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
8,120	[ 300, 400 ]	294	355	I walked into Heart Of Gold thinking I was going to watch a documentary about Neil Young. Instead, I witnessed a self-serving tribute to the arrogance of aging baby boomers who have lost their edge and forgotten their roots. Highly rated by aging baby boomer critics, directed and performed by more aging baby boomer artists, Heart Of Gold is a bore-fest from start to finish, that is if you can manage to sit through the entire near 2 hour movie. Neil Young and crew have long lost their edge and want the rest of us to join them on a cushioned rocking chair of middle-of-the-road mediocrity. What happened to the raunchy guitar of his earlier solo efforts? I guess all of his fuzz boxes rusted out and his over-driven vacuum tubes exploded in the hot air of his generation. As far as Demme goes, this is the daring director of Something Wild & Melvin And Howard? A student filmmaker could have made a more daring film than this poorly visualized surface performance film. Don't waste your $$ on Heart Of Gold and go straight to The Last Waltz and Gimmie Shelter. And if you really want to dig deep into the personality of a rock and roll icon, scrounge up a copy of Chuck Berry: Hail Hail Rock And Roll which is sorely out of print. And baby boomers, don't bother squawking about how this review is jaded by someone younger. I too am one of those baby boomers who listened to Cinnamon Girl on acid and danced in the streets to the Stones' Street Fighting Man. Go back and watch Don't Look Back or Gimmie Shelter and then come back and tell me that Heart of Gold has any worth as a document.
8,124	[ 300, 400 ]	269	350	I unwittingly walked into this "trap" of a movie.<br /><br />If I could turn back time or simply get a refund I would be happy.<br /><br />It was 7:30pm and Cinderella Man didn't start until 10pm so I rushed into the theater to catch the movie that started at 7:20pm...and I dare say God reached out his hand (or retracted it) and allowed me to punish myself for my film gluttony by sitting in for this film.<br /><br />It may be unfair to criticize a movie that was not targeted at my heterosexual male cohort, however, there is no excuse for lousy sound and video editing. This movie was at most worthy of a highschool project budget...and I think I've seen better in those play acting French shorts that we used to do about Louis Laloupe.<br /><br />Maybe it's because I'm Canadian and this film was for the LA fudge-packing crew and their sympathizing dames. Woe was me when I realized that then entire audience save me cracked up at all the jokes and entendres...I fully understood the hinted humor...but I just could not relate.<br /><br />This show did show me, supposedly, how Gay men date and build relationships. However, even if it was their purpose of the movie, I feel that the "Gayness" was focused on too heavily....the humanity seemed lacking....but again, maybe that was the point...simply to be avant-gard...and to make a splash.<br /><br />I guess with a low budget and poor equipment, you have to make your movie as "loud" as possible in order to get crowds and cash return. I really wish I had simply read my Sheldon Van Auken instead. Hehe...I was totally the wrong audience.
8,128	[ 300, 400 ]	301	379	First of all, let me just say that after watching this movie I felt like I'd been sold a bill of goods. Mind you it's not the movie's fault that IMDb has it listen as a comedy first and a horror second (although I don't know how that's entered...maybe some moron from the film's crew put it in). Being a fan of the horror/comedy genre, I checked it out based on that and I'm so, so sorry I did. Where to start? First of all, to touch back on my beginning, there's no comedy in this movie. It tries once or twice, but never gets more than a chuckle at best. My reaction was primarily rolling my eyes and wondering why someone thought such tired material would be funny. Also, there's no horror here. Not a second of tension can be found. You think I'm exaggerating...I am not. No tension, very little blood, and not much violence on screen (sorry, but in a horror flick cutting away just as the good stuff starts is a major foul). Hell...there's even zero nudity. Call me a purist or juvenile...I prefer some in a horror flick if it can't come up with an original plot/premise. And that tired as all hell "reality TV show gone wrong thing"? It's been done before and a lot better. Like Wrong Turn 2 or...ummm....whatever that movie was called with Edward Furlong. That's how bad this movie is. I don't even remember the name of that movie, but it was better than this. I also enjoyed the one comment claiming the timing for this was good because "reality TV is taking over". Did someone from the past post that with a time machine? Are you freaking kidding me? This thing is trash...and not in a fun way.
8,138	[ 300, 400 ]	287	356	Nearly everything that Stephen King has ever written seems to have been turned into a film or TV series; in fact, I'm surprised that no one has tried to make a mini-series from the guy's grocery list. Let's face it, if they did, it couldn't be any less interesting than Children of the Corn.<br /><br />Based on one of King's many short stories, this 1984 horror flick sees Linda Hamilton and Peter Horton playing a couple on a long car journey who run into a spot of bother when they chance upon the sleepy Nebraska town of Gatlin, where all of the adults have been murdered by children who worship an ancient evil that lurks in the corn fields.<br /><br />Although director Fritz Kiersch does manage to build a fair amount of atmosphere at the beginning (after Hamilton's silly song and dance, but before we get to meet the freakish Isaac, leader of the killer kids), he completely blows it with endless unexciting scenes in which Hamilton and Horton are hunted down by the town's homicidal half-pints. Courtney Gains, as violent redhead Malachai, manages to appear genuinely menacing, but the rest of the children are not the least bit threatening; as a result, many of the film's 'scary' moments fail to work. <br /><br />Towards the end of the film, when we finally get to see the malevolent force that inhabits the field surrounding Gatlin, the film descends into a glut of terrible 80s visual effects that probably looked pretty ropey almost 25 years ago, but look positively laughable nowadays.<br /><br />Children of the Corn might be of interest to King fans keen to see how the writer's work has been translated to the big screen, but your average horror-film fan will be most unimpressed.
8,146	[ 300, 400 ]	292	376	There could be some SPOILERS AHEAD but I doubt it. I have no idea how the screenplay for this one made it past the shredder. It's horrible. Completely unwatchable. I hung in there for 45 minutes (about half the running time) and just couldn't stand it anymore. I was an Elijah Wood fan in the '90s (see "The War") and I learned to enjoy Mandy Moore's shifts from bubbly to serious this year (see "Chasing Liberty" which is surprisingly entertaining). I've seen bits of "Run Lola Run." So with three leads I liked this should have been fine. It wasn't. Nobody turned in a good performance. Wood's Jones was flat. For an aspiring writer he had next to no imagination (his violent fantasies looked like they were ripped off from "A Christmas Story" and his lustful ones were--huh, a cross between boring and alarming). Potente is absolutely unlikable from the first second and I'd only know that she was supposed to be "THE girl" by reading the box. Speaking of the synopsis--whoever they employed for that job made the film sound funny, quirky, romantic, and quite enjoyable. Whoever that person was, he or she should have been employed to rewrite this script. By the halfway point, I didn't care about ANY of the characters anymore. Moore's Lisa is an aspiring actress who's bubbly and a little conniving (for no apparent reason at all) but her ludicrous period play (which is supposed to be funny in presentation) is on a par with the rest of the script. There is supposedly a happy, romantic comedy ending to this turkey--given the character material they had to work with, I just can't envision it. Save your money. Warn your friends. DON'T watch this movie.
8,151	[ 300, 400 ]	328	393	This film is truly a sorry excuse for film making. The pacing is poor, the budget must have been depressingly low, and the acting is cut-rate (that is, except for Bela Lugosi). The audio at this point in time is also terrible, with so much extra noise in the background that it sounded to me as though a jet were taking off for the entirety of the movie. If these things bother you at all, don't watch this film.<br /><br />If you can get past this, however, you will find that the idea behind the film is a very good one. A German plastic surgeon (Bela Lugosi) was hired by the Japanese to operate on several Japanese agents and turn them into the likenesses of upstanding American businessmen whom the Japanese have kidnapped and killed. After completing his work, he was betrayed by the Japanese and thrown into prison. He later escapes and travels to America to seek revenge on his patients through a series of highly-publicized murders.<br /><br />It seemed as though Bela Lugosi was the only decent actor in the film, and, to be honest, the rest of the actors were completely forgettable and stodgy. The leading actress ended up being rather boring and stereotypical, while the police officer assigned to her case was the common, chauvinistic and always correct dominant male that is found in many films of this time period. <br /><br />I also found that the camera work was completely uninspired, often taking the exact same angles of the exact same rooms time and time again. After a while, this tends to drag the film down, setting a very slow pace for the "action," which is more or less non-existent anyway.<br /><br />To me, the idea is a fascinating one, and with a better writer, director, script, equipment, and actors it could become an excellent film. Sadly, these handicaps keep the film back for now, and I can't recommend it to anyone but the most open of movie lovers.
8,177	[ 300, 400 ]	231	304	A bunch of teen dirt bikers are out in the forest riding around in circles. They're having fun; little do they know nature is about to be unleashed by an emo refugee from a Deliverance or Hills Have Eyes movie. He's armed with matches and fire accellerant. And he's got an eye that's bleeding or something. Why torch a park? I dunno. Maybe he doesn't like Smokey the Bear, or something. But he wears army/navy store fatigues, if that helps.<br /><br />The rangers send one single helicopter to battle the resulting blaze; that's all you ever see, except a bunch of people in a base somewhere talking a lot about the fire, but doing nothing. Some cop or ranger or militiaman or whatever he is drops from the helicopter on a defective tether.<br /><br />Everybody now rides their dirt bikes like they're auditioning for motocross. They forever pop wheelies, do Evel Knievel jumps, spin around etc. They argue incessantly. Shots of the fire are as phony as a 3 dollar bill; it's the same footage from a dozen different angles, and the blaze never grows or moves. And you still never once see any fire fighting equipment.<br /><br />SyFy channel movie which has about 0% science fiction attached to it. What you can expect from this: bad acting, cheap effects, and a story that goes nowhere (like the bikes and fire go nowhere). Laughable insomniac cure.
8,196	[ 300, 400 ]	273	333	Hi, Everyone, Oh, Boy... This one is a lulu. It has really bad background music whenever they can squeeze it in. There are three bad guys who, I guess, are the stars of this. They beat people up and chop people up and crash trucks and bulldozers into people. Usual stuff.<br /><br />The woman who is sending them on their missions is unable to move her mouth when she speaks. It's sort of like watching a bad ventriloquist who is her own dummy. She walks like she is balancing an egg on her head.<br /><br />The wardrobe is 70s leisure style for the men and blah for the female lead who is supposed to be a good nurse. The bad novocain mouth woman wears red. A silk frock perhaps, or maybe just a poplin windbreaker that is too big.<br /><br />I actually liked the ending even though it did not make a lot of sense. It lets us in on what happened earlier in the film.<br /><br />The police officers are OK. Some bad, some good, all stupid except two. The two bright ones could have worked again in Hollywood.<br /><br />The movie starts interestingly enough and ends with a surprise. The middle sucks. The guy in the diner who gives a free hamburger to the star does a good job. He is like a 1940s character actor. Great voice.<br /><br />This one is a bit too long. The lady with marbles in her mouth could have had just a couple of lines and the rest could have been said by a parrot. It would have been easier to understand a bird.<br /><br />Her scene with a sword could have been handled by a trained woodpecker.<br /><br />Tom Willett
8,200	[ 300, 400 ]	293	335	As bad as this movie is, I really like it. The poor acting, dialogue and action made it so funny. I loved John Travis from Omega Cop and stayed up all night working out how the Death Machines checked in at the airport if they can't speak, probably had to shake/nod at the security questions. Actually why can't they speak!? It fails to adhere to any sort of movie making convention which makes it strangely interesting to watch- just lots of people getting killed around a very loose plot surrounding hired killers - no "machines" as such and those weird face/mountain things on the front cover and the trailer do not appear! I love the fact that there is no good guy in this film until about half way through and I love the numerous pointless scenes of that aeroplane landing - lots of people get killed who have nothing to do with the "plot" and no explanation is given about anything - DO NOT expect to understand this film. Instead admire how the main good guy can't even handle a random old guy in the bar - who is presented as the bad guy yet speaks out against the barman's decision to hire a scantily clad woman to dance badly in the corner for "entertainment" - all the good guys seem to enjoy this! Why did old guy get to beat up our hero - and why did the random bloke decide to help old guy in the fight?! Why did the hero collapse under one punch from old guy onto the bar where a stream of water jets out in the background so it looks like it's coming from his mouth? Definite Top 20 B-Movie, must check for a part 2.
8,208	[ 300, 400 ]	239	324	A true Gothic Horror Trash Classic!<br /><br />Uhm, actually, it's a horrible movie. Best thing about it: Rosalba Neri's erected naked nipples. Intensely suckable material.<br /><br />Oh sure, Rosalba Neri is one fine lady. Never even heard of her before this flick, but she is a damn fine looking lady. But honestly, it were her nipples that did it for me, in that very last scene, before the movie abruptly ends, all naked and erected... Total dream-nipples, man. Okay, sorry, getting a little carried away here...<br /><br />Basically, I got what I expected from LADY FRANKENSTEIN: It's a sleazy and horrible flick with a big stupid, ugly-looking Frankenstein monster and a couple of naked tits. And it's got a castle in it. So I wasn't really disappointed or anything. It just dragged too much in certain places (the first resurrection of the creature kept on going for ages, with daddy Frankenstein just experimenting, talking, trying some more). There was one fun, imbecilic homage to the original Frankenstein, though: Instead of throwing a little girl into a lake, here Mongoloid Franky picked up a naked chick and threw her in a river. Had me laughing.<br /><br />Some friends of mine raved just a tad bit too much about this flick, though. Had me maybe expecting a bit too much. But Rosalba's erected nipples sure were worth it... (Aw crap, I really need to stop mentioning her nipples). I think I'll just end this user-comment now.
8,209	[ 300, 400 ]	263	336	Okay, anyone looking to see a great work of art should NOT watch this film. A sophisticated film connoisseur will no doubt be nauseated by the horrid production values and the sight of watching an excellent actor (Joseph Cotten) whoring himself out for a buck. Mr. Cotten must have either really needed the money or he was too senile to realize that the film was crap. The same phenomenon occurred with Dana Andrews, who late in his career appeared in the campy and awful FROZEN DEAD. I know Mr. Andrews was in the throes of alcoholism, but why did Cotten do this mess?!<br /><br />As for the plot, it's a reworking of the Frankenstein plot. The first half of the movie really looked as if they were doing a serious but seriously flawed version of the original Frankenstein story. Then, inexplicably, they introduced a daughter. This wasn't a bad thing,...until then, out of the blue, they decided to stop making a horror film but make a soft-core pornographic flick!! The change was dramatic and bizarre. It was almost as if they said "okay, Mr. Cotten is done with his scenes and has gone home,....now ladies,...STRIP!".<br /><br />The problem is that on every level, the film is just awful except for the monster's makeup. While not great, it is still pretty cool to see. But bad writing, acting and a budget of $17.46 conspired to make this a drab and awful flick--one so bad that tossing in some nudity for the pervs out there shouldn't be enough to entice anyone to see it.
8,215	[ 300, 400 ]	215	300	Uggh! Hanna-Barbera of the 60s and 70s! What lousy and unwatchable cartoons that were thrust upon us by these hacks! It's a shame really, as in the 1940s and 1950s "Hanna-Barbera" meant quality--because they produced so many wonderful Tom and Jerry cartoons. However, with the major cost-cutting efforts of the late 1950s, cartoons in general began to look pretty poor and budgets were slashed. In fact, William Hanna and Joseph Barbera were fired by MGM and replaced by a team of Czech animators who had never even seen the original cartoons! So, in the late 50s, the team was out of work and decided "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em"--and began producing horrid little cartoons themselves--with horrible animation, backgrounds and writing.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, but the team's production of crappy cartoons worked too well---making them rich and the most successful producers of cartoons of the 60s and 70s. During this time, again and again, bad production values was their norm and a long list of VERY forgettable cartoons were created. In this case, the amazingly bad INCH HIGH PRIVATE EYE--a completely unfunny and stupid idea. If you want to know what the show was about, the title says it all.<br /><br />Rotten to the core and strong evidence that the production team had total contempt for us kids!
8,216	[ 300, 400 ]	266	345	Some of the secondary actors try, really hard. And camera shots in the desert are quite lovely. Otherwise, this film is horrible.<br /><br />William Shatner's character, Harvey, is an amateur screenwriter. He's also a psychopath, a man who quite literally escapes from a mental institution. Is the point of this film that amateur screenwriters are psychopaths? Harvey will do anything to get his script read and turned into a movie, even if that means taking a film crew hostage. Do amateur screenwriters ... grovel? Maybe they do.<br /><br />The film's setup is way too long. We don't get to the point of the story until well into the second half. The first half darts and flits among assorted characters.<br /><br />"Shoot Or Be Shot" is touted as a comedy, but I found it totally not funny. Dialogue contains no subtext. None of the characters are believable as real people. They're all stick figures that perform "action" in a way that resembles cartoon characters. Indeed, the film is basically a cartoon for adults: silly, inane, birdbrained.<br /><br />I can understand why some actors are in this film. They need the money or the exposure. But what are insiders Shatner and Harry Hamlin doing here? Maybe Shatner wants more comedy roles. Is this the best he can do? Is Hamlin that desperate for money? He used to be a respected actor. What happened?<br /><br />Even though the story is supposed to be a satire, it comes across more as a put-down of amateur screenwriters. Maybe that wasn't the intent. But that's certainly how the film can be interpreted. As such, the script was very, very poorly written.
8,219	[ 300, 400 ]	253	327	While I am a long-time Shatner fan (since we used to watch Trek re-runs over the dinner hour in the early '70s), I cannot think of any possible reason why he wanted to do this film, whether for personal development or business reasons. Did he lose a bet?<br /><br />As a movie fan, I like to appreciate the bad films along with the great ones. But "Shoot or be Shot" doesn't have any flair or funny bits, unintentional or not.<br /><br />While unrated, there were no objectionable scenes (blink or you'll miss it nudity, cartoonish gunfire "violence" with the endless bullet gunfights), so one is led to believe that the producers merely wanted to save the fee required to get the MPAA to rate it. This will make its way to cable with barely 10 seconds edited out.<br /><br />Of the eight people that were in the theatre with us, four of them left mid-way, muttering statements like "This is stupid".<br /><br />Shatner plays an escaped mental patient who has been denied release because he views himself as a screenwriter. The examination board stamps his request "INSANE". He runs into a group of Z-grade moviemakers who "shoot on video because its 80% cheaper than film" and decides to force them to shoot his script at gunpoint. There are a few minor subplots that develop some of the secondary characters, but for the most part, that is the whole movie.<br /><br />If you want to spend 90 minutes on a Shatner "art" film, see "Free Enterprise" instead, it is a much better film.
8,223	[ 300, 400 ]	267	341	I've got to say that I'm not a massive fan of Troma films. Granted, I've only seen three of them (or four including this one), but two (Blood Sucking Freaks and Mothers' Day) are widely reputed to be the best, which leads me to believe that all the others aren't worth seeing. That would certainly seem to be the case with Graduation Day, which is a Troma take on the over-popular eighties slasher. While the film is never particularly bad (given the type of film), it's never particularly good either; and by the end, all I could think about was 'why did I bother watching this?'. Anyway, the plot sees some girl die on a race track, and shortly thereafter; more people start dying. Naturally, there are a few possible suspects; but it's hard to really care about anything that happens. Of course, in slasher terms; it's the gore that is most important, and given Troma's track record where the red stuff is concerned, I was expecting buckets of it. There are some decent kill scenes, and some of them are gory; but it's never very shocking, which really just makes this another dreary slasher based on a celebratory event on the American calendar. It's worth noting that there's a small role in this film for sleaze queen Linnea Quigley, but the rest of the cast aren't worth mentioning. The direction, plot and its execution are all very mundane; and I will say that unless you're a big Troma fan or someone that wants to track down every slasher ever made; don't bother with this film.
8,226	[ 300, 400 ]	229	309	Six months after high-school sprinter Laura dies during a race, a killer begins to murder the rest of the track team using a variety of sports equipment as weapons: that's the daft plot of early 80s slasher Graduation Day, a lacklustre addition to the genre that offers very little in the way of style, originality or decent gore.<br /><br />What it does deliver, however, are some stunningly awful musical interludes, a few familiar faces (including an early appearance from scream-queen Linnea Quigley), and a smattering of nudity (a prerequisite of any slasher movie!).<br /><br />So forget the death scenesthey're lame and rather bloodlessand instead enjoy the movie's more memorably crap elements: the rapid editing that can induce migraines and epileptic seizures; the roller disco, which is accompanied by a prolonged heavy rock song, ' Gangster Rock', as performed by the unforgettably awful Felony; an impromptu jamming session by the school's students; Christopher George hamming it up as chief red-herring Coach Michaels; and the cheesy music teacher who letches after his female students (who, for some reason, find him quite irresistible?!?!).<br /><br />Towards the end of the film, the action picks up a little, with the discovery of the slaughtered kids' bodies under the bleachers, and a quite twisted scene featuring Laura's corpse in her cap and gown, but it all comes way to late in the day to save this film from mediocrity.
8,243	[ 300, 400 ]	282	325	You just need to see this as a poorly executed anti abortion propaganda and you will realize just how bad it really is. The main message of this movie is that even the sickest of persons can't commit an abortion. If you ask that's not a long way away from blowing up abortion clinics. So this guy wants to kill some poor girl but he has to convince her to do an abortion first. What a load of crap. And the worst part is that he has an convincing argument (bringing a child into a loveless environment), but that is supposed to be dismissed because he's a freak anyway. And the part with the bible pushers...first they throw this girl out just because she explains someone stole her money (that rule must be in the bible somewhere) and then on the end they are some sort of angel like deus ex machina delivering the killer from evil by harassing him on his front yard. Come on. Other downpoints include a very confusing scenario (and I don't mean in a good way)...so this guy is just some psycho why? Because his mother fed his some liver once? And I don't know about the rest of you but he seemed like the nicest person in the world throughout the whole move! even though he was a wearing girlie clothes, stealing money and taping girls in his car. If you forget the idiot story, this movie has a really great cinematography and Bob Hoskins was really great, and it has one of those funny little English cars in it. If it was actually about some psycho killer I'd give it a 7 at least.
8,244	[ 300, 400 ]	254	335	I found this an awfully disappointing experience! But I have appended a better option of similar style at the foot of this entry.<br /><br />This "Felicia's Journey" is intriguing. It has drama. But it is full of stereo-types! <br /><br />So it ONLY serves judgemental temperaments without concern for truer justice & fairness & truth, beyond black 'n' white judgements that fit 30-second ads of "NEWS" that dot our multimedia experiences everyday, especially news bulletins, true or misleading in such depictions! <br /><br />It is SO EXAGGERATED, it reminds me of the fairytale of "Little Red Ridinghood"! Consider the innocent young girl with no identification crossing borders questioned by a guard but freed without any evidence to venture on in search of her 'Romeo' who didn't give her an address VERSUS the pathetically inept lack of substance in the raspy voice of the 'helping hand' befriending her with his unlikely story fabricated by the layer! <br /><br />It seems to suit the directors & management team that no-one has faith or prays to God, even in their times of desperation! <br /><br />So in these early settings, it orchestrates & tells much of what is to come! A nightmare journey that betrays the essence of substance without fairytale resolution, without truth or integrity or credibility! ...Then one twist & it's all over. What a disappointment! If you want to see a MUCH superior movie that investigates similar themes with MUCH more credibility, with much more powerful insight, watch the 1983 Paul Cox/Norman Kaye "Man of Flowers" movie!!! <br /><br />Unlike here, you will NOT be disappointed!
8,248	[ 300, 400 ]	301	360	I agree with most of the critics above. More yet, I was shocked by the presentation of the love scenes with the homosexual couple. Why? because while they --the director, the producers?-- didn't have any compulsion whatsoever in presenting the different heterosexual couples in the most passionate embraces including nudity and super close-ups of French kissing and all sorts of nude contortions in bed, completely unnecessary in their length and in the story, when the moment came to show the same experiences with the homosexual couple, they only dare to go as far as an excruciatingly painful hug, almost among scholarly giggles, with two very nervous actors. So, in reality, the makers of this film found homosexuality to be UNNATURAL, as one of the characters says in some scene. What a difference with the Spanish cinema!! I remember being at the projection of an Almodovar film in an Italian cinema in Rome, and being completely amazed at the total lack of reaction from the Italian audience, they were afraid to have a reaction!! when in Spain people would fall down from their seats laughing at all the risquè situations and fabulous Almodovar wit and flair. Obviously in Italy there are dark forces in its history that impedes the free manifestation of some very normal and natural emotions. Pity. I must add that I was quite surprised to find that this same comment was censured by another correspondent. It's very bad and dangerous when we cannot be allowed by the narrowness of others to express our opinions about certain matters. Where is freedom of speech? I don't know if that censor will approve of the changes I was forced to make in this comment, and I hope he won't receive the same treatment from some other narrow minded judge. Pity again.
8,255	[ 300, 400 ]	293	343	I bought this film as I thought the cast was decent and I like Jennifer Rubin & Patsy Kensit.<br /><br />First off let me say the acting is not of a high standard. Stephen Baldwin makes his character look almost retarded at times and at other times morose. Patsy Kensit is so-so but not too convincing in some scenes, and the supposed poetry she spouts in a particular scene in her Hotel Room is utterly meaningless rubbish. Ms Kensit is certainly very suggestive and sexy here but ultimately I think Jennifer Rubin is by far the best in this film. Ms Rubins Character is at first innocent, then sexy, as she plays Stephen Baldwin's Character (Travis)for a fool. The supporting cast includes Adam Baldwin(no relation to his more famous namesakes) & M.Emmet Walsh who has appeared in many films, also I noticed Art Evans who was one of John Mclane's allies in Die Hard 2. The Movie is decent and there are a few nude scenes with Rubin & Kensit, a bit of action but this is certainly not a fast moving or intelligent thriller. There is a particular scene when they are in the car about to commit a crime and Stephen Balwin's character is wearing sunglasses and when you see him again, the area around his eyes etc is painted black instead, then the sunglasses reappear later when they are leaving the crime scene and police are in pursuit, a very obvious error in editing. <br /><br />If you are fans of either of the ladies or either Baldwin then you may find something to like here, but others should steer clear. This is a reasonable but unremarkable thriller and not really worth more than a couple of dollars if you want it.
8,261	[ 300, 400 ]	273	337	So many fans, so little to show for it. I know, I know, these words are gonna find me in a great minority. A lot of people really liked Good Will Hunting. But seriously please, great film making, not even close, and let's put the blame where it belongs... in the writing.<br /><br />Now, I know they won an oscar for it, and boy did they look good emoting on the screen. But Good Will Hunting is an ABC after school special with lots of cursing in it, and a slightly bigger budget.<br /><br />What this movie does show, is the brilliance of Harvey Weinstein and Miramax Pictures. Mr. Weinstein could take manure, feed it to you, and make you believe your eating bon bons. And that's exactly what the studio did with the film. They created such high faluttin buzz around it, that people believed, and wanted to believe it so much --- that they saw brilliance where there was none.<br /><br />Now, I know some people think it's a great movie, I don't think it's a horribly bad movie, I like to compare it to more in the middle of the road movies, and also to some great Made for TV movies (although, not HBO films, HBO films are unusually better than Good Will Hunting would ever be.) It's just a nice, little film, with some good performances, Robin Williams was not good in it, they just gave him the oscar cause the'd been itching to do it for a while. And of course, the Miramax public relations machine secured Ben and Matt their screenwriting oscar... but come one people... there's better movies out there thatn GWH.
8,263	[ 300, 400 ]	266	351	When Hollywood is trying to grasp what an "intelligent person" is like, they fail so miserably, finding it hard putting words in the mouth of the purported "genius".<br /><br />Right, any genius walks around trying to rub in his superiority at every instance. Sure, they hang out in bars and pick fights it's not like they are (generalizing wildly) autistic nerds who never have a tan.<br /><br />Plus, if you are a genius you know all about Math and History and Politics and of course you're constantly up to date with current events and a thorough analysis of them. Coz these things, like, all go together n stuff, y'know?<br /><br />Plus, you walk around with a smirk all the time. You are just a smug son of a you-know-what, that's how it is, y'all. <br /><br />And of course you smoke, like someone who never smoked before, but you smoke coz it's like cool n stuff, y'know. And you're different. That is understood.<br /><br />And of course you can fight you're a bully. A bully who finds time to study 10.000 books whenever he doesn't lift weights. And whenever he doesn't smoke or drink beer because he follows a strict health regimen.<br /><br />And you date a 30-something college student Minnie Driver. Well, I won't even comment Matt Damon. Team America has hit the nail on the head already.<br /><br />This movie is a daydream of a Beavis & Butthead type student (in other words 95% of them): "Yeah, that's what I would be like if I was a genius." But stupid people and stupid authors in this case cannot imagine the lives of geniuses.
8,269	[ 300, 400 ]	235	313	I have always liked the Carry On films, with their double-meaning sexual innuendo dialogue and moments of slapstick comedy, but I can see why the critics give this one two stars. Basically, many British people are gathering on a coach to go on a Spanish holiday to an island called Elsbels to the Palace Hotel. What they didn't know is that it is not completely built, plus they have to share bathrooms with their neighbours, they have crap draws, and many other complications and complaints that the owner Pepe (Peter Butterworth, putting on quite an amusing accent, e.g. peace sounding like the bad P word). Starring Sid James as Vic Flange, Kenneth Williams as Stuart Farquhar, Charles Hawtrey as Eustace Tuttle, Joan Sims as Cora Flange, Barbara Windsor as Sadie Tomkins, Kenneth Connor as Stanley Blunt, an apparently crap (I personally can't remember who he is) Jimmy Logan as Bert Conway, June Whitfield as Evelyn Blunt, Hattie Jacques as Floella (a ridiculous hag character, not as memorable as her usual Matron), Bernard Bresslaw as Brother Bernard, Sally Geeson as Lily, Carol Hawkins as Marge, Jack Douglas as Harry and Patsy Rowlands as Miss Dobbs. I admit it is not great, but there are just enough dialogue gags, and of course Babs in the shower, and going to to her bum with that iconic whistle, and later a rapid rip off of her bra. Okay!
8,272	[ 300, 400 ]	266	313	As I sat watching this episode I kept glancing at the clock waiting for something to happen. As the hour wound down I thought they were really going to give us a big pop at the end, and then - nothing. The whole family is huddled around the Christmas tree like something from the Hallmark Channel then, fade to black.<br /><br />Perhaps one of the poorest season finales I've ever seen. Nothing at all to drum up any excitement for next season. The only thing thrown out as any sort of incentive to watch the next season was the ambiguous nugget offered up by Agent Harris while pawing a sub sandwich that the guys in New York were looking to get one of the guys in New Jersey. Wow, really? I would never expect something like that from mobsters, I'm on the edge of my seat.<br /><br />It almost seems like they're trying to get everyone to lose interest. They start more plot lines that end up just disappearing than any show I've ever seen. They tease and hint but rarely deliver any more.<br /><br />What's with the Arabs that hang out at the Bing? They keep throwing them in front of us and magically, nothing happens.<br /><br />Paulie knee caps some kid after Tony promised his mother that nothing would happen to her son and, poof, gone in the wind.<br /><br />And how many more meandering drug montages with Christopher are we going to have to endure? Please, have him get arrested or overdose or something interesting.<br /><br />This was one of the few shows that I used to looked forward to watching but now, forgetta-bout it.
8,277	[ 300, 400 ]	300	381	I consider myself a big fan of low budget horror movies. The more bizarre and imaginative the film, the more blood and guts, the better, and i really fall in love with cheaply done flicks if they are done right. Luther starts out well enough... his origin at the circus, a creepy run at a supermarket, an attack of an old lady, and his disturbing occupation of a woman's farmhouse all set the mood nicely. A hot sex/ shower scene ensues when the woman's daughter and daughter's boyfriend arrives at the house. When Luther steals the boyfriends motorbike the movie takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The characters are presented with numerous opportunities to: A) save their loved ones, B) get the police to help, C) escape, or (most importantly) D) KILL LUTHER!!! I can't feel empathy or fear for characters that are too stupid to help themselves. Chareters snub chances to arm themselves with guns and knives while Luther is away. A policeman eventually arrives and is equally ineffective in stopping Luther, even though at one point he has a rifle squarely aimed at Luther while Luther clucks and does his rendition of the polish chicken dance. I found myself futilely coaching my television: "Make sure he's dead!", "Hes gone, get out of there!", or "Just kill him already!" <br /><br />Luther is a bloodthirsty savage, but he is hardly Hannibal Lecter. If you can't outsmart this egghead, you deserve what's coming to you. By halfway through the movie you'll be so lethargic to the fates of the half-wits that only morbid curiosity will sustain you to last to the mildly amusing ending. This movie was noted as one of Fangoria's 101 greatest movies you've never seen... well Fangoria is half-right in the case of Luther the Geek.
8,291	[ 300, 400 ]	279	338	For those that might send me nasty e-mails, shove it. There is a trend in Hollywood where those that create overly-quirky movies are instantly impervious to criticism. Garden State tends to be one of those movies. <br /><br />Sure, Zach Braff, star of a rather overrated sitcom, surprises people with some talent behind the camera, but that doesn't warrant the kind of praise that a film like this has been receiving. The story is often times too thin and shallow to provide any real insight. People have compared this film to The Graduate, but those type of people are the types that try to oversell independent cinema. Indie films are subject to the same hit and miss mentality that typically hits the studio films, but people seemed to have forgotten that there are far more bad indie films than good ones. Garden State isn't atrocious, but its isn't great.<br /><br />First off, the film is too quick, resulting in a rather fast reemergence of Large into his former life. After ten years, people tend to act like he never left. Where's the awkwardness? Of course, the situation is always solved by a quick drug tasting scene (which I will say was portrayed rather accurately). The film seem to present a lot of emotional inequities, giving us the idea that the emotion will come up later in a more deeper and more well thought out way. However, it fails to deliver on those fronts, leaving us wondering why the journey to some of his decisions and moments were quickly resolved (like Peter Saarsgard's grave robbing tendencies). It wasn't completely abysmal, but maybe we should stop praising the film as something it isn't.
8,294	[ 300, 400 ]	311	358	The film successfully gives a graphic portrayal of the suffering of forced sex labour, but nothing more. The leftest agenda behind this movie could be seen a mile away and leaves viewer so embarrassed while watching if you know that feeling. So, the women are kidnapped and sent to ex Yugoslavian territory to work as sex slaves because (take a deep breath) the American military institution is corrupt and looks away while their private security contractors are selling people abroad. You don't need half a brain to see the relevance to Iraq war and Black Water Company.<br /><br />What a load of leftest excrement! Looks like I have been fooled all my life into thinking that this problem and many others were a direct result of Communism's grip on this region for 45 years. But no, it was the American war on Iraq, which is also responsible for earthquakes, tropical storms, and the constipation I had last week.<br /><br />The film ignores the fact that 95% of the sex trade is women willing to sell their bodies for money and entry to the western block. You also see scenes that are so stupid you want to pull your hair. We have someone chasing down a woman in the streets of London in broad daylight, beat her up, then somehow drags her unconscious body half a mile back to the apartment where he rapes her. No one sees this or calls the police, and the running woman does not care to scream during the chase. Even better, we later see 4-5 women lined up in the centre of London in -again- broad daylight to be sold, one of them has a smashed face, and people are shopping in the background as if nothing was happening. You can't make this stupidity up.<br /><br />I used to think that such trash was exclusive to Hollywood, but apparently I was mistaken.
8,301	[ 300, 400 ]	248	312	"Dungeon of Harrow" had a lot of things that could've made this quite a good horror film. Creepy mansion, a torture chamber, a paranoid host, a henchman, a ghoul in the dungeon, etc. But sadly to say this wasn't made very well.<br /><br />A writer and a skipper get shipwrecked on an island owned by a count in a castle, his slave, and a mute maid. The count becomes more and more suspicious that the two shipwrecked men are pirates (of all things) and gets more inclined to turn on them and subject them, and the mute maid who befriends them, to torture and imprisonment. Sound not-bad right? <br /><br />Well, not quite. I used to call this one of the worst movies I have ever seen, but now I hesitate. Because it had so much potential it can't really be called "one of the worst." However, seeing all this potential go to waste is a really big hit against this film. All in all, it's not a very good movie.<br /><br />There is a very Gothic-suspense scene when our hero is chained in the dungeon and is confronted by the insane and leprous rotting bride, adorned in a tattered wedding dress. This was both creepy and disturbing the first time I saw the horror unfold in this scene. Man I wish this was a better movie! <br /><br />This movie had all the right stuff to make this a moody late-night chiller, but ultimately took all the wrong turns. I suggest someone remake this one.
8,304	[ 300, 400 ]	284	365	Why can't a movie be rated a zero? Or even a negative number? Some movies such as "Plan Nine From Outer Space" are so bad they're fun to watch. THIS IS NOT ONE. "The Dungeon of Horror" might be the worst movie I've ever seen (some of anyway. I HAD to fast forward through a lot of it!). Fortunately for the indiscretions of my youth and senility of my advancing age, there may be worse movies I've seen, but thankfully, I can't remember them. The sets appeared to be made with cardboard and finished with cans of spray paint. The special effects looked like a fifth grader's C+ diorama set in a shoebox. The movie contained unforgivable gaffs such as when the Marquis shoots and kills his servant. He then immediately gets into a scuffle with his escaping victim, who takes his flintlock and shoots him with it, without the gun having been reloaded! This movie was so bad my DVD copy only had name credits. I guess no company or studio wanted to be incriminated. Though I guess when you film in your garage and make sets out of cardboard boxes a studio isn't needed. This movie definitely ranks in my cellar of all time worst movies with such horrible sacrileges as "The Manipulator", the worst movie I have ever seen with an actual (one time) Hollywood leading man-Mickey Rooney. The only time I would recommend watching "The Dungeon of Harrow" (or "The Manipulator" for that matter) would be if someone were to pay you. (I'm kind of cheap) I'd have to have $7 or $8 bucks for "Dungeon" and at least ten for "Manipulator". phil-the never out of the can cinematographer
8,315	[ 300, 400 ]	260	335	One night on an independent channel famous for showing off-the-wall films was aired this monstrosity. Though tempted to turn it off, we watched it to the bitter end, hoping to see some semblance of redeeming value. Alas, there was none. Absolutely nothing. The film quality was cheap; the soundtrack was muddy; the editing was ridiculous. Then again, there was precious little to salvage. After a few minutes of Cameron Mitchell's doctor character narrating about some patient of his, the viewer is tortured by no plot, pathetic writing, abysmally terrible acting, and an utter lack of cohesion and continuity. The rotting cherry on top of this fetid mess was the most horrendous "special effects" and "makeup" to ever disgrace the screen, even for television. The main character stumbles through his role in a dimestore rubber mask and a pair of dishwashing gloves which appear to have been dipped in glue and rolled in beads. Perhaps the poor lighting and gag-worthy film quality were attempting to cover up how bad-to-the-tenth-power the makeup was. One can only hope that at least one deliberate decision was made in the course of this hopelessly amateurish video. Seriously, a handful of three-year-old kids could've produced a better project. At the end, poor Mr. Mitchell returns (how desperate he must've been for money!) and drones out some nonsense that's supposed to connect this pile of crap with the AIDS epidemic. Please spare you and your loved ones the inhuman cruelty of sitting through this. It was so bad, even Mystery Science Theater 3000 couldn't have salvaged it.
8,316	[ 300, 400 ]	279	343	I remember watching this movie on TV a few years back. It was so bad, I can only remember the scenes that just made me die laughing. The only plot summary I can give you (without any spoilers) is picture a home movie made by college kids who were high.<br /><br />(Spoiler alert starts here...) When the movie starts, a guy's running, being chased by the "Demon Cop", when in fact, the man was really being chased by a Halloween costume gone wrong. A car pops out of nowhere, hitting the guy who was running. It sends him flying over the top of it, and what does the driver do??? Watches the man as he falls, gets back in his car and drives away. What kind of hair-brained dolt would do that? I would've at least asked if the guy was okay.<br /><br />Then, some black guy stares the Demon Cop straight in the face, then, later tells reporters, "I didn't get a good look at him." My sisters and I, by then, were almost choking ourselves to death with laughter.<br /><br />Then, there's some scene in an alley, where this girl with an afro, pulls a machine gun out of her teeny-weeny little purse. It couldn't have possibly FIT!! I can hardly remember certain scenes. Maybe it's because they were just that bad.<br /><br />Cops in the film can't even jump a fence, and the acting is so wooden, it makes planks of wood look like better actors.<br /><br />All in all, this movie brings shame to Hollywood, way more than any other flop could. You have to see it to believe its sappy cheesy plot, which it has none of, as far as I can tell.
8,321	[ 300, 400 ]	244	324	"Two wildlife photographers are traveling through the Amazon River basin on their latest assignment. While trying to capture the wildlife of the area on film, our photographers cross paths with a game hunter, who is stalking the animals for another reason. Looking to eliminate the witnesses to his illegal activities, the hunter decides to" according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. <br /><br />Handsome guide Peter Brown (as Jim Pendrake) takes pretty blonde Ahna Capri (as Terry Greene) and her good-looking brother Tom Simcox (as Art Greene) into the Venezuelan jungle, to admire the view, and take wildlife pictures. After they hook up with hunky big-game hunter William Smith (as Caribe), psychological dramatics surface. <br /><br />A pivotal scene, with Mr. Brown reposing in the "vee" of a tree, and sharing a cigarette with Mr. Simcox, is nicely staged. The circular direction reappears in the later "fight" between Brown and Mr. Smith; and, it is effective. Simcox' early sex romp adds nothing to the story; it could have been cut, to take advantage of what seems like flirting between the Brown and Simcox characters. An attraction between Brown and Ms. Capri could have been played up, also. <br /><br />The music, including Jim Stein's "Love All Things That Love the Sun", is fine; but the film needs to be re-tracked, to cut out animals which do not appear on screen. And, there is far too much superfluous footage on display. "Piranha" is a case where less would have been more.
8,323	[ 300, 400 ]	259	317	Obviously, this is not the "Piranha" directed by Joe Dante and produced by Roger Corman. It wasn't so obvious, when I bought the DVD for only $2.95, as the DVD cover art matched that of the Corman produced comedy/horror "Piranha", even the DVD menu (no features of course) matched the cover. Half way through watching this odd movie, my girlfriend and I started thinking, where are the PIRANHAS? Once the movie reached the climax we realised that we must have been watching the wrong movie as we had seen the trailer, which had completely different footage, the blurb on the back of the DVD did not match the story we were watching and the credits (actors, producer, director) were also completely different. Instead, we got some jungle melodrama about a a girl and two guys who go searching for diamonds and end up confronting a vicious animal hunter. This tame, exploitation thriller is boring and pointless and is only mildly amusing for old-school, camp value. Strange that a DVD can be manufactured with the wrong film in tact, but I suppose it is an easy mistake to make seeing as though they are both B-grade movies of the same name made in the 70's. Reading other posts made on this film, I noticed that I'm not the only one with the wrong movie on the DVD. How could this be an INTERNATIONAL error? Is there perhaps, some sort of DVD phenomena where unsuccessful films try to get recognition by being put on the wrong DVDs? WHAT IS GOING ON???
8,333	[ 300, 400 ]	289	364	And one of 'em are bad movies. The title, as it turns out, refers to a killer of the human male variety, not fish. This is not the Dante-directed "Piranha" of '78 (which did have the fish) and is also known as "Piranha, Piranha." A trio of photographers, 2 men and a woman, hook up with a local hunter/trapper named Caribe somewhere in the Amazon jungle. Unfortunately, they are not familiar with the film resume of William Smith, who plays Caribe; otherwise, they would have known immediately he is the villain of the piece. Smith may have also refused to film the ending or cut out before they finished filming (see end of this comment).<br /><br />As mentioned elsewhere, this pic has a lot of filler - lengthy shots of the local wildlife (birds) - and the central set piece, a motorcycle race, which goes on too long. The reason this gets a second star from me is, of course, William Smith, who can't really save this sludge, but once again proves why he was the 'go to' guy 30-35 years ago if you needed a really nasty villain; at his best, Smith could be really terrifying. He's the type who enjoys killing, possibly in sadistic fashion, and you get that sense from the evil grin he usually puts on when a mood strikes him. Physically, he's very imposing, and you know the other 3 characters are pretty much doomed within the first half-hour. This was what Smith brought to most of his roles; it seems hopeless for the other characters against this manlike monster. Unfortunately, the movie continues to muddy things up to the very end, as if a minute of footage was lost - a confusing, incomplete climax.
8,354	[ 300, 400 ]	275	308	For a movie that gained so much recognition and appraise this spinoff to "Rosemarys Baby" is one big mistake. It starts off that Andrew/Adrian whatever his name is because he's so confused that he doesn't know who he is anymore runs away from a cult with his mother and soon is kidnapped by a strange lady that ends up taking care of him as if she were his mother. The acting is terrible as Andrew grows up in his twenties and looks terrible with his sunken in face, never ending grin and Dukes of Hazard clothes on looks more like a drunken has been than the son of Satan. In fact thats all he does is drink and falls sloppily all over himself as he tries to come to grips with his past and the last memory of his mother driving away on a bus screaming to him. He finds a friend that seems to be an angel but he's quickly killed off and electricuted in a hillarious scene in which he looks more like a Christmas tree. Andrew gets cought and the cult with the members of the first part test him to see if he's really the Son of Satan. His dumb self fails the test and gets up off the alter glittering with myme makeup and jumps of the stage of a night club and dances like a clown on crack!!! This scene is memorable and well worth a watch. The ending is terrible and somewhat predictable considering how stupid he is in the whole movie. Do not watch this piece of trash or you will loose respect for the first part.
8,357	[ 300, 400 ]	224	310	With its few touches of surrealism, LWHTRB works as low-grade horror, but as a major follow-up statement to the original, it flounders miserably.<br /><br /> Things begin somewhat promising during the telefilm's opening credits... We see and hear several interesting shots and sounds: The Baby's black crib with the overhanging, inverted cross; the kitchen knife Rosemary carried into the Castevette's apartment and dropped in shock (the utensil is shown sticking out of the hardwood floor); and the emptiness of the Bramford itself, without tenants or furniture (voice-overs can be heard here from the previous film's dialog). Interesting too is the Easter Egg hunt the titular child participates in (the eggs and baskets are also black). Once the story gets rolling, it never really 'rolls'... And what happens to Rosemary when she boards that driverless bus, and is whisked away to God-knows-where? <br /><br />Patty Duke (a poor replacement for Mia Farrow), Ray Milland and Tina Louise (as the Southwestern Whore who raises the child, "Adrian/Andrew") head this almost-star cast, with Ruth Gordon reprising her "Minnie" role.<br /><br />Although not a total failure, this sequel-of-sorts should have been released in book form first, then maybe we all could have been a bit better informed... and not left totally in the dark. A fairly recent sequel novel "Son of Rosemary" (1999?) is the legitimate followup by Ira Levin himself.<br /><br />
8,370	[ 300, 400 ]	324	382	How any of you gave this more than 2 stars amazes me. I made an account on IMDb just to comment on this cr@p film. The acting is cr@p and the plot is cr@p. It would deserve no stars at all if it weren't for the descent soundtrack (and yet there are still some outrageously clownish tracks in there too, most notably the ones featuring the oboe and sound like black and white cartoon comedy background music and in no way fit the intended mood of the scenes that they haunt) and quality cinematography. The dialog and plot are about as complex as that of a Dr. Sues book. These actors are horrible. I am actually watching this movie right now and, with every word, am stunned you all swallowed this shitte. The only reason I didn't turn the movie off was because I have gotten wrapped up in creating an account on IMDb and posting this review. I dig mainstream films, I dig silly stupid films, I dig retro indie films, and nearly any other type/genre if carried out well. My brother convinced me to rent this because he said he heard it was good and he generally has great taste in movies; from the moment he told me the title I looked at him like he was crazy. I'm having a tough time ending this rant because there is just so much badness to talk about. The only way I can rationalize the good ratings on here is that you guys were paid to give this movie high ratings. It is so poorly done and no where close to dramatic, artsy, complex, well written, well preformed, or even bearable. If this was the final product of my hard directorial work, I would be to embarrassed to release it to the public, so I don't even feel sorry for the director if he reads this -- what the hell were you thinking guy?
8,373	[ 300, 400 ]	298	337	When me and my GF went to see this film, we didn't know what to expect, however she assured me that it had good reviews. So I went along with it. We got into the cinema and bought tickets and went into the screen. After a while of sitting there waiting for the film to start no one else walked through the door. I was very suspicious as you usually get at least a couple of more people in any film screening. The film began eventually and we sat there. After a while of very little dialogue and very "arty" type moody scenes I was starting to realise why we were the only people there. It was disjointed with random cuts from the main story to kids in a skate park, the story it's self made no sense. The kid was meant to have committed a crime when he didn't and If he did, writing a letter to no one is not an answer and you shouldn't feel not guilty just because you wrote that letter, he should have been punished. There was no point to this film at all. I have no idea why we didn't go and get our money back part of the way through the film. I tried to give it a chance I guess. There was little concept to this film, and the execution was disgraceful. The writer and director and just about everyone else who made this film should have realised what they were doing and stopped. It is an hour plus that I will never ever ever get back. I'm sorry to anyone who liked this film, but...it's just so so awful, i mean really really really bad. Oh well at least i never have to be subjected to it again.
8,380	[ 300, 400 ]	260	302	I had the misfortune to see this film recently and have to sit through it. A friend purchased it for £1 and insisted we watch it as it sounded good from the story on the back cover.<br /><br />10 minutes into the film it was apparent that the actors were amateurs and this was an extremely low budget effort.<br /><br />The scenes were very poorly acted, the script was stupid and the story contained many scenes which seemed unnecessarily long, just so the movie would be of a reasonable length.<br /><br />For instance when the lead character rents a warehouse, the film spends a ridiculous amount of time on this scene, with meaningless dialogue which serves no real purpose or necessity to the plot.<br /><br />The lead actor is supposedly carrying out revenge on a woman who sleeps with guys to give them HIV, he never once thinks to get tested. Instead he turns into a crazed killer deciding to torture her before killing her and sawing her into pieces.<br /><br />If this sounds good and you are thinking this will have lots of gore, think again. This film has no real gory sequences and is quite tame for this type of film.<br /><br />It does not scare, it does not make you think, it does not offer fast paced fun. It may however put you to sleep, it is certain to bore you to tears, so please save yourself the despair and follow my heading.<br /><br />AVOID THIS FILM 1/2 out of 10 (this does not deserve even 1)<br /><br />The film was 78 minutes but seemed as if it was 2 1/2 hours.
8,394	[ 300, 400 ]	313	375	Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).<br /><br />Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad! <br /><br />We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense ("I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing").<br /><br />Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it!
8,397	[ 300, 400 ]	293	382	it's a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this "movie" cuz of the drop "h.p. lovecraft" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect "red light" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some "big old" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the "old ones" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: "Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive.
8,402	[ 300, 400 ]	241	302	If you're coming to this film to learn something about depression, forget it: you won't learn anything except how not to write a screenplay on the subject. I understand the intent was to show how severe depression can turn an average person into a complete wreck, but the result is the most one-dimensional character I've ever seen in a Hollywood feature... no small feat. Christina Ricci as Elizabeth spends the entirety of this film screaming at the top of her lungs, viciously insulting someone, bursting into tears or some combination of the three (the only exceptions being some quiet sulking at the beginning and end). There is not the slightest hint of what she might be like WITHOUT depression... not the faintest glimmer of any other aspects of her personality... she just screams. At one point, her roommate tells her, "Lizzie, you're such a fun person to be around when you're not being depressed," and my reaction was, "She IS?" It seemed odd that the writers would include this comment without giving us any examples, but this script is a lesson in incompetence. It has no discernible structure or flow at all; instead, it consists of a series of awkwardly strung-together scenes of Lizzie screaming, then ends. Character development? No... Scenes of her everyday existence, i.e. going to classes, that might possibly be important details? No... Screaming at maximum volume? CHECK. It's not quite enough, I'm afraid. 1/10.
8,404	[ 300, 400 ]	283	348	I seldom see a film with such a cast, such a potentially strong story and based on a bestselling book that has been this weak and to some extent unwatchable... <br /><br />The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby... <br /><br />Christina Ricci is not only playing a tragic personae, but also a tragic actor, whose sobbing and screeching for the most part of the movie actually make you want to shout - kill yourself already and let us get to the credits rolling... The director is of no help as he supplies absolutely no pace and the story feels so disjointed you have no idea what this damn girl is actually on about. The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.<br /><br />The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother. Lange apparently can not be brought down by terrible script, directing and dire co-actors. Pure class.<br /><br />I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.<br /><br />In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK. Time to watch something, that actually is about REAL problems...
8,411	[ 300, 400 ]	293	351	I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.<br /><br />At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.<br /><br />This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.
8,413	[ 300, 400 ]	259	345	Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. from **
8,428	[ 300, 400 ]	331	393	When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.<br /><br />I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.<br /><br />And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high? <br /><br />I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!<br /><br />When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.
8,430	[ 300, 400 ]	309	377	Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.<br /><br />I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.<br /><br />Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes. <br /><br />Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.<br /><br />For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.
8,436	[ 300, 400 ]	270	330	The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.<br /><br />The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.<br /><br />I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.<br /><br />And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like "Without the contributions of these brave men and women..." Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.<br /><br />1/4
8,439	[ 300, 400 ]	275	325	"Tragic Hero" is a film that is most definitely trying to emulate the classic Godfather films, focusing on family, crime, loyalty, and revenge. Also, this is part of a two part series as The Godfather also was (at the time). However, this film comes nowhere near the level of those classic films and actually fairs worse than other Triad thrillers being released in Hong Kong at the time.<br /><br />One reason is the acting. With the exception of Chow Yun Fat, the acting is generally over the top and unbelievable. The audience tends to find the proceedings humorous simply because the actors' inability to maintain any degree of seriousness. As a result, we find the film not truly emotionally involving or intense since we don't particularly care what occurs with these characters.<br /><br />Another reason is its lack of focus. The narrative tries to incorporate many different story elements into the film, but this results in portions of the movie becoming underdeveloped as well as lacking any real sense of coherency. The audience sometimes becomes lost at the proceedings we are viewing, not knowing what the character's motivations are.<br /><br />The film's climax does contain a decent gun fight, but again since we don't care about the characters, we don't care who lives or who dies; The scene loses it's intensity and suspense because of this. The other action set pieces are rather mundane in nature, with a feeling of it being too controlled rather than free flowing.<br /><br />In general, this is a strictly average film and isn't recommended to the general film viewer... Only hard core genre enthusiasts and fans of Chow Yun Fat should consider this film for viewing.
8,440	[ 300, 400 ]	250	328	Danny Lee's performance as a wisecracking cop is the only spot of interest in this film, even though it has an excellent cast including Chow Yun-Fat, Carina Lau, Andy Lau, Shing Fui-On and Alex Man. CYF plays a triad boss who wants to settle down to a life of peace and plenty but Alex Man, a total psycho who has a big grudge against CYF, won't let him. CYF tries to escape to Malacca but to no avail. After his family is blown to bits, his cronies dead or turncoat, wounded and broke, CYF returns to Hong Kong to get into some serious revenge.<br /><br />It sounds a lot better than it is. CYF is well-dressed and handsome, looks pained, grimaces and cries on cue, but somehow or another you just don't care. Andy Lau looks great, but that's about it. Carina Lau has a tiny, tiny little part which was nice, but she gets a bullet in the head early on so that ends that. Alex Man is a cartoon villain he's so over-the-top which at times can be intriguing but the writing here is so flat that he just comes across as a garden-variety nut.<br /><br />Danny Lee is great though - too bad he's only a small blip on the screen of this dark (literally) and essentially boring movie.<br /><br />Rent it, don't buy it. Or just skip it altogether.<br /><br />This is the sequel to "Rich And Famous", even though it apparently was filmed simultaneously; it was released first because of CYF's boxoffice power.
8,441	[ 300, 400 ]	235	340	"Black Vengeance" is an alternate title for "Ying hung ho hon" AKA "Tragic Hero" (1987). I have just seen this on VHS, together with the first part of the story, "Gong woo ching" ("Rich and Famous"), also 1987. (The poster and 2 stills featured on the page are for a 4-DVD set of movies starring Rod Perry (The Black Gestapo), Fred Williamson (Black Cobra 2), Richard Lawson (Black Fist). The fourth movie is called "The Black Six"). Strangely, while the characters retain their original names in "Rich and Famous", in "Black Vengeance" Chow Yun-Fat's character is named Eddie Shaw, Alex Man (Man Tze Leung) is Harry, and Andy Lau is called Johnny. Also confusing is the fact that 1994 is given as the copyright dates on both films. Perhaps that was the year they were American-dubbed. According to the release dates given on IMDb "Tragic Hero" was released before "Rich and Famous". Was there any reason for releasing the sequel first? Despite some users' comments, I enjoyed these films, although they aren't among CYF's best such as "The Killer" and "Hard-Boiled" which are truly astonishing. However,if one day I come across a 2-DVD set of "Rich and Famous" and "Tragic Hero" I won't hesitate to buy it. Hopefully, these comments about "Black Vengeance" clear up, which was also for me, a mystery as to where it belonged in Chow Yun-Fat's filmography.
8,444	[ 300, 400 ]	280	342	An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!
8,465	[ 300, 400 ]	251	320	LORD PROTECTOR is kiddie fare, but for whose kids? Obviously shot for television or STV, this amateurish rehash KRULL has several stock characters -- a magician, an assassin, a warrior, a scientist -- on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the Dark Forces about to be unleashed on their planet. Badly written, acted and staged in available California locations like municipal parks and a ranch, LORD PROTECTOR has nothing to recommend it, not even as a time waster. Jay Underwood is the only "name" actor, and most people, especially the intended audience of five year olds, are not likely to remember him from such ancient Disney fare as NOT QUITE HUMAN. A no-name actor playing a magician in an ill-fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of KING LEAR. I was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. Alas, the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted-over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks, like Bert Gordon's THE MAGIC SWORD. The filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. Often, such cheap Hollywood back-lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. I kept myself occupied during the film's seemingly interminable running time, trying to figure which was which in this one. I didn't have much luck.
8,466	[ 300, 400 ]	251	320	Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.<br /><br />Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.<br /><br />You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.<br /><br />3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.
8,475	[ 300, 400 ]	233	323	YOU BELONG TO ME (1941) is a example of the 'ScrewBall Comedy' which started in the mid 1930s and ended postwar (WWII). Some of these films maintained their status. Others have earned undeserved praise when originally were critical and box office flops. Like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or MR. & MRS. SMITH (1941). Then there is this one which value just keeps sinking.<br /><br />Why can be rooted in the screenplay/story. It strains credibility from the get go, betraying a superior cast. BARBARA STANWYCK is married to millionaire HENRY FONDA who is insanely jealous. He would be content to sit back with his million$ and love her, she wishes to maintain her profession as a Doctor. She wants him to become in what her eyes is a useful member of society. This conflict is supposed to amuse us. It cannot be salvaged by either the principals or the supporting cast.<br /><br />The faults in this scenario can clearly be laid at the feet of DALTON TRUMBO. HENRY FONDAs' character is written in such broad strokes that any viewer has a instant dislike for him. BARBARA STANWYCK just has nothing to do but react to each idiotic situation of jealousy. TRUMBO must have been spending to much time outside the studio being a "useful idiot" then being on the job. COLUMBIA obviously did not get their moneys worth from him, maybe ROBERT RISKIN should taken over.
8,476	[ 300, 400 ]	286	359	Begrudgingly gave it a 3 - one point each for Fonda, Stanwyck, and the supporting cast.<br /><br />Never saw this one before - am watching it right now and it has just gotten to the part where Henry Fonda is carrying Babs over the threshold. If I continue watching, it will be just to see if Fonda and Stanwyck will be able to pull this one out of the dumper.<br /><br />But after reading the other viewer comments, I'm not very optimistic.<br /><br />The opening ski scenes were enough to put me off my lunch. The voice-overs were obviously done in a sound studio, and the editing between the exterior shots and the closeups was horrendous. I do not know that much about the technology of that era - but I can't believe there wasn't something they could do to make it more believable.<br /><br />My second gasp of disbelief was when Fonda wiped out and (I imagine due to the extreme velocity of travel) he is burrowed head first into the snow up to his torso - Stanwyck pulls him out with obvious staged difficulty - and, (I imagine because she is such an experienced doctor) does not react at all to his apparently unconscious state and limp posture.<br /><br />Look, I'm completely capable of suspending my disbelief, but I couldn't get over the fact that she had just jostled a man with a possible head injury and that he might be paralyzed for life. Not my idea of big yuks.<br /><br />So, as I finish this comment, we have just seen Kirk's first jealous outburst, and Dr. Hunt is off to perform an appendectomy! I'm not sure which I hate more - the script, the background music, or the story!! Argghhhh! I'm done. Game over. Click.
8,488	[ 300, 400 ]	270	355	****Spoilers within***** What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clichéd bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.<br /><br />The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, "Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the "attack" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another "evil man" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!<br /><br />As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were "fakes". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!<br /><br />How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.<br /><br />I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.
8,494	[ 300, 400 ]	288	384	My Take: Yet another lame PG-13 horror movie with predictable scare tactics and a derivative plot.<br /><br />The spirits move. The walls creak. There's something wrong in the basement. These, along with several other horror movie clichés haunt the walls of yet another house in the country in the Sam Raimi-produced THE MESSENGERS, a lame pastiche of the most predictable scare tactics thrown in on a plot savagely recycled from better (and sometimes, even worse) horror movies of the past.<br /><br />When the Solomon family moves into an old South Dakota farmhouse, in yet another attempt by dad (Dylan McDermott) to reconnect with the family, especially with their formerly drunk-driving daughter Jessica (the underrated Kristen Stewart), in the more subtle countryside than their home in Chicago. The horror ensues when Jessica begins to get little surprise visits from the house's poltergeists. Thinking she's some teenage girl who cried wolf, her parents don't believe her. How could they? The real horror in THE MESSENGERS is waiting for which horror movie it will savage next. Will it be an angry flock of crows wanting more than the family's crops (a direct rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece THE BIRDS)? Will it be the haunted house with a history dating back from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR or POLTERGEIST? Or will it be the grotesque phantoms taken from your familiar recent horrors like THE RING and THE GRUDGE? Heck, the movie even manages to rip-off a scene or two from some truly bad horror movies like AMITYVILLE 3-D and the mediocre COLD CREEK MANOR. Perhaps all the Pang Brothers really wanted to do was a B-level horror movie, but did it have to be this bad? Couldn't they rip-off from the best? Avoid it.<br /><br />Rating: * out of 5.
8,510	[ 300, 400 ]	288	338	In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.<br /><br />I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.<br /><br />At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.<br /><br />Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.<br /><br />All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.
8,516	[ 300, 400 ]	277	368	Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song "You Light Up My Life;" the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.<br /><br />Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--"You Light Up My Life." She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking "Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen." And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.<br /><br />Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer
8,520	[ 300, 400 ]	297	354	I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.<br /><br />Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.<br /><br />Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.
8,539	[ 300, 400 ]	313	397	SPOILERS<br /><br />I love movies. I've seen a lot of movies. I didn't think I'd ever see a film that I actually hated. Son of the Mask ruined it. Son of the Mask is so bad I'm not even going to do a detailed comment like I usually do. In fact, I'm not even going to write a lot. I think all of you should know that this movie is horribly awful. And poor Jamie Kennedy. He was awesome in Scream, but now this film! Also, this film takes a SMO-CAN film and turns it into this goofy kids film that not even kids will like. This film also consists of very rude humor. Like the nose woman. She has a nose for a head and when she sneezes white stuff spews out of her nose. There is also an Exorcist parody. Yes, a kid film has an adult parody. Maybe they thought the adults would like it. Quite frankly, it made the film even more cheesier and crude.<br /><br />Here's the basic, stupid plot. Tim Avery's dog gets the amazing Loki mask and turns into a cartoon dog thing. When Tim is paying more attention to the baby with special powers, cartoon dog becomes a Wiley Coyote ripoff. Then Loki takes the baby with amazing powers and Tim and Loki have a really cheesy animated fight. Tim's wearing the mask. It all ends happy. Too bad this movie is horrible. <br /><br />Overall, the original the Mask was a fantastic Jim Carrey movie. This, basically is not. Please, please, don't rent, buy, or download this movie. I made a terrible mistake renting this. I don't want you guys to make that same exact mistake. I feel horrible that I couldn't write a detailed comment, but really, what's there to comment on?<br /><br />2/10 I'd give it a one, but come on, it's basically a kid film.<br /><br />Recommended Films: The Mask.
8,540	[ 300, 400 ]	315	382	Loki, Norse god of mischief, creates a mask that endows the wearer with cartoon-like powers. At the command of his father, Odin, he spends the rest of the movie looking for the mask so that it can cause no further grief to mankind. In the meantime, the possessor of the mask conceives a child who inherits the powers of the mask. Etc. etc. If this sounds like a pretty thin plot line, it is. Add to this the fact that the movie is handled ineptly from start to finish, and the result is very, very bad. You can find worse movies, but you'll have to actively search for them.<br /><br />For the most part, Son of the Mask is presented at the intellectual level of a pre-schooler, but in light of scenes such as the mask-baby urinating copiously in six different directions, including on his father, this premise seems unlikely. I asked my son who he thought might have been the target audience for the movie, and he responded "Convicted felons," apparently forgetting for the moment that the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.<br /><br />But just making a bad movie is not a sin, or Hell would be overflowing. What makes it a sin is that $72 million was spent on this piece of garbage. To put things in perspective, the day after we watched Son of the Mask, my son and I watched "Good Night, and Good Luck," a movie that garnered six academy award nominations (including best picture), and was brought in for $7 million. That's right. Just one-tenth of the amount of money spent on Son of the Mask. This, then is the sin -- to flush good money down the sewer, when it could have been better used in making watchable movies, or feeding starving children, or for that matter, almost any other purpose. The producers should truly be ashamed of themselves.
8,547	[ 300, 400 ]	251	308	"Son of the Mask" is a terrible excuse of a movie. I went to see this with my friend and I still wish we had seen "Because of Winn-Dixie" instead. I must say that it is partially my fault, as I agreed to go see it with him. Being a fan of the first "Mask" movie (Jim Carrey was hilarious) I had hoped it wasn't as bad as all of the critics said it was.<br /><br />Ten minutes into the movie I knew it was headed for disaster. Disgusting and pointless attempts at being funny got little seven and eight year old children shrieking with laughter, but the rest of us were left staring at the screen in disbelief.<br /><br />Finding the movie as repulsive and unfunny as I did is surprising to even me, as I loved "Scary Movie" and "Anchorman", two films which many people I know found crude and offensive. But the thing is, "Son of the Mask" is not funny unless you're under the age of ten.<br /><br />The film features lots of CGI in it, but it cannot save this piece of rubbish. Whoever allowed this movie to make it to the big screen was probably thinking it had potential, considering the success of its original. Unfortunately, it has none of the laughs, fun, or excitement of the first, creating a mockery of the original movie. I recommend renting the original "Mask" to anyone who is thinking about seeing this one. 1 star out of 10 is generous to this awful mess.
8,548	[ 300, 400 ]	271	369	This "film," and I use that term loosely, reminds me of the first joke my daughter wrote, at eighteen months: "P.U., stinky poopies!" <br /><br />Like that joke, this movie can only appeal to the very young, the very immature, or the very stupid. <br /><br />That said, there are a few bright spots. <br /><br />The effects, where the majority of the reputed $100 million went, are kinetic and convincing -- I mean, as convincing as those kind of kinetic CGI effects can be. The CGI baby effects are not great, but I imagine those are very hard to do well... although for a hundred-million bucks, they could have been better!<br /><br />Moose, the dog from "Frasier," phoned in his usual exemplary performance. Steven Wright did well with a small part. Alan Cummings was, well, Alan Cummings-as-villain, which we've seen before, and Bob Hoskins as Odin was unrecognizable, but enjoyable. <br /><br />The actress playing Mrs. Avery was cute-as-a-button, as you'd expect, and Jamie Kennedy stunk, as you'd expect. His best role so far was in the Scream trilogy (not to be confused with the Lord of the Rings trilogy), and in Three Kings. He should stick, perhaps, to more subtle forms of comedy. Jim Carrey, he ain't.<br /><br />The writing and direction were, if anything, worse than Kennedy's performance. I semi-remember one clever (though seven-year-old clever) line that I wish someone would quote accurately for the "Memorable Quotes" section. Something about Avery's proposed costume being the "crappiest crap in Craptown," it was a second-grade joke, but sort of funny in context.<br /><br />Over all, since there's nothing lower than a "one," I give this film a "one."
8,558	[ 300, 400 ]	303	355	Five Fingers relies heavily on barbaric, shock value Hollywood tactics to elicit apparently a positive movie-going response. This is where this movie fails throughout, primarily because it is too graphic to be taken seriously. I was repulsed and disgusted that Five Fingers was even made, and essentially had to force myself to continue watching it. Torture in and of itself is gruesome. Even the sounds coming from a room where someone is being tortured are gruesome. But obviously the makers of this stinker of a movie felt that was not enough. It had to go way beyond what was needed, and simply and effectively ruined any chances this movie had of making some sort of valid point. For this reason, this movie came across as nothing more than being self-gratifying. Five Fingers also pretty much relegates itself to a B-movie status solely by its indulgence on manipulation of time. In other words we are shown the present and then the past is revealed in snippets. This is a little bit of a twist of the normal Hollywood manipulation of time. Whereas the viewer normally is shown page 95 in a 100 page script as the beginning of the movie, and then the rest of the flick is essentially explaining the ending, Five Fingers is dedicated to flashing back, which gets quite tiring by the end of the movie. Overall, Five Fingers made me feel stupid for watching the whole movie, because torture is obviously obscene, and it certainly was not necessary to resort to graphic mutilation to make this point. I am surprised that Dick Cheney did not make a guest cameo appearance at the end as some sort of torture superhero. This movie is a perfect example of what happens when an important topic falls into the hands of greedy, mindless dolts.
8,560	[ 300, 400 ]	289	350	Five Fingers is so bad, that I hardly know where to begin. So let me admit first, that I have only seen the first half hour. When the first finger had been chopped off, I thought sleeping a more useful activity. I told my girlfriend the meaning of "five fingers" and she immediately followed my example.<br /><br />Couldn't the producer, the director and/or the scriptwriter consult a chess-amateur? Like me? They should have used a digital chess-clock and not an analogue. This major goof makes the mental pressure put on Martijn just a laugh. How, when and why did Martijn date a Moroccan girlfriend? Such an affair is very rare in The Netherlands.<br /><br />Calling me a retard is of course an insult to all those people suffering with a much lower than average IQ. Moreover, as far as I know, retards don't play chess. I do.<br /><br />The biggest problem is the script of course. Just compare the little intelligent movie Hard Candy. To keep the spectator in a grip, the information must be revealed bit by bit. A nice twist now and then also helps. I understood from other reviews, that there is a big one at the end of the movie. Any smart person can guess what it is. This of course just raises more questions - why is the travel guide killed? Oh my, why should I even care? The whole movie focuses on just one thing: the chopped fingers. The makers have not even learned Hitchcock's lesson: it is thrilling to get a bomb exploded. It is more thrilling to show that bomb ticking. But no, we don't see the paper-cutter until the impossible countdown is over. I will not waste more words on this crap. Go see Hard Candy.
8,566	[ 300, 400 ]	257	329	"Terror in the Aisles" might look like the ultimate treat for horror fans but it has, in fact, very few to offer. Granted, it presents a decent and versatile (too versatile?) selection of horror/thriller fragments that are considered classic but ...what's the point? This documentary primarily aims for the horror-loving public so we've pretty much seen all these clips already, haven't we? The only thing really praiseworthy about this project is the editing. If you're into scream-queens, chases by vile murderers and that sort of things, "Terror in the Aisles" has some neat compilations of the most famous sequences. All these different scenes hang together by a lame wraparound story starring Donald Pleasance and Nancy Allen sitting in a movie theater. In between two sequences, the address the viewer and "explain" why we love horror so much. Those speeches naturally are soporific and rather obvious (it's in our nature to be afraid ...bla bla bla) and I fail to understand why many people love the concept. This is worth a peek in case you're a loyal horror fan but it certainly isn't essential viewing. On the contrary: in case you still have to see a classic genre title, beware that bits and pieces of it here don't spoil your future viewing. The main reason why I overall disliked it is because it shamelessly ignores a lot of lesser known, but fundamental (foreign) titles endlessly focusing on "Halloween". This does result in a cool inside joke, however, when Donald Pleasance screams to the screen at his own character.
8,570	[ 300, 400 ]	329	367	This movie was outright painful for me to watch. I understand that indie films do not have the same resources as other mainstream films. But there are basic elements of film making that typically you want to adhere to. First off, jump cuts. There are numerous in the film's opening 15 minutes. There are shots in which it appears that two separate takes of the same shot were edited together. What I mean by this is a character will say half a line from one take, and the rest of the line is from a different take. Secondly, the dialog. I understand that many writers strive for a very realistic and true dialog for their films. Since this film is very specific to its location, the dialog must be spoken in a specific tone also (example: set a movie in Boston, yet people use west coast slang with a Chicago accent). Even with understanding this, it is still hard to sit through some of the lines these actors present. These are only the two most vivid problems I encountered with this film. There were a few others. I do not mean to sound like a harsh critic who doesn't know a thing. I have years of experience in the film (more importantly the low budget indie film) industry. I also understand that with many directors there is often a method to their madness. I have been unable to discover this method used in this film. This makes it difficult when trying to decide whether I view this film as an example of unique style in film making, or just another low budget, poorly put together film. I honestly hope that it is not the latter. If anyone has any insight into why things were done a certain way, or has any thoughts/views of their own concerning this film, I would love to hear them. Hopefully I can understand this film more and my current opinion can be changed.
8,580	[ 300, 400 ]	328	374	The reason why this movie sucks, have these people even read a bible? Everything in the movie was about moses, God was staying out of it. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN! God directed everything, he told them where to go and what to do. Also the people wandered for 40 years AFTER they arrived at Canan and betrayed God again! They didn't wander for 40 years then suddenly find it, It was a punishment for their doubts. Maybe if the people who made the film actually picked up a Bible first they would say oh no we got it all wrong try again. Everything in this movie was about Moses. They made God look like a jerk who was messing with Moses the whole time. NO NO NO NO NO!!!!!! God was their the whole time and he wanted the people to see he was taking care of them. How dare they say otherwise not even close to the passage. AND Moses was kept out because he was angry at the people and blatantly disobeyed God! He sinned badly and was told he would not be allowed to enter for it. When did moses run off and yell at God for everything in the Bible? NEVER!!!!!! Actually read your story before you make up whatever you think is a good idea. Also this whole God stayed out of it for the most part and made them do it themselves is not true!!! God did everything for the people, he provided for them in every way and God told them where to go. He was there the whole time. The whole we have to do it ourselves is true in some ways, but back then thats not how it worked! Yes today He doesn't work directly for everyone to see, but back then he actually killed people after the golden calf thing! God worked directly with the people. Read the Bible Next Time Echo Bridge or don't make another Bible movie!
8,588	[ 300, 400 ]	309	367	Does anyone care about any of the characters in this film? - Or for that matter what happens to them? - I doubt it. That is the key problem - for a tragedy to work we have to care about at least one of the characters and none of them inspire any sympathy or appear to have any redeeming qualities at all.<br /><br />What may have worked in the 16th Century, certainly does not work in one can only assume 'post apocalyptic Liverpool' if that was indeed what it was meant to be. The problem is the characters in post apocalyptic Liverpool, whilst still driving around in cars, using mobile phones and watching television, have reverted to speaking in Shakespearian language - with a Liverpudlian dialect. Oh dear! Bad enough you might think - but this often lapsed into pure scouse - with comments such as 'eh lah are you a cockney? And was that a Merseyrail announcement during one of the scenes filmed in the underground? Well the good news is that in Post apocalyptic Liverpool - the trains are still running.<br /><br />The characters without exception are badly drawn, wooden and more like charicatures on the lines of the Joker/Penguin in Batman and Robin except there is no real storyline to speak of - or if there is - it is one that doesn't work in a modern setting where half the sets are gloomy and 'Blade runnerish' and the other half are fluorescent garish or just 21st century normal. Costumes are also mixed up with half wearing their everyday clothes (Parkers are big in post apocalyptic Liverpool - apparently) and the other half wearing costumes from the leftovers of a fancy dress party?<br /><br />The film explores the ideas of lust, incest and revenge in the most inane fashion imaginable - the tragedy is that this film was made at all.<br /><br />
8,593	[ 300, 400 ]	248	306	Max Cash a charter boat captain who works off the Caribbean island San Sebastian is hired by Sarah, who's looking for legendary boat, El Diablo and its stolen treasure that sunk out in the reef in the 17th century. But something seems to be protecting the whereabouts of the ship, as people who knew anything about it are being killed.<br /><br />I have to agree with those that were under the impression that this was going to be a horror feature. Instead what we ended up with was a low-rent, b-grade late 80s take on 1977 deep-sea adventure film 'The Deep', but with a baffling supernatural origin and an injection of mystery. The story is a tame muddle (so many inconsistent angles don't make a lick of sense and encourages a blotchy pace) and the technical side is clunky. Nice exotic location and under-water photography though. While the carefree performances weren't too bad either. A gruff Wayne Crawford is enjoyably witty and June Chadwick is fair along side him. Sheri Able is pretty much eye candy. There are some bizarre developments that amuse and one or two eerie sequences. However there's a real lack of cohesion. Most of the cutaway deaths happen off-screen, except for the bloody, fitful opening kills done by something unseen. Again just another thing that leaves you high and dry. The music is generic with its thumping cues to warn us of approaching danger and the POV shots get a good working out. Tatty, but watchable.
8,594	[ 300, 400 ]	242	318	*Minor Plot Spoilers*<br /><br />I must confess to having a soft spot for Wayne Crawford. I know little about him, but he appears to have masses of enthusiasm to compensate for his lack of talent. In his films he usually performs multi-tasks - perm any 3 from lead male, director, producer and script-writer - tackling story lines from the sub-basement. Despite this the end product is usually enjoyable fun for the non-discerning.<br /><br />'The Evil Below' features Crawford as a down-on-his-luck Captain of a ramshackle charter boat, a bit like Bogart in 'To Have & Have Not' - the similarities between the films ends here though.<br /><br />The story begins with an underwater scene with two divers searching a wreck, before being attacked by an unseen creature - bit like the start of 'Jaws 2'. The wreck turns out to be that of the 'El Diablo', which went down centuries earlier. The ship was manned by heretic priests on the run from Spain, with a cargo of stolen Church treasure. This allows the introduction of various links to supernatural forces with Lucifer and The Armageddon both getting a look in. The films title refers to this sunken Devil-ship, rather than any malevolent sea-creature.<br /><br />Whatever faults the film has (and there are many) it is fun to watch and competently made. You can't help but like a film which, in the final 5 minutes, copies the famous beach scene in 'From Here to Eternity' and the final line from 'Casablanca'.
8,598	[ 300, 400 ]	333	395	On the plus side this does contain interesting information over a wide range of topics, particularly concerned with Himmler, the SS and their research branch. It also has some good piano music, some interesting footage and some excellent camera work.<br /><br />However it is a very poor piece of historical work. It has no clear aim to it and the entire thing could be summed up as follows.<br /><br />Himmler set up a department in the SS for research into the origins of the German race. They went all over the world. They did some things and launched expeditions to all manner of places... (nonoe of these avenues were explored, the results were not shown and the arguments were barely refuted). They wanted to establish that the Aryan race and the German people were one and the same thing through historical proof. They didn't find any. The members of this research group were leading professors, members of the SS and therefore linked to the holocaust, and were seen as OK after the war and went on to lead German institutes.<br /><br />These facts in themselves are fascinating but they are never explored in depth and no coherent argument is presented in the program that either condemns these people or exonerates them. Nor does this seem to be the aim of the programme, the aim of the program is unclear, it hops from topic to topic. The witnesses, though presented as credible, are few and unsupported.<br /><br />Sadly this programme does not know where it is going or why and fails to impress. The topics are fascinating but this program tries to take on a huge area of research and consequently appears to not know what is going on. I would avoid this.<br /><br />Also the 'Holy Grail'is the German bloodline, nothing to do with the Holy Grail of Christian mythology except in passing. Mentions of expeditions to look for the Christian Holy grail are made but never followed through. The title is misleading and the content of this documentary unconvincing and incomplete.
8,599	[ 300, 400 ]	268	316	The good news for IMDb is that this movie was so very bad that it compelled me to register and make a comment. I should add here that I'm a film buff who rarely passes harsh judgment. But sometimes a movie is so poorly acted, poorly conceived, poorly edited, with a such a poor story line that it begs criticism.<br /><br />I'm surprised by all the claims of how superb, brilliant, dark, and beautifully shot this movie was. I can only conclude that the cast and crew are active posters here. The acting was extremely thin. The pace of the movie was agonizing. I gave it new chances at every turn (mostly because I didn't want to feel like I was wasting a Saturday morning in NY), but with every new scene, it dragged longer, delivering characters in which I took no interest, with which I could not connect, for whom I could not empathize.<br /><br />When I see negative reviews on IMDb of small independent films like this, I sometimes wonder if the poster has a personal axe to grind (something like. . he used to date the gaffer, she dumped him, and now he's going to trash everything she ever works on). But here, nope. I know no one who worked on this film. And I wish it would have been great. But the film wasn't dark (as some have mentioned) or depressing (as others have claimed). . . those suggest that I connected with the film . . . nope, Henry May Long was just too long, empty, and tedious. <br /><br />That's the Tomas Take on this one.
8,603	[ 300, 400 ]	253	323	Well, this latest version of Mansfield Park seemed to try and take the edginess of the 1999 theatrical version (outright copied some of the ideas from it in fact), but tone things down a bit to bring it more in line with the original story. Unfortunately, the result is a rather lackluster, and schizophrenic, production. And, as with all the other versions of Mansfield Park out there, the character of Fanny Price is no where to be found. Instead there is a strangely child-like, bleached-blond woman running around who never really fully develops as a character. At least in the 1999 movie the character they call "Fanny Price" is firmly established as rebellious tomboy who is too clever for her own good. This "Fanny Price" is a complete enigma. Someday, I would really like to see a dramatization of Mansfield Park that actually includes a depiction of the character of Fanny as she was written by Jane Austen. A sweet, kind, compassionate girl with a timid personality and frail constitution. She is reserved in manner and painfully honest, but also strong in her convictions, unfailingly loyal, extremely intelligent, and remarkably astute. A bit of a late bloomer, it is not until her eighteenth year that she finally begins to make the transition from awkward adolescent to self-possessed young woman. And she wants nothing more in life than to be of some real use to those she loves most. It's a wonderfully complex character that I look forward to one day seeing faithfully portrayed.
8,608	[ 300, 400 ]	275	357	This was just telecast here in the U.S. Others have commented on the faithfulness (or lack of same) to the novel; the 1983 BBC version is far superior on this and all other counts. Given the scope of the novel, it should not have been condensed to 85 minutes. Key sections have to be rushed or alluded to, or omitted; there barely enough time just to get in the chronology of events, so character development has to be sacrificed: we cannot get much of a sense of who the people are, which robs us of what makes Austen so great.<br /><br />One major negative for me was the cinematography, which I thought was just awful, and quite literally sickening. The camera is constantly doing ultra-closeups, and swirling around and around in circles. Maybe on a small TV box this is OK, but on our 40" hi-def screen it was so literally dizzying that both my wife and I had to look away from the set repeatedly (my Dramamine supply had run out). Of course, this did distract from the rather lackluster I'm-just-reading-what's-in-the-script acting (isolated scenes are nicely done, but not enough to save things).<br /><br />Adding up the score so far in the Complete J.A. Sweepstakes: I'd rate "Northanger Abbey" a success, because of superior direction and production values (and the story lends itself better to short treatment), "Persuasion" OK (though not the equal of other versions, with condensation again being at fault), both far ahead of this attempt. I will hope for better in the two remaining novels in this TV Reader's Digest Jane Austen; like others, I am thankful they left P & P alone!
8,612	[ 300, 400 ]	278	339	For a teenager who has never read Austen, this adaptation might be fine. But only for them. This is a disjointed "Cliff Notes" version of Mansfield Park, and if you have not seen another version or read the books parts of it would be head scratching.<br /><br />Why has it been so hard to do a good adaptation of this book? The one in the 1990s took such liberties that it barely seemed to be the same book - the mindset was completely modern and prurient.<br /><br />Here we have Billie Piper who looks like a pretty country wench. She has a charming personality that develops nicely - but she has flagrantly died blonde hair, with black eyebrows and - through much of the pic - dark brown roots. So much for unspoiled cousin. It is incredibly distracting, and the rest of the cast is in the greasy hair, rumpled clothing genre that shows a real disrespect for period accuracy.<br /><br />One thing is good here - Haley Atwell is the best Mary Crawford of all the versions. She is note perfect, flirtatious without being at all modern or suggestive, flippant and completely without any moral or ethical compass. Henry here is actually good looking enough to be a slight temptation for our heroine.<br /><br />Jemma Redgrave takes one of the most interesting roles in the story and manages to make her actually boring until her last scene - much too sensible. This is just a production that really missed the mark, a real low for Austen fans.<br /><br />The only serviceable version is the one with odd duck (perfect for the role) Sylvestra La Touzel (despite the very very gay Henry Crawford - he's just laughable).
8,613	[ 300, 400 ]	227	315	Rozema's 1999 adaptation of Mansfield Park is far superior to this ostensibly slightly more faithful film. The 1999 film is reviled by many Austen purists, but I admire the job Rozema did in making Mansfield Park her own. It may not be strictly Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, but at least it was well-written, beautifully shot, and well-acted by a superior cast. I don't see how Austen purists can be any happier with this 2007 version from ITV (and rebroadcast on Masterpiece Theatre/PBS). The screenplay is shoddily pasted together and dumbed down to boot, the production values are lackluster, and the cast (apart from Jemma Redgrave and Blake Ritson) are largely guilty of bad acting. I can't think of a worst miscast than Billie Piper as Fanny Price. Her look was all wrong (bleached hair and dark brows??) and her talent simply wasn't suited to the material. Sir Thomas looked constipated the whole time. Michelle Ryan as Mariah was on autopilot, as were the actors who portrayed the Crawfords (when I think how superior Alessandro Nivola and Embeth Davidtz were in the '99 version, I just kinda shake my head).<br /><br />I haven't seen the 1983 version, so I can't comment on it, but I'd advise anyone who's curious to give the '99 version a chance. Read the novel before or after and make up your own mind.
8,629	[ 300, 400 ]	290	353	This movie is very modern and forward. It is about 75% in English. It is aimed at English-speaking multiplex-going young audience. Basic plot is similar to DDLJ. Acting is below average.<br /><br />Unfortunately they are portraying a wrong picture and setting a bad example for the youngsters. Tanisha is shown drinking from a bottle, or taking shots of tequila about 5-6 times in the movie. The director does not even acknowledge she is an alcoholic and has a drinking problem. All through the movie she only wears bikini tops whether she is at work, at a beach or at a wedding. The heroine of the movie doing this makes the youngsters feel this behaviour is acceptable.<br /><br />The less that is said about failure of Uday Chopra doing Shahrukh Khan's DDLJ role of arrogant girl-chaser, the better. The movie is about equality of sexes. But equality should not be about making the same mistakes, instead about doing the right to do the right thing. If men have been shown as chronic Casanovas in movies, does not mean women should also portray same behaviour.<br /><br />Even though the movie is made in light-hearted fun spirit, it promotes so many wrong social notions in the name of being forward, that "fun" part of the movie makes no impact. Not even in Canada women dress like this, or guys behave like they have shown in the movie. It is certainly not a reflection of Indian society or even Canadian society. Perhaps they should have a disclaimer at the beginning stating, "All characters and events in the movie are imaginary and do not reflect the actual culture of the cities and countries mentioned in the film." The only good thing about this movie is the length, 1.5 hrs, thank god.
8,634	[ 300, 400 ]	256	304	I went to see this film at the cinema on the strength of its potentially interesting subject matter, good cast, a director who had previously done the highly-rated "Once Were Warriors" and my liking for noir-ish films set in L.A. in the Forties and Fifties. I would argue that I am reasonably easy to please in this film category; I appreciate the classics of the genre but I will sit through and enjoy a half-decent if derivative effort as well. However, I found this film completely unbearable.<br /><br />Despite a good situation in which to place the story, nobody seems to do or say anything remotely interesting or entertaining in the whole two-hours plus of this sorry mess. Good actors are wasted in endless scenes of dialogue ranging from banal to embarrassing. The narrative is slack and drags unbearably, and none of the events it depicts is handled well enough to do anything other than bore the audience to death. There is no drama, no atmosphere, no tension, absolutely no entertainment value and by the end I simply didn't care what happened because I did not believe in anything in the film.<br /><br />L.A. Confidential came out a year later and regardless of whether one version of the story is more true-to-life, the latter film deservedly gets all the plaudits for its excellence in every department. Mulholland Falls by contrast fails in every department, a fact made all the more tragic by the amount of talent involved. If they ever show this on a plane I will still walk out.
8,640	[ 300, 400 ]	308	378	Once upon a time Theresa Russell made a few halfway decent movies, so I keep hoping that one of her efforts from the past decade or two will merit a rating of at least 6 or 7 (out of 10). However, DARK WORLD is just the latest in a string of disappointments. The first 90 minutes are very hard to watch. The lines are delivered by the lead actors as if they are being read at a first rehearsal or even a casting session (in which the actors are doing it for the sake of their agents, but do not really want the parts for which they are perfunctorily reading). The sets and props seem "off" somehow (what kind of a police department would allow a detective to have a whole living room wall shelved full of case file holders?). The screen is constantly cluttered with meaningless time and datelines, which appear with no rhyme or reason. Now, if the scriptwriter were standing here after the lights go up from a film fest screening, they no doubt would crow about how all these shortcomings are REALLY clever clues to the plot turning topsy-turvy in this misfire's final five minutes. Well, for those audience members whose only other movie experiences are TV: THE MOVIE and SURFER, DUDE; they might be bamboozled into nodding their heads in agreement. But it is hard to believe that ANYONE who has seen 10 or more movies in their life--and is not a close friend or relative of a DARK WORLD cast or crew member--could fall for such a lame canard. Despite what the d.v.d. box might lead you to believe, this movie has about as much resemblance to SUNSET BOULEVARD (dead narrator device) or Hitchcock (schizophrenic protagonist device) as a drained Jim Beam bottle refilled with urine has to booze!
8,660	[ 300, 400 ]	286	374	Even though this was set up to be a showcase for some kickboxing and swordplay, "Vampires: The Turning" (VTT) could have aspired beyond that. Because it doesn't even aspire to be a good vampire movie, VTT fails to deliver any punch that it may have been attempting to.<br /><br />Using the idea of an 800-year-old thai vampire was interesting, but the story about progeny she mistakenly brought into existence (and now must wipe out) actually reminds me of Gizmo and his plight in "Gremlins," and that isn't a good thing when it come to a vampire flick.<br /><br />Stephanie Chao is attractive and serves as the "good" vampire very well, but her lack of any accent grates when you realize that she's an 800-year-old vampire. Added to that, when she tells Connor he's "a young soul," she doesn't deliver the line with much of the weight you would expect from an "old" soul. Attractive, but not believable.<br /><br />Meredith Monroe was more believable in her role but, for a "Dawson's Creek" alum, you would think she would have more screen time. The question of whether Amanda succumbs and "turns" is the most compelling reason to continue watching this movie, and you never get it. You get a tease of it, but you never actually get any type of development out of the characters for that plot device. It's a cheap way to play your audience, folks.<br /><br />If you want something that is a good vampire movie, go find Lugosi's "Dracula," and if you want a sexy vampire movie, you have dozens of flicks from Hammer with a lot more strength than this one. In the end, if you want good or sexy, this isn't the place. This is just forgettable.
8,663	[ 300, 400 ]	312	373	An in-name-only sequel to John Carpenter's Vampires, this movie takes place in Thailand and involves a sect of bad vampires, who enjoy killing people, and a sect of good vampires who do not. While it's an interesting idea to set a vampire film in Thailand, the writers don't seem to do a lot with the exotic locale. This film could just as easily have been set in Los Angeles. Which brings me to my next point, which is that this seems a lot like Blade Lite. We've got the rock soundtrack, the martial art battle scenes, a dance club bloodletting and, of course, lots of sharp objects going through vampires. What we don't have is the budget and talent. Yes, the hero is a good martial arts fighter, too bad his acting wasn't as good, and there's plenty of decent wire work, and tons of revved up fight sequences, maybe too many. The problem is they just don't have the same impact as the ones in any of the Blade films. Perhaps it's just that the film has a "been there seen that" feel to it.<br /><br />However, for me the biggest problem was that the filmmakers didn't take enough time to establish the relationship between the lead, played by the buff and bland Colin Egglesfield, and his girlfriend. She gets snatched at the very beginning of the flick after a whiny exchange with her boyfriend. We have no vested interest in her welfare at this point and no reason to believe that her boyfriend would be willing to risk his neck to save her. Now that's a major drawback when that's the major thrust of the plot.<br /><br />In the end, you could do worse than waste 85 minutes of your time with this, but I can think of a lot better things to do with your time, like renting any of the Blade movies.
8,678	[ 300, 400 ]	318	348	Sometimes when a film is panned by the critics one just has to see it to see if it is really as bad as the claim, well in this case it was. I believe it was meant to be a sex comedy but it was neither sexy nor funny, I think I chuckled once when Johnny Vegas failed to vault a roadside fence and that was it.<br /><br />The film follows the lives of four men who deliver potatoes for a living, each of them has a problem with their sex lives; Dave has left his wife and seeks out an old flame who once invited him for a threesome a few years before, Ferris is living with his mother in law who treats him as a sex object, Tolly has an obsession for involving strawberry jam in his encounters and Jeremy claims to be in a loving relationship but is in fact stalking some poor woman.<br /><br />The tone of the jokes varies from tasteless to "I don't believe that anybody could write that" an example of the the latter being when they tell a small child his father has died in a car crash, then for the punch line when the boy asks how his mum is they tell him she is in a coma. The blame for this all lands squarely at the feet of the writers, the actors obviously made a poor choice agreeing to be in this film but I didn't think their acting was all that bad... not that it was all that good either. Surprisingly for a fairly sleazy film about sex there is no nudity and the sex is never erotic.<br /><br />I certainly wouldn't recommend seeing this for any reason other than morbid curiosity although judging from other reviews this seems to be a love it or loathe it film, I suspect it would be better watched after a few beers and with your mates.
8,689	[ 300, 400 ]	259	359	I just got back from "AGS". After seeing it, I'm convinced that no matter how much it's written how he extensively researched the film, Stone NEVER has watched an NFL game in his life. Great cinematography ? Give me a break. The game montages were almost unviewable and 90% of the other shots in the film were close-ups. Was there ANYTHING in this movie that wasn't brought up in "North Dallas Forty" ?<br /><br />Aging star player ... check. Young hot shot .... check. Painkillers .... check. Owner who doesn't "get it" .... check. Crazy off-field behavior .... check<br /><br />Also, it's the playoffs in Dallas (i.e Dec or Jan) in an outdoor stadium, yet people sitting there in tank-tops and shorts ! And what was with those lights ? Were they playing in a Japanese Kabuki theater or a sports stadium ?<br /><br />And the strategy shown in the game was laughable. It's fourth & 1 inside the "Sharks'" 30. Dallas leads 35-31. KICK THE FRIGGING FIELD GOAL. Not only would this had made sense football-wise, but you'd then have an even better final sequence where they could have scored and had to go for the two-point conversion. Hell, tie the game w/ the extra point and Stone could have made it an even 3 hours with overtime.<br /><br />Were the lame montages of "old time" football players supposed to be a tribute to the game ? Give me a break.<br /><br />And the script ... ugh. More cliches than you can shake a stick at .. oops, there's another one.<br /><br />"Slapshot" was better than this movie. By far.<br /><br />1/10.<br /><br />Skips this at all costs.<br /><br />
8,707	[ 300, 400 ]	285	326	It is very possible that I simply didn't give the movie a fair enough chance because it was so immediately unappealing to me (something similar happened with Triplets of Belleville), but I really should have caught on when I put the film on and my roommate, an exchange student from Japan, immediately started laughing at the movie, saying that it sounded dumb. Now, I don't agree that it is dumb, the animation is very simple but clearly very skilled. It's like classic animation with added layers that add another element of realism to them while remaining strictly in the realm of the surreal at the same time.<br /><br />But the subject matter is entirely unappealing to me. It has an interesting message about stinginess and greed, but it is wrapped in such an unpleasant package that it is almost not worth learning, especially because you already knew it anyway. The sound effects while the man is loudly gobbling cherries and cherry pits, for example, are indeed repulsive.<br /><br />There was a clever scene of animation as we kept diving endlessly into the hole that the man finds in his head when he pulls the sapling out of his scalp, but it goes on for so long that it seems to overshadow everything else. There is so much stock put into that one sequence that it is almost like the whole movie is about it.<br /><br />As I said about Triplets of Belleville, this would have been a great thing for a late night TV program like adult swim, or its Japanese counterpart, but an Academy Award nominated film? It gives me the impression that there is not generally a long list of animated short films for the Academy to choose from.
8,708	[ 300, 400 ]	307	387	In all the episodes, I never saw any real action or drama or comedy.<br /><br />The plot is so repetitive.<br /><br />****Somebody gets something old and then somebody else tells them a little bit about it and how much it's worth and who made it and where it comes from and how much it could sell for and if there was any work done to it.<br /><br />Sowhile I watched about 30 of these, i realized...there is no drama....nobody ever loses a limb or life or gets divorced or hit by a car or air-plane.<br /><br />There are no car chases or explosions- not even a horse race with old carriages.<br /><br />All those guns and swords and nobody goes on a violent killing spree...what gives? No pshycos, no axe-murders, no-gun-totting old Englishmen in bad suits...just yap yap yap...you have an old tea set and it came from the country of Germany back in 1602 - blah blah blah...<br /><br />I'm still waiting for somebody with a time machine to go on screen and ask about it, but no...it never comes to be and the only thing that happens is that some stuffy Englishman or woman serves up some crap about something old being sold in Boston or China during the Ming Dynasty - big EFFIN deal.<br /><br />Can't anybody ever kidnap one of the leads and hold them for ransom? Is there no alien spacecraft that will obliterate the entire floor? Who the hell writes this stuff as a series and expects us to stay awake? This is about as entertaining as watching paint dry - only with commentary.<br /><br />There's no sex, there's no comedy or romance, no action, no suspense, no action, no drama, no mystery or martial arts.<br /><br />This show sucks! What ever happened to supermodels wearing thongs and spewing lasers from a futuristic weapon? Antiques Roadshow - More like grab a blanket and pillow and go to sleep show...
8,715	[ 300, 400 ]	314	362	It's always interesting to view a horror movie after hearing so much praise from other fans. Experience has taught me that you should never generalize fan taste within a genre. My expectations of this movie were a great deal higher than my viewed opinion.<br /><br />Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things is a movie with a good intended plot that trips up too many times to carry it out. The whole idea of a band of actors staging a reanimation of dead corpses had me intrigued. However, everything degenerated into cinematic chaos. The actors,who for the most part were competent and amazingly expressive, were offered roles that fail to maintain consistent characterization. Some of these characters go from ambivalence about the whole act of defiling a cemetery, to outspoken criticism, back to ambivalence. It's one thing for characters to have a change heart in the course of the film; it's another to produce an overly dynamic, circular attitude that loops every ten minutes.<br /><br />Another inconsistent element of this film is the premise. Does the main protagonist intend for the ceremony to be theatrical prank or does he actually conspire with dark spiritual forces to raise the dead? Even with the aforementioned flaws, I would recommend this movie to other horror fans, since I believe that only true horror fans will appreciate the dark atmospheric components and be able to ignore the plot's inconsistency. The scene where the dead rise out of the grave is made extremely haunting (even to a veteran zombie enthusiast) by the excellent combined use of scenery and sound, and the great choice of skilled actors chosen to play the reanimated dead. Current filmmakers should learn from CSPWDT about using the proper video and audio techniques in mood development.<br /><br />All in all, if you are zombie movie completionist like me, you should take time to locate and view this movie. It's a fun watch.
8,717	[ 300, 400 ]	331	390	I have to give this movie a 4 because of a couple of things.<br /><br />1. What I'll call the "stupid victim syndrome". If you have the killer on the floor and you have his gun - shoot him please. If you are a cop and you have your shotgun pointed at the killer's back - shoot him please.<br /><br />2. When you are in a high stress situation and you have your finger on the trigger of a gun - your first instinct is to squeeze. This is one of the first things they teach you in handgun training and the reason that you don't put your finger on the trigger until you are ready to fire - ask any hunter or infantryman. If you are electrocuted, your muscles should also contract - making you squeeze your finger.<br /><br />3. It's really hard to lay on the floor completely still for 8 hours without 2 other people - one of them a doctor - not noticing that you aren't dead. Even more so if you are supposedly dying of a brain tumor and were in the hospital just a few months earlier.<br /><br />4. Technically, the killer did kill one of his victims - the guy he injected with poison that had to get the antidote. If you poison someone, that is murder.<br /><br />5. What was Adam's lesson that he was supposed to learn? Yes, the doctor needed to be there, but what was Adam's crime? Maybe I just missed something.<br /><br />Other than those things, I would have given this movie a higher grade. The plot was pretty good, and the ways the killer chose to kill his victims were very inventive. I can even forgive the terrible acting on the doctor's part - the scenes with his family were enough to make me sick. The cinematography and soundtrack were very good, but the ending seemed contrived and just didn't work for me. Thank goodness I didn't have to pay to see this or I would have demanded a refund.
8,736	[ 300, 400 ]	240	336	Too much stock footage (almost one third of this 53 minute film) really slows this one down. Granted that the plot is that John Weston (John Wayne) is sent by Marshall George Higgins (George Hayes) to participate in a fixed rodeo (say "Ro-DAY-oh"), but character development and interaction are sacrificed. The relationship between the Bad Girl (usually a Latina-- even in the great "Duck Soup" [1933]) and the 'heroine' Polly Ann Young, a Loretta Young look-alike (hey! it's her sister!) could have benefited from more screen time. The happy ending is too abrupt-- although this time John Wayne actually kisses the girl.<br /><br />The most interesting stock footage was the lengthy rodeo parade of real Indians, squaws, and papooses. But when the best part of the movie is the stunt work by the Mighty Yak, Yakima Canutt, who gives us jumping from one horse to another and several different running leaps onto a horse, you know we're in trouble. As noted by others, the final fight with the villain is very poorly done.<br /><br />My copy, from 'Platinum Disc Corporation' featured an added,sparse, ill-fitting (pseudo-classical) stereo music track that ruins the authenticity of the original film.(The DVD box had 'enhanced audio 5.1' on it.) If you're going to modernize and colorize it you should add a 'western' sounding score with acoustic guitars, 'klip-klopping' hoofbeats, harmonicas, and an accordion. <br /><br />Finally, we have to say this is one of the weakest Lone Star efforts.
8,738	[ 300, 400 ]	270	310	There was a time in the US that everything was possible on film, so came the roughies, movies containing horror and explicit scene's. The best known are Forced Entry and Waterpower, but of course those were made with a bit of budget. All shown on 42nd in NY, but hey, there were other grindhouses out there that showed no budget roughies. Wet Wilderness is an example of it. It circuited the underground scene after a while so copies were available but as seen on other reviews, some copies were abrupt cut at the end. But the version I watched was complete. Well i would call this one more a porn one then a roughie, there is a serial killer around but he likes more to watch others have sex instead of killing them, when he kills it's done off screen. The acting is the worst I ever seen. And I guessed that the so called actors didn't like what they are doing, for example in the beginning when we have the lesbian scene watch one girl stop performing and pulls a pubic hair out of here mouth then continues doing what was happening, or when mother is riding the black man, the daughter is sitting in the grass annoyed by ants! But it is the storyline that made this one famous, incest and racism is what this made it famous. When there is blood watch the two girls sitting there waiting for a cue to act, god this is worse but still one to have if you are into sleaze and grindhouse. Be sure that you have the full version.
8,740	[ 300, 400 ]	296	394	<br /><br />to make this short and sweet: i hope this movie will not be considered the seminal work for the "gener-asian" of american film making. the acting was sub-par, relying on stereotypes, raised voices, and exaggerated eye-buggery to convey its message. chris chan park does not delve very deep into the any of his characters, allowing them to remain caricatures of angry/frustrated/distant/uncommunicative asians. these depictions do not make characters mysteriously appealing; it makes them confusing and unsympathetic. i like to think that us asians are more complex than that.<br /><br />i came out of the movie unconvinced. unconvinced that these characters had a life long, blood-brother like connection with each other to go to the lengths they did to help their buddy out. unconvinced that the main character had anything beyond a superficial attraction to his girlfriend. unconvinced that hard working immigrant parents wouldn't pay for their son's college education. unconvinced that all of the characters were even necessary, i.e.: janet, who is put to bed in the back of the car and quickly forgotten.<br /><br />the story line, which i actually think had potential, was not allowed to come into its own for two reasons: 1) flat characters for whom i had no sympathy/affinity, 2) the plot is overshadowed by meaningless non-sequitur scenes, such as the seance/donut shop sequence with amy hill which was simply ridiculous and unnecessary.<br /><br />i commend park for his efforts, as i'm sure it took a lot of hard work to even produce the film, and i'll even give him the benefit of the doubt this time around as a rookie director/screenwriter, but i sincerely hope that next time around he'll go a little deeper. just because the film is one of the first of its kind about the korean american experience, doesn't mean it's automatically good.
8,743	[ 300, 400 ]	239	300	It's painfully clear that all effort in this film was directed toward cinematography and very little attention to everything else. Most obvious mistake is the miscast of the entire female cast. Many of them are very experienced and capable, but they all seemed out of place, and having an amateur director certainly didn't help. The story is a very common Geisha story, and characters behaved very inconsistently, thus making it extremely difficult for me to connect with the heroine. <br /><br />This movie's theme is "modern prostitution", but still, it was annoying how Tsuchiya Anna's lead character kept talking like a female motorcycle gang member while everyone else spoke in old Japanese fitting for this setting. This movie has very beautiful vibrant colors, similar to Zhang Yimou's "Hero", but viewers can easily tell it's filmed in a cheap, elaborate set.<br /><br />The two sequences with Shiina Ringo's insert songs were really nice though, in mid-section of the movie. I actually really disliked her music before, but they fit perfectly in this movie. Although Ninagawa Mika is a complete failure as a film director, she has a major potential in PV (music video) production.<br /><br />I believe the story felt very plain because the director failed to focus on character development, and because Tsuchiya Anna's unconvincing acting as an Oiran. Had this film been directed by a known Jidaigeki director with any other known actress in Japan, it would've had the potential to become a masterpiece.
8,747	[ 300, 400 ]	285	359	Hubie -- like Stanely the troll from Bluth's A Troll in Central Park -- lacks the spark of personality to be the main character that carries an entire movie. We're supposed to like him because he's nice, but that's about all he is.<br /><br />His character design is unappealing. The top of his head is a sort of dome that is narrower than the pudgy bottom half of his head.<br /><br />And penguins should not have teeth. I know that Iago the parrot in Aladdin had teeth, but maybe that worked because it made him look more like his voice actor, Gilbert Gottfried. Hubie, with his weenie little voice (provided by Martin Short), looks funny with that big set of chompers in his beak.<br /><br />Tim Curry, who is usually delightful at being evil, does some sort of dippy surfer dude accent as the villain (might have been a good voice for a comic relief accomplice, not the supposedly menacing main villain).<br /><br />The entire plot revolves around the hero and villain's love for female penguin Marina, who is just as dull as both of her suitors.<br /><br />Worst of all is the pacing. We keep cutting back to the villain to watch him threaten Marina some more - this time in dialogue, this time in song...<br /><br />Barry Manilow may be a great songwriter, but in animated films like this and Thumbelina, his songs feel limp and listless - especially the ballads. The only song I liked was the 1930's-ish "Good Ship Misery" song.<br /><br />I read that the distributor made some cuts in this film against the filmmaker's wishes, and that could have caused some of the problems - though I suspect the real problem is that they didn't cut the rest of it ;).
8,748	[ 300, 400 ]	294	338	I'm an animator myself and an all around buff of the medium so when I saw this movie in a $5 bin I figured it was worth a shot to add to my collection. While I never regret having a new addition to my animation library this film was definitely disappointing.<br /><br />The premise has enough potential. A penguin named Hubie finds the perfect pebble to give to the girl he loves as the penguin equivalent to an engagement ring but before he can give it to her, he's cast out by an evil rival and lost at sea. He then befriends another penguin who helps him find his way home. That set up isn't great but it's enough to set up what could be a fun adventure. Unfortunately the duo's exploits never really amount to much and it all gets pretty repetitive. Most of the situations they find themselves in are really uninspired and lacking in creativity...and the bonding the two of them under go is cheesy and forced.<br /><br />Animation is good but not up to Don Bluth's usual standards. This is the guy that gave us The Secret of Nimh, Land Before Time and An American Tale, all of which had an attention to detail that often surpassed Disney, the granddaddy of feature animation. This one doesn't amount to much beyond high end TV fair.<br /><br />The music is alright but pretty forgettable and the voice actors are all wasted talent...Martin Short is particularly wasted here as the lead character who in spite of being spoken of as a bumbler is practically a straight man through the whole film.<br /><br />In short the movie will probably appeal to very small kids but a good family film should appeal to all ages and unfortunately it doesn't got what it takes.
8,750	[ 300, 400 ]	241	342	Whoa. I mean, whoa. I mean, whoa whoa.<br /><br />I saw this movie, waaay back when I was eight, in 1996. Back then, CGI films were a rarity; and good ones even more so. Also, back then we listened to things called CD players. But I digress. I used to like this movie a lot, way back then, and up till viewing it again, I've held reaally fond memories of it. Hey, it's Don Bluth! Anyone who hates "All Dogs Go to Heaven" is clearly a robot. But, again, I digress.<br /><br />Then, I saw it again. This really isn't one of his best, I can say now, eleven years later. I've seen a lot more films, and I've garnered a little bit more knowledge. Now, sure, the voice acting is good, I'll give 'em that. Story's...okay. I mean, we see it all the time. A LOT. But, it works. The musical numbers are what irk me. This would've been more at home in the eighties, with these kind of musical numbers. In '96, most kids movies had epic numbers, like the Lion King (which came out a year or so previous, but whatever)or stuff like that. You get showtunes here, vaudeville style.<br /><br />The animation kind of hurts, too. At times choppy, and at others completely changing style and format with the change of a shot, it's really hard not to notice.<br /><br />I still like "All Dogs Go to Heaven, but this could've been waaay better.<br /><br />4/10
8,753	[ 300, 400 ]	258	328	The untold origin of the Lone Ranger. It shows who he was and how and why he became the Ranger.<br /><br />Legendary bomb. The idea was not a bad one--reinvent and introduce the Lone Ranger for 1980s audiences. Right off the bat though there were problems. The studio ordered Clayton Moore (the original Ranger) to stop appearing anywhere as the Lone Ranger. It led to a nasty little battle that made headlines. I know of people who refused to see the film because of how Moore was treated. Also they hired the awesomely untalented Klinton Spilsbury to play the Ranger. Spilsbury was very handsome and muscular but had absolutely no charisma and just couldn't act. In fact his whole vocal performance was redubbed by another actor! Also his off screen antics (public drunkenness and beating people up) didn't help matters. Acting aside, the script is dull and slow. Also the Ranger himself doesn't show up until an HOUR in! There were some complaints at the time that the movie was too violent for a PG. However I don't think it was that bad.<br /><br />There are a few (very few) things done right here--the photography was truly beautiful; Michael Horse was excellent as Tonto; Christopher Lloyd is lots of fun as the villain and when the Lone Ranger finally shows up (with the William Tell Overture booming from the soundtrack) it's really rousing. But, all in all, this is a boring and terrible attempt to bring back the Lone Ranger. It's easy to see why this bombed. A 4--mostly for the photography.
8,765	[ 300, 400 ]	235	303	...not to waste your time watching this vanity project. I've had my comment deleted twice now, for reasons that I have yet to understand, other than the suspicion that someone involved with "Gone" isn't happy with what I had to say. So, I've pared things down to the nitty-gritty this time with an excerpt of my original comments that can in no way be taken as a personal attack on anyone, nor unfair commentary: <br /><br />""Gone" is the sort of train wreck that gives new meaning to the words. Horrible, stilted dialogue, a script that just plain flails about like a fish out of water, acting that would embarrass the most self-centered of community theater divas, cinematography inspired by the "Survivor" school of swooping crane shots followed by static, nostril-exploring close-ups, terrible ADR work, special visual effects that aren't, pedestrian music that totally fails to sustain any mood or emotion, terrible editing with utterly pointless freezes and fades, no art direction to speak of---the litany of badness just goes on and on...I felt genuinely cheated out of the time it took me to fast forward through most of it...time that could have been better spent staring at a wall...Under no circumstances should anyone unfortunate enough to be reading this subject themselves to this "movie," because long before it's over, they will be wishing they had been "raptured" before they made that mistake." <br /><br />Case closed. Amen.
8,769	[ 300, 400 ]	263	312	The back of the DVD for this movie raves, "Chey is the Quentin Tarantino of Christian Films." This isn't so much an insult to Quentin as it is to Christian films. This film is poorly written, stiffly acted and edited with a purposeless intensity. The scenes play out in a confusing and unrealistic way and are interspersed with some nice time-lapse photography. Flashbacks, fades to grey, freeze frames to tell the time (unimportant in the story) are all done with out any apparent reason other than to give the movie more cinematic credibility. The camera is haphazard, some nice crane shots are cut with ridiculous montages that have no significance. Poor blocking and lighting leave the viewer wondering who is talking to who in many scenes. Oh and the audio is terrible. The special effects were decent and thankfully limited. But this is all just technical. The movie fails to engage on an emotional level. The dialogue is so fake sounding and the actors seem to have only read it a moment before the camera was rolling. The story... the things that happen in sequence have no motivation behind them. The characters are struggling to take hold of one dimensionality. And the characters have to make a stance on Christianity and faith in every single scene. Take a queue from M. Night, engaging Christian films don't have to have the characters saying the name of Jesus Christ in every scene for the movie to be Christian. Goodness! Please don't try to show this to your unsaved friends with any expectations other than laughter.

Subsets and Splits

No community queries yet

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