Split (11)

imdb_test · 25k rows

id int64 0 25k	interval listlengths 2 2	len_words int64 6 2.21k	len_tokens int64 8 2.75k	text stringlengths 32 13k
1,822	[ 200, 300 ]	223	295	I've been a classic horror fan my entire life. Many nights stretched until the early hours of the morning watching the Universal films on "Horror Incorporated" and "Creature Feature Night". Sadly, I viewed this film in the early evening and yet it still almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever seen a "horror" picture where everything was so matter of fact. Dr. Edelmann doesn't seem to believe in the supernatural, yet before long he's medically treating Dracula and watching Larry Talbot change into the Wolfman while hardly blinking an eye. He and Talbot discover the Frankenstein monster like it's an everyday occurrence. Edelmann is all fired up to bring the monster back to life, but after Talbot, Miliza and Nina protest he's like "Aww, you're right. No big deal". After realizing Dracula's treachery, he opens the Count's coffin to sunlight and POOF!, he's gone, just like that.<br /><br />The only person who didn't appear to just be phoning in her lines was Jane Adams as Nina. Her reward is getting bounced off the hump in her back into a pit by the Frankenstein Monster at the end of the film...and no one even tries to rescue her! She, Dr. Edelmann and the Monster all perish, while Talbot and Miliza casually leave the castle.<br /><br />Definitely the low point for Universal during it's classic horror years.
1,831	[ 200, 300 ]	186	243	Apart from the DA (James Eckhouse), and a brief appearing woman who is convincingly sympathetic to Ellen Gulden's (Renee Zellweger)plight, Ellen herself is the only convincing character--and likable character in the movie. She is the one, not her dying mother, who should be and is--the one true thing. it's not only in the role, in Zellweger's acting, but also in the plot itself.... Until, the plot turns against itself--and makes the mother the "one true thing" in the eyes of her weak willed, shallow husband who can do nothing right for his wife or daughter. The daughter perceives what the viewer perceives, but such intelligent perceptions must give way to the shallow sentiment of the husband who is blanked out on both the realities of his wife and daughter. <br /><br />To boot, the one powerful scene in this whole movie, when Ellen confronts her father's cruelty, is given the lie at the end. Ellen is just another young strong woman who must be tamed into conformity by a crybaby father. A very flawed movie--so flawed as to be called a bore and not worth the time.
1,832	[ 200, 300 ]	195	269	Cronica de un desayuno combines the worst defects of mexican cinema, a rare feat nowadays.<br /><br />It's pretentious: it wants us to believe that it is deep, only because some scene is out-of-focus, another is pseudo-surreal, yet another plays with the Eisenstein-Infante-Caifanes tradition of laughing-crying faces, the edition is fragmented, and it is all so solemn.<br /><br />It has a weak script: the main story hardly develops, so it has other three smaller, needless stories, stuck into it. They are only good to make the film last longer.<br /><br />Most of the acting is bad. A true feat, baring in mind that many of the best known mexican actors were cast.<br /><br />There is an abuse of unnecesary foul language. To the point that the character of Paloma, who symbolizes the dreams of freedom of a child, uses it throughly.<br /><br />It is homophobic. The character played by Eduardo Palomo is the sorriest, and most punished, representation of a transexual I have ever seen.<br /><br />It is very boring. I ended up envying the people that left the theater before the end of the film.<br /><br />Whatever it tries, it has been done better, in Mexico and elsewhere.<br /><br />In other words: "Para partirte la madre, nada como una mala película"
1,833	[ 200, 300 ]	198	257	I have seen tons of trash, in every language, about every topic and of every trend of film-making. From every period, every director and any kind of budget available. That said I really have to declare:<br /><br />This is one of the three worst movies I have EVER seen.<br /><br />It's painfully bad. It's pompous. It's grim. It's incomprehensible. It's annoying. It's a really bad mess. It is a piece of you-know-what.<br /><br />And, what's more important: it lacks a point. And even if it had one, the characters are so unreal and annoying that it's impossible to overlook the lack of cohesion of the whole thing.<br /><br />It's just weird for the sake of being weird.<br /><br />I actually felt sick watching this trash. The theater where I saw it (Lincoln Center in New York) was full when it started. By the end of it, half of the audience had walked out. There was a Q&A programmed at the end but nobody stayed. With the exception of about two sickos everybody else ran for the door, myself included. <br /><br />Save 2 hours of your life. It's probably one of the worst ever done.<br /><br />If there is a movie theater in Hell, this movie will be playing 24/7, for eternity...
1,836	[ 200, 300 ]	184	259	Stripes, an army training camp comedy starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a favourite of mine. Meatballs, a summer camp 'romp' starring Bill Murray and directed by Ivan Reitman, is a complete waste of time. It takes a considerable effort for four screenwriters to produce a movie (the word 'comedy' infers a work with mirth aforethought) as witless, anaemic and boring as this.<br /><br />Murray evidently reached the same conclusion during filming, but his usually reliable powers of improvisation escape him and his flailing attempts to inject life into proceedings just add to the embarrassment - the "It really doesn't matter" chanting scene is excruciating. It doesn't help that the supporting cast is bereft of talent - the funniest thing about them is their hair, but then Meatballs was made in 1979. ("And introducing Chris Makepeace as Rudy" announce the opening credits. No, not THE Chris Makepeace?!).<br /><br />Mercifully, Reitman rectified his mistake two years later for Stripes. Murray's shtick is so much funnier when he's larking around with the likes of John Candy, Warren Oates and John Larroquette. Ditch this and watch that.
1,851	[ 200, 300 ]	223	285	Wow! This movie is almost too bad for words. Obviously the writers wanted to somehow link this to the Ghoulies franchise, so they got Pete Liapis from the first one to reprise his role as Jonathan...only now, he's a cop and has no similar character traits as he did in the first one. The ghoulies in this one aren't the ghoulies from the last ones. The cheap looking puppets have been replaced with even cheaper looking costumed little people. Instead of being any main antagonist or being evil, they are more like the comic relief characters that appeared out of nowhere for no reason.<br /><br />When watching this film for the first time, it felt like I'd seen it before. Why was this? Because everything in this was stolen from another movie. All the cheesy cop lines and action scenes were from Lethal Weapon. The ghoulies were pretty much like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck, except they weren't amusing at all. Even scenes from the original Ghoulies film were sprinkled throughout this flick.<br /><br />I think the target audience was supposed to be adults, but the mixture of black magic, cartoon slapstick, cop drama and bad acting doesn't work at all. I hope they don't make a Ghoulies V, because I don't want a movie studio to lose their money.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 78 mins. R for violence.
1,854	[ 200, 300 ]	182	232	When I say worse, I mean less entertaining. Todd Sheets seems to have learned some stupid camera tricks since the last Zombie Bloodbath, which makes the movie even less tolerable. In the last movie there were no special camera effects, where in this one, we are treated to shaky cam, and constant switching to black and white. Also, this is called Zombie Bloodbath, despite the fact that the zombies are barely in this one. The movie starts in 1945, where some satanists kill a violent burglar and put him up as a scarecrow. Back in modern time, some kids have a car problem and go to a house, the same house in which the satanist murder happened. Some mean people try to rape the kids (or something), and they bring the scarecrow burglar back to life, who comes back with some zombies and now talks like Darth Vader. Mr. Sheets amped up the language and lessened the violence. If you want to see what a bad movie is, check this out! <br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 96 mins. Not rated, contains violence and language.
1,857	[ 200, 300 ]	167	211	It is hard to imagine two actors of such class and experience as Michael Caine and Michael Gambon getting involved in such an embarrassingly inept film. The responsibility for this ill-judged production has to be down to the writer, Neil Jordan and director, Conor McPherson. I doubt I've seen such a bad film with such good credits in a long time. The comedian, Dylan Moran, who made his mark as the irritable and incompetent bookshop owner in the TV sitcom, Blackbooks, turns in much the same routine here, except with such excess and lack of comedic control as to leave one squirming. It is easy to see how the story could have been made to work, for the situation is an interesting one and loaded with comic potential. A classical actor (Caine) tries to rip off the mob (Gambon and co) with the aide of a bumbling wannabe colleague (Moran), with predictable results. It could have and should have been good. Sadly, it was not to be.
1,858	[ 200, 300 ]	214	283	We saw this in a bargain basket at the local Asda: £1.50 for the DVD. reading all the hype plastered all over the cover saying how "hillarious" it is, and it also had a really good, established cast, we thought this must a great film.<br /><br />So we bought, took it home, shoved it in the DVD player, sat back and waited for the funnies to begin.......and waited.......and waited.....and waited a bit more.<br /><br />Some 90 minutes later, although it felt more like 3 hours, the credits rolled, and that was the end of that.<br /><br />What a letdown - even paying £1.50 seemed a con. God knows what Caine, Richardson and Gambon were thinking when they said 'yes' to this tosh. And as for Moran: well much as I enjoyed Black Books, Shaun of the dead, and his comedy tours, I felt he was out of his depth in this film. He tried too hard playing for laughs, probably thinking that if retaining the characteristics from his Black Books character, would work here.<br /><br />Sadly it back-fired. The gags fell flat after awhile, and then he became just an irritation. Which is a shame because I believe given the right part he could be a very good film/character actor.<br /><br />Anyway, to sum up: the actors in The Actors, failed to Act!!! <br /><br />/***
1,860	[ 200, 300 ]	214	256	If you are thinking of going to see this film then my advice is - dont.<br /><br />For me the film failed to make the grade at every level and was a reminder of how dire most British (& Irish)films are. Forgettable tripe is the best i can say. If it had been on telly l would have wandered off to do something more interesting five minutes after the start. I saw this film with a group of friends and having read the press previews went along prepared to not be critical and hopefully pass an amusing 90 minutes. But, oh dear.....<br /><br />As a comedy it wasn't funny, as a thriller the stupid story was sloppy and lazy. As a love story totally unbelievable. Most of all as a piece of 'gloriously over the top whimsy' it lacked both style and charm. Gambon and Caine did what they needed to do to earn their money playing er..... Gambon and Caine. Is it just me, but other than playing east end gangsters and jack the lads, does Michael Caine leave you cold?<br /><br />In fairness, some of my friends thought it was 'ok' but if you do go, my advice is have a few drinks (or puffs) beforehand and leave your critical faculties safely locked up at home.<br /><br />
1,867	[ 200, 300 ]	151	215	I am a usually a very generous voter on IMDb and don't bother commenting on movies I did not like, but this was just lame. I actually turned it off 15 minutes before finishing it, to watch "This Is It" (because my gf wanted to... I just chose the lesser of two evils).<br /><br />If you want to watch this movie: picture this film as a collection of worse-than-average "horror"-stories, like "scary short-stories" that you find in an issue of "Reader's Digest" in the waiting room of your dentist's.<br /><br />I did not expect anything particular terrifying or funny, I am not the "I want to see blood!"-type of person, but this "movie" is neither "horror" nor "comedy" nor entertaining in any other way.<br /><br />It's probably more scary/funny and entertaining to look at the movie-poster of "You've Got Mail" for 90 minutes while drinking chamomile tea.<br /><br />Conclusion: a "horror-comedy" for people between 4 and 7.
1,872	[ 200, 300 ]	172	223	This relatively obscure Hong Kong "minorpiece" is the perfect desert island movie for video age peeping toms (at least its first half is). Every set-up, every scene, every sequence is an excuse to look up a girl's skirt, stare down at her breasts, gaze at her bottom and leer at her tight crotch. What it's establishing is the lead character's perverted proclivities, of course(!)<br /><br />Genre stalwart Anthony Wong is a marginally perverted married man who is plagued by erotic daydreams and outrageous fantasies. All involve scantily clad, sexy Chinese ladies with nothing but sexual servitude on their minds.<br /><br />The plot is thickened by a homicidal subplot, voodoo doll skewering and a little rape and pillage.<br /><br />Some of the sex scenes are fairly hot and the gore is liberal, but the supernatural elements introduced into the second half feel half-baked and the plot developments are ludicrous.<br /><br />Clearly, producer of garish garbage Wong Jing was in a terrible hurry to get this into and out of theaters.<br /><br />The arty title sequence did not fool this jaded punter.
1,884	[ 200, 300 ]	219	248	This is a pretty lousy picture.It offers nothing unique or original or even interesting.<br /><br />A medical student discovers that a secret society at her university is engaged in macabre medical experiments.And of course she becomes involved in solving the weird deaths at the school.This movie started out promising with a few cool special effects in which a guy is partially dissected while alive and tries to get away after he wakes up but then even that fizzles and the rest of the special effects are pretty routine plastic models of the human body and that unreal looking blood that these second rate horror movies always seem to have.<br /><br />And as if the routine plot and the lousy acting wasn't enough this movie had subtitles that many times didn't even match the dubbed English that you hear being spoken and then add that to the mouth movement not matching the dubbing ..well let's just say trying to coordinate all that in your head isn't worth it for this mediocre movie.<br /><br />I was at least counting on some skin in this movie and except for a bit during the opening credits this movie didn't deliver on that either.<br /><br />This is a boring routine run of the mill horror/gore movie---short on horror and gore.Skip this movie unless "Ernest goes to Camp" is the only rental left.
1,887	[ 200, 300 ]	184	265	On assignment in scenic Italy, beautiful lip-synching Lana Turner (as Fredda Barlo) meets older singer and prince Ezio Pinza (as Mr. Imperium). The two fall in love, while enjoying the pretty Italian countryside. Unhappily, Mr. Pinza is called away to his Kingly father's death bed, leaving Lana in the lurch. Twelve years later, Ms. Turner is a Los Angeles actress, about to make a motion picture about falling in love with a King. Turner is being romanced by co-star Barry Sullivan, who wants to marry her - then, King Pinza re-enters her life <br /><br />"Mr. Imperium" provides a tired storyline for sex symbol Turner and debuting bass vocalist Pinza, who appeared for several decades with the New York Metropolitan Opera. Pinza likely earned his MGM feature film career after appearing in the hugely successful stage production of "South Pacific" (1949). The cast album, and Pinza's golden "Some Enchanted Evening" single, sold millions. Supporting casters Marjorie Main, Cedric Hardwicke, and Debbie Reynolds give the film a even greater sense of wasted resources.<br /><br />*** Mr. Imperium (1951) Don Hartman ~ Lana Turner, Ezio Pinza, Barry Sullivan
1,891	[ 200, 300 ]	224	293	It's not easy to find Judas Kiss on VHS (it's not available on DVD), but I wanted to add this rather obscure movie to my Alan Rickman movie collection.<br /><br />I can't understand how the talented Mr. Rickman gets into these mediocre films? Judas Kiss boasts several wonderful actors, an interesting plot and intriguing twists, but its strange visual wanderings and chopping editing ruined what might have been a great crime drama. Many scenes seem to be missing vital information to explain the character's actions: Why was our hero immediately suspicious of his bosses? Why did he mistrust the detective he replaced? There were times when I honestly couldn't tell if the director meant Judas Kiss to be a legitimate crime drama or a campy spoof. Why else would he toss in a topless/alien/lesbian porno scene in the first two minutes (that little surprise certainly made me scramble for the remote since my kids were playing nearby!)? Did he purposely instruct his two distinguished English actors (Alan Rickman and Emma Thompson) to use such awful New Orlean's accents? As an Alan Freak, I confess that I still thought Mr. Rickman was sexy: in a rumpled, weary, "take-him-home-and-tuck-him-in" sort of way.<br /><br />Judas Kiss isn't a great movie, but it does have some intriguing moments, but I don't recommend it unless you're trying to immerse yourself in Alan Rickman.
1,892	[ 200, 300 ]	218	270	This film would like to be the kind of shocking, cerebral, and intense movie that many others in its genre have successfully been, but it's not. It is at best confusing and absurd. When the twists and turns finally revealed themselves, rather than saying "Ahh, I get it!" I muttered something along the lines of "Okay...whatever." In my opinion, when a movie reveals a major plot twist it shouldn't have to employ a flashback sequence to prove that it did give some hints that would enable the viewer to discern the truth himself. But this movie does have a flashback; and here's the kicker: it flashes back on scenes that weren't even in the movie!<br /><br />The characters were stereotypical, unsympathetic, and wholly ridiculous. I feel that the "steamy" love scenes between the romantic leads were the most untitillating and unsexy that I've ever scene in a movie that wasn't porn. It seems that the director was going for shocking and kinky with the love scenes, but they were really just plain silly.<br /><br />And don't EVEN get me started on the crappy accents and second-rate sets. I guess the movie was set in New Orleans, but Aside from the afore mentioned accents and a couple bland city shots the movie could have been in Anytown, USA.<br /><br />My recommendation: don't bother!
1,894	[ 200, 300 ]	193	225	I felt last night's episode was slow and kinda of boring at times. I honestly don't think it has to do anything with the writing. Because I know the story was well staged and tried to keep things in place. I thought it wasn't that bad but overall, I didn't enjoy it. The most blame has to do with the director of that episode- Stephen Williams. I always hated Stephen Williams's directing. If Jack Bender continues with this episode from the season premiere, he would have kept it in a good pace and keep things float to keep things interesting. I'm glad Jack Bender is directing next week's episode and it'll be much better and I'm glad he got first Syaid episode to direct and I'm curious what he will pull off this time since Stephen Williams had directed too many Syaid episodes before.<br /><br />I always keep thinking that Stephen Williams needs to be thrown off from the show. He doesn't even do anything interesting with the show.<br /><br />Why does the opening have to be done with a target thing while being in the helicopter? IT was so BORING! Bad perspective of camera work too!
1,896	[ 200, 300 ]	247	287	After seeing the film version of Heart Of Darkness, I feel as if I wasted 100 minutes of my life. Though the book was not my favorite, I was very disappointed to see how poorly Nicolas Roeg portrayed the story. Despite the fact that he left out many bits of important information, the cast just did not seem to fit their roles and the whole film seemed vastly emotionless. The book depicts vivid scenery and detail that are completely disregarded in the movie. <br /><br />You'd think a director would be able to fit 76 pages of a book into a film of at least an hour and a half. The differences completely changed the story for me. For example, when the character of Kurtz's fiancée is nonchalant to the fact that Kurtz has died, it completely modifies the ending the book had given. Not to mention the sets and scenery used in the film were not nearly as beautiful as they were described. It sincerely feels as if Roeg was filming another story with references from Heart Of Darkness embedded in it. <br /><br />If you watch the movie without knowing the title or expecting it to be anything like Joseph Conrad's tale, you may find it good. Though I thought the camera work was poor and the cast unfitting, it is a captivating story all the same. However, if you are looking for a good movie version of the famous classic story, don't look for it in Roeg's film.
1,898	[ 200, 300 ]	205	256	Despite the excellent cast and the potential of the story, this movie fails on many levels. I was convinced that the director was a beginner. The movie is very poorly edited, shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes, has very visible goofs and has no suspenseful atmosphere whatsoever. The question which repeatedly popped up in my mind while watching this was: "so what?". I couldn't care less about the protagonist and what happens to him. It's not that the story isn't compelling, it's simply the way it's told. The movie tells the story. PERIOD. It's like an actor who mumbles his lines, without knowing what he's saying. The movie simply tells the events that happen, without any soul. And the director's to blame. He doesn't know how to make something interesting or suspenseful or enjoyable. (And believe me, I'm NOT somebody who wants to see die hard 8 or 2 fast 2 crappy. On the contrary, i especially like slow-paced movies.) So i was convinced the director was a beginner. But to my amazement this man has years of experience and has worked as a cinematographer or camera assistant on a lot of marvelous productions. Guess he had a bad year back then.
1,899	[ 200, 300 ]	242	283	The movie Heart of Darkness is an insult to the book by Joseph Conrad! To be quite honest the movie made me want to fall asleep. On the other hand, the book was definitely extraordinary. I feel that the movie left out several key elements and missed some of the main points from the book. In addition, the actors were boring and lacked originality and enthusiasm.<br /><br />The book, while not an adventure story or easy to understand, is full of hidden meaning and interesting twists in the plot. The book, though very confusing and complex, is astonishing. When you do finally understand it, you feel as if you have actually learned something. The novella, or short story, had several key ideas like futility and craziness, which the movie left out. In addition, several key scenes were changed, which in return affected the entire plot. Many of the scenes seemed to be very "choppy", in the sense that they did not fit together. In summary, the movie seemed to be a bad interpretation of the book. <br /><br />I would only recommend watching this movie if you cannot picture or understand the book, but otherwise I would skip this one. It was dreadful, and in complete disarray. If you have never read the book then, definitely do not watch the movie because you need the basic information from the book to understand the movie. The movie was a horrible spin-off of an outstanding and detailed book.
1,906	[ 200, 300 ]	191	228	In a sense, this movie did not even compare to the novel. However, it was good to have a visual of what the Congo looked like and also the natives if you are not good at visualizing as you read. I would never recommend watching the movie rather than reading the book. I hardly suggest even watching this film, let alone any other films based on this literary work. This movie; and many others, did not fulfill this book. One important part that is missing from the movie is MArlow's sense of how government of lack of there in Africa was forming an early genocide. Also in the movie, MArlow and his companions didn't stop and get the note and wood. Likewise, Kurtz' African mistress knocks Marlow out towards the end of the story which has a major influence in the story but was not in the book. In the novel, Kurtz died on the ship, however he died in his hut in the movie. The fiancé's reaction to Marlow's interpretation of Kurtz' last words also differed. This movie is only effective if you wish to visualize more clearly the novel.
1,907	[ 200, 300 ]	201	230	If you're looking for a movie that puts you to sleep, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you. The book wasn't what I expected to it to be, and the movie disappointed me even further. The cast list was pitiful, and the all around plot was pathetic and was not like the book, except for a few scenes. I understand that everyone has their own point of view as they read Heart of Darkness, and they create their own movie in their head, but they director cuts important scenes and adds pointless ones. If there was someone in the movie who was supposed to be of a certain culture, they should've used an actor that was of that culture. There are actors from every where, and I'm sure that they could've found better ones to fit the roles. Joseph Conrad was a respectable man and created a book that will entertain you if that's what you're looking for, but the movie was cheap and pointless, and someone who could make the movie as respectable as the book should've done it. If you want a movie that drags you into darkness, then Heart of Darkness is the movie for you.
1,910	[ 200, 300 ]	243	278	Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness, had a vivid sense of description that made this book astonishing. When reading this book I had every scene totally drawn out in my head and I knew what every character looked like. This book had many pieces and when I finished reading this book it seemed as the puzzle had been completed. After I finished reading Heat of Darkness, I watched the movie, which was a mistake. The movie cut out so many substantial parts. For example, in the novel Marlow waited a very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility. In the movie that part was just left out. The movie added more parts that were useless and made no sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. What purpose did that scene have, other than to make the audience feel sorry for the monkey? It's as if the script writer didn't even read the whole book and just put the parts that he read in the movie. If I had not read the novel before I had watched the movie I would have been thoroughly confused. The book was amazing and it is truly a classic in American Literature, but the movie could have defiantly been nominated for the worst picture in the Razzie Awards.
1,912	[ 200, 300 ]	221	252	The movie 'Heart of Darkness', based on the 1899 book by Joseph Conrad is one with little to no detail and has an almost schizophrenic like plot line. If you have read the book then you know that little to none of the important "story making" scenes were put into the movie. In the book there is so much that is left up to the imagination and I feel that that is one of the part that make the book what is it. An example would be when Marlow spent timeless hours and days, even months waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. Again if you have read the book then you would know that this scene in the book is one that almost describes the main, theme of futility, best. Finally I feel that the movie was too cut and dry. Not enough though was put in to the original text and how that made the story what it is today.<br /><br />If you have not read the book, 'Heart of Darkness' (preferably, the Norton Critical Edition) then don't waist your time in renting or buying the movie. However if you have read the book then I think that you will appreciate the book a lot more if you decide to watch the movie <br /><br />Eric 2007
1,914	[ 200, 300 ]	255	286	Joseph Conrad's novel, Heart of Darkness is a dark, profound, and lasting novel that portrays the futility and irony taking place in Africa. If you are looking for a great book to read over the weekend this is not the book for you. Conrad holds nothing back when describing 19th century imperialism, but the novel is meaningless without giving it the reflection and consideration it deserves. If I read this novel looking for a great adventure story I would say that I wasted my time, but looking at in the perspective of explaining the futility of 19th century civilization, I would say this is one of the most significant novels I have ever read. Because of the fact that I read this novel in my English class, and we analyzed every page, I think I appreciated the book more than someone would who was just reading it for entertainment. I am not going to lie, this book was difficult and it challenges the reader to dig deep into this novel to find the true meaning. The movie on the other hand I found tiresome and boring. The movie, "Heart of Darkness" comes no where near giving the book justice. The movie left out many key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story. If you are having difficulty understanding and visualizing the novel then the movie might be a good recourse but I would not recommend seeing the movie as an alternative to the novel or even a different perspective.
1,925	[ 200, 300 ]	183	228	I just can't get it, freaks out on the planet are talking about this one as a must seen, they even dare to call it a (s)exploitation because the possessed girl is seducing priests and is masturbating all time. Don't let me laugh. I watched the movie, seducing is only at the end of the movie and don't call it seducing,it's just bad language that's she is talking. And the masturbationscene is a big laugh too, she tries to seduce her father while masturbating, let me be clear, with her clothes on you perverts out there. It isn't gory or bloody at all, everybody is vomiting on Beyond The Door, well, let me tell, that one is for me better than this flick. Only the last 5 minutes the possessed one is vomiting and having weird eyes. If I had know that this is so bad then I would never caught me a copy. If you really wan't to see a (s)exploiation about exorcism watch Angel Above, The Devil Below or other cheesy ones. a waist of time this is.
1,926	[ 200, 300 ]	165	203	WOW! What a horrible, hideous waste of time this celluloid atrocity turned out to be. I remember seeing it years ago and thinking it was fun but now...it's just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that it is a blatant rip-off of "The Exorcist" to the point where it was re-released at one point under the title "The Sex-orcist". The only real difference is that the producers have the gall to further discredit themselves by slapping on the claim that the events in the film are REAL! Who in their right mind would actually believe such a bold faced lie? To make matters even worse, there was a video release in circulation with cover art that blatantly tried to cash in on the "Rocky Horror Picture Show" by throwing a pair of lips on the cover! How low could one possibly sink? Do not be fooled by the false claims, blatant lies or title rip-off because you will be SORELY disappointed if you do!
1,927	[ 200, 300 ]	193	238	An art student in Rome is possessed...or something. She has dreams of being nailed to a cross and Satan himself raping her. He possesses her (I think) and turns her into a sex addict. That's about all I could take and I turned it off.<br /><br />A pointless "Exorcist" rip off. I caught this on cable back in the 80s and was horrified...and not in a good way! This movie is supposed to be a horror film but turns into nothing more than a sex film disguised as a horror movie. There's tons of pointless female nudity and the actress playing the lead has to degrade herself more than once. We see her being raped by Satan (a hot-looking guy), masturbating, coming on to her own father...Gotta give her points for bravery. Add to that bad dubbing, editing (the rape scene looks like it was cut a bit), lousy acting and a story that makes next to no sense. The one disturbing sequence (her being nailed to the cross) ALMOST works but the lousy "special" effects ruin it. This is one of the few horror film that was so bad I stopped watching. Skip it.
1,929	[ 200, 300 ]	218	290	Brilliant acting, excellent plot, wonderful special effects! This is what I would say about this movie if I had been watching it with a bag of diarreha on my head for the entire film. Instead, I endured a 2 hour crap-o-rama. Our "brilliant" story begins with some billionare who has nothing better to do than look in volcanoes in a vain attempt to find his lucky charms. Instead, he finds a 5'4" man in a cheesy rubber dinosaur suit and some queer cave-folk.<br /><br />In his infinite wisdom, (along with his infinitely large nose)he decides to go inside this volcano with a team of "special" people. To travel to this underground land, they go by plane? No. Boat? No. They use this giant soup can with a "solid metal" drill on the end that I swear I saw wobble. In summation, this movie was faker than....Oh that's right! This was the fakest movie I've seen! For those of you who haven't seen it and are thinking of sitting down on a Sunday afternoon with this wonderful movie; I warn you! If you watch this movie you should be prepared to cut of any shred of your manhood and give yourself a full frontal lobotomy.<br /><br />ECCCHHH!! The rating system only allows for a minimum of 1/10. I give this a -10/10!
1,936	[ 200, 300 ]	202	238	Somewhere in USA, the young Clair manipulates her friends Mic, Billy and John, showing a letter that would be sent by Bob to her and the group cowardly beats Bob and Mic kills him with a piece of wood in the forest. Mic feels sorrow and decides to tell his mother what he did, but John and Billy threaten him, with tragic consequences.<br /><br />I believe "The Wind" is the worst movie I have ever seen in my life. The awful screenplay is ridiculous, and it is almost impossible to write a summary, since there is no story or plot, only sequences of disconnected scenes. The amateurish direction and acting are amazingly poor and terrible. It is unbelievable how producers invest money in such garbage, distributors release this crap worldwide and viewers like me buy this DVD. I waited until the very last scene because I was curious to see how bad this film could be and I was impressed, since it is worse than I could imagine in my lowest expectations. In the end, I question why IMDb does not offer zero in the vote system, since the garbage really deserves this vote. My vote is one.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Força Invisível" ("Invisible Force")
1,942	[ 200, 300 ]	167	255	Screenwriter Steve Tesich's sophomore effort (following upon the wildly overpraised BREAKING AWAY) is a compendium of clichés, coincidence, and dour melodrama. Perhaps he lived some of this; if so, I'm sorry to say he was inexplicably unable to dramatize any of it convincingly.<br /><br />In fairness, he's not helped much here by Arthur Penn, a talented director who's done remarkable work in the past (BONNIE AND CLYDE, LITTLE BIG MAN), but fails to inject any energy or verisimilitude into Tesich's narrative. <br /><br />The cast struggles as best they can but are saddled with weak motivation and dialogue. Sympathies should be reserved particularly for Craig Wasson, whose morose performance presages the impending quick fade of his leading man career, as well as the embarrassingly untethered Jodi Thelen, miscast as the film's extremely unlikely 'femme fatale.'<br /><br />It all seems longer than it is, and any points made are heavy-handed and obvious. See Arthur Penn's earlier take on the subject of the 60's, the droll and elegiac ALICE'S RESTAURANT; it's everything this one isn't.
1,945	[ 200, 300 ]	232	292	Space is a vacuum, right? Therefore, space sucks. Vampires also suck. A really bad vampire movie set in space would have twice the sucking power, right?<br /><br />It started with what could have been a fun premise. Retelling Bram Stoker's Dracula story in the future. There's a salvage crew that's sent out to investigate a cargo ship that's lost in space called the Demeter. Fans of the original novel will unwittingly assume that this is to be a straightforward retelling of Dracula set in the future... unfortunately, short of sharing character names, this one takes the lowbrow route and goes into the B-movie galaxy twenty minutes later when Coolio becomes a vampire. Trust me when I tell you he's the best actor in the movie, and that's not saying much.<br /><br />Casper Van Dien should be peddling his wares on daytime television. Erika Eleniak should have quit after she left Baywatch and poor Udo Kier is having trouble reading from the cue cards. The guy who plays Dracula in this one is more ridiculous than Frank Langella was in the 1970's version. If you can manage to sit through the whole movie, you will be rewarded with the worst ending imaginable. The ending makes one wonder if the actors and the crew realized what a piece of garbage they were making and walked off the set.<br /><br />Take heed, vampire fans. This one sucks twice as hard.
1,948	[ 200, 300 ]	231	285	Being a huge horror movie fan, one of the most difficult things to be considering the lack of abundance of good movies in the genre, and having seen hundreds of them in my lifetime, I have to say that Dracula 3000 is by far the most uninspired, lame and poorly done piece of trash I have had the misfortune to see. STAY AWAY FROM THIS MOVIE! It's so bad it's not even laughable. The special effects (did I say "special"?) were probably achieved spending a couple of grand, the acting is terrible and the script should have ended up in the trash bin after the first read by the studio that decided to take on this miserable project. The whole movie was literally filmed in a warehouse. Also, for you guys out there who like nudity in your movies, don't be fooled by the R rating. If you're thinking you get a chance to see Erika Eleniak even half-naked, you're wrong. She is fully clothed throughout the entire movie. And the cover art is completely misleading! There is no scene in any part of the movie that even marginally resembles the awesome cover art they put on the box to draw unsuspecting horror fans.<br /><br />Too bad the rating is only 1 to 10. I would give this movie a -10. Be warned. Don't waste your money or your time on this one.
1,949	[ 200, 300 ]	190	251	Dracula 3000 is the epitome of painfully cheesy cinema. From the get-go, I assumed I was in for something pretty nasty. With a cast line up that featured Casper Van Dien, Erika Eleniak, Coolio, and Tiny Lister, what could be expected? Well, let's just say that expectations were crushed...<br /><br />If I really start up, I feel like this review will go on for ages, so we're gonna keep this simple. The vampire isn't even named Dracula. The space crew is carrying coffins from the Carpathian sector of the Transylvania system. In his big scene, Coolio speaks of the most horrible things ever spoken of in film history. In the year 3000, everyone wears bad clothes by today's standards, they don't have anything more advanced than a modern wheelchair, and they decorate with neon lights that appear stolen from a roller rink.<br /><br />To top it all off... the ending. Sweet merciful God. It doesn't deserve to be ruined. It has to be sen to be believed.<br /><br />I've rated this movie a "1" and I wish I could give it a zero... yet I feel compelled to make you watch it. What madness is this?
1,952	[ 200, 300 ]	176	219	Greetings from Lithuania.<br /><br />This is the first question that comes to head after watching this "movie". <br /><br />You know, I saw a lot of bad movies in my life, but after watching this one, i only had two questions: 1) Is this was just a parody (spoof) <br /><br />2) How could people create such a thing!? <br /><br />If You never saw this "film", than you REALLY don't know what is a REALLY bad "film". I mean BAD. The script - Are you kidding my? Acting is so horrible that i thing "the actors" where just having fun in this movie. I know, this is "B" movie, but come on?? Is this have to be a reason to be such a garbage?? <br /><br />Oh! And what an ending!!! A must miss ending! Just when you thing that this is the worst thing you have ever saw, wait until the ending - because THAT kind of ending You have NEVER saw before (and I hope You will never see). <br /><br />Awoid this "movie" at any cost, and don't say i didn't warn you...
1,955	[ 200, 300 ]	170	210	Oh dear Gods, this is awful. Stay away, just stay away. If you think you've seen bad movies, think again. Never before has my brain hurt as much as it did after I watched this movie. The acting, if it is allowed to be called that, is enough to cause internal bleedings inside your head. The story is so thin it is just barely there... no wait, scratch that. There is not a complete story there, but once in a while, there is a few thin lines that stick up from all the amount of horribleness, and believe me, those few lines should have been shot. The best way to enjoy this movie is to drop napalm on it, and watch the cozy fire from a distance.<br /><br />Some may call me sarcastic in this review, but I am only trying to spare some of you of a serious headache. However, should you be, what I like to call, a visual masochist (like myself), please, go right ahead and watch this monstrosity.
1,964	[ 200, 300 ]	187	212	It is quite rare that a movie comes along that is so useless, that I with IMDb allowed the use of negative scores. In fact, I reflect back upon this movie and I truly cannot think of a movie that had so little going for it. Acting: Your Kidding right. Direction: No. A plot: No. This movie has nothing going for it if you take it as a serious movie, this is often the case with movies of this genre, but most movies of this nature can be watch as if they are a comedy and you can laugh at how pathetic the characters and situations are and almost get your times worth. This movie is so empty, that it cannot even suit that purpose. I have to give this a -1/10, three points lower then any other movie I have ever rated. I truly feel that the staff involved in this movie should pay me for the 83 minutes I spent watching it. I do not really have the words to describe how bad this is. No one should ever watch this for any reason again.
1,972	[ 200, 300 ]	162	216	After nearly getting killed by a big dog, a stray cat thinks to herself, "Why can't I be a skunk? Then everyone would leave me alone." She looks around the junkyard and gets an idea: white paint, black paint and some Limburger cheese and some garlic......hmmmm. The next thing you know, we have the forerunner to "Pepe Le Pew," although in this cartoon, she's still a cat, she's a she, and just a skunk in disguise. <br /><br />The cat also is enjoying and taking full advantage of her new status as a smelly skunk. He's a happy, content guy now.....until a real skunk (with the Charles Boyer imitation voice) shows up! <br /><br />I did appreciate the cat putting on a Bugs Bunny outfit. However, overall I never cared for these French-takeoff characters, finding the stereotypical dialog overdone and not really funny, so I only rate this as "fair." I do this a point, however, for the moral at the end of the story.
1,974	[ 200, 300 ]	191	267	It's okay ... a few years later Chayefsky's classic "Network" will be his true cinematic BIG home run ..., but for now, this dark comedy isn't the classic it aspires to be. It's mostly awful, although it has some good scenes: the first murder victim being found, the E.R. clerk responsible for billing patients making a surprise discovery, Drummond's delusional confessional, and the very last scene where Scott's character regains his professional integrity and self-respect. It also has some ludicrous scenes: Scott's character's whiny monologue during his early visit to the hospital psychiatrist, Scott's character's raping Rigg's character, Dysart's horrible mugging in his brief scenes, and the O.R. doctor pouncing on the operating table to resuscitate the wrong patient because "I already have one malpractice lawsuit".<br /><br />Chayefsky also tries TOO HARD throwing every conceivable hurdle at this one hospital (i.e.- the murders, the administrative mistakes, the poor people protesting outside, etc). It might have worked better as a look at the industry as a whole. Acting-wise: Scott is passable, Rigg seems miscast, Hughes is inspired, and Dysart mugs through out his brief performance. The rest of the cast is TOO one-dimensional.
1,976	[ 200, 300 ]	227	283	I have to ask myself, do movies like this get their support by people associated with the movie itself coming here and critiquing it? How can something so awful score this high? My parents went to see a lot of the more adult themed movies when we were kids, anything with an R in it until we were old enough. I only remember two films that had them saying yech! when they got home. This one, and "Catch-22".<br /><br />The movie is comprised of bumbling physicians and staff in a filthy hospital, rambling narratives, and a pack of inner city people (who look like rejects from a 1970s Norman Lear sitcom) staging a protest. The worst part is the "murder mystery", a crazy old guy doing "God's work" by killing doctors and others. When he confesses, Scott and his girlfriend show little emotion. They only care about him getting out of there where he will "be safe and happy". A doctor that drops dead of a heart attack is faked as the man so he can get away. Oh, my, what a fun movie.<br /><br />This movie didn't "make me think", chuckle, or have any other feeling other than "It must get better", but it never does. People wonder why it was a failure, no wonder here. I wonder how IMDb has enough members that think this movie is good. YECH.
1,978	[ 200, 300 ]	214	275	This movie is worse than "heaven's gate" or "plan 9 from outer space". Don't know why it got even one Oscar, it should have gotten a million raspberries, just like the audiences that either walked out or didn't show up in the first place. The Hospital was a first-rate financial failure, but I'm certain the elite classes of left-wing, gutter-mouthed intellectuals railed that the American public was far- too plebeian to appreciate biting social-commentary when they saw it, and on and on. George C Scott, in one of most-artless and embarrassing roles, along with aging sex-symbol Diana Rigg spend most of the movie trying to cuss in an increasingly-blasé manner as they push along a silly plot. Poor old George is impotent and is just crushed by the event, but after lots of dirty language between him and Rigg, he rapes her multiple times on lovely night in a filthy, crumbling NYC hospital that looks so disgusting that I wouldn't want a dying pet rat treated in it. There's also some sacrilegious junk-dialog tossed about hither and yon, laced with plenty of cussing as well. It ends by portraying the faulty notion that unusual stress without physical exertion always brings on cardiac arrest. Never want to see another minute of this awful movie again.
1,979	[ 200, 300 ]	210	264	The premise of this movie is ugghhhh. The guy is married and yet everyone on this site seems to think, "Yeah, this is funny, cute, and a good movie." What the Hell?!?! What is funny about immature girls fornicating with a married man with a new baby? What is cute about the fact that he is cheating on his wife? What have been wrong with them finding some teenage boys to have sex with before starting college? Noooo, that is not good enough, the guy has to be married, off-limits, off-the-market, that's the one we gotta have. Dumb-ass GIRLS! Then one of the girls decides that she "loves" the guy. No, she just "loves" the way he makes her feel. Two of the girls are having fun with it, they think it is funny and no one seems to have any moral problems with what they are doing. It just shameless, but yeah this is all good with everyone one this website. The dark-haired girl even has the audacity to have her dad pick her up from the guys house, under the ruse of baby sitting. This is a morally disgusting movie and where is the wife? Poor woman working and paying the bills while he screws the baby sitter.
1,983	[ 200, 300 ]	191	248	This film is sometimes called 'The Story of O-Pt.2',which tries to pass itself off as a sequel (of sorts)to the French erotic S&M thriller 'The Story Of O'. Although I've never seen the original version, I did, however get to see this sorry mixed bag of sexual & social politics. I guess the 'O' angle comes from the occasional S&M overtones (which were never as explicit (and unpleasant to watch) as the ones in 'Mistress'. Klaus Kinski is the only recognizable face in this French/Japanese production (but speaks his lines in English--at least in the version I saw). The unnecessary use of surrealism only manages to make this some what boring example in pseudo porn even more pretentious (what are they trying to prove with depicting a piano floating in water?). It's obvious that after the whole "porno chic" trend in cinema petered out (ouch-sorry,bad pun!)about 1975, producers had to scrape the bottom of the barrel trying to please the mavens of adult cinema,not to mention Foreign/Art Cinema,so film goers had to contend with dreck like 'The Last Woman',and others like it.
1,990	[ 200, 300 ]	226	254	I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool<br /><br />now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)<br /><br />the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie <br /><br />the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west) <br /><br />all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that<br /><br />wtf's with the chilly chally???<br /><br />summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)
1,991	[ 200, 300 ]	236	271	So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film.
1,998	[ 200, 300 ]	207	259	Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.<br /><br />It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.<br /><br />I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).<br /><br />Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...
2,000	[ 200, 300 ]	245	271	Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of "Hobgoblins" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.
2,007	[ 200, 300 ]	201	244	Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.<br /><br />The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.<br /><br />The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.<br /><br />I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...
2,019	[ 200, 300 ]	214	250	It is easy for a movie that tries to be suspenseful to wind up being merely uninteresting. It happens quite often. Not only is Dark Harbor uninteresting, but it is very poorly done. Scene after scene is tacked on to an otherwise overdone premise. A troubled couple picks up a troubled stranger only to find more trouble.<br /><br />Some movies build tension by building the story. Dark Harbor keeps adding on to its story but never building upon it. I was hoping that like other movies, the suspense would finally explode. It never does. Also, the characters have no continuity from scene to scene. They may act one way in one scene, but then act a completely different way in another scene. At first, you think that they are merely out of character, but by the end you realize that they are not really characters at all. They are just props for the final twist. The final ten minutes try to be shocking. Instead, it's rather lame and uninteresting. The only thing that was shocking to me was that the movie finally ended. At less than ninety minutes the movie still feels way too long.<br /><br />This isn't one of those low-budget gems. It's more like a counterfeit watch that breaks as soon as you take it home.
2,025	[ 200, 300 ]	221	271	This is by far the worst and most stupid show I have ever seen on TV. It is almost physically painful to watch an adult (well in his twenties) doing nothing but torture and mock his parents, who always seem to have no clue what so ever about the stunts they are forced to endure by their dimwitted son and his equally stupid friends. Of course I know his parents are in on it, but I really hate how they always act like they are caught completely by surprise. It seems fake through and through. And I really hate the intro of the show, in which a voice over asks "Bam Margera, what WILL he think of next?!?!" (I think that's how it is, anyway), and Bam himself answers: "Whatever the f^k I want!" - WOW! Bam is really a hell raiser - living at home with mum and dad! -of course the word "f^k" is replaced with a tasteful beep, but we get the message. Bam is the real deal rebel - at least in his own eyes. Of course Bam and his posse of numb sculls aim at an audience of teenage boys, and of course it's a MTV show, but please, raise the bar a little. It's painfully predictable and stupid, and therefore nothing but boring.
2,030	[ 200, 300 ]	212	259	Reading the other user comments, the review by A666333 has articulated most of what I was feeling throughout this film- predictable storyline, cliché versions of lesbians/heterosexuals (i.e. straight woman becomes a lesbian while concluding that her husband is abusive and aggressive). <br /><br />Also, the score was severely disappointing. It was bland, soft, sentimental elevator music- another common cliché in movies about lesbians. The movie would have had a few interesting dramatic moments if they had not been destroyed by the music.<br /><br />A few scenes concerning sex and eroticism also struck me as attempts to titillate and raise shock value, including parts of the final performance scene. The conventional "hot and steamy" moments were as boring as the overly sentimental score. For example during the pool scene, the women are kissing, and then the camera pans along the abandoned wine glass, the flowing water, the sound of their heavy breathing over the soft crashing of waves.<br /><br />The only elements I liked were the costuming and arobatics. They are well-choreographed, and the development of attraction between the two characters felt very natural during the training scenes. I genuinely smiled during those, and during the last scene with the police officer. But they were not enough to balance out the negatives or make me enjoy this film.
2,037	[ 200, 300 ]	173	228	** Possible Spoiler ** <br /><br />If you were making a serious movie involving a powerful, but aging father with three apparently ungrateful daughters, featuring actors of the highest caliber, with great cinematography and a beautiful Midwestern setting, now where would you go with it? Why, you'd fashion a modern tragedy after "King Lear" of course.<br /><br />That's what I was expecting. That certainly wasn't what I got. What I got was 105 minutes of feminist tripe--one long harangue about man's inhumanity to woman. Why, there wasn't a decent male in the entire story.<br /><br />You see early on where this film might be headed, but you can't believe anyone would waste all these fine actors and craftsmen on that trite scenario--you just want them to get on with the King Lear theme. But it never happens; and there's the real tragedy if you ask me.<br /><br />Aside from the panorama of glorious rural heartland, about the only thing worth watching in this film was that wonderful chameleon, British actor Colin Firth, practicing his Midwestern accent. Now there was a treat.<br /><br />3/10
2,044	[ 200, 300 ]	181	261	Why did they have to waste money on this crap?!<br /><br />WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!<br /><br />The plot: down-to-earth-good-kind-girl meets a rich-snob-ignorant guy. Her boyfriend gets jealous and with the guy, they burn down a resturant? (Over an UGLY girl?) Guy has to stay in town to build a new resturant, perfect for the love story to begin. But, hark!!! The girl is dying!!! Isn't that a surprise boys and girls? But she teaches him love life, and enjoy it. He's sad she is dying. She dies. He is sad. But has now learned to love life.<br /><br />What's the moral of the story? When, dying, teach another person to love life.<br /><br />LIKE EVERY OTHER LOVE MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!<br /><br />AAAAAH! This movie was the crapiest thing I have ever seen!!!! Did the director want to try to make this plot original?! AAAH! And the friggin' girl would not die!!! It took her a half hour?! I felt no pity for the charactors, and the love story died the first hour of the movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE BORED OR GET A HEAD ACHE!!!!
2,050	[ 200, 300 ]	230	292	I don't normally write reviews, but this "film" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour. <br /><br />Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other "bad" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.
2,052	[ 200, 300 ]	199	259	Elderbush Gilch was a big disappointment for me. I'd heared how great it was, how important it was. It just didn't strike me. It had a dim-witted story line, plus some moronic and sadistic Native American characters that are thurroughly offensive by today's standards. While most of D.W. Griffith's films have depth and intelegence, this one feels more like a formula-baised programme picture.<br /><br />I loved seeing Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh in pre-Birth of a Nation roles, plus some of the staging of the battle scenes were pretty good. Acording to future Griffith cameraman Karl Brown, audiences were standing on their seats and cheering once the cavalry comes riding in at the end. I felt nothing. And beleave me, I lve watching Griffith's early work at Biograph. This film just isn't what it used to be.<br /><br />The best thing about this film it that, for all of it's flaws, it has many of Griffith's touches to it. He handles his principal actors pretty well, plus the scene where the indians are encircling the cabin it reminiscent to the climax of Birth of a Nation, a far superior film that would send shock waves across America a little over a year later.
2,056	[ 200, 300 ]	191	259	"Tales from the Crapper" is gory, disgusting, tasteless, offensive, lowbrow and scatological. But that's OK, I was prepared for all that from my previous Troma experiences. What I WASN'T prepared for is that it's also witless, unfunny and boring. Very little of the genuine anarchic spirit of films like "Class of Nuke'em High" has remained intact; in its place, we get ENDLESS fart jokes (to the point where you start wondering if Lloyd Kaufman is going senile, thinking that adults find loud farting so darn hilarious!) and a cynical, shameless exploitation of the viewer, who is essentially investing time and money to see a "film" that even Kaufman himself seems to know should never have been released in the first place. Oh yes, there is plenty of female nudity on display, but let's face it: the average porn film probably offers a better storyline, higher production values, funnier humor, and above all more RESPECT for its intended viewer than this atrocity. <br /><br />P.S: Kelly Powers AKA Suzi Lorraine (the blonde lesbian student in the "How to make your own movie" segment) is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.
2,060	[ 200, 300 ]	218	264	Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.
2,062	[ 200, 300 ]	152	218	In the early 1990's "Step-by-Step" came as a tedious combination of the ultra-cheesy "Full House" and the long-defunct loopy classic hit "The Brady Bunch". The differences between "Step-by-Step" and the two aforementioned shows was of course better writing, excellent comedic timing from almost all of it's actors, and a great deal funnier situations that weren't quite as sugar-coated as it's extremely popular predecessors. Admittedly though, even with the big boosts in the show's basic dynamics and all it still wasn't exactly spectacular, nor was it really even that memorable in the long line of corny family programming! It was just a much better time-passer, you might say, in comparison to the cutesy migraine-inducing "Full House", which coincidentally, ran neck-and-neck with "Step-by-Step" during that time period in terms of overall popularity. The show, now in syndication obviously, is certainly suitable family-fare but be sure to not expect much beyond that when watching it.
2,079	[ 200, 300 ]	172	219	BLACK EYE (2 outta 5 stars) Unimaginatively-filmed '70s action movie looks like it was made for TV... only the occasional cuss word and a subplot about lesbianism tip you off that the movie was actually made to be shown in theatres. Fred Williamson plays a tough guy ex-cop who becomes a tough guy private eye. He stumbles upon a couple of murders and attempted murders linked to a mysterious cane. There are some fistfights, a Bullit-inspired car chase, a fairly original elevator scene and even time for Williamson to confront the rich, lesbian lover of his girlfriend (Teresa Graves). There is also a scene with Williamson bullying a poor old man by tearing up some priceless old autographed photos in his memorabilia shop. Yeah, way to go, tough guy... maybe you can find a cripple to beat up later? Obviously meant to cash in on the success of "Shaft" (this and about six thousand other movies), this movie doesn't have enough edge or enough originality to make much of an impression.
2,082	[ 200, 300 ]	212	234	I cannot get over how awful this movie was. My eyes want to jump out of my head and my ears are gushing blood from the horrible awful one song soundtrack. There are four kids and dog and they run away from a hospital then get away with stealing two cars and a bus. No one gives them any punishment or anything to correct them. The acting is just so awful it sounds like an instruction video for social studies class. I cannot think of one thing that I like about this movie. Nothing. Even the kid that loses his dog made me want to vomit. He gets his dog back without the lady even seeing the dog run out the door. Maybe the dog was trying to escape out of this movie. Then there is some horse manure in the whole mix. It was torture watching this movie. Then at the end the oldest boy says something like staying together isn't a crime and they all hug him and love him. Stealing gas is a crime. Stealing two cars and a bus is a crime and he should have went to juvenile hall or something. Avoid this movie at all costs and especially if you want to keep your family together.
2,089	[ 200, 300 ]	191	268	A "40 foot long" giant mutant squid with five tentacles, razor fangs and the ability to reproduce it's own cells terrorizes a small Florida town. Various marine biologists, doctors and cops plot to kill it. Meanwhile, a human monster named Miller offs people who discover the "Devilfish" is a manmade creation used for the greedy benefit of some evil doctors! Miller attacks a female researcher, strangles her, drowns her in the bathtub, tosses in a hairdryer, then rips the panties off her dead body!<br /><br />Lots of false alarms are set when our heroes Peter, Stella, Janet and Bob set out on a high tech (high tech for 1984, anyway) "Seaquarium" boat to catch the creature, who is frequently seen in close up or hilariously obvious speeded-up film to seem more menacing. And only fire can destroy it, which leads to a flamethrower-armed posse vs. aquatic beast finale.<br /><br />This JAWS cash-in is pretty tame (other than a legless corpse and a decapitation) but watchable and benefits from an excellent Antony Barrymore score and a decent (again, for 1984) monster design. Luigi Cozzi and Sergio Martino wrote the original story.<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10
2,098	[ 200, 300 ]	228	284	The lousiest of all lousy Jaws rip-offs was regretfully made by one of my all-time favorite directors; Lamberto Bava (here under his John Old Jr. pseudonym). You know how it goes in these cheap European imitations, right? They only want their monstrous animal to be be bigger, sicker and more threatening, but this more than often results in the opposite effect. Bava's creature is a humongous sea-devil and it's more than just a shark! We're seemly dealing with a prehistoric monster here, with the jaws and appetite of a Great White, but it also has tentacles like an octopus! It's up to a couple of dolphin-loving oceanologists to discover how this monster was able to survive all these thousands of years and why exactly he only started his killing spree now. The script of "Monster Shark" makes few to no sense and most of the action takes place on the mainland. The shark itself is an unintentionally laughable creation and it was a wise decision of Lamberto Bava to only show it vaguely and in quick flashes. The acting performances are above average and the underwater photography is surprisingly clear and well-handled. The twists in the plot are predictable and you'll probably have the most fun spotting detailed facts about the characters. For example: count all the cans of beer Dr. Hogan drinks throughout the whole movie!
2,100	[ 200, 300 ]	217	268	A perennial fixture in the IMDb Bottom 100, upon viewing this it's not hard to see exactly why for it proves to fail utterly miserably in just about every bloody department going!<br /><br />Take the editing for a start; to call this choppy would be overly complimentary! Indeed, had the makers of this got drunk one night and sliced and diced the film reels with some scissors and children's glue, then the resulting mess could hardly have been any worse than what we actually have here. Added to this, the inane story drags on mercilessly for what seems like a torturous infinity before we finally reach the decidedly lacklustre climax. <br /><br />Aside from the ever game Michael Sopkiw, poor performances from most of the rest of the cast don't exactly help matters any either and the actual beastie that is causing all the troubles is somewhat less than convincing to put it mildly. Yay verily, all in all this is a complete pile of crap if ever I've seen one.<br /><br />Deary, deary me....and to think that Lamberto Bava directed this to....tut, tut indeed. <br /><br />Note: This was released in the UK under the alternative title of Devouring Waves, although bereft of most of its gore scenes, which ironically are just about the only reason that this may have been worth watching.
2,104	[ 200, 300 ]	187	234	This is a perfect example of why many people say the 90's sucked when it comes to horror-movies. A boring voodoo-on-campus tale of terror starring the once so promising Corey Feldman (STAND BY ME, THE LOST BOYS, etc). There might be just enough stuff happening to keep you from falling asleep and it doesn't look too cheap, but this still is horror aimed at an audience that were in their very early teens during the 90's. I might have been part of that audience, but still I got as good as nothing out of it when watching it now. And nowadays, teens are used to a lot more and better already, and I can't imagine any of them knowing or caring about who Corey Feldman was. Or, "is", actually, as the dude's still making films. But the only thing still linking him to his days of glory, is the LOST BOYS 2: THE TRIBE sequel that got made recently. And I imagine even that one isn't going to encourage anyone to seek out VOODOO. Just another movie that got lost in 90's horror for obvious reasons.
2,108	[ 200, 300 ]	233	290	Will Spanner (David Byrnes, the fifth actor to play the role in the series) stumbles onto another bizarre case, this time involving vampires rather than the usual witches, warlocks & demons (he's at the hospital to check on his friend's son who got hurt in a hit and run when they wheel a girl who's been attacked by a vamp in). He brings in Detectve Lutz to help out with the case which revolves around a clandestine vampire organization trying to get a business merger to go through to let them legally own all the blood banks in the world or some such nonsense.<br /><br />The plot of this movie pretty much takes a backseat to the nudity & simulated sex scenes. (As is to be expected from this series, i guess). So complaining about the lack of good acting, or compelling plot-line, or even convincing characters, I suspect, would fall on deaf ears. If you're watching this film, you don't care about such 'frivolities' and just want some 'action'. Sadly on that front the film fails as well. All the woman are attractive enough but the way the scenes are filmed are just atrocious. Making this more or less an exercise in futility in every conceivable way.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Both Kimberly Blair & April Breneman show everything; Ashlie Rhey shows full- frontal; Aline Kassman & Mai-Lis Holmes only shows their breasts<br /><br />My Grade: D
2,110	[ 200, 300 ]	160	202	If I was British, I would be embarrassed by this portrayal of incompetence. A protection agent of the Special Branch unable to defend herself against a sick, unarmed and untrained assailant? The Home Office sends a single "Science Adviser" to investigate a possible Level Four biohazard, and that "Advisor" doesn't have the sense to wear even a mask and gloves? Totally unprotected London police officers working side by side with technicians in full biohazard suits? The "Advisor" and his bodyguard bearding the lair of a sociopathic doctor experimenting on human subjects without any backup? Puh-leeze! One wonders whether the producers could not afford to hire any technical advisers or if, for some arcane reason, they consciously decided to portray the principals as hopelessly incompetent. Even my wife, who has no background in either medicine or law enforcement, was rolling her eyes in disbelief. After the first episode, I was discouraged; now that I have seen two episodes, I give up.
2,119	[ 200, 300 ]	224	285	Oh. Good. Grief.<br /><br />I saw this movie title in the TV schedules and thought "I must watch this movie, ripping off Snakes On A Plane, it will be terrible but hopefully laughable too. Sounds fantastically bad". Well, I was half right.<br /><br />This movie is eye-meltingly bad and, sadly, not even unintentionally hilarious. It's just bad. Even worse, it takes almost an hour to get to anything resembling action. For the first half of the movie we have to endure some mumbled foreign language (Mexican or Spanish, apologies for my ignorance) and terrible acting as some woman vomits up live snakes for reasons we only find out later on. Then we have to endure even more terrible acting, and we find out that those mumbling in the foreign language could speak English anyway, as the snakes finally get loose on the train and things move from the sedate to the ridiculous.<br /><br />Low-budget does not always mean "bad" but, in this case, it does. What we have here is a movie given no thought, a terrible script, a bad cast and not even the sense to capitalise on it's very few strengths. I give two marks for a few decent special effects and a whacky ending but that still feels a bit too generous. Avoid if you can.<br /><br />See this if you like: Stagknight, The Wicker Man remake, terrible CGI.
2,122	[ 200, 300 ]	232	293	Upon renting this, I wasn't expecting to be blown away. In fact, I knew it was going to be horrible. It was just seeing how horrible it really was. That's what comes with low budget horror.<br /><br />"Snakes On A Train", not to be confused with the serpentine summer blockbuster "Snakes On A Plane" with Samuel L. Jackson, is about a woman who is put under a Mayan curse that causes snakes to hatch inside her and devour her from within. Her only hope of surviving lies in a shaman that lives across the border, so she and her companion stowaway onto a train bound for Los Angelas. Throw in a few passengers and hilarity ensues.<br /><br />Come to think of it, though, the story isn't half bad. Isn't half good, either.<br /><br />The acting in this film rivals that of a Sci-Fi Original, if not worse. Trust me, it's horrible. The snakes were another problem. They were supposed to be rattlers, I guess, but most of what you get instead are mostly harmless garden snakes that don't attack anything and there's this rattling sound effect that gets really annoying.<br /><br />The gore effects on the other hand, while not on the Tom Savini level, were actually pretty good.<br /><br />And another thing, the ending alone makes up for the rest of the movie. I'm not going to talk about it here, so you'll have to rent this and see for yourself.
2,123	[ 200, 300 ]	244	294	Snakes on a Train is a movie I rented due to the pure amusement of the thoughts I had, about the movie. Snakes on a Plane was an enjoyable Action film, so obviously the film makers wanted to cash in on the success, with this low budget effort. At 85 minutes, Snakes on a Train is almost unbearable to witness. I had to keep pausing the film to do something to entertain myself, due to the lack of happenings in the film. Throughout the duration of the film, it's never fully explained why this girl has this curse, or why she keeps coughing up this green/purplish goo constantly. Not only that, there is endless boring dialog of the two main characters, Brujo and Alma discussing how to get rid of the curse. I can appreciate low budget film-making. I'm truly not picky on movies, i'm open to any genre or budget, but Snakes On A Train is truly one of the worst Horror films I have ever seen. Were the writers on Acid or something at the end of this film?. Why did the woman suddenly turn into a giant snake? and most importantly how on earth was it able to devour the train?.<br /><br />Bottom line. Snakes on a Train is a movie that needs to be avoided at all costs. Don't be intrigued like I was by the title, this is a movie that's seriously bad. Let's put these snakes to rest<br /><br />0/10
2,124	[ 200, 300 ]	240	297	Looking back on the year 2006,one of the things i will remember most is the "Snakeamania" on the internet for a film called Snakes on a plane.But unknown to me there was a straight- to- DVD rip-off film called Snakes on a train!After seeing this i feel its at best a below-par B-Movie.<br /><br />The plot:<br /><br />A husband and wife get on a train to go to Los Angles,to get help form the husbands uncle who is a shaman.This is because the wife's family do not approve of her marring him,so they have put a curse on her that snakes will "become her".Thought with a sixteen hour drive to Los Angles and a group of passengers the include an ex-Narc cop and some drug traffickers.Will they get there in time before the snakes take her over? <br /><br />View on the film: First the effects:I have to say that while some scenes with the smaller snakes look good in a gory-way,the main effect shots you have to wait eighty minutes to see!Are sadly that bad that they completely kill any good memories of the film(The film makes 198os Video Games look like T2 next to this!.)One of the things i noticed is that there is no screenplay credit on the film! and the directors make the film so anti-climatic it ruins the whole film. Final view on the film:<br /><br />A below-par B-Movie,with an unbelievably bad ending.
2,128	[ 200, 300 ]	218	268	Snakes on a Train (2006, Dir. The Mallachi Brothers) A Zombie curse is placed upon a woman, which causes her to have living snakes inside her. Brujo, who is looking after her, attempts to take her to Los Angeles on the train. After several confrontations on the train, Brujo's collection of snakes manage to separate themselves from their owner and go on the hunt. Whilst all this is happening, normal, everyday passengers are relaxing, what is unknown to them is that something deadly is heading their way, and that their is no were out.<br /><br />After watching the wonderfully fun 'Snakes on a Plane', i had to check this out. I knew it was going to be a rip-off and that the film will look cheap, but what i found was worst to watch. The whole curse plot was silly and should never have been included. The special effects aren't terrible but are not the best looking. I did not have a clue about the ending. It was silly to watch and pathetic. The acting was absolutely terrible, and looked bad. They just could not act to save their lives. If you want a great laugh, watch this, otherwise you should really avoid this.<br /><br />"We have a runaway train. I repeat. We have a runaway train." - Conductor (Stephen A.F. Day)
2,129	[ 200, 300 ]	164	207	Not to be mistaken as the highly touted Samuel L. Jackson vehicle SNAKES ON A PLANE; SNAKES ON A TRAIN is low budget, features no actors(to speak of), but some pretty decent visual effects. An attractive young woman(Julia "Rayanne" Ruiz)does not want to marry someonelse's choice for her husband; so she is put under a powerful Mayan curse that has snakes hatching inside her body, slowly devouring from the inside out. Her only hope for survival is a shaman who lives across the border in Texas. Time is running out for her; and she is put on a train from El Paso to Los Angeles. Before long the snakes are leaving her pain wrecked body and rapidly growing in size. The passengers aboard the train are now trapped and soon to be snacks for the snakes. The finale sequence is no doubt the best of this 91 minute flick. Also receiving acting credit are: Alby Castro, Al Galvez and Giovanni Bejarno.
2,130	[ 200, 300 ]	211	264	I can't believe that anyone would green light this let alone voluntarily star in it. I will never be able to get that 90 mins of my life back.<br /><br />This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. Some films are so bad they're good. This has gone so far round again that's somehow it's so bad it's terrible. I was not exactly expecting much, it being a low budget, bandwagon jumping, rehash of a B Movie, but it still came in way under my expectation levels. Even TV movies have higher production values.<br /><br />There were (very) poor special effects, shocking dialogue, terrible acting and a completely unexplained plot. Who cursed her and why, why did the 6 inch snakes turn into 15 foot snakes, has anyone ever heard of highly venomous garter snakes or pythons? 100 passengers? 3,000 snakes? So many promises, none delivered. <br /><br />Some comments would have you believe that this film is worth watching for the last five minutes. It's not even worth a rental. Stay in and watch a low budget TV movie, you'll enjoy it a lot more. <br /><br />Why was this made? Oh yes, to shamelessly cash in on the internet phenomenon that is SOAP. Shame on you Mallachi Brothers, shame on you
2,133	[ 200, 300 ]	158	200	Last week on Friday, I went to see "Snakes on a Plane" with my friends. It was amazing compared to this horrible film (however, many of the scenes were ridiculously hilarious). Basically, some woman has a Mayan curse where she pukes up harmless harmless garter snakes that, instead of attacking, crawl inside of they're victims. The girl with the bag of coke is pretty hot. On the title screen it says "100 Passengers... 3,000 Venemous Vipers!" Scary, I know. There weren't even 100 passengers on the train. Only a couple of stoners and some other washed out losers. It's worth the five bucks to see the woman turn into a huge CG snake and devour the whole train then get sucked into a huge vortex though. It's just sad that someone would go to such lengths to make a crap film, only to make a few bucks because of the "Snakes on a Plane" craze.
2,135	[ 200, 300 ]	173	206	This film is bad, yes, but had the producers used a REAL KANGAROO, it would have killed the actor it was boxing with. I am an Australian and I have seen two seven foot tall male 'Roos fighting each other, it is not a pretty sight as the object is for one or the other to kill it's opponent,(this is there way of securing the herd of females) and there are incidents where someone has boxed a kangaroo, and been injured or killed, so when you see a kangaroo on TV or Film it is likely to be a female, or Animated, as it is a good idea not to injure actors (they might be annoyed at losing the ability to breath). There is a strange idea that Australian animals are cute and cuddly, that is false, many are dangerous (10 of the 12 most deadliest snakes live here)and most are just plain ugly (Koalas are as soft as steal wool). So if you come to Australia BE CAREFULL!!!
2,136	[ 200, 300 ]	177	222	Just Desserts was, I must say, one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The acting was terrible and even the plot line was laughable. I gave it a 3 out of 10 instead of a 1 because I enjoy laughing at excruciatingly corny movies. My expectations weren't high to begin with, but it turned out to be cornier than I expected. I thought it might not be all that bad when it started, but as soon as the name of the competition--The Golden Whisk--came up i began changing my mind. It all went downhill from there. The only thing I did like about this movie, other than snickering at it's absurd plot and dialogue, was watching them cook. However, being a movie about pastry chefs, there were minimal scenes in which they actually baked anything. I would recommend watching the cooking channel instead of this movie. You get to see more food being prepared, and you dodge the pathetic one-liners. However, if you enjoy corny love stories, which is sometimes fun, go ahead and watch.
2,137	[ 200, 300 ]	179	208	This Spaghetti Western uses three American lead actors which takes away a little of the typical spaghetti aura. The plot is about an amnesty that the governor of New Mexico gives to all willing criminals to provide them a chance to start a new life. Usually this kind of opportunity is limited to past events but in this film it seems more like a licence to kill because even new crimes (like e.g. threatening the governor) are forgiven. The story is an endless chain of killings where nearly every character has only the purpose to deliver more carcasses. Only the few leads have stamina. Clay McCord is haunted by nightmares related to a childhood event where unsurprisingly he killed a lot of people. In the middle of the everlasting mayhem this kind of reflections lack credibility. Compared with similar films like e.g. BANDIDOS none of the characters in this film was likable for me.<br /><br />Apart of the weak content which targets certain customers this film is well shot, sets are somewhat detailed and the acting is average. <br /><br />4 / 10.
2,139	[ 200, 300 ]	207	246	I didn't see this movie when it originally came out, but there has been a couple songs sharing the title and the term still gets used from time to time and I figured there must be something to the flick, so I dug it up and gave a view. Now I would like the approximate hour and forty five minutes of my life back(it seemed much longer). There was nothing particularly bad about the movie, the acting was good, no large plot holes, of course there wasn't much plot to have holes in. There just wasn't a lot to the movie. There was some chemistry between the two but nothing compelling about their relationship; Nothing interesting about their story. Near the end when he attempts to chase down the train to catch his fleeing romance, neither my wife nor I wanted him to catch her. Honestly we figured they were better off with out each other and if they did get back together we really didn't care. So what's that say about this love story when even a 25 year old sappy romantic like my wife had no emotional investment in the relationship. I should have left this one in the "missed" category.<br /><br />Logan Lamech www.eloquentbooks.com/LingeringPoets.html
2,142	[ 200, 300 ]	162	207	Paul Mazursky misfires on this film. The writing, direction, casting, and acting (with the exception of Victorio Gassman) are all off the mark. I remember the reviews from 20+ years ago being mediocre, but I thought it still might be worthwhile to view. With notables such as Susan Sarandon, Raul Julia (who overacts in most of his scenes) and John Cassavetes, I understandably expected much more. The music picked for the film is jarring, the cuts between New York and Greece confusing, and the overall pace all leave much to be desired. Why Paul Mazursky felt the need to update this story, or add his touch to it is puzzling - this retelling of Prospero and his daughter takes very little of import from the play, and adds not much more. The play is not one of Shakespeare's best anyway, and to gut it even further seems not to be a good decision. Unfortunately, there is nothing to recommend in this film.
2,144	[ 200, 300 ]	186	228	this 2.5 hour diluted snore-fest appears to be one of the poorest excuses for an adaptation, ever. clearly possessing a budget allowing for breathtaking location shooting in greece, the monies might have been better spent working out a cohesive script with character development and motivations clearly outlined; especially since bill has gone through the trouble of doing this already. the portrayals lacked passion & direction, leaving the viewer debating whether they should bother to care about the demise of the protagonists at all. which brings out another point-the main character of the original work, prospero, is not so named in this rendition despite the fact that most other characters' names are used. enchantment and magic are also markedly absent from this particular piece. in fact, all aspects that made the stage version of 'the tempest' full of wonder and intrigue have been sucked completely from this convoluted version about a self-absorbed, pompous arse who can't figure out how to care about anything beyond the blur of his wealth and power. over all, a lackluster effort at best and a brutally poor imitation of the intended inspiration.
2,147	[ 200, 300 ]	148	203	When I saw this in the cinema, I remember wincing at the bad acting about a minute or two into the first scene, then immediately telling myself "no, this has to get better". It didn't. The performances are pretty uniformly teak 'n pine and no, there is NO sexual chemistry in this film whatsoever, just the awkward posturings of a reasonably comely, discreetly talentless actress who seems born to grace the cover of "Interviú" and not much else besides. If the scriptwriter thought that making Mérimée a character was a stunningly original creative ploy he perhaps ought to get out more. And Aranda, if he'd given the matter a bit more thought, would have realised that the story of Carmen is just CRYING OUT for a thoughtful, iconoclastic, parodic deconstruction, not this leave-your-brains-at-the-turnstile affair of ersatz passion and comic-book dialogue. This is contemporary Spanish cinema at its worst.<br /><br />
2,157	[ 200, 300 ]	187	233	I don't even know where to begin...<br /><br />It's is not worth typing a review so I will just quote what another user posted because I agree thoroughly, but I give it 1 / 10 instead of 2 / 10 "I am at a loss to find the words to express how bad I thought this film was. The initial precept was promising, but in all respects afterwards it was totally awful. Let's run through the main points. Plot - good initial idea but truly terrible development. There were many points when I thought "no, nobody would do something that stupid". The ending was amazingly anticlimactic. Characterisation - all of the characters were either completely bland or grotesque caricatures. I keep trying to think of one that wasn't - possibly the mother, but that's it. Music - intrusive, inappropriate and generally terrible. Direction - totally amateurish. Cinematography - doubt they've heard of it. Camera angles / stability / zoom levels often really bad. I am totally bemused at how this film has scored so highly. It's the worst movie I've seen at the cinema for years, if not ever."
2,159	[ 200, 300 ]	172	204	Saw this on French TV today and was most disappointed ! The film starts off reasonably well but nothing is elucidated and at the end we are no farther forward than in the beginning. As to seeing the husband for the murder of his wife, this is just not plausible. You need tangible proof to convict someone and a minimum of evidence. In this case there is none at all so it just is not plausible. Remember the old adage "innocent until proved guilty". The fact that a woman has disappeared without trace is no proof that her husband killed her. So I really don't know what kind of point this film was trying to make. The outcome is totally illogical and incomprehensible, no incriminating evidence is revealed to the spectator. So quite frankly, viewing it is a complete waste of time. After all, a film must be entertaining .... this is completely untrue in the case of this one and I suggest it be irrevocably consigned to the dustbin where it belongs !
2,164	[ 200, 300 ]	153	200	This film is a disaster from beginning to end. 75 percent of the movie is made from scenes taken from HERCULES & THE HAUNTED WORLD and HERCULES & THE CAPTIVE WOMEN badly edited together with original scenes that do not add up to anything but a complete rip-off. I'm a big fan of those two movies and seeing scenes taken from them, re-edited and re-dubbed with nonsensical dialogue made my head spin. These kind of cheap producers tactics to make more money by duping unsuspecting audiences basically killed the Sword & Sandal genre back in the 1960s.<br /><br />There is one memorable scene in the new footage and it's the one when Hercules fights with the bad Hercules. The fight is albeit cool and Giovanni Cianfriglia, who plays Antaius, definitely stands out. He makes a memorable nemesis to Herc. But the rest is borderline embarrassing that was probably shot in a day.<br /><br />Avoid at all cost!
2,165	[ 200, 300 ]	178	235	This movie is just crap, I cant put it differently. Since the very beginning one knows is going to be crap. <br /><br />The story, dialogue, acting, special effects, make-up, pretty much EVERYTHING sucks. I like vampire movies and I know they will never be Oscar winning movies but this one is not even worth seeing, I can't believe how somebody produced this thing.<br /><br />It's not even about vampires, it's more about a dream/reality experience. The development of the movie is incoherent, the motivation of the characters is... Doesn't exist, everything seems like a big joke. Maybe that's what they tried to do, but I sincerely doubt it. I wish I knew what they tried to pull but it just backfired, it's definitely one of the worst movies I've ever seen in my life (and I've seen many bad movies, but nothing compared to this) Please, make yourselves a favor and do NOT watch this. <br /><br />P.S. It's also full of clichés! P.S. 2 Bad Script, Bad directing, Bad cinematography. P.S. 3 I bothered commenting on this as a favor to everyone.
2,174	[ 200, 300 ]	164	201	worst. movie. ever made. EVER. I have no words to say about it.. other then it truly had no point, no plot, no... anything. sheer crap!!! I don't know how everyone in the movie didn't shoot them shelves after watching it.... .... .... ... .. I love vampire flicks and mysteries, and alternate abstract outside the box films, and.... this was non of those. I mean what the crap!!! I cant even tell you what the film was about cuz I still don't know, and I just wasted an hour and ahalf of my life watching it... bottom line.. I think the maker of this film just wants everyone to do drugs. thats the only thing I got from this film. please don't watch this... I mean for a " sultry sensual vampire flick" there wasn't even the to be expected nudity you'd get from a vamp flick. anyway back to my point.... this movie blows. go set yourself on fire instead.... .. ..
2,179	[ 200, 300 ]	187	238	The murder of the Red Comyn in Grayfriars Abbey was a long way from one of the most horrendous things ever done in the Scottish War of Independence and fights (and killing) in churches wasn't unusual at all. Not that much later Robert Bruces wife, daughter, two of his sisters were captured during a fight in a church in which people were killed. And comparing it to the massacre of Berwick in which the English slaughtered at least 8000 non-combatants (some, yes, in churches) is ridiculous.<br /><br />That said this is not a well-made movie. It is slightly antidote to the absolutely RIDICULOUS sniveling representation of Robert Bruce in Braveheart. Whatever Bruce was, it wasn't a wuss.<br /><br />Too bad that they didn't do a better job of this because someone should make a really GOOD movie of a war that is so amazing that it sounds like something someone made up going from complete defeat at the Battle of Methven to a secret return from hiding to a long guerrilla war to Bannockburn. This isn't it though. Poorly made and to a large extent poorly written and acted. Too bad!
2,180	[ 200, 300 ]	196	224	When my Mum went down to the video store to rent a film for the night my sister and I learned a lesson, to always company my Mum to the video store! In fact the only reason why she chose it was because Colin Firth was in it and she cough thinks he's a good actor!<br /><br />It starts off with some beautiful veiws of Africa and then goes DOWN AND DOWN AND DOWN, AND DOWN. After this film I was very surprised that Colin Firth got as far as he did since this pointless film could destroy any actors career.<br /><br />The story is about a divorced women who's son is trying to matchmake her to a man called Matthew Fields who he met whilst impressing his friends because of his large house.<br /><br />Nimi the divorce does not like Matthew at all and is going out with the local vicar who does not like her son John.... and the same with him!<br /><br />I am sorry if you disagree with me and i hope i haven't offended you but to all the people who haven't seen this film, I leave you with one word of warning, DON'T WATCH THIS FILM!!!!!
2,184	[ 200, 300 ]	211	274	This Swedish splatter movie tries to parody/imitate American horror films such as "The Evil Dead", "Gremlins" and others. Writer/director/actor/cinematographer Anders Jacobsson and writer/producer/actor/makeup effects supervisor Göran Lundström (did I miss something?) were obviously inspired by Sam Raimi. But the camera work is a bad copy of what can be seen in "The Evil Dead" and elsewhere. Some other users have written that they enjoyed the humor of this film but I didn't.<br /><br />The film rather disturbed than entertained me. It tries to combine suspense and comedy and the final product just left me with a feeling of oppressiveness although it wasn't scary or shocking at all. The combination of different genre elements made this film very strange. I was never sure if it was meant to be scary or funny.<br /><br />The story is quite inventive except for the showdown at the hospital but I didn't like the way it was staged for the reasons mentioned above. The gore & make up effects are considerably good and at least the "Loose Limbs" sequences were quite entertaining because in these scenes the film-makers didn't try to mix scares and jokes.<br /><br />All in all a strange film that you will either hate or love. Rest in pieces, Evil Ed.<br /><br />My rating: 3/10 (made me stick to American productions)
2,186	[ 200, 300 ]	179	237	A swedish splatter movie? Has the world gone insane?<br /><br />Probably not, but it's still not a common sight in these days with swedish gore-flicks, the b-movie business in Sweden seems to have troubles these days, long gone are the golden days of "Rymdinvasion i lappland". And this movie seems to have some troubles on its own: it's just too much talk in it, it still manages to be somewhat amusing mainly for the good FX, which are great for a b-movie. The script and most of the acting is still pretty bad though, but that actually don't matter that much, it's supposed to be a gore flick and nothing more, that's where it goes a bit wrong for some reason. There's is simply not enough blood to fill the void. <br /><br />Every person who know about Gert Fylking will have a good laugh over his role as a sgt. though. I nearly laughed my ass off. It's really that hilariously bad. <br /><br />Besides the good parts I've listed there's really nothing else to recommend here unless you're starved for swedish B-movies.<br /><br />4/10
2,189	[ 200, 300 ]	189	243	Not as bad as some people say...This is a unofficial Bond movie and a remake of "Thunderball", written by Kevin McClory (co- producer in "Thunderball"). Well, the cast is very very interesting, Maria Brandauer is a great Bond- villain, Kim Basinger and Barbara Carrera are just like the "original" Bond- girls, plus Rowan Atkinson and a truly great Edward Fox, who looks really refreshing in the "M" role. In fact, the whole movie is refreshing and gives some new impulses. Sean Connery does it once more confident and charming, except that he looks a little bit too old. But alright, he is the original Bond and it was great to see him once more in this role. The locations are also typical- Bahamas, France, etc. The only thing that really fails is the music score, the song "Never say never again" is O.K., but the theme song is just missing. All in one, a nice try to make a difference from the comic and silly Roger Moore movies like "Moonraker". Only if there was another story, "Thunderball" was a excellent movie and really did not needed a remake
2,194	[ 200, 300 ]	166	207	Thunderball and Never are two of the biggest box office misses and Never is a surprise farce from Empire Strikes Back hero Irvin Kershner. Klaus Maria Brandauer seems to steal the show, when, in the midst of the unfolding plot, Bond's mission turns more to Hollywood romp (Sometime around when Basinger comes in). How about Klaus Kinski? I still think that the casting of Largo makes or, as is evident in both films, breaks the story. Worst of all is the attempt to pass off the aging and very hairy Connery off as the sex symbol he indeed was in the '60s. The '80s was a barren time for Bond flicks mostly, though For Your Eyes Only is a great title. At times, when I happen to need to waste some time over the holidays by watching this film in the often string of Bond re-run festivals, I think the best attribute of the film is its score, and I'm not into soft '80s 'jazz'.
2,195	[ 200, 300 ]	155	208	It only took one viewing of this dog, for me to say "Never again!" It's so profoundly unmemorable that I had to read other people's reactions to it before I could remember anything beyond (1) it was awful, (2) Connery should have quit while he was ahead, and (3) the film included a total gross-out bit involving faking a retinal scan through the most gruesome (not to mention horribly inefficient) means possible.<br /><br />Actually, I've never understood why anybody would prefer even the best of Connery's Bond films over even the worst Moore or Dalton outings. Or Lazenby, Brosnan, or even David Niven, for that matter. I personally found Octopussy and Moonraker, among other "canonical" Bond films, to be far more entertaining than this, and probably for the very same reasons why others deprecate the Moore Bond films, namely their wry humor, and their willingness to surrender to the preposterousness of the whole basic Bond milieu.
2,200	[ 200, 300 ]	222	293	Director/screenwriter Allan Burns seems to have patched two different scripts together before coming up with this minor outing: a comedy about infidelity and a melodrama about loss and sabotage. It results in a wincingly unfunny film. Christine Lahti plays a crass, cynical TV news reporter who makes friends with aerobics instructor Mary Tyler Moore and is soon having dinner with Moore and her family--only to discover Mary's husband (Ted Danson) is Lahti's secret affair! Burns has a strange, stop-and-start rhythm to his dialogue which is neither realistic nor effective (just increasingly annoying, because nothing important ever seems to get said). Rail-thin Moore, looking alarmingly frail in her leotard, has a radiant smile but doesn't convince as Danson's wife, and Danson gets stuck with a paltry, thankless role (he's just there to be a cad). The movie attempts to cover all the bases in a classic case of overreaching (woman's role in the workplace, the TV news-biz, the cheating family man, the working wife and mother who wants more, a woman's need for female friendships, et al), but nothing substantial comes out of these ideas since Burns only half-heartedly examines the issues. As a writer, he is surprisingly free of punchlines, but is devoid of a purpose as well, and the heavy plotting just gets all fouled up. 1/2 from ***
2,201	[ 200, 300 ]	210	254	This is what used to be called a "women's picture" and later a "chick's flick" when times and movies got more juvenile. The plot is just soap opera for women and will only appeal to those types. The only appeal for most guys is if they wanna see a too rail-thin Mary Tyler Moore in leotards. (If you're of a certain age, like me, that might still be enough to give it a look.) Otherwise MTM gives another of her typical by-the-numbers performances that she's been giving since the early 70s when she took it to heart that she was America's Sweetheart. Christine Lathi gives another of those abrasive and unpleasant performances that seem a real part of her as a person and probably only appeal to those of that type. (Sorry, but it seems true.) Ted Danson is too young as MTM's husband and usually gives off a slightly creepy appeal unless he has an acting partner who can soften it. And it doesn't happen here. Allan Burns wrote & directed and probably got it all through because he worked with Mary before, wrote it as a project for her, and she had the juice at this point to get it made. There seems no other purpose to it.
2,202	[ 200, 300 ]	163	212	Boring, utterly predictable soap opera. Mary Tyler Moore is married to Ted Danson who's having an affair with Christine Lahti. Moore is friends with Lahti and doesn't know about the cheating. Danson dies in an accident and Lahti is pregnant with his baby. YAWN! <br /><br />I'm ashamed to admit I paid money to see this in a theatre in 1986. I liked all three stars but even their considerable talents couldn't pull this off. I CONSTANTLY knew what was going to happen. Like another poster said--this plays like a PG-rated Lifetime movie.<br /><br />It does have Lahti swearing nonstop at one point and even Moore lets loose once! Also there's a pointless shots of topless women playing football (!!!). Other than that it's TV friendly. The only good thing about this was Timothy Gibbs playing Moore and Danson's teenage son. Very handsome and quite a good actor. That aside there's nothing to recommend this. You've seen it before...and done better. It's obviously been forgotten. Skip it.
2,205	[ 200, 300 ]	171	211	Well, Anne is way way too old. Wentworth looks younger than she and he should not. Louisa is much too young and too cheerful Oh sister Mary is way too pretty. She is supposed to be average, not pretty. When this actress complains the way Mary should all I think is that she is too pretty to be a complainer. Lady Russell is too Old. This is crazy. If you read the novel, she is Anne's older more mature friend, maybe as old as Annes mother would be which would be around 18-20 years older than Anne- so around 50 NOT 70! Its crazy, doesn't fit. How come Anne is so darn happy in the beginning? She smiles when she says "oh the worst is over, I've seen him now the worst has passed" yeah right. OK if anyone has seen the 1995 Roger Michell version than you cant compare these two. That one is right on. This one is way off. Read the novel and you'll know what I mean.
2,211	[ 200, 300 ]	200	242	Shwaas may have a good story, but the director is utterly devoid of talent. He does not know when to stop. When the story calls for people to act confused, there are ten minute scenes of people miming the act of confusion. When the story calls for a little background history, there are ten minute scenes of Konkan's greenery. When the story calls for a kid throwing tantrums... you get the idea. <br /><br />Not to mention the extreme closeups so that you can count people's nose hair. There are movies that should be seen on a big screen, this movie should be seen on a 13" TV. Also Amruta Subhash who plays Asavari is the worst actress I've seen in quite a long time. A normal human being would need to practise overacting for years to achieve what she does so effortlessly.<br /><br />I give it 4/10 solely because the subject matter is different, and the story is not bad. The fact that a movie like Shwaas gets to be India's entry to the Oscars tells volumes not about the state of Indian cinema but the state of Indian judging committees. A movie is not good just because its subject matter is arty.
2,216	[ 200, 300 ]	168	209	...But not this one! I always wanted to know "what happened" next. We will never know for sure what happened because GWTW was Margaret's baby. I am a lifelong fan of Gone With the Wind and I could not have been more repulsed by the movie. I did compare "Scarlett" to the original GWTW because any film worth following GWTW needed to be on the same quality level as the first. Rhett was cast beautifully, although NO ONE will ever compare to Mr. Gable. I am also a strict Vivien Leigh fan!! She WAS Scarlett. She fit the bill. Not another actress in this lifetime or another will ever fit the same shoes but with "Scarlett" the job could have been done better. Not enough thought went into finding the proper Scarlett, that was evident.<br /><br />Overall, something to look to but if you want to know the what happened to Scarlett and Rhett, I suggest writing it yourself or finding fan fiction. This movie is not worth the time.
2,218	[ 200, 300 ]	204	248	Alexandra Ripley wrote a horrible sequel to Margaret Mitchell's masterpiece book published in the 1930's. Margaret Mitchell's heirs sold out their rights and for big bucks allowed Alexandra Ripley to write a piece of junk book even worse than Barbara Cortland romance novels. I was a huge fan of Margaret Mitchells book and the fake sequel by Alexandra Ripley was written just to cash in for money.<br /><br />Although I always admired the acting talent of Joanne Kilmer and Timothy Dalton, this is a really terrible film. The script is horrible and full of clichés. Ann Margarets cameo as Belle Watling is so awful I wanted to slap her.<br /><br />The only worthwhile thing in the movie is Sean Bean who gives a masterful bravura performance as the sexy, feral villain - Lord Fenton. Sean Bean's performance is along the lines of "The Man You Love to Hate" and portrays an unsafe sex symbol.<br /><br />But Sean Bean is only in the first half of the movie so you then have to be tormented with watching an incredibly long 6 hour movie with an insufferably boring script.<br /><br />Don't waste your money on this film, unless you are a hard core Sean Bean fan and just watch it for his wonderful performance.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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