text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
Another too bad the lowest they can go here is one. Otherwise this would get an easy zero. Truly one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact were Peckenpah's name not on the thing I would never have guessed he did it. Actually one of the people in San Francisco I know was on the set a lot and from nearly sunup on he says that Sam was just plain snockered. It shows in spades. The laughing bit at the early part of the film is the ONLY thing in this entire mess worth a second look. Not even Gig Young is watchable. This is a true test of masochism. Had I been forced into the confines of a theatre to see it I would have jumped up screaming. And now I truly feel guilty having watched it all from the confines of a very comfortable couch that was just too nice to leave. What a mess, it seemed less written than made up as they went along. It's not only a bomb but a bmob spelled backwards. Yikes!!!!! | 0 |
this could be one of the worse movies i've ever seen. i don't see how could this ever be described as a horror movie, or even a thriller? its more like a lumbering drama. the scary music is EXCELLENT but since there weren't any scary situations the director thought it would be a good idea to use it for everyday activities like taking a dump or walking down stairs. the movie had so much potential. they had beautiful cinematography (sp?) and interesting characters, but it seemed as if the writers assumed you already knew them. they would undergo peculiar activities without explanation or even a clue at what they meant. this is simply one of those movies that says its about one thing and it something totally different. | 0 |
A bit of a disappointing film, I'd say: the acting was stilted, somehow. In many cases, I just couldn't feel that the facial expressions matched the words spoken or the intent of the scene. An angry (or sad, happy, frustrated) character should make the viewer believe that he's angry (or sad, happy, frustrated). That doesn't happen here.<br /><br />The comment about the writers assuming you already know the characters was apt. They do things and say things which come out of nowhere: the character Andrew accuses his parents of sending signals to each other at dinner; then he blows up and storms out, telling his father "Don't touch me, you f***!". Maybe, if we'd seen the prequel, we would understand where all that comes from, but there is no prequel, so we're somewhat at sea as to the reason! <br /><br />One odd, quirky thing that Andrew does is to go to an old stone quarry, sit down on the edge overlooking the "still water" below; then he reaches into his jeans pocket and extracts a pack of cigarettes and lights one up. He did this same thing three times during the film; I guess we're supposed to see this as some tortured act of being alone and angry? Maybe once, but three times? It might even have been four times, I lost count.<br /><br />To be honest, there is the fact that he's recently found out that he's adopted; this happens very early in the film so there's no sense of any dramatic change he might be undergoing because of this discovery. It's not really clear if that's why he's so bitter or if it's about something else.<br /><br />I guess there is a sort of Lynchian feel to the film but should a first-time director really be trying to scale such a mountain so early in his career? | 0 |
Mulva is put in a sugercoma by Teen Ape. When she awakens she's considerably hotter (the parts played by Debbie Rochon in this sequel), and out for revenge on those that did her wrong. As the sub-title and box art implies this is indeed a take off on the "Kill Bill" films, but this being a Chris Seaver's film, it's a wildly incompetent satire (and I use that last term extremely loosely) I'd love to say this is better than the first film, but truth be told I was so impossibly drunk off my ass when I saw the previous film that I can't even hope to compare the two at this point in time. But I must have enjoyed it since I bought the sequel (see when I'm drunk I like, for lack of a better word, complete and total crappy movies) There are a few laugh out loud moments (very few) but I do remember Bonejack being funnier though. Well at least at slightly over an hour, it IS over mighty quickly for what it's worth.<br /><br />My Grade: D+ <br /><br />DVD Extras: Audio commentary by Director Chris Seaver, actress Debbie Rochon, and the Lbp gang; Second commentary by Seaver; 31 minute Making of featurette; Lloyd Kaufman's 6 minute tribute to low budget pictures; Fake 2 minute syrup commercial; stills gallery; Promo trailer; and trailers for :Mulva", 'Quest for the Egg Salad", "Fiilthy McNasty"1, 2, & 3; "the Feral Man", "the Bonesetter", "Midnight Skater", "Demon Summer" & "Splatter Rampage Wrestling" | 0 |
Although this is "better" than the first Mulva (which doesn't say much anyways, I would rather watch paint dry) it still sucks. Do yourself a favor and avoid anything from these Low Budget Pictures guys. I was suckered into buying a few dvds to support some indy filmmakers and boy did I regret it. Some haven't even been officially "released" yet (not bootlegs-bought from the filmmakers themselves) and I can't even list how bad they all are. Avoid anything with Teen Ape or Bonejack in them as they do pop up in other small indy films that they are friends with. If you are friends of these guys, chances are you were in their movies and had fun making them. But for those that had to watch them? No way. Bad video, bad audio, bad acting, bad plot...etc etc. These aren't even funny. I gave this one a 2 only because Debbie Rochon is in it and that is about it. Maybe it doesn't even deserve the 2. About a 1 1/16th star to show it was slightly better than the first (which I wish I could have rated in the negatives). If you want a decent no budget film, go pick up something from LBP's "friends" over at Freak Productions like Marty Jenkins or even Raising the Stakes. Those are actually decent. | 0 |
The bad news is it's still really dreadful. I gave it a 2 because occasionally some of this kitchy slapstick parody actually seems funny.<br /><br />It's supposed to be better than "Mulva, Zombie Ass Kicker", and progress should be rewarded. Or maybe I was drinking heavily when I watched it and felt generous. Whatever, "2" it is.<br /><br />Maybe the best thing about this movie is that it's over pretty quick. It takes elements from most of Kill Bill I & II's key themes and fight scenes, hacks them up, dumbs them way down, dirties up the dialog, and squishes the whole mess into about an hour of truly awful amateur video.<br /><br />You'd best smoke a lot of something powerful if you want to enjoy this one. And get this DVD back to the video store on time! You'll really hate yourself if you have to pay a late fee. | 0 |
This was a classic case of something that should never have been. Gloria was now a single mother, her husband had left her because she wouldn't live in some commune with him (he was mad that Reagan had been elected and wanted to turn his back on society). Right then and there I had problems with the series - come on, I say to myself, is this the same noble Michael Stivic that countered Archie Bunker's right winged philosophies? The series went on, but it just didn't have any pizazz. Whatever momentum Sally Struthers gained from All the Family was long gone. Maybe, if the series had been given another name and presented as being totally independent of All In The Family, it might have worked out. Ah well, that's show business. | 0 |
Every generation fully believes it is living in the end times. This has been true for thousands of years now. And movies like this feed on this. How did they get the great Orson Welles to narrate this train wreck? This is a documentary about the biblical prophecies of Armageddon. It tries to link the prophecies as well as it can to what was happening in the times it was made, making it obviously dated and kind of silly.<br /><br />The reenactments look like they are out of "Unsolved Mysteries" but without the high production values. People should have been embarrassed to take part in this.<br /><br />In short, the movie is dated, silly, reactionary, and useless. Good if you want a good laugh, but not good enough to actually look for. | 0 |
Where can I begin. I heard this movie was coming out and I was very mad. I am a huge fan of the original Carlito's Way and when I heard about this, I thought it would be just like almost all the other sequels that come out in Hollywood. I thought it would be bad. Boy was I wrong, this movie was much worse than I expected. Not saying all sequels are bad, but thats the problem with Hollywood these days, they make too many sequels and remakes and rush them. This was not a theater release, it is a DVD release. Still, in my opinion, there was no reason at all for this to be made. After I heard about this film was in progress, I then later heard Pacino was not in it. That right away killed any chance this movie had of being good. Why did I check this movie out then some of you may ask? Well I had the opportunity to see it so I did. I don't only watch movies that I have high expectations of, I had low expectations on this one obviously. I just wanted to see if it would have anything relevant in it. Now, if any of you reading this are a Carlito's Way fan, you know a lot of the story in the first one has to do with him going to jail.<br /><br />*VERY MINOR SPOILER* I wont ruin anything, because this may actually make you not want to waste 2 hours watching this trash. All I will say is- in the end of Carlito's Way 2, we don't see Carlito go to jail. Now, I don't know about any of you, but I would have thought a prequel to Carlitos Way would show how he ended up in jail. I even had some interest in actually seeing what happened.<br /><br />Now, thats not my only problem with the film. The actor who played Carlito did not do too bad a job, but he could not have saved this film if he tried. There's not even all those little things that should be thrown in there that Carlito's Way fans would like. You don't see any appearance of Kleinfeld or other key characters in the first one, I would have liked to see something like that. What is even worse, is Luis Guzman is in this film, yet he doesn't play the same character he plays in the first film. Big mistake on their part, why cast the same actor for a different character, it made the movie worse than it already was.<br /><br />Bottom line, I am a Carlito's Way fan, this new straight to DVD release is a disgrace. If you are a fan, don't watch this movie coming in with high expectations. This movie did basically nothing for me, and it is definitely one movie I wont be picking up on DVD, or watching ever again. | 0 |
This movie is terrible. Carlitos Way(1993) is a great film. Goodgfellas it isn't but its one of the better crime films done. This movie should be considered closer to THE STING Part2 or maybe speed Zone. Remember those gems! The only reason this movie was made was to capitalize on the cult following of the original. This movie lacked everything De Palma, Pacino and Penn worked so hard on. There wasn't a likable character and that is the fault of everyone responsible for making it. I hope RISE TO POWER wins every RAZZIE it possibly can and maybe even invent some new categories to allow it be a record holder. After I watched this S@*T FEST movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get th bad taste out of my mouth. After watching this I wish Pachanga came and whacked me out of my misery. | 0 |
This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way. | 0 |
Wow...what can I say...First off IMDb says this is in the late 60s...which means Carlito would be very close to going to prison, He got out in 75 and said he was in for 5 years. They used a bunch of nobody actors, and a story that didn't even make sense. They bring back only one actor, Guzman, and hes playing a totally different guy. Why did it end with him and this Puerto Rican chick? Wheres Gale? He said he was in love with her before. Wheres Kleinfeld? He said he knew him forever...You'd think he'd have been in this one. And if this made sense, where are Rocco and the black dude in the first one? It was all just stupid...This is an insult to Pacino and the first film. | 0 |
Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.<br /><br />This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.<br /><br />What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.<br /><br />The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).<br /><br />The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed. | 0 |
Deceptive Advertising... I saw a commercial for Carlitos Way: Rise to Power that states "From the Producer of Scarface and Carlito's Way" LETS GET IT STRAIGHT... Michael Bergman did not produce Scarface, in fact he was 'editing room assistant' for Scarface. Not to take away from Bergman's talent... but in my opinion he should of had a little more class. I think I can speak for the masses when I say... We hate being blatantly lied to. As far as the movie goes, It was poor at best. I did think Puff Daddy did a good job. Although, Luis Guzman should be ashamed for working on this film. Overall this film did not do a good job filling in the blanks for Carlito's Way. It's obvious this project was an attempt to make a quick buck rather a good film. | 0 |
If you hit your head with a shovel, write the script with your feet, you may come close to the intelligence level of this movie. There is nothing in this movie that hasn't been done a thousand times in other gangster flicks and done much better. Those who think "Scarface" was some kind of hero to be looked up to or saw "Goodfellas", "Menace II Society" or "Dead Presidents" and thought MMM "That's the life for me!" will like this movie. I thought I'd give the movie a chance, since the premise was perfect for a prequel. I should have known better after seeing Mario Van Peebles and Sean Combs were involved. Anyone above a 4th grade education, see the original with Pacino, a real actor, and be satisfied. | 0 |
I have to say this is one of the worst films I've ever seen. They had a pretty good storyline to go on, but than the messed it up so badly. First of all the cast is all wrong, where did that van peeble(crap actor btw) and puff daddy come from??? It looks like Carlito has come from the hood, and used to hang about with some real idiots. This film doesn't do "Carlitos Way" any justice. Im so happy that the sequel "Carlito's Way" came out first, if I had seen this rubbish first, I would have never given the pacino version a chance. And anyway, pacino is supposed to have read this story, thought it's crap and did the sequel instead. Carlito's Way: Rise to Power - 1 out of 10. Carlito's Way - 9 out of 10. | 0 |
This was so lame that I turned the DVD off...maybe halfway through. It was so weak, I couldn't even pay full enough attention to tell you how far in I made it.Though I really wanted to believe that the depiction of the young Carlito would be somewhat different, I just couldn't buy it. I don't really blame the actors, because I think it was the script that may have fallen flat. I did find myself laughing a few times, but I don't think those lines were intended to be funny.<br /><br />It's only saving grace is that I bought it in a 2 DVD set and I would have paid the price I did for the original alone. This is one of those cases when they should have let the classic stand alone. | 0 |
Carlito Way, the original is a brilliant story about an ex-drug dealer who hopes to leave his criminal past and so he invests in a club and the deals with the trouble that comes with it.<br /><br />This film was....<br /><br />I saw the trailer and knew instantly it was going to be bad..But after dismissing films in the past and finding out they were great( Lucky Number Slevin, Tokyo Drift)...I gave this a shot and it failed within the first five minutes...<br /><br />The script is something a teenager would come up with if given five minutes to prepare...It was weak, with weaker dialogue. It seems there is an instant need for romance in a gangster movie. So Brigante decides to beat a guy up for the girl....and she say's 'Yes!' And if you need to act bad just throw racism around...As we learn from the 'Italian mobsters'...<br /><br />The acting was terrible to say the least...I found 'Hollywood Nicky', hilarious.<br /><br />I absolutely hate all these musicians turning to movies. Lets face it the only reason P Diddy did this movie was so he could play a gangsters...The actress who plays Leticia was weak but beautiful. The sex scene was weak but we got to see her..which was okay...<br /><br />But overall I expected it shed light on how Carito ended up in prison and the love of his life...And the assassin towards the end completely added to the horrendous movie that is...<br /><br />Carlito's Way: Rise to Power.. | 0 |
this film was totally not what i expected. <br /><br />if this film was called something else no one would even notice the difference between the two. <br /><br />its really strange because i cannot see the point . the prequel and sequel lets just say don't make sense, the don't even match . maybe i am naive but ain't a vol 1 & vol 2 meant to match up. <br /><br />carlito was in jail in the 1st one and dies in the original, and in the prequel he lives and don't go jail. <br /><br />the plot was OK , but they should have changed round some actors and some of the story line and the name of the film and it would have been a good film .<br /><br />i really expected it to end like the other one started. <br /><br />if some one has a opinion on this post it please. | 0 |
really awful... lead actor did OK... the film, plot etc was completely crap and inaccurate it may as well have been a sequel to well... anything it had little or no relevance to Carlitos Way... and should be avoided like the plague by any Carlito's ways fans... no mention of Gail in fact he ends up with some other bird, no mention of Klienfelt, no mention of how he got caught, no mention of how he ended up in jail... they attempted to make it like the original with flash backs at the beginning... but to be honest when rating it I was looking for a zero mark... unfortunately I had to rate it higher...<br /><br />Its a terrible attempt to cash in on what was one of the best films of the 90's... overall it was approximately £6 and 2 hours of my life wasted... for all the "action" in it, it was truly boring slow and predictable... again to any Carltio's Way fans avoid this fiasco... | 0 |
This is just a butchering of a wonderful story by Edwin Torres. This movie doesn't follow the storyline in the book. And, there are so many inconsistencies with the original movie that you have to wonder if the screenwriter had even seen the first movie.<br /><br />Al Pacino (the original and still the best Carlito) gets out of prison at the start of the original one. Here, Carlito retires with his woman in paradise. <br /><br />What happened to Gail from Lorain, Ohio? In this installment, she isn't mentioned, and Carlito retires with and presumably will marry some other girl.<br /><br />Also, where is Kleinfeld? I think he was in the first book.<br /><br />I also like how Mr. Guzman plays a totally different character in this film. He was Pachanga back in the Pacino days. Now, he is Nacho Reyes, a killer from Cuba. I remember that Nacho Reyes had a much bigger role in the book. <br /><br />It's been a while since I read the book, but where did Sean Comb's character come from? Also, I think this movie really glosses over the racial tensions in Harlem that Torres was writing about. And, the mob doesn't get the treatment that they did in the book. They are also wiped out in this movie. But, magically the Pleasant Avenue bunch is around for the second movie.<br /><br />The book told a great story. This movie could have told a great story. This is just a huge disappointment. Read the book. It's a better use of your time. | 0 |
I watched this movie and the original Carlitos Way back to back. The difference between the two is disgusting. Now i know that people are going to say that the prequel was made on a small budget but that never had anything to do with a bad script. Now maybe it's just me, but i always thought that a prequel was made to go set up the other movie, starring key characters and maybe filling in a bit about life that we didn't know. Rise to Power is just a movie that has Carlito's name. There should have been at least a few characters from the original movie, the ending makes no sense in relation to the original. In the end of this movie he retires with his sweet heart but how the hell do we get him coming out of prison in the next movie? And his woman isn't even the same woman that he talks about as his only love in the original. I would say the movie is mildly entertaining in its self, with a few decent bits but it pales when held up to it's big brother. Don't lay awake at night waiting to see this, watch the original one more time if you really need a hit. | 0 |
The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release. | 0 |
This movie had potential and I was willing to give it a try but there are so many timeline problems that are so obvious - it's hard to swallow being treated like such an idiot.<br /><br />Rise to Power is set in the late sixties. Carlito's Way is set in the mid to late seventies. For this movie to be realistic, it would have to be set in the fifties, if not the late forties.<br /><br />Rise to Power has no sign of Gail (Pennelope Ann Miller), no sign of Kleinfeld, no sign of Rolando that Carlito supposedly ran with in his "hey-day". None of the primary characters in the original film were in this movie. We're supposed to believe that Carlito met all these people in the span of a few years.<br /><br />Rise to Power ends with Carlito walking down the beach talking about retiring in paradise which is what he wanted to do in the original film. Also, the pre-quel creates the Rocco and Earl characters - what's supposed to happen with them since they are clearly not in Carlito's Way? It's also hard to understand how Carlito could have the relationship with the Italians he has in the original film watching the events of Rise to Power. Where are the Taglialucci's in this film? There is probably seven years between the two films and he spends five of them in prison. It's like trying to put a square plug into a round hole.<br /><br />It is obvious that no one was interested in telling a good story and that they were more interested in making some bucks by making an average gangster film and throwing a character called Carlito Brigante into the story. The film had some good moments but I think they would have been better off leaving this movie to stand by itself instead of trying to make it a prequel to Carlito's Way.<br /><br />If you feel determined to see this movie, the only advice I can give is to not think of the movie as a linear pre-quel. Think of it like the spaghetti westerns with Clint Eastwood's man with no name, in other words two movies that have the same character but aren't necessarily connected with each other. | 0 |
Quote: theurgist: Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 would have seen this film what it is, an intelligent well acted prequel to a modern day classic, yes it doesn't have a blockbuster cast or a huge budget BUT it is still very well done and had me hooked for the full duration.<br /><br />An I.Q. over 50 you say.. that most mean you have an I.Q. lower than 50.. its name is CARLITOS WAY: Rise to power !!! meaning it should have something whit the first one to do.. <br /><br />all and all its a OK movie if.. YOU CHANGE THE TITLE AND NO CHARACTERS NAMED CARLITO BRIGANTE!!!<br /><br />P.s don't comment on a movie if you don't know anything about movies. but i guess an I.Q. under 50,, you wont know what the hell i am yelling about...<br /><br />Peace out!! | 0 |
This movie is a bad attempt to make original fans feel complete. The one thing people have forgotten is the fact that the reason the original won such acclaim, was strictly do to the fact that it was supposed to make you feel incomplete.<br /><br />This movie makes me want to go to the washroom. I am not a negative type of guy, but man the acting in this flick is.... no comment. The plot was a bad reflection of the life of Carlito Brigante and I am sorry to have had two hours of my time and my money wasted on this flick. I still love the original and will do my best not to let this movie ruin my opinion about it. | 0 |
Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.<br /><br />This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.<br /><br />The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.<br /><br />If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did. | 0 |
Last night I decided to watch the prequel or shall I say the so called prequel to Carlito's Way - "Carlito's Way: Rise to Power (2005)" which went straight to DVD...no wonder .....it completely ...and I mean completely S%&KS !!! waist of time watching it and I think it would be a pure waist of time writing about it.... I don't understand how De Palma agreed on producing this sh#t-fest of a movie....except for only one fact that I tip my hat to... Jay Hernandez who plays the young Brigante.... reminded me how De Niro got into the shoes of Brando to portray the young Don Corleone in Godfather II ...but the difference De Niro was amazing and even got an Oscar for it !!! Jay Hernandez well he has guts for trying to be a young Pacino.... too bad for him I don't think he will be playing in film anymore and by the way after I watched this sh#$%ty movie, I sat down and watched the original Carlitos way to get the bad taste out of my mouth. | 0 |
I will never forget the wit and great comedy of the ORIGINAL Vacation movie! The lines, pacing, and timing of events in that film are outstanding! However, this European Vacation sequel is a major let down.<br /><br />In this sequel, the Griswalds win a European Vacation on a game show. The problem is that many of the jokes in the film are little more than mild, "ha-ha" laughs. For example, a Flight Attendant on an airplane asks Clark, "Do you want your Coke in the Can?" Clark answers back, "No, I'll have it right here." That's really about the only line that is funny in this film.<br /><br />European Vacation's humor is strained. As if the writers borrowed all the jokes from the first movie, tried to re-hash a script that had been done before, and relied on a ridiculous slap-stick chase scene sequence toward the end of the picture just to kill time.<br /><br />Worse, the natural comic standouts like Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie and the original kids who played Rusty and Audrey from the first movie so well are nowhere to be found. Their replacements are not funny, can't act, and just look like they are going through the motions most of the time. There are also a few crude sex jokes and comments that are not only not funny, they are in bad taste.<br /><br />The Griswald's should have stayed in Wally World. The place that made them legends! Don't join them on this European dreadful adventure. Viewers should re-watch the original Vacation movie in place of this! You'll be glad you did. | 0 |
Any movie with "National Lampoon" in the title is absolutely guaranteed to die a death in London,England,Paris,France,Rome,Italy,and anywhere in Germany.It may be an institution in the U.S. but it is practically unknown in Europe to the larger audience."National Lampoon's European Vacation" is unlikely to rectify that situation. The appalling Griswalds are just that - appalling.They are not funny. Clearly Mr Chevy Chase thinks he's funny, after all Miss B.di Angelo laughs a lot at his jokes,but she's getting paid for it and didn't have to fork out £2.50 for the privilege. The section set in England is typical.The same old same old TV performers, Messrs Idle,Smith,Coltrane,Miss M.Lippman trot out the same old same old tired clichés,Mr Chase gets lost in the hotel corridor....yawn,yawn,yawn.. Bucking - ham Palace,Big Ben......I feel cheated that we never saw bobbies on bicycles two-by-two.........rosie red cheeks on the little chil - dren,need I go on? The English are buffoons,the French vicious - tongued Yank-haters.The Germans pompous and puffed up,(don't mention the war,Clark),and the Italians lecherous bottom-pinchers.Have I forgotten anything? Every possible "comic" situation is worked to death,Mr Chase gurns desperately,Miss di Angelo dimples sweetly,the children are embarrassingly bad. The fact that this franchise ran as long as it did must bring comfort to those who propound that you never lose money by underestimating public taste. | 0 |
Some amusing humor, some that falls flat, some decent acting, some that is quite atrocious. This movie is simply hit and miss, guaranteed to amuse 12 year old boys more than any other niche.<br /><br />The child actors in the movie are just unfunny. When you are making a family comedy, that does tend to be a problem. Beverly D'Angelo rises above the material to give a funny, and dare I say it, human performance in the midst of this mediocrity. | 0 |
John Hughes wrote a lot of great comedies in the '80s. "European Vacation" is not one of them. The follow-up to Hughes' first big hit "Vacation" (1983), is about as predictable, unfunny and annoying as they come -- no matter how much you love the dumb but romantic Clark and Ellen Griswold (Chase and D'Angelo).<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed "Vacation" as well as the third film, 1989's "Christmas Vacation," but the Griswold's trip to Europe is bland and forced. Perhaps because this was Hughes' first attempt at a sequel that he didn't get it, but it's really dumbfounding how uninspired and devoid of a story "European Vacation" is. There is no through story: the Griswolds win a game show for being "greedy little pigs" and go on a tour of Europe through England, France, Germany and Italy. Even the screwball physical humor that is the trademark of the first loses all effect because you see it coming, which is part director Amy Heckerling's fault. The "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" director sets everything up too predictably.<br /><br />Maybe it was Hughes taking a cheap shot because he was put up to the sequel. "European Vacation" takes great pride in insulting Americans (recall the greedy little pig game show they win), especially tourists, represented by the cornball Griswold family. It also pats itself on the back implicitly saying "oh us Griswolds, we're always getting into something because our dad is an idiot." Then in nearly comic fashion it ends with a tribute to America and how grateful the Griswolds are to return to such a better country. If Hughes was going for satire and meant to do it in the form of a bad movie, well maybe I should award this 8/10 stars.<br /><br />It's not just the unfunniness, but "European Vacation" boasts the two worst actors to play kids Rusty and Audrey (Jason Lively and Dana Hill). They're both annoying and obnoxious, with the unattractive and loud-mouthed Audrey blubbering about the boyfriend she's left behind nearly the entire film. Hughes even goes as far as to have her comment about missing him right as she observes a giant bratwurst. Quite tasteful. Speaking of, breasts are flashed in two different scenes for no good reason (unless it was to comment on Americans' love of gratuitous nipples in their comedies).<br /><br />I will give the film one of its two stars thanks to Eric Idle of the Monty Python crew, whose cameo at a few different points in the film where he recites lines directly from "Holy Grail" is about the funniest part. If Hughes intended for us to find one of the film's only non- American actors as the only funny part, then another tip of the hat to him for ripping open the underbelly of Hollywood comedy in the '80s. Still, would it have hurt for him to do that while making it entertaining? | 0 |
The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.<br /><br />The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.<br /><br />The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).<br /><br />Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that. | 0 |
The goofy Griswalds win the T.V. game show "pig in a poke" grand prize, and all fly off together to Europe where they manage to cause one stupid disaster after another. Of all the ridiculous, unfunny money-spinning sequels this one beats the lot. Harold Ramis' 1983 film was a below average misadventure in which the misfit family went on a nightmarish "Vacation" across the States. This time Amy Heckerling ("Look Who's Talking") helms what turns out to be a disastrous "comedy" which will annoy you more than it will make you laugh.<br /><br />Hughes script (with Rob Klane) is awful and you wonder why the likes of Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo bothered with such a dead-beat project, as even Anthony Michael Hall and Imogene Coca had the sense to decline the offer. Even an omnipotent Michael Palin is unable to lift proceedings to any level that one could call entertaining.<br /><br />Yet, as inconceivable as it may seem, "European Vacation" was successful enough to warrant a second sequel! Surely it couldn't be as unbearable as this one. You know, I have yet to see a National Lampoon show that was worth the bother.<br /><br />Monday, December 26, 1994 - T.V. | 0 |
European Vacation (aka National Lampoon's European Vacation) is the weakest of the Vacation films (the first and third one the most superior of the films). While Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo return as Clark and Ellen Griswold (with new actors in the roles of Russ and Audrey Griswold), this time they are given a weaker script with very bad dialogue. This causes the pacing to suffer, with the jokes not very funny at all. To be more specific, what really causes this film to suffer is the fact that the "jokes" as they are, are just pasted together into a cobbled-together script), rather than serving a central plot as the other 3 Vacation films have. Oh well, they can't win them all. 4 out of 10. | 0 |
Read on and take note - you could save 88 minutes of your life (was that all!).<br /><br />Unremittingly bleak, this film sets out to produce (I'm guessing) a modern small town American Christmas fable in the Capra style. If fails....completely and absolutely fails. I've been trying to think of one good thing about it and can't. Let me mention some of the highlights ...<br /><br />People don't die, they get to spend eternity as immigrant workers in Santa's factory. Angels are actually ex-cowboys who sit in trees. Santa can bring people back from the dead (if you send him a nice letter). <br /><br />And the plot.. I won't spoil it for you but there has to be some light in films if only to contrast with the darkness but there isn't any. Even the photography is bleak - snow shown at the end of a freeze, everywhere looking cold, damp and miserable. <br /><br />As you might guess, the film has a happy (schmaltzy) ending. What a relief ! | 0 |
This was the WORST Christmas movie I ever saw. I took my two small children to see this. It was the darkest, most dismal plot- family has no money, mom loses her job, father gets killed in the bank, bank robber steals family car with both kids in the back and after high speed chase, drives off the bridge and drowns them in the river. Mom is left all alone. No wonder her Christmas spririt is gone. Christmas angels do not rescue children that have drowned, and Santa does not bring back dead fathers! I thought this was the WORST message to send children. Better to tell them that there is NO Santa than show them a movie like this!! | 0 |
First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be. | 0 |
Sorry, but I will spoil both the plot line and the ending for you in hopes of avoiding a holiday fiasco like the one that I now face. The father dies and the mother asks Santa in a letter to bring him back to the family for Christmas,...and Santa does. Dad is peachy, happy healthy and totally unaware of the fact that he had died. All ends syrupy sweet.<br /><br />But as a parent who recently watched my five year-old lose his best canine friend, it was a horror flick. Now my son is convinced that all he has to do to bring his buddy back is to ask Santa! Do not underestimate the willpower of a young heart- no amount of persuasion will convince him that it was only a movie and that his dog is NOT coming back for Christmas. It has been heart breaking to watch his joy only to know that Christmas Eve he will have to face his loss afresh.<br /><br />Shame on you on behalf of all the believers that have lost a loved one recently. It is hard enough to deal with the loss one time for a child, but there are some wishes that we shouldn't even portray as a possibility. | 0 |
I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).<br /><br />For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable. | 0 |
My spouse & I found this movie to be very schlocky. It started out good, but quickly got unbelievable & ridiculous. Most of the acting was poor, with the exception of the little girl, Abbie, who really was terrific. In addition, the dialog was predictable & lame - especially Gideon, the Angel's. Also, without giving away anything, when one of the characters has a tragedy, she almost appears nonchalant. At first we thought it was 'shock', but then we realized that it was just a terrible script. We love almost all of the Hallmark movies & their heart-warming stories, but this movie doesn't rise to the occasion of being one. There are so many great ones - don't waste your time with this horrible movie. | 0 |
I'm not usually given to hyperbole, but after seeing over two decades worth of Academy Awards, I can honestly say that this year's awards show was the most disgraceful example of poor direction, total cruelty, and sheer stupidity that I've ever had the misfortune to witness. I'm not talking about the awards themselves- as usual, there is plenty to argue about when you tally up who won, who lost, and who never even got nominated, but the process is as it's always been and is as fair as it's liable to be. What is terribly UNfair is the treatment both the "stars" and "non-stars" received at the hands of Cates and Horvitz, in the name of "reducing boredom."<br /><br />It is bad enough that for the last several years anyone who isn't Al Pacino has been "played off" at 45 seconds without any regard for what he was saying, how he was saying it, and what the emotion was behind the statement. It demonstrates nothing more than a total lack of respect, however, to herd nominees on the stage like cattle without paying them the honor of showing their faces while their names are read, to make them slink away quietly when they lose, to deny them the thrill of a walk to the podium, and to force them to read their statements with their backs to the audience. All of those things were done to the "non-stars" -never mind that the movies wouldn't exist at all without those artists and that most of them only ever get one chance to face their peers and their audience. <br /><br />The stars didn't fare much better. It's becoming more sad than funny when winners of the caliber of Hilary Swank and Clint Eastwood have to beg for a few extra seconds for their speeches. Chris Rock, as host, was neither as inflammatory and controversial as the Academy had hoped, nor nearly as funny as he could be. His opening remarks were almost (but not quite) as offensive as Sean Penn made them out to be, and his comments during the show were more innocuous than interesting. Of course, he could hardly be blamed when it was clear that was being kept on as short a leash as any host has. In the end, Chris Rock was something he's almost never been before: a non-entity.<br /><br />Even the musical numbers were handled poorly. Beyonce sang well, but there was simply no reason why she should have been featured in three out of the five songs. Another example of utter disrespect for an artist was giving Jorge Drexler's nominated song to Antonio Banderas- even though Drexler was present and clearly wouldn't have minded singing his own song, based on his winning "speech." <br /><br />The efforts of Cates and Horvitz to make the show shorter and faster may have worked to a degree, but what resulted was a show devoid of life. We've all whined about the overlong speeches given by people we don't know, about the overblown production, about the self-congratulatory quality. But this is THEIR night- not ours. What is meant to be a celebration has become an insult to the people being celebrated. Cates and Horvitz should, frankly, be ashamed. | 0 |
Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.<br /><br />Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.<br /><br />Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.<br /><br />Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.<br /><br />Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.<br /><br />It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.<br /><br />Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
I firmly believe that the best Oscar ceremony in recent years was in 2003 for two reasons: <br /><br />1 ) Host Steve Martin was at his most wittiest: " I saw the teamsters help Michael Moore into the trunk of his limo " and " I'll better not mention the gay mafia in case I wake up with a poodle's head in my bed " <br /><br />2 ) Surprise winners: No one had Adrien Brody down for best actor ( Genuine applause ) or Roman Polanski for best director ( Genuine jeers and boos ) but they won <br /><br />Last year's award ceremony wasn't too bad but there was little in the way of surprises and I was happy to see RETURN OF THE KING sweep the awards even if it wasn't the best in the trilogy ( FELLOWSHIP was much better )but what let the BBC coverage down was Jonathan Ross getting a few of his sycophantic mates round and pretending they were hilarious when they were anything but . So when I heard Sky were doing the coverage for British TV I was expecting Barry Norman and Mark Kermode to be doing the links , but instead we ended up with Jamie Theakston and Sharon Osbourne ! Oh gawd if British TV are desperate for film critics ( Obviously they are ) I'm sure both Bob The Moo and Theo Robertson will happily fly over to LA to give their honest opinions on the winners and losers <br /><br />Chris Rock wasn't too bad , but he's no Steve Martin while the location seemed to resemble a sports hall with seats put in ! Not much of a glitzy arena in my opinion . The main problem I had with the ceremony was the format with the " minor " Oscars handed out to the winners who were sitting in their seats ! There's no such thing as a " minor " Oscar and just because the award is for Best Animated Short or Best Costume Design they're as well deserved as Best Picture or Best Director . All the winners should be allowed to march up to the podium . What a bunch of arrogant snobs the Academy are becoming and I quite agree with the comments that this format is disgraceful and if it wasn't for the surprises this could possibly have been the worst ceremony in history . As for the awards themselves <br /><br />Best Supporting Actress - Cate Blanchett . No great surprise for a competitive category <br /><br />Best Supporting Actor - Morgan Freeman . No real complaints since Freeman is one of America's greatest living character actors <br /><br />Best Actor - Jamie Foxx . Most predictable award of the night . Yawn <br /><br />Best Actress - Hilary Swank . Major surprise since everyone thought Annette Benning was going to win simply down to academy politics but Swank did deserve it and gave the best speech of the night <br /><br />Best Director - Clint Eastwood . Major surprise since everyone thought Scorsese was going to get the award simply because he'd never won one . Actually I'm glad about this because if he didn't deserve it for TAXI DRIVER , RAGING BULL or GOODFELLAS he didn't deserve it for THE AVIATOR <br /><br />Best Film - MILLION DOLLAR BABY . Again another major surprise since everyone thought the academy would split the awards for best director and best picture while I thought the Hollywood friendly plot of THE AVIATOR would have made it a dead cert for Best Picture while MDB's controversial subject matter would have turned a lot of voters off <br /><br />What these awards perhaps illustrate is that this year the voters have decided to ignore Oscar politics and genuinely give out awards to people who deserve it something they haven't done in the past , I mean A BEAUTIFUL MIND beating THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING for gawd's sake ! And long may the academy vote with their heads instead of their hearts | 0 |
Like last year, I didn't manage to sit through the whole thing. Okay, so Chris Rock as a host was a good choice because he was vaguely engaging. Or rather, out of all the total bores packed into the theatre, he at least wasn't in the Top 10 Most Boring. A lot of the presenters, on the other hand, were in this coveted Top 10. I hadn't known that the whole thing had been done by autocue (although I knew it was scripted) but it was really terrible to see these supposedly good actors unable to insert expression, look away from the cue and stumble over simple words (Natalie Portman
if there's no director, she's gone). The Night of Fancy Dresses and Boring Speeches was long and tedious, Beyonce Knowles butchered some good songs and there were very few decent acceptance speeches and clips. Adam Sandler wins the Worst Presenter award.<br /><br />For helping me write this review I'd like to thank my Mum, my Dad, my lawyers and my pedicurist for all believing in me, and I'd like to point out that I have a high metabolism and of course I haven't been starving myself for a month. I'm not going to cry...thank you. | 0 |
This one acts as a satire during the women's rights movement era. Of course, that doesn't mean COACH (the movie) is a wonderful experience to behold. It runs into the same vein as FASTBREAK (which was better, but still tame), and is basically standard fare fluff. What I mean for this movie being uninteresting is simple to recognize. Anybody who serves time away from a normal job by training a bunch of lunatics earning their way to sudden victory makes waste. It's the same feeling you may get after watching this. A nice attempt at casting the opposite sex for a man's duty, but I expected better things. | 0 |
I watched this movie when I was a young lad full of raging hormones and it was about as sexy a movie as I had ever seen-or ever was to see. It may not have been a great movie. My guess is it wasn't. I don't really remember much about it, to tell you the truth. I only remember the sexual chemistry between Crosby and Biehn. No woman in ANY movie has ever done it for me as the unbelievably sexy Cathy did in this movie. I haven't seen it since that first time I caught it on TV in the 70s and I don't think I'd want to see it again since I'm sure it would be a disappointment-my hormones aren't as raging and I've become more jaded over the years. Still, when I think back on the shower scene I can still remember how great it felt way back when.<br /><br />Added later: After watching the movie again, I discovered that it's dangerous to go home again. What was once erotic is now pretty tame. The older woman-younger man thing still works for me, just not as much as it once did, probably because I'm no longer a 12-year-old. That older woman is now younger than I am. Also, the amateurishness of the whole thing wasn't perceived by my twelve-year-old mind. <br /><br />Moral: Sometimes it's better not to revisit the past. | 0 |
This movie is about a very sexy Olympic track star who is hired to coach a high school boys' basketball team. Similar to Goldie Hawn's WILDCATS, it stars Cathy Lee Crosby in the title role, and she does as about as well as the script allows. I think Racquel Welch would have been a better choice, but considering the film's apparent TV movie budget, they probably couldn't afford her. Cathy Lee does look great in every shot, but we never get to see her completely nude. The story is pretty predictable, to say the least, offering no surprises. A young and lucky Michael Biehn has the male lead role. He is the star on the team and also the love interest for Cathy Lee. Keenan Wynn has a few amusing scenes as the rich old man who runs the athletic program and doesn't think a woman should coach sports. This point is brought up throughout the film, and, needless to say, is dated. Ironically, Cathy Lee doesn't put her team through any unorthodox practice sessions; she doesn't do anything a male coach wouldn't do. There is a funny subplot involving a tall and not-so-bright player who undergoes hypnosis in order to pass his classes and play like pro basketball player Sydney Wicks. It looks like everyone had a good time making this film, but the only real reason to see it is for Cathy Lee Crosby. She's not that great an actress, but she has a dazzling smile, beautiful hair, and a very tan body. | 0 |
A high school principal (Keenan Wynn) with a losing basketball team unwittingly hires a coach who turns out not only to be a gorgeous blond woman (Cathy Lee Crosby) but a catalyst for their new winning ways. Are you really surprised? Along the way a romance grows between the coach and the team's star player Jack (Michael Biehn). The police are never notified.<br /><br />Packaged along with other Crown International Pictures as a grindhouse movie really does this film no service. This can easily be edited into a television movie of the week. Cathy Lee Crosby looks great as coach Randy Rawlings especially in her skimpy outfits but I expected more than mere titillation from an R-rated film. A side plot involving a dorky center who is hypnotized by his teammates into thinking he is former NBA player Sydney Wicks is the actual reason for the team's new success rather than Cathy Lee's coaching. Too much tease and not enough sleaze makes this a major disappointment. | 0 |
I found the DVD version of this movie at a rummage sale. The basic premise is an affair between a teacher/coach a student. The acting is weak and the plot razor thin.<br /><br />This movie had all the depth and plot development of an adult film. | 0 |
Seemingly intended to be a thriller of a movie winds up being almost laughable. It prompted me to exclaim "Oh my God!" more than once at the convoluted contrivances of plot that were just plain silly.<br /><br />Fanciful or absurd locations just for the sheer novelty or dramatic situation and improbable, near impossible, human reactions and circumstances are too much to be comprehended as to why they exist.<br /><br />If you have the time and wish to discover just how bad a picture can be then you will want to see this one. Otherwise dedicate some time into watching some paint dry for a more productive investment of time!<br /><br />(That a film released in 2003 is already being shown on TV in July 2003 might give an indication of the film's quality) | 0 |
There is one good thing in this movie: Lola Glaudini's ass! Sorry to be so blunt but it's the truth. Too bad she didn't do a nude. It would at least have made this mess tolerable. We see another chick's boobs but she's nowhere near Lola. And man, is Armand Assante old or what? The man looks like crap! "Consequence" is the usual B-Movie you would expect. The story had potential. It's like they had good ideas but didn't know how to execute them. The cinematography is just plain awful. Ugly! The directing is uninspired and the end result is a bland thriller with lame twists and washed up actors. Lola Gaudini is great as the vixen in a cheap, slutty way but not even she saves "Consequence" from being trash and not funny trash, just plain old stinking trash. | 0 |
I saw this film a while ago on a Video CD.<br /><br />I will 1st mention the good points.<br /><br />The movie, at first, at least tries to appear that it is not biased, like not showing one character as black and the other as white. Both main characters are friends and co-exist very well in an country and economy that is not booming while at the same time not failing. Their families get together and have parties and they practice their favorite sport, Sport Rifle shooting, as comrades not as competitors.<br /><br />But, after the 1st 15 minutes the plot runs into a fork in the road. The audience is expected to believe that for some unknown reason these friends must hate each other. That for some unknown reason Bosnia is now on a path to conflict. Sure, the script adds in TV footage which the characters appear to be watching live news programs in English, but the clips are from 1993 not 1992 when the war began.<br /><br />The history, the 1990 elections, the people who caused the war are not mentioned. The movie tries to place the blame with Karadzic, who had been a Presidential candidate and leader of the Bosnian Parliament's 2nd Largest Party(SDP). According to the Constitution of Bosnia, the SDP was to have the Presidency in 1992, but there was a Coup in January. The Bosnian Islamic Democratic Action Party seized total control and held a segregated referendum in March in which it declared itself the law in Bosnia and announced Secession.<br /><br />The history of the IDAP begins with Bosnian Muslim Alija Izetbegovic, a man suspiciously absent from "STtH". He was a student of Nazism in WW2. He even wrote his own "Mein Kampf" in which he stated: "It is not in fact possible for there to be any peace or coexistence between 'the Islamic Religion' and non-Islamic social and political institutions".<br /><br />In 1990 he lost the IDAP elections to "pro-Yugoslavia Moderate" Fikret Abdic, a Bosnian Muslim, that worked with Christian Serbs during the Civil War, and who treated his supporters like brothers. Abdic was prevented from taking power by Izetbegovic, who lost the elections but seized the seat of power.<br /><br />The events from above are missing from the movie, but they are the factual events that lead to the war.<br /><br />There were problems with props too. Serb soldiers in the movie were wearing Soviet WW2 helmets, which they did not use. Also the one soldier was holding an M-1944 WW2 rifle only used by USSR not Yugoslavia.<br /><br />The Director and Script Writers had a chance, but they chose to re-write history. | 0 |
This is an anti-Serb propaganda film made for TV.<br /><br />"The Muslims are good; the Orthodox Christian Serbs are BAD." <br /><br />That's the message.<br /><br />Using "entertainment" to get across a propaganda message is nothing new.<br /><br />This movie lays it on thick.<br /><br />And apparently many viewers and reviewer lap it up.<br /><br />I know better.<br /><br />The Serbs, under General Draza Milhalovitch and his Chetniks, saved over 500 shot-down US fliers from the Germans in World War II.<br /><br />Churchill decided to betray Milhalovitch and put British backing behind communist Tito. Roosevelt followed suit and as a result, after the war ended Yugoslavia was delivered over to communist Tito.<br /><br />And US ally Milhalovitch has been smeared by the media ever since.<br /><br />This movie is part of the anti-Serb propaganda campaign engineered by George Soros and his International Crisis Group (ICG) which culminated in the Kosovo "War," in which Serbia was bombed by NATO because of totally false claims by the ICG of "mass graves" in Kosovo filled with "victims" of the nasty Serbs. The fact that there were no such mass graves and the Albanians (Muslims) had no business being in Serbia's Kosovo are facts that most of the media won't print.<br /><br />I chose this movie to watch because the one-sentence description on the video cover looked interesting.<br /><br />Imagine my disgust when I discovered I had been fooled into renting another branch of the propaganda machine aimed at Serbia.<br /><br />Instead of this propaganda someone should make a movie about the unwillingness of the Clinton Administration to come clean with the Congress and with the American people about its complicity in the delivery of weapons from Iran to the Muslim government in Sarajevo.<br /><br />I won't hold my breath waiting for such a movie. | 0 |
Previous comment made me write this. It says that Muslims are blonde and Serbs are dark (because our blood is mixed). This comment just says that this opinion can be made by racist.Look,race is nothing.I'm color blind.I look like Pierce Brosnan but I'm no Irish. So what?I might add that I am not 100% Serb,that I have some Austrian and Croat blood within me but whats the point.I'm dark, half-breed?Is that so? Anyone using racial prejudices with such bad intent like Lantos(producer9and director is racist for me.Karadzhic, Izetbegovich, Milosevic, Tudjman they are all monsters and I blame them for destroying my life, my family, my country, Yuggoslavia. Hope they will be all in hell but that wont return our dead relatives back. I am proud of being Serb and I am proud of my cousins, Austrians,Croats,Muslims, Hungarians, Arabs (yes I am from Serbia and I have multiethnical family).This movie doesn't show sufferings of Serbs or Croats within Sarayevo,terrible terrorism of street gangs,Muslim extremism.I add: I kneel and pray for all innocent sisters and brothers Muslim,catholic or orthodox, killed in this war.This film is manipulation with our misery,false humanitarianism's which doesn't help at all.It helps Lantos to fill his pockets with more doe,alright! | 0 |
Bamboo House of Dolls (1973, 1974 or 1977, various years are given for this title) is a Hong Kong veteran Chin Hung Kuei's (Killer Snakes, Boxer's Omen, Payment in Blood etc.) women in prison flick produced by the legendary Shaw Brothers. Yes, even they got their hands into low exploitation sickies like this, and Bamboo is definitely among the worse attempts of the whole genre, even when compared to the Western attempts that usually pale in comparison with the Eastern films!<br /><br />The story is about a Japanese war camp in which the Chinese women are brutalized, abused and raped by the bad Japanese (what else?) during the World War II. The girls also know a secret place in which a box full of gold is hidden and also learn that a Chinese military officer raised in Japan (Shaw veteran Lo Lieh) is actually now an undercover agent among the other Japanese and naturally helps the girls escape the hell. What follows is sequences full of gratuitous nudity, female kung fu, some nasty torture, gore, sleaze and extremely offensive anti Japan attitude that make this film pure and honest garbage that doesn't even try to be more than it is.<br /><br />There are hardly any interesting elements in Bamboo House of Dolls. The occasional photography especially at the end looks nice with its sunbeams and beautiful nature but that's about it in the merits department. The fight scenes are plenty and always include half naked females hitting and kicking each other. The violence overall is quite nasty at times with several bullet wounds, misogynistic torture scenes (for example, one poor girl is brutalized on the floor filled with broken glass etc.) and extremely repulsive ending and moral behind it. Of course it is stupid to talk about "moral" when writing about this kind of film, but still there are elements I won't accept to be found from any film.<br /><br />The film has also some enjoyable turkey elements for sure! For example, the gold box, filled with heavy gold, seems suspiciouly light as the weak and suffered girls don't seem to have any problems lifting and moving it, not to speak of throwing it! Also those numerous "skin fight scenes" make this quite smile inducing for fans of trash cinema. I have seen the same director's Killer Snakes (1973) which is ten times more noteworthy as a piece and even though it has many alive snakes killed for real, it is also visually more interesting and shows us some nasty sides of the other side of the big city and society. Also, it is a must for those who fear snakes.<br /><br />Bamboo House of Dolls has suffered some censorship, too, which isn't a surprise considered the subject matter. The uncut version, (dubbed into a non-English language) released in Europe at least in France, Italy and Switzerland, runs 104 PAL minutes while the cut, English dubbed print released in Holland, Belgium and Greece runs only 84 minutes in PAL. From what I've heard, the cut scenes are not only violence or other graphic stuff but also dialogue and "plot development" and the like.<br /><br />Bamboo House of Dolls is garbage cinema in its most trashy form and definitely something I wouldn't have liked to see from the Shaw Brothers or Hong Kong in general. Some of the Italian exploitation films of the same subject matter are much more interesting and noteworthy than this quite ridiculous, calculated and worthless piece of cinema exploitation. 2/10 | 0 |
I was staying in one night and got extremely bored around 2:00 a.m. so I flipped aimlessly through the channels and happened upon H.B.O. where this "classic" was playing. Initially I was happy to have caught something at the beginning, but my happiness faded about two minutes into the movie. The whole movie centered around an unattractive man who had a fear of females, four beautiful but empty minded women who worked as waitresses at his uncle's diner, and his enormously fat and extremely miserable cousin who also works at the diner. There are a few strange twists in this movie that make it somewhat interesting, but certainly not worth watching. Basically, if you have nothing to do some night or just can't sleep medication works much better. However guys there is a lot of skin so it may be okay to watch with no sound, but even that can get annoying | 0 |
Buford's Beach Bunnies gives B-grade T&A films a bad name. As a fan of the genre, I was appalled to find little attempt being made to exploit the young actresses talents. I refer specifically to the distinct lack of nudity and simulated sex scenes. What are the next generation of sad teenage boys watching this on late night TV supposed to think? | 0 |
This is one of those awful, sex-driven B-movies that couldn't have played anywhere near a theater. Women run around dressed in scantily clad "bunny" outfits, an extremely fat woman is the brunt of many tasteless jokes, and they all work at the restaurant of a dirty old man, who has an oddball son (Jim Hanks, who is of course Tom's brother), whom the man wants to get "laid." Hanks is actually sort of good, but this movie goes nowhere and has no point. One must wonder why it was even made? Nevertheless, because of Hank's performance and a few entertaining moments(but no more than a few), it received a stellar "2" out of 10. I think I was being nice, though. | 0 |
Incredibly muddled, off-putting and ultimately ludicrous ("the horses, oh my God, the horses!") thriller. It's creepy at times, but it has one of the worst scripts ever written for a horror film. Watch how in the final 10 minutes everybody "magically" does exactly what the plot needs for the "resolution" to occur. Bland performances by the leads, a typically eccentric one by Richard Lynch. The video transfer is a real hack job, cutting scenes in half and making the movie even more difficult to understand. 0 out of 4 stars. | 0 |
I awake suddenly, aware that I'm drooling onto the plastic couch cover, and realize it's a warm Saturday afternoon. Why was I sleeping? Did I hit my head? Or accidentally swallow all of my grandma's muscle relaxers? Could it be adult onset narcolepsy? <br /><br />No, I momentarily paused on Cheap Seats while channel surfing, and the stunning lack of humor and talent drained my life force with such speed that I blacked out.<br /><br />It's that head-shaking, mouth-agape, shoulder-shrugging bad. But I have to give these moronic and boring twins credit for selling this idea through. Perhaps they had the same effect on the ESPN programming executive that they had on me, and when he/she woke up, a few horrendous episodes were already in the can and he/she hoped that since all the viewers will be asleep, no one will now how awful it is and he/she can keep the $425,000 annual salary.<br /><br />You've been warned. | 0 |
I was going to say this was the worst gay-themed film I've ever seen, but I can honestly say this is the worst film if any genre I've ever seen.<br /><br />You know you're in trouble when a movie starts with a "personal note" from the Director, asking for the audience's "understanding" for the "many challenges" facing a first-time Director. The audio track is so bad in many scenes it's almost impossible to follow the dialogue, and this from a DVD version. Bad lighting, bad sets, bad photography, poor script, generally bad acting all add up to make this "film" unwatchable. I did make it through to the bad ending after several attempts, and immediately gave away the DVD I foolishly purchased. I'm sure there are many challenges facing a first-time Director. But, don't try to palm off this lame attempt as a finished product. I see from IMDb details that this was not only the first Directing attempt of Richard Natale, but also the only. That's the one positive thing I can say about this alleged "movie". | 0 |
This is yet another depressing and boring film about AIDS and tragedy. It begins very uneventful and predictable and continues throughout the movie. I kept waiting for it to pick-up, but unfortunately it never did. The acting is fair, but the script needs A LOT of work. And if you're looking for the nudity, don't waste your time with these not so hot actors. Due to the poor sound quality and lack of captions, I missed 1/8 of the movie. If you have never seen over five gay films, or have recently come to terms with being gay, you may find this film interesting, otherwise it's your run-of-the-mill low budget movie. It ranks as one of the worst gay films I have ever seen. | 0 |
Rather than move linearly from beginning to end, this story line of a gay couple impacted by AIDS "orbits" in time around their "perfect day." The film is organized as a life remembered in asynchronous fragments rather than in a sequential flow as one directly experienced.<br /><br />The narration has its lyrical moments, particularly in describing the impact of loss anticipated or experienced. The dialog unfortunately lacks such grace. The script frequently compels the actors to say startlingly stupid or insensitive things that seem utterly out of character at the moment. On their second accidental encounter, clearly smitten with each other, sensitive Phillip encourages a reluctant Guy to tell him about his difficult week. But the moment Guy begins to open up, Phillip, an English Major, blurts out "You're not a Crisis Fairy, are you?" Later, watching his lover's naked, chiseled body stride across the bedroom toward him, our young Shakespeare in love begins to render the beauty of the moment in words, "The way you cut through space....I can't even describe it"--but lacks the verbal skills to complete his thought. This kind of drivel continues through the AIDS Hospice scenes, bejeweled with lines like, "What made me think death would be all neat and tied up with ribbons?" and "You make Florence Nightingale look like Nurse Ratchet." <br /><br />The film often suffers from a bruising lack of subtlety. Unlikable characters are far more jarring and steamroller-flattened than they need to be. Phillip's thoroughly annoying friends--an arrogant trust fund brat and a whining, needy dweeb--maintain a running caustic diatribe about every one crossing their path. Such patter could offer a writer a wealth of opportunities for clever social commentary, but sadly, their remarks are merely unpleasant, ungraced by wit or insight. It's hard to know if our scriptwriter intentionally crafted intellectually limited characters or if he was simply running his tether's perimeter.<br /><br />The plot may be what most appeals to and resonates with those who praise this film. It does seriously explore 1980's US middle class gay life: first encounters, courting, coupling, nesting, the complexity of open relationships, friction and fracturing, dissolution, physical abuse, rapprochement, forgiveness, terminal illness, death and survival. Leads Phelan and Spirtas give fair to good performances rendering complex characters over time. Their fetching good looks help explain both the chemistry that held these two together through insensitivity and selfishness as well as the chemistry that helped some some viewers overlook this film's painful weaknesses. The decision to chop the plot arc into tidbits and present them in out-of-sequence flashbacks added complexity without any evident dramatic utility, and in several cases left the sequence and thus the implications of a given event unclear.<br /><br />Could I recommend the film? To sticklers for literary and technical quality, absolutely not! For easy going viewers in serious need of an AIDS survivor catharsis or in the mood for a guilty-pleasure tearjerker with a little eye candy thrown in, maybe. But better written alternatives exploring the impact of AIDS on relationships of that era include: Philadelphia, And the band played on, Longtime companion, Angels in America, An early frost, Parting glances, Love! Valour! Compassion! and even Jeffrey. | 0 |
"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work. | 0 |
I generally LIKE watching Burt Lancaster's films--especially when he is needed to go nuts with his imposing screen presence like in Elmer Gantry. However, his greatest strength, his magnetism, was occasionally also his greatest weakness as he rarely, if ever, underplayed ANYTHING. And it is this lack of subtlety that really hinders The Rainmaker. Now I understand that his character was meant to be a sort of showman but how Katherine Hepburn could fall under his spell is completely inexplicable. She is supposed to be smart but doesn't seem so when Lancaster's blarney is being thrown about the screen! In addition to this, the story is perhaps one of the most stagy looking films I have ever seen and it is way too obvious that this is a movie based on a play. It just looks like it was mostly filmed in a sound stage instead of in the great wide open West like it was supposed to be.<br /><br />Overall, a very overrated film. | 0 |
The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids. | 0 |
I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).<br /><br />The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.<br /><br />Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.<br /><br />However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).<br /><br />Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"? | 0 |
The Education of Little Tree is just not as good as it could have been. Little Tree's education is about things like the circle of life and how you should look at a star to help you. Whatever happened to the three R's? Readin' 'Ritin' and 'Rithmetic? When the idiot back talks the teacher at the boarding school place he starts crying and talking to the sky. Oh my gosh. Sure, the lady was a little harsh, but then James Cromwell's character comes and takes him away, leaving the audience thinking that Little Tree was absolutely right. He should learn to adapt to new discipline. Those were the times! Talking to a star is not going to change a thing! Little Tree needs to learn that his adoring guardians are not always right. | 0 |
I gave Timecop a perfect 10, I gave this 1<br /><br />It's story is very boring, and it has only little to do with the original Timecop. Lots of things from Timecop was scrapped, and they put in new stupid stuff instead. This story is taking place in 2060 (if I remember correctly), but for some reason the timetraveling is now more dangerous :confused:<br /><br />And the action scenes are nothing to be happy about, well most of them aren't... only the first one is great... and there aren't many action scenes at all, and they're all pretty short<br /><br />At one point in the story, the main character travels through time about 5 times within a few minutes... no wait, make that two times...<br /><br />In short: Don't waste time watching this movie, it's not worth it | 0 |
This is pretty much the first Jason Scott Lee film I've seen. I say pretty much, because I have also seen Soldier, in which he plays the villain... but from what I've heard, it's not considered a Jason Scott Lee film. This, however, is. And if this is any indication of the quality of such films, I won't be seeing any of the others. Lee is basically passable as a martial arts artist... as the lead, he's awful. He gets in a fight with random no-name characters every few minutes of the film, probably because the script writer couldn't figure out how else to stretch out the film to the minimum required running time for a feature film. The villain is the only character with even a hint of personality, and aside from the fact that he's certifiably insane, he barely seems like a villain at all. The majority of the film is basically Lee chasing the villain through time... or maybe it's the other way around. I can't say for sure... and I definitely wouldn't watch it again to make sure. The effects are not completely horrible... but it's close. The title comes from the popular idea of using a time-machine to go and kill Hitler. Somehow, the film screws up that interesting idea as well. The plot is too complicated for its own good. The pacing is poor. I can't think of one positive thing to say about this film... I really can't. It's simply too formulaic and pointless. If only I had a time-machine, so I could go back and prevent this film from ever being made... no, never mind. I just hope as few fragile minds are exposed to this as possible. Listen to the negative reviewers. Avoid this turkey. I recommend this to fans of Lee, and no one else. If you're looking for a quality film... well, this isn't it. That's for sure. 1/10 | 0 |
If you want to checkout a good Jason Scott Lee film, I recommend the following:<br /><br />Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story<br /><br />Rapa Nui<br /><br />"Timecop 2: The Berlin Decision" is an awful film. Awful production values. Awful acting. Awful script. I would not recommend this film to be watched by anyone who seriously believes that tripe like this is quality entertainment or advances Asian American awareness in Hollywood (This film does neither.).<br /><br />I would at the very least say that this film is passable entertainment on a rainy day if you ever come across it while channel surfing. If you are curious, perhaps a rental from Netflix, but this film is definitely not for keeps.<br /><br />If you are one of the few people who watched this film as a means to raise your Asian American film awareness, and came away disappointed, then I recommend the following films for your personal viewing. These are well-written films with high production values that feature a talented cast of Asian American actors:<br /><br />Better Luck Tomorrow <br /><br />Mulan | 0 |
Jason Lee's pecks are back! If that's what you are looking for, look no further. If not, better move on...<br /><br />But about the movie. Clichés galore, some poorly shot but kinda exotic fight scenes (used JKD) and lots of bad acting & cheap effects. Poor Lee looks like he's in pain throughout the movie, and no wonder. Not a pleasant comeback.<br /><br />The movie doesn't even cut it as a B-movie - sure, there was a Germanish bleached blonde Rutger-wannabe bad guy, but no gratuitous sex scene or even a single booty shots. None. Zip. Nada. Even in Starship Troopers 2 they had the common sense to include the mandatory nudie scenes (as for rest of my comments on that excellent piece of classic cinema excellence, please refer to our upcoming review on that mind-blowing sequel...). I did get the feeling that the writer was taking his revenge on somebody with this - thus I won't get into the "plot" of the movie or pretty much anything else related. Except that it did have some non-heterosexual overtones, so 'nuff said.<br /><br />However, this movie has one thing going for it - no Jean-Claude :) | 0 |
Sadly, it's true. "Legiunea sträinä" exposes with absolute clarity the parameters of Daneliuc's irreversible failure.<br /><br />As it was already said, the author lost the faculty to coalesce his content factors and artistic intentions in a coherent form. Maniacally concerned with the mechanic trick of picking at random news subjects and join them together without any legitimacy, he only gathers a disordered pile of events, unable to follow the least story-line. The script's level is similar to a "Cântarea României" amateur play about the glorious feats of socialist realism - only, turned upside down: while the communist line dictated a narrow concern only with positivism and sugary festivism, now Daneliuc is as perniciously obsessed only with negativism and disgusting scatology. The ideas content is zero, and the "message", infantile and didactic, at a kindergarten level.<br /><br />Unfortunately, he also forgot the most elementary professional tenets. He isn't able anymore to organize a dramatic situation, to order it in a correct movie scene, to frame it right and to edit it following the simplest rules of cinematographic grammar. His level of story-telling in film-images is similar to phrasing something like: "Holy sheet man it ain't nuthin right 'ere, and all da people is asses!" What a huge distance from the impressive artist of 1976-1984, who had created unique works as "Cursa", "Proba de microfon", "Vânätoarea de vulpi" - and even "Croaziera" and "Glissando"... Sic transit gloria mundi... | 0 |
I simply cant understand why all these relics from the Ceausescu era refuse to let go. One can see clearly how frustrated they were during the commie censorship that forbade them so many things to show in their movies, and now they imagine its dunno what big deal of artsy-fartsy freedom so fill the screen with people defecating, urinating, vomiting, swearing, and any other kinds of hideousness imaginable. THIS IS NOT CINEMA, FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS! This is simply visual perversion. Forget about Bunuels Chien Andalou, about David Lynch, about Forman and neorealism and other movie makers who were able to work with an aesthetics of ugliness. THOSE people were mastering their jobs - well, you Don't! Do us a favor, all you Daneliucs and Nicolaescus and Saizescus and Muresans and Marinescus and Margineanus and other obsolete old-timers, and leave us alone! Its bit time to see some Romanian MOVIES on screen, enough with your immature terribilisms! You are not directors, you are ILLITERATE!!! | 0 |
This movie can be labeled as a study case. It's not just the fact that it denotes an unhealthy and non-artistic lust for anything that might be termed as caco-imagery. The author lives with the impression that his sanctimonious revolt against some generic and childishly termed social ills ("Moldavia is the most pauper region of Europe", "I don't believe one iota in the birds flu", "Romanian people steal because they are poor; Europeans steal because they are thieves") are more or less close to a responsible moral and artistic attitude - but he is sorely off-target! <br /><br />What Daneliuc doesn't know, is that it's not enough to pose as a righteous person - you also need a modicum of professionalism, talent and intelligence to transpose this stance into an artistic product. Fatefully, "The Foreign Legion" shows as much acumen as a family video with Uncle Gogu drunkenly wetting himself in front of the guests. The script is chaotic and incoherent, randomly bustling together sundry half-subjects, in an illiterate attempt to suggest some kind of a story. The direction is pathetically dilettante - the so-called "director" is unable to build up at least a mediocre mise-en-scene, his shots are annoyingly awkward, and any sense of storytelling shines by total absence. (Of course, any comment is forced to stop at this level; it would be ridiculous to mention concepts as "cinematographic language", "means of expression" or "style"). The acting is positively "Cântarea României" ("Romania's Chant") level, with the exception of... paradoxically, the soccer goal-keeper Necula Raducanu, who is very natural, and Nicodim Ungureanu. Oana Piecnita seems to have a genuine freshness, but she is compromised by the amateurish directions given by Daneliuc.<br /><br />The most serious side of this offense to decent cinema is the fact that the production received a hefty financing from the national budget, via C.N.C. (the National Cinematography Council). The fact that long-time-dead old dinosaurs like Daneliuc are still thirsty for the government udder is understandable (in a market-driven economy, they would be instantly eliminated through natural selection). But the corruption of the so-called "jury" that squanders the country's money on such ridiculously scabrous non-art, non-cinema and non-culture belongs to the criminal field. | 0 |
This must be accompanied by a special rating and warning: NOT RECOMMENDED TO NORMAL PEOPLE.<br /><br />The obsession of Daneliuc with the most dirty body functions becomes here a real nightmare. Also, it's evident that the man is a misanthrope, he hates everybody - his country his people, his actors, his job. And this hatred makes him blind and he forgets anymore the profession he knew long ago.<br /><br />This so called "film" is just a hideous string of disgusting images, with no artistic value and no professionist knowledge. It is an insult to good taste and to good sense. Shame, shame, shame! | 0 |
I found a DVD of "I Dream Of Jeanie" in the $1.00 bin at Wal-Mart. When I saw that it was the "story of Stephen Foster", being a musician and music educator, I had to see it. I had no idea what year it was made for it did not say on the cover, just that it was a remake of 1939's "Sewanee River". Bill Shirley's portrayal of the composer is sometimes painful, sometimes laughable. The man has NO testosterone and is a wimp all the way through! I have a difficult time believing Stephen Foster thought music publishers were doing him a favor by publishing his songs...without paying him for them! In addition to that ridiculous notion, there is a nearly 20 minute segment of Ray Middleton and his black-faced "Christy Minstrels" performing Stephen Foster's songs that was difficult to watch, to say the least. I can hardly believe anyone would consider this movie appropriate to resurrect in our current time. It is an embarrassment and should remain forgotten. Fortunately, Stephen Foster's songs will NEVER be forgotten....also, Eileen Christy's portrayal of Jeanie was certainly the highest point in this lowest point of Hollywood history. | 0 |
Just picked up this film for a buck at National Wholesale Liquidators, and after watching it, I feel like I got ripped-off.<br /><br />I don't know that I've seen a worse film than this. Honestly. And I would never write a negative review of a film had I not such enormous respect for the subject matter, that is, Stephen Foster and his music.<br /><br />First, what is it? It's a musical biography? Yeah, lot's of tunes by Foster then interspersed here and there are these pseudo-Broadway-Jerome Kern-type numbers that reek more than the Mississippi delta. I mean, somebody got PAID to write this drivel? Secondly, the REAL story of Foster is a fascinating one. Why not even come CLOSE to it? Thirdly, what did they have on the great Ray Middleton to get him to do this film? Pictures of him with small boys?? With communists? What a waste of a great talent.<br /><br />So, friends of Foster, and the truth, and good entertainment, be afraid... be very, very, afraid. | 0 |
Veteran director and producer Allan Dwan, whose huge string of films includes both the utterly forgettable and the recurrently shown (for example, John Wayne in "Sands of Iwo Jima") tried his hand at a big musical with "I Dream of Jeanie." Harnessing a lead cast of singers with little past film experience and, as it turned out, virtually no future, he spun a fictional and in no small part offensive story about the great American songwriter, Stephen Foster.<br /><br />Bill Shirley is the young, lovestruck Foster whose kindness to slaves includes giving the money saved for an engagement ring to pay the hospital cost for an injured little black boy. His intended is Inez McDowell (Muriel Lawrence) whose pesky younger sister, Jeanie (Eileen Christy), is slowly realizing she's in love with the nearly impecunious song-smith. Foster is in love with Inez who is revolted by the composer's Number 1 on the Levee Hit Parade Tune, "O Susannah." Enter minstrel Edwin P.Christy (Ray Middleton) to help launch the profit-making phase of Foster's career.<br /><br />This is, by the musical-film standards of the early Fifties, a big production. The sets are lavish in that special Hollywood way that portrayed fakes with all the trimmings. The singers aren't half bad and the Foster songs are almost impossible to ruin.<br /><br />But this is also a literal whitewash of the antebellum South. The biggest number features black-face for all on stage, an historical anomaly and a contemporary piece of unthinking racism. Were these portrayals of blacks anywhere near reality, the abolitionists would be rightly condemned for interfering with so beneficent an institution.<br /><br />"I Dream of Jeanie" apparently sank into the studio's vault with barely a death whisper. Now revived by Alpha Video for a mere $4.99 it's a period piece with charming songs and repulsive sentimentalizing about the victims of America's great crime, slavery.<br /><br />This was what Hollywood was putting out two years before Brown v. Board of Education. Must have warmed the hearts of some moviegoers who wore their bed linen to the theater. | 0 |
This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by "ground-breaking" and "original" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the "Bill Cosby Show" or "Hill Street Blues" it's original. Definitely. Next to "Law & Order" TP spews originality left and right.<br /><br />Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed "weirdness", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...<br /><br />Whenever I watch the "weird dream" sequence in "Living In Oblivion" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? "Eraserhead" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch "The Prisoner". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.<br /><br />In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for "unique faces" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced "hunks" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a "weird show with weird-looking people". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable "eccentricities" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-"Elephant Man" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. <br /><br />So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this "great mind" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. <br /><br />Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story.<br /><br />Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list. | 0 |
I can't understand why so many peoples praised this show. Twin peaks is one of the most boring titles I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />Now I have seen all season 1 episodes, and seeing season 2 episode 1. Simply I can't take this show anymore.<br /><br />1) Where is the proper induction in criminal investigation?<br /><br />In season 1, there was a scene that agent Cooper throws stones to a bottle. Can you guess why he did that? He just want to identify murderer by doing this 'joke' while mentioning supernatural ability given by Tibet dream. Wow!!!<br /><br />2) There are too many unnecessary scenes in this show.<br /><br />For example, season 2 started with a 'funny' scene that a dumb old man serves agent Cooper with a cup of milk while Cooper are laying down on the floor.( He got the gun shoots in his belly already. ) This old man is doing nothing but saying some dumb comments. That's all.<br /><br />This scene is really boring and even long ( 3 min 30 sec.... It's like Hell. )<br /><br />I would read some comic books rather than see this show anymore. | 0 |
We are not in the fairy tale of the naked emperor. We may confess the truth of what we see, without being stupid, confess, that this show is in many aspects just incomprehensible and that it is clear, that much of it was created out of pure intuition without real concept.<br /><br />Well, obviously many people like such stuff. I don't. I prefer well thought and planed shows. And I also confess, that the show is much to serious for my taste and boring...those love and drug stories...There are so many exciting soaps with lot of suspense (Dallas e.g.), but Twin Peaks can't catch my attention. I don't care about those people, except Cooper and Gordon Cole. | 0 |
There is nothing unique in either the TV Series nor the Movie. Which is a prequel to the TV Show, that isn't found everywhere else in life and entertainment. Both before David Lynches disgusting style of story telling, and after. <br /><br />From the Moment the body of a poor misguided girl washed up on the beach. And being introduced to some of the most mind numbing shady immoral character of the Twin Peaks.<br /><br />To the Mind numbing almost pedophilia disgusting way the movie seems to romantically tell of the destruction of a Human Life through some random psychedelic phenomena in the Movie Twin Peak:Fire Come Walk with me. <br /><br />I watched it all just to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I didn't. It's is simply one mans obvious sexual fetish extended over long series fallowed by a ridiculous overly pornographic movie. Save your self the agony the suspense and watch anything else that at least has the ability to tell a story, rather then seduce you into some kind mental porn movie.<br /><br />I have heard a lot of reviews, rants and raves about how great David Lynch. Because of his ability to define misery and and tragedy and making it into some kind of a wonderful thing. This is not life imitating art, as much as it is some sick twisted version of art doing its best to inspire complete mindless life.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and avoid this garbage. | 0 |
These kind of movies where a psycho of one variety or another tries to damage the reputation (and eventually eliminate altogether) some naive person in order to take over their life. Fatal Attraction, Pacific Heights, The Hand that Rocks the Cradle, Single White Female, and a thousand made-for-TV movies are some examples of this. But while a few, especially Fatal Attraction and Pacific Heights could offer at least some extremely paranoid, suspenseful characters or a few plot twists, Unlawful Entry plays everything by the book. And were it not for the notoriety of its stars (Kurt Russel, Ray Liota, and Madeline Stowe), this movie would sink to mediocrity faster than a Danielle Steele miniseries.<br /><br />Russel plays Michael Carr, an incessantly naive guy who calls on the help of a pair of officers when someone breaks into his house and tries to attack his wife (Madeline Stowe). Unfortunately, he quietly vents his anger about feeling so helpless in the situation to the wrong cop (Ray Liotta), a typically psychopathic villain with no limits for his power. At first empathizing with Carr (probably only pretending to do so), the cop befriends the couple. But soon enough, the cops wants Carr out of the way so, destroying the guys life nearly any way he can (which is pretty easy when you're a cop, and when you're the cop who has installed the guy's security system in his house) in order to take over and presumably, get his wife. It seems less ends-oriented, and more like the cop just wants to prove his power. The wife is more like a trophy, in other words, than an end. And the story plays out entirely by the book, you can probably predict every occurrence before it happens on the screen if you've seen enough of these movies. From the "shocking" moment our main, naive character realizes he is a victim of credit card fraud (perpetrated by the psychopathic villain) to the turn-around-he's-not-really-dead finale. | 0 |
Typical thriller, has been done many times before. Simple plot outline; cop Liotta becomes obsessed with Russell's wife, and he tries to bump off good ol' Kurt so he can have her. This is beyond predictable, it doesn't even try to make you guess, the plot is the plot and there's no thinking outside the box here. I guess then the only reason to watch it is to see how it develops, but nothing is done originally or interestingly. There's not really anything to say about this film, it's not particularly bad, but there's no good points either. Russell plays Russell and you know what you're gonna get when you see him in a film. Ditto Liotta. Stowe has an annoying Cher-esque voice. I read the plot outline and I could see the film in my head, it was so obvious and basic. I watched it and it rolled out in front of my eyes exactly as I had imagined. I felt not a drop of emotion throughout. I have no feeling towards this film, it's as if I never even watched it. Considering this, it's a pretty pointless film isn't it? Still, I'll give it 3/10 for some reason. | 0 |
This is another typical unbelievable and non-sensical piece of Hollywood dreck.<br /><br />Kurt Russell, as Snake Pliskin in a business suit, convinces me he was a better 2nd baseman. Ray Liotta as the psychotic cop is totally predictable and absurd. Madeline Stowe is her usual cardboard self, and does little to be a convincing victim.<br /><br />Every scene in this persiflage is absolutely predictable all the way to the end when Kurt clouts Ray with a vase or something, knocking him down and out. Kurt and Madeline then do their obligatory end-of-the-movie embrace, and EVERYBODY--- except Russell and Stowe, KNOWS Liotta is going to get back up and menace the couple again.<br /><br />He does, of course, and Russell drills him 10 times with his 9mm, which was ENTIRELY unnecessary. This movie could just as well ended with the bludgeoning scene--- EXCEPT Hollywood dotes on unnecessary violence, and the more they can add, or "enhance", the more slobbery they get. | 0 |
Sometimes a premise starts out good, but because of the demands of having to go overboard to meet the demands of an audience suffering from attention-deficit disorder, it devolves into an incongruous mess. And for three well-respected actors who have made better work before and after, this is a mortal shame.<br /><br />So let's see. Premise: a loving couple who lives in a beautiful home is threatened by a bad cop. Interesting to say the least. Make the encroaching cop a little disturbing, why not. It was well done in THE HAND WHO ROCKS THE CRADLE and SINGLE WHITE FEMALE, and it's a proved ticket to a successful thriller.<br /><br />Now herein lies the dilemma. Create a disturbing story that actually bothers to bring some true menace into its main characters while never going so far as to look ridiculous, or throw any semblance to reality, amp up the shock factor, and make this cop so extreme -- an ultra bad variation of every other super-villain that's hit cinemas since the silent age.<br /><br />The producers, and directors, chose the latter. Thus is the resulting film -- badly made, with actors trying their darnedest to make heads or tails in roles that they've essayed before, and nothing much amounting to even less. | 0 |
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!! | 0 |
I saw this film at the Rotterdam Festival, as did presumably all the other voters. The Director was present and seemed to have worked very hard and be very committed to the project, which I think explains the above average reception and mark it got. It's most similar to a feature length episode of Aussie kids favourite "Round the Twist" but it takes itself too seriously to have even that redeeming feature. The movie in itself is maybe worth seeing if you're trying to do a cinematic world tour visiting all UN member states, as I can't think of another Fijian movie but overall it was generic, poorly acted (albeit by an amateur cast) and prey to the subaltern mentality. The moral of the story seemed to be that native islanders will try and screw each other over, but as long as there is an essentially decent white governor to step in, all problems can be solved (by leaving the island). | 0 |
Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.<br /><br />The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.<br /><br />Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.<br /><br />It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.<br /><br />The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.<br /><br />Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all. | 0 |
I am a huge fan of warrior movies. Some of my favorites are Braveheart, Troy, The last samurai and Gladiator. And after watching Mongol, which is absolutely awesome, and which i strongly recommend, i had high expectations from a Sergei Bodrov movie. But it was terrible, awful, even pathetic is not a strong word in this case. The whole movie i was waiting for something exciting to happen, but it didn't, then i was at least expecting a big epic battle at the end, but even that was a huge disappointment, just some random running around, waving with the swords... There are so many good warrior movies, this one is not one of them. | 0 |
this movie let me down decidedly hard. it was a great concept that was ruined with a horrible script. The story just didn't flow and was disjointed at best. There were so many elements to this story that were not explained, or were forced into place with out any real thought. elements like the love story could have been expanded on a bit more, and the cannons need to be written in better. the whole main character growing up thing needed more about the training he was receiving and less standing around. everyone likes a good "little guy overcomes" story and this showed promise but with the scripting failures wasn't to be. While it did have some pyrotechnics in the final battle sequence it was lackluster due to a lack of choreography. this made for a maddeningly boring watch<br /><br />it could have been so good :( | 0 |
Disappointing film. Performance of actors is weak. Sets are fine, could have been better. The story is also weak. Battle sequences are awful. Sounds and quality of film are trashy. The history of Kazakh people was told very poorly. This film should have included more Kazakh actors, in leading roles. And also should have been in Kazakh language. Kuno Bekker and Jay Hernandez are Hispanic origins. I don't get it. Since when Hispanic people play Turkic-Mongolian people. This film is shame of Kazakh cinema. Rustam Ibragimbekov disappointed me. He is one of the finest filmmakers in the world. Czekh director is excused, since he is not nomadic origin, he cannot know true spirit and history of nomads. | 0 |
This is simply put, the worst movie I have ever seen. It ranges from like 2+ hours, and the box art was totally misleading. My friends and I rented it because, we thought it would be a poor man's 300. You know, to laugh at and make fun of. No. There is nothing funny about this movie, only pain. Then, the movie starts up, and they are speaking some sort of different language. We think, 'Oh its just the beginning.' But no, from there the movie plummets and becomes more of like a super boring book you had to read in grade school, where nothing literally happens for hours, and the battle scenes rival those of 2 kids fighting on a playground. Omit Cinematography, and this movie belongs in trash compactor. Movies like this will lead to the world we see in Wall-E, which by the way was a good movie. | 0 |
Pathetic. This is what happens when director comes to work just because someone is paying him to. <br /><br />The intentions were good, great locations and settings for a film of epic proportions. But the performance, damn! I swear, in some shots you can see extras on the background staring in the camera, or looking at the actors because no one told them what they should do when they hear "Action!". The battle scenes are so bad you wonder - are these people for real? They could've done more damage just by hugging each other. In the slow-mo scenes you can see people on battle field walking around or just standing, waving their hands. <br /><br />Only action in the foreground is somehow emphasized. But for what? The story is so illogical and discontinuous, it seems like random situations in chronological order, sometimes not even that. The dialogs are dumb, the love plot is more embarrassing and ridiculous than in Hong Kong action movies. <br /><br />With a budget of 40 million, and you can see every dollar invested on the screen, in best case scenario, the final result of all this enormous effort is a shiny round laser disk in the thin cover placed on the shelf in video store. | 0 |
Yeah, right.<br /><br />I spent the first hour waiting patiently for the movie to take off. It was horribly boring, and consisted mostly of people riding randomly around the hills with no apparent direction. Then the hero comes into the picture. Born as an Asian, but when he grew up, he became white. Obviously white. He wasn't even close to passing for Asian. He looked like Justin Timberlake. It was extremely distracting, and the story did nothing to help the cause. Pointless battle sequences and lame dialogue. It's an hour and forty five minutes long, and by the end I was trying to eat my own face. I watched this because people at the video store where I work are always asking me if this movie is any good. Now I have an answer. It goes something like this: ahem. "NO! GOOD GOD NO! IT'S HORRIBLE! DON'T DO THIS TO YOURSELF! I would recommend another movie, perhaps one that's entertaining." | 0 |
I knew nothing of this film before I was convinced to see it by a friend who had heard it was a "non-stop epic battle scene from beginning to end". That couldn't have been further from the truth. This was one of the most boring, poorly written, amateurishly directed, horribly acted films I've ever had the misfortune to lay my eyes upon. I'd rank it up there with the movie I consider to be the worst film of all time... Battlefield Earth. There basically is no story, it's hard to believe that the makers of this film thought that this cheesy soap opera crap would be taken seriously as actual historic fact. It also features some of the worst dialogue I've ever heard... like this little gem... Guy tells girl "You smell like the moon.". Girl replies "What does the moon smell like?" OMG! You have to be kidding me! The scene where the guy was drawn and quartered got some good laughs from the audience since it looked so ridiculously cheap and the sound FX of the guy being ripped apart reminded me of someone making a fart sound with their mouth. If this is playing at a theater near you, avoid it at all costs. This movie is so bad that I actually made the decision about 45 minutes through that I needed to catch up on my sleep... and I did. Awful. | 0 |
I would give this movie 5 rather than 3 if it would be at least in time... When i've seen it in first time it was just what you could wait from the work that is based not on the artistic abilities of the directors but on the idealistic or i would rather say idiotic habits of our (Kazakhstan) government... It's a shame, because 'Qazaqfil'm' was been shooting nice movies when it was not honoured by the name of Shaken Aimanov, but it was actually ran by him. The movies like 'Konec Atamana', 'Kyz Zhibek' or even 'Aldar Kose'. But after Mr Aimanov's death the production of quality movies went down almost dramatically in 10 years time there were very few films produced. However, in late 1980s, 'Assa' was shot, it was a film about first organised crime groups in the big country, one year later Mr. Rashid Nugmanov shot another film with the co-staring of the same actor/singer V.Tsoy, at that time he was already a soviet/Russian rock legend, - the movie called 'Igla' (The Needle or something) it was completely new, somebody called that period as resurrection or a new Kazakh movie wave. Unfortunately nowadays we do not have a quality movies, our directors shooting movies on the french and Japanese financial support, and thus movies are not for the public but for the authors professional critics, some of them take a price on international author movie festivals but there a very few of them become a business asset products... And again back to our 'nomads'. Such movies usually unpopular because of vast aspects. The same effects was with Nikita Mikhalkov's 'Sibirski Cyrilnik' about Russian tsars, that was also shot on parities with foreign partners, i think they were french or maybe British. Nobdy liked it, even in Russian public it become as a main topic of a comedians and comedy shows like 'KVN'. IMHO | 0 |
"Dracula II:Ascension" is the story of a group of medical students who come across the body of Dracula.When a mysterious stranger appears and offers the students $30 million to harvest the body and steal its blood for auction,it's an offer they can hardly refuse.Soon the students also find themselves relentlessly pursued by a vampire killer from the Vatican!"Dracula II:Ascension" is a slightly entertaining horror film that has many flaws.The characters are one-dimensional and the acting is pretty average.There are some good gore effects like really cool double decapitation scene,but there is not enough violence for my liking.The film becomes quickly boring and forgettable and there is absolutely no suspense.So if you like modern vampire flicks give it a look.I prefer atmospheric vampire chillers from 60's and early 70's like "Lips of Blood","The Brides of Dracula" or "Lemora:A Child's Tale of Supernatural" to name only a few.4 out of 10. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.