text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
I can't believe that so many are comparing this movie to Argento's. His work is far more imaginative and vicious--and a lot more fun.<br /><br />The director simply lacks the ability to build real tension. The murder scenes--and let's face it, that's what this genre is all about--aren't interesting. It was not hard to guess who the murderer was, and I really didn't care when it was revealed. The cinematography isn't memorable, and the much-praised 19th century Gothic atmosphere just didn't draw me in. Several of the actors are quite good (especially the headmistress and the sadistic girl who lords it over the younger students), but they're given very little to do.<br /><br />Yes, there are undertones of incest, sadomasochism, and lesbianism, but amazingly, they add very little spice or suspense. <br /><br />If you're looking for a good horror movie, look elsewhere. | 0 |
If this could be rated a 0, it would be. From the atrocious wooden acting to the dull, plodding pace, the puerile exploitation angle and the sophomoric pseudolesbian titillation added purely for the sake of the sad viewers, this is a disaster of a film.<br /><br />The plot is predictable, as from the beginning one is absolutely certain of what will happen to all of the characters and how the plot will commence. From a boring, unexceptional beginning to a pathetic and bleak ending, every single presence in this film is wasted, and every meagre scrap of talent dug up for this turkey is squandered.<br /><br />If you want to watch something as relentlessly bleak with plenty of the same childish titillation, watch one of the Ilsa films. At least they're unapologetic and up-front about what they're trying to do. How something this horrendously bad ever managed to be rated above a 5 is a miracle of how people with no taste or discerning standards can sometimes come together for the most dubious of purposes.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not interesting, and above all it's not arousing in any sense of the word. It is, in my opinion, a crime; it is a crime that such a horribly offensive and incompetent piece of trash was ever conceived of and given the resources to come into existence, and even more a tragedy that it is still defended by some woefully misguided viewers.<br /><br />Not even Elvira's cheerful personality and joking ways could soften the blow that this horrifying travesty of film is. Avoid it at all costs. | 0 |
Reading my review of THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED, many may assume that I'm some 14 year old who thinks SCREAM is considered "classic" horror. This is not the case, as I'm 30 years old and have been watching horror films for most of my life. But admittedly, I'm a child of the 80's that grew up on slasher/zombie/ghost/cannibal, etc...types of horror films - so I do typically prefer horror films that are more graphic and faster-paced. Just like someone who can appreciate different music, painting, or in this case, film - but not necessarily like them - I can appreciate why some people may enjoy this sort of film...I just don't...<br /><br />THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is an exceedingly dull and tedious film about a school for wayward girls. The heavy-handed mistress of the school rules with an iron hand (or whip in some cases...) to keep the girls in line. She has a young son who creeps around and peeps on the girls while they shower (in their nightgowns no less (?!?)...), and meanwhile, girls are disappearing from the school as they are the victim of a murderer who's lurking about the campus...<br /><br />I can see why THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED is often compared to SUSPIRIA (which is a masterpiece of a film in my opinion...), in terms of the atmosphere of the school itself and the interaction between the girls and their guardians - but this film is so dull and uneventful that I could barely stay awake. I'm all for "tension" and "suspense" in horror films - but this film held neither for me. Luckily, I wasn't expecting a whole lot going into this one, so I can't say I was really disappointed - THE HOUSE THAT SCREAMED just reinforced the fact that I personally don't typically enjoy most horror films much older than from the 70's. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but those that I HAVE enjoyed definitely seem to be more of the exception. Probably a "must-see" for horror fans who enjoy more understated and suggestive horror films - but as I don't really know too many fans of that sort of material, I can't really recommend this one...4/10 | 0 |
First be warned that I saw this movie on TV and with dubbed English - which may have entirely spoiled the atmosphere. However, I'll rate what I saw and hope that will steer people away from that version. I found this movie excruciatingly dull. All the movie's atmosphere is lost with dubbing leaving the slow frustration of a stalker movie. I'm sorry, but the worst movie sin in my book is to be slow except when the movie about philosophy. I didn't see any deep philosophical meaning in this movie. Maybe I missed something, but I have to tell it like I see it. I rated it a "1". What can I say, U.S. oriented tastes, maybe. | 0 |
This DVD appears to be targetted at someone who will just put it on and play it in an endless loop in the background. It's organized as a series of music videos of the Grand Canyon set to various pieces of Tangerine Dream music.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the TD music is dull, and the transfer to DVD looks rather blurry and dim. Too expensive a DVD for what it is. | 0 |
A spaceship returns from Mars; about a couple of months earlier, a 4-person expedition had been sent to the red planet. Most of the picture is a flashback to what transpired over there. The picture is saddled by inane, melodramatic dialog, typical of many sci-fi efforts of the fifties & sixties. Note, for example, how the ship's commander (Mohr) tells another crew member to 'stay there' for no reason; as if moving to another spot inside the ship will cause a problem. Later, the commander orders two of the crew to remain in the ship while he and another go outside. The two he ordered to stay say 'no way' and follow out; I didn't have high hopes for the expedition's success by this point. There's much talk of 'ears twitching' and hugging a freeze-ray gun named 'Cleo' (short for Cleopatra, of course). It would at least be pretty funny, unintentionally, if the story didn't drag.<br /><br />There's a very slow pace to the whole thing; the astronauts spend as much time looking out the ship's window portals (which change color from red to blue), commenting on what they see, as they do outside actually exploring. The martian landscape, advertised as filmed in 'Cinemagic,' usually resembles animation cut-outs, or drawings, shot through an orange-red filter to give the illusion of interacting with the actors, who do take on an odd surrealistic appearance due to the process. But I don't think it fools anyone over 10 years old. The one clever mention I did notice was that the memories of the surviving astronaut would be tinged with unreality, so that would explain the unreal nature of the martian vista. Oh, okay...<br /><br />I was amused by some of the astronauts' actions as they begin to explore; right off the bat, they test their freeze gun on a plant, killing it, just for the hell of it. Then the female member hacks with a machete at what she thinks is a tree but turns out to be the leg of the spider-rat monster. Nice going, lady. Look up next time. No wonder the 'intelligence' on Mars gets upset and doesn't mind that one of the lower lifeforms, a giant amoeba, attacks the explorers. The acting isn't too impressive. Mohr especially, had a very annoying technique, saying a line and then abruptly erupting into a huge grin which always creeped me out - reminded me of It! the Terror From Beyond Space. The ending is fairly anti-climactic; don't expect any huge revelations beyond the 'no more expeditions' with freeze guns named Cleo. | 0 |
This sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.<br /><br />The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss. | 0 |
It's telling that as of the entry of this comment, NO females have submitted a vote of any kind for this movie. Not surprisingly, cheesy science fiction doesn't appeal to them quite as much... If you like a good "B" movie, and especially if you like to satirize them as you watch, you will like this. If you don't have fun watching bad movies, this one's not for you. | 0 |
The film begins with people on Earth discovering that their rocket to Mars had not been lost but was just drifting out in Space near out planet. When it's retrieved, one of the crew members is ill, one is alive and the other two are missing. What happened to them is told through a flashback by the surviving member.<br /><br />While on Mars, the crew was apparently attacked by a whole host of very silly bug-eyed monsters. Oddly, while the sets were pretty good, the monsters were among the silliest I have seen on film. Plus, in an odd attempt at realism, the production used a process called "Cinemagic". Unfortunately, this wonderful innovation just made the film look pretty cheap when they were on the surface of Mars AND the intensity of the redness practically made my eyes bleed--it was THAT bad!! Despite all the cheese, the film did have a somewhat interesting plot as well as a good message about space travel. For lovers of the genre, it's well worth seeing. For others, you may just find the whole thing rather silly--see for yourself and decide.<br /><br />While by today's standards this isn't an especially good sci-fi film, compared with the films being made at the time, it stacks up pretty well.<br /><br />PS--When you watch the film, pay careful attention to Dr. Tremayne. He looks like the spitting image of Dr. Quest from the "Jonny Quest" cartoon! Plus, he sounds and acts a lot like him, too. | 0 |
First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10. | 0 |
**Possible Spoilers Ahead**<br /><br />Gerald Mohr, a busy B-movie actor during the Forties and Fifties, leads an expedition to Mars. Before we get to the Red Planet we're entertained by romantic patter between Mohr and scientist Nora Hayden; resident doofus Jack Kruschen; and the sight of Les Tremayne as another scientist sporting a billy-goat beard. The Martian exteriors feature fake backdrops and tints ranging from red to pink-the "Cinemagic" process touted in the ads. Real cool monsters include a giant amoeba, a three-eyed insect creature, an oversized Venus Fly-Trap, and the unforgettable rat/bat/spider. The whole bizarre adventure is recalled by survivor Hayden under the influence of hypnotic drugs. THE ANGRY RED PLANET reportedly has quite a cult following, and it probably picked up most of its adherents during the psychedelic Sixties. | 0 |
This movie is funny and painful at the same time. The "Cinemagic" almost gave me a seizure. Despite what they imply, "Cinemagic" is not some innovative technical procedure. It was "developed" as the result of an accident, and they used it because it disguised the fact that their "monsters" were so stupid-looking. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the writer is Sid "Pink".<br /><br />This movie is good for a laugh, if you are really looking for a movie made in 9 days on 200,000 dollars. It is entertaining; at least I can say that about it. The bat/rat/spider is the highlight. | 0 |
Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word "Irish" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man! | 0 |
There seems to be a surprisingly high number of 8-10 star reviews here from people who have never written an IMDb review before or since. Given the very low average rating given to the film by other people, I think you may draw your own conclusions.<br /><br />This is a very bad film. I'll admit it, I thought the concept was kind of cute, and I was pleased to see the actresses who played Eve and Harmony on Angel getting work, but it didn't take long for the sheer awfulness of this film to make itself known.<br /><br />Acting: The leads seemed competent enough, but everyone else? Terrible.<br /><br />Plot: Chock full of holes big enough to drive a truck through.<br /><br />Direction: Non-existent.<br /><br />Humour: Did they really think people were going to laugh? Oh boy.<br /><br />Eye Candy: OK. there were some really beautiful women in this film. Not just the three main female characters, but right across the board. It was as if the producers hoped the scenery would keep male viewers so distracted they wouldn't notice how terrible everything else was. If so, they failed miserably.<br /><br />In the right hands this could have been cute but darkly funny camp classic. It wasn't even close. | 0 |
Not one of Keaton's best efforts, this was perhaps a veiled attempt to revenge himself on the family he married into - the Talmadges. A Polish/English language barrier and a series of coincidences leads Buster into a marriage with a large Irish woman, who (along with her father and brothers) treat him shabbily until they think he may be an heir to a fortune. Mistaken identities abound here - gags are set up and but for the main fail to pay off.<br /><br />This Metro short does have at least two real laughs - Buster's cleverly turning around his lack of dinner by using the calendar on the wall and the basic ignorance of his adopted family to literally bring the meat to his plate. The other is a family photo, with the entire group slowly collapsing to the floor as the tripod of the camera loses its stability.<br /><br />The yeast beer overflow could have been the catalyst for a massive series of gags built upon gags, but stops short (for all the buildup) of development.<br /><br />Kino's print is crisp and clear and the score is one for player piano, drums and sound effects. Not one of Buster's best efforts, but worth a few laughs. | 0 |
A good cast (with one major exception) pushes its way through Epstein's smart light satire. Mansfield was never better, or funnier, than she is here paired with Walston, who's a veteran who's determined to become a congressman to get out of the war. He and his buddies -- including suave con-artist Grant -- head to San Francisco on leave and start the city's swinginest party while conniving to escape the service altogether through industrial speaking tours. The only thing about this movie that's not delightful is Suzy Parker's one-note performance as Grant's love interest, which takes up too much of the film's time and slows down the pace in the second half. Walston and Mansfield have good chemistry; the gimmick is that she's set on making love to every serviceman (to do her duty for the war effort, of course) but he's a married man who, nonetheless, loves his wife. They steal the movie with little trouble from Grant (who's amusing here in the first part of the film, when not paired with his non-actor co-star. | 0 |
This film was a critical and box-office fiasco back in 1957. It was based on a novel which was later turned into a play--which flopped on Broadway. The story is about some navy officers on leave in San Francisco during WWII. They have 4 day's leave which they spend at the Mark Hopkins hotel. The film meanders a lot and none of the characters seem very real. Cary Grant is generally brilliant in comedy and drama--but here he plays a sort of wheeler dealer and he doesn't really pull it off. Tony Curtis or James Garner would have been better choices. Audrey Hepburn was initially set to play opposite Grant, but had other commitments--so Suzy parker stepped in. She had never acted before, but was America's top photographic model at the time. I think that she did a good job, considering all the pressure that she was under. Grant's pairing with Jayne Mansfield in a few brief scenes--did not really work. The Studio was trying to give her some class by acting with Grant--but the character had no substance at all. | 0 |
There is a level of high expectation when you sit down to watch a comedy with a cast headed by Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Ray Walston and Werner Klemperer. Those expectations are buoyed further when the film is directed by Stanley Donen, whose comic touch was so evident in, among others, DAMN YANKEES!, BEDAZZLED and CHARADE. For the first five minutes, or so, it seems that those expectations might be met and then
. Nothing. What is supposed to be a light comedy, plunges into leaden, heavy handed melodrama, with nary a chuckle to be had.<br /><br />Relative newcomer Suzy Parker has often been criticized for her performance, or lack of one, in this film, but in a movie in which even the great Cary Grant frequently appears flat and wooden, attacking Parker seems unfair. Not even as bright a light as an Audrey Hepburn or Doris Day could have changed the fortunes of this meandering, dreary and wholly pointless script, which drags itself lamely along and drags the viewer's interest and patience down with it.<br /><br />The rest of the cast, especially Ray Walston, keep trying to breath some life into the proceedings, but the horrible script is beyond resuscitation. The desperate, inane effort to drag a half hearted laugh from the numbed audience in the film's final moments only serves to add insult to injury.<br /><br />This film is nothing but a major disappointment on all levels. | 0 |
Oh dear, oh dear...<br /><br />For JM fans, this was the nail in the coffin as far as her A-list Hollywood career was concerned. After solid turns in Girl Can't Help It, Wayward Bus, The Burglar and Rock Hunter it seemed Jayne was well on the way to becoming one of Tinsel Town's hottest stars. However, an obsession with racy publicity and an appearance in this clunker relegated Mansfield to the sidelines, namely cheap Euro loan-outs until Fox could drop her contract at the earliest opportunity.<br /><br />This movie really is a diabolical waste of everyone's time with the exception of Suzy Parker who is the only thing in this movie bad enough for the material. Many people blame poor Jayne and her grating performance for this film's poor returns at the box office and while she is a pain in this film, she can only do her best with the material. After all, Cary hardly sets the screen on fire does he? After a handful of very good dramatic and comedy turns Jayne takes 10 steps back in her pursuit as a serious actress by agreeing (simply for the sake of appearing with Grant) to portray this squealing, idiotic menace. Her character of Alice is a complete cartoon bimbo and although she looks good enough to eat in a boiler suit, her every appearance in the film jangles your nerves. We all know Jayne could do so much better than this dross and yet here she is parading around like a prize pudding. A real shame.<br /><br />Steer clear of this so-called comedy. It's more depressing than funny. | 0 |
While I recently gave OPERATION PETTICOAT a positive review, I really didn't like this film even though it had so many similarities. Both were made just a few years apart, both starred Cary Grant and both were WWII comedies. However, the overall tone and style of the films were quite different. KISS HER FOR ME, overall, just seemed like a cheaper film--with poor writing, little energy and some VERY broad performances--even when compared to OPERATION PETTICOAT. I think that at least much of the blame for this lies in casting Jayne Mansfield. The combination of her ample talents and limited acting ability really made this A-budget film look like it came from a 3rd rate studio. Plus, there wasn't much chemistry or energy in pairing her with Cary Grant--an actor generally loved for his grace and class. It's sort of like pairing Sir Lawrence Olivier with Marjorie Main. | 0 |
I wanted to love this movie. How could I not love it? Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Stanley Donen; all icons in their own way. However, the train wreck that was Suzy Parker ruined the entire experience for me. Her acting was so appalling that I sat there with my jaw hanging open, not believing my eyes or ears. I could barely make it through one viewing, THAT'S how hideous she is in this.<br /><br />Cary? Gorgeous and in fine dramatic form. Jayne? Adorable, endearing, and obviously having a ball. The supporting cast does alright, and the city of San Francisco is captured in all its stunning, retro elegance.<br /><br />Then you see Suzy Parker attempting to speak her lines with a woodenness, a deadness, a cluelessness that simply defies belief. Who told this creature she could ACT?? Oy VEY, people. | 0 |
I was quite pleased to find this movie in the local video library - Cary Grant in a comedy set in the services, director Stanley Donen, so far what's not to like? It's the sort of film that has me wondering two things - when did all involved (including some well-known names) realize they had a turkey on their hands, and what's the worst thing about it among a number of contending aspects? Still pondering the first, but my vote for the latter goes to the meandering storyline, ahead of the wordy sometimes pretentious script, the uncertain tone, the lack of consistent and well-developed characterization, and the lack of rapport between the characters. You have to add very uneven acting to the criticism but it's understandable that the actors were struggling with this stuff and in addition seem under-rehearsed. Quite often they can hardly get their lines out quick enough. Cary Grant tries to portray his usual charming and urbane persona but at times seems uneasy and staccato in his delivery. I have to say however that I was relieved when the initial suggestions his character will be paired with the unspeakably vulgar Jayne Mansfield go away with the appearance of Suzy Parker. What's to like about the film? - for me chiefly the beauty of Parker who also acts with restraint and a Grace Kelly-like dignity. Generally speaking the film is nice to look at. The naval characters are very smart in their uniforms - however you have to truly wonder at the ghastly black Fu Manchu tunics they don in their luxury hotel suite. Even Grant can't look elegant in his. Back to the credit side, Ray Walston does a commendable job with his character and for me there was an interest in hearing a pre-Hogan's Heroes Werner Klemperer speak without an assumed German accent! | 0 |
As an avid fan of Cary Grant, I expected to watch this movie and howl with laughter, as AMC billed it as a comedy. I have never been more disappointed with a film! Cary's usual charm and effortless comedy are AWOL from this entire movie; he comes across as strained, bored, and just not himself. Mississip's character ranks among one of the worst stereotypes I have ever witnessed - his accent is terribly exaggerated (and incorrect, according to which part of Mississippi he claims to hail from), and whenever he does deliver a line, it's several decibels higher than any other cast member. Mississip tried to make himself stand out in the film as a lovable, country-bumpkin goofball, but in the end, he manages only to detract from the already weak plot. Mansfield looks more like an obscene blow-up doll than a Hollywood sex kitten, and while she was never known in Hollywood for her acting ability, this film screams that she never had that ability to begin with. Ray Walston's character was sugary and ultimately contrived. For four men on shore leave, it was the tamest leave I've ever seen. I watched this nightmare until its very end, and while I won't spoil that for anyone, I will tell you that it's the most absurd you'll ever see. The film tries to spark patriotism and a sense of debt to the fighting men, but the film misses that point totally because of its weak plot line and weak cast. Sorry, Cary! | 0 |
One of the most common entries in the 'goofs' category is anachronism. Though I'm beginning to believe that anachronism and other goofs are more acceptable, even ignored, in very good films, but are found front and center in rotten films. KISS THEM FOR ME is a rotten film and reeks of anachronism, yet when watching it closely, I found almost nothing specifically anachronistic.<br /><br />The shots of aircraft which bookend the film are certainly out of place. The big 4 engine transport seen after the title "Honolulu 1944" appears to be the post war C-97 Stratofreighter (in MATS colors). The combat planes seen taking off from the carrier at the end are Douglas Skyraiders which entered service after WW2 and were made famous by their service in Vietnam.<br /><br />But excepting these two pieces of film and, of course, the hairstyles, everything else is very possibly period authentic. It just 'feels' so wrong. I'm an admirer of Stanley Donen, we share the same birthday. In his co directed ON THE TOWN (1949) there is a car chase at the end with the police driving 1949/50 Ford's yet there isn't the slightest feeling that this is out of place in a WW2 period film. In fact, as I reflected later, there isn't anything which says that this is supposed to be a WW2 period film. It just feels that way. Based on a wartime Broadway musical which was based on a ballet (Fancy Free) which may have been based on the work of artist Paul Cadmus (The Fleet's In! 1934) its a great film about sailors on a 24 hour pass in New York and, so heavy with wartime associations, its merely assumed it takes place during the war and yet these contemporary cars do nothing to break the spell.<br /><br />The first problem is old Cary Grant. Though far too old to represent a Navy SBD dive bomber pilot, it is a Hollywood tradition for stars like Grant, Gary Cooper (Lou Gehrig), Jimmy Stewart (Charles Lindbergh) to play younger. It was the role which he is miscast in, not his age. He plays an operator, as they used to call them. A guy who gets things done and breaks all the rules while doing it yet remains admired and loved for it. A hustler. A wheeler dealer. A de rigueur character in a service comedy. Grant is the comic center of what is after all supposed to be a service comedy which is contra to his comedy style.<br /><br />Thinking back on the great Grant comic performances like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or ARSENIC AND OLD LACE (1944) and he is the great reactor whose comedy is to be reduced by his context from dignity to a befuddled puddle of inert jelly. IN KISS THEM he is expected to be the comic spark plug which just isn't him. People had already been exposed to the type, most recently to comic Phil Silvers as Sgt. Bilko on television. The role would be perfected later by James Garner but here Grant just isn't funny and appears to be a bully getting his way by aggressively pushing his Cary Grantness rather than cajoling and finessing.<br /><br />But the thing which really stinks the place up with anachronism is the lead women. There can be no more echt 50s women than Suzy Parker and Jayne Mansfield. They are unique to the decade. Marilyn Monroe can be placed in a continuum with Carole Lombard and Marie Wilson and any number of dumb blonds, and Grace Kelly was another high class dame (think of Mary Astor), but there never could have been an anatomically exaggerated woman in films like Mansfield. Sure there were the 'sweater girls' (e.g. Lana Turner) of WW2, but Mansfield was stretching the point. Suzy Parker was THE model who revolutionized the model business, who changed the mannequin like poses to become the first natural girl who moved and whose personality was captured by the camera (see FUNNY FACE (1957) also by Stanley Donen).<br /><br />Of course in high 50s style, there seems to be a lot of gender mixing at 'wild' parties but never even a hint of sex (think of the 50s TV shows Bachelor Father or The Bob Cummings Show where dinner jacketed men returned from 'dates' alone). The original book, which I haven't read, was published during the war and appeared as a play on Broadway at the end of the war and the nuances of the situation must have been inescapable for contemporary readers and audiences, but broken down, bowdlerized and reconstituted a dozen years later and fatally miscast, it remains a once forgotten stain on otherwise exemplary careers until the invention of the VCR and cable television resurrected this petrified turkey.<br /><br />So the lesson here is whatever the 'goof' it will be ignored in a great film like CITIZEN KANE (who actually hears Charles Foster Kane say 'Rosebud'?), and tolerated in fun dreck like WESTWORLD ( why were the robots given live ammunition in the first place?) but absolutely despised in a rotten film, even if the goofs are really non existent. | 0 |
So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.<br /><br />This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.<br /><br />It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home. <br /><br />What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as "Herbie Goes Bananas" and "the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes" when it comes to innovation? <br /><br />I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window. | 0 |
There are few uplifting things to say about this, but I can mention Matt Dillon doing his best to make something out of nothing and the many split screens and graphics that are worthwhile. As most race movies suffer from the premise that car lovers are not that intelligent, we end up with movies like this.<br /><br />Lindsay Lohan who surprised so much in Mean Girls has to make better decisions which roles to take. Here she can only fail.<br /><br />Children will only be mildly entertained because it tries to appeal more to adults than children (although still pretty dumb). The ones in the theater I saw it with showed no real interest after a couple of minutes. And as a family sports movie this is horrible. The better moments are in the beginning at the scrapyard creating some sentiment and later in the car-bash fest creating some tension. If you develop a car as a central character you have to develop it better than here. After a few obligatory race scenes you are in for the best part: being able to leave the multiplex in your own car. | 0 |
I went to see this movie with my 17 y.o. daughter. I insisted we go the matinée showing, not because I'm a tightwad, but just feeling I had. In the NASCAR spirit, this is a sponser's dream. SO much blatant advertising, it almost qualifies as an info-mercial, if it weren't for the so-called acting. Keeping with tradition, the Herbie franchise continues with its cheesy story lines, the car is only a 'vehicle' (no pun intended)for this cornball of a motion picture. Earlier Herbie installments (although cheesy as well) were produced during more serious times, making them a little easier to digest. Ms. Lohan, Disney's reigning drama queen, has little acting ability. I was surprised that Mr. Keaton and Mr. Dillon would get involved in such a project. Only the snack bar, was a bigger ripoff! | 0 |
A failure. The movie was just not good. It has humor that 5 year olds that will not even giggle at. I mean, sure, some parts were amusing, but most of it is not. Lindsey Lohan is a great actress (and a bad singer,) and she should be working on better movies. The movie should have been aired as a Disney Channel original movie, that is FREE.<br /><br />The only thing that was well done about this movie was the music. Nothing like a remade rock soundtrack to brighten up your day. These songs are so good. Especially Alyson and Amanda's Walking On Sunshine and Caleigh Peter's, Beach Boy song, Fun Fun Fun.<br /><br />4 out of 10. If I gave it a ten, 9 of that would be the music and 1 will be the movie. Not worth your money, but the soundtrack is. | 0 |
Herbie, the Volkswagen that thinks like a man, is back, now being driven by Maggie Peyton (Lindsay Lohan), a young woman who hopes to become a NASCAR champion. The only thing standing in her way is the current champion, Trip Murphy (Matt Dillon), who will do anything to stop them.<br /><br />The original love bug wasn't that good. Even as a kid, I remember not liking it very much. I had some hope for the sequel though. I mean the cast is pretty good and the trailer makes it seem like a pretty fun movie. Unfortunately, Herbie is no better now than he was before. The film is defiantly weak for people over the age of 12. It will probably entertain the kids but that's all.<br /><br />I realize it's a kids film and all but they could have made the film a little more interesting. There were very few laughs and it got boring near the end. Most of the actors seemed dead in their roles too. Lindsay Lohan was alright as Maggie Peyton. She usually gives better performances like in Freaky Friday and Mean Girls. Matt Dillon gave the best performance out of everyone. He was very good as the bad guy even though he didn't have a lot to work with. Justin Long, Breckin Meyer and Michael Keaton are really just there and they don't do anything special.<br /><br />Angela Robinson directs and she does an okay job. She tries to keep the film interesting but she's working with a weak script. Thomas Lennon and Ben Garant wrote the screenplay and would it be any surprise to you that they were also responsible for Taxi and The Pacifier? These two make light films yet they fail to really make the stories interesting or enjoyable. It's not completely their fault but hopefully next time they will try harder. In the end, Herbie is a safe, predictable family film that's worth watching if you're a kid. Everyone else is better off skipping it. Rating 4/10 | 0 |
I can sit through this movie once, but I doubt I could make it through a second time. Mildly entertaining mainly for the physical presence of Lindsay Lohan. The fun of Matt Dillon(think Something About Mary), and the re-emergence of a more serious acting Micheal Keaton. This is not the fun romp The Love Bug was but it is watchable. One of my main detractions from the movie was the fact that Herbie had evolved into R2D2 antics for the most part. I was bored with the headlight eyes effects about the second time of the 30 or so times they were used and the bending front fender caused the same reaction from me. Go see this with your little ones, i.e. the "single digit bracket" kids and don't expect a lot from this film.<br /><br />_X | 0 |
You probably heard this phrase when it come to this movie "Herbie: Fully Loaded with crap" and yes it is true. This movie is really dreadful and totally lame.<br /><br />This got to be the second worst movie Lindsey is ever in since Confession of the Teenage Drama Queen. The only good thing about this movie seem to be the over talent cast which by far is better than the movie million times and is the only selling point of the movie. I don't see how such a respected actor like Matt Dillon could be a part of this movie, isn't he read that horrible screenplay before he sign on to be in it? <br /><br />What I didn't like about this movie is also base on how Herbie is surreal and fantasy like extraordinary ability and climb on wall and go faster than a racer car after all it just a Beatle. I know it is a kids movie but they have gone overboard with it and it just turn out more silly than entertaining. Little realism is needed plus the story is way too predictable.<br /><br />Final Words: Unless the kids are actually 5 -12 years I highly doubt that any one could enjoy this senseless movie. What wastage of my money. I feel like cheated.<br /><br />Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F) | 0 |
*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and "hicks" are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the "reality" in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's "message" is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen. | 0 |
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (1994)<br /><br />Cinema Cut: R <br /><br />Director's Cut: NC-17<br /><br />It's an unusual Oliver Stone picture, but when I read he was on drugs during the filming, I needed no further explanation. 'Natural Born Killers' is a risky, mad, all out film-making that we do not get very often; strange, psychotic, artistic pictures.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' is basically the story of how two mass killers were popularised and glorified by the media; there is a great scene where an interviewer questions some teenagers about Mickey and Mallory, and the teenager says 'Murder is wrong.... but If I was a mass murderer I'd be Mickey and Mallory'. Mickey describes this with a situation of 'Frankenstein (the monster) and Dr. Frankenstein' - Dr. Frankenstein is the media who has turned them into these monstrous killers<br /><br />Most Oliver Stone films examine the flaws of the America, the country that the director loves and admires. I guess 'Natural Born Killers' is about the effect of mass media, technology and how obsessive as a nation, Americans are (and most of the world) over things such as mass killers and bizarre situations.<br /><br />The killers played by Woody Harrelson (Mickey) and Juliette Lewis (Mallory) are executed astonishingly by two excellent actors who step into the lives of two interestingly brutal killers. Mickey and Mallory believe that some people are worthy of killing, perhaps in the cruel theory of Social Darwinism (survival of the fittest) - Mickey says in his interview in prison, that other species commit murder, we as humans ravage other species and exploit the environment; the script is interesting, but it is questionable how much this film amounts to, in the sense of making us think about society and human behaviour, rather than the intensity of a 2 hour bloodbath that we have seen.<br /><br />The last hour of the film takes place in a maximum security prison; we see the harsh realities of prison life; the attitudes of the warden etc;overfilling of prisons - maybe Stone is questioning the future, the path that society is leading to.<br /><br />Two other interesting characters; First, a reporter who runs a show about 'America's Maniacs' and is obsessed with boosting ratings, that he goes to any length to capture the story of Mickey and Mallory. The other is police officer Scagnetti, an insane, perhaps sadistic officer that is in love with Mallory - he also has some weird obsession with mass killers, since his mother was killed during the massacre at Waco, Texas by Charles Whitman.<br /><br />The cinematography is superb; different colours, shadows, styles create a feeling of disorientation; the green colour most evident of all is green, to resemble the sickness of the killers (in the drugstore when they are looking for rattlesnake antidote).<br /><br />The camera work is insane; shaky, buzzy, it takes some determination to get use to it and accept it. Highly unorthodox, psychedelic and unusual.<br /><br />'Natural Born Killers' does not glamourise the existence of insane murderers, it questions it and how we as the public may fuel this attribute...<br /><br />Although the above review sound quite positive, I did dislike the film. Quentin Tarantino, who originally wrote the script for the film, was not pleased with the altered screenplay and he asked for his name to be removed. I can see why. While mildly interesting at times, Natural Born Killers is a mess of a picture.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
God, what an awful thing ! Oliver Stone probably wanted to experiment or something (see the terrible use of music and pictures here) but what for really ? The whole thing behind "Natural born killers" seems to be a "clever" look at how medias can turn into complete trash but unfortunately the movie turns into trash itself. Please Mr. Stone, next time you want to criticize the fascism of tv shows using violence to get high rates, avoid doing the same with your movie ! Michael Haneke said quite cleverly about this film that it was denouncing media fascism with fascist cinematographic ways. How true... Only he forgot to tell us about the massive headache you get after sitting through this overlong load of crap ! | 0 |
This is the kind of film that everyone involved with should be embarrassed over. Poor directing, over the top acting and a plot that rambles on with no point other than to show violence. I thought when I first saw it that it would be perhaps a satire of the media and how it shows violence but it's not. I'm not sure what makes the film worse. Oliver stone does his worst directing ever. From scenes where Woody Harrelson's face morphs for no reason or Robert Downey Jr's dreadful performance as Wayne Gale who is a reporter who seems totally bonkers, this movie is simply a mess. | 0 |
Let's be honest. As a film school project, made without budget and "real" actors, this is a passably interesting film. As something to be released on DVD for an innocent viewer, it's a very poorly produced product. If I would be idly changing channels and happened to catch this film accidentally, it would probably arrest my eye and attention for a while. As a person who bought this DVD under the impression that I would be getting a proper cinematic product, i.e. a film, I feel deeply disappointed. It's a videotaped TV play, something along the line of old sixties serials, but without that certain charm. Aside from the leading man Mr Redfield (who also is the director), the other actors seem to be either chaps from the campus (a bit too old for that actually), or members of the director's household, who appear before the camera without any help from not only the acting couches, but also the make-up artist or hairdresser (a bonnet over outgrown permanent bangs or a top hat over mullet is a very long way from creating 1840s). It's all shot using a motionless mounted camera in a small, bare studio, sometimes using blue screen for outdoors backgrounds. Synthesizer generated uninspired score of lame "period" inspired romantic karaoke insults the viewers ears on more than one occasion. The film attempts to be "dreamlike", whereas in fact it's merely conceptionless collage of those shots that made it to the editing (and believe me, the standards weren't too high to start with). There are interesting dialogs every now and then, but overall it's pretty lame and two-dimensional production in more than one way with no flashes of genius from either the director or any members of the crew. That's how "artsy" films attempted to look in the 80s. Mr Redfield does a much better job as an actor than the director. | 0 |
Renown writer Mark Redfield (as Edgar Allen Poe) tries to conquer old addictions and start a new life for himself, as a Baltimore, Maryland magazine publisher. However, blackouts, delirium, and rejection threaten to thwart his efforts. He would also like to rekindle romance with an old sweetheart, a significantly flawed prospect, as things turns out. Mr. Redfield also directed this dramatization of the mysterious last days of Edgar Allen Poe. Redfield employs a lot of black and white, color, and trick photography to create mood. Kevin G. Shinnick (as Dr. John Moran) performs well, relatively speaking. It's not enough. | 0 |
Another case of a decent DVD case betraying the shot-on-video quality of the film. <br /><br />It wasn't that bad. Rochon does a serviceable job and Damn! the cast is good looking. I've never seen that many musclebound guys hang out together on a regular basis. This movie really wanted to make you think Rochon was the killer, but it was not to be. My biggest problem with the film was that by the end, I didn't much care who was the killer, and the real killer made little sense, since it was out of the blue and the filmmakers were thinking 'ha, betcha didn't see that one coming, sucker!'. Yeah, there were continuity errors about (mainly with ms. Rochon's ever-changing wardrobe), but for an indie slasher it's not that bad. I was pretty sure at the beginning it was just a thinly veiled excuse for girls to go topless, but that was just a gimmick. The dialog was overly think and painful at times.<br /><br />Just don't have high expectations going into this, and it won't be that bad. And Lloyd Kaufman's cameo is wonderfully understated. | 0 |
Quite possibly the nicest woman in show business, and the sexiest, Debbie gives another fine performance here. Although her work in American Nightmare was far superior, she is still worth watching in this film.<br /><br />The cast is filled with your typical Melrose Place types, chiseled features and seductive curves, that I had never seen before. Other than Debbie, Laura Nativo was the only actress I had seen before, in the similar Delta Delta Die.<br /><br />The plot centers around a group of California arrogants who initiate poor naive Debbie Rochon into their clique. They tell her that they have a murder club, and that she must kill someone to be accepted. Debbie wants nothing more but to be accepted by these cool people, so she quickly kills a person, and now the group must decide what to do with her, after she fell for their joke.<br /><br />VIOLENCE: $$$$$ (Plentiful! Debbie Rochon occasionally has blood splattered all over her and all of the murder scenes are done in your face. Gore hounds will surely enjoy!)<br /><br />NUDITY: $$$$$ (Plentiful as well! Debbie Rochon has several nude scenes as do many of the no-name actresses and actors. The pool party seems as just an excuse to get everyone naked; man and woman alike. Julie Strain also has a topless cameo but her character is gone after the first five minutes).<br /><br />STORY: $$ (Could have received a higher vote because the plot was very interesting and unique but the plot serves as filler between nude scenes. I understand that B-Rate films use nudity often, but this is borderline excessive).<br /><br />ACTING: $ (The acting is sub standard to say the least. Rochon is always a treat, easily the best B-Rate actress in the business today, but her character in American Nightmare was superior. Danny Wolske does a fine job as Debbie's object of lust but the other actors were nothing to write about). | 0 |
Odd slasher movie from Producer Charles Band. In the days of Full Moon's greatest success Band said that he would never make "real killer films" because he felt that little puppets and big monsters added a fantasy element that made the films better - people killing each other is thus real and less fun. A nice philosophy and a true shame that Band, having destroyed the Full Moon studio through possible shoddy business dealings became so desperate for home cinema profits that he started making exactly what the likes of Blockbuster wanted and therefore sacrificed creativity and originality. The team behind this one also worked on 'Delta Delta Die!' and 'Birth Rite' - both equally bland by Full Moon standards. Debbie Rochon is on usual top form here as a newbie to a gang of dudes and dudettes who decide to make up a story about a 'murder club'. She - as one would obviously - does all she can to join and then panic sets in because it was not a true story and silly Ms Rochon believed it and now everybody will have to run around getting covered in blood and maybe killing each other or maybe not. The choice is there's and with regard to this movie its yours...not recommended but not entirely bad either. | 0 |
Devin Hamilton is probably better known as the new name in legendary Full Moon entertainment. Sadly, his arrival to this independent studio happened in a time when budget and production values are at its lowest in years. However, in his short career Hamilton has established himself as a creative director that manages to make inventive and original stories. Now, this doesn't mean that his movies are good, but at least they are different to the usual in the horror genre.<br /><br />In his debut, "Bleed", Hamilton presents us a creative twist on the slasher sub genre. Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a young woman that finally gets the job of her dreams. Not only that, but it seems that she has also found a boyfriend in Shaun (Danny Wolske), it seems that life finally smiles for Maddy after many sad events. Until on a party with Shaun's friends, they tell her that they created a "club" where members have to kill somebody to enter.<br /><br />Obviously they are joking, but Maddy wants desperately to fit in, that she actually murders someone. After that event, someone starts to kill the rest of the members of the "club" one by one. it is up to Maddy to figure out what is going on as anybody could be the killer, including her.<br /><br />Maddy is a very interesting character wonderfully played by the beautiful Debbie Rochon. It is a very interesting twist on the genre to have the lead actress as part of the suspects. The concept is so original and Rochon's performance is so good that it is a real shame that Hamilton didn't develop the whole story a little bit better. The movie feels quite slow at times and overall the feeling is the one of a good idea wasted on a bad movie.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is weird in the sense that all the female cast is very good, while the male cast is painfully bad. Danny Wolske is terribly wooden and his performance as a yuppie is quite stereotypical. Julie Strain, Brinke Stevens & Lloyd Kaufman appear in small cameos and are wonderful in their small roles. Also, there is lots of nudity (both male & female) and the cast is very good looking, so it is really a plus.<br /><br />The low-budget hurts the film in the effects department, as there are very few gory scenes and are not really graphic (probably because they would look bad); nevertheless, considering the budget, the film at least looks good.<br /><br />Hamilton's more recent effort, the sexploitational venture "Delta Delta Die!", is a better crafted and overall funnier film. While this one is not as bad as other better known films, it still has a lot of flaws and may be interesting only for fans of Debbie Rochon or fans of independent no-budget films. 4/10 | 0 |
Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a mentally unstable young woman with a troubled past who gets more than she bargained for when she goes to a pool party with a handsome coworker. When her date and his friends jokingly say they belong to a `Murder Club,' Maddy takes it seriously and moves straight up to `Level 3' by bashing in the brains of a woman in a parking garage (for denting her car!). But is Maddy also the one donning a plastic mask and killing off other members of the group or has someone else lost it?<br /><br />The plot of this film (originally titled MAKE 'EM BLEED) is very poorly conceived, full of holes and spirals completely out of control before a ludicrous, out-of-left-field twist ending. Some of the dialogue is downright laughable. I didn't have a problem with Rochon's performance, but the supporting cast was atrocious. However, I managed to sit through this Full Moon release thoroughly entertained. There's plenty of skin and blood and it's the perfect type of flick to sit around with a group of your buddies and pick apart. Horror fans may also enjoy the cameos from Brinke Stevens and Lloyd Kaufman (as Debbie's parents) and Julie Strain (an early victim).<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10 | 0 |
The only reason i am bothering to comment on this movie is to save you all 97 minutes of your life and maybe your money.<br /><br />I bought it ex-rental for £3.00, it looked interesting, so i took a chance.<br /><br />Within minutes of turning it on i realised i'd made a mistake. The entire cast should be stored away until winter and then thrown on the nearest log fire, where they could meet more of their kind.<br /><br />As for the Devin Hamilton (Writer and Director), he should just be shot, sadly this should have been done before he made this rubbish.<br /><br />Avoid this film, If you see it in the shops run away.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
A killer, wearing a plastic white mask and black overcoat, is killing the friends of Hollywood producer Shawn Banning(Danny Wolske)who inherited his position when someone sliced open his former employer from crotch to chest. Perhaps the psychopath is newly hired Maddy(Dabbie Rochon), an attractive, raven haired beauty with a troubled family past, plagued with nightmares. Shawn and his friends play a practical joke on Maddy, concerning a supposed Murder Club they started where each member randomly selected a victim to kill. When Maddy accidentally murders a woman in a parking garage because of a dent put into her car by this person, she finds that Shawn's pals were jerking her chain. But, Shawn and his comrades are concerned about Maddy's admittance towards committing the murder and contemplate turning her into the proper authorities. Deciding to wait on a definite decision, each member fall prey to the white-masked psycho with Maddy a suspect considering the fact that she already has killed before. Or, is someone else behind these murders? Low budget slasher, executive produced by Charles Band, with gore murders that fail to convince. Plenty of tits on display and Allen Nabors goofy character Chris might entertain those with low expectations. The murders include a stomach being opened with intestines showing, a neck sliced, an electrical cord thrown into a pool frying a female victim who had all day to escape, an ax buried into the back of a male victim, and, to top it all, a couple are strangled by a rope during their sexual climax(..for added effect, the killer uses the breaker bar of a socket wrench as extra leverage to twist the rope as tight as possible snapping their necks). There are enough plot holes to drive a truck through, such as why Maddy has nightmares of murders she didn't commit, how she could murder someone so violently(..with blood all over her)winding up waking in her bed without leaving something at the scene of the crime that would easily implicate her, and how Shawn could go so long, allowing her to continue working at the company despite what she told regarding the murder she committed, and a continual desire to join the supposed club that doesn't exist.<br /><br />What bothered me the most was the film's desire for having us somehow sympathizing with this female protagonist who wanted to join a club after killing someone, later proclaiming it to be an accident. The film builds Maddy as the potential psycho throughout because of her past. Her family disowned her for an abortion. She has black-outs and always appropriately winds up at the scenes of crimes after the fact. In a lot of slashers, the one who seems the most likely killer is often the red herring, but this film goes out of it's way to point the finger at Maddy. When the twist occurs, we're left rooting for Maddy, yet we know she's not right in the head. It's a tough sell caring for this chick. She does look great in a man's Army shirt, though. And, Rochon isn't afraid to let her puppies breathe, either. Low budget horror fans will get a kick out of seeing cult favorite Brinke Stevens as a religious fanatical mother who preaches against what Maddy did, calling her a murderer as beloved Troma producer Lloyd Kaufman is the aloof father who can not get in a word edge-wise to protect the daughter he truly cares about. Cult siren Julie Strain has a minor cameo, showing her tits(of course)as the opening murdered male's girlfriend getting her head crushed by a hammer. Oh, and check out the office for which Shawn works, you'll see a lot of Full Moon posters and art-work spread throughout the walls. | 0 |
Sadly, more downs than ups. The plot was pretty decent. I mean, nothing out of the ordinary, but it had a story, unlike the other modern horror flicks. The other good thing was the cast. I'm not saying that the acting was good, because it wasn't, but every actor/actress was hot and attractive.<br /><br />One of the downs are that the movie only become exciting after the first 40 minutes or so. The rest was quite boring. Another down (or you could consider it an up if you want) is the excessive nudity. All 4 girls were topless for a few minutes, and all the guys showed their butts for a long time. It's not that I'm against nudity, but this was a horror movie, not 'The Dreamers'.<br /><br />Unless you're very desperate to watch some guy take off his swimsuit and run around naked for a few minutes, or watch a girl get naked for no reason, or you're a die-hard fan of Debbie Rochon, than this is the movie for you. But if you're looking for a good horror movie, stay away. | 0 |
My boyfriend and I rented this because we thought it might be a good 'Halloween' take-off. A killer terrorizing young people, a white mask...you get my drift. We were dead wrong! No pun intended. We not only discovered one of the worst movies out there, but also that it is a cult classic! It is filled w/plot holes and makes no sense. The actress who plays Maddy is pretty, but that's about it. I do give credit for it being shot on a VERY low budget--I always support movies like that. Just not this particular one.<br /><br />This movie may be good to see if you're drunk or high; otherwise don't bother. Unless you want to lose your movie privileges like I did! | 0 |
When you put this DVD into your player and hit "play," you will experience a brief moment of silence and see a black screen as the laser is guided to the correct starting point in the center of the disc. CHERISH THIS MOMENT. Make sure you have some Tylenol or something (preferably PM's so you can fall asleep), because you're going to have a massive headache once this movie starts.<br /><br />Starring a bunch of big-breasted girls and with an opening that actually made me chuckle a bit, I thought I'd be in for a good time. Sure, the opening sequence was a WEE bit awkward and most of the jokes fell flat and it seemed like this was going to be a Scream ripoff (by the way, my sole chuckle was from Julie Strain's final comment in this scene). But then I knew there was trouble... the opening sequence had a terrible rock song. During this terrible rock song, I looked over the DVD Chapter titles and saw things that said "TOPLESS IN THE BACKYARD!" and "BETTER THAN SEX!". I knew what the selling point of this movie was going to be.<br /><br />And that's the sad truth: The ONLY good thing about this movie is the attractive cast. Other than that, it's a sadly routine slasher film that throws in an "innovative" concept about murder clubs, which ends up being fake anyway. So, the whole movie then points in another direction to try to be confusing and this huge mystery, but it all just adds up to not being interesting at all and leaves you feeling like you don't care for any of the characters. I mean, when the main character of the movie is revealed to have murdered an innocent woman, can you really feel ANY sympathy towards her when she's in fear for her life? The Scream influence is prevalent throughout, with a ghost face killer and some really terrible jokes. We're also treated to scenes of the main character talking to her mom and dad (Lloyd Kaufman! The only other cool part of the movie!) about an abortion or something. Uh. Yeah... This isn't a "so-bad-it's-good" movie, it's just BAD.<br /><br />Someone compared this to a Troma film, but... you know, most any film that comes from Full Moon (or its offshoot, as this film proves) is horrible. NOT horrible in a Troma sense -- I've seen many Troma films, and I can honestly say they all offer something, ANYTHING that you can walk away with and tell your friends about later. However, this film has pretty much nothing at all enjoyable about it. Beware. | 0 |
This mess is so bad it doesn't even qualify as horror. <br /><br />Debbie Rochon's talent is completely wasted in this film. She is not even the villain. The rest of the actors look like porno wannabes and the plot is so lame I won't even mention it.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip to the end credits to hear upcoming band TwoMarlowe perform "Better Than Sex" it's total 80's Disco candy song. Nice up tempo song about Gambleing & Sex. Way more entertaining than "Bleed". Put it this way, When one has the equipment to copy videos, but decides only to record the song at the end of movie, you have a really "BAD" movie. | 0 |
Let me being by saying the I followed watching this video by watching Saw and after Bleed, Saw looked like the all time greatest horror flick ever even though I thought it was only fairly good. Bleed is pretty bad. The best part is seeing the female cast nude. The gore is very fake looking and over-done. It has its funny parts but its extremely predictable and I didn't want to stay to see the horrible ending. If I could, I would ban these actors and actresses, the only reason being is that Debbie Rochon (Maddy) has been in over a hundred other videos and I've also seen two other members of the cast in equally or worse motion pictures. They should not allowed to continue this madness. | 0 |
Wow...speechless as to the making of this film, I can't say much. The coverbox at the local videostore should've said it all...nothing but 6 actors/actresses who get lost on the set of Scream and decide to shoot a movie!<br /><br />The acting was apparently not in the budget, but they were able to afford nudity and good-looking actors! Style over substance almost makes its mark here, except most of these acting-class failures keep forgetting that there is a plot that needs to go somewhere when they were reading this script. After only 4 or 5 kills by the so-called masked murderer and a confusing tie-in plot about a Murder Club which the dumb lead actress thinks is a real club that she can join (only if she can get over a girl bumping into her car), you want to stab your hands with the nearest sharp object to remind yourself never to get overly excited by a possibly good movie such as this.<br /><br />I feel bad for the people who bought this film and can't find anyone to take it off their hands. Another example of what's wrong with the growing number of straight to video horror releases with no thought put into the essentials. Throw it away if you did buy this. | 0 |
*SPOILERS INCLUDED*<br /><br />With a title like "Bleed", you know the creative juices weren't running on high when this puppy was conceived. The movie is your basic run-of-the-mill low-budget slasher movie. Oh sure, it tries to be creative with the premise of the "murder club", but we learn that was just a joke anyways. Okay, for those who really care about these things, the basic plot is that new girl in town starts dating her co-worker. He invites her into his circle of friends, and at a party, they tell her how they have a "murder club" and they murder people, blah blah blah. Well, we learn that it was all a joke, but not before our heroine kills a lady in a parking garage. Now, the "members" of the Murder Club are being killed one by one. Oh, and the bad guys wins and the movie ends on a downer. By that time, you won't really care though.<br /><br />In retrospect, the first 10 or so minutes of this movie make no sense. The motivation for the killings in the beginning of the movie is never explained. I would say that it was a way for the director to pad out the film, but on the DVD there are deleted scenes! I'm not sure why anyone would want to see more than the feature length version of "Bleed", but apparently the people behind the DVD thought the viewers would be clamoring for more. On the box, it says there are Easter Eggs, but why the hell I would want to waste my time looking for extras on this movie is beyond me. <br /><br />I was expecting a bad movie, and "Bleed" delivered on that front. It wasn't a fun bad movie though. Everyone looks good in the movie, and there's plenty of nudity, but the acting is just awful. My least favorite character is the guy who ends up being the killer...I think he's supposed to be funny and amusing, but he just ends up coming off as a tool. I think the funniest moment of the movie is when our heroine kills the lady in the parking garage, in a hilariously unconvincing death. Heroine shoves the women into the parking garage cement pole, and the woman looks like she barely hits the thing, and she spits out a mouthful of blood, and "dies". <br /><br />For those who think that movie making is an intricate, creative process done by professionals, check out "Bleed". It will change your mind, and you'll realize any hack get can a movie made. <br /><br />Otherwise, don't waste your time or money on this. | 0 |
This is a low-budget "Scream" style movie. "Maddy" is a new worker at a conspicuously-unnamed office, where she meets and starts a relationship with her co-worker "Chris". During a hot tub-party, Chris and his friends convince Maddy they belong to a "Murder Club" where everyone has killed someone for kicks. When Maddy loses it and kills someone for real, hijinks ensue.<br /><br />The film looks good, and there are the requisites for this genre and budget level (nudity, gore, maybe a few cameos from slightly bigger stars than the cast), but, after the credits roll, you'll ask yourself why you spent 80 minutes of your life watching it. | 0 |
As you all may know, JIGSAW did not make its way to Blackbuster because of a member of Full Moon's own staff, Devin Hamilton. Devin is the one who sells to all of the video chains. He recently released a movie, BLEED, which he was selling to Blackbuster at the same time as JIGSAW. He convinced the Blackbuster buyer not to take any JIGSAW, and double the number of BLEED. The result is that JIGSAW looks like a flop, and BLEED looks like a hit. The major problem with that is that BLEED is one of the worst movies ever, and as we all know, JIGSAW is, well, gold. I urge all of you to go on to the BLEED page on the internet and vote for the movie that wronged JIGSAW, and all of your talents. Likewise, you should go to the JIGSAW page and cast high votes for it (if you already haven't). We need to get JIGSAW up to at least an 8 or 8.5, and BLEED down to around a 2 (thus putting it on the internet's 100 worst movie listing). Also, try to convince friends and family to do the same.<br /><br />Hope you all are doing well, - Matt | 0 |
How many times do we have to see bad horror movies with a killer in a Scream-ripoff mask? The plot of Bleed is kinda original but the movie itself is a complete failure. For one thing the dialogue is poorly developed, it's boring and wastes too much time on trivial details, the acting is bad, et cetera. I want my money back, this rental stinks worse than a skunk. | 0 |
For romantic comedies, I often judge the quality of the film based upon the mistiness of my eyes by the end of the experience. Unfortunately for "The Wedding Date," I can only rate the film with 4 out of 10 possible tears.<br /><br />My apologies to fans of Debra Messing and Dermot Mulroney, but I did not see much chemistry between their two characters. The premise of the film is a reverse "Pretty Woman," with Dermot playing the role of Nick, a high-priced male escort hired by Debra's character Kat to accompany her to England for her sister's wedding. A romantic relationship presumably develops between patron and client. But the dialogue seemed forced and artificial. And there weren't enough romantic sparks flying in the relationship of Nick and Kat.<br /><br />In a supporting role, Amy Adams was a standout as Kat's sister. Whenever Amy came on screen, she served as a spark plug and catalyst for the film's energy. Perhaps if Amy Adams had been cast in the role of Kat, the film might have had more dynamism. But as it turned out, instead of reaching for Kleenex, I was looking for the Visine in attempt to at least pretend that this film had some genuine sentiment and romance. | 0 |
Seriously, I'm all for gooey romantic comedies and will get sucked into Miss Congeniality as easily as Goodfellas...but this movie? It doesn't make any sense!!!! And I'm not even talking about the willing suspension of disbelief kind of not making sense. Why does her family live in England? Or, at the very least, why doesn't she have a British accent? She's sure cozy with her dad and he's surprisingly forgiving of her not being around for the last two years. (On that subject, no one ever makes much of a deal about her being away for so long). And what was with the goofy outfits at the bachelorette party? I'm not even going to get into the fact that the escort she paid for falls in love with her--that could've been overcome by better movie-making. I'm just saying that the characters, the setting, and the plot aren't fleshed out enough to make an even somewhat cohesive story. Oh, and the worst part, in my opinion, is the filmmaker's consistent use of the most unflattering angles on Deborah Messing's nose--I'd have sued the filmmakers if I were her! I mean, honestly, I'm all for women being who they are, but why, in seven loyal years of Will and Grace viewing, have I not ever noticed how incredibly odd her nose is? Oh! Because those producers are kind to her! This movie, like my other least favorite movie ever, Armageddon, is the fault of the filmmakers, not the actors. I can see both Messing and McDermott in these roles with a better writer, director, and producer.<br /><br />This easily gets my vote as one of the worst movies I've ever wasted time on. I'm just glad a friend loaned me her DVD, so all I wasted was time. If there were a way to make this review ZERO stars, I'd do it. | 0 |
Too Much of Something Borrowed Grade B-<br /><br />Super Bowl Sunday is one of the slowest days at movie theaters every year. Because of this, movie studios tend to avoid releasing bigger budgeted films that weekend. Every few years a studio releases a counter-programming female skewing movie (2001's "The Wedding Planner") to compete with the big game. This Super Bowl weekend similarly titled "The Wedding Date" will try to find success and attract viewers not watching the game. <br /><br />Sick of people feeling sorry for her, single-woman, Kat Ellis (Debra Messing, TV's "Will and Grace") hires male escort Nick ( Dermot Mulrony, "About Schmidt") to pose as her boyfriend for her sister's wedding in London. Her family has been giving her a hard time about her not being married, and her ex- fiancé of seven years, who dumped her without a reason, is the best man. To make him jealous Kat parades Nick around her ex to make him see what he is missing. But ultimately Nick helps Kat realize that she can open up, and let someone love her.<br /><br />The film borrows too much from similar wedding movies. It is almost a carbon copy of 1999's "Picture Perfect" and mixes in scenes similar to "The Wedding Planner" and "My Best Friends Wedding". The movie also has a reverse "Pretty Women" theme going for it, and knowing her audience, the director makes clever references to that and other films.<br /><br />"The Wedding Date" has all the clichéd elements of a typical wedding movie, there is the stereotypical overbearing mother (Holland Taylor, "Legally Blonde"), and practically plagiarized wedding speeches by the family and friends at the wedding and rehearsal dinner. The twist at the ending has been done before, but it was something that wasn't completely expected. The real reason why Kat was dumped comes as a surprise and changes the direction of the film for the last half hour.<br /><br />Even though "The Wedding Date" is predictable, it is able to stand on its own. Debra Messing, in her first lead role, proves she can be charming and funny. Dermot Mulrony has great chemistry with Debra Messing, but most of his dialogue was too corny and unrealistic. He is able to make best of what he is given, and be able to salvage the character. <br /><br />By the use of many clever puns (often sexual), the film is actually funny. Although primarily a chick-flick the film has components everyone can enjoy. The feel good story, and humor make it the best date movie released in a long time. | 0 |
One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.<br /><br />Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!<br /><br />Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.<br /><br />For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes! | 0 |
There have been so many many films based on the same theme. single cute girl needs handsome boy to impress ex, pays him and then (guess what?) she falls in love with him, there's a bit of fumbling followed by a row before everyone makes up before the happy ending......this has been done many times.<br /><br />The thing is I knew this before starting to watch. But, despite this, I was still looking forward to it. In the right hands, with a good cast and a bright script it can still be a pleasant way to pass a couple of hours.<br /><br />this was none of these.<br /><br />this was dire.<br /><br />A female lead lacking in charm or wit who totally failed to light even the slightest spark in me. I truly did not care if she "got her man" or remained single and unhappy.<br /><br />A male lead who, after a few of his endless words of wisdom, i wanted to kill. Just to remove that smug look. i had no idea that leading a life of a male whore was the path to all-seeing all-knowing enlightenment.<br /><br />A totally unrealistic film filled with unrealistic characters. none of them seemed to have jobs, all of them had more money than sense, a bridegroom who still goes ahead with his wedding after learning that his bride slept with his best friend....plus "i would miss you even if we had never met"!!!!! i could go on but i have just realised that i am wasting even more time on this dross.....I could rant about introducing a character just to have a very cheap laugh at the name "woody" but in truth that was the only remotely humorous thing that happened in the film. | 0 |
If Deborah Messing were not already cast as "Grace", this might be a tolerable film. However, it is simply another story of a frustrated spinster with issues, who hires a paid escort (Dermot Mulroney) she reads about in a Time magazine article to travel to London for her sister's London wedding. How new is this plot?<br /><br />Neither funny, nor remotely romantic, the Wedding Date slides over the storyline of deceptive sex by bride and best man, and paid for escorts to pass off the film as Four Weddings without Hugh, and definitely, a dead end deal for the naive groom who is ignorant to the sexual history of his bride (Amy Adams). While Messing has perfected the repressed princess, 30- something woman with a failed relationship history, her neurotic and drunken moves on yet another faux beau is simply the restating of her TV series. If this woman is an actress, get a role that does not rehash what is already on prime time.<br /><br />Lots of drunken female bonding, cricket visual jokes, and Mulroney in a towel (nice!), but the film is a bore with the obvious happy ending. Expected Messing sequel: Divorce Date. | 0 |
No cinematic achievements here, however that's not even the important question. How does it fare in its endeavour to be a competent date movie--and star vehicle?<br /><br />The formula requires the cute female lead a la Ryan or Aniston--check; there's a built-in TV audience!<br /><br />Add thick-headed, compliant men, usually including the problem ex-boyfriend/fiancée--check. <br /><br />Assemble a plot that maximizes the bankability of the stars. So far, so good.<br /><br />What is the male lead to consist of? He has to make all the women in the movie and in the audience (and the gay flight stewards) instantly swoon. But...he cannot be so hunky as to threaten to the male audience, and he can't outshine the star. Roll cameras...<br /><br />The problem is Messing thinks she's still in a sitcom...she has only one presentation: as the wide-eyed doormat that she's made a career out of. A capable actress might have pulled it off after the love scene, where things promptly nosedive into the soap suds. <br /><br />You can't help feeling good for Mulroney...you can read it in his face that he sees through all of this. He's gotten all the respect of a lifetime .260 hitter. This time, he smacks one out to the warning track, and no one can figure out what to do, as he amusedly takes home plate. | 0 |
The best thing I can say about this film is that it is well-paced. It did not fall flat. The next best things are the supporting performances by the actor playing foppish groom-to-be Edward, the always marvelous Holland Taylor, and the actor playing Taylor's husband. The actor helping to critique Messing's potential outfits in an early scene brings a delightful absurd-yet-winning quality to the proceedings. Okay, that's about it on the positive side.<br /><br />Dermot Mulroney, whom I adore, is far more believable expressing contempt for Messing than in any scene where he's attempting to be either businesslike or supporting. As others noted, he appears to have no emotional investment in this enterprise other than wrapping it up as quickly as possible. Messing, on the other hand, sincerely tries to carry the film and to create the illusion of chemistry with Mulroney. She is adequate doing so, but is simply not strong enough an actress to pull all of this off without help. Give her an "E" for effort and a "C+" for achievement. Given Mulroney's indifference, the one thing that could've helped Messing would have been a brilliantly cavalier Irons-esquire performance from the actor playing her ex-fiancé, Jeffrey. Instead, his performance is weak-kneed, mewling, and feckless.<br /><br />If I tried to analyze this one any further, I'd obviously be paying more attention than most of the people involved. It's harmless enough to pass time if you have nothing else to do, and less obnoxious (and less creative) than The Wedding Singer, but you're much better off watching "My Best Friend's Wedding" again. | 0 |
I found this movie to be a great idea, that didn't deliver. It seems they found a way to build suspense, but couldn't stage their payoffs very well. In one case the police, are on the clock to find the hideout of the kidnappers. They painstakingly go from dentist to dentist to match a dental record. At the same time, the kidnapped man (Mason) escapes through the elevator shaft. After all the build up, the police arrive at the same time he gets free, which is very anti-climatic to say the least. There are also large narration scenes that take us "inside the thinking" of the terrorized husband and wife, which detracts from the suspense rather than adds to it. We are fully aware of their tension, and the voice-over is an insult and robs the viewer of any chance of a personal experience with the fear, as Hitchcock proved time and again, is far more effective. The greatest disappointment, is to sit through the whole movie, and the get the quick, rather bland ending. I mean it just..."ends" in a snore. | 0 |
The exclamation point in the title is appropriate, albeit an understatement. This movie doesn't just cry -- it shrieks loud enough to shatter glass.<br /><br />Filmmakers Andrew and Virginia Stone made shrill, humorless suspense thrillers that strove for a semi-documentary feel. Here, they shot on actual New York locations with tinny "real-life" acoustics to jack up the verisimilitude. But the naturalism of the sound recording only serves to amplify the Stones' maladroit dialog and the mouth-frothing histrionics of tortured butterfly Inger Stevens.<br /><br />In a performance completely devoid of modulation, Stevens plays the wife of electronics whiz James Mason (looking haggard and bored); both are held captive by extortionist Rod Steiger (looking bloated and bored) and his slimy cohorts in a scheme to blackmail an airline with a deadly bomb that Mason has unwittingly helped construct.<br /><br />Here is another credibility-straining instance of a criminal mastermind so brilliantly attentive to every detail, yet knuckleheaded enough to hire a drug-addicted degenerate as an underling. The Stones' idea of nail-biting tension is to trap the hysterical Stevens alone with Benzedrine-popping rapist Neville Brand, filling the frame with his sweaty, drooling kisser. But the camera work is so leaden and Brand so (uncharacteristically) demure that the effect is hardly lurid, much less suspenseful. The Stones, a square pair at heart, don't even have the courage of their own lack of convictions.<br /><br />The film, which ends with the portly Steiger chasing the fleet-footed Stevens on a subway train track, is as clumsy as its ungainly heavy. With Angie Dickinson as Steiger's amoral girlfriend, Jack Klugman, Kenneth Tobey, and Barney Philips. | 0 |
I discovered this movie on IFC, and I thought it would be interesting. For "tiny" love stories, some of the stories really dragged on in this movie. The fact that none of these women had names almost makes you suspect that the actresses were talking about their own real sex lives, including Kathy Baker and Alicia Witt. I have to admit, I want to start seeing some more romantic views of first sexual encounters again, like in "Strike!(1998)," when Odette Sinclair's acquaintances started asking about her presumed first time, and Tweety asked "Was it beautiful?"<br /><br />Some might think re-enactments and flashbacks would improve this movie. I think it would make things even worse. It doesn't necessarily have to be hardcore porn to get my attention, but somehow I just expected more. | 0 |
Contrary to another reviewer, I think that this is WELL-written, especially the more fictional it is, because greater imagination would be required; and well acted, because there were no other characters with whom to share the focus of these dozen-minutes-plus, well-done monologues. But I'm just not entertained by such solemn, pious rememberances. Everybody has a story to tell and some are more interesting than others. Everybody has problems and some are more intense than others. These are just ten, not-very-atypical stories and problems, exemplifying how anybody's life (or part of it) is fodder for film. Then again, I think poorly of TV's reality shows, too. So, if that's your bag, you may like this. It's the kind of stuff that would make for good 'phone and/or internet gossip; but absolutely without other-than-verbal action. And, although each of the speakers is female, I'm gonna leave gender outta this. | 0 |
This is a movie about how men think women think about love. No woman describes a one-night sexual encounter and declares it a love story.<br /><br />Of the ten monologues I felt only three really had any kind of truth ring through them. I kept waiting for the film to get better, and it did a bit, but never better enough.<br /><br />This is an interesting concept, and I kept wanting it to be good, but it never succeeded. Maybe if they actually WERE love stories it would have worked. | 0 |
Evidently lots of people really like this, but I found it infantilising and reasonably offensive codswallop, saved from oblivion by Jane Russell and a couple of memorable musical numbers, especially the opener (but there's a marked dip in invention later on). I don't get on with Monroe - she's supposed to be playing a dumb blonde who ain't that dumb, but she just comes over as dumb. Russell can't quite convince when she claims never to have been in a gymnasium, but is otherwise rather wonderful. The men are staggeringly uninteresting, as is the plot. By no means atrocious, but so patchy that, if this is a classic, God help us all. | 0 |
This film is hardly good, not great at all. A few memorable scenes and the unlucky choice of pairing Norma Jean with an actual actress. Jane Russell has it all working for her, Marilyn's lesser woman and/or actress. One can only wonder why this is considered being one of the highlights of her lame career. 3/10 | 0 |
The Soloist has all ingredients to impress the Academy. Its director, Joe Wright, has already authored a best picture candidate. The leading actor, Robert Downey Jr., starred in a widely praised superhero film. Finally, the movie itself is a drama. When it was mysteriously pulled from release in late 2008, filmgoers and critics were baffled. Now that I've seen it, I assure you Universal didn't just delay this film to promote Iron Man-Oscar buzz. The Soloist is a weak drama with no external conflict that is vastly inferior to any 2009 best picture candidates.<br /><br />Downey and co-star Jamie Fox aren't to be blamed for this mishap. Joe Wright is largely at fault but even he can't save a Lifetime story. Many movies are too complex and alienate viewers. This one is unusually simple. It's a movie about a newspaper reporter, Steve Lopez (Downey), who befriends a homeless musician, Nathaniel Ayers (Jamie Fox). That's it. Ayers is schizophrenic and doesn't resonate with Lopez's traditional approach to friendship. The two become friends. They begin this movie as acquaintances and are BFFs by its end. Tension consists of moments like this: will Ayers let Lopez take him to the homeless shelter? This material would have been better suited as a made-for-TV production rather than a feature film.<br /><br />Wright includes many scenes of cheap humor to obscure the lack of content. Lopez battles yard-defiling raccoons in what I consider a sub-plot. Do you remember when this happened in Atonement or Pride and Prejudice? Those films were structured enough to permit an occasional joke but nothing so prolonged. Ayers' back story is fleshed out when it doesn't need to be. Worst of all, these scenes are not connected and appear at random intervals. It's a way of admitting that the main story carries little appeal. Nathaniel was a violin prodigy with a tough upbringing (I was too). This is a fabricated attempt to create sympathy with Ayers when most of us already have it. He's a homeless schizophrenic for crying out loud! The movie somewhat conveys humanity's love for music, like Amadeus and Beethoven Lives Upstairs. It isn't as effective as either of those pictures, however. The entire film is hinged on Ayers' schizophrenia. It ultimately is how he interacts with everyone else. His being a musician is a nice touch but hardly worth including. The film doesn't incorporate this characteristic fully into his persona. Take music out of Amadeus or Beethoven Lives Upstairs, and no film remains. The Soloist is more about friendship in general than music. Nathaniel could be a writer or film critic and few lines of dialog would need to be seriously altered.<br /><br />This is only Joe Wright's third film, and his first that isn't a romance staring Keira Knightley. Let's hope this film isn't an indication of how limited his abilities are. There are stylistic nods to his earlier works but The Soloist is much weaker than either of them. In his defense, Universal should not have agreed to widely release this picture. This film seems tailored for Imagine Entertainment (distributors of Changeling). I wouldn't be so disappointed with it if had a limited release. Its poor box office performance may inhibit better dramas from being distributed nationally. | 0 |
Anyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon. | 0 |
What could have been an engaging-and emotionally charged character study is totally undermined by the predictable factor. Fox is OK as Nathaniel Ayers, the Julliard trained musician who dreams of playing with the Walt Disney orchestra until his bouts with schizophrenia drive him into the street and ultimately skid row. Looking for a good story to boost his flagging career, reporter Steve Lopez {Robert "rehab" Downey } gets to know him and tells his story. Taking every element of the classic "how we hit the skids" movies, borrowing very liberally from "A Beautiful Mind", taking the bogus "feel good" attitude of films like "Rocky"-you pick the sequel number-and whipping up too much 1930s style melodrama all that is left on the screen is a burnt out shell of a movie. It is corny, trite, utterly predictable and plays way too often on our sentiments. I hate to say it, but this is the kind of movie that, if you say you hated it, people will give you bad looks. I really wish I could say something positive about this film, but I really can't. The acting redeems it somewhat, but not enough for me to give it more than one star. Strictly made for TV movie stuff. Not worth your time. | 0 |
When you pick a movie I hope one factor you will consider, are the actors in the movie using their fame to influence the moral fabric of our society in a positive or negative way? This is not a political statement this is a moral issue that effects are society. When a comedian/actor makes curl sexual and racist remarks about a teenager and her father we should ask ourselves (do I want to support that behavior)? In this case Mr. Foxx behavior tears at the social fabric that teaches our youth right from wrong, good behavior from bad that loving-kindness is better than hatefulness. Mr. Foxx should remember he is only entertainment and there is a lot of that out there for us to choose from. Saying sorry does not get him off the hook. It will not undue the hurt or remove the bad behavior he spreads to our youth. One way to stop this behavior is to stop being a fan of it. No longer see anything they are part of. We cannot change them but we can stop the fame we give them. | 0 |
Charlotte's deadly beauty and lethal kicks make the movie cooler than it'd be otherwise.The story is so poor and Charlotte's character dies in such a foolish way, that you wonder if this's the ending they had thought of for this movie. I wish somebody could tell that an alternative ending exists, but I fear it doesn't. As for the rest of the cst, well I'd say they simply didn't act very well; although the blame should be put on the poor script.This movie reminds me of Rush Hour 2 where Zhang Ziyi dies in absurd way, since she had been the only one who had stolen the show during the whole movie. I could give this movie 2/5 | 0 |
You ever sit through a movie and after it's all over it's like one big "wtf!?". <br /><br />Welcome to Decoy. <br /><br />Another straight to video action fodder flick you can immediately forget about having watched or better yet don't watch it at all. Peter Weller and Robert Patrick star and are quickly wasted in this going nowheres fast mercenaries-for-hire action dud where the story is pretty darn bad and the action sucks and what's the point of watching an action flick if the action blows? Robert Patrick in particular hits a new low in an action sequence that has him firing a machine gun while standing on the hood of a moving school bus. Co-stars the ambient Charlotte Lewis and Canada's own Scott Hylands (of TV's Night Heat fame). | 0 |
A pointless movie with nothing but gratuitous violence. The only fun I had was playing "spot the location", as much of it was filmed in my home town of Regina, Saskatchewan. I like to support locally produced films but this one was a major disappointment. | 0 |
Now here is a film that if made in Australia would have easily been a comedy. Sadly and annoyingly, here it is, flaccid and cheesy and overbaked from Lala land. How did the di-erector get it so wrong? Well, mainly by being serious about a job so hilariously startling that nobody in their right mind could take seriously. Unless of course they were a nerdy lonely gay cliché (but somehow cute)...or is that cliché piled upon cliché. No value in the story that almost seems like a prequel to Gus Van Sant's GERRY..... and with a title like THE FLUFFER how is it all such a lead weight? Well this auteur must have soooooo mad that he didn't get to Burt and BOOGIE first that he had to make his own. Convoluted and undeveloped apart from the 'unrequited love's a bore' theme left over from a faded Streisand lyric, we have only moody beefcake and TV serial level storyline left. The un necessary fourth act of this overlong turgid drama is truly terrible as the film wanders off like the Gerries into to desert and gets stuck there. In Oz in the late 90s some 20 somethings made a similar but actually hilarious film called MONEYSHOT. Originally filmed as THE VENUS FACTORY it too suffered from an auteur more awful than Orson so they re-filmed half of it, got a ruthless TV editor to chop it up and down down to 72 minutes and hey-presto..comedy, tonight! A lesson there in when bad films turn good by lightening up. I guess THE FLUFFER stiffed on release and after seeing it not perform, I can understand why. | 0 |
This is a great idea for a film but it, unfortunately, doesn't turn out to be a great movie. What starts out as a sweet and almost goofy romantic comedy about a Fluffer in love with his Fluffee spirals out of control into a bizarre combination of genres and a veritable stew of plots, with liberal borrowings from BOOGIE NIGHTS, THELMA AND LOUISE, SHOWGIRLS, FRISK, and even a curious "dash" of 400 BLOWS thrown in towards the end. (At least the director did his research!) The result is not necessarily boring but, in the end, this slick, well-produced flick doesn't quite add up to anything. However, the actors all do a game job with the material and there are a few good laughs at the behind-the-scenes world of gay porn.<br /><br /> | 0 |
I wanted to see the movie because of an article in a film magazine. It wasn't a highly recommended one by the critic. The storyline is different and I am sure that it could have been a good movie if it was in right hands. Directing and acting were awful!! I had the feeling of watching a movie which was made a bunch of amateurs. Although the movie started promisingly, it got worse and worse. I think this is an unoriginal movie with awkward characters.. I still think that it is worth watching as I haven't seen films subjecting gay porn. Don't keep your expectations high though,then you will be very disappointed. * out of ***** | 0 |
This was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. "The Celluloid Closet" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed "Wigstock: The Movie". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.<br /><br />There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.<br /><br />I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.<br /><br />3/10. | 0 |
The Fluffer may have strong elements of porn industry truth to it - but that doesn't make up for the fact that it's pretty shabbily directed and acted - and with a very mediocre script.<br /><br />B grade from start to the exceedingly drawn out finish.<br /><br />It would be embarassing to think of the general public being offered this piece as an example of state of the art gay film making.<br /><br />Hopefully it has a limited life in the gay film festival circuit and is allowed to die a natural death on video.<br /><br />This film will open the Queer Film Weekend in Brisbane on April 10, 2002. I think its success there will be strongly influenced by the amount of alcohol consumed in the preceding cocktail party - they're gonna need it. | 0 |
I entered the theatre intending to pass a pleasant 90 minutes being entertained if not enlightened. I left neither entertained nor enlightened. This movie can't make up its mind what it wants to be and ends up being not much of anything. There are a few funny lines and a few incredibly pretentious movie references (The 400 Blows--for this character? come off it!). While none of the characters gets treated with much respect, the over thirty gay men get the worst of it: all predatory, fat, sad, slobs. If you're in the mood for a movie dealing with gay relationships check out Parting Glances, Longtime Companion, Trick, All Over the Guy, Red Dirt, Maurice, Philadelphia instead. You'll thank me.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Oh, well, this movie starts off well. It's kinda funny and seems like it could be a fun movie. Then it becomes a bit serious and goes off the rails. It sort of wants to be 'Boogie Nights' but it can't achieve it. If only it stayed with the tone of the first quarter of the film... | 0 |
But this movie was a bore. The history part was fine but the musical part was not. Not one song I cared about and no soundtrack to be heard.<br /><br />If Sweet Jesus" was suppose to be comic relief it never work. If John Adams was suppose to be the obnoxious annoying one, the rest of them were trying to overthrow him in every scene.<br /><br />Hancock and Jefferson were the only bearable characters in the whole movie.<br /><br />The historical quotes and the debate about slavery in their historical context were interesting enough but not enough to overcome the lack of music in a musical.<br /><br />Shouldn't you be humming the songs after a musical, except for a few chirps, nothing else was worth the breath. | 0 |
I guess you have to give some points for the sheer courage of writing a musical around a history lesson but how about some decent music? <br /><br />Is the cartoonish acting of Howard DeSilva meant to pique the interest of otherwise jaded children? <br /><br />Is William Daniels' campy contemporary (for the time) acting style meant to appeal to a 1960s/70s demographic? <br /><br />Do we need all the "in-jokes" about NY & NJ? (I can hear the blue-haired Broadway audience guffawing on cue.) <br /><br />Sorry, I find the whole piece dated, boring & the acting far too strident for the screen | 0 |
1993 was the year. This was long before Phillip Seymour Thomas had won an Oscar. Who knew I would be an extra in a movie with him? I was actually a paid extra in "My Boyfriend's Back," which was shot in a suburb of Austin called Georgetown, TX. The original title was "Johnny Zombie" (thank God the producers had a change of heart!) I was in the theater scene. I rushed out to watch the movie the day it was released in theaters. It is more of a comedy than a horror movie. But... for a good laugh, you might want to check it out. Nothing that is even close to "Dawn of the Dead" or even "Shaun of the Dead" quality, but the cheese factor is good enough. ciao | 0 |
I have seen over 1000 movies and this one stands out as one of the worst movies that I have ever seen. It is a shame that they had to associate this garbage to The Angels 1963 song "My Boyfriend's Back." If you have to make a choice between watching this movie and painful dental work, I would suggest the dental work. | 0 |
I'm easily entertained. I enjoyed "Hot Shots" and "The Naked Gun" and their many sequels, even when most people found them unbearable. I've even managed to enjoy most Pauly Shore movies. There is only one movie that I've seen that I can honestly say was bad...and this was it. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I do remember sitting in the theater thinking, "This is a dumb movie. Why did I see this?" It's honestly the only movie that I cannot recommend. | 0 |
Turn your backs away or you're gonna get in big trouble out of MY BOYFRIEND'S BACK! Only a happy ending can bloom your innocence that is full of gloom and doom at the very moment you're watching this. It's safe to say that the entire movie falls apart, with a sarcastic approach and tribute to zombie shows that defy nonsense to the max. We get a name like "Johnny" every so often, and this "Johnny" has nowhere to go. There isn't a specific reason to why our "dead corpse" crawls out of his grave just to survive until prom night, so that renders the movie totally useless. Without a feeling of sorrow, his mother is convinced to tell the doctor that he's dead. Johnny takes a bite out of Eddie's arm afterwards. The viewer is asked a tough question: Why does the movie have to be this cornball? There is an answer. Any resemblance to all persons living or dead is purely coincidental. "Living" is a coincidence. "Dead" has nothing in common with the movie. Show this one to your girlfriend and she'll skip the senior prom, turning your life into a deserted ruin. Blah!!! | 0 |
Please make me forget. Please. Please. This is the worst film I have ever had the misfortune to watch. I consider the film an insult to my brain as well as my backside who both have suffered from me sitting and watching this film. I have yet to see what damage it has caused my sight and my ability to complete sentences. What a load of garbage!! And don't get me started about the acting... Someone please help me forget!! "Weird Science" -- come back!! Everything is forgiven...<br /><br />I am "proud" to give this film the first 1 here at IMDb... And I've voted for hundreds of films... Many of them c**p but this is so bad I can't even believe it. Someone actually came up with the idea and thought it was worthy of becoming a film? Someone actually read the script and decided to produce the film? Someone read the script and auditioned for it? Someone saw the film and decided *not* to put it on a shelf to collect dust for eternity? *These* are the questions I want answers to. Not the philosophical question about that tree in the woods and well, you know... | 0 |
I saw this move several years ago at the Central Florida Film Festival if I recall. I liked it, it showed great potential. I guess most people here are blasting this film because the film did seem hobbled together (by the filmmaker's own admission on the official site -- the short was exhibited as a "rough-cut").<br /><br />But nonetheless, it was an easy-going comedy. I think many people try to read far too much into a comedy. All they are supposed to do is make you laugh -- that's all. I did just that at its showing, so it succeeded on that level. Just my 2 Cents Anyway. | 0 |
This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).<br /><br />I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).<br /><br />Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).<br /><br />I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).<br /><br /> | 0 |
this is just a terrible 'comedy' -- it really is a bad film. there are no funny elements. no jokes that are funny. i don't know how some people can claim this dismal short film could be 'smartest' or 'quality.' perhaps if its the only film that a person has seen you can make that claim of the brothers. but, i have seen thousands of better films: namely leonard part six (now, that's funny)! i don't know how the brothers is even considered eligible to be listed on the internet movie database: its more like a home video than an actual film.<br /><br />jokes aside, just skip this film. a root canal is more enjoyable that this cliche-ridden unfunny material. | 0 |
I noticed that this film has taken the brunt of a lot of insults. It probably earned some of them, but it wasn't that bad. Well, I'll be honest: I never want to see this film again. It was a bad film. But I don't hate this film, it tried to tell a story. As a drama, this film could work very well actually. I just think the filmmakers misgauged which road to take when they made this (they should have added more funny bits if they wanted it to be a comedy). With a rewrite, it could have been a great film. But as a satire, it didn't work in its current form -- many scenes did not fit within the context of the plot: for example, the robbery scene makes little sense in the story. Still, it wasn't the worst independent film ever made -- is it in the Top 10 Worst? That's debatable. | 0 |
i can't figure out who greenlighted this thing! it has no redeeming qualities, none, nada, zip, zilch.<br /><br />the acting was bad. the directing was bad. the writing was bad. the plot was bad. the music was bad. the editing was bad. ....well, at least the filmmakers were consistent. | 0 |
I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.<br /><br />I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.<br /><br />This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.<br /><br />Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us. <br /><br />I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works. | 0 |
Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.<br /><br />Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.<br /><br />In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.<br /><br />In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.<br /><br />What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping! | 0 |
"Algie, the Miner" is one bad and unfunny silent comedy. The timing of the slapstick is completely off. This is the kind of humor with certain sequences that make you wonder if they're supposed to be funny or not. However, the actual quality of the film is irrelevant. This is mandatory viewing for film buffs mainly because its one of the earliest examples of gay cinema. The main character of Algie is an effeminate guy, acting much like the stereotypical "pansy" common in many early films. The film has the homophobic attitude common of the time. "Algie, the Miner" is pretty awful, but fascinating from a historical viewpoint. (3/10) | 0 |
To say Funky Forest: The First Contact is a bad movie is an understatement of incredible proportions. I can really get into a good art house film, even a surreal and twisted romp like El Topo, Naked Lunch, and Survive Style 5+, because those movies actually have something worth discussing when the credits roll.<br /><br />FFFC attempts at every avenue to be this deep and intellectual, essentially there is no substance in this movie. This movie is badly done, the visuals in this movie are not inspiring, the dialog is worse, the musical numbers destroy this movie.. I chuckled for GUITAR BROTHERS, but that was immediately wiped out by something completely unnecessary, and irrelevant. It attempted to be deep and meaningful I think, but its just pretentious disoriented nonsense. Freshman film students without a camera could craft something more interesting.<br /><br />Guitar Brothers and the stand up routines in between skits get 1 point each, everything else is just badly paced, pseudo-creative, heavy handed attempts at being AS good as films by other REAL directors like, Sogo Ishii, David Lynch, and Jodoworsky. Give me a break. I am convinced that people that rave about FFFC are doing so because they have no idea of what they saw, because it was nothing but mild pertinent statements here and there mixed with stupidity and blended until you puke on your own shoes.<br /><br />This movie was an extreme disappointment, coming off the high that was Survive Style 5+, a film that actually has meaning, combined with excellent use of scenery, cinematography, catchy dialog, funny moments, good soundtrack, excellent performances, fantastic pacing and flow. FFFC features the exact opposite in every way, boring scenery (20 minutes staring at a bland beach at night? a completely white stage? Alien balls floating in white space? a dinky school hallway and then a... school hallway?), terrible cinematography, forgettable dialog, nothing funny or humorous, save the fact you just wasted your life for two hours, soundtrack?, amateurish performances, uneven, disjointed, and often flat out dragging pacing, zero flow whatsoever.<br /><br />There are those that claim this is what makes FFFC a great movie, that it is so unconventional at every turn that its pure genius. This is simply a way to stroke your own ego it seems, because "unpredictable" could be a good quality for a film if it wasn't coupled with "boring", "innane", and "terrible". Personally I have spoken with two people who admitted to me that FFFC was terrible when they left the theater, but overwhelming rave by art-house elitist made them watch the movie again and then come back to me with a... "Hey it was pretty good I liked it".<br /><br />I'm going to put my foot down, this movie is slop, I don't care if Roger Ebert says this film is the best thing he's ever watched since he lost his own virginity. "The Emperor's new cloak" I say... this movie is no way indicative of the other psychedelic/trippy films to come from Japan in the last 10 years. Taste of Tea, Party 7, and Kamikaze Girls are much better movies (even with a low budget), and none can honestly compare with Survive Style 5+. Watch FFFC only if your interested in making a pretentious pile of nothing on a shoestring budget. | 0 |
Crazed Shotgun toting-incest driven-revenge seeking truck drivers & obsessive control disorder "daddy raped me when I was 12" handcuff carrying, all latex wearing prostitutes is just a few of the character you will be introduced to in this complete disgrace of a movie that can easily be viewed on any cable TV station (IE: Skinemax) at 4am on Sunday nights. (
And yes I know that was an entire sentence, but bare with me people; this is a long-winded review for a short pointless film).<br /><br />Filmed in "somewhere" Canada, with almost no budget, the plot to this freak show is trite, the police in it obviously never heard of "State Jurisdiction" because they end up chasing both Miya (Hookers) and Trent (idiotic, Anal Retentive, Generic, insecure College Student) all across the U.S. (and I thought only the FBI could do that). The camera is shaky, the sex scenes are mediocre and the acting is so bad it might actually cause unintentional acid flashbacks to movies like "Ishtar" and "Leonard Part 6".<br /><br />As far as the Skin scenes go (which is the only reason to even rent this movie, don't even think of buying it) there are two of them. The first one is the only one worth watching though which is the Dominatrix Sex scene with Kari Salin and ____(insert unknown actor here, he's obviously done nothing else worth noting) in a seedy, disgusting Motel room (the kind with the busted sink that drips, and the soda machine outside that only has blue tonic water left in it). It's all S&M (riding crops, handcuffs, hot wax, and underwear licking) folks and in the end, he gets left in a motel room, with no money and cops waiting at his door (that's goes to show you guys, don't let a hooker tie you up in a "middle-of-nowhere" motel room). Sadly though, Kari shows no skin worth remembering, and that alone can cause deep-seeded traumatic experiences for some gentlemen, so that is definitely a downer towards this flick.<br /><br />As for the ending, *Snicker*Snicker* I know you probably wouldn't mind if I revealed it to you but I won't, you should spend your hard earned money for that one. All in all I give it a 1/5 for action, a 3/5 for Skin (See last paragraph) and a 0/0 for acting, character development or intricate plot twists.<br /><br />- Laughing Man | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.