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
6,337	[ 300, 400 ]	276	354	Another sadistic and ultra-sleazy late 70's/early 80's revenge movie?? Wes Craven sure launched a popular trend with his "Last House on the Left" Although "Terror Express" is more like a rip-off of other rip-offs, like "I Spit on your Grave" and especially "Night Train Murders". Storywise, this movie has absolutely nothing new to offer so the only thing left to do for director Ferdinando Baldi was to multiply the sleaze-factor by a thousand! This is actually just a soft core porn flick that gets a little bit rough near the ending. On the night train from Rome are three hopelessly imbecile loser running amok. They provoke the male travelers and sexually harass the females. Things get a little out of control and a traveling convict comes to the rescue of a prostitute who keeps being screwed around by the three. This is a very tame movie and there wasn't even enough budget to buy a couple bags of fake blood. This type of movies is generally infamous for the brutal rape sequences and the discriminating behavior towards women, but the sex in "Terror Express" isn't unsettling at all. On the contrary, these 'rapists' spend more time orally pleasuring their victims then getting some themselves! The music is great, the dialogs are unintentionally hilarious and the characters are the most ridiculous ones I ever beheld. The villains are wimps and the train-passengers are so motionless they look like part of the set. If you like your exploitation as sleazy as it gets, this is your film. However, your hunger for blood and controversy will definitely not be stilled. "Terror Express" should be in the porn-section of videostores.
6,343	[ 300, 400 ]	305	382	I caught this movie on late-night TV. Honestly i saw most of it, and the whole time i was sitting in complete and utter disbelief.<br /><br />Is there any genre that's more pointless than soft-core porn? If there is i don't want to know about it. Softcore porn combines all the horrors of porn (lousy production values, abominable acting, crappy scripts) with the coyness of sex-scenes in regular movies. So the end result is arousing nor entertaining. This movie also has the rather odd approach of a science-fiction setting, and it works horribly. All the sex is performed in some sort of virtual reality setting where the crew from the future learn about physical love. And yes, it's about as confused and silly as it sounds.<br /><br />But there has to be some positive points though, right? Well, there is one... Krista Allen is amazingly hot. That's about the only thing that was less than awful in this movie. I don't know what it is about her, but she has an amazing sex appeal. The rest of the cast look like the standard porn-cast though. Rather unattractive women with poorly done fake breasts, and men that have spent far too much time in the gym toning themselves grotesque. Probably a gym in Germany as well judging by haircuts and clothing.<br /><br />To sum things up. If you enjoy Krista Allens presence on screen you can watch this for the brief moments where she shows some of her seductive potential (most of the time she tries to articulate crappy lines of dialog though). If you don't enjoy Krista Allen then you might as well stay away altogether.<br /><br />I rate this 10/10 for Krista Allens sex appeal, 1/10 for everything else and 2/10 for entertainment value since this is a unique crappy porn/science fiction hybrid that's not really like anything i've ever seen.
6,347	[ 300, 400 ]	270	324	Ok, where to start. I can't believe how many good reviews I read on here. I watched this (year 2004) and I had to fight to not push the stop button, I decided to continue just because of all the good reviews I read. After watching it I felt it was my duty to let the world know about this. First of all the movie seems like it is never going to begin, the plotline doesn't actually occur until about 30 minutes before the movie ends, leaving the viewer wondering, `when is this going to start' So don't ever call this a `revenge movie' because the revenge doesn't even start until over half the movie is already gone by. Furthermore, the movie tries to make you believe this is a post-apocalyptic Australia. I am sorry if showing dusty rural roads half the movie and a crooked letter on a sign didn't quite convince me of that, even for 1979 this was not science fiction. So anyways, add this on top of randomly placed homoerotic subtext and you have got yourself one crappy movie (I have nothing against gays, there was just no need for it). The only good part was the first chase scene, good directing considering it was 1979, and another good part is how he kills the last guy. So basically I recommend you watch the first 10 minutes and last 5 minutes and you will enjoy yourself much more than if you sat through all that stuff in the middle, which may lead you to gouge your own eyes out. Don't say I didn't warn you.
6,352	[ 300, 400 ]	262	351	A mild-mannered NY lawyer (George Segal) is slowly going crazy. He promised his father on his death bed that he would NEVER send their senile mother (Ruth Gordon) to a nursing home. Years later he's taking care of a senile, dangerous psychopath. He meets a beautiful nurse (Trish Van Devere) and they fall in love. But his mother keeps scaring her away. Segal is ready to kill her....<br /><br />Ummmm...THIS is a comedy? I have nothing against sick, black humor but come on...there HAS to be some limits! This movie goes out of its way to throw every tasteless sick joke it can think of and rub your face in it. Too bad none of the jokes are funny. The jokes involve rape, nudity, public humiliation, senile old people, swearing and racism. Basically this is a movie that thinks it's clever by trying to shock people and thinking they'll laugh at it. I was disgusted and didn't laugh once. The movie is morbid, disturbing and (surprisingly) dull. The cast is the only thing that kept me watching. Segal and Gordon were both wonderful in their roles--Gordon especially. And Van Devere is pretty good also. But the script is against them. The only interesting thing (not funny) was a pointless courtroom scene with Rob Reiner Jr. (and try to spot his then-wife Penny Marshall as a spectator).<br /><br />Actually this movie could have been worse--the original ending had Segal getting into bed with his MOTHER and pretending he's poppa! That was (thankfully) changed.<br /><br />A real lousy, sick film. Bottom of the barrel. I give it a 1.
6,367	[ 300, 400 ]	279	328	I like all of the main actors involved in this quite bizarre film. Terrance Stamp, Guy Pearce & Hugo Weaving have all proved themselves as some of the best & most capable actors around, but I could not get into this. I don't know if it's because I don't understand the lifestyle or what, but I could not get my head around this film. Worse than anything is that the actors made some of the ugliest drag queens I've ever seen. I think that was part of the point, I don't know. I realize that is probably an insult, but I don't know what else to call them. I must say I bought the guys as the performers (the correct term?) but the story just wasn't very good or very interesting either. I will say that I can't usually appreciate costume designers very well, although I notice them when they are wrong or out of place, but I was very much impressed with these. Very creative to say the least, just not attractive, but I don't think they're supposed to be. I don't know I am definitely not the target audience and would never go see a performance done by these kind of performers, but I wouldn't go see ballet, or opera either so I don't know. If this is your kind of film then you will probably like it, but if it's not skip it because it is...well not for most of us. I just checked it won the Oscar for costume design & I will say rightfully so. I must say Ebert didn't care much for this film either, though he liked it better than I did.
6,369	[ 300, 400 ]	320	385	"Priscilla, Queen of the Desert" is always being trotted out as a masterpiece of Australian cinema. I found it quite disappointing. The lead actors are great - Terence Stamp is aging beautifully, Guy Pearce should do more comedy instead of the dour roles he chooses and I've been a fan of Hugo Weaving since I saw him play Oberon eons ago. The cinematography is great, but if you've ever been to the Australian outback, you'd know that the air is so clear and the light so brilliant that they could have shot it on the movie equivalent of a Box Brownie and it still would have looked spectacular.<br /><br />So what's my problem? Well, three things. First, there is not a sympathetic female character in the whole film. A woman who has to earn her living shooting ping pong balls out of her privates in a roadside pub deserves our sympathy. Tick's wife doesn't get much better treatment.<br /><br />Second, the scene when they sing "I Will Survive" to a group of Aboriginals is offensive. To try to draw any sort of parallel between the struggles of drag queens and trannies and the almost total destruction of Aboriginal culture, which is what I assume the scene is supposed to do, shows a level of historical understanding worthy of Paris Hilton.<br /><br />Last of all, and the greatest defect of the film is that it just isn't funny enough. Did Stephan Elliott actually talk to any drag queens when writing the film? Anyone who knows a drag queen (or three or four) knows that most of them have rapier-like wits and they're not afraid to use them. Now, I can understand that a lot of drag queen banter probably would have got the film refused classification but Elliott should have been able to gather enough "fit for the kiddies" material to complete his film.<br /><br />So, all in all, a waste of a good idea and a great cast.
6,383	[ 300, 400 ]	287	361	The funniest thing about Fortunes is that one of the main characters, Lewis (Urbaniak) has writer's block and apparently so did the screenplay writer for the film. This is sad, as well, as I guess by large, this is supposed to be a comedy, or dramedy, but that's the funniest thing I can remember from watching this.<br /><br />Three friends go out and drink one night. On the way home, two decide to get their fortunes told by a "gypsy," as they call her. Those two lives fall apart while the third friend stands by. Then, nothing happens.<br /><br />I hope I didn't spoil the movie there, but really, this extremely low-budget, bad quality movie had some kind of idea when it started but quickly snowballed into the depths of hell. Yeah, I'm being harsh. Honestly, it wasn't that bad, it was just blah.<br /><br />The aforementioned writer was annoying to watch, though he delivered maybe one or two of the only two funny lines. The clichéd "ladies man," the only one that didn't get his fortune told was just annoying. The only bright spot, was the remaining friend, the married dad whose fortune was told that something big was to happen to his son and he needed to be prepared. He was funny, genuine and clearly the best actor in the movie. Unfortunately, that's not saying much.<br /><br />Perhaps I'm being too cruel. Heck, they got the ambition to make a movie, went and got funding and accomplished something. Unfortunately, however, I can't at all recommend the film on the basis, there's hundreds of thousands of other independent movies that have hundreds of thousands better ideas and executions. This one was literally 10 minutes of an idea stretched another 81 boring minutes.
6,396	[ 300, 400 ]	286	353	After watching the Steven Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds in theaters, I was hooked on the topic. I could think back to my favorite parts in the movie, people getting vaporized, people panicking, fire, explosions, it was all so great...<br /><br />So a few weeks later I enter my video store, and I see David Michael Latt's version of War Of The Worlds on the shelf. "It couldn't have come onto DVD, that fast, could it?" I said to myself. I read the back of the case and saw C. Thomas Howell, instead. "Oh, I remember him from The Outsiders!" So I thought, it might have been a try.<br /><br />I was wrong, dead wrong. As soon as I watched the opening credits, watched them take forever, I knew something was wrong. Something was going to disappoint me in this film and it did. The whole movie stunk like a cheese sauce that was left in the fridge for 10 years. From the acting, the special effects (stupid looking tripod things, when people get vaporized they turn into orange skeletons), and most of all, it didn't even come close to being as interesting as the Spielberg version, in fact, the plot was boring, and there were only 3 scenes of destruction! What the crap? I ended up being so bored, that I had to fast forward through the movie until I found something that looked even remotely interesting. And nothing was really.<br /><br />My advice: Don't even touch this movie, stay 100 feet away from it. The Spielberg version is coming out near the end of this month, buy that one! But please, please, I beg of you! Stay away from this turd before it smothers us all!
6,400	[ 300, 400 ]	250	320	Let's get one thing straight; This was BAD! So Putrid that it doesn't even qualify to be imprinted on anyone's memories.<br /><br />The ever repeating storyline (who's constant recycling of not only jokes but story lines and character appearances.) A typical storyline goes as follows; Sue (the mother) opens the episode quoting on how she loves her baby son but smells awful (As if THAT doesn't get old! har-de-bloody-har!), some Australian quasi-nationalist "bogan" -look it up- appears to say how she thinks she's awesome because she's an ozzie while everything/everyone else that isn't sucks before disappearing for the rest of the episode. (a small mercy)<br /><br />The rest of the plot revolves around the father (Gary) getting in some kind of disagreement with Sue and him talking to members of his band for advice on how to sort it out.<br /><br />The phrase "words fail me" is an old one but this is where it is the most truthful thing to say. It is so incredibly BAD! So HORRIBLE, that I would like every trace of it's existence sent to the lowest depths of the North sea and life can go on.<br /><br />It saddens me though, to see someone as good as Sally Bretton (good actress, I like her) make a prat out of herself, Ardal O Hanlon (My Hero aside) has the ability to be pretty funny - but not here - and Ben Elton, distinguished for so much good stuff somehow manages to come up with this...thing then comedy is in very serious trouble!
6,401	[ 300, 400 ]	298	373	OK, first off there may be a SPOILER here since i don't know what constitutes giving out too much information. My subject line says it all but surely people will want to know WHY it's so stupid.<br /><br />First off, this film follows a bunch of Yuppies as they go to a sports game in Chicago but wind up taking the wrong exit and winding up in the ghetto. Scary, huh? Well, first of all, Emilio is driving everyone in the world's most overblown RV/Winnebago, tricked out with satellite dishes and crap like that on it. So these guys are GOING to a sports game (i forget which, though likely the Bulls or the White Sox since they're near the oh-so-scary ghetto), yet they can't even make it down the freeway without having an onboard viewing command center that would put ESPN to shame. Yet they're smart enough to earn livings that would pay for the stuff, but are such sports fans that they don't even know which exit to get off at on their way to the game they so love.<br /><br />I gave up on the movie within a half hour after that, but the reasons were plentiful. They wind up IN THE GHETTO, yet their main danger to their existence is DENIS LEARY. A WHITE GUY. I'm no racist, but COME ON. In anything RESEMBLING reality - and this film WAS trying to be an urban nightmare - Denis Leary would not be trying to kill Emilio Estevez, he'd be hitching a ride to get the f*** out of Dodge himself!!!<br /><br />This is easily one of the dumbest movies ever created, although I'm not familiar with much of the rest of the world's cinema. If MST3K were still on, they surely would have devoted an episode to this one.
6,422	[ 300, 400 ]	251	305	Okay, so this was made way back in 1993. Directed loosely by Robert Iscove and written loosely by John Miglis, it's supposed to be based on a true story. Hard to believe anyone could be so stupid and blind to the truth. For certainly it was obvious from the beginning that this dame was after all she could get.<br /><br />Tim Matheson, looking somewhat older than I remember him, played the empty headed man who was looking for romance in his somewhat dull and empty life. Well, it came to him in the likes of Tracy Pollan, a somewhat vacant looking girl with kinky sex as her means of conquering her guys.<br /><br />Come on, phone sex, even in the 90s was old hat. Can't believe someone would fall for that old line. But Mr. Matheson seemed to buy it. And it cost him plenty. <br /><br />The hardest scene to take was when he finally threw the dame out of his apartment, putting all her junk in the hallway (IN FRONT OF HIS APARTMENT) and then had the stupidity not to change the locks. That's when I had enough of this trite movie. It made me want to wish the dame had tried it on me so I could have the satisfaction of telling her to take a hike.<br /><br />I give this chestnut a 1 out of 100. That's how bad I thought it was. I guess you can't blame the actors. But they were awful. Did they actually try to play this with a straight face?
6,430	[ 300, 400 ]	233	323	I saw this ego-centric "effort" at achieving a film of "epic" status in the company of several native Russian family members. Five people gave 5 different reactions, from Mikhalkov worship to my cynicism.<br /><br />I saw a movie that looked like Mikhalkov took a lot of "Canal +" money, put some of it in his (and other's) pockets and turned the project over to a bunch of film students. I counted at least 4 different "styles" in the movie. There is no way that the same director is responsible for these different scenes. Contrast these for yourself:<br /><br />·Cadets polishing shoes with a dog.<br /><br />·Train station scene (saying goodbye to Andrei).<br /><br />·Outdoor panorama shots.<br /><br />·Ormond talking through the keyhole.<br /><br />·Initial attempt on the Grand Duke and later chase scenes to get Andrei back to sing in Figaro.<br /><br />·Fencing sequence<br /><br />Julia Ormond is faster than superman. Learning about his transfer belatedly, she gets all the way across Moscow in one minute to say goodbye to Andrei.<br /><br />The Russian natives felt that the impression given of Russian life was "caricature" and not history. They called it "tourist postcard" Russia.<br /><br />They were all proud that a Russian director/producer/fixer has managed to break into the "big time" and be able to waste over 30 million dollars of other people's money while maybe putting a little into local pockets during filming.<br /><br />If you want to "think" you have seen Russia go see this movie. Drink some coffee before you go.
6,464	[ 300, 400 ]	274	349	On one Thursday evening at 10:00pm, my local west coast ABC affiliate aired the pilot episode of "Northern Exposure". The ABC Network usually airs "Men In Trees" in that time slot but the program was preempted for a live sporting event.<br /><br />Despite both shows are set in Alaska and filmed on location in the Pacific Northwest (Exposure in Washington state, Trees in Vancouver, BC), re-watching "Northern Exposure" (as well as few episodes of "Sex and the City") reminds me how disappointed I am with the poorly conceived hybrid "Men in Trees". <br /><br />Anne Heche can be a good actress with the right material. Unfortunately her role as a writer who ends up in a small town in Alaska grates on my nerves. Perhaps because I feel that Heche is miscast, I am not convinced of her "fish-out-of-water" character.<br /><br />I also cannot help but feel that the supporting cast fits the typical quirky stereotypes. The hot-looking local, the kindly bar owner, the bush pilot, the local police officers, the dim but well-intentioned radio DJ, etc.<br /><br />The only stereotype that may have been broken was teddy bear and veteran "ER" actor Abraham Benrubi as the local bartender in love with two different women. Considering that one of the executive producers is filmmaker James Mangold, (his movies "Heavy" and "Cop Land" had lead characters who were large men) then I am not surprised why Benrubi was cast in a non-typical role.<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can see why there are a lot of dedicated viewers who love "Men in Trees". It fits the quirky niche for television audiences. I wished the show could find its own voice instead of borrowing ideas from better shows.
6,475	[ 300, 400 ]	271	349	Ill-tempered, verbally abusive movie studio chief runs his male assistant ragged with nit-picking requests, keeping the young man firmly under his thumb with constant threats of unemployment; after a year of office-terror, the working stiff finally cracks. Writer-director George Huang has possibly bit off more than he can chew here. His "Swimming With Sharks" isn't a diatribe against Hollywood, nor is it a tribute to the hard-working underling...instead, it's stunt film-making with a twist, a one-trick pony with tunnel-vision. The surroundings don't look or feel like Tinsel Town (perhaps due to a limited budget), and we never get a sense of this stressful environment as a movie-making entity (it could be a realtor's office in the Valley, for all we know). Lead Kevin Spacey, who also served as one of the film's producers, gives a controlled and focused performance as the power-mad mogul whose ego is out of control; he does good work, and yet the character doesn't ring true. We learn so little about him and his acquaintances that his important position and high-ranking status fail to jibe with what we do see; who does this man answer to? what drives him beyond humiliating others for sport? what projects is he juggling aside from the one script we see passed around? The film is so emotionally stunted and underpopulated, it begins to seem like a stage-play padded out for the big screen--and yet one without enough characters or motivations in it. Perhaps Huang wanted to keep things simple, but instead his movie looks like a half-baked project which needed a lot more insight, humor, and atmosphere. from **
6,484	[ 300, 400 ]	286	327	My wife and I watched this abortion from its beginning. I hated it immediately but my wife became hooked on it for a couple of years.For me it just got worse and worse and the characters were all without question dreary and depressing without any redeeming features. My wife then grew tired of it and we stopped watching altogether. Occasionally I catch a clip of it or pass through it when channel surfing.There is always someone yelling at someone else or doing something dreadful. There never seems to be any lighter moments or happiness of any kind. That was always my main gripe with it when we first watched it- no humour. The writers seem to have no idea about drama - they seem to think conflict IS drama, and of course that is only one element of it. Light and shade is sorely needed and actors who can bring something to it. I am sure the actors in Eastenders are competent but they have nothing to work with. It must be the most depressing acting job in showbiz. I fail to understand why the British public watch it and love it. What on earth does it say about our psyche? I have heard it said that it is "just like real life"-its nothing like my life or anyone's life I know, otherwise we would be flinging ourselves from high buildings or under public transport. The themes it tackles are far from family viewing but still are shown pre-watershed. I love series like Breaking Bad or The Wire but I would not expect to see them at 7.30 or 8.00 in the evening. The programme is trash writ large and should be avoided at all cost.
6,493	[ 300, 400 ]	284	377	Now the television schedules (in England, at least) are crammed with home improvement, bargain-hunting, house-hunting and cookery shows in the afternoons, the chances of any of the terrestrial broadcasters digging out a complete obscurity like this to occupy a couple of hours of screen time on a slow afternoon are slender, to say the least. But back in the eighties, the BBC did just that, and guess what, I watched it. And it's a testament to the overwhelming weirdness of this Hungarian-American co-production that I can still remember large chunks of it, over twenty years later. To begin with, the eponymous hero appears briefly during the opening titles, only to vanish again for at least half an hour. (Imagine AN American TAIL re-edited so Feivel is nowhere to be seen, and you'll appreciate how confusing this is.) There's a supremely bizarre bit of animation where one of the characters gets his elaborately waxed moustache tweaked and stretched, complete with a boingy sound effect that causes him to go boss-eyed. Probably hilarious if you're stoned, but to a child, quite disturbing. Speaking of which, the infamous 'hippo cull' scene is represented in an abstract manner - clouds in vague hippo shapes are struck by lightning - but it's still pretty unpleasant. In fact, this film is pretty cold and uninvolving throughout, a sad state of affairs hardly helped by the strange-looking production design, all muddy colours, wobbly lines, bloated forms and that uniquely European bleakness reminiscent of Jan Svankmajer, only not as compelling. Then, to cap it all, we get songs by the Osmonds! This isn't so much an awful film as a deeply misguided one, not so much phantasmagorical as a rather bad trip.
6,519	[ 300, 400 ]	336	398	Not just because of that theme in the movie. Which was one of the lame excuses for something reminiscent of plot. No.<br /><br />I watched this, knowing I would not like it. I HATE numerology. Whenever someone starts going off about patterns with numbers I feel the urge to slap them. My own brain starts hurting out of empathy. And fully aware this is a movie just about that topic, I couldn't resist the urge to watch it and maybe get a good laugh. But it wasn't funny. Just exactly the dumb sort of "Isn't this totally scary and yet amazingly cool?! I can turn any crap into 23!" dialog I was afraid of. As soon as the son started to chime in, I knew this movie is a turd, no matter what happens. But I hardly ever stop watching a movie I started. I sat through it. I enjoy the pain.<br /><br />The movie pretends to mock numerology under the disguise of showing how obsession can end badly. But it rides that wave as much as it's supposed to crush it. I don't see that message. I only see characters raving about a stupid number with little plot to justify. <br /><br />Top that off with the usual "surprises" - trying to put another twist to throw you off, that makes no sense, and you almost believe it due to the quality of the narration up to there - and you get one hollow piece of movie-making. That just happens to be centered around the topic I despise. If only it did not try to be serious and rather had been some hilarious movie with actors I don't give a damn about. But I was starting to like Carrey...while it's not his fault, he is trying. It's not even good for watching with a bunch of friends and mst3k the hell out of it.<br /><br />My expectations were low enough for someone to trip on them, but this movie managed to live up to be one of the worst I've ever seen.
6,527	[ 300, 400 ]	301	374	This takes place on Fire Island back in the 1970s. A couple Peter (Craig Dudley) and Buddy (J. Will Deane) are throwing a 4th of July party at their house. Unfortunately their relationship is falling apart and they have to get ready for a house full of very strange guests. The rest of the movie chronicles the party and what happens between Peter and Buddy.<br /><br />OK--I'm a gay man but I was 8 back when this was made. If this is a true view of what gay life was in the 1970s, I'm glad I wasn't around. From the puzzling opening credits which shows kids playing in the sand (???) this movie slides slowly into disaster. There's a guru (Robert Case) who talks nonstop about nothing of any importance. I wanted to gag the guy halfway into his first LONG speech. There's the young kid Danny who is there for his first time. There's the lesbian couple (who do nothing--except one strips for no reason). There's the leather queen. Worst of all is the effeminate man named Jimmy (Jimmy Foster). We're introduced to him and his friend (whose name I never got) when they get a flat tire. They basically scream and screech for 10 minutes and have NO idea how to fix a flat. I know some people find this funny but I found it offensive and pretty sad. The party itself is full of people you would never want to know. It's like being dumped in a party full of bad actors playing obnoxious people. With the sole exception of Dudley no one can act.<br /><br />This may be valuable as a portrait of what Fire Island was like in the 1970s...but it's pretty dull viewing. This gets a 2 only for the frequent male nudity of some very nice bodies.
6,548	[ 300, 400 ]	280	348	Yes, the votes are in. This film may very well be the Plan 9 From Outer Space for our generation. But whereas Ed Wood's film, for all its flaws, retains a certain charm despite it all, this film defines the word "charmless" to the nth degree. In fact, I'd suggest to the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary to cite this movie as a key example defining the that word in the next update to the dictionary.<br /><br />Carrot Top is a performer of such abysmal ability that normally rational people that I know once they hear his name become homicidal maniacs dedicated to wanting to kill Mr. Top as soon as possible. Indeed, if one goes to Amazon.com and look at customer reviews for Carrot Top's movie and other performance DVD, one will find several that could be construed as death threats to Mr. Top.<br /><br />One other curious fact about this film, I recall that Mike Nelson, the head writer for MST 3000, in his book Mike's Mega Cheese about movies, good and bad, said he saw this film and shortly afterwords couldn't recall a thing about it, including the title. Obviously Mike was suffering a classic reaction to trauma. Viewing this atrocity was so soul numbing, Mike Nelson had to block it from his mind. (Evidently, in a later chapter in his book, Mike Nelson had recovered his memeory of this film. From the review he offers, Mike Nelson was definitely not grateful for the recovered memory.)<br /><br />The only comment I offer about the film, and it is not a spoiler, it's simply God's honest truth, it's not funny. None of it is, not even a nanosecond of it is funny.
6,570	[ 300, 400 ]	306	373	This movie probably seemed like a great idea in pre-production. "Let's make a movie about one of the greatest and most controversial athletic coaches of the modern era! And let's cast Brian Dennehey as Coach Bobby Knight!" That's where this movie went terribly wrong. Why cast an actor who bears no semblance of the man he's portraying? And then, why let this actor turn his character into not Coach Knight, but Brian Dennehey in a red sweater? As I sat watching this movie on ESPN, I didn't find myself believing this man was actually Coach Knight. He didn't look like him, talk like him, act like him, or even walk like him. I could not get past this fact, and thusly, I could not enjoy the movie. When Paul Newman and Robert Redford were cast as the outlaws Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, we didn't care if they were accurate historical models of their true characters because most of us had never even heard of these men until we saw the movie. But, with someone as visible in today's media as Coach Knight, you have to do better. When Anthony Hopkins was cast as Nixon, it was the same situation. But, Anthony Hopkins made us believe he in fact was Nixon. Dennehey didn't even try. What might have been a great movie was turned sour by this. Besides the fact that this movie tried to do for the four-letter word what "Saving Private Ryan" did for dismemberment, it stunk. Too little of the real Coach Knight and too much profanity for the sake of shock value turned this movie into a "season to turn off half-way through the broadcast." The only good thing about this is that it was television movie. I didn't have to waste my hard-earned money on this piece of trash.
6,575	[ 300, 400 ]	272	306	Brodzki's creation is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. First there was a book written with a great humor. Book that has numerous fans who would be happy to supply help when producers for some reasons decided to employ people who hardly heard of the book in the first place. Then came a script as humorless and full of nonsense as possible. At the same time the script was written in a way to allow only those who actually had read the books to understand anything of the plot. Not that anything in this movie made much sense anyway(ex. "I'm like an ice shard. You can burn yourself" said Yennefer as a word of warning - warning that logic is something this movie seriously lacks). To add to that we have to mention that no matter the amount of money that was supposedly spent on the movie everything looks like an amateur production with two (2) computer effects one of which is a see-through dragon. Even the costumes look as if the were borrowed from a really poor theater. That is the better ones look this way. And to add to that we have a few 'naked scenes' put there only so they will be in the film because they have no explanation in what one may mercifully call plot. The movie has only one strength that can hardly make up for the rest - music is not bad. Though if I was to choose I'd prefer to have it separately. It sounds better if you don't have to look at this failure of super production.
6,581	[ 300, 400 ]	240	317	Usually when a television biopic is released on a celebrity, its, at the very least, campy (i.e. Cybill Shepherd as Martha Stewart, Lauren BaCall as Doris Duke), this is the most horrendous, cheap, and BORING television movie ever made. If VH-1 is going to make a television film, they have GOT to spend a little more money on them. Flex Alexander--though gifted with the Michael voice--is not a great dancer, does not resemble Michael one bit, and does not even have his mannerisms down. VH-1 would have done better by hiring an actual impersonator, that way when see Michael go into get plastic surgery, he doesn't actually come out looking EXACTLY the same. Why should we be taken aback at the shrinking of Michael's nose when its exactly the same size as in the beginning of the film? The woman playing Elizabeth Taylor cannot act and looks nothing like her, and don't even get me started on the woman as Janet Jackson. Terrible script and a severe case of miscasting needs to keep VH-1 from producing any more movies. Flex Alexander would have made a much better JERMAINE JACKSON rather than Michael. Costumes? Trashy ripoffs. Neverland? Spliced together footage from news docs. Don't bother with this one....its not even remotely worth it. The one good piece of casting--the actor portraying Joseph Jackson and MAYBE the actress as Lisa Marie Presley, though she should have been more tomboy than girlie girl.
6,589	[ 300, 400 ]	306	372	Where the hell did VH1 find the scriptwriter for this movie??? Out of high school? This movie tries so hard to be sympathetic to Michael Jackson, but instead, turns him into a horrible, tacky caricature. All the lines are filled with clichés but surprisingly the acting wasn't bad. As usual, this is a bad movie with pretty good actors. The actor that plays Michael Jackson, jeez, I feel sorry for him! I think he did the best he could with the weak script. I didn't mind that Flex did not look like Michael Jackson, I thought he did the best he could, but later on when he had all that white make-up on, oh man, did he look yucky! The other actors that played Debbie Rowe, Priscilla Presley and Elizabeth Taylor were pretty good. Except that the actress that plays Liz Taylor looked too young and healthy to be playing Liz. The actress that plays Diana Ross didn't look at all like her and I couldn't figure out who this woman was until much later on in the movie.<br /><br />This movie does a disservice to everyone who is on the side of Michael Jackson, or against Michael Jackson. It doesn't do anything to change anyone's opinion. As a matter of fact, the only opinion anyone will have after watching this movie is, oh God, this movie really, really sucks! And where the hell is Michael Jackson's wonderful music and songs? There are none to be found in this movie. I love the soundtrack to this movie anyway and I'll probably purchase it if I could.<br /><br />On the lighter side though, this is a very funny, campy movie! It's a great time waster if you want to watch something light that won't trouble your brain too much. I'll probably watch it again, because it just is so entertainingly bad!
6,600	[ 300, 400 ]	264	319	Much like Final Fantasy, if you look at a still shot - it doesn't look so bad. But when the people start moving, it's utterly horrifying. Uneven jerky motions, frightening lack of emotion, and lack of a feel of life in the face gives me the creeps. The characters do not even appear ALIVE/organic.<br /><br />I saw a preview screening with my daughter, who actually fell asleep! She was not at all engaged. For the record, I thought her to be easily engaged by both Pixar-esque films as well as a number of the 'bad' 2D films like Sinbad.<br /><br />The lighting is painful, giving the children the appearance of holding a flashlight under their chin at a campfire. The lip syncing is bad - worse actually than Final Fantasy. <br /><br />I also seriously question having Hanks play five characters.... this was a major distraction throughout the film. The role of the conductor is eerie - although in a way I just can't pinpoint. It reminds me of my father's fake "phone" voice when greeting clients.<br /><br />I think this is why the multiple roles are distracting - you are accutely aware that the voice is the same, but yet distinctly different. It gives each character the feel of being ACTED, as opposed to being real human characters. The illusion of reality is broken by the multiple role playing of Hanks. I've seen the technique work - a la Eddie Murphy, but Hanks just can't come close to pulling it off with a voice alone, given the horrifying animation.<br /><br />I would not waste my money on this - wait for the rental.
6,606	[ 300, 400 ]	304	364	What is it with studios like Paramount that have a proven hit film series on their hands, and figure it can screw around with the budget and formula? Paramount spent less on this film than they did on TMP, which doesn't sound bad until you realize that there's a 10 gap between when the films were made. The $40 TMP cost to make would be equivalent to about $75 million in 1989. This film is the reason that Shatner has never been given a fair chance to direct other films, as well. Every time he turned around, the studio was slashing the budget and making demands regarding the storyline. The fact that this was the one storyline that Roddenberry and Shatner could agree upon for the most part made the freshman directorial task tough enough, but after all the machinations were done, all anyone ended up with was an uneven story and a load of badly executed special effects not worthy of the original series, much less a major motion picture. The most glaring examples: - All of the Phaser effects were severely ashed out and fake-looking. - The shot of the Enterprise going into the great barrier was so obviously a still-frame shot being zoomed away from. At least the popsicle stick that held the Enterprise cut out up was successfully matted out. - God "chasing" Kirk up the mountain... Egads, they may as well have just cut in shots of Godzilla climbing the volcano at the end of "Godzilla 1985," and used thumbtacks to scratch the emulsion off of the film to make electric bolts come out of his eyes at the imperiled Captain Kirk.... Yes, friends, I have a real problem with the look of that last scene, especially.<br /><br />Thank goodness Star Trek VI was such a redeemer of a film...
6,616	[ 300, 400 ]	309	368	While Star Trek the Motion Picture was mostly boring, Star Trek The Final Frontier is plain bad. In this terrible sequel, the crew is on shore leave when they get a distress signal from the Federation that ambassadors representing Earth, Romulus and Kronos (the Klingon home world) have been kidnapped by a renegade Vulcan bent on his quest to attain a starship to venture into the great barrier. There, he hopes to find God. Using mysticism and bad writing, he persuades many of the senior officers of the Enterprise to betray Kirk and get a hold of the ship. They do reach the inside of the great barrier and find a planet where they do meet a god-like alien. This one is so bad it is hard to figure out where to begin. At the core is a good idea that is never really developed. The plot goes nowhere instead of where no man has gone before. It is almost like the writers had no idea how to end this fiasco. The action scenes don't have the suspense of Wrath of Kahn, the philosophy is boring, and the humor is stale. Now I will focus most of my anger on William Shatner. When he takes the director's chair, the ego gets bigger. Most of the focus is on him, Spock, and McCoy, but does not give the others enough to do. Moreover, whereas Shatner is usually guilty of over-acting in previous movies and television spots, he is just plain bad in this one. Now Kirk is reckless, a practical jokers, and silly. One of the worst scenes involves the three leaders singing the song, "Row Row Row your Boat" in a round by a campfire. In any case, this is the worst of the Star Trek franchise. I should have given it three out of ten instead of five.
6,656	[ 300, 400 ]	230	306	I watched this film with a group of friends at the 1999 Melbourne International Film Festival and no-one had a good word for it.<br /><br />I happen to love Bluegrass and Country Music so it's not as if I'm unsympathetic to the subject matter. But the problem is that at heart it's a very conservative movie- little more than a filmed Mills and Boon story. A bodice-ripper of the most simple-minded and soppy kind.<br /><br />It's not just that the love story at its heart, that between Reece and Dr. Lily Penleric is more than a tad unbelievable. (Why any male would be attracted to the nostril-flaring man-devouring Lily is beyond me, and frankly, Mike Harding as Reece seems to be just going through the motions).<br /><br />It's simply that the whole movie is too tame and well-mannered for its own good. There is precious little danger, dirt or drama. Sure there's a moment of "excitement" involving a school run by Lily's younger sister, but this whole episode is funnier than it is dramatic (it's just so poorly written and acted). And the movie betrays its conservative agenda in the manner in which this subplot is resolved.<br /><br />As for good old Reece Kinkaid (now, what's wrong with a name like Eberneezer Bumpass?) I ask you! Is the ending of this film believable? Fitting in with the character this film had earlier constructed? I think not...
6,684	[ 300, 400 ]	261	318	I was completely mislead by the comments on this film, mainly by someone saying they saw it at a film festival and loved every minute of it. Expecting this to be a nice run of the mill American pie style film, I was deeply disappointed.<br /><br />Firstly the camera work is awful, I don't think the director knows that cameras can move around scenes rather than stay still and having the actors move close up and far away of their own accord.<br /><br />Secondly the scenery! My god I've seen more furnishings in a bird's nest. The club was totally unconvincing with around 3 extras dancing in the back ground at any one time. The flats were bare and lacked personality.<br /><br />Thirdly the actors. Wow. The director obviously went for the typical "Reaper" character set up, a wimpy main character with a gruff "I don't give a f**k" character that takes pot shots at the main. Everything the main character said and did was a chore, so much so it made me wince.<br /><br />Overall the plot, the supposedly big revenge theme, lasted for about 30 seconds and lacked any real motivation. The characters acted irrationally and didn't seem to have any real relationship with anyone else. No character had any depth to them, they may as well have been cardboard cut outs walking past the static camera.<br /><br />A truly horrible piece, worse than a first year students 2 minute short for youtube. Advice to the director? Change your name and deny any association with the film that will probably sell one copy at a yard sale in Ohio.
6,701	[ 300, 400 ]	295	373	This has got to be THE worst Steven Segal movie I have ever watched (even worse than eco-piffle like On Deadly Ground & Fire Down Below). I'll start with the good points..., It's got stylish direction for a DTV movie and has wonderful scenry... That's it! The story dosen't really go anywhere, it's just an array of well staged set pieces just so seagal go shoot bad guys (the body count can easily match Tarantino at his bloodiest!). The plot is needlessly complicated and confusing you forget who the good and bad guys are. The acting (I use the term loosely) is mediocre at best, seagal's usual ONE constipated expression and wooden acting I can take but the others especially the Brits were down right terrible.<br /><br />What's in the package? Why are bad guys after it? Is seagal being set up?<br /><br />WHO GIVES A S***!<br /><br />When I rented this movie at my local Blockbuster (Once i'd paid) the assistant laughed at me and said it was the worst movie in the shop I could have picked! (I felt like punching him till my arm went numb)<br /><br />Anyway, I haven't seen Half Past Dead or Out for a kill yet and i daren't go back for more humiliation at my store, but they can't be anyworse than this turkey<br /><br />The soundtrack is supposed to be young and hip - It just gave me a suuden urge for half a dozen asprins.<br /><br />All in all this is Seagal at his WORST! The guy who's gained about 100Ibs and looks well past it, he's a guy who just doesn't no when to stop, he should retire gracefully NOW! and have a go behind the camera or become a Martial arts teacher or something.<br /><br />My rating 2/10 (1 point for scenery)
6,704	[ 300, 400 ]	292	342	If I could have given this film 0/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.
6,721	[ 300, 400 ]	237	302	Lord have mercy! Why was this film made? Why did Seagal and rising star Max Ryan agree to be in it? The Foreigner is so excruciatingly bad in every conceivable way that it boggles the mind.<br /><br />The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).<br /><br />And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?<br /><br />The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!
6,731	[ 300, 400 ]	301	354	This movie starts out with this creepy song that gave me some chills like the song used in "Nightmare on Elmstreet"! It immediately sets the mood! The sequence that follows also shows what to expect! We are made aware that a ghost is present! The mystery concerning this ghost is what keeps this movie together! But the structure of the plot is so complex that it is difficult to make sense of it! The ideas behind the plot are quite interesting! Only the way it is told to us is far too abstract! I understand that the director believed that he had to maintain the mystery as long as possible! The problem is that when certain matters get revealed you never get a satisfying explanation! The motives of the important characters are left out and some questions raised in the movie don't get answered at all! Since we don't learn enough about the characters it becomes hard to care for them! And as a consequence you will loose interest! Only some scares and a twist save this movie from becoming a total failure! The twist is interesting but no real shocker! The experienced viewer will see it coming! Some reviewers complain that this movie is too much like "Ringu" and is not original at all! Well it is true that some of the effects and scares are borrowed from that movie! But there is a main difference! The suspense in "Ringu" mainly was based on this one twist where the viewer finds out how the characters get killed!! In "Ryeong" (the "Ringu" like) twist is used as a creepy effect to accompany another crazy twist! "Ryeong" heavily depends on a complex structured plot and twist that doesn't contain enough scares to hold your interest! Simply put: This isn't a scary movie!
6,737	[ 300, 400 ]	285	340	I'm assuming the filmmakers heart was in the right place but, frankly, this movie is truly unconscionable. I was offended by the tone and the total cop out ending. You cannot take issues like this so lightly! Without knowing the final caveat of the movie... we watch as a guy guns down his 9 month pregnant wife and two sons and are supposed to follow him for the next 2+ hours as he tries to establish a new life?? You cannot have sympathy for a character who does this. Cannot! Not to mention, we're given nothing until the last say 1/2 hour of this unnecessarily long movie, as to why this guy is suffering so much. No flashbacks, no sudden reactions to noise or movement - stuff that real vets are suffering from. All we know is he has a pain in the ass wife and can't financially take care of her and his 3 kids. There really didn't seem to be any research whatsoever into what current Iraq vets are going through.<br /><br />Additionally, the movie suffers tremendously from a heavy handed and totally inappropriate score. Its a catastrophe. It is truly harmful to some actually good acting on the part of the male lead and at times Joe Morton. It foreshadows EVERYTHING you're supposed to feel, and sometimes gives you the wrong clues entirely! Again, this was a brutal thing this guy did, and so seeing him get a new job, meet a new blonde, struggle behind the counter making toast is NOT appropriate! And really, the ending? What a freakin cop out! How dare you.<br /><br />There are far richer films dealing with the affects of war on returning soldiers, please don't bother with this one.
6,744	[ 300, 400 ]	323	383	<br /><br />I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.<br /><br />In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.<br /><br />There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.<br /><br />No better than a 2/10 in my opinion.
6,760	[ 300, 400 ]	274	327	STAR RATING: *** Saturday Night Friday Night * Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning <br /><br />As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.<br /><br />The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **
6,763	[ 300, 400 ]	270	314	Unlike what one reviewer said this is NOT a ripoff of Magnum Force. In that one Lieutenant Hal Holbrook put together his own little squad from Academy rookies to dispatch repeat offenders. In Extreme Justice this operation has the sanction from the higher ups of the LAPD. Just how far they sanction the exact methods used is open to question. <br /><br />This Special Investigations Squad seems to be quite the haven for the misfits of the LAPD, those that have forgotten their first duty is protection and service. Which is why Scott Glenn thinks Lou Diamond Phillips, a detective with more than his share of beefs with Internal Affairs for excessive use of force, is perfect for the squad.<br /><br />What should have sent him running from Phillips is the fact he's got a nice live-in relationship with a reporter, Chelsea Field. That one certainly threw me in this film, you'd think that Lou would be the last guy he'd try to recruit for his team.<br /><br />And what his team is, is a death squad. They target perpetrators follow them and wait to catch them in the act. Then it's open season.<br /><br />Extreme Justice went very overboard in trying to make a point. There sure would have been no harm in waiting for a gang of bank robbers to finish the robbery and taking them down outside. No civilians got hurt when the citizens of Coffeyville did that to the Daltons. Or waiting until three rapists finish the job before moving in. That's what were asked to believe here.<br /><br />And frankly I couldn't buy it. A lot of good players get really wasted in this one.
6,774	[ 300, 400 ]	249	344	There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever<br /><br />I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series.
6,778	[ 300, 400 ]	281	372	I watched "Gristle" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the "F" word.<br /><br />It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful "Bamboozled" looks good in comparison.<br /><br />This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really "finished." I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since.
6,780	[ 300, 400 ]	257	303	Exceptionally bad! I don't expect much from Garcia since he is one of the most overrated actors today but Keaton really should have known this movie would suck and gotten out while he could (not that I'm especially fond of him but hey, he did batman).<br /><br />In one scene Keaton is transported to a hospital chained down and wearing a Hannibal Lecter kind of face mask when two attack dogs bark at him (dogs can sense evil you know (puke)) and Keaton growls back at them making them back off and whine with their tails between their legs. Did the movie turn comedy right there? Garcia makes a fool out of himself in an interrogation scene with dialogue only a complete retard could find plausible and the kid is too annoying to feel sorry for..<br /><br />If you are gonna make a movie with as poor a plot as this you need some charm, humour, some solid action. Take Die Hard for example which is great despite its rather crappy plot.<br /><br />Even though Keatons character was a joke i routed for him all the way. I wanted to see Garcia cry over his dead kid and Keaton sipping martinis on some paradise island, however! This movie makes for a good laugh.. Watch it with a witty friend and you can have some fun as this movie begs for wisecracks in almost every scene. <br /><br />All in all its an insult to one's intelligence and a huge waste of money. Greed made this movie and thank god it bit its own ass.
6,785	[ 300, 400 ]	282	358	This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.<br /><br />For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.<br /><br />Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.
6,790	[ 300, 400 ]	280	351	Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.<br /><br />2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.<br /><br />3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.<br /><br />4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).<br /><br />5 - Culturally insensitive - The "black" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.<br /><br />6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.<br /><br />7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.<br /><br />I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.
6,795	[ 300, 400 ]	286	383	When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.
6,812	[ 300, 400 ]	269	328	It's hard to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.<br /><br />Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur. <br /><br />What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?<br /><br />What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.<br /><br />But other than that, It's another August/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.
6,814	[ 300, 400 ]	270	343	Overall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.<br /><br />It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.<br /><br />Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.<br /><br />A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.<br /><br />Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.<br /><br />In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.
6,815	[ 300, 400 ]	280	383	I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.<br /><br />BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.<br /><br />They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).<br /><br />BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the "Suburban kids goes to the hood"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.<br /><br />THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).<br /><br />Especially in a movie where "the monster" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.<br /><br />The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the "proffesional" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.<br /><br />Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.<br /><br />4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.
6,842	[ 300, 400 ]	246	335	I've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. "Doppelganger" is the worst I've seen from this director.<br /><br />Tartan Films is advertising this as "The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely "Kairo". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can give "Dopppelganger" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...<br /><br />Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch "Kairo" or "Ko-Rei" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.<br /><br />3/10 for the good acting.
6,851	[ 300, 400 ]	240	363	A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.
6,861	[ 300, 400 ]	256	311	I was looking forward to seeing Bruce Willis in this, especially since I remember being mesmerised by the original when I was young.<br /><br />This movie is a perfect example of how movie companies can take a very good story and dumb it down until it's just another formula ridden hype of the fabled American law enforcement system/army VS, (the Russians.... no sorry the cold war is over, make that WITH the Russians) VS the TERRORISTS, similar to probably 50 other movies.<br /><br />Furthermore it treats its audience like a bunch of idiots. The choice of weapon is well, plain ridiculous, are we seriously expected to believe that the world's most feared and experienced hit man/terrorist would select that for an assasination?<br /><br />The whole point of the original story was the tense dual of intellects between the ordinary detective who is given the responsibility and the professional who crafts a ruthless but elegant plan to reach his target and then get away. None of that survived. All we have is the tired old American CIA/FBI/army vs the evil terrorist plot, we've all seen 1000 times before.<br /><br />But of course the movie company's MBA's realised that a new intellectual angle here would lose them revenue from the short attention span gang, so the answer is ......Bruce Willis, BIG explosions and a crippled plot. They assume the American audience wont be able to relate to a threat to a foreign statesperson (where is France on the map afterall) so it has be an American!<br /><br />Another example of a movie defiled by the boardroom.
6,866	[ 300, 400 ]	282	336	So lets say you are a producer, you have some money, and you somehow got Richard gear and Bruce Willis, so now all you need is a script...but , why bother? see, this movie is really terrible, the acting is pretty good, but the casting is awful gear and Willis did their best to play these characters they simply cant play. now, this movie has no plot, or rather, there's something that tries to pass off as a plot: there's a mean hit-man (Willis) who is cool dangerous and sophisticated (actually he's none of those things, but from some dialog between the other characters, you are supposed to get this impression), so this hit-man is on a mission to kill someone, now there's an ex-IRA prisoner who is kind and nice and very likable (gear) who the FBI release from prison so he will help them. so now the FBI is "investigating" to find this hit-man, the investigation consists of a series of unlikely information - like some random person lost his wallet and someone used his name to buy a car - which is always right on the money. since there's no real plot and the script is so crappy, you cant expect any real character development, or tension, so instead of creating them through the story, they simply add some disconnected dramatic music, which signals you that something very dramatic is going on , instead of actually creating something dramatic..<br /><br />the bottom line is that this is a very bad movie, and a complete waste of time which somehow got an incredibly high score for its level, probably because of the cast - and this is exactly what the producers where counting on.
6,884	[ 300, 400 ]	270	338	I'll give it this: I didn't stop watching, and it's not corporate, which is kind of cool. But my internal critic cut it to pieces -- I suppose I see too many movies. Wooden script, the slang just sort of clanks out of their mouths without any kind of flow. Editing, mentioned before, is hit and miss; sometimes it evokes a good ghetto feel, but mostly its irritating -- jerky, quirky angles and really dull lingering facial closeups. The actors were marginal, though Letisha had her moments.<br /><br />I'm not sure why the audience supposed to care about Curtis, he's a total screwup and the actor is entirely expressionless and not particularly funny or endearing. The directing doesn't help make you love him or hate him, even; I just wanted him to shut up and get shot already. I didn't care about his impotent vengeance when that rolled around. The completely predictable ending isn't credible at all. I'm not sure why we're supposed to believe that some erstwhile successful dealers he deposes are stupid enough to fall for his petty scams. "Oh, you just got out of jail and are on probation? Here's thousands of dollars worth of cocaine, go run it around the corner for me. Now don't steal from me, etc."<br /><br />A good sex scene in the beginning gave me hope, but it was let down in the end. Handling of a rape scene was slightly eyebrow-raising, if only mildly interesting. There are better movies in this genre that don't insult your intelligence by trying for some kind of authentic ghetto realism while more resembling a film-school offering. 4/10, an F.
6,900	[ 300, 400 ]	302	361	First of all, no one with any law enforcement experience (Not ER or EMT, but real law enforcement) takes this show seriously. Walker would be drummed out of any police force in the US for his illegal and totally unprofessional tactics. On top of that, he is a comic book character---no acting ability, incredibly trite lines, no character development. The fact that Alex Cahill loves him shows just how dumb blondes really are. And Trivett is the ultimate clown in black-face. Come on---if you think Walker is a heartfelt show without bias, then explain why JT is treated as a dolt, always is the subject of Walker's jokes, never is allowed to be the one to solve the crime, and never rescues Walker, who should be dead 50 times over for the stupid things he does. While it may be true that many criminals are even dumber than the detectives who go after them (and believe me, most cops are dumber than dirt), the smart ones Walker comes up against never seem to get the point that once Walker is captured, the jerk needs to be put of his misery. But then again, Norris produced the show as well as starred in it, so how could he willingly get rid of himself or even show how stupid his tactics are. As if six guys are going to wait around to take him one at a time. What a terrible series! It is more demeaning than any of the hokey westerns like The Lone Ranger, Roy Rogers, The Cisco Kid, and Wild Bill Hickock, though I would imagine that most of you on here are far too young to remember those shows. But like those shows, in the same way as those shows, Walker TR is just as insulting and just plain silly.
6,906	[ 300, 400 ]	265	342	I'd never thought that I would be caught saying this: But I think "Dog the Bounty Hunter" is more entertaining than this 90's era cop drama. Walker is very melodramatic and actually set a standard of the genre of "High Octane" cop shows such as CSI, CSI: Miami, and so forth. I'm not saying all these shows are bad, but they aren't good either. I like the karate chop action that Walker dispenses on the enemies of justice, and the diverse cast of characters as much as the science tech of the CSI series. But there are some elements that I hate in a show like this. Stereotypes/Countertypes! That's right, Stereotypes/Countertypes! Unfortunately, this is a show for the moderates of Red State America who refuse to part with the old prejudices of yore especially when it comes to crime. For example, there was an episode in which a kid with psychic powers ventures into Dallas where he encounters group of kids in Goth/Punk clothing and they start harassing him. Now! This is exactly what Middle America perceives the Goth/Punk culture. I mean come on, how often do people that dress like that rob and steal from people just minding there own business. Whenever there are Blacks and Latinos in the plot it's always about gangs in some impoverished neighborhood. Okay! Not everyone who's a minority is a desperate recruit of a gang surrounded by crime, drugs, poverty. Again, this is what Middle Red State America sees of these people. Finally, Why is the Trivette the bumbling sidekick, can't you make the sidekick an equal ass-kicker?
6,920	[ 300, 400 ]	277	341	Did we all see the same movie??? I can't believe the raves some of the others are giving this really awful bio which, believe or not, was authorized by Shirley Temple herself, based on her book CHILD STAR. Gives me the feeling that some are awfully easy to please.<br /><br />First of all, ASHLEY ROSE ORR, whatever her modest talents are, in no way, shape or form even resembles Shirley Temple enough to be cast as her in this sort of straightforward biography of the world's most famous child star. She gives no indication of why or how this child was so revered except for trying her hardest to do a Shirley impersonation which never clicks on any level. None whatsoever.<br /><br />And that is the major handicap of the whole piece. But as if that isn't bad enough, any drama inherent in Shirley's story of her climb to almost overnight stardom has been completely white-washed with insipid writing peppered with occasional song and dance moments that don't even approximate what Shirley did (as for example, "The Codfish Ball" with Buddy Ebsen which was probably the high point of Shirley's choreographed dance routines).<br /><br />Simply putting a girl in a polka dot dress doesn't make her Shirley Temple. None of Shirley's own brand of charm, warmth and appeal is even remotely suggested. All we see on display is a pale imitation of the original proving, once and for all, that there was only one Shirley Temple.<br /><br />It's worthless to write anything further about this mess. None of the others are more than ordinary in lifeless roles. My advice for Shirley's fans is to read her book--or better still--watch her movies.<br /><br />This is the pits.
6,937	[ 300, 400 ]	237	309	Some good set design. Good songs, though like the other guy said they aren't performed with much energy. Bea Arthur, trying her damndest to do something with the material, had an occasional good one-liner as Mame's friend Vera and helped move the song "Bosom Buddies" along. Other than that, there's nothing here that's worth your time. Slow pacing, incredibly bad cinemetography, not very good singing (except from Robert Preston), an awful script, bad acting (except from Bea), and a horrible lead actress. Who thought Lucille Ball would be good as the classy, life-loving Mame? The heads over at Warner Bros. were no doubt on crack when they decided to not use Angela Lansbury, who had done it so well on Broadway, and instead use Ball, who wasn't nearly as funny by then as she was 20 years earlier, couldn't act the part "the right way" at all, and used a painful croak as an excuse for singing. Even if (perhaps because) making the movie was painful for her to make and even if she financed it, she just isn't Mame. Auntie Mame is such a better film and the soundtrack of the Broadway musical with Lansbury sounds great. For the most part, there's nothing here that's great, engaging, or interesting at all. Forget it, unless you're a huge Lucy fan who thinks she could do no wrong. Hopefully after seeing this you'll realize she was only human.
6,945	[ 300, 400 ]	267	328	The Midnight Hour AKA: Tell Me No Lies (as found in some video stores) can be judged in two different ways. One by it's Merritt as a movie, complete with a plot (no holes), good story and believable conclusion and the other is by the skin flick it is trying to be. This is certainly no more than a B-Movie skin flick, whose sole purpose is to show every girl in the movie in an overly long sex scene at least once.<br /><br />If you try to rate this as a regular movie, then this is bottom of the line drivel. HUGE plot holes ruin whatever storyline it has going for it. For instance, if a co-worker is killed, would you call the police or head home and hit the hot tub? Judging this movie by it's skin content, it's watchable... barely. The girls, for the most part, are all beautiful but quite obviously enhanced. The sex scenes were all long and overdone, though, and that made it's only redeeming quality a little boring.<br /><br />Amber Smith could probably be a decent actress if she wanted. She was not as horrible as you could imagine or maybe next to the rest of the cast, she seemed a lot better than she was.<br /><br />Zoe Anderson, who played Detective Arraya, should not even be watching a movie, much less acting in one. She looked good though, so we know why she was there.<br /><br />Overall, I would not really recommend this to anyone. Even if you're looking for a good skin flick, there are much better one's out there. I rate this 4 out of 10
6,954	[ 300, 400 ]	306	356	With such a promising cast and a director that I have heard great things about, I was utterly disappointed by this film. It started off with signs of a great epic gangster tale and turned into a completely muddled mess with many unanswered questions and some completely ridiculous and pointless scenes.(and yes I did watch the full length version). I love Robert DeNiro and as usual he did a fine acting job, but in all his other gangster films, no matter how many people he kills, I always still had respect for his character, but in this movie he was a lowlife drug-addict, rapist with no care for anyone but himself. Also, James Woods, another fine actor, had some completely ridiculous scenes written for him. I thought the parts where Robert DeNiro called him crazy and he flipped out came completely out of left-field and towards the end the writers just throw in this random comment about how his father died in a nut house and that's why James Woods didn't like being called crazy. So much was left undeveloped in this movie. Also, we never find out who the men are in the beginning that are trying to kill Noodles and we never find out more about Joe Pesci's character. It seems that the writers threw together about five different stories and never fully explained any of them. The only redeeming quality of the film was the story when the characters were young kids. The story ran smoothly in this part of the movie and the kids did a great acting job. Overall, I was thoroughly disappointed by this movie and I don't see how anyone can even compare this to the Godfather 1 and 2, or even Goodfellas. I am sad that I wasted four hours of my life watching this film
6,965	[ 300, 400 ]	321	383	Don Wilson stars as a cop who enjoys the occasional virtual reality fighting game, however things go wrong when the people behind the game decide to take virtual reality to a new level by making real people from the video game, okay actually they make the cybersex models as prototype but the main bad guy from the video game awakens and starts killing people and now the only man who can beat the guy is Don Wilson, who in the mean time falls in love with the cybersex model. Actually with all things considered my biggest confusion was trying to understand if the people brought over from virtual reality land, were robots, human, cyborgs or just some type of unidentified computer program. It doesn't matter since this is all just an excuse to watch one of the worst actors ever butcher dialog as if he were running a deli. Don Wilson's complete lack of charisma is the film's biggest flaw since one just doesn't like the guy, he's too goody-goody, his voice is too high pitched and doesn't look very impressive in the action sequences. What saves this bore-fest from my lowest rating is Athenia Massey who looks super hot in high cut outfits and who gets occasionally naked. Also on-board is Loren Avedon (A good martial artist), Stella Stevens and Michael Dorn as the main voice of the bad guy but their efforts are in vain as they are all concealed by the very bad acting of Wilson. Another flaw which is the film's biggest mistake is a lack of action, as we are asked to watch the story unfold but aside from Massey's nudity and maybe some unintentional amusements due to laughably unconvincing acting, there really is nothing of interest. This also extends to the action sequences in which are flatly choreographed, badly directed and completely drained of all possible excitement. Making this virtually unwatchable.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
6,980	[ 300, 400 ]	278	341	I saw the biopic of Ed Wood many years ago. Tim Burton payed loving homage to this extremely untalented but yet enthusiastic filmmaker.<br /><br />Then I saw Plan 9 and it actually tickled me to no end. A silly story, kind of bad production values but still entertaining and even funny.<br /><br />Then this. What can you make of it. Well, since Wood has been reported as being a cross-dresser it is startling to see a movie that deals with it like a cartoon. Yes, there are some stabs at teaching the audience something about the subject but mostly this is some kind of really twisted self-parody.<br /><br />One of it's problems is that it has a hundred points of view. On one hand it is a plea for tolerance. Another portrays transvestism as a disease. And finally, it tells the audience: "Okay, if you are schocked now, then wait until you see this!" The problem must have been that Wood had to compromise in order for the film to be made. You can almost sense it when you see the opening title from the producer: Personally supervised by... So, where are we. This is neither a serious subject movie or an all-out schocker.<br /><br />The entertainment value is practically nil. The wooden voice-over is mildly amusing but only because it sounds so misguided. This was made in the 50s though, so one can argue that was brave making a film that even mentioned the word transvestites. It all comes down to what the film itself is trying to advocate against. Schock. The rape scene, while mild is there simply to do that.<br /><br />So, sorry. This is a misfire but the discredit is not Wood's alone.
6,983	[ 300, 400 ]	251	308	I just recently watched Ed Wood Jr.'s autobiographical movie Glen or Glenda for the first time after having heard so much about it for so many years. Nothing I had read or heard about this film could prepare me for what I saw. This has to be the most bizarre movie ever made. Stampeding buffalo, women in bondage, Satan prancing around and Bela Lugosi, rambling only as he can, "Bevare, Bevare....pull the string, pull the string...", it was totally insane. The acting was atrocious and the dialog was unintentionally hilarious, exactly what one would expect from an Ed Wood film. Having said all that, as horrible as this movie was, I have to give Wood credit...he was way ahead of his time. You have to remember that when this movie was made transvestites were not even discussed in public, much less the subject for a movie. I have read that Wood was a transvestite in real life, and I'm sure this movie was based on his own experiences. It was sad to see Bela Lugosi having to say the ridiculous lines he had to say for this film, but it was kind of Ed Wood Jr. to at least give Mr. Lugosi an acting job at a time in Bela's life when he was penniless and a drug addict and no one else in Hollywood would hire him. If you have never seen this film then you have to see it, especially if you are a fan of Ed Wood Jr.
6,986	[ 300, 400 ]	318	392	There's a part of me that would like to give this movie a high rating. Considering that it was made in 1953, this is a very courageous movie about transvestites, tackling the issue fairly seriously and sympathetically (and offering the viewer a lot of information on the subject) and trying very hard not to stereotype. The movie clearly makes the point that transvestites are not homosexuals, and that aside from wearing women's clothing they lead a relatively normal life. It deals with the pain of not being accepted in society - the plot revolves around a police officer (Lyle Talbot) desperately trying to understand the issue because of the recent suicide of a transvestite. So, you have to give everyone involved with this movie credit for taking on such a controversial (in the context of 1953) subject.<br /><br />Having said all that, I'm also sorry to say that this movie is absolutely dreadful. In trying to portray Glen/Glenda's (Edward D. Wood) pain, the movie falls into silly (and at times surprisingly - again given the era - sensual) fantasies that make the story very hard to follow. The acting is wooden at best. None of the dialogue comes across as real; the actors look and sound like people reading speeches written by others. And - worst of all - there was no point to having Bela Lugosi in this movie. This was another of the increasingly embarrassing roles this poor man took on in the latter stages of his career. "Pull the strings; pull the strings," poor Lugosi's character (called The Spirit in the credits, but really coming across as more of a mad scientist) kept crying. And nothing he did really seemed to have much connection with the rest of the movie.<br /><br />For artistic merit, the movie doesn't really deserve much more than 1/10. However, for the courage involved in just putting it out, I'll give it a 3/10.
6,995	[ 300, 400 ]	287	330	On paper this looks a good film . Michael Caine plays a tough and ruthless boxing promoter who's son is up for a title eliminator . The pity is that when the story is transferred from paper to my television screen it loses a certain everything . I had hoped we'd be seen emulating his definitive role in GET CARTER and as the film progresses it does seem to take on the qualities of a tough gritty revenge thriller but the whole tone of the film jumps around so much you'll be confused as to what genre it's trying to fit in to . For example Caine ( Who you can't believe in as Billy " Shiner " Simpson , he's simply Michael Caine ) has a laugh out line as he refers to someone as " Hattie Jacques " then in a supposedly humorous moment has his henchmen break someone's arm . Oh how I laughed . I mean it's supposed to elicit a laugh the way it plays out on screen isn't it ? But these seems at odds with the way the rest of the film plays out <br /><br />Obviously director John Irvin doesn't know what approach to take with Scott Cherry's screenplay . Irvin isn't a bad director and is well regarded for his war films such as THE DOGS OF WAR and HAMBURGER HILL but he's ill suited to this type of violent drama and one can't help but feel he might have been intimidated somewhat by a living legend like Caine . Caine does give the impression he's just doing it for the money and the well known faces in supporting roles like Landua and Cranham are basically just cameos who could be played by anyone
7,001	[ 300, 400 ]	278	325	I have to preface this by saying that I LOVE watching bad movies that are entertaining. This movie delivers 100%. It is hands down the worst movie I have ever seen. It is full of crappy stock footage of random stuff in a city (people walking, traffic, the skyline, etc.) that doesn't tie into anything. Then there are the overly long 'sex scenes.' These involve lots of petting and frequent rubbing of socks on each other's bodies. These are in no way erotic and are the closest thing to horror you will find in this movie. This is especially true for the shower scene where two of the so called 'barely legal' girls who couldn't be a day over 40 are spraying each other with blood but there is also a crew member squirting blood in the from the outside while one of the girls keeps smiling at him. No one had to memorize any lines for this movie, if they aren't clearly reading cards then they have a magazine in front of them they keep glancing at while they struggle through awkward dialogue. Then there's Mr Creepo. He throws Ed Wood's name around like he can somehow compare, but he is far far from anything of that quality. He walks around a cemetery babbling about random things that went wrong in the movie which really helps the complete lack of flow the movie already had going on. We couldn't stop laughing during this movie (except during the sex scenes where we were grossed out and occasionally horrified)<br /><br />I give this movie a 1/10 for going so far above and beyond all my expectations for a horrible movie.
7,008	[ 300, 400 ]	260	333	A sadly predictable, clichéd story about a woman who was no better than she should have been. Sadly, too, the screenplay is by the once-great experimental novelist John Dos Passos, from an original by French exotic potboiler Pierre Louys. This time Marlene Dietrich is Concha, a manipulative, cold-hearted Spanish beauty. Don Pasqual (Lionel Atwill) raises her from the cigarette factory, but she ditches him. He warns his tall young friend Antonio (Cesar Romero) against her, but to no avail. A duel ensues, Concha reproaches Pasqualito for trying to kill the only man she ever cared for, so he doesn't: he points his pistol at the sky, but Antonio shoots him. But instead of going off to Paris with the young victor, she goes back to the man who would have died for her. With an unexpected bit by Edward Everett Horton as a Spanish Governor. Dietrich plays the part of a Spanish woman by moving constantly, twisting at the waist and posturing and then twisting back, flouncing, tossing her head, and so forth. And she makes faces, and has a curl in the middle of her forehead. The photography is strangely crowded: no outdoor scene can be shot except through a tangle of bare trees, no interior scene can be shot without so much busy detail that it's almost impossible to follow people moving across a room, no consecutive scene of Dietrich can be shot without a major wardrobe change. The carnival scenes are so full of confetti and streamers it's almost like an underwater scene in the Sargasso Sea.
7,014	[ 300, 400 ]	254	309	In one sense, I kind of liked this movie because of a 'mindless', positive atmosphere it sort of conveys. I had a problem with an aspect of the plot, but more about that later. First, the characters were a little goofy and one dimensional. The 'good people' had similar physical and character traits and the 'bad people' had similar physical and character traits ... hmmm. The basic storyline was OK (pretty simple and standard) - nothing too exciting or objectionable. The main attraction was, of course, the miniature dinosaurs - kind of a nice fantasy element to have. However, they had a very minimal presence in the movie.<br /><br />Outside of that, the movie kept a brisk pace and didn't get too bogged down in any one place. I liked this about the movie.<br /><br />The problem I had with the plot had to do with the the idea of "stealing". I think this movie may not have been thought out enough - something's wrong especially if this is a kid's movie. I'll keep the next sentence abstract to not be a spoiler (skip it if you're worried). The 'good guys' do some stealing and they don't have the same info the audience has - so it's just stealing and that's kind of a bad thing for a kid's movie.<br /><br />Overall, if you have kids, because of a questionable plot aspect I'd consider passing. However, this whole movie is pretty low key anyway so it may not matter. Pass this one if you have any other interesting choices.
7,015	[ 300, 400 ]	272	352	Eugene O'Neill's 4 and a half hour 1927 play brought to the screen in less than two hours. The play's combination of symbolic dialogue and gothic melodrama hasn't aged very well and the cast has some difficulty with it, especially Norma Shearer's Nina and Ralph Morgan's Marsden. Clark Gable as Ned Darrell comes off better but mostly because his is a gruff character not given to the philosophical musings of the others which better fits Gable's range. Once the plot settles down to the love quadrangle and the audience adjusts to the voiceover asides the film does become more enjoyable. The technique used here for the asides is another problem. On stage the action froze while the actors spoke their thoughts to the audience. Here they're done as voiceovers. You'd think that would work better but since the action no longer freezes the actors are forced to pause speaking and grimace at the camera to match the emotions in their thoughts. Plus it's difficult for any movie buff to watch this film and not think of Groucho Marx's hilarious parody version in "Animal Crackers." Added to these drawbacks are some cuts made for censorship reasons (Nina's promiscuity is soft-peddled and there is no mention of her getting the abortion that is more central in the play) and a wretched score (uncredited) that sounds like background music to a turn-of-the-century weepie. O'Neill called this film "a dreadful hash of attempted condensation and idiotic censorship," and although "Strange Interlude" is nowhere near as great as his later "The Iceman Cometh" and "Long Day's Journey Into Night," it certainly deserved better than this.
7,018	[ 300, 400 ]	220	319	A four-and-a-half-hour O'Neill play gets boiled down to a little under two, and much of that running time is devoted to actors with frozen expressions on their faces as they read their characters' thoughts in voice-over. It can work onstage, but it looks hilariously stilted in this soap-opera adaptation, which soft-peddles its heroine's bad behavior and never explains why she has so captivated so many men. Norma Shearer and Alexander Kirkland, overacting ludicrously, are outclassed by a naturalistic Clark Gable--he's the only one who makes the frozen-face technique work. It gets even funnier when Shearer's and Gable's son, a surly moppet, does the frozen-face shtick. There are also Frank Morgan's brother Ralph as an unsuccessful suitor, given to soliloquizing "poor Charlie!" over and over again, and a young Robert Young and Maureen O'Sullivan. By the time they show up, the voice-overs have largely been abandoned, and it plays as a ripe soap, with a sentimental fadeout that actually plays "Silver Threads Among the Gold" as background music. Robert Leonard's direction is stodgy and he shows little facility for reining in hyperactive actors. It's certainly entertaining--there's nothing else like it, unless you count Groucho's satirical parody in "Animal Crackers," or an old Mad Magazine satire that rendered Shirley Booth's sitcom "Hazel" a la "Strange Interlude". But it isn't good.
7,028	[ 300, 400 ]	282	345	Writer/Director Brian Burns has obviously seen a few romantic comedies, and he seems to think that he's discovered the formula for success: plenty of location shots in New York (preferably in the winter), allusions to old Hollywood films (especially musicals), enjoyable musical soundtrack. Alas, all of this is mere compensation for Burns' lack of talent as a writer. (The great mystery of many writer-directors making independent films is not why they cannot get on with major studios, but how they get any backing at all for their films.)<br /><br />Normally our interest in romantic comedy is motivated by the lead characters, but the couple in this film simply has no appeal. This is not the fault of either David Krumholtz or Milla Jovavich; their characters are just poorly written. What we respond to in such classics as When Harry Met Sally or Annie Hall or older films such as His Girl Friday are quirks and flaws of the lead characters' personalities. Lacking the ability to create individuals, Burns gives us an after-school special inspired by Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus.<br /><br />How anyone can see Burns as the successor to Woody Allen is beyond me. I did not laugh once during this film, and the screen-play is full of echo chamber dialog ("I want to paint the town red." "You want to paint the town red?"), which is the most tell-tale sign of someone who has no business writing for a living. In one of the early scenes, we see Krumholz's actress girlfriend filming a mindless TV sitcom. It's the only moment in the whole film that the dialog feels right; maybe that indicates what Burns talents are really suited for.
7,029	[ 300, 400 ]	284	360	Seeing that this got a theatrical release nowhere around the globe, it only serves as a reminder of were the careers of those talent-free ladies Denise Richards and Milla Jovovich went. It also is a particular grating kind of movie, the kind that think they are smart, funny and original while being poor in every aspect. Full blame can go to Brian Burns, who wrote and directed this potboiler. His script takes a quite unoriginal situation and goes exactly nowhere with it. The situations develop completely without any inner logic, besides that of a desperate scriptwriter. Characters are thinner than cardboard cutouts, behave stupid and without any real motivation. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the inclusion of Mrs. Richards. We don't believe her relationship with David Krumholtz's character for one minute and the way she is brought back into play after the one-hour mark is particularly pitiful. Why would anyone fall for a egocentric, self-obsessed, arrogant b**ch like this in the first place, much less a second time? Especially after having supposedly found his..erm...true love? And if any of these things aren't enough to completely sink this movie, than the central couple is. The coupling of Krumholtz and Jovovich is only slightly more believable or developed than the Richards-one, but it is to no avail. There is no chemistry, no spark, nothing that we might loosely accept as a credible couple. Worse, these two central characters are particularly annoying and irritating, doing annoying and irritating things the viewer finally has no interest in, whatsoever.<br /><br />Overall, a very poor showing. Even die-hard rom-com fans might want to pass on this one, as there are dozens of movie made with more skill or more charm.
7,033	[ 300, 400 ]	219	329	"A scientist has developed a serum which grotesquely distorts the victim's hands and heads. The scientist decides to use his serum on a concert pianist to extort money from him for the cure as well as take the man's daughter for a wife," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. J. Carrol Naish (as Dr. Igor Markoff) plays "The Monster Maker" in the low budget Bela Lugosi mode.<br /><br />Mr. Naish's serum causes a real disorder, "acromegaly", which American Heritage defines as, "A chronic disease of adults marked by enlargement of the bones of the extremities, face, and jaw that is caused by overactivity of the pituitary gland." Ralph Morgan (as Anthony Lawrence) plays the afflicted man with some dignity. Pretty blonde Wanda McKay (as Patricia "Pat" Lawrence) is the daughter desired by mad scientist Naish; in early scenes, Ms. McKay and Naish emote hilariously.<br /><br />Watch for Tala Birell (as Maxine) in a surprisingly good supporting performance; she plays the somewhat Garbo-like, and long suffering, assistant to Naish. Ms. Birell definitely steals the film; and, you've got to question Dr. Markoff's sanity in casting her aside. Glenn Strange (as Steve) and a crazed gorilla (Ray Corrigan) add to the fun. The monster makeup (Maurice Seiderman) is very good.<br /><br />**** The Monster Maker (1944) Sam Newfield ~ J. Carrol Naish, Ralph Morgan, Tala Birell
7,043	[ 300, 400 ]	247	310	Films like this infuriate me simply because they don't deserve the funding that enables them to end up in my DVD player. This movie is ambiguous in its jacket blurb and even more impenetrable in its casting choices (why is Ms. Song a romantic interest? Did they just want an Asian woman in there, or does her unconvincingly wise character actually lend this "message" movie's story a fresh perspective)? One has very little to go on in approaching this film, and even less as the story unfolds. But a good hour into the proceedings, I realized the dull casting is all the casting agent could dredge up, the unconvincing character studies are the result of writers' brain-fart, and the story is amorphous and plagued by unsubtle references to the woes of capitalism, materialism, and getting ahead in the postmodern world. Towards the end of this film, just before I nodded off and missed the last two minutes, I got the sense that "Everything's Gone Green" is a product of "connections" in the world of film - someone with very little talent knew someone with very little directorial skill, knew someone with absolutely no marketing sense (but plenty of disposable ego) and out popped this dull and inefficient attempt at whimsy and humor-with-a-conscience nonsense. And this is what is most maddening - how many infinitely better scripts were passed over in favor of this almost unwatchable tripe? Skip this film, and feel good about yourself for doing so.
7,066	[ 300, 400 ]	256	315	Okay, first the good thing : If you saw the trailer then you know about 100% of the "scary/jumpy" moment of the movie. And yes, it's a good thing because you should just stick to the trailer and not go see the movie.<br /><br />I now understand why Sarah Michelle Gellar did not stay alive in that movie for very long, she did not want to associate her name with this production. I wish her the best for "The Return".<br /><br />You have to follow 3 different story in this movie, and they are all disconnected (in time and meaning) until the very end. And even then it's a very bad climax. And god forbid even open the door to another sequel.<br /><br />Yes, in this movie, "The Rage and Fury" is on the move. No need to visit the house anymore, just be close to someone who when inside and you're done. It's not a curse anymore it's kinda like a virus. Go inside the house, get scared, return back to USA and spread the joy in your apartment building.<br /><br />It's not that difficult to follow, but you just don't really care about anyone. The plot line is slim to none and you have many scene in this movie where you just laugh and shake your head... Milk anyone?? I saw Ju-On 2 at the Fantasia movie festival last summer, different story completely but much better than this dud. It's not a remake, but this time, maybe they should have simply done a remake....<br /><br />If you must see it, wait for the DVD.
7,067	[ 300, 400 ]	232	311	In Pasadena, Mrs. Davis (Joanna Cassidy) sends her daughter Aubrey Davis (Amber Tamblyn) to Tokyo to bring her sister Karen Davis (Sarah Michelle Gellar), who is interned in a hospital after surviving a fire, back to the USA. After their meeting, Karen dies and Aubrey decides to investigate what happened to her and gets herself cursed in the same situation, being chased by the ghost of the house. Meanwhile in Tokyo, the three high school mates Allison (Arielle Kebbel), Vanessa (Teresa Palmer) and Miyuki (Misako Uno) visit the famous haunted house and are also cursed and chased by the ghost. In Chicago, Trish (Jennifer Beals) moves to the apartment of her boyfriend Bill (Christopher Cousins), who lives with his children, the teenager Lacey (Sarah Roehmer) and boy Jake (Matthew Knight). On the next door, weird things happen with their neighbor.<br /><br />"The Grudge 2" has scary sound and visual effects, with the creepy woman and boy, and I have startled a couple of times while watching this movie. However, the complex screenplay with three subplots is totally confused, making the entwined story a complete mess. There are too much characters and situations, and in a certain moment I was completely lost with the disconnected and fragmented narrative. In the end, I was completely disappointed with this confused, but also spooky film. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "O Grito 2" ("The Scream 2")
7,072	[ 300, 400 ]	339	390	I would not deny that I have quite enjoyed watching any Japanese horror films, but everyone must get quite fed up with them after you have seen the same thing over and over.<br /><br />The film follows the story of the Grudge. Audrey, as requested by her mom, is going to get her sister back. But when she arrives, something strange happens to her sister and then her sister is killed. She wants to find out the truth behind the curse and later a photographer (Eason) joins her. On the other hand, there's also something happening to a family and three girls, but they seem to realise it too late...<br /><br />In fact, I can't see the points for the three girls from international school to appear in the movies as they're not (quite) related to the story. The reason why the woman holding the grudge keeps killing people is still not very clear (it seems to me they're just telling the same things I saw in the grudge). And the sudden appearance of Audrey in front of the boy is undoubtedly odd, which I suppose is an attempt to make the story about the family related. The killing scenes are absolutely the mixture of those in the Ring and Shibuya kaidan. The acting would be another bad point. As a Hong Konger I would really like to support Edison Chen's first effort in Hollywood, but as a film lover I really can't find any point to support bad acting. Other actors like the father , though he just appears in a few scenes, should also have done better. What is kept good is the atmosphere of the film, especially when I watched it in the middle of the night alone.<br /><br />If you have time, really enjoy any horror films and have seen all the possible horror films except this, like me, you can go for it to kill some time. But if you really like Japanese horror films of this kind, you should spend some time watching the Japanese version of the Ring.
7,074	[ 300, 400 ]	310	389	People may say I am harsh but I can't help it. The movie is so bad I was absolutely stunned. The first movie was bad enough if you ask me. It was greatly exaggerated and silly but this one, despite the creepy scenes, has a seriously ass-stupid story. They actually went deep into investigating Kayako's past and found out that she had a mother (Who miraculously speaks English) who was an exorcist and "fed" evil spirits to her daughter. Stupid? Yeap. OK, it started out with Kayako who was an ordinary housewife who had an affair with some bloke and got herself dead. This part is still OK. Because of this moment of rage, she became a vengeful spirit who kills anyone who enters her house. Acceotable. Now, her killings began to stretch a little where she actually had the opportunity to travel throughout Tokyo just to finish her victims. (Her victims were travelling, weren't they?) This struck me hard. Now if a ghost could actually do such a thing like travelling throughout a country without paying public transport fares, I wouldn't mind being. Ask someone to come kill me then snorts. And to crown things all up, the ghost who was once depicted as a very vengeful one (In Ju-on: The Grudge, which was way better than this trash) is now depicted as some spectre who truly enjoys herself and felt that it is her mission to finish of people. Things became worse (For me, the viewer) when the ghost became coming in forms of large strands of hair. I mean, ??? If a ghost had such power, I seriously dun mind being one. I never really liked movies depicting ghosts as MONSTERS cause they're not. The overall results is just plain bad. Like The Grudge 2. With a better storyline and less exaggeration, this show would have been better
7,079	[ 300, 400 ]	268	317	All the way though i was thinking to myself "Oh god why!" At the very beginning i thought "Right it might be average," but the acting and plot on most parts was atrocious.<br /><br />Every part in it was so predictable, even though the first movie seemed to bare a large resemblance to the ring, it was a half decent movie, but this just seemed to take all the good things about the first and made them terrible. Some bits made everyone in the audience wet themselves, Eg. The part were Geller falls off the building had me in stitches. My girlfriend had to keep telling me to quiet down i was kept commenting on what was bound to happen next, and more times than less i was right.<br /><br />Why does going into the house make her come after you, it doesn't make sense. It was a poor excuse for a lot of killings, and no really depth was seen at all.<br /><br />You can see everything coming, which just left you feeling that there was no point in watching. Oh shes behind her ... didn't see that one coming yawns.<br /><br />Surely these people must have thought to... oh i don't know, carry a knife round or at least try and fight back, instead of being eaten but someone hair? At best during the movie i was very mildly scared (and i mean mildly), i was just crying out for the credits, as they rolled i exhaled a short "Oh thank god." If you haven't already, don't waste your' time and money on this; pointless, plot less, sorry excuse for a sequel!
7,085	[ 300, 400 ]	278	354	To start off, I didn't bother seeing The Grudge. The previews for that movie didn't make me jump, didn't scare me, and didn't entertain me. But when a group of friends asked me to go see The Grudge 2, I accepted the invite, a little curious as to how this movie would be. I mainly went because of my friends. Not even 5 minutes into this movie, I realized I threw away $7.50. The acting from the get-go is horrible. The schoolgirls in the beginning look as if they have never acted in their entire lives. Then, the movie plot takes over. Let me tell you, I could not stop laughing this entire movie. It is just so stupid. I'm pretty sure they tried to not make it scary. They don't make anything jump out or anything. It shows the kids, then shows them "attacking". It builds up to it, it's not an "all-of-a-sudden" thing. And even in the middle of the movie, the core of the movie, the acting is still horrible. It leaves so much time in-between the dialog for someone to add in their own comments. This movie is honestly one of the funniest "horror" movies I have ever seen. Poorly written, horrible acting, horrible script, horrible "unable to act" cast, and a horrible concept. The movie blacks out and changes situations more times than you can count. Each part eventually plays out and then ties up at the end of the movie. I would never again pay to see this movie. I wouldn't even watch it on cable, for free. This movie is a joke. Please DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY ON THIS MOVIE!!
7,099	[ 300, 400 ]	245	308	My poor Tank Girl, they ignored everything great about you. Why does it have as little to do with the comics as possible? I would have loved a movie that followed the plot, or at least had the characters right.<br /><br />WHY WAS TANK GIRL American? She's Austrailian, dammit! And she's not living in a post apocalyptic war zone either, she lives in the outback with Booga like a savage. She does it because she wants to live that way, not because she has to because Malcolm Mc Dowell is acting the git. And why's she looking after those kids? The only children in the comics end up violently being choked by her, it's terrible that they made her into a lame mother figure.<br /><br />And my poor Jet Girl and Sub Girl! In the comics, Jet is a sarcastic wisecracker and Sub girl is... another sarcastic wisecracker with a weird sense of humour. In the movie Jet is this mousy little thing and Sub is this ditzy middle aged hag. And Booga doesn't look or act anything like what he's meant to be either. Though maybe hot roo/human love was too much for the USA box office? The humour was so lame too. Whatever happened to all the stuff about the Smiths and that brilliant slang they used all the time? What sort of line is "Will this take long? I don't wanna miss Baywatch."? Even programmes for tiny children can come up with better material than that.
7,117	[ 300, 400 ]	306	393	"On a Clear Day You Can See Forever" is nothing more than a New Age update of the "Pygmalion" / "My Fair Lady" story: A professor attempts to turn a common girl into an upper society woman. This time, however, instead of using language skills, the professor tries to do so by hypnotism and past life regression.<br /><br />You know a musical has problems when reviewers constantly mention the sets and the costumes before they mention the plot and the music. The songs are instantly forgettable. (No "Get Me to the Church on Time" here, I'm afraid.) And the plot goes nowhere. To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there is no "there" here. The characters wander through the story without ever getting from point A to point B. Professor Chabot claims several times that he will get to the root of Daisy's troubles, but he never seems to do so.<br /><br />All meaningful conflict is avoided. For instance, there comes a time when Chabot's university demands he either stop his research into reincarnation or resign his position. Now there is conflict! Will he give up his career for Daisy? Alas! Nothing comes of this development. A scene or two later the university changes its mind and tells Chabot to continue on with his work. So much for conflict.<br /><br />The talent was certainly assembled for this movie: Directed by Vincente Minnelli. Written, in part, by Alan Jay Lerner. A cast of Yves Montand, Bob Newhart and Jack Nicholson. And, oh yes, starring Barabara Striesand who was nearly at the top of her game at this point in her career.<br /><br />But it all falls flat. Lerner's attempt to reincarnate his greatest success, the previously mentioned "My Fair Lady," is as doomed to failure as Daisy's attempt to revive the greatness of her own past.<br /><br />If you enjoy movie musicals, there are far better choices than this.
7,124	[ 300, 400 ]	261	308	Scarlet Dawn casts Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. as a Russian baron rudely displaced by the forces of the Russian Revolution and now has to fend for himself in a world not terribly hospitable to former aristocrats. He's also not terribly suited for any kind of real work. <br /><br />Doug might have been caught by the Reds but for the fact that his former servant Nancy Carroll didn't give him away. Nancy's got a big old crush on Doug and they do marry once arriving in exile in Istanbul which throughout the film is referred to by its former Christian name of Constantinople. They marry and settle down with Doug now reduced to washing dishes.<br /><br />But Fairbanks's former mistress Lilyan Tashman who's always playing bad girls of a sort on film spots him and offers to have him get back into somewhat the style he was once accustomed to as part of a swindle against father and daughter American tourists Guy Kibbee and Sheila Terry. <br /><br />Good thing this film has the incredibly short running time of only 57 minutes, usually those were given to B westerns because it's both tedious and melodramatic. The ending is rather unbelievable. Doug knew he was in a Thanksgiving special and really overacts to cover up the defects of a unbelievable story.<br /><br />What I didn't understand was that Fairbanks was trained in the military profession, why didn't he just become a mercenary soldier after leaving the new Soviet Union? That didn't make sense to me at all.<br /><br />I'd only see this if I was a dedicated fan of any the main players.
7,126	[ 300, 400 ]	225	314	As a documentary, this is laughable in a campy sort of way -- a schlocky collection of re-created Biblical tableaux mixed in with solemn interviews of so-called "experts." Think of it as an infommercial which pushes Jesus instead of thigh-masters. <br /><br />However, the detailed crucifixion scene is, in terms of historical accuracy, superior to similar scenes in such widescreen Hollywood extravaganzas as "Ben-Hur," "King of Kings," and "The Greatest Story Ever Told." Rather than dragging his entire cross to Golgotha, for example, John Rubinstein simply carries his crossbeam strapped across his shoulders to his outstretched arms. Nails aren't driven through his palms but instead through his wrists. His feet aren't nailed separately but one is placed over the other so that just one nail need be used. Incidentally, Rubinstein's flogging prior to his crucifixion ranks 35th in the book, "Lash! The Hundred Great Scenes of Men Being Whipped in the Movies."<br /><br />Of course, Rubinstein and the two thieves wear modest loincloths, which probably isn't true to the shameful reality of Roman crucifixions, but allowances must be made. Curiously, the "good" thief is positioned on the left hand of Jesus, which goes against a long-standing tradition. Just why this thief is played by a pudgy, overweight man is, however, a mystery, especially in view of the fact that the "bad" thief is something of a "hunk."
7,134	[ 300, 400 ]	259	337	Teenager Tamara (Jenna Dewan) has it rough. She's ridiculed by all the popular "kids" for being shy, bookish, frumpy and because of her interest in witchcraft. All of the football players and cheerleaders are especially angry at her for writing an article on steroid abuse for the school paper. On top of this, her dad's a drunk, her mom's not around and she's secretly in love with her supportive English teacher (Matthew Marsden). The popular kids set up a cruel prank to humiliate her, accidentally kill her during a struggle, bury the body in the woods and make a pact to keep silent. To their shock, the very next day Tamara walks back into the classroom looking seductive and, uh, dressed to kill. Yep, back from the dead and ready for supernatural revenge against everyone involved. She also takes time out to make her sexually abusive pop eat a beer bottle and tries to seduce her English teacher away from his wife (Claudette Mink), a guidance counselor at the school.<br /><br />Acting and writing are strictly mediocre. You can also tell the people responsible for this have seen such movies as CARRIE (1976), HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II (1987) and THE CRAFT (1996) because it borrows wholesale from all three of those superior films. There's some gore (a guy cutting off his ear and tongue and then stabbing his eyeball probably being the best bit), a nasty vomiting scene and a few campy/witty one-liners. Not an awful film by any means, but not much originality went into it either.
7,140	[ 300, 400 ]	241	309	. . . and never, ever see it. Now, I've been watching bad scifi movies for years. I love watching bad scifi movies. I think that was the only reason I could watch this movie the whole way through. I was toughened up by "Nukie," "Indian Superman," and that awful "Fantastic Four" movie, just to name some examples. Usually, I have to beat my head against the wall after I've seen a bad movie to make some of the pain go away. No, not with this one. With "TDB," I had to hit myself in the head with a shoe in the middle of the movie. Temporary fix. I can't believe I wanted to see that. I cried. When it finished, I cried. It was horrible. It was worse than when I saw shudders Wil Wheaton in his underwear in "The Curse," which, by the way, never watch either. Aside from the fact that Wesley Crusher's in his tighty whiteys, it's just sooo bad. But this review is about "TDB." The worst part about it is that someone wrote this movie and said, "This deserves to go on film! It's great!" and Wayne Newton, Rob Lowe, and everyone else in the cast said, "Oh, this is what I want on my film history!" I'll watch "Indian Superman" until the cows come home, but I am never going to see this steaming pile of dren again.
7,156	[ 300, 400 ]	245	323	This is a case of taking a fairy tale too far. The Enchanted Cottage delivers Dorothy McGuire as a "terrible ugly" spinster and Robert Young as a disfigured pilot. Long story short: Scarface marries Spinster, after which their love transforms them, miraculously (lighting, cosmetics and the removal of fake scars), into beautiful peoplea magical change that they attribute to the enchantment of living in a seaside cottage that has been the abode of generations of honeymooners.<br /><br />If the story stopped there, fine; it would be a fable with a proverbial message: beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But it lurches ahead, reaching for reality. When Mr. and Mrs. Scarface greet their public, it comes as a painful shock to them that they're still homely. You see, they only appear beautiful to each other a situation which the audience is well prepared for because all the secondary characters have been sermonizing that ill-favored people really need to lower their expectations, and find other ways to be happy. You know. Take up hobbies. Spinster does woodcuts, for instance. Scarface considers collecting driftwood.<br /><br />The original playwright (Arthur Wing Pinero) and the filmmakers have zero faith in human nature. Their message is: You're either ugly or pretty, and no pretty person would ever love an ugly one. What's even worse, ugly people evidently need to imagine their lover as pretty. Reality just won't do.<br /><br />One wonders what Elaine Mason saw every day when she looked at her husband, Stephen Hawking.
7,171	[ 300, 400 ]	323	394	When I put this movie in my DVD player, and sat down with a coke and some chips, I had some expectations. I was hoping that this movie would contain some of the strong-points of the first movie: Awsome animation, good flowing story, excellent voice cast, funny comedy and a kick-ass soundtrack. But, to my disappointment, not any of this is to be found in Atlantis: Milo's Return. Had I read some reviews first, I might not have been so let down. The following paragraph will be directed to those who have seen the first movie, and who enjoyed it primarily for the points mentioned.<br /><br />When the first scene appears, your in for a shock if you just picked Atlantis: Milo's Return from the display-case at your local videoshop (or whatever), and had the expectations I had. The music feels as a bad imitation of the first movie, and the voice cast has been replaced by a not so fitting one. (With the exception of a few characters, like the voice of Sweet). The actual drawings isnt that bad, but the animation in particular is a sad sight. The storyline is also pretty weak, as its more like three episodes of Schooby-Doo than the single adventurous story we got the last time. But dont misunderstand, it's not very good Schooby-Doo episodes. I didnt laugh a single time, although I might have sniggered once or twice.<br /><br />To the audience who haven't seen the first movie, or don't especially care for a similar sequel, here is a fast review of this movie as a stand-alone product: If you liked schooby-doo, you might like this movie. If you didn't, you could still enjoy this movie if you have nothing else to do. And I suspect it might be a good kids movie, but I wouldn't know. It might have been better if Milo's Return had been a three-episode series on a cartoon channel, or on breakfast TV.
7,172	[ 300, 400 ]	256	353	What the (beep) is going wrong with Disney the last years? Are there totally run out of good ideas? Where is the magic? Where are the good animators, the good songwriters, the good directors, the good... Okay, i know, Walt himself and the famous "nine old man" can't come back. But is this a reason to crank out countless of those cheap sequels and slowly but surely destroying the ideals of Walt Disney? I never rent or bought a Disney-sequel of what movie however. Because i had read much enough about its (absence of) quality. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return" was aired today on TV in Germany and so i watch it. It confirmed my doubts about sequels. It was absolutely boring. Flaw animation, primitive color-rotation, simple characters, some unsuccessful tries to simulate the famous Multiplane-Camera with CGI, mediocre music and a patchwork of different, simple stories. It looks absolutely not like Disney! Not like Disney i know! It looks like one of the countless, cheap and simple animation-series like "DragonballZ", "Beyblade" etc. that aired every day on TV for children.<br /><br />My first reaction after showing this crap, was to load "Bambi" in my DVD-Player, to see Disney's immortal magic, depth, spirit and charm again, to see Disney on its climax again, to see the awesome art of handmade animation again. "Bambi" was the first (and until today the only) movie that i give 10 out of 10 stars. But "Atlantis: Milo's Return"? No magic, no depth, no charm, no spirit... It deserved only 3 out of 10!
7,173	[ 300, 400 ]	274	333	i wish i could find some good things to say about this animated sequel(but not really a sequel)to "Atlantis:The Lost Empire"but this would be a very short comment.the magic that the first one had is nowhere to be found here.the animation is pretty poor all over,the characters themselves are not very well drawn.the backgrounds and the foregrounds are also not good.there's very little attention to detail here.and instead of a compelling and engaging story,we have 3 short stories which are boring and don't make a lot of sense.i swear,even the characters sounded like they were bored,and would rather be somewhere else.which says that the voice actors were bored and wanted to be someplace else,at least that's the impression.some of the same actors return for this dismal effort,but an integral par of the success of the first one was Michael J.Fox as the main hero, Milo Thatch.i get the distinct impression this movie was just thrown together to capitalize on the success of the first one,without much thought or care.but at least Cree Summer returns as the voice of "Kida".that's probably the only good thing about this movie,and even she doesn't seem to have her heart completely in it.mind you,i guess you couldn't blame any of the cast for not giving their all,considering what they had to work with.or rather not work with.this is a straight to video movie(and i use the term loosely)which should have went straight to the nearest landfill.anyway,shame on Disney.consumers deserve much better than this.this one gets a 0/10 and a well deserved one at that.p.u
7,174	[ 300, 400 ]	307	363	This movie was horrible, and it doesn't even deserve to be called a movie. The way I look at it, it's more like three mediocre day-time Disney cartoon episodes strung loosely together to make a single video that pretends to be the sequel to the first Atlantis movie, which was way more well-made and enjoyable. And where do i even begin with the problems of this DVD? The story? The characters? The pictures/animation? To me they're all bad and unwatchable. Firstly, the story in this direct-to-video DVD is ridiculous and pointless. The only good thing about it is that it is consistent--that is, consistently bad, from the beginning to the end. After the film's over i still don't know why Milo has returned and how the incidents occur in the three small stories are related to each other or to Atlantis itself. And all I could remember about this movie was how bad it makes me feel after seeing it. The characters feel wooden and lack personality, and the drawings look a lot different than that in the first. You can tell they're obviously not from the hands of the same animators from the first one. As the DVD played on, i found myself caring less and less about what might happen to the characters and just hoping the film would end soon. Besides the story and the characters mentioned above, the picture quality is poor in this one too, probably one of the worst in those direct-to-video products that Disney has ever released. As a fan of the the original Atlantis: the lost empire, I couldn't be more disappointed in Milo's return, which is a total waste of time and money. Thank goodness I rented it first instead of buying it. Even so, I still wish I'd never seen this crap or even known its existence.
7,185	[ 300, 400 ]	267	330	Tagline: the lucky ones died...before watching this.<br /><br />I've never watched a Bulgarian movie from 1920's, so I can't say this is the worst movie ever made, but it surely is the worst movie I've ever watched. I can't almost remember it.<br /><br />All I can recall is a family of stupid people who don't do anything right. Their car has one wheel out of four stuck in the sand, so they decide that there's nothing to do and prepare to live the rest of their lives there. Then there's an old man who is aware of the existence of a band of cannibals in the whereabouts but has never considered the idea to report the fact to the police.<br /><br />And, speaking of the police...if those freaks have lived around there eating humans for years, lots of people must have disappeared...how come the sheriff didn't suspect anything?<br /><br />But I gave up asking questions after the first five minutes or so. The rest is bore. An hallucinated unbelievable bore.<br /><br />I will be merciful and won't speak about the dialogues. And the acting. And the effects.<br /><br />I will only mention the final scene, where the freak girl eliminates a snake (the snakes! they come out in the end, what the hell do they have to do with the story?) with a sniper-precise throw of a stone, demonstrating the full disregard of Mr. Craven for reality and for things that happen on planet Earth in general.<br /><br />I believe there have been riots when the film was first released in 1977.<br /><br />Even being eaten by a cannibal wouldn't be a fair punishment to the director for this attack on intelligence.
7,186	[ 300, 400 ]	333	392	the hills have eyes is not a great film by any stretch of the imagination.for one the villains look almost normal,not what you would expect deranged lunatics to look like.for another the pacing is very slow at times and there are many scenes of the characters repeating themselves.by that,i mean there is a lot of filler in the movie, with a lot of running around aimlessly.the film didn't have a clear direction.the plot of the movie is hardly original,even for its time.the Texas chainsaw massacre came out a few year earlier and is a much more effective film, as far as horror goes.the film has little in the way of scares, and the pounding soundtrack just served to be both grating and distracting all at once.i suppose the music was used to cover up the fact that not much happens through much of the movie, though it failed in its intended purpose.i basically kept looking at the time every few seconds hoping something would happen or it would end .when something finally did happen any promise the film had was ruined by mere chaos and loud noise.i sat through it because i like to give a film the benefit of the doubt.yes, there is some loud screaming,and yes people die,but who cares.much too slow getting to any sort of pay off,if you can call it that.my buddy enjoyed it, so at least one of us got something out of it.the hills have eyes isn't the worst film we could have watched, but i doubt i will watch it again.this film was remade in 2006 and i will also have review of that version.anyway, this movie was painfully slow at times, while other times was chaotic and repetitive.unless you like watching paint dry, occasionally interspersed with someone running around your block, screaming their head off, stay away from this movie.a better bet would be the original Texas chainsaw massacre(1973)1.5* out of 10* which is being generous
7,193	[ 300, 400 ]	249	322	I have officially vomited in my own mouth, thanks to this movie.<br /><br />I expected the absolute worst with this movie, but I expected a heartwarming and pleasurable absolute worst. This is just terrible. Absolutely terrible. Terrible like Nazis spreading the black plague. Let me explain: Ewoks are speaking English. It's horrible.<br /><br />The villain girl looks like she travelled from the future set of Power Rangers. I really really want her to rise up from the ground and say "At last! After ten thousand years I'm free! It's time to conquer Earth!" The putties... er, I mean the big bad whatever the heck they are... they growl a lot. Many of them look like an even lamer version of the Cryptkeeper. The Cryptkeeper was pretty cool, but these guys were not.<br /><br />The only merit to this movie was Paul Gleason. This movie might have been better if he'd went to the bad guys and said "If I have to come in here again, I'm crackin' skulls." It would have been even better if one of the Ewoks was played by Judd Nelson, who mouthed his words as he said this.<br /><br />Also, that speedy little creature is pretty badass. Word to that.<br /><br />No word to the movie, though. I want to give this movie a two. I want to, so badly. There's a passage I have memorized: The path of this movie is beset on all sides by the inequities of terribleness and the tyranny of spin-off awfulness. Blessed is nothing, for this movie blows.
7,251	[ 300, 400 ]	250	303	Well let's be fair. Following up a cult classic like Road House is no easy task. Now subtract Swayze from the equation and you get a monumental task. So with Patrick not on board whose bonehead idea was it to proceed anyway and make this piece of garbage? I am going to blame the director who didn't even provide 5 minutes of decent footage throughout the entire film. I was actually shocked they got Will Patton (Armaggedon) to jump on board. Johnathon Schaech did an OK job with the lead but the writing was atrocious. Turning down his partner brunette bombshell (Crystal Mantecon) in the film's first 5 minutes made me want to eject it right there. But I stuck with the film hoping to catch a glimpse of that great cheesy humor that worked so well with the Double Duece. No such luck. The cover of the DVD is hilarious, they show these two stacked blondes who make one 10 second appearance in the film. Costar Ellen Hollman actually puts in a decent performance as well. But again the effort is futile in a piece of garbage and disgrace such as this. Has Jake Busey ever been cast in a decent film? Could they not pull at least a few actors in from the first film for some kind of nostalgia treatment? Even one of the old bouncers or two, or Jeff Healey for a performance would have been nice. Take this film out of your Queue immediately. -LostFlix
7,252	[ 300, 400 ]	297	390	"Direct-to-video" is a phrase that never sounds promising to the consumer unless its a direct-to-video sequel to something that went direct-to-video in the first place. Despite this, studios have insisted on releasing numerous direct-to-video sequels over the years to cult hits. I don't think it even needs to be mentioned that these sequels rank among some of the worst titles of all time, including THE HITCHER II, STARSHIP TROOPERS 2, and CRUEL INTENTIONS 3. It's fitting that ROAD HOUSE 2 was helmed by Scott Ziehl as he was also the man in charge of ruining the Cruel Intentions series. Like his entry in the Cruel Intentions trilogy, Ziehl takes elements that made the first ROAD HOUSE a great guy flick, and rehashes them with no success whatsoever. This is no sequel, this is a remake all the way. Various lines from the original are repeated, plot points cut and pasted, and scenes are replicated almost shot-for-shot from the first one. The one thing that could not be duplicated were the amazing fight scenes, which made ROAD HOUSE what it was. Here, we get clumsily directed fight sequences that are either too short or too long and seemingly planned out and shot within an hour. Compare that with its predecessor's fight scenes that look like they took months and months to prepare. Ziehl is capable of directing action as he did well with the 2001 remake of EARTH VS. THE SPIDER, but none of the talent shown there comes through in this mess. It's not completely his fault, as the screenplay is very, very poorly written and clunky. I don't care if something goes direct-to-video, a good script is still required. Someone should keep that mind while continuously churning these low-budget, direct-to-DVD movies out. Skip it entirely. 1/10
7,256	[ 300, 400 ]	312	369	It used to be that video distributors like Sub Rosa and Brain Damage Films would release low-budget, shot-on-video horror films to a select market of gorehounds that ate them up with glee. That's acceptable to me, because you could see these movies from a mile away with their shoddy box art and cheesy titles.<br /><br />Now we have Lions Gate getting into the mix, only they have decided that it'd be better to sucker in poor saps by putting a "professional" looking cover on it and charge the same price as one of their higher-budget, professionally made features. Do not be suckered in by this! Granted, if you've seen Dark Harvest 1 or 2 than you already know what to expect with 3 but there is a place for movies like this and it is not on a video store shelf beside professionally-made features.<br /><br />I am a fan of independent cinema and have watched several low budget, shot-on-video productions that were still a worthy rental but this was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The "acting" (if you can call it that) was abysmal. It was amusing to laugh at the horrible line reading for a minute or two, but eventually it was too much to take and became unbearable. The story is bad, the dialogue is worse, the acting somehow manages to be even worse. The only possible saving grace to this would be one disemboweling scene that still manages to be awful but is an award winning effect when compared to the blood splatters after a girl is slapped or the mannequin decapitation.<br /><br />It took me three tries to make it through this entire movie and I only did so because I paid good money to rent it and felt like I should at least finish it all the way through. Stay away - stay far, far away from this one.
7,264	[ 300, 400 ]	263	351	This is the first film I've watched from the Italian Ed Wood, Demofilo Fidani aka Miles Deem. The above title was superfluously added later on since there exists another similarly titled 1961 movie starring Richard Basehart which was Hammer Films' Michael Carreras' one and only stab at the Western; the genuine Italian title was originally translated as HIS NAME WAS SAM WALBASH, BUT THEY CALLED HIM AMENalthough it was actually WALLACH in the Italian variant which, of course, implies a tribute of sorts to Hollywood actor Eli! <br /><br />While certainly not unwatchably bad, instances of clumsiness and ineptitude abound so that I was often cracking up into howls of laughter: a horrid number by a would-be irresistible French chanteuse; a totally irrelevant bar-room brawl; actors doing somersaults when being shot; an aged villager doing an impromptu dance routine; ineffective use (indeed abuse) of slow-motion; and, easily the most preposterous, seeing Gordon Mitchell and Lincoln Tate play two gunfighters (sporting the actors' own names!) hired by the villain to kill off the title character and then never having them appear in the rest of the film at all!! <br /><br />Lead actor Robert Woods is just that even down to ineffectively whispering the Amens over the bodies of his victims. Supporting actress Simonella Vitelli (actually, the director's own daughter!) as the villain's broad is quite a looker but, unfortunately, she doesn't get to do much in the film despite having a change of heart towards the end. The main musical theme is actually pretty good but, again, the title song is, in itself, quite lousy.
7,267	[ 300, 400 ]	300	355	At it's core, this is a fairly typical revenge Western, heavy on the spaghetti, and if you follow it as such, the protagonist comes through successfully defeating the main villain. However there's so much going on that has no bearing on the story that you have to wonder what the film makers were thinking about. I'm referring to stuff like the way Miss Rosie's singing number just pops up out of nowhere and the boxing match in the middle of town. OK, they have a loose connection to the influence villain Mash Flanagan has, but why all of a sudden does he turn up with an alias - Mr. Donovan.<br /><br />On the flip side, I thought it was pretty innovative how the camera shot showing the wounded Wallach's view of the trail might have been filmed by someone with an actual bullet in his shoulder. And wasn't it great the way Donovan's girl uses the old headache routine when he gets a little frisky? Don't let me forget either the great stunt work by the gravel pit bad guys as Wallach guns them down as part of the finale.<br /><br />Still, there was one thing unaccounted for, and I kept waiting the entire movie for it. Whatever happened to that trio of hoods that Flanagan/Donovan hires near the start of the picture? You know, the guy Martel that a funeral parlor wanted to hire for his gun prowess, the devil's henchman Mitchell with the rifle, and the knife thrower Lincoln Tate. Each had a five thousand dollar bounty on his head, and they were supposed to protect Donovan from the guy who survived the massacre of the opening scene. They were never heard from again! I like to think that maybe Donovan just had them killed and kept the 15K all for himself.
7,282	[ 300, 400 ]	306	389	If this is the best Commander Hamilton movie, I have no curiosity about the others.<br /><br />A movie actor's greatest tools are his eyes, but when Peter Stormare wants to show great emotion, he closes his, so for five or six seconds we get to admire his eyelids while his feelings remain unknown behind them. Lousy acting technique.<br /><br />Stormare also flinches sometimes when he fires a gun, turning his head away and clamping his eyes shut. Watch carefully. James Bond can rest easy with competition like this.<br /><br />There are some interesting supporting performances from other actors, but not enough to hang a whole movie on. The cinematography is good-looking, doing a fine job of capturing the Nordic cold. Even the Sahara winds up looking cold. Perhaps Hamilton carries his own climate with him.<br /><br />There are some individual good action sequences here. Unfortunately, the only sense of humor on screen belongs to the villain, which turns the hero into a big pill. James Bond's jokes may not be particularly good, but at least he doesn't look constipated all the time.<br /><br />One positive point in the movie's favor is that the psychotic, contorted, vicious hatred of Israel in Guillou's books has been left out. What has been kept in is worship of a noble, heroic PLO, that he shows us functioning in Libya without the dictator Khaddafi's knowledge or supervision. This fantasy is hard to believe, since Khaddafi actually threw the PLO out of Libya for four years at a time. And at the end of the film, Hamilton gives the PLO a very disturbing gift. Where will they use that gift? Hamilton doesn't care.<br /><br />We're a long, long way away from "For Whom the Bell Tolls" here.<br /><br />Commander Hamilton will remain a local phenomenon. While Henning Mankell's books sell well around the world, Jan Guillou will never have the same success.<br /><br />As for this film, bleeeeaaahhhhh.
7,297	[ 300, 400 ]	236	335	(r#64)<br /><br />Unredeemable, merit-less, and above all dreary trash. You know a movie is going to be bad when its sole star power is Lance Henriksen. The French title for this movie says it all: "Inexplicable". How can you possibly make a movie this unbelievably bad in this day and age? Whatever Jonas Quastel's trick is, it worked. This is über-trash, I'm talking 'Manos'-level crap, meaningless, unwatchable, not-even-so-bad-it's-good, cinematic bile of the highest order.<br /><br />Lance Henriksen IS Harlan Knowles, a character who could have been interesting if he wasn't so utterly devoid of characteristics or personality. He, along with a bunch of morons, goes on a field trip to search for an evil Sasquatch which is believed to have attacked a plane which crashed out in the woods, or something. Not much else happens. There's some soft-core (meaning: Teletubbie level) nudity and some blatant rip-offs of "Predator". After 92 minutes of utter pain and another ripped off scene, this time from "Blair Witch", the movie finally staggers across the finish line and ends. As a bonus, we only see the monster itself for about one or two scenes in the entire movie.<br /><br />There's really not much to say about this film. All you need to know is, this is a very bad movie and not even worth viewing as a "so-bad-it's-good" flick. "The Untold" is to entertainment value what Orlando Bloom is to character acting. Avoid it like arsenic.
7,305	[ 300, 400 ]	311	388	Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in "Predator"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ("a creature knows what threatens it"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film.
7,307	[ 300, 400 ]	283	329	Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive? <br /><br />So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable.
7,317	[ 300, 400 ]	271	343	Dresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.<br /><br />It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.<br /><br />I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.<br /><br />Don't waste you time with this one, rent "downfall" instead...

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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