text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
*review may contain spoilers*<br /><br />predictable, campy, bad special effects. it has a TV-movie feeling to it. the idea of the UN as being taken over by Satan is an interesting twist to the end of the world according to the bible. the premise is interesting, but its excution falls waaaay short. if you want to convert people to Christianity with a film like this, at least make it a quality one! i was seriously checking my watch while watching this piece of dreck. can't say much else about this film since i saw it over a year ago, and there isn't really much to say about this film other than.....skip it! | 0 |
Left Behind is the kind of "we know what we know cause we know it" movie that Christians (and most any other naive person) needs to help them feel like what they "THINK" and "BELIEVE" (not "KNOW") is right. But, at the same time I feel bad for the little guys, because this is not a well made film. It does not help ANY message. I work at a video store, and I KNOW the ONLY reason people went to see this movie was because they were religious and they thought it was. ANYBODY on this earth who THINKS they know what will happen in the future is wrong, unless they think they know that they don't know. I've had about enough (but only after I've had too much) of these people walking around with their noses in the air thinking that a movies starring a semi-talented TV actor means something above me.<br /><br />Please, if you love yourself you'll stay away. I refuse to go into any detail about this movie (not because A-I didn't see it (because I did), B-it was too shocking for my atheist-self to handle (because it wasn't), or C-I really don't have anything to say bad about it (because I do). The Reason, (which is a word nobody who helped make this movie understands) is that I want this movie out of my head, I want that it was made out of my head, I want that I watched ALL OF IT WITH AN OPEN MIND out of my head, I want the message that Kirk so proudly and coachly gives at the end of the movie out of my head. I only want all the things that were in my head BEFORE viewing this movies there, anything directly connected with this movie that's floating in my head GET OUT! My peaceful rage is ending. I'm sorry that somebody in this world went to the theater to see this movie about what could happen in the future (but won't) when they could have given that Seven Dollars Plus to any number of Human, Animal, or Rain Forest charity. But if they did that then they wouldn't be able to "BELIEVE" in the fact that it's real, they might have to fact what is. LEFT BEHIND ZERO (out of ****) | 0 |
I watched about 30 minutes into this film before I finally got sick of getting bludgeoned over the head with this movie. The soundtrack, the so-called 'plot', and each and every actor. It's like they all think they're the main part of the movie and scream "NOTICE ME!" over and over again. The bad guy has his bad-guy music going on and says sinister bad-guy-like things, just in case you didn't quite catch on. The good guy does brave and noble things just in case you didn't know he was the good guy. And oh lord, the plane scene. "MY HUSBAND IS MISSING! OH MY GOD! IT'S IMPOSSIBLE THAT HE GOT UP TO STRETCH HIS LEGS OR GO TO THE TOILET OR ANYTHING, HE MUST BE MISSING!" (And yes, I know, his clothes were still there, but honestly, she woke up and started to panic before she even had time to look at the damn seat he'd been in.)<br /><br />As a religious girl, I want to apologize to the world for wasting the film this was printed on.<br /><br />And I want my 30 minutes back. | 0 |
This reminds me of when I was a born-again believer who was going to be a minister. I never actually thought I would be a minister or even graduate from high school because I was almost positive I would be raptured to Heaven before that would ever happen. That was before I discovered that Christianity was a bunch rubbish. I am now an atheist, and that just proves that the "once saved always saved" doctorine that Christians tell us is no more real than elves. If it were true then why did I leave after many years of being a devout born again believer? Yes, I really was saved. I prayed that silly sinners prayer with all my heart.<br /><br />If Christians were to read their Bible they would discover that their god thinks like rape, genocide, abortion, and many other atrocities are alright according to him. They might be surprised to learn that no where is the word "rapture" mentioned. | 0 |
I'm getting a little tired of people misusing God's name to perpetuate their own bigoted view on the world. Well I don't dismiss the idea of Armageddon, or the coming of the anti-Christ, I do dismiss the idea that only certain people who live truly good lives(They seem to be mostly white Christian children) will go to Heaven, while the rest of us must suffer through a millenia of Hell on Earth, just because we weren't good enough. God may be a judge, but I don't think He is going to measure every level of goodness. Give the Creator some credit. | 0 |
I cannot believe that they managed to spend US$17million on this film. Spectacularly bad acting, egregious scripting and effects that you could do on your average PC, unbelievable plot contrivances...a reporter who can get an inexperienced stewardess a major job at the UN? What? Not only that, but the message of this film is so unsubtle that you come out feeling as if they've tried to batter you over the head with a full size crucifix. All this movie will do will preach to the choir and make everyone else laugh at such a ridiculous waste of money. If the makers of this film really wanted to sway people to christianity and show what it means to truly believe, they would have used the money to help people truly in need. Now, /that/ might have swayed some people into actually listening to them. | 0 |
I like end-of-days movies. I like B-movies. I was hoping I would like this movie.<br /><br />I could ignore the poor effects, the often atrocious music, the cringe-inducing lines. I could ignore the unexplained events, and the fact that the movie constantly relies on deus ex machina is excusable, given the subject matter. I could ignore the fact that the people who fight hunger and try to reach world peace are the bad guys. None of these things kill the movie. What kills this movie is that it's just plain and simple boring. Nothing actually happens; almost all scenes in the movie are designed to push the movie creators' morals on the viewers, at the cost of actually having a coherent story, or any kind of suspense.<br /><br />If you're looking for an entertaining B-movie, look elsewhere. This movie is just boring. | 0 |
This movie is one reason IMDB should allow a vote of 0/10. The acting is awful, even what some here have lauded, the Carpathia character! The script looks like it was written in haste. In one scene, the black preacher who was left behind, when asked by Buck what "dan7" in the computer graphic meant, said, "Daniel 7, *CHAPTER* 24." He probably meant VERSE 24, but the film makers missed this slip up. Perhaps the worst part is that the film's eschatological position is Biblically unsound. While many Christians have espoused the film's interpretation of end-time events, such interpretation, in *my opinion*, is faulty. To understand these flaws, read "Christians Will Go Through The Tribulation" by Jim McKeever and "The Blessed Hope, A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture" by George E. Ladd. | 0 |
I find it sad that Christians (and I am one) feel that we must make movies like "Left Behind." We have much better stories to tell that don't have to be so preachy. I was very disappointed with this film. As an aspiring filmmaker who believes in Christ, I see this film as the perfect example for what I am not going to do with my career in film. | 0 |
the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.<br /><br />who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.<br /><br />Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer. | 0 |
This movie which was released directly on video should carry a warning label that it is dangerous to human health and may subject the viewer to terminal boredom. It is yet another thinly veiled, evangalizing "rapture" religious movie with the good guys (the believers) suddenly vanishing and the bad guys (the non-believers)left behind. It's an interesting concept, especially since we see it happen on a flight captained by a non-believer who is having a sinful affair with a stewardess aboard (needless to say that sinner doesn't disappear either!). Unhappily, with all the pilots being non-believers, the plane did not crash or the movie would have been mercifully over. Though this could have be interesting without the heavy religious browbeating, as a whole the plodding movie makes one gag, the acting is horrible and the obviously computer-generated simulations are very fake looking. Plus it's yet another movie shot in Canada that purports to be New York City. Spare me...I'll just read the Bible. | 0 |
There are no words to explain how bad NIGHTMARE WEEKEND is. It simply defies description. Something about a computer that can change personal objects into silver balls that enter the victims' mouth, which kills them or turns them into zombies. The whole thing is so wonky that it's stunning. There's also a girl with personal computer in her room and the computer talks via a hand puppet!!!!!!!! I'm not making this stuff up. The computer also controls things like cars, even though there's nothing linking the computer with the vehicle.<br /><br />The "film" is total trash. Surreal bad trash. Spectacularly, one-of-a-kind bad trash. There's a lot of sex scenes thrown here and there, which aren't very hot or erotic. There's even one scene where a woman seemingly makes love or wants to French kiss a tarantula, which had me rolling on the floor.<br /><br />Definitely one of the worst movies ever made. Up there with the equally wretched direct-to-home video BOARDINGHOUSE, or BOOGEYMAN II (both NIGHTMARE WEEKEND and BOOGEYMAN II have scenes with a killer toothbrush!). At least it's fun to watch it and try to make sense of whatever is going on. | 0 |
Somehow a woman working with a scientist puts round metal balls into people's mouths that supposedly changes their personality but in reality turns them into crazed, zombie-like killers. The "guinea pigs" for the experiment are scantily-clad, nubile young women in desperate need of acting lessons. This movie is awful, atrocious, and amazingly bad. It has little to no logic in the script. You really will have trouble following what is going on. It has no special effects. The computer screen that is supposedly representing a huge scientific advancement looks nothing more than an old Atari screen. And what is even worse is that there is also a puppet with strands of felt hair(looks like a lonely kid at summer camp made it) named George that is like a personal servant/confidant to Jessica(the leading "actress"). Throughout the movie you will be subjected to the idiotic, sophmoric utterings of this puppet. But wait...you also get loads of softcore, unerotic, barely nude scenes with the girls with some bar guys. All the while a most annoying soundtrack plays in the background like some kind of spiritual discovery has taken place. None of the actors are good. There are just varying degrees of bad. The gore and "horror" aspects are especially ineptly filmed. The film really looks like an adolescent put it together. No coincidence Henry Sala, the director by name but not by trade, has not made another film. I was bored almost into a coma watching this stupid, silly, dreck! And how bout the ending? What happened? If you know let me in on the secret because for the life of me I cannot figure it out. All I know is that I lost the time spent watching this garbage that made the beginning of my weekend a real nightmare of a bore! | 0 |
Sniffing girl's panties kills a guy...and a stupid freaky puppet says a lot of stupid freaky things......My eyes could not leave the screen, my finger could not leave the Fast Forward button....I had to rewatch this spectacle to see if I had really experienced what I thought...I did.....God help us all! | 0 |
Nightmare Weekend stars a cast of ridiculous actors with even less of an idea of what is going on than the director had, if you can imagine that. There is no decipherable plot or story, the special effects are a joke, and even the sound is terrible. This film was directed by Henry Sala. It was the only film that he ever directed, and the reason is obvious. | 0 |
The acting in this movie stinks. The plot makes very little sense, but from what I gathered it's supposed to be about this scientist who develops the ability to turn people's personal items into tiny steel balls that then fly into their mouths and turn them into zombies (or blow their heads up, whichever). And the effects are lousy, too. Most of the movie consists of bad music, with the actors dancing equally as badly to the bad music, interspersed with multiple boring sex scenes. This should be one of the worst things ever made, but for one thing. One element of shear brilliance that makes "Nightmare Weekend" stand above all others. And that special quality is the presence of George.<br /><br />George is the lovable interface device between the scientist's daughter, Jessica, and the home computer security system. With his green hair and nose, balding scalp, and heart-shaped mouth, George is the guardian angel/confidant to Jessica, who asks him for advice on how to meet guys in one of the most dramatic pieces of dialogue ever captured on celluloid. With his monotone synthesized voice, George tells Jessica what percentages of males prefer women in white dresses, and also that hitch-hiking is the third best way to meet guys after discos and bars. Of course, little Jessica just can't seem to stay out of trouble, causing George to execute "Emergency Program Code: Protection Jessica", which results in the violent death of Jessica's would-be assailant via one of the aforementioned steel balls.<br /><br />Kubrick was an utter fool for thinking he could give a computer personality using closeups of a red light. HAL should have been represented by our friend George in order to better translate compassion for his eventual demise. The light and sound show at the end of "Close Encounters"? Not bad, but how much better would that movie had been if the means of first communication with the aliens had been George the Hand Puppet. Bishop, Data, R2 kitchen appliances next to the Almighty George! He might only be in the movie for 8 minutes out of 90, but don't be fooled. This show is all about George. With even that limited amount of screentime, George joins the ranks of such luminous film characters as Hollywood Montrose, Majai, and Pappy from "New Moon Rising" as icons of American cinema. "George to Apache" you are my hero. | 0 |
It seems like anybody can make a movie nowadays. It's like all you need is a camera, a group of people to be your cast and crew, a script, and a little money and walla you have a movie. Problem is that talent isn't always part of this equation and often times these kind of low budget films turn out to be duds. The video store shelves are filled with these so called films. These aren't even guilty pleasures, they're just a waste of celluloid that are better off forgotten. Troma Entertainment is known for making trash cinema, but most of their films are b movie gold. However, some of the films they've put out they had nothing to do with making and some, like 'Nightmare Weekend,' didn't deserve any form of release at all. <br /><br />Pros: The cast members do the best they can with the lousy material. Some unintentional hilarity. Moves at a good pace (Should at 81 minutes).<br /><br />Cons: Awful writing, which includes putrid dialogue and countless plot holes. Poorly lit, especially the night scenes and the ending, which you can't make out at all. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Badly scored. Cheap and very dated effects. Total lack of character development and you won't care about anybody. This is supposed to be a horror film, but it's lacking in that area and isn't the least bit scary. Nothing interesting or exciting happens. Loaded with unnecessary padding.<br /><br />Final thoughts: I never expected this to be some forgotten gem, but I never imagined it would be this bad. I don't know if it's the worst film ever made, but it's a definite contender. Troma should have let this film rot instead of giving it a release. Don't make the same mistake I did and let your curiosity get the best of you.<br /><br />My rating: 1/5 | 0 |
I happen to be the director's nephew. It's taken me years to get my hands on a copy of this film and I can confirm that it is indeed one of the worst movies of all time. My uncle doesn't even have a copy of it anymore (I asked). I'm looking forward to bringing him a copy.<br /><br />Currently the film's average rating is 1.9/10. As far as I can tell, that should put it somewhere in the mid-30s in the IMDb "bottom 100," however with only 206 votes, it hasn't yet placed.<br /><br />It's sad that the film doesn't even get the respect of a bottom 100 title.<br /><br />Anyhow, I'm giving copies of the movie to family members this year for holiday gifts. Best/Worst gift ever? | 0 |
Nightmare Weekend is proof positive that some people are so desperate to be 'in the movies' they are prepared to do almost anything.<br /><br />I'm not referring to the countless women who seem quite happy to appear completely starkers in this dreadful piece of trash (after all, the naked female form is a beautiful thing and nothing to be ashamed of). No...I'm talking about those who are more than willing to co-star with a badly made hand-puppet called George. Now that is embarrassing!!!<br /><br />A bio-electronic being created by brilliant scientist Edward Brake (Wellington Meffert), George (who looks like a demented felt clown with green wool for hair) is the artificially intelligent interface for an advanced computer system that operates a revolutionary device (a silver sphere about the size of a golf ball) that, when ingested, can reverse character disorders.<br /><br />Edward's personality altering experiments have been successful on lab animals, but the cautious scientist is reluctant to carry out tests on human subjects, fearing that there may still be side effects. His evil assistant Julie (Debbie Laster), however, has no such qualms, and proceeds to use three beautiful young women as guinea pigs. Inevitably, they all turn into hideous killer mutants.<br /><br />With bargain basement special effects, a cast totally devoid of talent, and a plot that is almost impossible to follow (I took notes as I watched the film, and even then I am not entirely convinced that my synopsis is accurate), Nightmare Weekend is a complete and utter disaster that not even several soft-core sex scenes and a touch of gore can rescue.<br /><br />This film also features one of the most irritating characters I have ever seen in a horror movie: Tony (Bruce Morton), a Walkman wearing idiot who bops away to crap 80s music in a manner that makes me look like Justin Timberlake in comparison. | 0 |
Henry Sala's "Nightmare Weekend" is a rotten piece of sludge from Troma.This is a juvenile,sloppy and stupid low-budget horror film about some teenage girls spending the weekend at a mansion.The professor's evil assistant lures the girls into a bizarre scheme to perform hideous experiments.Using a brain implant she transforms her victims and their dates into zombies."Nightmare Weekend" is a completely braindead piece of garbage that features lots of nudity and some cheesy gore,not to mention a laughable musical score.The acting is horrendous and the script is utterly incoherent.Why such piece of crap is widely distributed is beyond me.Avoid it like the plague.1 out of 10. | 0 |
I agree with those reviews I have read here, and I have no words to define such a turkey like this, but despite everything, I still can find a reason for movies like this to exist. Do you remenber those happy days in which video was a prosperous business, and a lot of movies were made with the only reason of filling the shelves of the video stores? this movie comes from that period and I can imagine that was the only reason for which it was produced and the same happened with many, many, many other stinkers. Do you remember "Rambo" imitations? and so many slashers of Z grade?, I still feel nostalgia for that period.About this movie I can say I didn´t waste my time watching it because I pressed the fast forward button after the first fifteen minutes, just to find a very funny scene in which a guy was pushing an axe against heads which exploded because, as you perfectly notice, they were made of plastic. And about the end, well, it was so badly filmed I could not understand what happened. That´s the same, I had not followed the non-existing plot at all. But boy, Video-age was a great age despite movies like this. | 0 |
A couple move into their dream home, unaware that it and its neighbours have been built over land formerly used as a cemetery. The film is said to have been based on a true story, although how much of it is supposed to be true is not disclosed. The plot is hardly unique - see Spielberg's 'Poltergeist' (1982). Within a short time, they experience various supernatural phenomena: these range from the disturbing - mysterious shadows, the serious illness of the daughter - to the frankly ridiculous - toilets continually flushing and garage doors going out of control. There is little depth to the story: once it has become established that the land had been used as a cemetery, we do not learn anything more. The plot does not seem to develop. The characters are not particularly well drawn or in any way memorable, nor is the atmosphere particularly special. The film could be disturbing to some viewers. There is no sense of catharsis or any kind of positive message from it. | 0 |
Bathebo, you big dope.<br /><br />This is the WORST piece of crap I've seen in a long time. I have just stumbled onto it on late night TV and it is painful to watch. Really painful. How does something like this get made?? Horrible, horrible, horrible! OOOOOO ..... The toilet is flushing by itself again! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! Scary toilet! 1992 doesn't seem like that long ago to me, but watching this makes it seem like 1952. I mean its horrible. Please don't waste your time on the drivel!<br /><br />Scary old black man telling them not to build the pool in the yard. Scary! Scary! How does this stuff get MADE??? | 0 |
Well, maybe the PC version of this game was impressive. Maybe. I just finished playing the PS2 version and it's pretty much a complete mess.<br /><br />There are a couple elements that are okay or promising. I'll mention those first because it will be over quickly. First, the idea of a historical GTA-like game is a great one. The game Gun was a historical GTA-like game and unlike Mafia, Gun was excellent. I'd love to see a game set during Mafia's era done right. Next, the storyline is well written. The story makes sense, it has dramatic arcs, it uses an unusual device (with much of the game being a backstory) and it's interesting. Finally, some of the graphics--especially those used during cutscenes--are impressive. Mafia's designers seemed to focus on getting the graphics right in the places where GTA skimped on that effort, especially the characters. Unfortunately in many other areas, the graphics kinda stink, and I'd much rather have excellent gameplay than impressive-looking characters.<br /><br />The gameplay is what sinks this title so low. First off, the controls and camera absolutely suck. That has to be the first focus of any game developers. You can't release a game where the controls and/or camera suck. Number one, there's no reason that the player's character, Tom, can't have his full range of motion controlled by the left analog stick. Unless it's absolutely necessary, and it hardly ever is, I hate the set-up where the left stick moves the character in a "strafing" way and the character can only turn using the right analog stick. Here, it's not only unnecessary, it makes most of the simplest actions a challenge. For example, Tom has to climb on a couple missions. But the game is designed so poorly that you have to frustratingly keep manipulating both the right analog stick and the camera, and then press L1 every time you need to climb, or Tom will descend instead.<br /><br />Next, I've never seen a worse fighting system. The first problem is that you can't auto-aim or lock on to any targets. At one early point, the game seems to tell you that you can use L2 or R2 to lock on to targets, but that never worked. So to focus on any enemy, you have to struggle with the stupid right analog stick and try to keep adjusting both the character's orientation and the camera, which tends to drift to the wrong angle or make Tom disappear all the time. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot to death.<br /><br />Next, if you're touching or almost touching an enemy--and that's certainly going to be the case for hand to hand combat or when using melee weapons, the fighting system--which primarily consists of tapping or holding R1, is completely useless. Enemies can pummel you almost in a bear hug, but you just can't move unless you back off. So close fighting tends to consist of you yanking on the left analog stick, yelling at the character to move away, which it won't do 50% of the time, then tapping R1 as much as you can before the enemy gets too close again and makes R1 useless. And if the enemy changes their angle to you in the meantime, you're also going to struggle with the right analog stick to get your character oriented in the right way and to get the camera in position so you can see anything. By that time, you're probably getting pummeled or shot again, and your only option will be to try to move the character away again. My fights often consisted of making Tom run circles around an area like a comedy film, hoping that I could gain enough time to struggle with the analog stick and get a couple shots in before being at the AI's mercy again. So much for realistic fighting.<br /><br />And the same problems and more exist when trying to fight with guns. If you're touching someone, half the time the controller just won't allow you to fire off a shot, yet they can still riddle you full of holes. Additionally, there's no auto-aim, and the aiming system is ridiculously sensitive, even with the sensitivity set to zero under Options. Gunfights tend to consist of you hopelessly trying to aim or move away while the enemy puts shot after shot into you. Luckily or not, damage seems to be recorded almost randomly. It can take one to ten shots or more to incapacitate any character, and there's no rhyme or reason to it. You can put five shots into an enemy's head and near point blank range and they'll still return fire and hurt you. Yet, the game designers seemed to care enough about realism than they built a recoil into your aiming system, so after shots with powerful enough guns, your aim will float off target, and you'll have to fight with it again.<br /><br />As for the celebrated graphics, except for the characters and textures that you're close to, they're actually pretty disappointing. The distance always seems mostly empty, and there are often expanses of flat colors and textures nearby when you're driving. The city wasn't very well designed. It's not varied enough, and there aren't many interesting things to see or do. The cars seem slow and they're difficult to control. They also all drive about the same. Some have mentioned the music, but that was also pretty nondescript. A much better job could have been done on that end. Also, as many others have mentioned, the load times are ridiculous and constant. They tend to be over a minute long, and they occur between and in the middle of everything--even races.<br /><br />Overall, the Mafia port to PS2, at least, seems to have been very rushed. The game feels and plays like an incomplete hack job. | 0 |
Writer-director Tony Piccirillo adapted his own play about a straight man, recently widowed, learning in the last three weeks he is HIV-positive; he tracks down the one homosexual partner he ever had, brings him to an apartment and ties him up, forcing a blood test on the guy and promising bloody revenge if the results come back positive. Intriguing idea sounds better on paper than it plays out. James Marsden's captive is realistically cynical and snotty, but the actor's own artificial mannerisms are disconcerting--it's like watching a roadshow version of Tom Cruise. Scott Speedman has to work harder with the more challenging role, but his personality-turn from shy guy to kidnapper-on-the-edge isn't convincing, and neither are the conversations the two men have. Marsden's gay party boy isn't apathetic, of course--he's momentarily sympathetic to Speedman's plight--but he doesn't react or behave the way any homosexual man would in this circumstance. The movie isn't a cop-out, exactly, but it is a fraud, handicapped further by the bad editing, the poorly-conceived flashbacks, the low-budget production, and the big finale which smacks of silly pretension and soapy melodrama. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
SPOILERS. Strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film. Allow me to add balance by pointing out the following:<br /><br />Script: Dreadful. As Tom and Dan are "getting to know each other," bantering about films, the talk is clearly that of one person, and I suspect it was the director, who carefully worked his words to sound intelligent. At one point, Dan asks, "Have you heard of the HIV virus?" and it sounds about as natural as asking, "Have you communicated with the nine alien races?"<br /><br />Acting: White teeth do and a chiseled face do not a sensitive performer make. Speedman did well enough with what he was given, I suppose, but Marsden was terrible -- unsympathetic, unbelievable, and downright smug and smarmy throughout his captivity. There is an emptiness to his performances (also see Interstate 60).<br /><br />Plot: Spare me! The moments of half-escape were not thrilling but irritating and weak. Recall Marsden pretending to try keys in the door and then throwing them down: "They don't work, man!" Tee-hee. And beware the semi black-and-white flashbacks, which are initiated with some schlocky sound taken from CSI and other crime dramas. <br /><br />Most important of all, most dangerous, evil, and offensive, is the homophobia (external or internal, you decide) in a film in which HIV is considered a weapon. Tom says that Dan may have taken off the condom or not used it at all -- excuse me, where was Tom while they were having sex? There is some villainizing of the inserting partner which comes off as a villainizing of the gay man in general.<br /><br />In sum: Beware! | 0 |
Hmm
I agree with the reviewer who said that "strange people with generous tastes have been reviewing this film". I thought the film was intriguing enough to watch it. I think that was primarily because of Marsden and Speedman - not the plot.<br /><br />The bottom line is that this film is mildly psychologically tantalizing on the one hand and profoundly homophobic on the other. Thumbs up on the former and triple thumbs down on the latter. I'm not sure if the film is intended to promote dialogue or to spread fear and propaganda.<br /><br />I thought the acting was mediocre. A lot of conversation that was about 90 degrees askew of reality. I kept wanting to derive some meaning from the plot, but it's ultimately just a conversation with a mad man (Speedman). I feel mildly sorry for him (Speedman) because of his loss, but not really. His loss is no greater and certainly is less than losses suffered every day around the world by more significant causes.<br /><br />Does the film expose naiveté about HIV/AIDS? Yes: That of the intended audience. Is HIV a dark, mysterious, evil killer? What about it's victims? The answer to both questions is NO. Neither HIV nor its victims have any more or less malevolent intent than lupus, multiple sclerosis, TB, hepatitis, CANCER, or their victims, FOR GOD'S SAKE. Just because a disease is communicable does not make it EITHER deliberate OR negligent - or evil - it just IS.<br /><br />Does this excuse ignorance or fool-hardy risk taking? - NO. Should all people practice safe sex? - YES. Will safe sex save the world? - NO. Is safe sex realistic in all instances of love and lust between passionate and emotional human beings? OF COURSE NOT. What kind of a world would we live in if everyone followed the rules, no one ever took risks, and sex was never spontaneous and passionate??? Am I ignoring that the film deals specifically with gay sex? YES. HIV is spread by sharing blood or bodily fluids between infected and non-infected individuals. Sex is not necessary for transmission, gay or otherwise.<br /><br />I'm always disturbed by willful violence of one person upon another. I actually thought the film did do a good job of portraying the absurdity of Tom's violent abduction, captivity, and intent towards Dan, and this kind of insane violence does occur every day.<br /><br />Stream of consciousness notes from the film: Tom is crazy.<br /><br />Why doesn't Dan ask "why" do you feel this way, rather than "what are you doing"? Implication: men who have sex with men get "AIDS" Implication: HIV = AIDS Where was Tom's responsibility in the sex act? Why was it Dan's responsibility to use the condom? "maybe you slipped it off before you stuck it in
" What are we talking about here? Was one of the parties unconscious? "Maybe she didn't want to hear the truth" are you kidding me "She's up in heaven and so unbelievably hurt about what she now knows about me"
right
Is Dan's life over if he has HIV? Certainly NOT! Is this why the whole world is so homophobic???? They think gay men are the cause of HIV, that they will give it to the rest of the world, and we will all die
are you kidding me??? Are people really stupid enough to think that homosexuality is the cause... is the problem??? Do we feel that way about the victims of tuberculosis? of malaria? I can see that Tom is hurt because of his wife's death, and he blames it on AIDS, but seriously
who's at fault here? The victim or the virus? Are illnesses really the responsibility of the ill? (presuming they did not seek and did not seek to spread the disease).<br /><br />Sure, safe sex is essential to a safe life, but so is not-driving, not-flying, not-leaving the house, not-living. Do we really want to blame the disease on the victims? Would safe sex between Tom and Dan have prevented Tom's wife's ultimate demise? Perhaps, but not Dan's sole responsibility.<br /><br />Tom is crazy. Did I mention that.<br /><br />Tom to Dan: "maybe you get what you deserve"
COME ON! 24 Days: Violent, naïve, and homophobic.<br /><br />Am I overreacting? Perhaps. But I think this film points a judging finger at gay men for their reckless and malevolent intent towards a "straight world" by practicing unsafe sex, when the rate of homosexuals practicing safe sex is proportionately equivalent or better than that of heterosexuals. We all need to wake up and get serious about HIV/AIDS. HIV is killing hundreds of thousands of STRAIGHT Africans every year. | 0 |
This is the only movie that my wife and I have ever walked out on. Totally sucked. We saw it in Omaha even. Not funny at all, looks like a 14 year old kid wrote the humor. I can't believe these real politicians were actually in the movie. awful. | 0 |
A friend of mine was in the cast as a FEDS agent (a non-speaking part, as I recall). He brought it over on DVD so I could see it. It was "interesting", but very much felt like an amateur film. A well made amateur film, though. Really boring and poorly written. It was probably fun to make and be involved in, but it definitely didn't deserve any kind of wide release. Maybe in Omaha they'd enjoy it, but this California girl was bored and honestly kind of embarrassed for my friend's involvement.<br /><br />If this film maker has made or makes any more films, he really should try to have a really interesting story line, and GOOD actors. I'm sure this was a great learning tool for them. I wish them luck in the future, and hope they can improve their film making. | 0 |
Not a very good movie but according to the info it's pretty accurate in depicting torture techniques. The purpose of the film was to show the brutality of the NK POW camps and that's done effectively enough, with surprising frankness for the time. Whatever technical flaws exist (and there are plenty) by watching this you'll see a forgotten corner of a forgotten war and some pretty nasty stuff - again, nasty because it's being done north of the DMZ and not in Guantanamo Bay.<br /><br />I don't think any of the Korean veterans brought up his torture when running for office, and if you watch the movies like this one and Pork Chop Hill in comparison to the Vietnam films. I don't know if it was the people in '54 being trapped in the WWII concepts (the boys tend to wisecrack a lot) or the war or what, but it's interesting to see this from the same system that 16 years later would be making movies like "Go Tell The Spartans". | 0 |
Ronald Reagan and a bunch of US soldiers in a North Korean POW camp. They are tortured... We learn North Korean Communists are bad people... We learn Americans' beards grow very slowly during days of torture...<br /><br />I tried to suppress it, but I finally burst out laughing at this movie. It was the scene when Mr. Reagan comes out from telling the Communists he wants to be on their side. Then, he asks for a bottle of brandy. Next, acting stone-cold sober, he takes a drunken companion, Dewey Martin, to get sulfur to cure Mr. Martin's hangover. Of course, the North Korean communist guard is as dumb as they come. So, the drunk distracts the guard while Reagan goes over to get something from a drawer, which is next to a bunch of empty boxes. I'm sure he boxes were supposed to contain something; but, of course, Reagan causes them to shake enough to reveal they are empty. Ya gotta laugh! I think "Prisoner of War" will appeal mainly to family and friends of those who worked on it - otherwise, it's wasteful. <br /><br />* Prisoner of War (1954) Andrew Marton ~ Ronald Reagan, Steve Forrest, Dewey Martin | 0 |
I was able to hang in for only the first twenty minutes of this low-budget movie. The most glaring absurdity was that while the American inmates in a North Korean POW camp are all supposedly suffering from severe deprivation of food and medicine, going without bathing, shivering in flimsy and filthy parkas, and sleeping on bare floors, and - let's not forget enduring torture - they always manage to sport impeccably coiffed hair. With the exception of a suitably austere-looking Harry Morgan as an army Major, the casting and acting are simply awful. Ronald Regan cannot seem to stick to portraying a single character and instead creates a rather schizophrenic amalgam of past roles. A mostly Caucasian cast portraying the North Korean camp officers might have been forgivable, but when supposedly Russian officers acting as advisors to the Koreans strut around wearing re-badged Nazi uniforms complete with jodhpurs and jackboots (obvious costume-department recycles from WWII flicks) and speaking with accents like General Burkhalter from Hogan's Heroes, well, that's just six kinds of silly. Don't waste your time on this one. | 0 |
I really did like this show, once upon a time. That is, until I realized all the faults in it. It's so unrealistic. I know it's fiction, but it isn't even the slightest bit believable. Here's why. **Spoilers ahead folks...** Are we really supposed to believe that a kid like Yugi would be descended from a Pharaoh of ancient Egypt? C'mon! He's the biggest nerd on the face of the Earth. And what's up with the Pharaoh (a.k.a. Atem and/or Yami's) hair? Last I checked, Pharaohs were shaved (except for a small bit of hair atop the head) and wore fancy hats.<br /><br />And, are we supposed to be convinced that an evil wealthy boy genius, named Seto Kaiba, can legally run a successful business while still having time to go to a shoddy little school like 'Domino High'? Puh-leeze! First off, he'd have to legally be an adult to run a company. And that would make him not really all too much of a boy genius, since he'd be the only adult in his class. And second off, why would he attend a school like 'Domino High', when his business is clearly successful enough for him to attend a fancy snobbish academy? Plus, the side plots with his little brother are so sappy and lame. Every time you turn around, that kid's been kidnapped by goons for the baddie. *yawn* Nothing new, nothing new.<br /><br />Joey is the poor kid, who lives with a good-for-nothing father. It says that Joey earns all the money to attend his school, because his father's an alcoholic, but you never once see Joey do anything that resembles work. He doesn't even mention work. And his sister Serenity is a complete moron. Why would she choose a snob like Duke (who dressed her brother in a dog costume and publicly humiliated him on television) over a nice guy like Tristan? Is she really that clueless? Various characters throughout the show, get possessed by demonic forces, get their souls stolen by demonic forces, and fall prey to mental illness. (Oh, that's child-safe, NOT.) Tea is the typical girl-next-door type, whose only purpose is to be Yugi/Yami's girlfriend. And while she has some cool points to her, she just doesn't have enough time to shine as a main character.<br /><br />The animation is simply awful. All the characters look sickly and anorexic. The perspectives are terrible (especially when they do close-ups of somebody's hand) and the colors look good, but not stellar.<br /><br />But the worst plot hole to the series was the fact that Yami says that his Millennium Puzzle can send souls back to their bodies. If this was so, how come he didn't save Yugi's Grandpa in the first place, when Pegasus stole his soul, and save himself the trouble of getting it back?<br /><br />All it really is, is a commercial for itself. The only plus side to it is "Yu-Gi-Oh: The Abridged Series" by LittleKuriboh.<br /><br />Please. Do something more worthwhile. Like, watch the Abridged version.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
(r#97)<br /><br />There is one good thing about this poor man's Pokémon (make of that what you will): the opening theme. It has to be the coolest theme music of any sloppily dubbed Japanese made-for-the-consumers-oops-I-mean-the-young-fans anime TV show. Unfortunately there was need to add some sort of show after the opening theme. And they just couldn't come up with something more interesting than people arguing loudly about whose cards are better than the others' cards. Freud would have a field day, unfortunately I can't imagine why any kids would want to sit through a show where dialogue written by a thousand monkeys in five minutes takes up 98% of the running time.<br /><br />"My Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom will take your measly Pyramid Diamond Animal in a single strike! Can't you see that you have no chance of winning this battle, you fool?! HAHAHAHHAHHAHA!"<br /><br />"Oh yeah? Well watch this! I am about to use my Destruction Force Delta Times Pie Card which eradicates every single one of your Power Munchers and renders your Uber-Fantastical Doomsday Creature of Ultimate Doom's Destroy Beyond all Significance Attack useless! I bet you didn't see that one coming!" <br /><br />Seriously, that's all they ever do in this show, talk. Whereas in another crappy kids' show I used to watch, namely the commercial phenomenon Pokémon (every soccer mum's pet peeve), at least the monsters had the courtesy to duke it out every once in a while, "Yu-Gi-Oh" is just, in the quiet words of Roger Ebert's A Clockwork Orange review, "plain talky and boring". Not to mention long-winded (I realize I'm being hypocritical here considering the sentence I just wrote).<br /><br />This show goes on forever. I don't know if there's any plot, and the static monsters have none of the character of Pokémon. Even when not compared to my fave cartoon as a kid, this show sucks. It's unintentionally funny, but not funny enough to be worth seeing. Bye bye, sleep tight, dream wet dreams. | 0 |
Something very strange happens when you talk about Global Warming: science goes out the window and "belief" and "consensus" becomes the topic of discussion.<br /><br />It's because of that fact that I give a failing mark to Al Gore's documentary.<br /><br />Instead of promoting intelligent discussion, he kept the debate at the level of "belief" and "consensus".<br /><br />Of course, when you're trying to sell the world into spending trillions of dollars to "stop Global Warming" you may thing it's a problem to tell the scientific truth: we don't know how much of the current warming was caused by humans. Maybe none of it, maybe some of it, or maybe it has over-ceded the next Ice Age and we got really lucky not to have boiled the planet.<br /><br />But the fact remains that we don't know.<br /><br />so we're asked to "believe" in the "consensus". Never mind that any scientist that strays from the "consensus" is ostracized. Never mind that scientific inquiry is about straying from the consensus. Einstein didn't "believe" in the consensus, neither did Copernicus or Galileo.<br /><br />So why so much scorn placed on those very researchers who would advance the field by asking the tough questions? If Global Warming is so incontrovertible, surely a few people testing that theory can't be so threatening.<br /><br />What is going on here? That's the movie I was hoping Al Gore would have made. Istead, he chose to shore up his support with the true "believers" of the "consensus".<br /><br />Sad, really. | 0 |
An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.<br /><br />Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.<br /><br />His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".<br /><br />Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.<br /><br />I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence. | 0 |
It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?<br /><br />I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p | 0 |
The only thing that "An Inconvenient Truth" proves is that Al Gore is still an idiot. These "unchallenged" experts are unchallenged because a response to their inane hypotheses is generally beneath real science. This is mostly false science folks. The greatest source of greenhouse gases - CO2 - is people, we exhale it and unless you're willing to start sacrificing your brethren to save the world, there's not a darn thing to be done. We've heard how the world was going to end as the result of man for more than 50 years. Fools publish a time line for their doomsday and when the time passes, nothing has happened. "An Inconvenient Truth" is just another vehicle with which a disingenuous faction of American society can peddle their poop.<br /><br />And as to Al leaving the tobacco business because of his sister's death from cancer, that is a load too. Al couldn't run his farm any better than he could run the country. He was losing money on the operation because he didn't care to farm when he could make more $ on speaking tours. The only global warming that is unchallenged is the hot air produced by this gasbag! | 0 |
Mario Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written a definitive 120-page point-by-point, line-by-line refutation of this mendacious film, which should be titled A CONVENIENT LIE. The website address where his debunking report, which is titled "A SKEPTIC'S GUIDE TO AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH" can be found at is :www.cei.org. A shorter 10-page version can be found at: www.cei.org/pdf/5539.pdf Once you read those demolitions, you'll realize that alleged "global warming" is no more real or dangerous than the Y2K scare of 1999, which Gore also endorsed, as he did the pseudo-scientific film THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, which was based on a book written by alleged UFO abductee Whitley Strieber. As James "The Amazing" Randi does to psychics, and Philip Klass does to UFOs, and Gerald Posner does to JFK conspir-idiocy theories, so does Mario Lewis does to Al Gore's movie and the whole "global warming" scam. | 0 |
Don't drink the cool-aid.<br /><br />This is an opinion piece disguised as a documentary. And to title it as a "truth" is just plain crap. The debate over global warming is far from over, and will only be over when the eco-zombies start acknowledging the mountain of evidence contrary to their beloved theory. Just Google "Global Warming" and "Hoax" or "Junk Science" and you will find a river of information refuting nearly every link in the chain of logic that Gore sites. The reason it is so important for people to educate themselves is the disastrous economic impact that global warming prevention measures would have. Wake up people. Anyone with a computer, a little time, and some common sense can find many many reasons why this theory is not even close to credible. Don't just read articles that support your present opinions, read everything you can find. There is no in-depth analysis to make, really. There is simply too many alternate possibilities and counter-evidence for the theory to have even the most basic level of scientific credibility. It is so uncredible, in fact, that it may be the single biggest hoax in the course of human existence. It's time for people to start speaking out against this kind of propaganda, and it's time for people to admit to themselves and others that you can be a both a conservationist AND recognize the glaring conclusion that global warming hysteria is a big lie. | 0 |
Let's be honest shall we? Al Gore no more TRULY cares about the environment than most folks care about contacting foot fungus. It's a hook! Make no mistake, Al Gore is a POLITICIAN! Three years ago he was busted/ticketed in his home state doing 70 mph in a 55 mph zone driving NOT a hybrid, a Yugo, or even a GM Metro but a LINCOLN (go google it if you like)! Or how about the fact that Mr. Gore & his Hollywood buddies continue to use a private fuel-guzzling jets to attend the premiers of "An Inconvenient Truth." So much for conservation huh, Al? Anyway, it takes a mere minute to subjectively look at "An Inconvenient Truth" & discover the main fundamental flaw. While the film parades out many seemingly impressive scientists to tell the audience the EFFECTS of supposed "global Warming" there is not one scientist to tell us the supposed CAUSE of it. For example: I can take a hundred folks out to a parking lot & they can point out an automobile which is not running right. BUT can they tell you with any degree of certainty WHY? Generally not! A second flaw, just how accurate were the weather instruments 100 years ago (the toilet wasn't even invented yet)? What did they have, a June bug in a match box? Hell, even 50-60 years ago? Therefore, how do we know with ANY degree of certainty that the planet is "getting warmer" when the records of yesteryear are highly questionable at best? Or that man is THE sole cause of it? The answer is we don't & Science is NEVER a consensus. Thirty years ago, Time Magazine did a cover proclaiming a "New Ice Age". The truth is that any 6th grade science teacher well versed in Earth Science will tell you that Volcanic Erruptions, Solar Activity & El Ninos have more to do with our eradicate changes in climate conditions than supposed "Global Warming." Finally, what Al Gore fails to adequately address is; even IF America decides to follow the global gospel according to Al & implement everything he recommends, how are we going to get the rest of the world to follow suit when we can't even get them to agree on something so obvious as terrorism? Answer: It's wishful thinking, Mr. Gore & you being a former VP of the USA know it! If the folks who produced "An Inconvenient Truth" were really honest, they would have titled their film "Al Gore Wants Attention." But what I'd really like is for someone to ask the former VP this; why were two of the planet's biggest polluters (AKA China & India) EXEMPT from abiding by the Kyoto Accords? Anyway, I hear the producers of A.I.T are working on their next film entitled "Gnomes, Fairies & Elves: Our Endangered Friends." | 0 |
Something that really does not go down right with Al Gore (and his supporters)'s theory is the whole thing about "concensus".<br /><br />If there were such a consensus, why is it that the "believers" in the almighty global warming feel the irrepressible need to try and bully anyone who questions them.<br /><br />Why is it that anyone who does not toe the line on global warming is met with smug accusations of being either stupid or on the payroll of the oil companies (apparently being a professional global warming researcher does not mean you're on anyone's payroll in that wondrous world...) Why is there such a need to tell everyone how the whole question is settled, when it is the very nature of science to honestly question assumptions? For some ideas on the answer to those questions, read Prey by the well-know oil-stooge Michael Crichton... oh wait, he is rich and not on the payroll of the oil companies. He just took a huge career risk in not toeing the line of the Greens and other Kyoto worshippers and told the truth as he researched it. By the way did you know that abiding to the Kyoto protocol would result in almost no lowering of temperatures, according to its own backers? Just a few questions that Al Gore made sure to stay away from lest he not get every penny of the environmental lobby in case he decides to run again.<br /><br />So who's a stooge..? | 0 |
A hint I think may be gathered by the various comments on this thread.<br /><br />I was quite amazed at the number of people who liked this film who want to make it "mandatory" or "compulsory".<br /><br />I think this gives us a little bit of insight into the reason this film and the issue underlying it is so polarizing.<br /><br />The Global Warming issue appeals a lot to people who want to force others to "do right". It appeals particularly to more "liberal" leaning people because it doesn't have to do with bedroom morality which is what usually gets conservatives who want to force you to "be good" going.<br /><br />And that's the problem with the film. Al Gore is a politician. And a very successful one at that. He just can't help himself from appealing to those people who want to force others to do as they would. The political appeal is just too great.<br /><br />And there we are left with a scientific issue that may be of huge importance, reduced to a political issue appealing to those in the body politic with a predilection to force other to "do right".<br /><br />Another interesting question is how did the Environmental movement get hijacked by such people? | 0 |
Where was his critique of democratic administrations as well as republican ones? After all he did serve for 17+ years in a body of government where his influence was unwaivering. Oh I forgot about the 8 years he was the 2nd in command of the most Powerful nation on Earth. The film is happy to show shots of a young Senator Gore asking why a NASA scientist was forced to change a conclusion in his scientific paper, but fails to ask about the complicity of Clinton/Gore in global warming. Probably too close to an election year, or maybe it would hurt the chances for Hillary in '08. Either way he's a political coward and party man to the bitter end. He offers no criticism of consumerism, no criticism of capitalism, no way to is the history of the industrial development which has led us to this point in time <br /><br />In the end this film was much more about Mr. Gore himself than about any real problems our environment faces. Mr. Gore if you really wanted to make a campaign film - shorten it & call it what it really is. | 0 |
Oh man, it is amazing how somebody can claim global warming to be a science, well, I guess this elitist nonsense is now replacing the science of eugenics! Al Gore tries to make this issue sound complicated, even though it just needs common sense to see this whole thing is a big hoax by a man with his own moneymaking agenda!<br /><br />How have scientists estimated historical temperatures of this planet? By estimating the sun spot activity. Has nobody ever questioned if this method has been accurate? No, not even Gore himself! So how the heck would it not be accurate to forecast future temperature with sun spot activity if it has been that accurate in the past? According to sun spot activity the temperature today is totally in line with what it should be. How come the temperature in the entire universe has risen (relatively) equal much as on earth? Does our SUVs cause temperature on Jupiter to rise?<br /><br />Use some common sense! You do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure out that this can be nothing else than a HOAX. Please research it yourself. What does Al Gore and his elitist friends like Rothschild (banking family that arranged live earth event) to gain from this? Well, the new world bank will be founded on carbon credits, that is tax on everything that gives CO2 omissions, and it is easier to get away with these taxes if the people are lured to think it is to save the world when it is only about money, centralized control and more power to the elitist bankers. Al Gore has even a company that sells carbon credits! Is it not noble to pay voluntarily carbon credits to save the world, especially if it goes into his own company? <br /><br />I do not want you to blindly believe me, please do your own research and use your own common sense and I am sure you will come to the right conclusion! | 0 |
The statistics in this movie were well researched. There is no doubt about it! Al Gore certainly presents his case very well and it is no wonder that this movie got the praise that it got. Al Gore is certainly quite an actor. He sounds so concerned. But actions speak louder than words! Throughout this movie, there are political tidbits and references to his political career sprinkled throughout the movie.<br /><br />Jimmy Carter, unlike Al Gore, is a man of integrity who not only talks the talk, but walks the walk as well. When Carter thought we needed to conserve energy, he turned down the thermostat in the White House and got warm by wearing a sweater.<br /><br />Al Gore tells us that we have to conserve energy and claims that we are creating global warming while he travels around in his own private jet. How much energy does his jet use and how much more pollution does his jet create? How much energy does it take to heat Gore's swimming pool behind his mansion? It would be nice if we could conserve electricity by using smaller appliances and making it a point to turn off anything that is not being used. But if we did, the power company would react to a 50% reduction of energy by calling it a "50% loss in revenue" and recouping their losses by raising the rates by 50%. So "just turning it off" would not be a very good idea.<br /><br />This movie is a veiled appeal to allow Big Goivernment to take control of everything, in the name of saving planet earth, that is. | 0 |
This movie was the most out of line and liberally fed movie i have ever seen in my life. (Besides Farenheit 9/11). All of the information was only supported on the opinion of FIVE scientists while 80% of the Asssociated Press highly criticize the science promoted be Gore. Global Warming is a Mass Media Hysteria and nothing more. Most of the information in the movie was either misquoted or it was wrong all together. THis movie has been investigated over and over again and has been shown evidence against that prove its lies were nothing but lies.<br /><br />LIBERAL BLINDNESS! An to think that they show this in school proves that the media has brainwashed us into believing this garbage! | 0 |
Well done Al Gore! You have become the first person to have made 1 Billion dollars of the global warming lie! Just like all the other man made fable's in the world this one is up there with the best lies to have sucked in so many people. Sure polution is not a good thing, and I would love for all the tree's to keep on growing, but global warming is a business! It employes thousands of people that are all very mislead.<br /><br />Google it! There are just to many things that just don't add up, but well done Al, you failed as a politician, but went on to make lots of money sucking in the world.<br /><br />Whats next? Santa is real? | 0 |
Not even Goebbels could have pulled off a propaganda stunt like what Gore has done with this complete piece of fiction. This is a study in how numbers and statistics can be spun to say whatever you have predetermined them to say. The "scientists" Gore says have signed onto the validity of global warming include social workers, psychologists and psychiatrists. Would you say a meteorologist is an expert in neuro-surgery? The field research and data analysis geologists are involved in do not support Gores alarmist claims of global warming. As one of those geologists working in the field for the last 40 years I have not seen any evidence to support global warming. My analysis of this movie and Gores actions over the last couple years brings me to the conclusion that global warming is his way of staying important and relevant. No more, no less. Ask any global warming alarmist or "journalist" one simple question- You say global warming is a major problem. Tell me. What temperature is the Earth supposed to be? | 0 |
Outrageously trashy karate/horror thriller with loads of graphically gory violence and gratuitous nudity, and a thoroughly preposterous and bizarre "plot". This is lowbrow and low-grade entertainment that will appeal only to viewers with particularly kinky tastes, but it's kind of cheerfully bad and I must admit that I wasn't actually bored while watching it.... (*1/2) | 0 |
"Raw Force" is like an ultra-sleazy and perverted version of Love Boat, with additional Kung Fu fights, demented cannibalistic monks, white slaves trade, energetic zombies and a whole lot of lousy acting performances. No wonder this movie was included in the recently released "Grindhouse Experience 20 movie box-set". It's got everything exploitation fanatics are looking for, blend in a totally incoherent and seemingly improvised script! The production values are extremely poor and the technical aspects are pathetic, but the amounts of gratuitous violence & sex can hardly be described. The film opens at a tropically sunny location called Warriors Island, where a troop of sneering monks raise the dead for no apparent reason other than to turn them into Kung Fu fighters. The monks also buy sexy slaves from a sleazy Hitler look-alike businessman, supposedly because the women's flesh supplies them with the required powers to increase their zombie army. Tourists on a passing cruise ship, among them three martial arts fighters, a female LA cop and a whole bunch of ravishing but dim-witted ladies, are attacked by the Hitler guy's goons because they were planning an excursion to Warriors Island. Their lifeboat washes ashore the island anyway, and the monks challenge the survivors to a fighting test with their zombies. Okay, how does that sound for a crazy midnight horror movie mess? It's not over yet, because "Raw Force" also has piranhas, wild boat orgies, Cameron Mitchell in yet another embarrassing lead role and 70's exploitation duchess Camille Keaton ("I spit on your Grave") in an utterly insignificant cameo appearance. There's loads of badly realized gore, including axe massacres and decapitations, hammy jokes and bad taste romance. The trash-value of this movie will literally leave you speechless. The evil monks' background remains, naturally, unexplained and they don't even become punished for their questionable hobbies. Maybe that's why the movie stops with "To Be Continued", instead of with "The End". The sequel never came, unless it's so obscure IMDb doesn't even list it. | 0 |
All the ingredients of low-brow b-movie cult cinema. Topless (and bottomless) girls, kung-fu kicking chefs, slave traders, evil Germans with mustaches, Cameron Mitchell and sword-wielding zombies.<br /><br />And, of course the breasts of Camille Keaton, who's best known display occurs in the feminist exploitation classic I Spit on Your Grave. We also must mention the hooters of jewel Shepard, who play a hooker in the recent film The Cooler.<br /><br />Lots of blood and action with knives and swords and martial arts among topless dancers in a bar, in a whorehouse, and on a boat load of martial artists heading to some zombie island where bad martial artists go to die or something like that.<br /><br />Tops and bottoms come off easily and frequently as travelers are well lubricated thanks to the boat owner.<br /><br />Then disaster strikes as their boat is destroyed and they land on the zombie island where mas monks sacrifice young girls to the dead martial artists to bring them back to life.<br /><br />Just when you thought it had everything, there are piranhas in the water. Yum Yum A big fat German for dinner.<br /><br />Just the thing for your next zombie fest. | 0 |
i was kinda interested in this movie as a trashy cannibal flick. i was thoroughly disappointed. it was the same kind of disappointment i felt watching 'friday the 13th: jason takes manhattan'. so much potential wasted!<br /><br />the opening scene is a decent attention grabber. then it grinds to a halt. copious breasts and egregious 80s fashion cannot help this movie. the only things eating near this island of cannibal monks are the piranha! i'm not asking for 'cannibal holocaust' level of gore, but i was looking for cheap over-the-top exploitative gore. i got none of that.<br /><br />i found a couple parts of the fight scenes somewhat intriguing, hence the 2 stars. i don't think its really worth the time it takes to watch it, though. i could see showing it at a party where nobody cares about what is going on and you just want something on in the background. but i would not tell anyone, "oh, dude, you GOTTA see this movie." it is neither good enough nor bad enough to warrant much attention. | 0 |
First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.<br /><br />Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.<br /><br />The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.<br /><br />Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.<br /><br />(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.) | 0 |
This movie is incomprehendably bad. It begins with several random explosions and then cuts to a sock puppet of a T-Rex that talks (!) to the audience. It goes back and forth between sock puppetry and animation throughout, probably because the film makers couldn't afford live actors. I'll spare you the long, tiresome, relentless plot that drags this pitiful film on for a brutal 85 minutes.<br /><br />One of my friends found this very rare video at a hobby shop somewhere that sells out of print b-movies, and he bought it for the sole purpose of making fun of it, but, as it turns out, our intervention was not neecessary. This film makes fun of itself better than we could.<br /><br />I thought that Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the cheesiest movie in existence, but leave it to Japanamation/Lego cars/Sock puppets to outdo him. If you see this movie anywhere, buy it without hesitation. It is very rare and worth many, many good laughs. | 0 |
Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying. | 0 |
I cringed all the way through this movie. First of all, the idiotic plot has little to do with Parson's own story. Hollywood has attempted to create a kind of comedy car chase movie. Imagine "Englebert Sings Hendrix".<br /><br />Do not take anything about this movie to be accurate. The name Parsons in the title and stealing of his body is just used as springboard for a low budget chase movie, a blatant attempt to grab a few bucks from the Parsons legacy and his fan base. Gram's father had long since been dead in 1973, the other global characters are fictional, none of this has anything to do with Grams life or death.<br /><br />If you are a Gram fan, I advise you to not see this movie. I wish I hadn't. It's saddening to see something special be treated as such disgracing fodder. I'd swear I could hear Gram turning in his grave while the movie was playing. If you are not familiar with Gram's life and legacy, do not take anything in this movie as being representative of Gram.<br /><br />I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. If Gram were alive and saw this movie, he would kill himself. Then again, maybe he'd be afraid to if he knew this movie were to result. | 0 |
I doubt this will ever even be a cult film. I loved Gram Parsons to be sure and I did not expect much out of this film and got even less. What could have been clever and moving was campy. It was devoid of the music that made Gram and had more filler than cheap dog food. There was no background on Gram or the colorful people of that era. The characters shown were not familiar to me even as a fan of Gram's and all the versions of his "afterlife adventures" I have heard. Rock and roll is full of tales, good ones too but they should taken with a grain of salt. They can be great stories even though exaggerated. However, this movie took a good story and turned into tripe. Stealing any dead body and the ensuing implications should never be a dull tale but they made it dull, somehow. I am tempted to steal every copy of Grand Theft Parsons, head out to the desert and burn them all. | 0 |
From the Q & A before and after, this is what I could gather: Some Irish guy wants to make a movie. Nothing in particular, just any movie. So, one night at a party, he hears some ex-roadie tell him a classic bit of rock n' roll lore; the one about how Gram Parsons' corpse was stolen from LAX by his loyal roadie so he could honor Parsons' wishes that he be cremated out in JoshuaTree. Wow!<br /><br />What a great idea for a movie! Rock n' Roll (well, country), grave robbing, escapes, friendship, the 70's! I guess we could get Johnny Knoxville from "Jackass", cause it's kind of a prank, right, and Knoxville wants to do "a movie" too. Why he must have thought he had the next "Snatch" on his hand!<br /><br />But this story's not really that exciting...we need something for Knoxville to struggle against.like a psychotic girlfirend after his money! But Parsons' was married at the time. That's O.K., no one knows that. Besides we could get Christina Applegate. But what if the audience doesn't like the idea of stealing a corpse.well, we'll get his dad to join the chase, but give permission in the end. But Parsons' dad killed himself when he was 10, in fact his orphan status, and tragic childhood, are key parts of the Parsons Mythology. Mythology? We're making "A Movie!" This is creative problem solving.<br /><br />It's an uncomfortable experience for anybody even vaguely knowledgeable on or interested in the subject. Applegate's presence is doubling jarring. First her invented character is a Beverly Hills bitch before her time -she might as well have walked around the whole movie a cell phone in her hand, and secondly, what kind of man would Parsons be if he ever associated himself with that kind of harpy? Facts aren't just distorted or left out, but REVERSED. They could have easily found the villain they wanted in Parsons STEPfather, who was attempting to whisk the body back to his home state where law would favor him in dividing up the considerable inheritance.<br /><br />And the music, oh, the music I love. The music is hacked up (the bridge of a song here, the chorus there), forced to the background, and in the end, horribly covered by the hippest new indie band, Starsailor. My girlfriend asked the unnecessary, but irresistable question after the movie --was anyone up there, the writer, the producers, the director, actually a Gram Parson's fan? Well, no. He'd never actually heard of Gram Parsons, but of course, blah blah blah, I learned to love it, and here's some factoids I read in a bio online. Another guy vouched for Parsons' coolness by saying he and Keith Richards tripped on acid together and wrote "Wild Horses" together, a mixed up bunch of facts as off-base as the movie. Another person asked, wasn't it morally questionable to rewrite history when most people would only know about it from this film? Well, he had the real roadie's permission (he was even set) and the Parsons estate gave permission, and all these other people who got paychecks said it was great.<br /><br />But what I really wondered was, and asked in the embarassingly trembling voice of a truly impassioned Parsons geek, was, if the movie's so cheaply made (a million), had they not considered the original Gram Parsons fanbase as an audience? The director and writer seemed to think he was a nothing figure with no fanbase, though I doubt any Mojo magazine reading, country-rock 70's music fan would agree. But a bunch of Brits made it I guess, and they just didn't care about Cosmic American Music, or even knew it existed. This isn't just not a truthful Parsons flick, it's not even in the right spirit -it doesn't even fit the legend. At the very least it should have had the sentimentality of one of his songs. And plenty of people would love to be told.<br /><br />I should mention the movie was received well from the bunch of stoned college kids, just off the slopes, and into Johnny Knoxville. But if you're a Parsons fan ignore the title, it's just a movie for Jackass fans. | 0 |
If you're a fan of the late Gram Parsons then this movie is definitely going to divide you! Part comedy, part road movie, but mostly a bad fictionalization of one of rock history's oddest tales.<br /><br />SPOILERS-- <br /><br />Basically the story concerns a well-known roadie named Phil Kaufman (played by Johnny Knoxville) who "supposedly" made a pact with cult rock/country/folk music hero Gram Parsons that stated when one of them died first (it didn't matter which one it was) that the other living one was to take the deceased out to the desert, Joshua Tree National Park in California to be exact, and set the body ablaze...so as to free the spirit and become one with the earth, and so on! Sure to keep his word the barely sober Kaufman, with the assistance of a self-hating, pot-headed buddy, jacks the body of the late Parsons -whom had fatally overdosed from a drug and booze bender a day prior- from the airport. And shortly after that what ensues is a cringe-worthy combination of fiction and truth where the late Parsons girlfriend, Kaufman's girlfriend, Parsons stone-faced father, and a gaggle of police officers and other pointless idiotic characters all try to beat the clock (so to speak) in trying to catch Kaufman and his pal before they get the chance to torch Parsons body! <br /><br />The film's incompetent direction, bad acting, and lame offbeat tone in general all sink this movie faster than the Titanic. And not to mention the huge fact that this movie is not even halfway telling the truth of the actual events that took place. The accuracies that should have replaced the inaccuracies, as far as I've heard them, include: number 1., Parsons was married at the time of his death and even had a child, so what the hell was that all about with the girlfriend's and the chasing and whatnot?, number 2., Kaufman's drugged-out buddy was a known willing participant (unlike what the movie attempts to portray) in the disposing of Parson's body, and finally number 3., Gram Parsons real-life father died when he was just a boy, and so it was Parson's step-father (who could have honestly cared less about Gram Parsons when he was still alive) in real-life that took care of the body after it was torched! Altogether though, what probably disturbs me the most about this movie is that the real Phil Kaufman was actually on set to help assist with the facts of the story. And yet still, the movie ended up becoming so untrue and so bad that it really boggles my mind, frankly! <br /><br />Also as the mediocre aforementioned acting in the film is concerned it's lead character, played by the ultra-grating Johnny Knoxville (Phil Kaufman), is not only a bad actor but it actually seems as if he were asleep throughout most of the movie, and the rest of the pathetic cast are for the most part either hysterical, brain-dead, or seem utterly clueless as to what they're actually doing there in the first place! Overall, if you like Johnny Knoxville and or really dig the so-bad-they're-not-even-good buddy flicks then I suppose you just might get a kick out of this movie! But, if you're like me and are a fan of the late Gram Parsons, enjoy films that attempt to tell the truth as much as they can especially if they're based on an actual real-life story, and or you just like good films, be-them road movies, or fictional slice-of-life stuff, you will truly loathe this film and advise others to do likewise. I obviously hated this movie and wished it had never been made in the first place, but since it was made I would have preferred it to have turned out differently than what it did, unfortunately! Maybe some day the real facts of the story will come through and be made into a really great biopic on all of Gram Parsons life...not just what happened to his body after his spirit left it. But, until that time comes all we as an audience, and or fans of the late performer get is this sad waste of film and an all-around terrible memorial (of sorts) to the musical legacy that Gram Parsons was known to have left behind. It should also be noted that they did actually use Parsons music, and a few others as well in the flick, but not surprisingly though, you never get to hear enough of it to really enjoy it even in the slightest bit. (Turkey-Zero Stars) | 0 |
I'm not sure if users ought to be allowed to review films after only sitting through half, but I'm afraid I just couldn't stand another minute.<br /><br />If this abject excuse for a film doesn't have the late, great GP spinning like a wheel in his grave, then I doubt anything will.<br /><br />The excellent review above 'Not a film for Parsons fans' sums up most of my feelings. How dare a (second rate) director and writer attempt something to which they're so clearly incapable of delivering. What were they thinking? Where to start?<br /><br />THE SCRIPT: I thought I'd be getting a slice of bittersweet Americana. What I got was poorly executed slapstick with no cliché left unturned. Stupid hippy? Check. Stupid fat cop? Check. Awful plot contrivances? Check. Embarrassingly written female characters? Double check. Total disregard for the story which you're trying to portray? Check.<br /><br />After a while, you realize that what you're watching is a soap and not a very well written one at that. Scene with Knoxville. Scene with Ex girlfriend. Scene with Knoxville which hasn't moved on much. Scene with Ex girlfriend which was a bit like the last one. And so on...<br /><br />THE DIRECTION: My friends and I decided, after some consideration, that watching this was like watching a bad episode of Quincy, or maybe a particularly poor Dukes of Hazzard. That's how bad the direction was. Terrible jump cuts, awful camera work, clunky ins and outs to scenes. God, it was cringeworthy. And then I discovered the director was an Irishman who's most noteworthy recent work is a really lousy BBC Sunday night drama called Monarch of the Glen (trust me, it's lowest common denominator TV). And then it all made sense...<br /><br />THE ACTING: Are we now so critical that when some random guy from the TV decides to give acting a go, if he's not so bad, he stinks, we applaud his efforts? Knoxville JUST ABOUT manages to get through every scene. Poor Christina A. has no such luck. Her performance is a car crash (though what you do with those lines, I don't know). The 'hippy' in the hearse: oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Have we not moved on since Cheech and Chong?<br /><br />I could go on, but I think you get my drift. What I would say is that, as other reviews have mentioned, no one on this film clearly gives a flying damn for The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers or Gram's solo work. They knew nothing about the American road movie and they certainly give a damn about trying to do anything with an admittedly decent story from rock mythology. This film was shallow, failed to explore anything and was jaw droppingly unfunny from beginning to...oh wait, I didn't quite make the end. And I suggest you stay away too. | 0 |
First of all, this movie isn't a complete disaster. If you had never heard of the real story of Gram Parsons then it might seem a reasonably entertaining diversion. Johnny Knoxville can't really be criticised for his performance as Phil Kaufman - he's pretty good at looking laid-back and down to earth and you can sort of root for his long-suffering everyman. Michael Shannon is due credit for pretty much the same reasons, except he's a hippy stoner. There are some good individual comedic scenes - the hippy-hearse crashing into the airport hanger door stands out. But that's where the good things end, and we begin to see the aspects that make this movie so truly disappointing. The character of Robert Forster as Gram's actual father is an invention so disgraceful as to cast a taint over the entire film. We all know his real father committed suicide when he was young - something that could surely be compared to Gram's life on the edge by a better film-maker. Having Forster as his supposed real father, and not his step-father would be bad enough, if not for the well known difficulties Gram had with the man who actually flew to collect his body. It has been suggested that his step father had admitted to providing Gram's mother with alcohol as she lay dying and that this enraged Gram when he later found out about it. Also the controversy over where Gram's body was buried would surely be reason enough not to invent a benevolent made-up father who actually catches up to the duo and their hearse, but then allows them to go ahead with the burning. Whatever the truth about the man who Gram got the name Parsons from, he certainly bore no resemblance to Forster's character here, and it is hard to see why this role was written. Then there's the addition of Christina Applegate as a greedy chick (yet very pretty of course) who wants Gram's body back so that she can begin to cash in on his estate. Her character, and her acting are non-existent and one wonders why the director didn't just go the whole hog and include a lesbo scene between her and the chick who plays Kaufman's girlfriend(it wouldn't have lowered the tone a whole lot more). When you think of the ingredients that could have been used in a good movie about Parsons, the shortcomings of this film are easily apparent. Country music being changed by a young, polite, southern gentleman - who was also long haired, drug loving, popular with the ladies and ultimately self destructive. Real events like the hanger door crash and the painted hearse and friends like Keith Richards. Instead of these things we have to concentrate wholly on Kaufman's input into Gram's life. Kaufman is obviously still lapping up the cult status he received for what he did (he certainly is a little cult). From interviews it is obvious that he's delighted with the attention. Remember this is the man who made a remark about the genitalia of the naked corpse of Gram Parsons as he was preparing to set it alight. What he did was not an act of great loyalty, but a doped up alcoholic escapade. Looking at Knoxville and the director in interviews, a few things become clear also. It's obvious that they have no real grasp of the story of Gram's life, nor do they wish to have. They want a hit movie about an event that is infamous and crazy. It was an amazing life with a strange end. That the end is the only thing covered by this movie shows how limited an understanding of Gram Parsons the makers had. | 0 |
This movie was a real disappointment to me. I have been a fan of Gram Parsons for a long time, and when i found out they were making a film about him i was very exited, I got the movie on VHS when it came out, and was sickened by what i saw, This film wasn't about his life, it was about the aftermath of his death. I thought it would be a descent film about Grams Life and Music, but they had to make a film about his death. I am tired of hearing about his deaths in books and movies, i wanted a film about his life, not his infamous death. I was very Disappointed. I wish people would look at his life, more then his death. The only thing good about this film was its soundtrack. This film is a disappointment to any Gram Parsons Fan. | 0 |
When THE MAGIC OF LASSIE opened at Radio City Music Hall, I was foolish enough to believe it would be as heart-warming as some of the first Lassie films were. Not.<br /><br />The story was abysmal, the songs by the Sherman brothers were way below their usual level, the characters were uninspired and JAMES STEWART and MICKEY ROONEY had both seen much better days.<br /><br />Then too, I was interested in seeing what ALICE FAYE's contribution would be like, since she'd been absent from the screen for so many years and was always so fetching in her earlier roles at Fox. Alice too, was letdown by the foolish script and the unflattering photography. Another disappointment.<br /><br />Nothing original here, nothing even remotely interesting for an adult to enjoy--and clearly, no magic present for anyone. You can skip this one without missing a thing. | 0 |
My thoughts on the movie, 9<br /><br />It was not good, not good at all. Visually, it was great. I was pleased with the pacing, the camera angles, etc. However, the characters? eh, kinda bland. Plot? It sucked.<br /><br />This movie seemed more new age crap than anything else. Organized religion is presented as cowardly and fearful. Science isn't portrayed any better. It creates a monster weapon that kills everything... but "souls" have the power to destroy monsters and bring life? Really?<br /><br />That's something that bites my ass a bit too. Here we have a CGI movie... created with science... and they're using it to give us the message that science will destroy the world while promoting the idea that spirituality will save us? At least they had the decency to have one of the characters ask,<br /><br />"Okay, so now what?" (or something similar). I couldn't hear it too well because of the crowd immediately getting up and making a break for the exit. It was a "okay... it was just barely entertaining enough to sit here for the entire movie but now let's get out of here as fast as possible!" type of exit.<br /><br />This is one of those movies where you can't think if you want to enjoy it. Just look at the visuals and nod your head prettily. Any thought as to, "what's the point of that?" will suck you out of disbelief and make you eye the exit sign with longing.<br /><br />Okay... SPOILERS follow.<br /><br />So, basically, a scientist creates "the Machine" that is capable of creating other, intelligent, robotic life. Evil humans use it as a weapon. However, the scientist realizes that he is also at fault. He gave the Machine his intellect, but didn't give it his heart. <br /><br />The Machine goes Skynet on humanity's collective ass and wipes out all life on earth, finally slowly powering down. However, the scientist manages to survive and create walking sock-puppets. Each one, containing a piece of the scientist's soul.<br /><br />The last one, #9 wakes up not knowing anything about the world. He sees a strange device nearby and picks it up. He meets up with another like himself, #2. <br /><br />Well, #2 gets captured by a last surviving robot of the Machine. #9 finds more like himself ands sets off to rescue #2. <br /><br />They succeed.<br /><br />#9 notices that there is a matching hole that fits the device perfectly. He inserts it and the Machine comes back to life... pulling out #2's soul in the process.<br /><br />The movie then continues with action scenes with #9 trying to rescue his soul-yanked compatriots. <br /><br />They eventually succeed and destroy the Machine. They release the souls of their fallen friends, who go up into the clouds. It then rains and we see life returning back to the planet.<br /><br />Hunh?!?<br /><br />That makes no sense. None at all. Why the heck did the scientist want to split his soul into 9 homunculi? What did it accomplish? Were they created to stop the machine? Everything is dead! The machine was dead! Why bother?!?<br /><br />Why did he expect nine little critters to succeed when nothing else had? Why not create a second intellectual machine, but with a "soul" to fight the first.. at least that would have seemed like it would have had a reasonable chance at success.<br /><br />Why did they have to have their souls sucked into the device by the Machine and then destroy the Machine and then release the souls in order to bring life back to earth? Why not just wait for the machine to power down and bring life back without all the rest of the insane steps? | 0 |
I seriously can't believe Tim Burton and Timur Bekmambetov, two people I LOVE, signed on to produce this crap. Tim Burton is a brilliant director, but to be honest I've been losing interest in him for a while since his last few movies were either remakes or adaptations. He did produce the brilliant "Nightmare Before Christmas", which is one I've watched multiple times, and directed movies like "Beetlejuice" and "Sleepy Hollow", which are awesome films. Bekmambetov directed 3 films that I LOVE: Night Watch, Day Watch, and Wanted. I've only seen those three of his, but they prove he's an awesome director.<br /><br />Those two people producing one of the many reasons I was excited to see 9. So today I went to go see it at the theatre. I was so excited to finally have seen it. I had waited 7 months for the movie to come out.<br /><br />This movie is the first time I've walked out of a Tim Burton-related movie and said "I enjoyed almost NONE of that". I felt heartbroken to even have felt that way. I mean, with him and Bekmambetov at the production helm you'd have expected this movie to be a good watch. Right now I still can't get over how let down I was by this movie. I hadn't even heard of the original short film before seeing it but now, I can successfully say that this movie should have remained a short movie. Hell, Neil Blomkamp made an AWESOME full length remake of Alive in Joburg entitled District 9, what was so hard to get right about 9??? I really wanted to think this movie was awesome. I really did. But no, it failed on so many levels.<br /><br />The plot was extremely confusing and disjointed. I had no idea what was going on, let alone what it was about. Basically it's about a bunch of rag doll robots trying to save the earth. Well, OK, that's what I got from it. But the writing here is extremely poor. The whole film jumps around like a 6 year old with A.D.D. telling a story. There's this big, giant clanky monster robot that 9 awakens, causing destruction and stuff. That's the main villain. However, what else is wrong with this movie is that EVERYTHING COMES OUT OF NOWHERE. There were too many monster robots, most of which have no logical explanation behind them. They have 0 development whatsoever. I mean, that flying pterodactyl like monster just rips out of nowhere, we have no idea where it comes out of and Acker just expects us to know what it is. What was even more retarded was that snake-like creature with the strobing eyes that hypnotize. I dare you to give that description to someone else out loud and expect them not to laugh. All of the 3 people I told about it burst out laughing. Oh and it wraps victims up and sews them inside it. I'M. NOT. KIDDING.<br /><br />The twist in Act III is the most retarded aspect of the whole movie. So basically 9 goes back to the room he woke up in, finds this box with a hologram from the scientist in it for 9, and he tells him that the big scary machine robot was designed to bring robot life to earth, but then evil humans use it for war, and it was supposed to help protect the earth, but then the scientist gave his life to 9 so that it could help protect the world with it. And HE ONLY MENTIONS GIVING HIS LIFE TO 9. But what about the other robots? WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES TO THEM???????? This is the perfect example of poor, rushed writing. There's only one of the life taking device thingy that exists so how did the other 8 get life given to them??????? The characters are not likable at all either. They risk their lives for no reason at all. The only good character is 7. 6 annoyed me with his "GO BACK TO THE SOURCE!!!!!!" ramblings, 1 is an overpowering idiot, 2 we don't know ANYTHING about, 5 kept annoying me with his "Are you sure..." or "Can I stay here instead...?" questions. And that ending? UGH. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the ending was a huge WTF moment.<br /><br />There's nothing redeeming about this turd except for its beautiful animation. Everything looks realistic and beautiful, I love the gloomy and depressing look of everything. However, beauty can't save a good movie.<br /><br />While it's true that this movie is very pretty looking, pretty is as pretty does, and 9 does squat. I'm sure Burton fans will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie without a doubt, in fact with his and Bekmambetov's names being thrown around the promos, people will be flocking to the theatre to see this movie. I know I may be making a big deal out of nothing, but watching this movie made me realize how much I hate movies with unlikeable characters, nonexistent plot and just pure style over content. And this movie is one of those movies. | 0 |
9, the film I've been looking forward to for months.... was little more then a disappointment.<br /><br />I was deeply surprised by 9's lack of story and strange character development. All the awesome action sequences in the world don't make up for a single unsympathetic character. <br /><br />The strange, almost thrown in occult sequences were not only out of place, they were infuriating. The story is about robots and scientists... why does it suddenly turn into a necronomicon horror wannabe with mystical symbols and green magic ghost lines instead of giving answers to what could have been excellently scary story devices??<br /><br />How, what, when, why.... questions that bode asking only if you care and it becomes less and less likely that you will as you get away from the theater. <br /><br />A film like this is frustrating because of its lack of depth.... I would watch this film drawn in crayon if the story was good. But the filmmakers have relied on CGI wizardry and Tim Burtons name to draw in the crowd. Which... is what drew me in but failed to gain my respect.<br /><br />9 could have been awesome... with a few more rewrites and a little more respect from its own creators. | 0 |
This really was a waste of time...the movie has a weak plot, the story is fragmented and ends very abruptly with many loopholes....though the animation is top notch. <br /><br />Once the movie started, I tried to give it the benefit of the doubt by telling myself that it might get interesting in the later stage, but it was never unique. This same plot has been played over and over again, but what made it worse was that the major plot hole was the whole story on how to kill the baddies...The writer could have done so much more with the entire concept, but seemed that he or she did not have their heart in it and wanted to close the movie as soon as it started.<br /><br />Overall, too much hype but not able to deliver. | 0 |
What?!?? Why are people saying this is "mind blowing?" Just face it the ending is on of the worst endings in the history of cinematography! 4 left and the whole world has ended! Not to mention the character 9 was a idiot the whole time he got everyone killed. 1 was right the whole time, if he sacrificed 9 then non of this would have happened. People giving there lives for a stupid cause and for what?... to make it rain? I admit the movie had it's parts, and the whole concept was fascinating. But a lot of it was clichés one after another. And did anybody else get this feeling that this is a lot like "Lord of The Rings?" Characters died for stupid reasons, there was almost no character development, and honestly ask yourself is it good to have only four guys left in the world; its pointless and stupid. It was one of the shortest movies I've ever seen, and thank god! How is robots turning against humans creative in any way! It's been done like a hundred times! This movie is really stupid, go see a movie that's worth watching like Star Trek, The Hangover, or Inglorious Basterds, those were good movies! | 0 |
This movie made it into one of my top 10 most awful movies. Horrible. <br /><br />There wasn't a continuous minute where there wasn't a fight with one monster or another. There was no chance for any character development, they were too busy running from one sword fight to another. I had no emotional attachment (except to the big bad machine that wanted to destroy them) <br /><br />Scenes were blatantly stolen from other movies, LOTR, Star Wars and Matrix. <br /><br />Examples<br /><br />>The ghost scene at the end was stolen from the final scene of the old Star Wars with Yoda, Obee One and Vader. <br /><br />>The spider machine in the beginning was exactly like Frodo being attacked by the spider in Return of the Kings. (Elijah Wood is the victim in both films) and wait......it hypnotizes (stings) its victim and wraps them up.....uh hello????<br /><br />>And the whole machine vs. humans theme WAS the Matrix..or Terminator.....<br /><br />There are more examples but why waste the time? And will someone tell me what was with the Nazi's?!?! Nazi's???? <br /><br />There was a juvenile story line rushed to a juvenile conclusion. The movie could not decide if it was a children's movie or an adult movie and wasn't much of either. <br /><br />Just awful. A real disappointment to say the least. Save your money. | 0 |
It used to be my thinking that movies required plots, or some other means of making you care at all about the story line or anything that is going on. This movie has showed me that you don't actually have to have anything like that.<br /><br />I could sum it up simply as that. But, IMDb wants me to have more lines. It was kind of pretty. not compelling in the slightest. The way the characters talk in the movie makes you think it should have taken place over a matter of days, but there is no passage of time and i'm pretty sure it all happens in an hour.<br /><br />If you are looking to entertain yourself, then buy a gallon of milk and see how fast you can drink it before throwing up. It would be a far better use of your time. Time that you will never get back. Jurassic Park 3 was pulled off better than this movie. | 0 |
I'm not sure what dragged me into the cinema to watch this movie, but few minutes after it started, I wanted to leave the theater. For a while I hoped at least the story will surprise me, but then realized it's a waste of time, there was just nothing there. I stayed only because I had another show after it.<br /><br />Design: some designs where quite beautiful, mostly of the environment, but the characters were terrible both in terms of animation and design. They look great while still - on posters and screenshots, but not when they have to come to life! They just didn't work, mostly because the very same mistake most 3D companies make: technically it is very hard to create really natural materials in 3D, that would make you feel that the character is alive. You need a lot of effort and knowledge (hence money) to create something that really feels like hair, skin, fabric, etc. Those characters in the movie were made out of "cloth", and that just didn't work! So they had this ugly cold feeling of the computer artificiality, where the cloth stretches or squeezes like a piece of plastic. It just didn't have the feel of a material, that dolls are made of (that's what those characters meant to be). I think it was a big mistake choosing this style for the characters. It just had a feeling of a 3D shoot'n'run computer game. I don't want to go to cinema to have a computer game on my screen, don't know about you...<br /><br />Animation was also a disgrace. I am a professional animator and was terribly disappointed at the low level of animation in "9". It was stiff, boring, almost lacked any imagination or mood. It was just a little bit above most average 3D animations I saw, and that doesn't add to it any good...<br /><br />And all that - the bad character design and bad animation could be solved with a good story, right?! That was not the case here. Actually the story was the worst thing in that movie. It was below any level. It starts straight forward, it goes straight forward and it ends the same. There is no twist, no surprise, no good dialogs, even no development. We've heard and saw stories of machines overtaking the humankind thousands of times and "9" is just one of them, and we know how it ends at the very first minute of that movie. The characters don't even have time to get into the story - they are just there, showing themselves almost immediately, and immediately some of them take action without even getting to know what's going on. It just didn't work. There are also many repetitive action sequences, that looked as if they were made to fill in the time for the lack of a story...<br /><br />Acting, sound and script - oh my gosh, what can I tell, it was pathetic. Bad story has a bad script, and except dialogs like "No, don't do it!" "I will do it!" "But... you cannot do it alone!" "We can do it together!" "But there are rules!" "But we have to save him!" etc etc and so on, and repeating itself all the time, so besides those terribly pathetic dialogs, there were those non stop "Ahh" and "Ohhh" and"Ehh", and "Oooh", and "Whatchout", and "Run!" and "OhOhh!" that were following almost every jump, run, or fall of the characters and it even sounded as if they were out of sync or even unrehearsed.<br /><br />Conclusion: bad acting, bad animation, bad sound, bad story, bad script, bad characters, everything expected, no surprises, no twist, nothing. Only some good designs are not worth the time. BIG NO! | 0 |
This is the worst movie I have seen since "I Know Who Killed Me" with Lindsey Lohan. <br /><br />After watching this movie I can assure you that nothing but frustration and disappointment await you should you choose to go see this. Hey, Tim Burton, I used to be a big fan of yours... did you even screen this movie? I mean seriously, what the f%#k?<br /><br />Without giving anything away, here is the story in a vague nutshell... Nine wakes up, he does stuff, his actions and decisions are irrelevant... and the movie ends. Oh wait... here comes a spoiler...<br /><br />Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! At the end of the movie.... it rains. I think a part of my soul died while watching this movie. | 0 |
I am always wary of taking too instant a dislike to a film. Look at it a month later and you might see it differently, or dig it up after 50 years in a different continent and some cult followers find something stylistically remarkable that went unnoticed at first. After sitting through The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael at its UK premiere, it came as no surprise to me that I found the question and answer session afterwards more interesting than the film itself. Shane Danielsen (Artistic Director of the Edinburgh International Film Festival), aided by the film's director and producer, gave a spirited defence of a movie than received an overall negative response from the audience. Edinburgh Festival audiences are not easily shocked. Only one person walked out in disgust. The criticisms of the film included very articulate and constructive ones from the lay public as well as an actor and a woman who teaches M.A. film directors. This was not an overly 'shocking' film. There was a degree of uninterrupted sexual violence, but far less extreme than many movies (most actual weapon contact was obscured, as were aroused genitals). The audience disliked it because they had sat through two hours that were quite boring, where the acting standards were not high, where the plot was poor, predictable and drawn out, and where they had been subjected to clumsy and pretentious film-making on the promise of a controversial movie. Metaphors to the war in Iraq are contrived, over-emphasised and sloppy (apart from a general allusion to violence, any deeper meaning is unclear); and the 'fig-leaf' reference Marquis de Sade, as one audience member put it, seems a mere tokenistic excuse for lack of plot development towards the finale.<br /><br />We have the story of an adolescent who has a certain amount going for him (he stands out at school for his musical ability) but takes drugs and hangs out with youths who have little or nothing going for them and whose criminal activities extend to rape and violence. When pushed, Robert seems to have a lot of violence locked inside him.<br /><br />The film is not entirely without merit. The audience is left to decide how Robert got that way: was it the influence of his peers? Why did all the good influences and concern from parents and teachers not manage to include him in a better approach to life? Cinematically, there is a carefully-montaged scene where he hangs back (whether through too much drugs, shyness, a latent sense of morality or just waiting his turn?). Several of his friends are raping a woman in a back room, partly glimpsed and framed in the centre of the screen. In the foreground of the bare bones flat, a DJ is more concerned that the girl's screams interrupt his happy house music than with any thought for the woman. Ultimately he is a bit annoyed if their activities attract police attention. The stark juxtaposition of serious headphones enjoyment of his music even when he knows a rape is going on points up his utter disdain in a deeply unsettling way. Robert slumps with his back to us in the foreground.<br /><br />But the rest of the film, including its supposedly controversial climax involving considerable (if not overly realistic) sexual violence, is not up to this standard. Some people have had a strong reaction to it (the filmmakers' stated intention: "If they vomit, we have succeeded in producing a reaction") but mostly - and as far as I can tell the Edinburgh reaction seems to mirror reports from Cannes - they feel, "Why have programmers subjected us to such inferior quality film-making?" Director Clay Hugh can talk the talk but has not developed artistic vision. His replies about holding up a mirror to life to tell the truth about things that are swept under the carpet, even his defence that there is little plot development because he didn't want to do a standard Hollywood movie - all are good answers to criticisms, but unfortunately they do not apply to his film, any more than they do to holding up a mirror while someone defecates, or wastes film while playing ineptly with symbols. Wanting to try and give him the benefit of any lingering doubt, I spoke to him for a few minutes after the screening, but I found him as distasteful as his movie and soon moved to the bar to wash my mouth out with something more substantial. There are many truths. One aspect of art is to educate, another to entertain, another to inspire. I had asked him if he had any social or political agenda and he mentions Ken Loach (one of the many great names he takes in vain) without going so far as to admit any agenda himself. He then falls back on his mantra about his job being to tell the truth. I am left with the feeling that this was an overambitious project for a new director, or else a disingenuous attempt to put himself on the map by courting publicity for second rate work<br /><br />Andy Warhol could paint a tin of soup and it was art. Clay Hugh would like to emulate the great directors that have made controversial cinema and pushed boundaries. Sadly, his ability at the moment only extends to making high-sounding excuses for a publicity-seeking film. | 0 |
There is just one word for this film. Appalling. The director clearly has talent but like his character Robert Carmichael he throws it all away.<br /><br />Carmichael has potential, but like Cray he can't be bothered to use it. Being drawn into petty crime and then descending into depravity is Cray's vision of British youth. Like the British tabloids this film portrays young people with no aspirations or respect. Cray cries out for attention, but deserves none.<br /><br />I was appalled by the act of violence that Cray chose to shove in the faces of the audience. He assumes the audience are ignorant of world atrocities. Like a piece of obscene graffiti on a toilet wall he shows us male depravity with adolescent glee.<br /><br />Some actors of quality have small parts in this film. Danny Dyer and Leslie Manville both make short appearances. The acting is otherwise amateur, the young men Joe and Ben are cringe making. Carmichael played by Daniel Spencer is creepy. Miranda Wilson plays Monica, the attractive wife of celeb chef Jonathon (Michael Howe); how she was able to subject herself to such an ordeal is beyond belief. The film is never subtle and Monica is treated to the most gratuitous violence which is cut with war action. War imagery is used to convey the idea that young men cannot help themselves, that acts of violence will occur within even "civilised" countries. This is most certainly true and is symptomatic of our altered society where males have an increasingly less important position, but Cray descends to the level of the barbaric males he seeks to expose through his use of such brutal and violent images. The female characters in the film offer no relief. They are either victims or in Manville's case a washed out mother. The community is represented as dysfunctional.<br /><br />This is Cray's first film. I listened to what he had to say during a Q and A session at Edinburugh and he is not unintelligent, he simply lacks experience and his film exposes his naivety. The film is due to be released later this year, but I hope the company goes bust cos the public really don't need this kind of messed up material. | 0 |
This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).<br /><br />The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.<br /><br />To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead. | 0 |
Thomas Clay has been mixing with the wrong types. That's the trouble with young people these days, they have no respect.<br /><br />Seriously this film should be avoided at all costs. The action in the main body of the film is slow and rather stodgy and ambles to the drug crazed ending as if, like it's director, it has no where better to go. We are introduced to the main title character who is a bit of an outsider, we see him at school and at home not quite fitting in, feeling awkward in himself as so many adolescents do. Robert falls in with bad lads and starts missing school and taking drugs and before you know it he is a psycho rapist.<br /><br />The film is really about Clay's total failure to understand the links between violence imagery and violent acts. Clay seems to think a generation of crazed youth are made evil by scenes of war on our TVs. yet he has filmed the most disgusting piece of SIMULATED violence. Is this guy for real?<br /><br />If Clay has not seen YouTube perhaps he is naive and unaware of will be done with the brutal climax scene from his film? All anyone will want to see is the most hideous scene from the end of the film and I am sure that will be what sticks with people. <br /><br />The rest of the film is pointless for in committing such an act of violence to film Clay not only damns young people who are actively engaged in preventing war, he also damns himself as perpetrator of extreme, tasteless violence for no better reason than his own personal celebrity status.<br /><br />Shame on all involved. | 0 |
So they hyped the violence and it's been branded as sick. Well, the violence is the best bit I'm afraid, but unfortunately the characters are not developed enough to allow us to understand why they go on their (entirely predictable) rampage. This film has a truly dreadful script. We never get a chance to get to know Robert and his actions at the end are just plain pathetic. The acting isn't much better, either, the worst of them being the TV chef and the school teacher. The direction is clumsy, the pace enough to send you to sleep. And what on earth is the school film project all about? A comment on the film itself perhaps? The use of newsreel during the climactic murder is laughable. These guys obviously think they're intellectuals but are hopelessly out of their depth. How on earth they got the great Yorgos Arvanitis to light it I'll never know. And how they got the money to make it in the first place is an even greater mystery. Absolutely awful beyond comprehension. | 0 |
Violence whether real or not always has an impact. In this film the violence is about as crass as you could ask for. In the Great Ecstacy the director has successfully demonstrated what extremes of violence people are capable of. But what was the point? The violence looks like a mix of Noë's 'Irreversible, and ' Kubrick's 'Clockwork Orange'...both of which are remarkable films. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to screen violence at all and I've seen some nasty stuff in my film-going years, but this film as a whole is totally juvenile. The story is never developed enough to offer any reason for the extreme violence, the rizla paper thin reason we are give for Robert's demise is his introduction to drugs. Danny Dyer plays the character who is partly responsible for Robert's drug fuelled demise, however he is on screen for less than 5 minutes. Lesley Manville is Robert's unable to cope mum, I am not sure what either of these actors is doing in a film of this low caliber. The acting is wooden, the scene in the kitchen with the TV-cook and his wife for instance is as painful to watch if not more so than the shocking finale- who wrote those dialogues?! Some of the comments the boys make...'looks like she's enjoying it' are so trite as to tempt one to laugh if it were not for Clay's ardent desire to bombard us with harrowing images of mutilated female genitals. Why we need to be shown such detail possibly down to the director's adolescent obsession with sadistic pornographic imagery...one can only wonder at this young man's psychology.<br /><br />The 'political meaning' of the film was repeatedly brought to our attention due to the amount of scenes; in the bar, outside the TV-cook's house, war in Iraq reports, was perhaps too obvious in my opinion. Yes, war is violent, social determinism causes frustration, we're all prone to horrifingly violent acts whether you're in politics or on the street popping E. Juxtaposing all these things as part of the same underlying issue is evading the actual issue which is the meaning of violence in man. This issue is one that we still haven't managed to grasp and certainly not in this film.<br /><br />My opinion: derivative, badly-made and pointless. | 0 |
I saw this at the Edinburgh Film Festival. It was awful! Every clichéd, violent, rich boy fantasy was on display, you just knew how it was going to end especially with all the shots of the chef's wife and the rape of the first girl.<br /><br />The worst part was the Q&A with the director/writer and writer/producer they tried to come across as intellectuals but you could tell they're the types that get off on violence. I bet anything they frequent brothels and do drugs.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. I had to keep my boyfriend from walking out of it. | 0 |
I did watch all of the film through to the disgraceful ending even though I felt so angry at what I saw. I felt that the director was screaming for attention and the only way he could achieve this was to be as repulsive as possible. Since I have lived in the UK I have come to love this country but this film depicts British young people in the worst way imaginable. There is nothing to be said but avoid it, it will make you angry and sick. The people involved should be ashamed. | 0 |
I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it. | 0 |
This is the most disturbing film I have ever seen. It makes "Requiem for a Dream" look like a Disney film. Although, technically, it is reasonably well made, acting, cinematography, music, directing, etc., are good. However, the concluding gang rape scene is the most appalling and violent thing I have ever seen and I really wish I had not seen it. I am afraid that it will haunt me for the rest of my life. Although I think anyone would find the film extremely disturbing, my wife and some of her friends were victimized in a very similar manner and I really didn't need an explicit reminder of the horror that they experienced. I saw the film at the SXSW film festival in Austin, TX and none of the cast or crew were in attendance. I would have liked for them to have had the opportunity to defend the violence in their film, which I felt was excessive, gratuitous and unnecessary. An earlier scene successfully conveyed the mood they were apparently striving for, but without rubbing your face in the extreme and explicit sexual violence. This film should have a big WARNING label on it. For these reasons I would not recommend anyone seeing it. You've been warned. | 0 |
First a technical review. The script is so slow, it is really a 25 minute story blown up to 1 hour 40 min. The dialogue is so flat and truly one-dimensional. The "acting" is pathetic, they seem to really have lifted schoolchildren out of class to read a few lines from an idiot board. As for the whole "point" of the story, namely "war is bad" (oh, there's a shock!) is really non-existent. Without out the "lets shock 'em and get great publicity" scene nobody would be talking about this film. It is so bad it actually bothers me to think what better things the money used this could have gone on. Believe me I've seen some bad "emperor's new clothes" films but the one thing I can say for them is at least they were well shot and well made while the camera wobbled during two scenes in this! Read all the other reviews - avoid at all costs and don't talk about it. | 0 |
This cowardly and offensive film had me intrigued to begin with. The characters are the familiar dispossessed young males frequently to be seen hanging around bored in a sea side town. Robert is an outsider but he has his music which could have been his soul. Instead Clay makes Robert into a freak who embarks on a journey into cannabis and ecstasy and getting in with the wrong crowd. Clay seems to believe in "reefer madness" and Robert ends the film as a homicidal rapist. One wonders how much experience of real life this young director has. No one can save poor Robert. Clay leaves us with the message that young British men are out of control. A very unsubtle link is made to the Iraqi insurgents; during the needlessly graphic rape we are subjected to explosions and images of war. The film shows male peer group extremism pushed to it's limits. The young bombers in London draw a parallel with Clay's hateful depiction of modern male. Clay implies that men simply cannot help themselves from inflicting terrible acts of violence. It is a wonder the British film industry allows money to be invested in films which advocate such divisive propaganda, when in London we are still reeling from the recent attacks. This is Clay's first film, I would be delighted if it is his last. | 0 |
At the end of the film I just asked myself :"is it the worse movie I have ever seen or is it the worse movie I have ever seen ?". And the answer is... Actually, after having seen this movie and thought a bit about the meaning of it, you just can't find any meaning and you can only remember the two rape scenes, which are unbelievably brutal and useless. It seems to me as if the director tried to push this question into the crowd's head : "what are such crimes compared to horror of war and extermination ?" because i noticed that the two awful scenes where directly connected to war and it's horrors (during the first scene you can here the girl that is being raped screaming and in the same time you hear one of president Bush's speeches about the necessity of starting a war with Iraq and in the second scene, the pictures of the three criminals sticking a sword in a woman's vagina, are directly followed by archive pictures of World war II. But as a matter of facts, i really could not think about the relative gravity of theses two different kinds of human horror's expression, being done i was too shocked by what i had just seen and felt. (sorry for bad English) | 0 |
I saw this movie on the film festival of Rotterdam (jan '06) and followed the discussion between director and public afterwards. Many people reacted shocked and protesting. He will get a lot of negative critics. But: the world is cruel like this, and it's not funny. People don't like it. That itself doesn't mean that the movie is bad. I can see that difference. Don't shoot the messenger that shows us the world outside our 'hubble'! Nevertheless I think this a bad movie. Film-technically it's a good one. Nice shots and script, most good fitting music, great actors. The director pretends to make a psychological movie, - the psychology however is of poor quality. Describing such a powerful violence itself is not the art. The art would be a powerful description of the psychological process behind that violence. How does a shy boy come to such a cruelty? The director pretends to describe that, - but is not good in that.<br /><br />The director used several times the word the 'selfishness' of people, mentioning for instance the teacher. Only: this teacher wasn't selfish,- just someone in several roles, caring for his pupils, ánd worried about his script. I think it's a simplification to call him selfish. The atmosphere in the village is creepy, and the mother made awful mistakes ('you terribly let me down
') but it doesn't become believable for me, that there is caused súch a lot of pain, that the shyest boy comes to such terrible things. In fact, reality is far more complex than the way, this film describes and it needs far better descriptions. The interesting thing would be: how does it work? Describe that process for me please, so that we understand.<br /><br />With the written phrase on the end, the director said to point to an alternative way of life. It was the other extreme, and confirmed for me that director and scriptwriter are bad psychologists, promoting black/white-thinking. The connection between violence in films and in society has been proved. Use such a violence gives the responsibility to use it right. There are enough black/white-thinkers in the world, causing lots of war and misery. I hope, this movie won't be successful. | 0 |
Badly made. Dreadful acting and an ending that the Director appeared to contrive out of nowhere as the film had frankly been nothing short of dull. Shocking that this film is considered for an award at the Gijón Film Festival.<br /><br />Everyone that came out of the theatre was of the same opinion as I - what was the point of even making the film? The references to Iraq were either bizarre or just not thought through properly. I am astonished that this film has been given a release - very, very disappointing and a waste of my time. Sorry, terribly negative review but hopefully will deter some people from making the same mistake. What a pity we did not have a Q and A at the end of the film - now that could have been interesting. | 0 |
With a title "borrowed" from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. "Robert Carmichael" (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of "extreme" filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked "Clockwork Orange" and "Irreversible" because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in "Clockwork Orange" showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.) | 0 |
I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.<br /><br />Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...<br /><br />The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.<br /><br />The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.<br /><br />The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.<br /><br />In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.<br /><br />Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.<br /><br />I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group. | 0 |
The Great Ecstasy of Robert Carmichael is bad film in every way. The script, the dreary pace, the lack of depth in any character, the pointless sub-plots, the dreadful acting, the needless climax all make this possibly the worst film I've ever seen. I found nothing likable, enjoyable or intellectually stimulating in any way.<br /><br />I imagine the film makers thought they were making something clever and dark, with its moody lighting, long protracted silences and vaguely haunting classical soundtrack. If so, they failed utterly. It just bored me, and I wish I had never watched it.<br /><br />Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
I watched this film, along with every other adaptation I could get my hands on- including seeing plays- in preparation for some academic research. The cinematography is very moving, as is the music. Unfortunately all of the life was taken out of the story. I have never seen such an awful portrayal of Mr. Rochester. All of his most fundamental traits are gone. Where is his wit? Where is his passion? Scott's Rochester more closely resembles Rochester's foil, St.John, than the character from the novel. In fact, the actor playing St.John in this adaptation played a passionate St.John while Scott is content to smash things or just stare at the ceiling (which he does all the time). I have no idea what they were thinking. I would like to give this film a slightly higher vote based on the wonderful music and cinematography but I honestly can't bear to see this film for too long because of George C. Scott's performance. | 0 |
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.<br /><br />This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.<br /><br />From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.<br /><br />To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre". | 0 |
I bought the DVD version of this movie on the recommendation of my wife who loved the version she saw aired in television. But the version put to DVD was a disaster. The lighting was poor to non-existent and entire scenes were simply excised. In one instance Adele is being put to bed, and we immediately cut to another scene - coming in in mid-sentence - where it's the next night. Characters such as Grace Poole and Mason are never even introduced, leaving one to wonder if they'd dozed off for a few minutes during the movie.<br /><br />The DVD we saw was produced by Platinum Disc Corp and even at $6.32 it was a gyp.<br /><br />Be careful which version of this movie you buy! We're sending this one back. | 0 |
This is by far the worst adaptation of Jane Eyre I have seen. It is uncertain whether or not the writer of the screenplay ever read the book by Bronte. George C Scott is ridiculous and bumbling as Rochester -- when not just plain old acting angry. Susannah York has the most dated 1970's hairstyle I have ever seen in a Victorian movie. The characters hardly speak to each other, so the rich banter enjoyed in the book that is the basis for their deep intellectual and abiding love, is gone. The ending is ludicrous.<br /><br />Please, rent the Timothy Dalton version instead. It is so true to the book, it's like having the novel read aloud to you. Dalton is superb as Rochester. G. C. Scott is laughable. | 0 |
This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.<br /><br />If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations. | 0 |
Miscasting happens. Susannah Yorke is a luminous young Jane Eyre, and her performance is impeccable. However, Edward Rochester is supposed to be 35. White-haired George C. Scott looks and behaves like an arthritic 80. Jane's deceased uncle is in better shape! He creaks and snarls, obnoxious and grim. He looks like an ax-murderer who has sent his ax out to be sharpened; we're not surprised he keeps a wife caged in the attic! The great love story looks like a sado-masochistic nightmare. There is enough darkness in the novel, but Bronte's Rochester is relatively young, athletic, powerful, and charming when he chooses to be. He has a fine speaking and singing voice, a good mind, and a conscience that he unsuccessfully attempts to stifle. | 0 |
My first review of 2010 is "Into The Blue 2: The Reef". The story is about two divers played by Chris Carmack and Laura Vandervoort who love to explore hidden treasures at a bottom of a local reef. One day after a day of exploring they are approached by a couple played by David Anders and Marsha Thomason. They tell the young divers that they want to hire them to explore the reef and find a rare artifact about Columbus' hidden treasure that is reported at the bottom of the reef.<br /><br />Next day the four dive to the bottom of the reef and of coarse after a whole day of diving they find nothing. A few more days past and the two hired divers found out that they a part of a major deadly plot in which they can't escape otherwise they will be killed. They were hired to find two big containers. One contains a nuclear reactor and the other contains a core.<br /><br />The movie also has a back story about another person (brother of the lead character) trying to patch things up with his girlfriend, I reckon this part of the story was a waste of time, this also includes a very steamy sex scene between the couple which to me is a complete waste and wasn't needed to be shown.<br /><br />However apart from that, this movie does have some good underwater photography and the colors blend in well which is why it receives 4 stars. Into The Blue 2 is a sequel only by name. None of the original actors or characters return, it has a dumb plot, stupid characters and a boring climax. | 0 |
Brainless film about a good looking but brainless couple who decide to live their dream and take people on diving tours. The pair almost instantly make the wrong choice of customers and get mixed up with some people seeking to recover the items that we see falling to the ocean floor during the opening credits sequence. Great looking direct to video movie could have been so much better if it wasn't so interested in primarily looking good. Performances are serviceable and the plot is actually not bad, or would have been had the director and producers not redirected the plot into making sure we see lots of shapely people in bathing suits (or in what I'm guessing the reason for the "unrated" moniker a few fleeting bare breasts). The film never generates any tension nor rises above the level of a forgettable TV movie. If you get roped in to seeing this you won't pluck your eyes out since the eye candy is pleasant but we really need to stop producers from making films that are excuses to have a paid vacation. | 0 |
In 2005,George W. Bush started with his second period as a President of the United States; North Korea announced its possession of nuclear weapons; Pope John Paul II died after a long illness; and a movie called Into the Blue appeared.The existence of this movie is not as bad as the other things that happened on that year,but the film itself was pathetic and maybe,the worst one from that year.Now,in 2009,the United States have another President,there is another Pope,new Korean nuclear weapons...and the film Into the Blue 2 : The Reef,which is better than the original one...but that's the same as saying : "getting your fingers cut is better than getting your head cut".This sequel is a really bad film which kept me tremendously bored and uninterested.The cast of Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is composed by TV-series actors who completely lack of any credibility and dramatic weight,but who are perfect for showing their bodies.Chris Carmack (The O.C.),David Anders (Heroes and Alias),Laura Vandervoort (Smallville),Marsha Tomason (Lost) and Audrina Patridge (The Hills) bring hollow and boring performances.I have liked some previous movies from director Stephen Herek (Critters and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure specially) but on this movie,he cannot generate even the minimum level of tension,emotion or entertainment.The characters from this movie are not only badly performed,but they are also repulsive.Honestly,I wanted all of them to die.The cinematography from this movie is also lame and it seems to have been made by a technical team who makes promotional videos for Hawaiian hotels.Into the Blue 2 : The Reef is a horrible movie which is better than the original film,but that's the same as nothing,as I previously said.Avoid this crappy film at all costs. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.