text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
I think this cartoon is one of the worst cartoons I have ever watched. I would recommend this cartoon to people who are under 5. I did used to like this show when I was 4 and 5, I still only watched it when there was nothing on. Now I am other 5 and I would rather do my homework than watch it. The cartoon used to be a bit funny but they were not enough to make me burst out laughing. Now I am older I am interested in show witch are not rated Us. I have started to watch Doctor Who (12A), Torchwood (15) and Sarah Jane Adventures (PG). I am interested in things to do with Doctor Who so I am not interested in 5 year old cartoons. This cartoon didn't last very long it only had 6 seasons, it got cancelled because of it was low on viewers but some people say it was because the writers ran out of ideas but for most other shows they have at least 8 seasons. | 0 |
In 2004, I liked it. Then it became very stupid. It suggests that kids are brainless. It insults children. Cartoon Network used to be great. One of the shows I liked was Hamtaro. It did manage to be interesting and imaginative in its approach to children programming. The show (Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends) is like putting 20 spoons of sugar in your Sprite. It seems as if today's television producers are only interested in making money, rather than engaging the imaginations of children and making money! Lately, my children are tuning in to the old shows (60's) to find something interesting to watch. Perhaps, in the absence of originality, for television to look to its past and recycle children's programing from days gone by. | 0 |
This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor) <br /><br />Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee | 0 |
The idea behind this film was a good one. Too bad it wasn't written well. Casting Sidney Poitier as the FBI agent was a good idea, and he did an outstanding job. Tom Berenger, on the other hand, only knows one emotion in most of his movies, anger. Kirstie Alley's character could have been a great one, and even showed some possibilities once, but the writer really let us down by making her role mostly a helpless female. This was completely inconsistent with the strongly independent character she was supposed to be. I don't care for Alley's acting anyway. The movie should have ended about fifteen minutes sooner than it did. The director milked the cow dry before the unbelievable final action. I will keep this in my collection only as an example of Poitier's performances. | 0 |
I had to write a review of this film after reading another comment saying that this is Sidney Poitier's best movie. Poitier had just returned from over a decade's break in film acting and he is clearly creaky here. 11 of his films are mentioned in Wikipedia and they don't include this. 5 of his films are on the AFI's list of top 100 inspiring movies, again, not including this. Berenger and Poitier, rube and city slicker set out to hunt down a dangerous psychopath before he crosses the border to Canada. Some of the attempts at comedy in this film clearly fail and Berenger and Poitier's bonding was cringeworthy and awkward (not helped by a completely bland script). Kirstie Alley (as the hostage) was underused, and almost entirely ignored when she was on screen. Some attempt at suspense is made, for example when you're meant to try and guess which of 5 men on a fishing trip is the murderer (all of them are type-cast villains). I understand that this is the entire appeal to most fans out there. I guessed who it was and I wasn't really trying hard.<br /><br />If you're a Berenger fan, watch the Sniper (1993), you even get to see Billy Zane strutting his stuff. It's much better. All in all I'd give Shoot to Kill 3/10. It's not daring, and it's just too straightforward for me. | 0 |
What a complete waste of time. The movie starts as a clone of the Saw series, but with even worse acting. Melissa Joan Hart is absolutely horrible. The ending is ridiculous and the story contains no twists, not plot surprises and just a plain bad ending. I liked some of the characters and I was hoping for everything to be tied together at the end. It just doesn't happen. It's a total "Wrestler" ending with none of the good acting. I can't believe I spent the time watching this. It's not "fun" as some people put it. A guy in a mask kidnaps people who are connected and forces them to figure it out. The connection is a stretch and he should have shot the main actress first. | 0 |
I'm not sure if the filmmakers were after a Saw-type movie or 12 Angry Men (people piecing together the facts to get at the truth). Whatever it was, it was poorly done and not worth watching.<br /><br />I don't watch movies for blood and gore, but because this film had little else going for it, it should have shown the actual killing more. Most were off-camera, minimizing the horror that we were supposed to feel by the deaths.<br /><br />It also bugged me that the cop was among the victims; he unwittingly contributed to the innocent young man going to prison by accepting planted evidence (given to him by MJH) into the evidence room. (And wouldn't MJH a the prosecuting attorney, have had access to that evidence--taking it out and putting the wrong evidence back--anyway, so she wouldn't have needed the cop's help?). The others, while often also not realizing it was this particular person they were harming, still played larger roles in his ultimate demise. The gun dealer should have know his guns would be used for evil intent. The insurance guy rejected a person obviously in need, etc. But the cop's crime seemed minor in comparison since he didn't know exactly what he was doing. The filmmakers could have taken it a step further and had him be the one that encouraged MJH to plant the evidence, which would have made him more culpable. And MJH's yelling that he (the cop) got her in that mess doesn't make any sense at all.<br /><br />It would been more intriguing if each person died in a way that offered the others a clue to why he/she was there and deserved to die. The insurance guy, for example, could have had the applications he rejected rammed down his throat so he choked on them; the Oriental woman could have had her eyes gouged out because she was a false witness, etc. Yes, more violent that the gun deaths, but more interesting.<br /><br />The dialog wasn't witty, there were no twists, and the ending was one of the worse (if not the worst) I've ever seen. The ending along knocked three stars off my rating.<br /><br />The actors did a decent job, especially given the garbage lines and motivation they had to work with.<br /><br />Overall, a waste of time. | 0 |
an very good storyline, good thrill to it ... but the 10 last seconds destroyed the whole movie... what happened? extremely well made and an good story destroyed in the last seconds... sorry to say but a 1 in vote... thats what it it deserve, i would think that Chris Shadley could come up with a better end... but maybe next time : ) all this meaningless blood gore for nothing? the end would lift the story to close to a 10, but it didn't.... the end destroyed the whole story, i think most people aren't lame and when they goes a movie thy want a good end, even if it is intricate ... but the only lame here is the end... sorry | 0 |
Before watching this film, I could already tell it was a complete copy of Saw (complete with the shack-like place they were in and the black guy wanting someone to break his hand to get out of the cuffs). MJH's name on a movie would typically turn me away (ugh, can we say GROSS?!), but I still wanted to give it a try.<br /><br />Starting out, I was a bit interested. The acting is absolutely horrible and I found myself laughing at almost each reaction from the characters (especially the man that played "Sulley"). MJH was even worst, but I continued to watch.<br /><br />However, the ending was the biggest joke of them all! I seriously sat in shock thinking "THAT was the ending?! Is this a comedy?!".<br /><br />I thought this pile of crap was funnier than the "Scary Movie" spoofs and that is REALLY saying something! | 0 |
Don't waste your time on this film. It could have been good, but the ending was one of the lamest I've ever seen. I seriously have to wonder how the people involved with the making of this film could've looked at that final scene and thought, "yeah! now there's an ending!" and patted themselves on the back about it. To me it seemed more like they just ran out of ideas! They built up the final scenes to have a cool twist, but instead just let the whole build-up fall flat on it's face. When the last shot faded to black and I heard the credit music starting I was in shock - I could not believe what I was seeing and that someone could even call that an ending. The best thing anyone could do with this film is rewrite the end and give it some substance. Seriously, I'd really love to get whoever came up with that one in a room, look them in the face and say - WTF??!!!! | 0 |
I wanted to like this film, yes its a SAW, blah blah blah ripoff but I like those films. If done well this had all the ingredients of being a good, not brilliant, but good film....unfortunately those ingredients had gone off! The acting was terrible, and this was first seen when the captives are introduced with their captor one by one (hoods taken off), the remarks and one liners are just terrible, yes I know, bad writing....but this is more than that, it was bad writing coupled with bad acting. Two of the captives had been in a relationship with each other and did not even acknowledge this until a lot further into the film.....<br /><br />Sorry, Im even wondering why I am bothering to review this movie at all.<br /><br />I will end with PLOT HOLES, PLOT HOLES & MORE PLOT HOLES! DISAPPOINTING! | 0 |
Sadly it was misguided. This movie stunk from start to finish. It was hard to watch because I used to watch Clarissa Explains It All every day on Nickelodeon. I LOVED her. Then the next thing I found she did a spread in Maxim and she was gorgeous! I haven't really heard anything about her until I watched this movie on accident. I couldn't believe she would even let something like this be seen with her name all over it. Everything about it was wrong but it still looked like someone somewhere in the team was trying really really hard to save a sunk ship. Too bad.. I hope she continues to act and I would love to see her with a real cast in a real movie. | 0 |
I stumbled upon Nine Dead recently and read the current reviews thinking I could deal with an average movie. This movie however was slightly below average, yet watchable. The script was poorly written and the acting was at average for a B-level movie with a couple standing out as pretty good. The plot borders on that of Saw, teach people what they did wrong in a situation and try to make them appreciate life more, but that is really where the comparison ends. Nine dead tries to have heart and purpose behind simple ideas that are not new. The main fault that I found in Nine dead, was the slap in the face to the viewer of flashbacks that occurred 3 minutes before in the film and were completely unnecessary and a completely inadequate ending that people won't see coming, in a bad way. Barring any spoilers I have seen the worse of bad movies and even they didn't end this poorly. Decent flick, bad acting and ending though... | 0 |
I watched this movie as I liked the plot, a group of strangers are held captive trying to figure out how they're connected.<br /><br />The setting and the premise were obviously influenced by the first (and best) Saw movie & although there wasn't much action the story moved at a relatively good pace.<br /><br />There was comedy relief ion the form of the two bickering 'Alpha males' and it was a welcome surprise (for me anyway)to see Melissa Joan Hart hasn't given up on acting yet.<br /><br />A few things let it down for me personally; 1. The paedophile was way over characterised making him get turned on by everything from children to dead bodies.<br /><br />2. MJH's line about her cop ex 'getting her into this' when in reality, he was the least deserving person to be there, he hadn't KNOWINGLY contributed to the events leading up to their capture.<br /><br />3. The ending..... what sort of movie just ends in the middle of something going on? There was no resolution, no cliff hanger, no obvious end... it just ends.<br /><br />And for that alone I dropped two stars off my rating. The first 2 points I would let slide but not the end! | 0 |
you can tell they spent 5$ making this.it is a waste of your time... ugh.. there is not anything remotely good about this movie... .. i don't know why i kept watching it.. the chick is not hot. horrid acting.. you could do anything and its a better use of your time.. like watching TV playing shitty video games.. i feel robbed. simply robbed.. of my time . i have never made a review for a movie before as you can probably tell but this movie i felt like i needed to save the poor souls that are about to watch it and looking on IMDb before to see if its decent and looking at the comments. -there was no action- -no hot chicks- -no budget- -shittttttttttttttty acting- it screams bad movie. ****the WHOLE movie is in a room.*** | 0 |
While the original titillates the intellect, this cheap remake is designed purely to shock the sensibilities. Instead of intricate plot-twists, this so-called thriller just features sudden and seemingly random story changes that serve only to debase it further with each bizarre development. Worst of all, replacing the original spicy dialog is an overturned saltshaker full of unnecessary four-letter words, leaving behind a stark, but uninteresting taste.<br /><br />There was promise--unfulfilled promise. The prospect of Michael Caine pulling off a Patty Duke-like Keller-to-Sullivan graduation is admittedly intriguing. Unfortunately, this brilliant and respected actor only tarnished his reputation, first by accepting the role in this horribly re-scripted nonsense and then by turning in a performance that only looks competent when compared to Jude Law's amateurish overacting.<br /><br />If you haven't seen the classic original, overlook its dated visuals and gimmicks. Hunt it down, watch it, and just enjoy a story-and-a-half. As for the remake, pass on this insult to the original. | 0 |
86 wasted minutes of my life. I fell asleep the first time I attempted watching it, and I must say I'm not one to ever fall asleep in the cinema.<br /><br />I have never seen such a pointless plot acted in such a stilted and forced manner, and can only surmise that the actors were as hard-up as the protagonist writer allegedly was in the film itself.<br /><br />Everything in this dire adaptation is overacted. And if it isn't the wooden acting, almost as though you can see the teleprompter, then the set itself, which is overlit and interfering in utterly unnecessary ways, and overdressed to an unimaginable extent, is enough to put you off the entire farce.<br /><br />As to the supposed shock of a detective under disguise, any person who does not see that - as well as the entire rest of this ludicrous plot - telegraphed light years in advance, should check their eyesight immediately.<br /><br />Bad acting, and from two very decent actors, coupled with the hyper-coddled Branagh trademark overdirection, is enough to make you want to use real bullets rather than blanks yourself.<br /><br />On top of it all, there is a completely risible undertone of homoerotica in this, heightened towards the end of it. All I can hope for is that this was such a flop that people shan't try to emulate this level of cinema ever again. | 0 |
The main reason for writing this review is I found this "revisioning" of a great play and worthy 1972 film, a horrible movie experience. If I can save someone from watching it, I will have done a good thing.<br /><br />This "new" version is loaded with talent, and it all goes wrong. Kenneth Branagh OKs an ugly, sterile, one note set. He proceeds to film the movie from every arty, distracting, self-centered angle possible. We see reflections of the actors in stainless steel, on security monitors, shots of their heads from 200 ft above, close ups of eyes, chins, and on and on. The screenplay, by a Nobel Laureate, introduces long stretchs of unpleasant homosexual banter, that is being faked by both parties,.... I think?? Given the character "twists" how would I know? The characters themselves,so richly drawn in the original, are crass and unsympathetic. The running time has been cut by an hour, which is either the real problem or the kindest thing the Director did for us. The actors perform their lines effectively, but nothing they say or do is remotely believable. Jude Law is over the top more than Caine, but as the credited Producer, must have had Branagh's blessing.<br /><br />All in all I found this to be an ugly to look at, unconvincing shell of a former classic. Why was it even made??? The paying public spent less that $4M worldwide to see it! A vanity piece of work that fails at every turn. | 0 |
I saw this movie not knowing anything about it before hand. The plot was terrible with large gaps of information missing. The movie didn't have the "battle of wits" feel to me. The actors just spewed out mouthful's of nonsense, at times causing me to gnash my teeth in agony as they droned on and on. The plot was predictable except for the stomach sickening homo erotic scene at the end (I'm not homophobic but made me physically sick to my stomach), even the ending was predictable. And you could tell the detective was Jude Law in a costume, everything from the fake accent, terrible dental work, costume shop facial hair, everything pointed to it being a disguise. The whole movie just felt like wasted time out of my life. This movie had the feel of a puppet show with Jude Law and Michael Caine as puppets and the house as the window to view the show, really boooring in my opinion. | 0 |
Harold Pinter rewrites Anthony Schaeffer's classic play about a man going to visit the husband of his lover and having it all go sideways. The original film starred Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine. Caine has the Olivier role in this version and he's paired with Jude Law. Here the film is directed by Kenneth Branaugh.<br /><br />The acting is spectacular. Both Caine and Law are gangbusters in their respective roles. I really like the chemistry and the clashing of personalities. It's wonderful and enough of a reason to watch when the script's direction goes haywire.<br /><br />Harold Pinter's dialog is crisp and sharp and often very witty and I understand why he was chosen to rewrite the play (which is updated to make use of surveillance cameras and the like).The problem is that how the script moves the characters around is awful. Michale Caine walks Law through his odd modern house with sliding doors and panels for no really good reason. Conversations happen repeatedly in different locations. I know Pinter has done that in his plays, but in this case it becomes tedious. Why do we need to have the pair go over and over and over the fact that Law is sleeping with Caine's wife? It would be okay if at some point Law said enough we've done this, but he doesn't he acts as if each time is the first time. The script also doesn't move Caine through his manipulation of Law all that well. To begin with he's blindly angry to start so he has no chance to turn around and scare us.(Never mind a late in the game revelation that makes you wonder why he bothered) In the original we never suspected what was up. here we do and while it gives an edge it also somehow feels false since its so clear we are forced to wonder why Law's Milo doesn't see he's being set up. There are a few other instances but to say more would give away too much.<br /><br />Thinking about the film in retrospect I think its a film of missed opportunities and missteps. The opportunities squandered are the chance to have better fireworks between Caine and Law. Missteps in that the choice of a garish setting and odd shifts in plot take away from the creation of a tension and a believable thriller. Instead we get some smart dialog and great performances in a film that doesn't let them be real.<br /><br />despite some great performances and witty dialog this is only a 4 out of 10 because the rest of the script just doesn't work | 0 |
This reworking of Anthony Shaffer's classic play did not last long in cinemas. Having recently suffered through it on cable, I still congratulate myself for not wasting money on a ticket. Director Kenneth Branagh, writer Harold Pinter, and star/producer Jude Law deluded themselves that their prestige alone could sustain this travesty through an interminable 93 minutes, without the fun or class of the longer original.<br /><br />Michael Caine enhanced his reputation playing the second lead in the marvelous 1972 film. He now seems intent on destroying it by attempting the lead, played in that version by Laurence Olivier. (Both were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, but lost to Marlon Brando in THE GODFATHER.) Looking puffy and washed-out, Caine glides through the part with less depth than he displays as Batman's butler. He had already lowered himself to a guest appearance in the atrocious remake of GET CARTER. What's next -- ALFIE II, or SON OF THE MAN WHO WOULD BE KING? <br /><br />But then, no one benefits from this inane adaptation by Pinter, who thinks that frequent cursing and an added sexual angle can compensate for the absence of Shaffer's witty character interplay. Branagh's direction relies on bluish lighting and a soulless set design that wouldn't hold up in a second-rate nightclub. Neither the shadows nor the tight, overacted close-ups can help Law overcome his dull screen persona. The result is a failure both as straight drama and as detective thriller, almost making you forget the purpose behind the title.<br /><br />Fans of the original stage production (with Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter) and the Olivier/Caine film would do well to regard this enterprise as a bad dream. The late Mr Shaffer, who wrote the 1972 screenplay, as well as Hitchcock's FRENZY and several Agatha Christie adaptations, must be turning in his grave, wishing he could plan a real murder or two! | 0 |
At the name of Pinter, every knee shall bow - especially after his Nobel Literature Prize acceptance speech which did little more than regurgitate canned, by-the-numbers, sixth-form anti-Americanism. But this is even worse; not only is it a tour-de-force of talentlessness, a superb example of how to get away with coasting on your decades-old reputation, but it also represents the butchery of a superb piece. The original Sleuth was a masterpiece of its kind. Yes, it was a theatrical confection, and it is easy to see how it's central plot device would work better on the stage than the screen, but it still worked terrifically well. This is a Michael Caine vanity piece, but let's face it, Caine is no Olivier. Not only can he not fill Larry's shoes, he couldn't even fill his bathroom slippers. The appropriately-named Caine is, after all, a distinctly average actor, whose only real recommendation, like so many British actors, is their longevity in the business. He was a good Harry Palmer, excellent in Get Carter, but that's yer lot, mate! Give this a very wide berth and stick to the superb original. This is more of a half-pinter. | 0 |
Joseph L. Mankiewicz's Sleuth didn't need a remake. It's a thoroughly well made film that stands up well to this day. However, given that the modern day remake machine is currently in full swing; I really can't say I'm surprised to see the film updated for modern audience. The plot remains identical to the original film and at its core we have the story of a young man, Milo Tindle, who goes off to see an older man, Andrew Wyke, to discuss a divorce as the younger man is having an affair with the older man's wife. From there, a game of cat and mouse ensues. Its clear right from the outset that director Kenneth Branagh wanted to add a different touch to this film and he does so by way of the central location, which has been changed from the charming games-ridden country house of the original to a technical marvel kitted out with layers of security equipment. I'm glad that the director chose to make this change as nobody wants to see a remake that directly copies of the original; plus there's the fact that the location is well used and always nice to look at. Unfortunately, however, the positive elements of Sleuth 2007 end there.<br /><br />The original film was over two hours long, while this remake is only just a shade over eighty minutes. Naturally, therefore, that means that this version has less about it; and unfortunately it's the characters that suffer. The plot is also rushed and we get into the first twist in the tale far too quickly and before we are given any chance to actually understand why and how these events can be taking place. The film does not build the characters, or the rapport between them, enough to make sure that their relationship makes sense. One major thing that has been changed about the older character is his obsession; in the original he was obsessed with games which turned out to be VERY important once the twists come into play. Here he has some kind of security fetish that doesn't really mean anything by the end. Kenneth Branagh's handling of the film allows for a classy score but the class ends there. The original thrived on it, but this film is happy merely to soil itself with expletives on numerous, and mostly unwarranted, occasions; which cheapen the whole thing. The final twist in the tale is completely different to how it was in the original and ensures that the film boils down to a really hideous conclusion. After spending two hours with the original I understood, respected and liked both characters presented in the film - after eighty minutes of this, I hated them both. I do have some respect for Branagh for not merely rolling out a carbon copy of the original film; but this is not a good adaptation of the great Anthony Shaffer play. | 0 |
It's a while ago, that I have seen Sleuth (1972) with two great actors Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier. Michael Caine is back, but he is now the husband and Jude Law the lover of his wife. The story is still the same and it's a fantastic play.<br /><br />During the movie I always had the feeling to watch a play. That's one of the reasons I dislike this remake of a classic. When I watch a movie adapted a play I still must feel to see a movie and not just a play. Director Kenneth Brannigan did some marvelous movies in the past, but this time he missed. Another reason was the look of the movie. The design was modern, stylish clean, uncomfortable and cold. I never got the feeling that somebody ever lived in that house. The photography wasn't bad, but the lightening was awful. Sometimes there was blue light, dark, green light, to round it up not friendly for eyes.<br /><br />The acting was really good. Michael Caine's and Jude Law's perform at their best. I really would like to see these 2 guys playing together on stage. But I have to confess I never was a fan of Jude Law. The weakest part was the mid part. I remember that in the original that this part was still very mysterious and just marvelous directed. I tried to watch it twice and always in the mid part I felt asleep. The end part is better and more interesting. Sleuth (2007) isn't awful, but it seems to be more a movie for critics than for the audience. Sleuth (1972) is still a masterpiece and much more entertaining than Sleuth (2007). | 0 |
A remake of the superb 1972 movie of the stage play, nicely casting Caine as the nemesis of his character from the first movie. But doing nothing else nicely at all.<br /><br />A under-parr performance from the actors, Law and Caine, diluted further by weak self-indulgent direction.<br /><br />The warmth of the setting in the original is forsaken for a super-modern homesetting. The subtle interplay between Oliver and Caine which made the first movie so watchable, is replaced with a horrid, brash arrogance that instantly breeds disdain in the viewer. But this is not the clever, to-ing and froing of liking one then the other character the original fostered so well, this is an obvious OTT character assassination of both character from the word go.<br /><br />This version of Sleuth is not really worth seeing, watch the original film and be dazzled from the opening act. | 0 |
I thought the film was good in parts.the start was exciting .the first 30 minutes of the film were good.the camera angles in the first 30 minutes were strange and i did not like it coz the were they not covering the actors entirely.<br /><br />i think the last 25 minutes of the film were really not that great from which we expect a lot in case of such films.<br /><br />the dialoques did not make sense and i don't think they were very witty.<br /><br />i felt as if they were trying to copy films like phonebooth in terms of dialogues,but failed miserably.it seemed as if they many of the scenes between the actors were put for sake of it and did not make any sense to the story.<br /><br />the entire film features only law and caine.<br /><br />i don't think it was a waste of time,its an OK film,but not gr8 | 0 |
I loved the original. It was brilliant and always will be. Strangely though, I actually looked forward to seeing the re-make. I'm usually a little bit against re-makes because there's far too many of them, but somehow this intrigued me. I was really enjoying it to begin with. Caine brilliant, as usual, and Jude Law managing to hold is own next to him. It was quite clever how it was modernised and it was working. What stops this from being really good is the last seven minutes. It goes completely away from the original, so far in fact that is ceases to be clever and just gets annoying. The end in the original was fantastic! So much tension was built up and it was unbelievably clever! This? It grows not in tension but in frustration as it seemed they decided to make Caine's character a homosexual. It was if they were trying far to hard to be different. And then... BANG! Law's dead. Roll Credits. This film is worth the watch simply for the performances, but those last seven minutes really do drag it down. What a pity.... | 0 |
Director F.W. Murnau wisely stuck with the silent film medium he knew so well to cover this story of native islander life in the South Seas. The documentary style works very well for the first half of the movie. The landscapes are beautiful, and the daily life activities of the islanders are interesting to watch. The film loses momentum, though, when it begins to concentrate more on the narrative story of two doomed lovers. The storyline just never gets that interesting, despite being handled well by Murnau. Won an Academy Award for best cinematography, although the award probably should have been for best scenery. You can't really credit the DP for getting to shoot in such a beautiful location. | 0 |
I heard many stories about this film being great... Well, I took my chance when I saw it for a cheap price at Ebay last month.<br /><br />I watched it, and I have only a few comments about it:<br /><br />1) Terrible story-line, 2) Terrible acting, 3) Bad fighting-scenes...<br /><br />I never seen any worse movie in my life so far!! When the storyline is bad, than at least make the fights something more interesting. But BOTH are done ridiculously bad...<br /><br />* The only positive thing about this movie (in my opinion) is Nikki Berwick. God, she looks nice in this movie.<br /><br />That's about it... | 0 |
First of all when I saw the teaser trailer for Wendy Wu, I was definitely excited. Brenda Song, one of the hottest girls on Disney Channel, would be doing martial arts and I was fine with that... until I saw the movie. The action was poorly constructed, the movie couldn't have realated to anyone, the fighting was unrealistic and it sucked... along with the plot. If you really think about it's a wannabe Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a girl who is the descendant of other warriors who were women, a girl wants to ignore her calling and wants to become homecoming queen, the watcher who bug's her to prepare for a big fight against some ancient evil. The idea just wasn't all that original, the movie is waste of time. | 0 |
I'd give it a 2/10.<br /><br />I was really, really disappointed.<br /><br />The storyline was poorly developed, for instance, the incidents were too short and brief, hence the moral was not clearly brought out. I thought Brenda Song did a fine job, but Shin Koyamada seemed to have a difficult time handling his role. I could see the need to put in western elements in the show, however, there are certain parts, where Chinese elements were needed too! The villain for example. His physical appearance resembled a robot, instead of something out of the Chinese culture. The final and the worst flaw, were the incorrect, and distorted facts placed in the show.<br /><br />Others may point out that this is a 'Kid's show' and hence, there is no need for the such high standards. However, there are other Disney shows, such as Mu Lan, which have been much better in terms of story development and presentation.<br /><br />In conclusion, I feel that Disney movies should be better researched and better planned. A good show is not enough with just a series of martial arts moves to depend on. | 0 |
This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under. | 0 |
I thought the movie (especially the plot) needs a lot of work. The elements of the movie remains westernized and untrue to the attempt of trying to produce an eastern feel in the movie. I'll give three out of many of the flaws of the movie:<br /><br />First, when Shen told Wendy that he would help her study the history of China, I was really happy that the audience would receive some information about Chinese history; but it turns out that the movie did not exactly show Wendy actually studying Chinese history; yet instead, the movie only shows Wendy practicing the method of remembering what she had studied, which frustrated and put me in dismay.<br /><br />Second, which really bothered me, is how the characters kept mentioning about moon cakes -- moon cakes this and moon cakes that and how good it tastes. Yet they didn't really mention the real significance of it. The only they they talked about that had any relevance to the moon cake was the Autumn Festival, which they did not explain or go in depth. They could have mentioned the myth that correlates with the moon cake -- the Moon Lady. The myth starts of with how there once exists ten suns and each would rotate rising, but one day all ten suns rose up, drying up the land with the rising intense heat; so the Divine Archer, Hou Yi, shot nine of the ten suns, leaving only one sun (there are different versions where the Hou Yi shot the eight out of nine suns). Because of his heroic contribution, he was given the pill of immortality so he could live on forever in case the ten suns do rise up again, but his wife, Chang-O stole it. After stealing it, she fled to the moon, where she met a hare. She then came upon an idea and told the hare to pound the pill into many piece so she could spread the pill all over earth, giving everyone immortality. (There are a few variations of this story but throughout my childhood, I, most of the time, heard about this version). I thought details such as this would make the plot more culturally Chinese oriented.<br /><br />The last thing I would point out is the last battle scene of the movie. The teachers that were possessed by the monks were fighting the Terra-cotta Warriors (the life-like statues of the soldiers) went against the idea of how important Chinese history is to the Chinese. The Terra-cotta Warrors serves as a connection of China's past and it was very westernized (where evil must be killed in anyway possible) that the monks in the movies were willing to destroy that connection. It would be understandable if Wendy, considering she is Chinese-American and doesn't have full Chinese knowledge, had no problem destroying these priceless artifacts.<br /><br />The whole movie was westernized because it seemed that all the monks and Shen want to do is fight... I mean, it's rated TVPG due to violence, which goes against the Confucius thinking of cooperation and harmony. It would seem more accurate that the monks try to avoid violence and try to work things out peacefully before having to resort to violence.<br /><br />All in all, all of or either of the producer, writer, or director did not do their research thoroughly and did a messy and effortless job instead. I would suggest that they either stop airing this movie or that they re-shoot the movie so it contains more accurate information; however, I would give it credit (2 stars) for removing one stereotype of Asians and Asian-Americans of being smart and quiet. | 0 |
I thought this movie was terrible. I'm Chinese, so I thought everything was totally wrong. Many of the facts were incorrect. The only thing right about Chinese history in the movie was when Wendy's mother explained to her husband about the statues that guarded ShiHuangDi. I also thought the fight scenes were very cheesy and fake. Many of the actors and actresses were not very great. Some of the jokes that were supposedly "funny" were really stupid. I think this movie should receive the worst possible rating it could get. Disney has really got to get more information about Chinese history if they want to create an extravagant movie. Mulan was quite accurate. Watch this movie if you want to waste some time. | 0 |
There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.<br /><br />Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.<br /><br />The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.<br /><br />Nevermind that, however- let us continue.<br /><br />Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.<br /><br />Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).<br /><br />This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.<br /><br />As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.<br /><br />We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.<br /><br />Don't ask.<br /><br />Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.<br /><br />Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.<br /><br />She screams title of said article out.<br /><br />Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.<br /><br />Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.<br /><br />He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.<br /><br />Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.<br /><br />Ah-hem...moving on.<br /><br />I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.<br /><br />So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it. | 0 |
There isn't more I can say that saying this film was awful. The whole Chineseness is awakened in your being because of the ancestors was a hard sell. But telling the audience that every Chinese knows Chinese history without even studying it just laughable. That is like saying every American knows American history without studying or every Filipino, etc, etc. It just isn't believable.<br /><br />The story is flat out hideous. It talked about Shin being from a Monastery in China - later identifying it from Bejing. However, the early sequences of the film show the map focusing in on Mongolia. I know the current Chinese regime wants to claim areas like Mongolia for its own, granted. But its a distinct nation and it even labels "Mongolia" on the map. Did Disney Studios fail 5th Grade Geography? <br /><br />The relationship between Wendy and Shin is superficial at best, and yet she somehow feels connected to him. Her training is just cheesy as well. And, lets cut to the chase: everything about this film is bad. Its bad enough to laugh at and cry over. The Taekwondo action was over played and unrealistic in many instances.<br /><br />The evil eyes thing was cheesy. However, the left out ending would have been the only descent thing about it. They should have left the evil eyes ending in it. But instead somehow evil is defeated. Yey! <br /><br />Overall,not worth the time of the dog in the film. Brenda Song should get on with another studio. "F" | 0 |
Worst DCOM I have seen. Ever. Well, maybe not as bad as Smart House. This was just bad. The acting and story was fine, but the effects SUCKED!<br /><br />They were so fake! The only good fight scene was between the brother and Shen. That was probably the only scene in which I was excited.<br /><br />Overall, I found this movie very boring and the film kind of ended suddenly. <br /><br />I will give it a four for Brenda Song who is a very funny actress and that one fight scene.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
I'm here again in your local shopping mall (of course, 'cause that's where the high school kids hang out!!!!!) to demonstrate how awful "BENDY POO: PROM COURIER" really is!!!!! To prove how bad this joke of a DCOM this is...<br /><br />...we're going to take these four sumo wrestlers, and stuff them into this photo booth. How...cozy!!!!! <br /><br />Hai! Huuuuuuuarrrrghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Uh!!!!! <br /><br />How awful is it????? It's so bad, Disney Channel flushes away its money, yet again, with those exciting yet determining 10-second promos, keeping the viewers wondering, "WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE ON?????" And then, suddenly, when it DOES come on, for one, this not only got a higher TV rating than usual, but this was only seen once!!!!! Oh, no!!!!! One time everyone!!!!! Plus, this movie is about high school and stuff, and believe me, I will NOT go any further with what else is in there.....<br /><br />Say ch...smile!!!!! (SNAP!) <br /><br />Avoid this one at all costs. 0/10 | 0 |
Wow. This was probably the worst DCOM ever. I watched the first half hour and I laughed. Brenda Song plays Wendy, the popular girl with the hot jock boyfriend and stuck up friends who is determined to be Homecoming Queen. She is supposed to save the world as a warrior, and Shin comes to her aid to help her with her Martial Arts. Shin teaches her the skills of a snake, tiger, etc. and she has to learn certain techniques to save the world.<br /><br />This movie is great for kids who want to learn about Martial Arts and the Chinese culture but the acting and casting was horrible.<br /><br />Brenda Song is a comedic actress and I can't see her playing a serious role. It was laugh out loud funny watching her cry over Shin. Shin couldn't act at all, and everything was totally unbelievable.<br /><br />I watched this movie and tried to think of something similar, and the thing I came up with was the Power Rangers. This movie is so fake and the stunts were so Power Ranger-esquire that it was just corny and stupid. The characters weren't likable and I just couldn't stand to watch it. Disney really needs to take time to make some decent movies. High School Musical is the only movie that deserves to be on Disney Channel, along with other movies like Jumping Ship, Color of Friendship, Go Figure, Read It and Weep, & Stuck in the Suburbs.<br /><br />If you like action-adventure and corny jokes, you'll like this movie. | 0 |
Wendy Wu: Homecoming Warrior has a very good, strong plot but is ruined by cheesy details throughout the movie. I am a younger teenager and didn't enjoy this movie very much. I thought the effects were horrible, but they might seem entertaining to younger children. The matrix moves ruined the action, you know that it was absolutely fake. Then there was the Yen Lo, an evil spirit who temporarily possesses random people and homecoming in which Wendy was striving to win. It all ends like a typical feel good movie when Wendy and her Buddhist monk cousin Shen defeat Yen Lo (and destroy him forever) in the end. So Wendy learns a lesson...blah, blah, blah. I'm ready for the next DCOM. | 0 |
I am so insulted by this movie, it's not even funny... And I thought "Mulan" was unbelievable! However low my expectations of Disney have become, I never figured they'd do something so stereotypical yet so off. There is no respect here for any true Chinese culture, just the Hollywood tradition of random martial arts.<br /><br />I appreciate that they tried to make Wendy into a normal teenage girl... But, fortunately, most normal teenage girls--particularly Asian teenage girls--are much less obsessed with such shallow aspects of life. And from a cultural stand point, it's almost impossible. Yes, there are girls who are wrapped up in popularity and fashion, but they're pretty rare. And even the ones who are are still fairly decent scholars. Another stereotype, maybe, but a fairly true one. Because that's how Chinese parents work. That's how Chinese values work. If they wanted to go for authenticity, they would've made Wendy an ironic girl with glasses and a love-hate relationship with her family.<br /><br />This just adds to my frustration with American movies. Asian culture isn't about meditation and vague, nature-oriented phrases that sound wise. We don't walk around smiling enigmatically all the time, and we don't all know some form of martial arts. We're a PEOPLE, and I'd appreciate it if someone would write an Asian part that doesn't portray us as some sad caricature. | 0 |
The day has finally come for me to witness the perpetuation of Azumi's fate as an assassin, fruition of her character and the ultimate attempt to draw me deeper into the world she rampaged through so mercilessly during the first saga.<br /><br />That's as poetical as I'll get when talking about Azumi 2: Death or Love, because when I cringed over the heavy sentimentality of House of Flying Daggers and complained about the credibility of Aya Ueto portraying a blood-driven assassin, after watching Azumi 2 I started to appreciate the previously mentioned shortcomings more than ever before.<br /><br />Not only does the determination of each assassin feels sluggish and uninspiring but also many important elements are omitted from the entire experience. In Azumi 1 we saw the assassins use various stealth tactics (which is their number one priority) as well as logic to make easy work of their marks with swift executions and quicker abilities to escape. But I won't hold that against this movie too much since the story is slightly tweaked this time around and many more obstacles are planted in Azumi's way to prevent her from reaching the warlord and displaying any signs of charisma. By the way, Chiaki is foolishly shelved for the most part of the film and is basically playing a toned down version of Go Go, minus the cool weapon and sense of menace.<br /><br />This brings me to the final blow which is the action, simply disguised in the title as the 'Death' side of the epic. In the first half of the film we see the debut of many promising adversaries with flashy looks and even flashier weapons. To no one's surprise they meet their end one way or another but the film falls short when each of them start dying too fast and too easily. In Azumi 1, the young assassins were mostly overpowering the opposition with quick but somewhat satisfying battles and the final showdown between Azumi and Bijomaru in comparison to the fights in Azumi 2 was at least climaxed and worthwhile. Some interesting effects were introduced but they were unable to achieve innovation due to the shortness of each encounter. I am in no way knocking down the conventional style of samurai films with their quick and realistic battles but characters in both Azumi films were so imaginative and straight out of anime that the rules could have been broken and the action should have been further enriched.<br /><br />The romance side of Azumi is there to fill in time between the fight scenes and unfortunately at the end it serves no purpose nor provides a much needed resolution.<br /><br />As a fan with an open mind for wide variety of movies and animation, I won't lie and I'll admit to my neutrality and unimpressiveness towards the first Azumi film, but I'll step right up and say that after watching Azumi 2, the original was made to look like a flawless masterpiece. For what it's worth, Azumi 2: Death or Love could have gone straight to video, with its invisibly richer budget and a failed potential to add or even expand on the bumpy journey of desperate assassins, doing their best to restore the peace, with an unwavering courage to die trying. | 0 |
I loved watching the original Azumi with its mix of live action manga, compelling storyline, cool soundtrack, directing (Kitamura rocks!), editing, and not to mention the beautiful Aya Ueto who filled the part perfectly. So I was really looking forward to seeing Azumi 2, but after finally seeing it I felt like i had won the lotto and lost the ticket:( Azumi 2 picks up where Azumi left off, however these are completely 2 different movies. The pace is a lot slower, the action is not as exciting and as well choreographed and there is not a lot of character development. This was apparently directed by the same guy responsible for further reducing the value of the TOHO monster franchise (if that is possible!). I agree with some other past reviewers who say that this was a lost opportunity. If only Ryuhei Kitamura continued with this installment. There is however some beautiful Japanese forest scenery to look at while the slow action unfolds and we are introduced all too briefly to bit characters who quickly get killed off. Even the real bad guys, get killed off too easily without too much of a fight. The fight with the Spider guy (straight out of an episode of Monkey!) in the bamboo forest was about the only memorable fight scene. Wheras in Azumi 1 we had a climactic fight scene with barrel camera effects, Azumi 2 brought us the Azumi cape cam!! Azumi's rampage at the end was unconvincing, but Aya still does an okay job. She looks great in the cape...but where did she get it from? I don't think i will be watching this one over and over again! ...what a pity. | 0 |
I loved the first "Azumi" movie. I've seen Ms. Ueto in a variety of her TV appearances and I've seen my fair share of samurai and ninja flicks. I have to say that this movie was much weaker than I'd expected.<br /><br />Given the movie's cast and set up in "Azumi", they should have been able to do a much better job with this movie, but instead it was slow, plodding in parts, and sprinkled with very poor, unconvincing, and wooden acting.<br /><br />When they bothered to reference the first movie, they did so in a manner that was pretty loose and weak. In "Azumi", the title character is the best of a group of superior killers. In "Azumi 2" she seems somehow diminished and less-impressive.<br /><br />That's not to say it was a total loss. There were a few decent fight scenes and some over-the-top characters. Unfortunately, the movie suffers overall from the simple fact that Shusuke Kaneko and Yoshiaki Kawajiri are not Ryuhei Kitamura and Isao Kiriyama. The latter two truly captured the "manga" feel in their screenplay whereas the former never quite "got it." | 0 |
The movie deserves 2/10. 1.5 stars for the girl, (I'm sorry I'm biased, i think pretty girl is the only highlight of the movies), and 0.5 for the fact that it is shorter than Azumi 1. I watched Azumi 1 and 2 in 1 seating. I amazed myself being able to sit through it. <br /><br />Lets talk about the plus points of the movie. The girl. Ueto Aya is cute. Thats all there is to salvage the whole movie. The fact is, if the main character was male, i am sure that most people (including me) would not have touched the movie at all. <br /><br />Now lets talk about the minus points. Firstly, it is real draggy, with lots and lots of repeated scenes. Scenes of Nachi and Azumi keeps coming back. It seems more like a drama way of shooting. Typical Japanese dramas love flashbacks, and this movie too. Secondly, the movie is too unrealistic in a historical setting. I do not mind unrealistic movies. But this movie is like a poor way of showing creativeness, by throwing in ninjas that act like bears and spider webs, etc... it reminds me of Shinobi, though Shinobi is a movie with a fantasy setting. Moreover, to portray "i-don't-know" what effect, the director films people dying with blood spraying (literally) all around... people not realizing their head was cut off... etc.. etc... etc... Too many of these spoils the show. It seems like the anime influence is strong in this movie. It degrades the show greatly. Thirdly, Isn't Azumi supposed to be an assassin. She seems more like an one-man-army to me, just that she is a female. I don't think you see assassins charging into army camps. The only time i felt she acted "assassin-liked" was when she killed the Kiyomasa Kato at the end of Azumi 1. Lastly, the plot was thin in both movies. Its a linear plot with no development and surprises in any way. | 0 |
One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....<br /><br />some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....<br /><br />some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it... | 0 |
I can enjoy a guilty pleasure vigilante flick, but this is just bad. And not bad in a way you might enjoy seeing MST3K make fun of it. It's just nauseatingly bad like you can't find anything to enjoy about this no matter how hard you try. I truly regret wasting 2 hours of precious life on this crap. You can tell by watching it that no one was asked to act and everyone in it knew this film would only bury their careers. Apparently "Walking Tall" has garnered enough income that someone decided they could make a buck off their investment. If it's not the worst film I've seen, it's so bad that it's blotted the worse films from my memory. | 0 |
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.<br /><br />Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.<br /><br />Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.<br /><br />If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies. | 0 |
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...<br /><br />Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.<br /><br />Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.<br /><br />The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.<br /><br />Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.<br /><br />Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.<br /><br />The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old. | 0 |
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose. | 0 |
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a brainless moment'! 2/10 | 0 |
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. <br /><br />This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.<br /><br />But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.<br /><br /> Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.<br /><br />A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?<br /><br /> | 0 |
The original "les visiteurs" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for "Worst first sequel to a really good film". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!! | 0 |
Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him... | 0 |
Where to begin? Anachronism? High tech cross bow with a scope in about 500AD? Arrows with explosive charges in 500AD? A monster Grendel that looks like a robocop and obviously never interacts with any of the weapons fired or swung against him? The heart torn out of his victim's chest without any sense of contact? Possibly the blond who would fit in on a recent fashion show with her make-up and streaked hair? The ancient Danish court represented in Classical Greek style? The queen played by Marina Sirtis more savaged by her makeup artist than by madness? The effects are way too weak to carry this story. There are some stories that don't mind or even benefit from cheap effects, but this Grendel isn't one of them. <br /><br />What about characters who seem to jump about in their attitudes without motivation? A bravado idiot prince whose home has already been savaged more than once by the monster Grendel seems to have less respect for the danger he faces than Beowulf who was sent from afar from the land of the Geats to help the desperate Danes. In this it feels more like an old cowboy western than any kind of myth.<br /><br />Beowulf is an ancient tale from an era with almost no literary tradition and much of both its sentiment and its drama is obscure. I suspect that any modern telling which doesn't make an intelligent attempt to penetrate the obscurity must fail. I didn't love the recent "Beowulf and Grendel" which sees Grendel essentially as human and sees Hrothgar and his Danes as too arrogant and stupid to recognize Grendel's attacks as well-justified vengeance, but I had to respect its revisionist position that Hrothgar's Danes were a bunch of macho thugs who never grasped, even after it was all over, that they had brought this nightmare on themselves, and therefore, the original story of Beowulf, as it was written, was a misrepresentation of the real story. I think there's a more complex meaning to be understood than that, but this "Grendel's" terrible secret that Grendel's attacks are tied to previous human sacrifice doesn't really bring us closer to the shame experienced by Hrothgar and the Danes. <br /><br />This Beowulf has little to recommend it as traditional myth or as modern fantasy. I give it a 4: higher than it deserves, but always hopeful that a poor effort will draw attention by someone who is up to telling the story intelligently. In the meantime, Sci-Fi's movie-making seems to be following the NASA policy that it's better to build lots of probes that fail than a few that succeed. | 0 |
Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie. | 0 |
I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.<br /><br />The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.<br /><br />As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.<br /><br />The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.<br /><br />I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.<br /><br />In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less. | 0 |
Why oh why can't anyone make a decent film out of a legendary tale? This is the second adaptation of "Beowulf" I've been disappointed with in a year. But I have to say, the previous version ("Beowulf & Grendel", starring Gerald Butler) was far superior to this. That one was only a little disappointing. This one is a mess!!! <br /><br />What bugged me most? Was it the useless plot elements they added in for no particular reason (Human sacrifices? Pointless love interest?), or the bad CGI, or the inconsistency of the characters or the uninspired acting? Even worse was the way they made beautiful Marina Sirtis look so horrible!!! And lets not even talk about that ridiculous crossbow? <br /><br />And why did they continually remind us that Beowulf had the strength of 30 men, and yet he never showed the slightest sign of such strength throughout the entire film. He was tossed around by both monsters he fought, relying on his sidekicks to save his bacon. Even when he slugged the arrogant prince, he didn't knock him out. He was much too reliant on weapons. Beo-wimp is more like it. This was certainly not the powerful Beowulf of the epic poem! <br /><br />I'd like to end this on a positive note but I can't really think of one offhand. All I can say is, if you've ever read "Beowulf", you'll be infinitely disappointed by this dismal, inaccurate excuse for an adaptation! | 0 |
This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie. | 0 |
This is a made-for-TV and rather needless Sci-fi Channel retelling of the Beowulf story, especially after the recent 2005 film "Beowulf and Grendel". This movie doesn't really get into Beowulf's story, but just takes us through his battle against the ravenous beast known as Grendel as it leaves a kingdom in absolute fear and turmoil while the powerful viking warrior, Beowulf is called upon to rid them of the monster's rampage. If this is successfully accomplished, the king will no longer have to sacrifice the children to keep it at bay. After a few failed attempts, the creature is slain, but it's angry and vengeful mother soon attacks, leaving it up to Beowulf to, again, lend his mighty acts of bravery and strength to defeat it. "Grendel" looks like it was shot on a tiny budget and the CG effects are terrible. Like I said, this movie is absolutely needless. | 0 |
I watched Grendel the other night and am compelled to put together a Public Service Announcement.<br /><br />Grendel is another version of Beowulf, the thousand-year-old Anglo-Saxon epic poem. The SciFi channel has a growing catalog of inoffensive and uninteresting movies, and the previews promised an inauthentic low-budget mini-epic, but this one refused to let me switch channels. It was staggeringly, overwhelmingly, bad. I watched in fascination and horror at the train wreck you couldn't tear your eyes away from. I reached for a notepad and managed to capture part of what I was seeing. The following may contain spoilers or might just save your sanity. You've been warned.<br /><br />- Just to get it over with, Beowulf's warriors wore horned helmets. Trivial issue compared to what came after. It also appears that the helmets were in a bin and handed to whichever actor wandered by next. Fit, appearance and function were apparently irrelevant.<br /><br />- Marina Sirtis had obviously been blackmailed into doing the movie by the Ringling Brothers, Barnum and Bailey circus. She managed to avoid a red rubber nose, but the clowns had already done the rest of her makeup.<br /><br />- Ben Cross pretended not to be embarrassed as the king. His character, Hrothgar, must have become king of the Danes only minutes before the film opened and hadn't had a chance to get the crown resized to fit him yet.<br /><br />- To facilitate the actors' return to their day jobs waiting tables, none were required to change their hairstyles at all. The variety of hair included cornrows, sideburns, buzz cuts and a mullet and at least served to distract from the dialog. To prove it was a multi-national cast, all were encouraged to retain whatever accent they chose.<br /><br />- As is typical with this type of movie (at least since Mad Max), leather armor was a requirement. In this case it was odd-shaped, ill-fitting and brand-new.<br /><br />- The female love interest, Ingrid, played by Alexis Peters, followed a long-standing tradition of hotties who should be watched with the volume turned completely down.<br /><br />- The unintended focus of the movie was a repeating, compound crossbow with exploding bolts. It never needed to be loaded and even had a recoil when fired. It managed to shred the laws of physics, the integrity of the original legend, historical fact and plot suspense all by itself.<br /><br />- Hrothgar's palace, Heorot, rather than being a Norse long hall, apparently was designed and constructed by artisans who sank with Atlantis.<br /><br />- Beowulf arrived at the Danes' homeland in a two-masted stern-castled ship that originally was part of a set, the other two being the Santa Maria and the Pinta.<br /><br />- Prince Unferth observed Beowulf's ship's approach using a telescope. Before you could recover from that astounding innovation, you got to see the ship from his point of view. Judging from the angle, the prince was in an aircraft of some sort.<br /><br />- Fun fact 1: In Bulgaria, fire (as from a fireplace) creates light without heat. This explains why you could see the actors' breath whether indoors or out.<br /><br />- Fun fact 2: Dark Age dancing in Denmark looks like slow dances I went to in the 8th grade.<br /><br />- Fun fact 3: You, too, can make a catapult with a timed-release air-burst explosive. But, don't expect it to actually harm anything. Incidentally, Beowulf was apparently a veteran of World War II, yelling "Incoming!" to shred any remaining suspension of disbelief.<br /><br />- Grendel was so upset and always in a snit because as a completely CGI creation he couldn't leave footprints. Even in snow.<br /><br />- Grendel's mom ("Hag") was in a foul mood because she was a single mother and junior hadn't inherited her wings. Recessive gene, I suppose. By the way, we can now make an educated guess that Grendel's pop was probably Swamp Thing.<br /><br />- Grendel and mom chose to randomly kill, fly away with or drag away their prey based only on a close reading of the next few pages of the script.<br /><br />- Fun medical fact: Being slammed by a mythical beast hard enough to be thrown fifty feet against stone causes slight facial scratches that don't bleed much.<br /><br />- The sword of legend Beowulf used to dispatch the Hag was as long as he was tall and would have contained enough steel to put a second deck on the Golden Gate Bridge. Luckily the wobbling dispelled any concerns over its weight.<br /><br />- Best line of the movie: Prince Unferth had just been impaled by Hag and spit a quart of blood roughly six feet. Princess Ingrid cradled him gently and said, "You're going to be okay, my prince." So much for that job at the triage clinic.<br /><br />I feel better now. | 0 |
After having seen the Canadian/Icelandic/British 2004 production of "Beowulf & Grendel," which I thought brilliant and stunning, I approached this--the first of 3 newer Beowulf movies due out this year--with trepidation. As soon as I heard "Viking" and saw the horned helmets, I groaned. These were Migration Era Swedes and Danes, not Vikings (they came later). And even the Vikings never wore horns on their helmets (horns make it easy for your enemy to knock your helmet off and then brain you). Then there's Hrolfgar's palace, which looks like a set for a movie about Greece or Rome, not 6th-century Denmark. The swords and armor look like props left over from earlier films set in various historic periods. I spotted weapons that might have been used by Crusaders in "Kingdom of Heaven," and one character was even wielding a Windlass Steelcrafts reproduction movie sword from "Beowulf & Grendel"! Beyond the basic plot of the original epic poem, the writing was dismal and the acting totally wooden and unconvincing. The biggest yuk was a secret-weapon crossbow, complete with sighting scope and exploding projectiles, that looked like something bought from Iraqi insurgents. The special-effects monster and his mom were so on steroids that Beowulf could never have torn off an arm, as he did in the poem. Thank the gods for bazooka crossbows! I could go on, but I won't. | 0 |
May the saints preserve us, because this movie is not going to help.<br /><br />Someone with access needs to e-mail Mel Gibson and tell him we need a faithful production of Beowulf. Something that actually has something in common with the epic poem that is the foundation for all modern western literature.<br /><br />The recent (since 2000) versions of Beowulf make we wonder two things. First, why is there so much interest in the story. Second, why are all these filmmakers squandering mountains of cash on this crap.<br /><br />The only reason this got a two is that the version with Lambert in it (Beowulf 2000) was worse and needed the 1.<br /><br />What is even worse, some people will watch this and get the wrong idea about the poem. How can an industry where Peter Jackson gets a literary conversion to film so right can get it so wrong. I mean really, the Roman Forum as a model for Heorot is too much.<br /><br />And PLEASE, horns on helmets? Spare me. This is insulting.<br /><br />/hjm | 0 |
I stopped five minutes in when Beowulf was given a double-shot, automatic crossbow with sights on it. Not only do crossbows not have telescoping sights, but Beowulf beat Grendel in hand-to-hand combat. The terrible, wooden acting and eternal darkness that plagues all Sci-Fi Original Movies didn't help either. Having only gotten a few minutes in before I felt my bile rise and decided to watch I Love Lucy reruns instead, that's really about all I have to say. But, you might as well just realize that it's a made-for-TV movie and skip it right there.<br /><br />A travesty. | 0 |
It's hard to say what was the worst thing about this show: the bad acting, poor acoustics of different portions, bad CGI, improper sets for the period, the poor script. It would have been nice if the script followed the original tale a bit closer -- there's enough tension and good material in Beowulf to provide a great deal of good material, and a better story line, than the scriptwriters could come up with.<br /><br />And why introduce a strange new weapon like a crossbow that fires explosive bolts?<br /><br />I see that this movie was made in "only" 21 days. It shows in the lack of quality. I'm beginning to think this is general (poor) attitude taken by Sci-Fi channel (and others) when it comes to making movies out of classic tales in the past few years.<br /><br />What a waste! | 0 |
I work at a Blockbuster store and every week we have movies that come in with just a few copies, these are the kind of movies that the Sci-Fi channel shows. The kind of movie that nobody ever wants, and only that idiots rent, when they bring it back I ask them "was it any good?", they say "no we turned it off after 15 minutes!" Movies with terrible computer generated, super imposed monsters and such like, very unappealing.<br /><br />This is the same type of movie that Grendel is, and absolute waste of time, if you want a reasonably (and only reasonably) good Beowulf based movie then try Beowulf & Grendel , starring Gerard Butler, who is also starring in the eagerly anticipated 300, as King Leonidas of Sparta.<br /><br />Plus, later this year we have another Beowulf movie, with a star studded cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins and Brendan Gleeson, to Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.<br /><br />But don't let that get your hopes up like we all did with Eragon, or we are all in for another big disappointment.<br /><br />And regarding rentals, here is my rule of thumb: If there is only one or two copies, don't rent it because its a load of crap.( This is true 99.9% of the time, usually not true if the title is foreign, or a documentary.) | 0 |
Good Folks, I stumbled on this film on evening while I was grading papers. My academic specialty is Anglo-Saxon literature, and I can say that no one has ever done the genre the honor it deserves. The Icelandic "Beowulf and Grendel" is the least offensive I have seen, and I did pay $3.00 for my copy. This Sci-Fi version ranks with the Christopher Lambert version. Yuck.<br /><br />What didn't I like? CGI for one. Amazingly bad. More importantly is the faithfulness to the storyline, not to mention the stilted acting. I am used to both with all the versions I have seen.<br /><br />Delighted Regardless, Peter | 0 |
First off, this is no where near as bad as some of the other trash the Sci-Fi Channel has produced; that isn't to say that Grendel is a good film, in fact, it is very bad, but it definitely had potential to be a lot better. The flaws of the film come from character design, character, absurd additions to the story, the visual effects, the music, and for the most part: the acting.<br /><br />When speaking of character design, I, of course, mean the way our heroes and villains look. Beowulf and the other Danes seem like ridiculous Vikings, rather than warriors of brute strength -- that helmet our main protagonist wears is just too silly. Grendel looks like the Hulk but with strange tentacle-attachments to his elbows.<br /><br />The characters are very limited. Beowulf is same from beginning to end, however Finn -- a useless sidekick -- achieved some two-dimensionality, due thanks to his romantic subplot, and Unferth gets some notion as well, as he becomes less conceited.<br /><br />Much like Finn, there are useless additions to this story to make it its own, while still holding to the source material. The crossbow that is gifted to Beowulf is so ridiculous, I'm surprised the cast didn't walk off the set. Besides additions, there's omissions, such as the underlying themes of Christianity and Paganism, as well as the consequences of lying.<br /><br />The special effects are mighty terrible. Grendel and his mother Hag are poorly conceived, and as such, they're portrayal on screen is less than believable.<br /><br />The music is overbearing, especially when a character dies.<br /><br />All in all, this is not Sci-Fi's worst film to date. No. It is actually one of the better films, though trash it still it is, it is good trash, making it a guilty pleasure at best. The only thing that works is the dialogue, which is still wooden here and there.<br /><br />I highly recommend you skip this film and watch Robert Zemeckis' take on the ancient story of Beowulf, simply because this film (Grendel) is only half the tale, and not the whole thing, which garners this movie a three-star review. | 0 |
I was expecting the movie based on Grendel, the book written by John Gardner in the late 1970's. It was based on the Beowulf epic, but told from the perspective of the monster. <br /><br />Whatever you may think of Gardner's book, a movie based on the Beowulf epic should not be entitled Grendel, when it doesn't say anything more about the monster beyond the few pathetic scenes in which the CG monster is shown as nothing more than a modified Predator. <br /><br />On top of this, the writers should also be punished for screwing up the original story so badly and contributing to the continued growing ignorance of mass TV audiences throughout the US.<br /><br />Typical Hollywood to get this so wrong. <br /><br />Very disappointing and a complete waste of time. | 0 |
SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movies lately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to be based of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (and offers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on television might as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. I wasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywood production, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to not interfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed to make a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).<br /><br />Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing (did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell from the massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mullet boy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the very look of Grendel
if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he not have been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segment was also lacking in every way in my opinion the one in the epic was actually better than the made up junk on the script; for example: Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket by Beowulf not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by an exploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! And Grendel's mother
did they just combine her with the dragon at the end of the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds? And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet? <br /><br />If you want to see this movie because its connection to the epic
.don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names). The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movie Druids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann) although I don't recommend watching either. | 0 |
I understand this movie was made on a very low budget but that is no excuse for the monstrosity that is Grendel. Deathstalker, The Throne of Fire, Barbarian Queen, Conquest, the Invincible Barbarian were all done on shoestring budgets and poor special effects yet they still managed to create cult classics by adding some scantily clad women warriors and a good sense of humor. The primitive costumes, dark castles and beautiful Bulgarian landscape gave Grendel the potential to be a very good low budget sword and sorcery film, but the makers completely ruined this opportunity by using extremely poor CGI effects and colorless characters. Compare this film to Beowulf (1999). It may not be Citizen Kane but it is a good example of how an entertaining low budget sci-fi/ adventure movie can be made by using credible special effects and appealing characters. | 0 |
For such a great classic tale, the setting (location), Grendel was disappointing. As a writer, I blame the script which completely lacked dramatic tension. The rubric of the club story is useful and would have provided a new take on the literary classic. For some weird reason that rubric was dropped early on. To know this was shot in 21 days says to me, "rushed" and it unfortunately shows. Now we'll have to wait for the Hollywood version on the big screen. I word on FX, I can tolerate really crappy CGI but the script has to rock and this one was just too slow, spartan and lacking in drama. I'd blame it on the actors but... since I know writing more than acting, I'll pick on my colleague. | 0 |
This movie is a farce! Names are grossly mispronounced and the plot is twisted and gnarled into something unrecognizable by any literature enthusiast. And they have the gall to give Beowulf a ridiculous cannon/crossbow weapon. Beowulf doesn't need a weapon like that! In the poem, he rips off Grendel's arm with his bare hands! And I can't believe that the scriptwriters did such a thing. The way Grendel is portrayed is impressive however. That and the cast are the only positive points of the feature. My English teacher would go insane if she saw this abomination. Unless you are a die-hard fan of the epic poem "Beowulf," avoid this film at all costs. And even then, I wouldn't recommend it. | 0 |
turned out to be another failed attempt by the laughable sci-fi channel. i am not sure who wrote the script, and interpreted the poem, but i am sure it was by some 17 year old teen who thought it would be awesome to a have a scoped crossbow in the movie. AAAAAAAH! when i saw that part, I lost all hope. Then...they set off for heorot in a what looks to be the ship that Christopher Columbus sailed in! when they reach Heorot, (which is supposed to be a Norse mead hall) the sci-fi group of idiots decided to make heorot look like a big stone castle. when i saw that part.. i wanted to scream. i really wanted this movie to be good, but sci-fi has yet to produce a good movie, so i don't know why i got my hopes up. Oh..and Grendel and his mother, are stupid also. (this comment is off topic about "Grendel")If anyone from the sci-fi channel is reading this..here is some good advice. NOT EVERY MOVIE YOU MAKE HAS TO BE ABOUT A BIG MONSTER THAT CAN RIP PEOPLE IN HALF, THATS NOT WHAT SCIENCE FICTION IS ABOUT! AND ALSO, STOP CASTING LOW-GRADE ACTORS LIKE STEPHEN BALDWIN TO BE IN YOUR FILMS! ITS NOT HELPING THE MOVIE, BUT MAKING IT WORSE!!! | 0 |
99.999% pure crap. And the other .001% was a brief moment where I thought the blond chick was going to disrobe. Nope.<br /><br />The dialogue was legendarily bad. The action sucked, and there was no sex (the afore mentioned blond chick is modestly dressed, alas, the whole movie). The CGI had the dubious honor of being the worst I've ever seen on film, and the anachronisms were numerous and glaring. Acting was mediocre even from Ben Cross and Marina Sirtis, the only 'names' in this movie. And Marina Sirtis looked really, really bad.<br /><br />I've seen high school plays more capably produced. This is the kind of movie that MST3K thrived on. Heads should roll at Sci-Fi for allowing this steaming pile on the air. | 0 |
And thats about all that is. This thing is slow. The actors have ability, they just don't seem motivated to put forth the effort. The plot isn't that great and is hampered further by the aforementioned slowness of it all. The accents, when there are any, are British. Uh, lots of these folks are supposed to be Danes. OK, OK, accents aren't that important. But language is. I don't think they used words like "yeah" and "OK" in Beowulf's day. And that supposedly way cool weapon his king gave him? Did he ever reload that thing? Did he ever sight it in? Or was Beowulf just that bad an aim? Well, his aim did at least match the computer graphics used in generating the monsters. Those were rather off too. Bad special effects. Bright spot? Just one that I can think of. Marina Sirtis has held up well over the years. | 0 |
I am a great fan of the Batman comics and I became disappointed when I could no longer find Batman: The Animated Series on TV anymore. I was excited to learn that there was going to be a new Batman cartoon on TV. I watched the first episode the day it premiered and I was very disappointed.<br /><br />First of all, the animation is very poor. It looks like a cheap, crappy Japanese anime. Then again, just about every modern-day cartoon is like that.<br /><br />The character designs are even worse. Batman looks more like Birdman, Catwoman looks more like Chihuahuawoman, Bane looks more like a red version of the Hulk, the Penguin is a Kung-Fu master, Mr. Freeze is some undead thing with an iceberg on his head, and the Riddler is a Gothic Marilyn Manson look-alike (which is funny because I don't expect people who are obsessed with riddles and puzzles to be Gothic).<br /><br />The worst character design is that of the Joker. They turned him into a monkey/demented Bob Marley/Kung-Fu fighter! The Joker is supposed to be Batman's deadliest enemy, but in this show he hardly poses a threat because his crimes are so stupid and pointless. In one episode his plan was to put his Joker venom in dog food! Oh, how evil! Batman is a fascinating and complex character because he is haunted by the deaths of his parents, which is why he fights crime. This version of Batman doesn't seem haunted by his parents' deaths and is not interesting at all. He's also not a detective, just a fighter. If there's an enemy he can't defeat, he won't study the enemy to find out their weak points like a detective would, he'll just build a giant fighting robot to defeat them. A lot of times this show doesn't even feel like a Batman show, just another brainless anime that's nothing but pointless fighting.<br /><br />What I hate the most about this show is what they did to the villains. They've taken away everything that makes them likable and relatable and turned them into stereotypical evil bad guys. Man-Bat is the biggest example. In the comics, he's a tragic scientist who studies bats to find a cure for his deafness. When experimenting on himself, he accidentally transforms himself into a giant bat creature. In this show, he's a mad scientist who wants to purposely transform himself into a giant bat creature for no apparent reason. Just about all the villains are like that; none of them, with the exception of about one or two, have an actual motive for their crimes.<br /><br />The worst characterization is that of Mr. Freeze. In the comics, Freeze was a just a mad scientist until the genius writer Paul Dini wrote the BTAS episode "Heart of Ice", which gave Freeze a new origin that made him a more tragic, three-dimensional, and likable villain. The episode was so popular that fans accepted it as his actual origin and it was even used in the comics as his origin. Even that crappy movie Batman & Robin used it as his origin. In this show, he's a petty jewel thief before becoming Mr. Freeze. After becoming Mr. Freeze, guess what? He's STILL a petty jewel thief! Great origin. No wonder they used it over the one Dini created.<br /><br />As a Batman fan, I don't dislike this show just because it isn't like the comics because I also liked BTAS, the Batman cartoons that came after it, Tim Burton's Batman films, and obviously, the superb Christopher Nolan Batman films. None of them were 100% loyal to the comics, but they were still very good. The problem with this show is not that it's not exactly like the comics or BTAS, it's that it lacks any sort of depth that makes other Batman media so popular.<br /><br />I've given this show so many chances, but the more I watch, the more I find that disappoints me. I miss the good old days back when Batman cartoons were something everyone could enjoy. | 0 |
Remember the good ol' animated batman show from the 90's? The one that people praised? The one that people of all ages could all appreciate? The one that showed batman as a real detective instead of the Hulk in a bat suit? The one that had villains you could relate to? The one that had villains with real motives?<br /><br />Well clearly, Warner Bros. doesn't. Hence this dreck.<br /><br />Honestly, do these people know anything about batman? Have they even looked at a batman comic before? Do they know Batman's meant to be a 'detective'? Putting together 2 clues does not make you a detective! That makes you a slightly intelligent monkey!<br /><br />This is the basic layout for an episode:<br /><br />Penguin steals something. 'Opening credits'. Batman finds dead giveaway of where he is. Batman goes there and get's into trouble. Commercial. Batman finds obvious/ stupid way out of it. Penguin escapes. Penguin does something obvious again. Batman follows. They do kung-fu (by the way everyone, and i mean EVERYONE know's kung-fu for some reason). Batman punch's penguin. he get's knocked out. goes to arkham. (Note: it's usually a different villain every episode)<br /><br />Well as you may have noticed from that, Batman's not a great detective. "Joker left this piece of cotton candy on the ground, maybe he's at the old amusement park"! Yeah maybe, he was there the last 6 times.<br /><br />And I've already mentioned this but, EVERYONE KNOWS KUNG-FU! EVEN PENGUIN! what where they thinking? (probably because it's from the people who made that Jackie Chan animated series)<br /><br />What's really upsetting is that the show is just action. No smarts. None. If batman needs think, he'll use technology, then do some kung-fu.<br /><br />But hey, let's not forget the villains. Afterall, what would batman be without his rogues gallery?<br /><br />Well first off, I gotta say, kudos for originality. I don't think other batman media would have envisioned joker and a dread-locked monkey man, riddler like an emo, and poison ivy as a minor (which is kind of confusing when you think about, isn't her sexuality meant to be her main strength?)<br /><br />What's even more crap however is that, every character is now a 2-Dimensional, stereotypical crook.<br /><br />E.G.<br /><br />Killer Croc wants to flood Gotham for no reason.<br /><br />Man-Bat is a power hungry mad scientist who is obsessed with bats for some unexplained reason.<br /><br />Penguin just wants to steal everything. For no reason.<br /><br />noticing a pattern here?<br /><br />But the most insulting has got to be Mr Freeze.<br /><br />Do you remember the Emmy award winning 'Heart of Ice' episode from Batman: The Animated Series? The one that gave Mr Freeze motives for his crimes? The episode that was so good that it was used in the comics over his original back story (mad scientist)? The one that made him a victim, with a goal? Hell, even Batman & Robin acknowledged that, using that as Mr Freezes origin in that P.O.S. movie.<br /><br />Well this series says "F#ck that" and makes Mr Freeze a jewelry robber before his accident, with only wealth in his mind, then gets frozen and gives him the power to make things cold. He then continues to steal jewels for no reason, while saying sh!t lines like "Have an ice day".<br /><br />Maybe they did watch Batman &Robin after all.<br /><br />But hey, look on the bright side. This series makes you feel nothing for the villains so that means that you're a good person. Good for you. | 0 |
Not only did they get the characters all wrong, not only do the voices suck, not only do the writers seriously need to get girlfriends, not only are the drawings really crude, but it seems like it was mainly created for ages 1-6. The only episode I've ever seen of this show that kept me watching, was "A Mattter Of Family", because I liked the Robin character. And sometimes I think it's just a general copy of Batman The Animated Series. Example: In BTAS, Bruce is friends with Harvey Dent, yeah? Over a two episode story, he transforms into the unlikely villain, TwoFace. In the "Show" Bruce is Friends with that Ethan guy, and over a two episode story, he Transforms into the unlikely villain ClayFace. That was just a small example (That may not even be true), but in short, this is the WORST attempt on a Batman series. And That's saying something. | 0 |
I cant believe some people actually like this. Yet still call themselves Batman fans. Even going as far as to say it's better than BTAS. Which it's not. It should be plagiarism for them to use Batman's name for this piece of crap. It's not Batman.<br /><br />The whole premise of the show is ''if you cant defeat someone get a bigger weapon to help you'' Batman isn't all about weapons. He uses his batarang and grappling hook and Batmobile, thats it. He doesn't come up with some new ingenious tech every time he cant beat someone. I don't know where the hell they got the idea for a Batbot. or whatever. They have ruined all the villains. Mr. Freeze has gone from a sympathetic scientist to a petty criminal who fell in some cryofreezing thing. Catwoman is now a 40 or 50 year old woman with a dumb costume. Penguin is now a ninja with a 50 ft. tall top hat. The Ventriloquist is now called Scarface making the Dummy the whole centerpiece for the character. They even got a dumb idea to make him a giant! wtf? and the two worst character changes are that of The Joker and Riddler. they have changed Riddler to a Gothic/retro teenage freak. and The Joker to an acrobat with dreads. He looks like a bob Marley wannabe. they have completely and utterly ruined batman even moreso than B&R did! i wish i could meet the creators and or writers and animators of this show so i could whack them in the head with a metal baseball bat. | 0 |
When this cartoon first aired I was under the impression that it would be at least half way descent, boy was I wrong. I must admit watching this cartoon is almost as painful as watching Batman and Robin with George Clooney all those years ago. I watched a few episodes and two of them had Batman literally get his ass kicked left and right by the Penguin who fought like Jet Li and beat the crap out of Batman and I watched another episode where Batman got his butt kicked again by the Joker, who apparently was using Jackie Chan moves while flipping in the air like a ninja. Since when were the Joker or the Penguin ever a match for Batman ? and worse yet when were Joker and Penguin Kung Fu counterparts of Jackie Chan and Jet Li. It's truly embarrassing, depressing and sad the way the image of Batman is portrayed in this show. The animation is awful and the dialog is terrible. Being a Batman fan since my boyhood I can honestly and strongly advise you to stay away and avoid this show at all cost, because it doesn't project the true image of Batman. This cartoon is more like a wannabe Kung Fu Flick and if you really wanna see a classic Batman cartoon I strongly recommend Batman the Animated Series, but this cartoon is nothing more than a piece of S---T! Get Batman: The Animates Series and don't waste your time with this cartoon. | 0 |
In light of the recent and quite good Batman the Brave and the Bold, now is the time to bear a fatal blow to that mistake in the life of Batman. Being a huge fan since the first revival by Tim Burton 20 years ago, I have been able to accept different tonalities in the character, dark or campy. This one is just not credible : too many effects, poor intrigues and so few questions. What is great about Batman is the diversity of his skills and aspects of his personality : detective, crime-fighter, playboy, philanthropist etc. The Batman shows him only in his karate days. And by the way, how come the Penguin is capable of such virtuosity when jumping in the air regardless of his portly corpulence ? And look at the Joker, a mixture of Blanka in Street Fighter 2 and a stereotypical reggae man, what Batman fan could accept such a treason ? Not me anyway. Batman is much better without "The" article in front of his name. | 0 |
I was raised watching the original Batman Animated Series, and am an avid Batman graphic novel collector. With a comic book hero as iconic as Batman, there are certain traits that cannot be changed. Creative liberties are all well and good, but when it completely changes the character, then it is too far. I purchased one of the seasons of "The Batman" in the hopes that an extra bonus feature could shed some light on the creators' reasoning for making this show such an atrocity. In an interview on the making of "The Batman," one of the artists or writers (I'm unsure which) said that "We felt we shouldn't mess with Batman, but we could mess with the villains." So, they proceeded to make the Joker into an immature little kid begging for attention, the Penguin into some anime knockoff, Mr. Freeze into a super-powered jewel thief, Poison Ivy into a teenage hippie, and countless other shameful acts which are making Bob Kane roll over in his grave. <br /><br />To sum it all up: I wish I had more hands so I could give this show FOUR THUMBS DOWN. It squeezes by my rating with a 2 out of 10 simply because it uses the Batman name. Warner Bros...rethink this! Please! | 0 |
I have never commented on IMDb before, but I feel I have to after watching The Batman animation. Its absolute rubbish! Warner Brothers had the perfect animation series in Batman in the early 90s so what the hell are they doing trying to mess with the winning formula? I feel like writing a complaint letter to WB. The original animation was dark and brooding, exactly the way Batman was intended to be. WB had to mess this up with some tripe Batman of the Future. Now they produce this drivel. The Joker doesn't remotely resemble the Joker from DC comics. DC should sue. I urge everyone who agrees with me to email or write to WB and use people power to get back the original formula | 0 |
Okay, I've always been a fan of Batman. I loved the animated series, and even Batman Beyond. I even read a batman comic now and then. So as can be imagined--I was a little excited when I heard about this series, and then I was SEVERELY disappointed. This series is nothing. It doesn't even begin to compare with the original series. It's like one long TOY commercial. No depth whatsoever. And what the heck was with the Joker? Who,in my most humble opinion, is the best Batman villain of ALL time and they KILLED him. I wish I could say his design was the worst part. Actually, I wish I could say there was anything about this series that was remotely creative or interesting. In short (because believe me I could say so much more)do NOT waste your time on this show, or your money. | 0 |
I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.<br /><br />Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.<br /><br />And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).<br /><br />And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.<br /><br />1) Joker gasses people.<br /><br />2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.<br /><br />3) Batman saves the day.<br /><br />Pfeh.<br /><br />There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement." <br /><br />I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately. | 0 |
I think that can sum up this show about as well as anything. Batman TAS may be the worst thing to ever happen to cartoons based on comic books because everything that comes after will be compared to it and nothing has measured up yet. It's just too damn good. Was Batman Beyond good? "Yeah, but it was no TAS." Is Justice League good? "It's not too bad, but it's no TAS."<br /><br />The Batman is certainly no TAS, either, but I won't hold that against it. It would be unfair and besides, it has plenty of other problems with it.<br /><br />The concept of a younger, less experienced Batman fighting crime is a fine one, and at times the art is very nice. But all of the rest of the time, the art is worthless Americanime, and this betrays a lot of the flaws of the show itself. It is paced, written, and designed like an Americanime. If I wanted to watch Jackie Chan Adventures, I'd watch Jackie Chan Adventures. Or I could just bang my head into a wall any time and get the same effect. The Joker is a homicidal, mentally unstable clown in a suit who uses his wits, unpredictability, and clever gadgets to fight Batman. When he is forced to fight hand to hand, he will either resort to something cheap or be totally outmatched. He is not meant to be a monkey with dreadlocks who knows kung-fu and can leap into twenty feet into the air, accompanied by speed lines. If they had wanted to do that with a villain, there were other less important characters they could have used or *gasp* they could have created a new one entirely. And it's not that re-imaginings are a bad thing, don't get me wrong. TAS (there I go again) took Mr. Freeze from your standard icegun-wielding B villain and made him into a memorable and morally complex character. Of course Freeze wasn't exactly a classic villain at the time and they performed an upgrade, but the point stands. What The Batman does is it takes everything you liked about Batman comics and lore and takes a large, smelly dump on them. Guess what? They were eating corn.<br /><br />It's obvious this show can't stand against TAS but stand it on its own legs and it still doesn't work for me. The plots aren't good and they don't develop any better. They've been written for the demographic of children under twelve. Should children be able to enjoy a show? Of course they should. This shouldn't be an adult show with swearing, nudity, and gratuitous violence. But the mark of a truly good show is that it can be enjoyed on different levels by all ages. This show misses that mark.<br /><br />Is this show a TAS? No, of course not. The problem is it's not even a JLU. | 0 |
OK OK, it might be hard to put the entirety of a man's life in one film. Traditionally therefore, biopics focus on one or two significant parts in the subject's life. Now, Byron was a "my week beats your year" fellow, which makes selecting parts that are representative even harder. Furthermore, just as Byron's poetry is inseparable from his life, the man's life itself must be seen as a whole. Lifting parts out is not only not showing the whole picture, it's showing a different picture altogether.<br /><br />Now, in short my review comes down to this: supposedly, Byron was indeed the "my week beats your year" prototype, a guy who lived so intensely that he indeed did more in his 15 or so active years than most do in an entire lifetime. True, he had setbacks and was a victim of the time and social setting he lived in - but in the end, this dude is supposed to be the prototype whose life we'd all want to lead, no? Well, I did NOT, at ANY moment, want to live the life depicted in this film. So it gets 3. Not for being so badly done (which, direction-wise, it more or less was), but more importantly for missing the point entirely in a flat plot.<br /><br />Some more detail. Well, to over simplify things, a Byron bio should have two distinct episodes: 1. Post-first Europe trip: England and his rise to fame + marriage / 2. His life abroad. Now, the important thing is that the SECOND part should be at least as important as the first. Not only was it a lot longer, but the most significant change in Byron took place then. Furthermore, it's where he created his best works (Don Juan, the Vision of Judgement etc. - all the stuff that makes him *really* unique in English literature).<br /><br />Instead, in this film (a) Byron's life never comes across as even remotely entertaining, (b) it only gets *worse* after he leaves England. They did two good jobs: first, they started at his return of his Europe trip (though a bit more of the actual trip would have been welcome as a prologue), second, they chose an angle, and they chose his incestuous love for Augusta (who is rather perfectly cast). The problem with this last thing is that they never let it go. True, Byron remained strongly attached to Augusta for the rest of his life, but, especially as he was such a mood swing person, the fact that his letters reflect that does not mean that at other times he might not have completely enjoyed life.<br /><br />Anyway, the first part of the TV film should have ended with him leaving England. There's no doubt about that. The thing is: once abroad, a life of debauchery began (with the infamous Geneva period), but in Italy Byron also discovered a new life, both for his poetry (inspired by Italian comedy), already in Venice, and for himself when he found the Contessa Teresa Guiccioli and moved to Ravenna (afterwards, at the request of Shelly, with Teresa, to Pisa). In other words, he was also *liberated*. His mind and life opened up (and not only in the decadent sense), while England's closed further as it fell into the gravitational pull of the Victorian age. True, freedom was Augusta-less, but this bitter-sweet freedom tastes sour in this film. We see a lonely, bored snob getting older.<br /><br />I mean, hell, Byron never thought much about his poetry, except when he finally found his own voice in Don Juan! Apart from poetic and romantic developments, his relationship with Shelly (and the down-break) should have been more documented. Also, it is in Italy in Ravenna that he gets involved with politics and revolutionary ideas. This is important, as it shows that the decadent romantic and ultimately escapist language and person of Childe Harold is changing into the more planted-in-life realistic and lighter passion of the language and person of Don Juan. Life and work are one. True, still a bit naive, but it's what got him to Greece! And the whole thing came full circle in Pisa, where Shelley's revolutionary spirit further ignited the spark. Missolonghi wasn't the bored snob suddenly looking for some action. It was the insights in Italy (the Gambas) stirring him into action. It can be a symbol for the man looking for some ancient-style battle excitement while the rest of Europe becomes fixed in the clay of modern reason and conservatism. But it wasn't just that, there was a true inspiration behind it. Meanwhile, Byron wrote massive amounts of Don Juan. True, his end is a bit sad, but it's not like he's worn out. THAT is the essence of Byron's life: he may have had some strong emotional attachments (2: Augusta and Teresa), but EVERY time he managed to reinvent himself truly. Meaning that he wasn't 'less' at the end of his life - no, he'd made a physical and mental JOURNEY that, at the time, few people were prepared to make.<br /><br />I wonder. Why is it that so often the second period in Byron's life is overlooked? Because it had less obvious conflicts, as the man was finally coming to his own? In focusing our attention on the frustrated England years fraught with scandals, we show ourselves to be not much better than the English aristocracy at the time, which Byron so despised, and which, despite the fact that he had no choice, he *willingly* fled in 1816, to find a world that was modern and liberal enough to let him find the voice that would make him the first romantic plainspoken language poet and evolve from a self-obsessed snob to a passionate man moving onward with a cause. | 0 |
I've always been enthusiastic about period dramas, an art form in which the BBC has excelled in the past. This presentation of "Byron" was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad! The script was dreadful, the acting uninspired, and all the characters woefully insipid. Apparently Byron was "mad bad and dangerous to know", and set the ladies hearts all-a-flutter. Not in this production. Here he appeared as a tawdry jumped-up little squirt instead of a fiery hero of womenfolk and the Greek struggle for independence. It is said that Byron walked with a limp. This portrayal of the man was just limp all over.<br /><br />I watched the whole two and a half hours waiting for something to spark into life. Not a splutter, not even a glimmer. It was utter tedium, if not downright boredom, from start to finish.<br /><br />Having the opinion that no-one will ever better the Bard of Avon, I also believe that Byron's poetry is over-revered and to my mind should be flung on the back burner, and this dramatisation of his life should be accorded the same treatment.<br /><br />I think the BBC lost its nous with this one | 0 |
Dieter Bohlen, Germany's notorious composer and producer of slightly trashy pop hits like "You're my heart, you're my soul" felt the need to tell his story - and gracefully he decided to hire a ghost writer. The result was a funny book about his life. Well, more or less a fuzzy image of it. He didn't deny that he is a selfish asshole but the whole story was twisted to fit his image of himself. No word that he has probably beaten up his former wife and she ended up in hospital. However it was written in a funny style and a huge success after his appearance as jury member of the German version of "American Idol" - especially his unforgettable comments.<br /><br />This should be the end of the story - really. In the hype of the mentioned "Idol" TV show called "Deutschland sucht den Superstar" (abbreviated DSDS) somebody must have come up with the terrible idea to make a movie out of the book. The result is "Dieter - der Film"<br /><br />I have rarely seen a movie which tries so desperately to be funny and fails so completely. None of the gags really hits the point. Naddel's voice and style of talking was getting on my nerves right away although Verona's voice should have done that more. Obvious, childish, predictable and lengthy gags destroy any motivation to watch this movie to the end within a few minutes. The content of the movie is a sloppy film adaption written sloppily down by a ghost writer based on Bohlen's sloppy idealized memory. They could have used this freedom to do almost everything. It was supposed to be a satire, but they failed. The story is totally uninteresting and the fact that the background voice is Bohlen himself guarantees that the whole film has nothing satirical at all.<br /><br />It's no wonder that it was considered to bad for a cinema release. The probability that this thing would have rotten in some archive was quite high until recently when the current season of DSDS turned out to be a mediocre success. With the "friendly" help of Germany's biggest yellow press newspaper "BILD" and the desperate situation for the TV station RTL to have something in the program while the still unbeatable show "Wetten dass... ?" is running on Channel 2 the movie finally arrived in television - unfortunately.<br /><br />Watching this movie is a waste of time - there are certainly better cartoons with much more fun and a story actually worth looking at.<br /><br />Therefore: 2/10 | 0 |
Admittedly, I watched this piece with already VERY low expectations. Dieter Bohlen is a rather untalented composer parvenu whose lack of talent is only surpassed by the size of his ego.<br /><br />This was the first cartoon movie that I watched that was 100 per cent humor free. It is rude, offensive, redneck and blatantly anti- women. As such, it is a creation befitting Bohlen, but the average viewer will be rather put off by it. No wonder that it was never shown in a cinema theater: It would've bombed BIG time!<br /><br />Not even the expense of 6.5 MegaEuros were able to save this utter piece of crap. Save your time... and money! | 0 |
Sure, this one isn't really a blockbuster, nor does it target such a position. "Dieter" is the first name of a quite popular German musician, who is either loved or hated for his kind of acting and thats exactly what this movie is about. It is based on the autobiography "Dieter Bohlen" wrote a few years ago but isn't meant to be accurate on that. The movie is filled with some sexual offensive content (at least for American standard) which is either amusing (not for the other "actors" of course) or dumb - it depends on your individual kind of humor or on you being a "Bohlen"-Fan or not. Technically speaking there isn't much to criticize. Speaking of me I find this movie to be an OK-movie. | 0 |
So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.<br /><br />I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.<br /><br />Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.<br /><br />What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.<br /><br />Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.<br /><br />Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.<br /><br />Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine | 0 |
I have watched 3 episodes of Caveman, and I have no idea why I continue except maybe waiting for it to get better. <br /><br />To me this show is just pumping itself off the commercials, with no real humor. As we sat around watching these shows, we all speculated on what was going to happen.<br /><br />The episode of the woman cave-woman with a attitude was actually a big, yea right, for us. she's crude in a theater and acts tough to strangers, and truth be told, she needed a slap<br /><br />I consider myself a pretty good reviewer, taking in everything, but I must say, Cavemen is comparable to the old show, My mother, the car. I give it a 2, only because they deserve 1 better than a 1 because they actually spent money on it. | 0 |
Every new fall line-up show deserves, at least, my "3 strikes and you're out" policy. I give a comedy 3 chances to make me laugh, that is, 3 complete episodes. After Episode 1, I actually said to the TV,"Cancelled tomorrow". It was that bad. I have now watched the first 4 episodes of "Cavemen" and have yet to manage even a smirk. Not a titter, a guffaw, a chortle, as a matter of fact, no facial movement at all. I will continue to punish myself by watching every future episode because I am convinced that I am clearly missing something in this show. I'm simply not "getting" it, but I believe that a comedy on a major TV network in prime-time, just HAS to be funny; but there are no laughs from me YET. There's just no way that ABC would put on the least funniest comedy of all time at 8:00 p.m. I KNOW there has got to be an inside joke that just isn't jiving with my brain. I've read each of the previous comments, I "get" the social aspect of it, but, WHERE ARE THE JOKES ???? I shall continue suffering for at least 30 minutes a week, until I have a light-bulb moment and smack myself in the head shouting "Eureka". | 0 |
I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment. | 0 |
This show proved to be a waste of 30 minutes of precious DVR hard drive space. I didn't expect much and I actually received less. Not only do I expect this show to be canceled by the second episode, I cannot believe that Geico will ever attempt to use the cavemen ad campaign EVER again. I would have preferred spending a night checking my daughter's hair for head lice than watching this piece of refuse. I wonder what ABC passed on to make this show fit into the '07 fall schedual, perhaps a hospital/crime/mocumentary reality show featuring the AFLAC duck? In the event that I failed to express my opinion about this show let me be clear and say that it is not too good. | 0 |
Peeew this stinks! As everyone knows it's based upon some Geico insurance commercials; what no one knows is WHY?! Those commercials were amusing on first viewing at best; hardly fodder for a series. (The talking Geico gecko -- that's another story. Now that would make for an intriguing series!) And why on earth did ABC -- as reported in the press -- actually agree to buy the cavemen character rights from Geico for this? After all, the idea of cavemen struggling in the modern world is hardly unique to TV; Phil Hartman had a recurring Saturday Night Live role as The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer over a decade ago. And that's how a concept like this works best -- as an occasional installment. But a regular series? Fuhgeddaboudit. (A 1960s series called "It's About Time" also used the cavemen in the modern world concept. It lasted one season.) <br /><br />One of the show's directors, who was also responsible for the Geico commercials, was recently quoted as saying: "We were so excited when we were shooting our commercials because we felt like we had something that was very unique and we had bigger stories to tell." Wrong.<br /><br />In the annals of bad TV, this is destined to take its place alongside 1972's "Me and the Chimp" as one of the all-time worst. The lead actor in the embarrassing Chimp fiasco actually went into shame-by-association hiding after it was abruptly canceled. No doubt our cavemen friends will follow suit. | 0 |
Cavemen was by far the biggest load of crap I have ever wasted my time watching. This show based on the Geico commercials is less entertaining then an actual 30 sec ad for Geico. The makeup was half ass-ed to say the least, hard to imagine a caveman with prefect white teeth even after going to the dentist. This show could of had potential for a funny series if they could of gotten the cast from the commercials, that in it self makes for a lousy show. Perhaps if the writers were the same from the Geico ads this may of had a chance, instead the pilot lacked a good story line. I give this show a 1 out of 10, I would of liked to put a zero out of 10 but that was not an option. I pray for a quick death to this show, I'd give it less then 5 episodes before it dies a deserving death. | 0 |
This is 30 minute show about one joke. The joke, Cavemen are not treated fairly. HaHaHa!!! He can't dial a phone because he is a Caveman. Cavemen are not as smart as human beings. Oh jeez, those Cavemen are so unsophisticated. There is no humor in this show. They can only run off this one joke for so long and they already have with the Geico commercials. This show does not deserve a time slot on national T.V. <br /><br />This show tries to hard to be funny, but it just isn't. Watching this show, I was thinking that it was trying to be like a "Bachelor's Gone Wild Show." Meaning they go to the bar and try to sleep with many women. The crying caveman is annoying. The caveman with the glasses is too smart to be a caveman(HAHAHA!!!). All three of them have personalities, but I can't figure out why I don't care about them. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.