and a church in the memory of his lost sons. (Useless to say that this insane Mexican revolutionist doesn't equal Wallach's part in the first film.) B. Kennedy bets exclusively on camp and overthetop stuff: ugly landscapes, a thunderstorm, gargantuan lightning ,a desert. A huge battle between the emancipated peons and the revolutionary vaqueros. Of course Return of the Seven (1966) completely abandoned the good sense of the McQueen film.<br /><br />What is particularly shocking is that this sequel came quite quickly after the original filmyet, everything changed meantime in the way of making westerns.<br /><br />Both the sequels look weird. | 0 |
3,938 | [
600,
700
] | 537 | 664 | "You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all" I am sure the fans of great classic remember this phrase that belongs to Vin... one of the TRULY magnificent seven (from the first movie)...<br /><br />Now I'd want to re-phrase him here. You know - I've seen some movies where the plot isn't all that good. In fact I've seen some movies where the plot is terrible, but that's first time in my life that I saw the film where there isn't any plot at all.<br /><br />OK. Maybe my above statement is little bit over the top, but honestly... how one can call the plot a crap that is going on in this movie. The bad guy (oh, don't ask me to give you his name, because I don't remember and his not even somehow close to Calvera who's name and character is unforgettable...) is trying to build the church in the name of his late sons, that were killed in some battle, and this bad guy is kidnapping poor villagers to force them to build the church...<br /><br />first of all how big must be church to have to force hundreds of villagers to build it... is it some Egyptian pyramid or something? but OK, let's stop here about the plot and absolutely forgettable character of a bad guy and let's say few words about The Seven itself...<br /><br />Yul brynner's good old Chris, always calm, always silent, talking less but talking wise is gone (unfortunately). Oh no... he's as calm as he was... but now, he's calmness are so fake that you just don't buy it. (imagine, he meets a good old friend Chico, who he must rescue after so many years and there is just a few "hi, Hello" and not even handshake (as far as I remember))... honestly, it looks more like meeting of two strangers in some internet chat, rather then meeting of Chris and Chico. That makes "new Chris" more look like robocop or terminator rather then our beloved wise quickgun...<br /><br />I won't stop here talking about other characters. There simply aren't ANY... (imagine if strong actor like Yul Brynner is so much fake forgettable, then what will be other characters look like)...<br /><br />There still are some attempts to give us a background story for each one of them... for example one is women favorite guy, second is a man with dark past who's wife was raped and killed by indians and he since then is killing everyone and everything that is moving... but non of these characters are making any sense or non of them can take your heart.<br /><br />I remember I was a little child and when O'reilly (Charles Bronson's character) died in the first movie I was crying. Here, I just didn't care about each one of them... even if whole of them with all the crew of the film would die, it seems I wouldn't care more...<br /><br />So, please, go and SEE THIS MOVIE... I recommend it, because you won't have the other chance to see something worse then it. | 0 |
3,939 | [
600,
700
] | 553 | 695 | The seven collaborations between director Joseph "von" Sternberg and star Marlene Dietrich were so distinct in look and tone, and so different from anything else going on at the time, they almost seem to constitute a sub-genre of their own. Like any genre, they have their outright masterpieces, as well as their absolute turkeys. Time to send Blonde Venus back to the farm.<br /><br />After the seedily seductive hits The Blue Angel, Morocco and Shanghai Express, in which Miss Dietrich established her screen image as cabaret-singer-cum-prostitute, someone at Paramount decided it was time for Marlene to play a mother. There is nothing wrong with that in itself; as an actress she was up to the part. It's just that nothing else about the format has changed. It's like The Blue Angel plus a kid. Fair enough, the story of a woman who drags her child along on her sleazy escapades is a sound premise for a tragic drama, but that's not the way this is played. Dietrich's journey is played as some kind of adventure, using her wits and accomplices to stay ahead of the law. This is not some cheeky example of pre-code libertarianism it is just bizarrely distasteful.<br /><br />Although we may be able to accept Marlene is a doting mommy, there is absolutely no way we can buy Sternberg as a director of warmth and poignancy. In spite of this being one of the handful of pictures for which he also took a writing credit, Sternberg simply fails to get the story-arc. The film's emotional payoff is supposed to be the eventual reunion of the family, but even at the beginning this is not established as something worth getting back to. As usual Sternberg's interiors are dressed and shot to look like either brothels or insane asylums. The Faradays' home is actually quite a creepy, dingy environment, and it's a wonder little Johnny wasn't wetting the bed and asking to sleep with the light on.<br /><br />But as anyone familiar with them will know, the point of a Dietrich/Sternberg picture is to make Dietrich look fabulous, and in this respect at least Blonde Venus is a success. Marlene is introduced emerging from a forest pool in a bright, shimmering close-up, and even when she is reduced to rags the camera still loves her. The same cannot be said for the rest of the cast, whom Sternberg tended to view as mobile pieces of scenery. The normally likable Herbert Marshall is here reduced to a moody grouch lurking in the shadows. Even the suave and lively Cary Grant becomes just a boring, background blob, and does not seem nearly interesting enough for Dietrich to run off with.<br /><br />The only standout moments in Blonde Venus are Marlene's song and dance routines, especially the renowned Hot Voodoo number where she parodies her own surreal stage persona by emerging from a gorilla outfit. But even these feel like they have been cut-and-pasted from a different film. Sternberg's fans may hail it as another masterpiece, as they are wont to do, but for the average punter it is a massive disappointment. Audiences of the time did not lap it up as they had her earlier hits, and this heralded the beginning of the end for Marlene's heyday. A year later there would be a new queen at Paramount Mae West. | 0 |
3,968 | [
600,
700
] | 519 | 646 | 'A comedy of biblical proportions!' Those masters of hyperbole, the movie-tag-line-writers, at it again; the sequel to 2003's Bruce Almighty, raises barely a chuckle. The only thing which raises my interest in this movie above total indifference is its dogmatic Christian undertones. Sorry, make that overtones.<br /><br />Steve Carrel, ignoring Jim Carrey's good sense to decline a role reprisal, plays Evan Baxter, the smug news anchor from Bruce Almighty, who has just been elected to congress. With a new life in Virginia and the stress of moving into a house the size of the Acropolis, the pressure of all the change takes its toll on his family. His wife (Lauren Graham), evidently airlifted in from Stepford, and three sons (Jimmy Bennett, Graham Phillips and Johnny Simmons), who do a stilted job of looking sad to a piano accompaniment, pray for the family to become closer, and almost out of guilt, so does Evan.<br /><br />In what must be the greatest shock of all time, God (Morgan Freeman) actually shows up, but does the whole pesky 'working in mysterious ways' thing all over the place by telling Evan to build a Noah-esquire ark in preparation for a great flood instead of just giving him a pool table or and X-box or something. And in true mischievous deity style, he also forces Evan to grow a beard, long hair and wear worn and tatty robes. Now, back in the day I'm sure razors were hard to come by so the beard was somewhat of an inevitability for Noah, but I'm almost certain it had nothing to do with spirituality. Same with the robes; a massive construction job is surely made all the more difficult by such impractical clothing. Couldn't God have conjured up a pair of steel toed boots and a hard hat for the poor guy? Apparently not.<br /><br />To paraphrase Bill Hicks, I find the idea that God is messing with us somewhat unsettling, and so does Evan who fights him every step of the way. And who wouldn't? God essentially gets him fired, drives away his loved ones, makes him a laughing stock and at one point actually threatens him. Of course God turns out to be right, and the rational, hard working family man who was getting on fine by himself is forced to eat a large slice of bittersweet humble pie. It's almost as if to be left alone by God, Evan had to tolerate and humour him. What kind of message is that? <br /><br />Evan Almighty does have a highly commendable environmental slant, with the underlying theme being that the Federal Government is blind to the damage being done to the world around us. It is also the first film ever to offset its carbon emissions and this should surely be considered a landmark achievement by a Hollywood studio. Were it not for the trite, condescending banner of American Christianity flying high above it, Evan Almighty could have been an inoffensive family movie, with a praiseworthy environmental record. But with its confused religious dogma and relentless 'blind faith' message, it ranks as one of the most repugnant movies of all time. | 0 |
3,976 | [
600,
700
] | 550 | 668 | If like me, you enjoyed the first film "Bruce Almighty", my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.<br /><br />Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to "Change the World" with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.<br /><br />Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.<br /><br />It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.<br /><br />Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down "Night at the Museum" as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.<br /><br />I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production. | 0 |
4,009 | [
600,
700
] | 446 | 629 | The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).<br /><br />McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about "hooking up" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.<br /><br />Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.<br /><br />It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring. | 0 |
4,044 | [
600,
700
] | 525 | 666 | 20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a "courtship" is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.<br /><br />And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.<br /><br />Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette "Widmark & Lupino At Fox". Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But "Road House" up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.<br /><br />Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like "Down To The Sea In Ships" (1949) and the colourful "Red Skies Of Montana" (1952). | 0 |
4,070 | [
600,
700
] | 457 | 629 | I had always eyed Italian horror maestro Dario Argento's efforts as producer with a certain suspicion and these were only confirmed after my fairly recent viewing of Lamberto Bava's terrible DEMONS (1985); the fact that this was supposed to be its third installment did not sound promising at all but I decided to give the film a rental regardless now that we're in full Halloween swing. I checked out the theatrical trailer on the Anchor Bay DVD prior to viewing the main feature the undeniably striking visuals had me intrigued to be sure but, then, the film proper (which makes no more sense than what's presented in that frenzied two-minute montage and, in retrospect, can be seen to have wisely compiled most of its highlights) proved a definite let-down!<br /><br />Opening promisingly enough with a medieval prologue straight out of Alexander NEVSKY (1938), it goes downhill fast because it relies too much on surreal imagery at the expense of narrative. Consequently, several characters randomly take center-stage throughout with the insufferable male lead succumbing to the dark forces early on, the sinister-looking Bishop (Feodor Chaliapin) resulting a mere red herring, the mysterious black priest gradually assuming heroic qualities, the leading lady is for whatever reason preyed upon by a goat-shaped demon (culminating in a sexual rite conducted in front of the other cultists lifted all-too-obviously from ROSEMARY'S BABY [1968]) and a reasonably impressive 13-year old Asia Argento as the rebellious but likable sacristan's daughter (who emerges as the only survivor by the end). Incidentally, the older Argento also co-wrote the film's story and screenplay along with director Soavi and (under a pseudonym after they apparently fell out with Dario in the early stages of production) original helmer Lamberto Bava and prolific genre scribe Dardano Sacchetti (whom I met at the 61st Venice Film Festival in 2004).<br /><br />The extremely muddled second half of the film, then, sees a group of people including the inevitable teenagers but also a doddering English couple (whose constant bickering is given an amusingly nasty punchline) similarly shut inside a building in the grip of evil spirits (the church being the burial ground of a satanic cult)
not that this horror outing is likely to dispel memories of Luis Bunuel's sublimely surreal THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) you see! In the end, the film is all the more disappointing (though Sergio Stivaletti's gruesome effects, at least, are notable) given that I had thoroughly enjoyed the only other Soavi title I'd watched CEMETERY MAN (1994), which I own via the R2 SE DVD. That said, I'd still like to catch his debut feature STAGE FRIGHT (1987) and the director's follow-up effort to THE CHURCH, entitled THE SECT (1991)... | 0 |
4,136 | [
600,
700
] | 516 | 660 | This...thing. oh god this thing. i can't even call it a movie. a movie is something that does something. goes somewhere. has some semblance of a plot or SOMETHING. i don't know how i'm doing it. i really don't. first i say dark fields is the worst movie ever. and i thought it was. then pirates of ghost island proved me wrong. and now, third time in a row, another film goes above and beyond the call of duty to prove me wrong.<br /><br />(sighs) OK. Dark Harvest II: The Maize. lord this is awful. Let me break it down for you. Man senses daughters are in danger through some magical psychic powers he got from his Act II popcorn apparently and races to find them in a corn field. Of course this is the hugest cornfield in all of existence, being the size of the cornfields from Jeepers Creepers, Children of the Corn, and Signs combined. the main character, whose name is Shy (awesome name btw) then runs through a corn field....finds some ghost girls, talks to them, and...runs through a corn field. digs a while...and runs through a corn field. and the incredibly sad thing? i'm really not leaving anything out. That pretty much IS the entire movie. The only thing i may be leaving out is how he gets chased by two policemen who want to arrest him for... i don't know. pretending to be an actor. i didn't care by this point. He gets away and the police are -somethinged- by the killer offscreen. holy crap there's a killer? apparently yes there is as he's introduced nearly 4/5 into the movie. but wait! then he runs away for a while and there's, you guessed it, more running through the corn field and digging. Then there's the ending where he saves his daughters. huzzah.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this movie is, it's boring. it's INCREDIBLY, INHUMANLY, TREMENDOUSLY boring. I can't explain how atrociously dull this thing is. nothing happens, the characters are as appealing as a root canal, and it's just an hour and a half of NOTHING. the ONLY good thing that came out of this movie was that me and my friend may have found enlightenment due to the near nirvana state this movie put us into after the effects of the drugs in our brain had to kick into overdrive to keep us alive. During the ensuing insanity, i found hugging a wall much more enjoyable and my friend found a new passion for laughing hysterically while flopping all over the floor as if he having a seizure. This is the sort of insanity this movie brings. it's not just bad. it's bad for your health. The cover looks awesome with a picture of an AWESOME scarecrow killer that i would totally consider dressing up as for a horror con, but this was THE most misleading box ever. DON'T LET IT FOOL YOU TOO! do NOT watch this movie. watch a better corn movie. ANY movie about corn is better. just don't let it get you! don't! a 0 out of 10 | 0 |
4,159 | [
600,
700
] | 547 | 690 | ***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS***<br /><br />I saw this movie last night at a screening. I started out already liking Tim Robbins and loving sci-fi. The first third of the movie was very cool. The score was good, the cinematography was interesting, the film maker's vision of the future was realistic yet starkly interesting nonetheless. I remember thinking to myself: "this is the most intelligently done sci-fi movie I've seen in a while". Then they just couldn't keep it together.<br /><br />Although from the outset, there were a number of more "rough around the edges" issues with this film (namely the editing, and later some of the writing/plot development), these issues were forgivable. They became unforgivable once the movie sort of lost all momentum around the half way mark, and then the film just got tedious when you realized that it wasn't going to go anywhere at all. <br /><br />Robbins could not breathe life into his character, but did the best he could. His female counterpart (her name escapes me now) was good in her role.<br /><br />The main reason for the meandering of the movie seemed to be that the film makers could not decide whether or not to do a sci-fi movie or a futuristic love story. They ended up with neither.<br /><br />Good:<br /><br />Some of the cinematography: grainy, it felt like "21 days later" some times.<br /><br />Very fitting for a futuristic movie like this.<br /><br />I dug some of the location shots.<br /><br />The music was cool.<br /><br />The film makers vision of the future was realistic but still cool and interesting.<br /><br />I liked the interactions with the other minor characters in the movie.<br /><br />Some of the writing was interesting (early on). <br /><br />The girl who played Maria Gonzales (name?? can't recall), she was good.<br /><br />***SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />A few questions/comments:<br /><br />I felt that a lot of the futuristic things in this movie were convenient to fix a patchwork story. Namely VIRUSES. Obviously the virus they gave her at the end of the film that made her physically 'afraid' of him was just there so that they could stick in another sex scene and then she could uncontrollably report him for Code 46. Then they take him away and erase his memory and the movie ends. Classic 'dream sequence' cop-out ending if you ask me. ties up all the loose ends very neatly if you just make it all a dream right?<br /><br />Was Robbin's character naturally good as intuition or was it the virus?<br /><br />Why didn't they explore the myriad of issues surrounding the girl being a clone of his mom? That could have made some interesting story.<br /><br />At first I like the salutations from across the globe in everyone's speech. But it became intrusive especially since their accents were not convincing. I get it, the future will undoubtedly be racially and culturally more androgynous, but it started feeling like an AT&T Global Networking commercial by the end of it.<br /><br />If they were 'outside' how could they have gotten busted for Code 46?<br /><br />'Cover' was never well defined. Sometimes it seemed as trivial as a Visa, and other times it was as vital as life or death. Again, loose definitions allow them to use it for gluing disparate parts of the plot together.<br /><br />Okay, I'm starting to get to negative about it, so I'll stop. There were some cool scenes, and interesting things about this movie, but that only gives it a 4/10 | 0 |
4,174 | [
600,
700
] | 556 | 678 | Unspeakable starts in Los Angeles with Jim (Roger Cline) & his wife Alice Fhelleps (Tamera Noll) arguing as they drive along in the pouring rain, unfortunately Jim crashes the car & his daughter Heather (Leigh Silver) ends up dead while Alice is turned into a wheelchair bound vegetable. Devastated by the death of his daughter Jim starts visiting prostitutes, he then kills them because of voices in his head. Erm, that's it really.<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Chad Ferrin I hate Unspeakable as a film. There are some films you occasionally see that move the 'goal posts' as it were in regard to everything you watch thereafter, some films are so brilliant that all other's will be judged by it while other's like Unspeakable for example are so bad that it sets a new cinematic low. This is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen & I am seriously surprised by the largely positive comments on the IMDb although I'm not surprised the the low overall rating on the main page, I not sure if I missed something but for a start Unspeakable has no plot, it has no story & a lot of it seems almost random. There was nothing in Unspeakable to maintain my interest or entertain & as a result became a test of endurance to get through to the end. The film tries to be shocking with some limp scenes of sexual abuse of a rent boy by a priest, there is a scene in which a disabled person craps herself, it splats on the floor & her dodgy male nurse starts feeling her soiled genitals, legs & underwear. If anyone can find such crap entertaining then I'll just cut my wrists now, the character's are some of the worst I've had the misfortune to know, the dialogue is hilariously bad with some it sounding like it came straight from some dirty faggot porno of the worst kind. It doesn't work as a horror as it's not scary in the slightest, it's absolutely hilarious & frankly insulting to claim that it is trying to be a serious drama about someone suffering a great loss & attempting to cope with it & overall I just think it's a pointless, rubbishy, badly made piece of crap from Troma.<br /><br />Director Ferrin films like some badly made documentary, the special effects are terrible & are of the 'let's pour tomato ketchup on our actor's face & the audience will be convinced that they died a gory death' variety, there is no graphic violence at all apart from a suicide where someone sticks a knife in their own mouth. Considering the amount of prostitutes in Unspeakable the nudity levels are kept to an absolute minimum...<br /><br />Apparently Unspeakable had a budget of about $20,000 & all I can say is where did all the money go? Oh, a quick note to the filmmakers, if your going to record sound live make sure you don't have your actor's deliver their lines next to a main road that half of Los Angeles seem to be driving up... The acting sucks, period.<br /><br />Unspeakable is, in my opinion, total crap. It's probably not the worst I've ever seen but it's right down there & I can't remember seeing such a awful film recently. One to avoid unless your a masochist or insomniac. | 0 |
4,212 | [
600,
700
] | 485 | 668 | A SOUND OF THUNDER. One of the greatest short stories ever written. By one of the grandest Grand Masters of Fantasy, Ray Bradbury. What a great story.<br /><br />But what a vomitous movie! <br /><br />In Bradbury's science fiction short story, a company called Time Safari offers big game hunters the opportunity to go back in time and kill dinosaurs. Rule Number One is: Stay On The Path, a floating metallic walkway that ensures no interaction with the prehistoric environment. During a hunt, a man steps off the path and inadvertently crushes a butterfly. When the hunting party returns to the present - the world as they know it has drastically changed. Though there are paradoxes in any time travel story, Bradbury's tale was a quick jugular stroke, a parable of the ripple effect.<br /><br />A Sound of Thunder was published in 1952 (according to Wikipedia, the most republished science fiction story of all time), and illustrated Chaos Theory, Darwinism, and The Butterfly Effect (which would only be coined in the 1960s by Edward Lorenz). In Bradbury's story, the wonder of time travel was overshadowed by corporate greed, in turn overshadowed by the mortal danger to humanity's existence itself.<br /><br />While in the movie, A SOUND OF THUNDER (directed by the uneven Peter Hyams, CAPRICORN ONE, 2010: ODYSSEY TWO), a clutch of bad actors goes through the time portal again and again to try to rectify their mistakes, like an excrement version of BACK TO THE FUTURE. The movie has nothing to do with Bradbury's powerful tale, except the initial jolt of the time traveling prehistoric hunting party. Egregious liberties are taken with Bradbury's story - baboon-faced reptiles, plants overrunning Chicago's concrete, time waves rippling through the city, CGI insectoids - for which Bradbury should sue the pants and underpants and ass-hairs off the filmmakers.<br /><br />Novice writers Thomas Dean Donnelly, Joshua Oppenheimer and Gregory Poirier should start a Big Balls Agency, for thinking they could actually add elements to a Ray Bradbury story that would improve it. How do these guys walk in a straight line with balls this big? Ben Kingsley is the corporate owner of Time Safari, with a hairpiece so bad it looks like a hairpiece, Edward Burns is his lead hunter, Travis, and Catherine McCormack (who was Murron MacClannough, in BRAVEHEART) is the scientist with the best breasts.<br /><br />I can't possibly relate the hundreds upon thousands of egregious stupidities and asinine pieces of dialog, but here is just one, spoken by David Oyelowo as some kind of "scientist": he refers to the Pleiades star cluster, "The Seven Sisters, they look like stars, don't they? But each of them is a whole galaxy." Uh, no, idiot scientist, they're actually, uh, stars.<br /><br />Those three morons who rewrote Bradbury's story forgot they didn't know anything about physics or astronomy. Or writing.<br /><br />Best part of the movie is Catherine McCormick's chest straining against her disheveled one-size-too-small blouses.<br /><br />--Review by Poffy The Cucumber (for Poffy's Movie Mania). | 0 |
4,222 | [
600,
700
] | 512 | 615 | One hundred and seventy five million dollars is a hell of a lot of money to spend on even the biggest summer blockbuster. Not even Michael Bay had a budget that big for Transformers, so exactly how Universal Pictures spent that much cash making Evan Almighty is a mystery. They certainly didn't spend it on the script for one thing as the film is not so much a classic comedy as it is Christian flag waving and bar one or two quiet chuckles, you're most likely to spend the duration wondering where the budget went or why Steve Carrell felt the need to slum it in a decidedly average movie at the exact moment when his star profile has begun to rise.<br /><br />A sequel to the Jim Carrey comedy Bruce Almighty, this film sees former supporting character Evan Baxter (Carrell) moving up the ladder into the main player slot. The story opens with him leaving the news desk to become a public official and moving to Washington with his wife and three generic sons (slightly weird primary school moppet, spirited middle schooler and sulky teenager). Evan's bid to change the world through politics however gets a spanner in the works when God (Morgan Freeman) appears and asks him to build an Ark.<br /><br />In other words, it's an updating of the old Genesis story, with Evan fighting off cynicism and naysayers to build the immense boat. Unfortunately, while the premise is reasonably promising, it sadly does not provide many laughs. There's a bit of fun to be had in the early going where Evan's straight-laced MP tries to juggle the demands of public service with the unwelcome packs of animals that follow him around and a beard that resists all attempts to shave it, but as soon as he accepts his divine mission, the film takes a nosedive.<br /><br />From this point on, it turns into a message movie. Evan begins preaching with alarming regularity and Morgan Freeman keeps turning up to offer kind wisdom, while gently prodding his chosen in the right direction. Without Evan's resistance though, the only trace of comedy left comes in the form of a few rubbish animal-feces jokes and John Michael Higgin's role as Evan's exasperated right-hand man. Higgins may show the same rich comic potential that he did previously in Arrested Development, but his enthusiasm cannot save the sinking vessel, especially seeing as Carrell has all but placed his formidable improv skills on the back-burner.<br /><br />In some respects, it's slightly similar to the Passion of the Christ, but unlike Mel Gibson's movie which encouraged everyone to believe in God through blood letting and guilt tripping, Evan Almighty tries a more gentle approach. The movie simply tells us that we should have faith in God, because He has faith in us. Unfortunately, this movie is just as likely to make you laugh as the Passion is. Carrell is on autopilot, the jokes don't exist and Wanda Sykes makes a bid to become the most annoying person on the planet. It might be sweet, but somebody just tossed $175 000 000 overboard. | 0 |
4,313 | [
600,
700
] | 502 | 663 | Amitabh and Jiah Khan, raised great expectations, by their press conferences, though it was quite easy for the critics, and the fans too, that after all, this much hyped, Ram Gopal Verma Factory product, is going to fall flat on it's face, in all the probabilities ! Why, because Jiah was so immature and childish, and Bacchan, mixed up guilty, and unsure . they themselves didn't know, what the hell they were talking about, to the press, keeping up with the tag line, that some love stories are not to be understood, or some such rubbish ! Why the title is Nishabd ? Ramu needs to refresh his knowledge of Sanskrit, as Vidhu Vinod needs to study Mahabharata, tagging in line, another glorious flop of the year, Eklavya ! Comparison with the Sweet hearts, and Lolit's is inevitable, as the so-called plot line is supposed to have inspired by them. but sadly, Ramu has hardly made any serious effort, to delve deeply into the psyche of the aging, and the young ones. is lolly pop sucking the ultimate indicator of the innocence ? and contrary to that streak of childishness, the leg show at the dining table, with a Vijay, that is Bacchan in that role, bursting into squeals of shameless laughter incessantly after wards ? this girl, is in fact at her seductive game, luring poor Vijay to think, she is in love with him. the legs,too are skinny enough, and that act of putting the water hose through the legs, is down right obscene. it's beyond any one's understanding, how can a girl , coming as a guest to some body's house, can be so brazen, brash, and over powering ? and why the hell that stupid wife, played by Revathi, remarkably well, though scripted poorly, and characterized unrealistically, encourages her own husband, to dance with a sexily saying young girl ? that part of Vijay, trying to gain some refreshers to his humdrum life is absolute bullshit. because, apparently it seems that he is happy as he is, with a well settled life, and a hobby to recreate. This reminds of Blame it on Rio, the older daddy, and his young love, superbly played by Michael Caine. Bacchan looks terrible in close ups, and over all, where as kevin spacey and Jeremy Irons looked debonair and handsome, which is why the young chicks some times get attracted to older men, for their charming persona, compared to the vulnerability of young boys of their age. only good thing about this movie is those green , sprawling land scapes , winding roads, and pleasant cinematography. no substance, or even any sparkling show of emotions, drama , or even intriguing, stormy sex like in Lolita, this shallow movie has no wonder, fallen flat on it's face, and had to be wound up from the screens during first weeks ! next time round, before mindlessly copying any such theme from Hollywood, Ramu should do his home work, and Bacchan should think twice ! you can not fool all the people at all the times, Mr. Bacchan! | 0 |
4,341 | [
600,
700
] | 503 | 609 | European films may be slower-paced and less plot driven than American films, but this takes it way too far. It also show a whole bunch of incompletely drawn characters doing inexplicable things. It's not fantasy, it's not even surreal, it's just awkward and bad.<br /><br />What's the message here? That people in France are pensive and gaze morosely a lot? That they like to watch other people having sex? They they spontaneously scream or touch a stranger on his neck? Do not wear a watch when seeing this film, as you will be astonished at how little is explained or learned over huge stretches of time.<br /><br />This is the story of a "police superintendent" who is deeply troubled by the brutal murder of a little girl, though actually he seems troubled before then. He is not merely upset at his own personal tragedies, but apparently mentally quite slow, behaving very much like a learning-disabled six-year old child. He stares blankly a lot, walks with arms rigid like a little kid, speaks in meek, simpering, tones, behaves quite oddly in all of his interactions (though no one seems to notice or care, even when it is supposed to be police business). He's not a troubled cop, more of an outpatient. Picture Andy Kaufman's Latka character on Taxi, but without the humor. He is not only not believable as a policeman he is not believable as an adult. That he won an award for this interpretation of his character is truly amazing -- unless he was playing the part exactly as written and the fault lies with the weirdos who scripted this thing. The plot is clearly secondary. Do not expect to see anything remotely like what police would do if a little girl was found murdered. This not that important, though the implausibility of their behavior is sort of insulting. The problem is that the rest of the film makes no sense either. That leaves the long lingering close-ups of fields, vegetable gardens, people's faces etc. The ending struck me as especially ridiculous -- totally unsupported by the events leading up to it -- unless you think, "What's the worst way this film could end?"<br /><br />There is lots of sex and nudity, which is supposed to mean something. You want vaginas? You'll see vaginas. Not to worry, it's art. It has deep meaning, what I am not sure. And the protagonist, despite his innocent weirdness, seems to have some sort of homoerotic neck or jowl fetish.<br /><br />Finally, the subtitles are in white and frequently appear on a white background -- very hard to read many of them. On the other hand, there isn't much dialogue, so this isn't a big problem. There is also very little sound -- not even ambient sounds you would expect to hear -- in the film, contributing to the emptiness of the whole experience. The old Woody Allen would have had a field day parodying this work.<br /><br />That this is an award-winning film is sad. I would hate to see the losing films.<br /><br />Enjoy. | 0 |
4,358 | [
600,
700
] | 544 | 622 | Hollywood will stop at nothing to make money on a film even if they have to keep dragging out stereotypes and putting them in the most impossible and stupid situations. This effort is a clear example of that and I really do believe in my heart that a film like this is racially irresponsible. Story is about a divorced lawyer named Peter Sanderson (Steve Martin) who has been chatting with a lady on his computer and when he finally meets her she turns out to be the opposite of what he was expecting. Charlene Morton (Queen Latifah) is a stocky black woman who has no intentions of dating Peter but instead wants him to look at her case where she was convicted of robbery. He wants her to leave for good but she keeps popping up at inappropriate times and to save his job he reluctantly agrees to look at the facts involving her case.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT*****<br /><br />Peter has his kids staying with him and Charlene turns out to be helpful in raising them but suddenly a news bulletin announces that an escaped convict named Charlene Morton has broken out of prison. Peter tells her to leave when the FBI comes snooping around but he figures out that she is in fact innocent when her old boyfriend shows up and threatens him.<br /><br />This film is directed by Adam Shankman who keeps things moving at a nice pace and it is a good looking film technically speaking but the script is just so improbable and every character is a stereotype to the point that a 1970 film called "The Landlord" is clearly more in tune with race relations than this mess. I have always been a big fan of Martin and I think he's one of the most talented persons around but he loves to work constantly and at times just seems to pick any script handed to him. On the other hand, I've always had a problem with Latifah and the way she barges into the life of Martin is so over the top that she instantly becomes ingratiating. Basic premise that Hollywood loves to use is the hip black person showing uptight whitey to loosen up and then pass on some street logic that will help them with their lives. That's basically what the story is here but of course they have to let Martin dress black and overact like a retarded Eminem because Hollywood knows that this is what viewers want. Well, I was pretty much insulted by everything in this film and it's not because I don't have a sense of humor but unfortunately (For Hollywood, anyway) I use logic and common sense when I watch a film. Yes, I enjoyed Eugene Levy's talking jive but are we really suppose to believe that he would be instantly attracted to Latifah? I guess weirder things have happened and how many times does a main actor get shot only to be saved by something in their pocket? Wouldn't a cell phone shatter if struck by a bullet? Even if your the most die hard Martin and Latifah fan I wouldn't recommend this. I know I've said this before but this isn't an attempt to make a good film, it's an excuse to try and make money! | 0 |
4,362 | [
600,
700
] | 471 | 621 | (very serious spoilers)<br /><br />this movie was a huge disappointment. there are so many problems i dont know where to start. so, i'll talk about what is good about the film.<br /><br />the cast was great. steve martin delivers a really funny performance of a middle-aged, upper class, uptight white guy. queen latifah plays a big, beautiful, urban, black gal. and eugene levy, well he pretty much plays himself. add betty white and jean smart and you have a great cast - everyone played their parts really well. and if watching these guys for 1.75 hours is worth $8 to you, then you wont be disappointed.<br /><br />but the movie makes a lot of serious mistakes. first of all, there are enough racial stereotypes and racial jokes to offend everyone. all the white people are uptight bigots. all the black people are ghetto ebonics-speakers. the blacks are hip, cool, with-it and poor. the whites are nerds, stiff, and rich. (except eugene levy, he is clearly taken with queen latifa and "speaks the lingo" - so latifa nicknames him a "freak". so - if you're a white man and you like black women and you know street slang you must be a freak). the movie is littered with overt racial slurs towards the black cast members and in return the whites are depicted as morons and boobs.<br /><br />putting the race card aside, lets look at the major flaw in the film: they destroy latifa's character. she comes to martin's home under false pretense, but martin takes a liking to her anyway. she's supposed to be wrongly accused of robbery, martin takes up her cause. 3/4 of the way through the film we find out latifa's character escaped from jail. so, our sympathy for her goes out the window.<br /><br />there is no real plot. the movie plods along from scene to scene with latifa showing up in some place where she's "not" supposed to be (like a country club or martin's house) and martin trying to hide her. thats the running gag. then in the last minutes of the film they decide that they're going to finally deal with latifa's assertion that she was wrongly accused of bank robbery. martin goes under cover as a homeboy to extract a (let's face it, unusable) confession from latifa's ex boyfriend, and everyone lives happily ever after.<br /><br />finally (but there is a lot more wrong with this flick) this movie appears to be a hodge-podge of clips from other movies. the premise is clearly borrowed from another martin movie "the house-sitter". where goldie hawn comes to live with martin and shakes up his stodgy middle-class life. martin and latifa meet online - ala "youve got mail". the whole "quirky nanny fixes rich man's life" goes as far back as "the sound of music" and "mary poppins".<br /><br />i wouldnt see this movie again for free. | 0 |
4,377 | [
600,
700
] | 527 | 668 | A lot of Alistair MacLean's books have made it onto the big screen. Some of them (The Guns Of Navarone, Fear Is The Key, Where Eagles Dare) have been translated rather well; some (Breakheart Pass, Ice Station Zebra, The Secret Ways) have been passable enough; a few (River Of Death, Bear Island, The Way To Dusty Death) have been pretty rotten. Caravan To Vaccares is another movie based on one of MacLean's perennially popular bestsellers, but alas this is yet another that deserves adding to the "rotten" list. Peopled by uninteresting characters who get into uninteresting situations and escapades, Caravan To Vaccares is an absolute failure, both as a thriller and an entertainment. Its only semi-redeeming qualities are: a) that it is filmed on very attractive Provence locations, and: b) Charlotte Rampling looks utterly ravishing (with fully nude scenes to boot) as the main female character.<br /><br />Disillusioned American drifter Neil Bowman (David Birney) is travelling aimlessly through France when he meets British photographer Lila (Charlotte Rampling). They decide to accompany each other, and during their wanderings make the acquaintance of mysterious nobleman Duc De Croyter (Michel Lonsdale). The Duc persuades the pair to aid him in protecting and escorting Hungarian scientist Zuger (Michael Bryant), who is sought by various shady parties because of some information that he is carrying in his head. Kept secret from Bowman and Lila is the fact that Zuger has discovered a secret formula for using solar power as cheap, economical energy. The Hungarian needs desperately to get his formula to New York, but hired guns have been put on his trail to capture him presumably so that he can be taken back to some ruthless criminal lord and tortured into revealing his priceless secret, which they can then sell on to the highest bidder. Bowman and Lila find themselves and their terrified fugitive on the run in the French countryside from their deadly adversaries.<br /><br />The film seems terribly cheap and amateurish, almost like an ultra low-budget independent film made by a non-professional cast and crew. Yet a fair sum of money was actually thrown at the film, and all those involved have, at various points in their careers, done much better work. Therefore, one has to assume that the film is bad simply because it has been written, acted and directed with a distinct lack of care and interest. The pacing is deadly slow, and the plot points become so laborious that the viewer has to put in too much unrewarded effort to keep up with the story. Birney's performance is uninvolving, and Rampling only creates a stir due to her nude scenes the character itself is an absolute bore, and the actress looks rightly bored by it. For those who manage to stick with the film right to the very end, there is an unusual scene featuring some deadly rodeo clowns and a fierce bull (!) which, while not particularly exciting or well executed, is at least different to the norm. Caravan To Vaccares is a very disappointing film in most respects, and once more a strong novel by the prolific author has suffered during its transition onto the screen. | 0 |
4,540 | [
600,
700
] | 524 | 656 | When I decided to try watching a movie about cryogenic zombies ("cryonoids"), I wasn't expecting a whole lot. That's exactly what I got, and then even less. Aside from a shortage of special effects (squibs?) and a severe lack of any acting talent, "The Chilling" also sports the absolute worst script I've ever seen made into a movie. I had to stop the tape numerous times during the first 45 minutes in order to repair the damage done to my intellect for witnessing such atrocious dialogue as there is found here.<br /><br />Furthermore, the collection of characters is so formulaic and one-dimensional it's ridiculous: the corrupt doctor; his assistant, played by Linda Blair (we know she's his "assistant" because he repeatedly refers to her by that title); the recently-widowed businessman with a heart of gold who develops a romantic interest with Blair's character; his criminal son; the Blair character's alcoholic, abusive, unemployed boyfriend, whom we are introduced to in the most contrived use of a flashback; and, of course, the rough, tough, bearded security guard who becomes the hero.<br /><br />Apparently, the preserving fluid which some cryogenics lab uses on its bodies is highly conductive, naturally resulting in disaster when all of the lab's containers end up outdoors in a remarkable sequence of events during a lightning storm (on Halloween night, no less). As for the zombies themselves, if you enjoy watching people in green latex masks walking around in aluminum foil suits, then "The Chilling" is the movie for you. The zombie action is very weak at its best; the zombies' primary killing method seems to be grabbing people by the shoulders and shaking them to death. The businessman and the security guard do most of the zombie fighting, including a highly suspenseful scene of re-freezing the undead with liquid nitrogen. Let me tell you, the steel mill scene in "T2" has got nothing on "The Chilling" in portraying an enemy getting frozen in his tracks like that.<br /><br />How Linda Blair ended up stuck in the middle of this piece of dreck is indeed a mystery. True, her career didn't exactly skyrocket during the 80s (sadly), but this movie is an embarrassment for her. The script doesn't even have the decency to put her to any good use. The most that her character is given to do is shriek out things like "Here they come", "Do something", "Hurry!". The only thing I can figure is that poor Linda was compensated for her work on this film in rations of food. The hero is played by Grizzly Adams himself, Dan Haggerty. In this picture, he faces stiff acting competition from his beard and the security dog, and he does his best to outperform them both.<br /><br />The only frightening part of "The Chilling" is the introduction which brings up the factual elements of cryogenics and suggests that "the film you are about to see could happen in your own community". As I was counting the number of times a few of the names are repeated in the closing credits, I was floored to suddenly see Lucasfilm get credited. Fortunately, it was only for the movie's sound production. 1/10. | 0 |
4,617 | [
600,
700
] | 513 | 661 | This is another notorious Mexican horror film: however, while the original Spanish-language version is quite tame, all sorts of gore and nudity were inserted for the English-dubbed variant (prepared by Jerald Intrator - who did similar duties on THE CURIOUS DR. HUMPP [1967/71] - and, like the U.S. version of that film, had previously been available on DVD through Something Weird/Image)! <br /><br />I watched the original first and, while no great shakes, it was fairly engaging - especially with a plot as familiar as this one was: a doctor goes beyond the call of duty in attempting to save the life of his terminally ill son; he even has a hulking, game-legged assistant (played by Carlos Lopez Moctezuma, who had essayed a strikingly similar role - though in a more sinister vein - in THE CURSE OF THE CRYING WOMAN [1961]). I know that several Mexican films mingled horror with the "Lucha Libre" (Wrestling) genre but I had never watched one myself; this element is present here - in fact, the heroine is a wrestler - but the two styles are, perhaps thankfully, kept apart (that said, the wrestling sequences are competently done, with some of the moves proving highly amusing).<br /><br />The doctor's son is transformed into a monster (looking like The Incredible Hulk with mud splashed over his face!) after having had an ape's heart transplanted into him - but, then, when this is replaced with that of a comatose female wrestler, he stays this way and grows a pair of fangs to boot (shouldn't he realistically have turned into a transsexual...though I guess that wouldn't have been very interesting)!! The climactic rooftop sequence in which the monster kidnaps a child and meets his demise at the hands of the police is reminiscent of THE GHOST OF FRANKENSTEIN (1942). My favorite unintentionally funny moments in the film, however, occur when the doctor, trying to comfort his son, tells him that he'll soon be cured - only to turn his back soon after on the verge of tears - and also the impatient look he gives his crippled assistant (as the latter staggers slowly into the car) when they're about to chase the monster who has escaped from the lab.<br /><br />The alternate nude scenes work for the film (these were actually done by Cardona himself for a racier Mexican version entitled HORROR Y SEXO) but its reputation is largely based on the added material showing over-the-top violence, such as an eyeball being gouged out of its socket, a scalping and even a person's head being torn off. There are also several graphic operation inserts which, however, give rise to a goof: while it's made clear that only two people are involved in the operation, we see a third pair of hands constantly holding an oxygen mask to the patient's face! <br /><br />The film is also said to be a loose remake of Cardona's own black-and-white horror film DOCTOR OF DOOM (1962) but, since I haven't watched that one, I can't say how much of it was actually pilfered for NIGHT OF THE BLOODY APES... | 0 |
4,671 | [
600,
700
] | 482 | 618 | I like action movies. I have a softspot for "B" flicks with bad dialogue and wooden acting. So, I've been wracking my brain to come up with one of my guilty pleasures that was worse than this blockbuster. I can't. You'd be hard pressed to put together a bigger piece of cr*p than this Bruce Willis vehicle.<br /><br />Armageddon is the story (and I use that term loosely) of a team of "Super-Drillers" flying off to destroy an asteroid before it destroys the Earth. Realistic? Not really. But who cares? It's an action flick. I'm not blasting the premise.<br /><br />Minor spoilers:<br /><br />The movie begins with a couple of scenes designed to introduce the threat and the characters. Bruce Willis is the tough-as-nails leader of the team, and spends his first bit of screen time chasing around Ben Affleck with a gun for the unforgiveable act of sleeping with his daughter. For some reason, that didn't make me laugh. It was forced, like everything in this movie.<br /><br />The team is called in because they're the only people in the whole wide world who can drill the asteroid. Okay, I'm prepared to accept that premise if it gets us to the action - the supposed meat of the movie. More attempts at humor, with each character going out to do some crazy, nutty thing before blast off. Again, lame. Finally, they take off. Here's where the movie really pi**ed me off. They arrive on the rock, and set to work. Would you believe it, nothing works right and everything has a suspenseful countdown!!! Whoah! Ten, nine, eight... one - Oh, surprise surprise we saved the day again!!<br /><br />And don't even get me started on the jerky camerawork. When I saw it in the theater I thought I was going to be sick. I can only assume they were trying to cover up the gargantuan holes left by the insipid performances by cutting away to a different shot every few seconds (and this from someone raised on MTV - Mr short attention span himself).<br /><br />Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse... wait - there's a manufactured tearjerker ending that was so tacked on it made the rest of the film a virtual Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Summary: The witticisms weren't witty. The plot - well, I said I'd let that one go. The acting was bad. Really bad. Even Billy Bob couldn't rise above the script, which was worse. Camerawork - again, bad. (I didn't even mention the dumbest love scene in the history of motion pictures - think animal crackers).<br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10. (I'm giving a half point for Steve Buscemi, who makes me smile against my will and another half point for the times I was able to look at the lovely Liv Tyler and attempt to ignore her acting performance) This is far and away the worst movie I've gone to see in the theater... ever. | 0 |
4,674 | [
600,
700
] | 500 | 650 | Like many people in my general age range, I remember going to see this movie as a kid in '98 and coming out of the theatre practically in tears. It seemed, at the time, to be one of the most important, awe-inspiring cinematic experiences of our generation. At once riveting, action-packed, funny, heartbreaking, and truly inspirational, Armegeddeon really did have everything going on, right down to the catchy Aerosmith theme song and sappy tear-jerker of an ending.<br /><br />Sweet Jebus. What were we smoking? I watched it for the first time in years last night on one of the movie channels, and... I cannot even describe it. This is, truly, one of the worst movies ever made. Where to even begin? Leaving aside the plethora of LAUGHABLE scientific errors ('personnel trackers' on astronauts? yeah, sure, thanks for that, Billy Bob), I'd have to say the worst thing about it was the remarkable - dare I even say unmatched - way in which it combined crappy writing with crappy acting. There are too many examples of this to even begin listing here, but one in particular springs to mind - the scene where Bruce Willis is telling the Feds exactly where to go to track down each of the oh-so-charmingly-roguish members of his oil drilling team ('check every bar in New Orleans', 'the craps tables in Vegas', 'the only black guy on a motorcycle in Sturgis'... all to the tune of 'Come Together'... it reminded me a bit of the "NEWS TEAM! ASSEMBLE!" scene from Anchorman, except serious). Ben Affleck proves, once again, that he is by far the most overpaid actor in Hollywood, having less depth, range, and overall talent than anyone else in the business. Not that Bruce Willis, Liv Tyler, OR ANYONE ELSE IN THIS GODFORSAKEN PIECE OF GARBAGE was much better.<br /><br />(I have to say, though, I got a kick out of seeing a pre-stardom Owen Wilson get killed off half-way through... is this the only movie where his character dies?) <br /><br />Peter Stormare is perfect as THE MOST STEREOTYPICAL UNSHAVEN Russian COSMONAUT YOU HAVE EVER SCENE. (Then again, Peter Stormare does seem to have a talent for playing over-the-top Eurotypes.) It really was quite amusing how, almost IMMEDIATELY after the Americans dock with the Russian Space Station (which is actually called that in the movie), Ben Affleck succeeds in singlehandedly causing the whole joint to explode in spectacular Hollywood fashion. I also love the fact that, in the end, Paris is the only place on Earth to get destroyed, and that absolutely no one seems to care. And on top of all that, it at points literally turns into simultaneous ads for Lockheed Martin AND Kerr McGee. Oh how proud I am to be an American.<br /><br />There's plenty of other stuff to rant about, but I won't... suffice it to say that this is a really, really, REALLY terrible movie, that I feel ashamed to have ever genuinely liked.<br /><br />I give it two stars just for the mockability factor. | 0 |
4,685 | [
600,
700
] | 570 | 668 | I have to say that I had low expectations for the movie before viewing it. All the people around said it was great, but I perfectly knew what they like. They like Aerosmith's song which is indeed great, they like the amazing special effects which had coasted a lot, they like the comedy side of the movie and of course many girls who love Affleck who according to my opinion is a really bad actor who tried not to be one, failed and now he is nothing. And all these things plus the reviews and the ratings I read in internet, gave me a clue the movie would be a huge disappointment since I am a big disaster kind of movies fan. Well, I've been right, but at least I was prepared.<br /><br />The movie is really commercial. It's been said, but I will say it as again. We have over #100 million budget, we have a romance between Hollywood stars Ben Affleck and Liv Tyler and many other famous actors, who are popular with the fact that they rarely agree on becoming a part of the cast of a commercial movie if their names aren't written with big letters on the screen. Such as Billy Bob Thornton and Steve Buscemi which are highly respected actors that I also like a lot. They could play many characters in many different kind of movies. They could improvise, they could turn tasteless lines into hilarious jokes. On the whole, they could turn small movies into really interesting, funny or dramatic motion pictures, people love and will always love. Such as Fargo in Buscemi's case or A Simple Plan - Thornton. And to be honest, I am really disappointed they took part of Armageddon. Thornton plays a smart and refined man involved in politics if I remember correctly. Buscemi is one of the members of the deep core drilling team which is sent to save the world by destroying the asteroid which is about to vanish the world.<br /><br />What I didn't like - well, I guess I've been already understood. I pointed out bad factors. The story is dull, artless and silly. It is so obvious that the movie depends on the effects and the dramatic ending that it's ridiculous. At least movies like Deep Impact and Godzilla have something special that might be considered as art. At least it ain't that obvious that the movie is made of financial purposes. Other than that, bad performances from all the huge stars. The jokes ain't funny, the lines are absurd and sometimes, they doesn't make sense at all. In fact, I recently read that on the stage, Ben Affleck has asked Bay whether it would be easier if they teach astronauts to drill, than drillers to becomes astronauts and Bay's reply has been simply "Shut up!" which is a really funny story which perfectly shows the creators's desperation.<br /><br />And enclosing, I'll give an explanation why I give 4 to the movie. Well, I like "Don't Want to Miss a thing" and I was impressed by the special effects which are obviously the only good thing in the movie. The first scene is memorable. These are the the only 2 good things I liked about the movie. Michael Bay is an average director, but The Rock and both Bad Boys were hundreds of times better than Armageddon which was, is and will always be one big bad movie. | 0 |
4,770 | [
600,
700
] | 567 | 679 | Speed which I believe is direct copy of the Hollywood movie Cellular (I haven't watched this one) gives an impression of a test match which is very exciting in first four days, but then gets in a very boring draw at the end. I have watched this movie today on 12th January 2008 on rented VCD. It's release date is 19th Oct 2007. But still fortunately for me I didn't know or heard much of this movie before except that it is a flop at box office. So in this situation when I watch the movie, I feel that this movie could have been a very good movie, but then the director again falls in the trap for Bollywood traditions and has wasted a very good chance.<br /><br />Off course as a Bhatt movie it must be copied from somewhere else. But now days it doesn't matter for me, if I haven't seen the original movie. I just found the main theme much similar to 'Nick of Time' and 'Badshah'. In the movie Sanjay Suri is shown an intelligence agent, but his wife thinks that he is a chef. This brings back the memory of 'True-Lies'. The only new part was the use if the phone. But that too I found out now is taken from movie Cellular. So when a movie is made with the mixture of so many other movies it's future is quite clear.<br /><br />The things I like about the movie is its pace. As the name suggest the things really happens fast, and there is not much time to think about in between the scenes. But this breaks in the last 20 minutes of so where the movie goes in traditional Bollywood style of Dhishum dhishum.<br /><br />The plot of the movie is also quite interesting. Three stories going parallel, one after the other. One of the kidnapping of Urmila, the other of the Zayed trying to help Urmila, and then the plan of murder of prime minister. These three stories gets mixed up naturally with each other as the movie continues.<br /><br />But then the very ordinary acting and unnecessary extra style has killed the spirit of the movie. Except Sanjay Suri, none other makes any impression. This goes even for Urmila, who is always promising in RGVs movies. Due to this ordinary acting some scenes doesn't really convey the feelings that director wanted. E.g. the scene at the end where Urmila leaves all hope and cut the phone, should have made a good impact. But instead we just wait for the end of that scene.<br /><br />Other than acting, some unnecessary love for style demoralizes the movie. Showing so cool villains is good for Hollywood movies not for Bollywood The background of London is also only for making style and not much intelligent advantage of this background can be seen. Especially at the end, all those dhishhum- dhishhum were utterly unnecessary. May be director has an impression that the climax in Hindi movies must have such fights. They look unrealistic, increase the length of the movie and make sure that the people are leaving theater before the movie ends.<br /><br />Over and all, I find the movie once watchable. If it is coming on TV or you can get it on rent its OK. But then again make sure that you have the remote and forward button handy. Next time, when the movie is on TV, you can safely watch other channels. | 0 |
4,772 | [
600,
700
] | 492 | 667 | It must say something about the state of our nation that this programme is one of the most popular currently screened. <br /><br />The 'square' is peopled by such a miserable, untrustworthy, amoral, spiteful, unrelentingly dour group of characters as can be imagined. Everyone is stabbing someone in the back, everyone is attempting to commit adultery, everyone is trying to cheat someone. That, or they are being stabbed, cuckolded or swindled. Nobody is cheerful. Nobody laughs. Nobody has a blinding stroke of luck or a really nice day. It's hell, with cockney accents.<br /><br />I suspect this programme must be sponsored by The Samaritans. It's perfect viewing for the depressed. It doesn't cheer them up; what it does do is present a whole community of such terminally despondent sad-arses that viewers are moved to believe their lot really could be worse - they might be living in 'Albert Square'.<br /><br />Apart from the above; as a representation of London's east end, it is pure hokum. The programme-makers have evidently never been across town. The first thing you encounter on the Mile End Road is a colossal mosque. And this pretty-well defines the racial majority of the population. White British Londoners are a dispersed and rapidly diminishing minority. A large advertisement hoarding presently near the Bow Road flyover, and sponsored by Tower Hamlets Health Care boasts that 'Eight out of ten members of the community can now see their doctor more quickly'. Ten healthy, smiling faces beam down at the observer in confirmation. Eight of them are dark-skinned... <br /><br />What's more, I used to work with a bunch of Anglo-Saxon - dare I say 'pukka' - cockneys a few years ago. And I can tell you that a more obnoxiously racist experience I've never had. Each day was like an Oswald Moseley rally. They couldn't pass 5 minutes without denigrating some other race or nationality than their own, and in terms that were repulsive and obscene. 'Fackin' Pakis' and 'fackin' Maceroons' were the small change of conversation. In fact their entire (and extremely limited) stock of adjectives fixated upon sex-organs and their application. Alf Garnett was a paragon of liberal virtue in comparison.<br /><br />Any programme that purported to represent London's native east-end Caucasians in their true nature would be completely unfit for broadcast - even after the 9 o-clock watershed. Imagine a Ku Klux Klan script written by Quentin Tarantino and you'd be somewhere near the mark. But when they weren't being inveterate bigots they were at least extremely cheerful.<br /><br />I don't know how such a soap-opera came to be. This imaginary castaway island of white misery has absolutely no bearing upon real culture whatsoever. And if you're of a comparatively sanguine disposition, it will quickly reduce you to tears of grief. Comparatively ordinary actors pretending to be comparatively ordinary chronic-depressives with cockney accents - what's the point of that?<br /><br />Dull, dreary, unrelentingly disillusional, and ethnically preposterous. The most popular programme of an apparently diseased and dying nation.<br /><br />Avoid it like the plague. | 0 |
4,828 | [
600,
700
] | 549 | 662 | If you value your life in any way, shape, or form, you will do yourself a courtesy and pass by this seemingly "interesting" movie on the DVD rack.<br /><br />I know what you're thinking, "I saw the preview and it looked GREAT!" However, buyer beware, I fell into the same trap. One of my friends expressed certain reluctance to watching this movie, but I forced her to sit it out. Oh, how I regret that decision.<br /><br />Like most horror movies, the movie starts out cheerfully in a sunny Mexican resort where two couples are lured to an ancient Mayan Ruin by a fellow resort-goer. Upon arrival, they are disturbed by the appearance of two jungle people who are all but oblivious to their greeting shouts. As if this isn't ominous enough, the tour group casts aside large plant growth and declares an unused path consumed by wildlife a perfect route to their destination. I guess it wouldn't be much of a movie if they utilized rational decision making and turned around just then, but, well, this wasn't much of a movie anyways.<br /><br />After some hiking, the sixsome (the resort goer brought a friend) stumble upon the ruins and at once their doubts are dispelled by its beauty and history. That is, until frantic tribal people emerge from the jungle armed with a vengeance for no reason in particular, shouting in an indecipherable language. Since when are brutal verbal assaults assuaged by calm, patronizing language - don't ask me - but nonetheless, the cast tries anyway, to no avail, obviously. Suddenly, the sixth trail member, Dimitri, is punctured with several arrowheads from the Mayans and all hell breaks loose. A gunshot finishes the job and the horrified travelers retreat quickly up the ruin.<br /><br />Now, if there was ever a plot to this movie, it ended here. The introduction took at most 20 minutes and it was unfortunately the best 20 minutes of the movie. On top of the ruins, the now fivesome realizes they are stranded by murderous locals and proceed to make countless good decisions, one of them being to use a withered rope to lower one of their members into the bowels of the ruin. Needless to say, the adventurer is seriously hurt and then trapped within the ruins and the two girlfriends are gravely injured trying to rescue him.<br /><br />The rest of the movie continues plotlessly, with no real horror, only only blood and gore, as displayed when one girl yanks a plant growing within her out, gushing torrents of blood and then again when somebody's legs are cut off, only to have the same plat from within the girl strangle him later.<br /><br />My only satisfactions in this movie were observing the very attractive Jonathon Tucker, playing Jeff McIntire, grow increasingly more frazzled and distressed and sitting long enough to ascertain that almost all of the cast dies a horrible, gruesome death. Their simulated pain seems an adequate compensation for the time suck that was this movie.<br /><br />Supposedly, the storyline goes that the ruin is an ancient house of of dangerous spirits with an evil, flesh eating plant to ward off and consume unlucky visitors. Unfortunately, I got no such warning from screaming bloodthirsty plants and the only evil thing relating to this movie that I am truly horrified by is the script writer. | 0 |
4,937 | [
600,
700
] | 500 | 669 | Oh dear. This sequel has a mirror, this time, which houses the evil spirit of a psychopath which murdered an entire family with a shotgun in the Amityville home. The mirror captured the entire ugly incident of the horrified family who had no time to prepare for their uninvited guest. The mirror is given to a photographer, Keyes(Ross Partridge)by a bum(..who just so happens to be his lunatic father, and the man responsible for killing the family)and it's evil soon terrorizes those in a loft(..such as Keyes' painter pal Suki, portrayed by Julia Nickson-Soul)where he lives when they look into it. Soon Keyes is having nightmares, looking through the eyes of his father as he guns down the family in cold blood, worried that he might follow in his footsteps. Soon he sees other occurrences through his father's eyes like that terrible day pops bashed his mother's head against the floor of an institution or experiencing a moment inside the cell as doctor's administered a drug to immobilize him.<br /><br />Pretty solid supporting cast who deserve better than being stuck in junk like this, such as David Naughton(American Werewolf in London)as the proprietor of the loft with which Keyes lives, Richard Roundtree as an eccentric sculptor/artist, Terry O'Quinn as a psychologist-detective, and especially Lin Shaye as a hilarious ditsy, rather strange secretary-nurse in the asylum(..the one which held Keyes' father) soon to be closed down.<br /><br />Rounding out the film, the sexy, leggy Lala Sloatman as Keyes' supportive girlfriend, Barbara Howard(Friday the 13th:The Final Chapter)as Naughton's betrayed wife(..he was on the verge of starting an affair with Nickman-Soul), Jack Orend as the sadistic fiend who attempts to provoke his son into killing innocent people as he did, and Robert Rusler(A Nightmare on Elm Street 2:Freddy's Revenge)as a rejected lover(..of Nickson-Soul)who meets an unfortunate demise while ripping apart paintings as a revenge for his dismissal.<br /><br />This film is a poor special effects movie merely using the Amityville title as a cash-in. The franchise has never been that great to begin with, but as each sequel was green-lit, it grew worse and worse. After the third film, furniture from the infamous house become "possessed" items tormenting folks. The cast try hard, though, but the material(..a mirror causing chaos and murder through supernatural means)is lacking in quality..and the rather mediocre special effects don't help matters. O'Quinn, as little as he has to work with, shows why he's such a great actor, he can even shine in excrement such as this. All's not lost, you get to see Sloatman always wearing super short skirts(..or her man's shirt in panties), showing off her legs throughout..hey, you have to find a silver lining somewhere. Believe it or not, AMITYVILLE:A NEW GENERATION was the seventh film in the franchise! Coolest part of the film were the portraits of demons painted by Nickson-Soul's artist, perhaps inspired by the evil mirror after looking into it. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.