text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
I've seen a lot of Seagal movies, and while most aren't great, or even good, this steamy pile lowered the bar for bad movies.<br /><br />The plot: not sure really. Something about a drug that makes you all crazy and strong or something. Who are the good guys and bad guys? Hard to tell. Most of the movie is cut scenes going back and forth between people in darkly lit rooms complaining about how good Seagals character "Mashall" is.<br /><br />Acting: Blows.<br /><br />Voice Dubbing ,,,,,, What was with the horrible voice overdubbing?! Could they of found anyone who sounded any less like Seagal? May as well had Cheech or Chong doing the voice overs, might of at least been entertaining then.<br /><br />This movie is boring, and completely stupid. Avoid it at all costs!!!! | 0 |
I had a feeling that after "Submerged", this one wouldn't be any better... I was right. He must be looking for champagne money, and not care about the final product... his voice gets repeatedly dubbed over by a stranger that sounds nothing like him; the editing is - well - just a grade above amateurish. It's nothing more than a B or C-grade movie with just enough money to hire a couple talented cameramen and an "OK" sound designer.<br /><br />Like the previous poster said, the problems seem to appear in post-production (...voice dubbing, etc.) Too bad, cause the plot's actually OK for a SG flick.<br /><br />I'll never rent another SG flick, unless he emails me asking for forgiveness.<br /><br />Too bad - I miss Kelly LeBrock...<br /><br />--jimbo | 0 |
I had the misfortune of wasting 10 quid buying SS new movie on DVD: Attack Force. Now i usually can suspend my belief watching films like this. A pinch of salt and some beers on a dark evening on the sofa watching a noisy late evening shoot em up is perfect for a single alpha male like me. I bought this film thinking I'd see cool martial arts and shoot em up.<br /><br />Did i hell. Segal is old and bloated, the plot was ludicrous even by SS standards and to cap it all off Segal's acting (such as it was to start with) is exceptionally dire. So dire in fact that half of his voice was dubbed over by a man who sounded NOTHING LIKE HIM. Either SS cant act no more (a moot point) of the crew were so dreadful at their jobs they couldn't record the sound properly. The voice would flick back and forth between Mr Whisper Segal and the man who does voice overs for Honda adverts!<br /><br />Plot wise isn't the issue because most action films work along the same premise as this one, nothing new there. The usual mix of characters who will die horribly as cannon fodder and stereotyped bad guys waiting to get blown away.<br /><br />Avoid this film like you would avoid walking in front of a speeding train or a dose of H5N1 avian flu.<br /><br />Utter garbage.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />This has been a public health warning. | 0 |
I am truly beginning to believe that Seagal is on a mission to see how crappy his films could become.This particular movie was a complete and utter waste of time to see.My first complaint was the cover of the DVD where they have doctored his pic and made him look slimmer and younger when in the film he looks like crap.He has his big pot belly and double chin going for him and the most miserable and bored look on his face.<br /><br />The whole plot was ridiculous to begin with and drawn out way too long.The whole film was leading up to the finale where Seagal and his team had to take on a bunch of people under the influence of a top secret military chemical adrenaline enhancer.There was way too much useless dialogue and not to mention the ridiculous and constant dubbing of Seagals voice even in the middle of a statement.The dubbed voice sounded like a man with a frog in his throat and was quite comical.<br /><br />The fight scenes in the film were horrible.Half the time when Seagal fought you could not even see what was going on.There would be tight shots of him flapping his arms at the camera and then the person flying through a wall or something.It was reminiscent of the old Kung Fu series on television.They used way too much slow motion for the fight scenes.<br /><br />I believe this is Seagals worst film to date and I am glad I did not purchase this film or I would have been very upset since I am a huge fan of Seagal the Aikidoist.The action star is quickly fading away and seems to be getting worse with every performance. | 0 |
What the F*@# was this I just watched? Steven STOP!! Please! This movie is insatiably bad and silly. In a bizarre departure from action and adventure, Mr. Seagal is now fighting (obviously) wish-they-were-vampire 'like' creatures with super human strength.? OK? Oh, and their eyes blink sideways in an inhuman way? Wow! Even still in this movie however, to quell Seagals have-to-have-the-last-punch-and-no-one-can-kick-my-a$$ ego, HE is somehow stronger than they are. However all of the average humans are getting crushed all around him. Come on, I can understand the big mouth neighborhood bully or drug dealer, but these are super human strength people. Oh and get this, Seagal goes through a brief sting of identity issues, because apparently he and his cohorts in the film think he is Wolverine! Oh My GO... And worst than all of that! Yes, there is a worse than that. He has a voice over even changing voice in mid sentence while we are looking at his face. They obviously sound nothing like him and I believe it may be one of the other actors in the film. It was pure madness. Although I wanted to turn it off I always watch a movie to he end. This is an all time low even for your direct to video movies Steven. Awful! Awful! Awful! Two thumbs down! Redemeption qualities? Well I guess so, I will be fair in that aspect. At least some of the special effects were OK, and I like the choice of wardrobe for the actors and actresses. The women all were quite attractive IMO. Still, and I said STILL, it does not make up for the blatant X-Men, Underworld, (insert your favorite zombie, vampire movie here) rip off! The director, writer, producer, ALL should be bansihed & exile from the movie business. I think I feel the way that most people feel about Blood Rayne (and just about all other Uwe Boll pictures) about this film. That's my whole $1.00 on this film. View if you dare. | 0 |
A not bad but also not so great heist film. Kirk Douglas is a recently released from prison safe-cracker who, after turning down an offer from the Mob, decides to pull the job himself. He recruits circus gymnast Giuliano Gemma. Mayhem ensues. Douglas and Gemma soon find themselves pursued by mafia goon Romano Puppo as well as entangled in a really goofy love triangle with Douglas's infinitely patient girlfriend (Florinda Bolkan). Director Michele Lupo keeps the pace moving quickly and there's at least one excellent and creative car chase sequence involving Puppo & Gemma. Though an Italian production, most of the filming appears to have been done in Germany. Douglas is fine, not just slumming it in an Giallo quickie. The striking Bolkan gives a terrific performance. The music is by Ennio Morricone and the cinematography is by the great Tonino Delli Colli, who managed to work with everyone in Italy (from Wertmuller and Fellini to Pasolini and Leone). | 0 |
In 1692 Salem, a devious child's lies about a slave's involvement in witchcraft sends an entire community into an uproar. Costume drama starring Claudette Colbert and Fred MacMurray isn't stuffy, though neither is it a vivid depiction of contagious hysteria. Worked on by three writers (Walter Ferris, Durward Grimstead, and Bradley King), the story elements are rather interesting (especially coming out of Hollywood in 1937), though to anyone who has since read Arthur Miller's "The Crucible", the hoked-up melodrama on display here won't be tolerated for very long. Biggest problem with the picture may lie in the casting: Colbert and MacMurray are an ill-matched pair of lovers hindered by the witch-hunt, MacMurray being far too contemporary a presence for these surroundings. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
The only reason I saw "Shakedown" was that it has Erika Eleniak in it. She's sexy as always, but she plays second fiddle to leading man Wolf Larson. It's a pity, because she has more action capabilities than she's allowed to show here. The film largely consists of endless shootouts that quickly become monotonous - especially when most of the time you are seeing the bad guys armed with machine guns constantly missing Larson and him armed only with a revolver (that NEVER runs out of bullets) taking them all out rather easily. The earthquake effects are decent, but there is also a lot of blurry motion and poor CGI explosions. As the psychotic "spiritual leader", Ron Perlman tries, but the pseudo-religious mumbo-jumbo he has to spout is simply boring. Eleniak, Perlman or Larson (assuming he has any) completists might want to give this one a look, for others it is barely worth a rental. (*1/2) | 0 |
An average TV movie quality, totally formula story of religious fanatic (Ron Perlman, who gives good "I'm not just the President of 'Psychos R Us,' I'm also a client.") who gets control of a biochemical virus (think the virus from the movie "The Rock"). Too bad for him that he also gets stuck in a bank building during an earthquake with bank robbers and the government agents trying to stop him (led by the impressively physiqued, mildly entertaining Wolf Larson, backed by Fred Dryer) along with the standard "in the wrong place at the wrong time" spunky female (the forever bland Erika Eleniak) and "lived as a wimp but died as a hero at the last minute" male (Brandon Karrer). Has the standard background story to give sympathy to the religious fanatic (wife and son killed in a police raid a few years previous). <br /><br />Basically a decent rainy day movie.<br /><br />Favorite line, spoken by Ron Perlman after he finds the vial of the virus hidden in Erika Eleniak's cleavage: "A woman and her mystery."<br /><br />Worth a rent. | 0 |
Mr Perlman gives a standout performance (as usual). Sadly, he has to struggle with an underwritten script and some nonsensical set pieces.<br /><br />Larsen is in "Die Hard" mode complete with singlet and bulging muscles, I'm sure he could do better but seems satisfied to grimace and snarl through his part.<br /><br />The lovely Erika is very decorative (even though fully clothed!) and shows some signs of "getting" acting at last.<br /><br />SFX are mainly poor CGI and steals from other movies.<br /><br />The shootouts are pitiful - worthy of the A-Team<br /><br />Not even worth seeing for Perlman - AVOID | 0 |
This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it. | 0 |
Anyone who's watched a few Lifetime Movie Network movies knows that plot credibility is the first thing that gets brushed off the planning table. So, when crazed Lara moves into Patti's home and methodically begins to drive her landlady bonkers, I didn't even blink. When Lara eventually ramps up her activities to threatening poor Patti, and dares her to do anything about it, I just nodded. You see, on Planet LMN, people don't behave the way they do for any particular reason, they just do it to keep the action going. Only on Planet LMN could someone almost have the owner of a home thrown out of their own house by means of their seductive powers!! Poor Patti - she just trusted too much, and Lara went off her medicine, and then there was this big fight at the top of the stairs involving a syringe full of deadly stuff that ends up injected into someone's tummy, and a body bag going out the front door. The horror!<br /><br />But take it from me, this Planet LMN product is a classic. You need to watch it once, just for the great laughs you'll have. On the Improbability Scale, I give this film a 95/100. Make a big batch of popcorn and get some apple slices, too. You'll understand later. | 0 |
This Lifetime style movie takes the middle aged divorcee victim who then finally fights back genre to new depths of cartoon-like absurdity.<br /><br />Here the 40 something stay-at-home ex-wife of a successful lawyer protagonist (daughter away at college) is starting a new life after her divorce, helped by a female college friend in opening a new dress shop as a sort of franchise expansion deal. She has even started up a friendship with her attractive, slightly younger perhaps, landscape architect / gardener (who's black). But then horror of middle-aged women's horrors, ANOTHER 20 something female she took on as a tenant to let a room to, starts 'taking over" her life.<br /><br />What this new younger woman threat really does is mildly flirt with the gardener, and offer him a glass of wine that * gasp * really belonged to the divorcee!! She runs up the utility bills by not turning down the thermostat!! And backed up the toilet! And leaves old food gone bad in the refrigerator! And hangs her pieces of (African) artwork in the living room!! And so on. Well she may have killed the cat as well. Yeah, ok, the extent to which this one does these things is bad enough, but its more than a little ridiculous, especially as it turns into a campaign. The character reality is that any tiny part of this would drive this particular prissy woman insane. (So why did she rent the room -- and to horror of horrors, a much younger woman?)<br /><br />Supposedly this increasingly arrogant (natch) younger woman has a mania for seizing control. And our brave 40 something must learn to fight back against this evil (and erotically hot looking, of course) 20 something. But there's this problem. Anytime the 20 something starts to maybe get into trouble she uses her POWER -- and just flirts or has sex with some guy, and escapes the consequences. (Well, there actually is something to that capability of good looking 20 somethings. It just isn't * generally * used in quite this sort of way.)<br /><br />The premise is moved along by the device of the 20 something conning the divorcee into formalizing their room rental deal with a written lease produced by her. Of course the 40 something doesn't know about these things, and the 20 something has had help. The lease actually gives the younger woman equal right to the whole house during the rental period, with utilities thrown in at the fixed price. Even though an eviction proceeding is soon pending, the 20 something soon gets a temporary restraining order against the older woman, supposedly because she has been threatening the 20 something. You know, the judge is sympathetic to all the woe-is-me of the sexy sweet young thing. Finally the 40 something's "heroic" battle back for THE HOUSE then begins. Woopie!!<br /><br />The only realistic or perceptive thing in this movie is how horrificly easy TRO's (or orders of protection) are for women to get on nothing more than her unsubstantiated say so -- although they are generally only this easy against men. They are sometimes just as unjustified and just as motivated to seize control of a home as it is here. Indeed, girlfriends who have moved in with their boyfriends can often get them evicted from their own homes or condos on the basis of no proof whatsoever, but only an unsubstantiated claim of threats, and sometimes without even hearing his side. Even when there is a hearing, it is routinely impossible to rebut claims of threats (to prove a negative), when the burden of proof is effectively on the accused, rather than the accuser. (This is one of the only areas of American law where that is true -- and it's a signal outrage of feminist overreaching, and the failure of any organized group to resist the steamroller.) Of course that's not likely to be the subject of any Lifetime movie in this lifetime.<br /><br />The absurd basic premise of this movie relies upon the explanation that the 20 something is psychotic, and isn't taking her medicine. Even so it makes no sense. She isn't after the successful lawyer ex-husband, though she does con his help (to the ex wife's fury) in her quest. She's after THE HOUSE (technically, to drive the divorcee out of it during the period of the lease). This second younger woman is after ALL THAT'S LEFT after the divorce, after affairs with other 20 somethings STOLE her husband!! (The ex-husband seems unattached and basically solicitous after his fling -- doesn't matter, he still strayed!!!)<br /><br />The protagonist is good enough looking for her age. But her outlook, attitude and focus is so small minded, frumpy and utterly without imagination or life force that it's impossible to care about her. Well, a core group of Lifetime fans care, I guess, judging by the average score the small number of raters gave it. (I kept watching it only because it was so extremely bad and cartoonish that it had a camp appeal. I couldn't resist seeing just how far they'd take it.)<br /><br />** Spoiler ** (if such a thing is possible with this flick).<br /><br />Well, here's a clue. The movie ends with the 20 something getting bailed out of jail by promising to "listen to" her 20 something male co-worker and sometimes lover, and "do whatever he says" and "let him take care of her" (he means get her to keep taking her medicine) -- and then tricking him and returning to THE HOUSE. There she climbs the stairs with a knife, demonicly stalking her nemesis 40 something, who is taking a bath by candlelight, secure in the thought that the younger woman is out of her life. There's a struggle -- and the 40 something mom wins -- by sticking the 20 something with a hypodermic needle full of anti-psychotic medicine she had found. She then begins stroking her, mom like, and the two women have a bonding, female solidarity moment!!! How sweet. | 0 |
There was a reasonably good looking girl starring the film(Zoe Mclellan) but even her looks couldn't stop me from voting it the lowest possible - one.<br /><br />The plot is bad and irrational.<br /><br />What more can I say. The movie sucks. | 0 |
Got into this flick, just as it was beginning, on an afternoon where I was home with a touch of flu - otherwise I'd have missed it. That probably would have been best.<br /><br />I noticed the presence of Lindsay Crouse and Jay Thomas - both very good performers - and thought this might be worth a look. It proved to be to some extent, but only because it is one of those stories so awful it fascinates.<br /><br />Zoe McLellan has little to recommend her talents, except for her Jayne Mansfield- or Loni Anderson-like bosom. Unfortunately, her acting prowess - at least here - makes Mansfield and Anderson seem to be Garbo or Davis by comparison.<br /><br />The young nut case's white rat, the owner's cat, the young nut case having the owner evicted and restrained in her own home, and a bunch of doophus's (including the young nut case) running around a bio hazard facility, and the absurd conclusion. I kept waiting for at least some scene or plot element to contain at least a modicum of realism, believability or being capable of evoking some empathy/sympathy -- but this proved to be in vain. | 0 |
Don't get me wrong - I love David Suchet as Poirot. I love the series as well as the movies but enough already re: Death On The Nile. Everyone has done this one! We know who dies. We know why they die. We know who the killer is. We know how it was done. So I say enough already! Mr. Suchet could have used that awesome talent in another one of Agatha Christie's novels. I will say that the acting by all the actors was superb. The sets were terrific and very realistic. I especially liked David Soul but I was surprised at how 'awful' he looked. I hope he doesn't look that way in 'real' life! I honestly can't remember from other movies whether the very end was the same. Somehow I don't think so. I thought that was a rather brilliant touch whether or not Ms. Christie wrote it that way. I would much rather have that ending then wasting away in prison! | 0 |
As a Hammer completist I was dreading the time when I would have to raise the courage to watch this film and the one following it, Holiday on the Buses. I had seen One the Buses the film and thought it one of the worst films I have ever seen. It was full of all the awful comedy that plagued British TV screens around the early 70's.<br /><br />I am ashamed to say that there were actually parts of this film that I laughed at. I don't know if it was because I was now familiar with the characters and enjoyed some of the situations, knowing how they would react. I found Blakey particularly funny, although I could swear at no point in the trilogy does he say his catchphrase, "I'll get you Butler".<br /><br />Having watched Holiday on the Buses the jokes were starting to wear thin and these three films could be compared to an early Hammer trilogy, Dick Barton, in that the second film made is the best (although this is probably the only way they could be compared).<br /><br />The only people who would want to watch this film are probably fans of the TV series, who will no doubt enjoy this, and Hammer completists like myself. To the completists I would say that this film isn't that bad and I can certainly think of worse Hammer comedies. | 0 |
Watching it now it's still as skanky and sexist as I remember. comes from a time when girls were "Dolly Birds" and basically men's playthings. It's hard to take in that it is from the Hammer studios and the fact it's available on DVD when good films are not. Our nations shame where the working class are portrayed as work shy layabouts or worse! Trouble is you can't help feeling nostalgic for a Clippie on a bus. Try to hold your stomach contents when you see Olive in a fluffy? Blue "saucy" nightie or something similar like Shirley Bassey used to wear for a concert in 1972. Warning this film shows the illegal practice of towing a motorcycle combo by a red double decker bus, which I've been informed is not a Routemaster but a Bristol.<br /><br />Look just don't bother watch something decent instead like Porridge or Dad's Army...or a fly crawling up a wall. | 0 |
This wasn't funny in 1972. It's not funny now.<br /><br />Unlike a lot of other people, I'm not bashing the film because it is incredibly sexist - I quote enjoyed that bit, or rather I enjoyed the reaction it generates in annoying PC people - I'm bashing it because it is poorly written and acted.<br /><br />The only really memorable character is Blakey, which British people 25 years old will recognise immediately since he was a favourite with impressionists for a long time.<br /><br />Avoid.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Sometimes you need to see a bad movie just to appreciate the good ones. Well, that's my opinion anyway. This one will always be in the bad movie category, simply because all but Shu Qi's performance was terrible.<br /><br />Martial Angel tells of Cat (Shu Qi), a professional thief turned straight after leaving her lover, Chi Lam (Julian Cheung), two years before. But her past returns to haunt her as Chi Lam is kidnapped for the ransom of security software belonging to the company Cat works for. In order to rescue him, she calls on her old friends from her orphanage days, six other feisty women, to save the day...<br /><br />I may have told the synopsis cheesily, but this is a cheesy story. In fact, the whole script and direction lacked any quality at all. Much of the dialogue was meaningless and coupled with a plot that was as thin as rice-paper in water. If I could sum it up, take a bad Jackie Chan movie, remove the comedy, remove the choreography, throw away the budget, and you have Martial Angels: a formulaic piece of work with no imagination at all.<br /><br />Mind you, I do have to give credit where credit's due, and Shu Qi was probably the only person to emerge unscathed from the terrible action, as it was her performance that shone through. Okay, you can't say she was excellent - after all she had absolutely nothing to work with - but she did manage to dig some character out from her role. Other than that, only Sandra Ng and Kelly Lin made any other impression - although these were mostly glimmers and very brief.<br /><br />Elsewhere, the film just fell to pieces. Scenes and dialogue were completely unnatural and unbelievable, special effects were obviously done on the cheap with no attempt to clean up edges between persons and the mask of the blue screen, poor editing involving numerous discontinuities in fight scenes, camera angles that were elementary and unflattering, and direction I've seen better from a lost dog.<br /><br />I guess this film was a too many cooks affair. Most probably, the budget was blown away on the over-enthusiasm to have seven babes on the same silver screen. That didn't leave much else.<br /><br />Frankly, the way this film was made was like a cheap porn movie without the porn. Charlie's Angels, it ain't. In fact, while sisters can do it for themselves, none of that was really that apparent here.<br /><br />Definitely one to forget. | 0 |
Despite pretty bad reviews, I just had to give this film a go it does, after all, star HK super-babe Shu Qi plus 6 other oriental lovelies as a team of all-action cat-burglars. Surely that's worth checking out? Well, as babe-fests go, Martial Angels is hard to beat. The eye candy is top quality. Shu Qi looks as fantastic as always, and of the rest of the girls, Rosemary Vandebrouck and Amanda Strang caught my roving eye in particular.<br /><br />Unfortunately, if one is to judge this movie by any other possible merits, it is an absolute stinker! The story is weak, the action shoddy and the special effects downright pathetic. Director Clarence Fok and Producer Wong Jing have given us a photogenic cast and little else.<br /><br />If Shu Qi is the only reason you're contemplating seeing this one, you would be better off watching Sex and Zen 2 again! | 0 |
Polyester was the very first John Water's film I saw, and I have to say that it was also the "worst" movie I had seen up to that point.<br /><br />Water's group of "talent" included several people who I am sure worked for food, and were willing to say the lines Waters wrote. Every thing about the movie is terrible, acting, camera, editing, and the story about a woman played by 300 lb transvestite Divine was purely absurd.<br /><br />That said, I have to recommend this film because it is very funny, and you won't believe the crap that happens to poor Francine. Her son huffs solvents and stomps unsuspecting women's feet at the grocery store. Her daughter is the sluttiest slut in town. Her husband is a cackling A-hole of a pornographer who does everything in his power to embarrass and humiliate poor Francine.<br /><br />Francine's only friend is played by Edith Massey, possibly the worst actress ever. Edith looks and sounds like she is reading the lines off a cue card and has never seen the script prior to filming.<br /><br />Despite all of Francine's travails, Waters cooks up a fabulous Hollywood ending and everyone (who survives) lives happily ever after. | 0 |
I was really disappointed with this film. The first Waters movie I saw was Serial Mom and I loved it. Then I saw Pecker and I loved it. Then I watched Polyester and really sort of hated it. The only thing I liked about that movie was DIVINE. She/He had a hell of a lot of talent. I was truly surprised. As a whole, I wouldn't recommend this film... | 0 |
No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!<br /><br />Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England. | 0 |
I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism? | 0 |
I absolutely hate this programme, what kind of people sit and watch this garbage?? OK my dad and mum love it lol but i make sure I'm well out of the room before it comes on. Its so depressing and dreary but the worst thing about it is the acting i cant stand all detective programmes such as this because the detectives are so wooden and heartless. What happened to detective programmes with real mystery??? I mean who wants to know what happened to fictional characters we know nothing about that died over 20 years ago??? I wish the bbc would put more comedy on bbc1 cos now with the vicar of dibley finished there is more room for crap like this. | 0 |
This is the story of a young woman seduced and then dumped by her older, married lover after she gets pregnant; she avenges herself against him, and his entire family, through black magic which, disappointingly, she doesn't do herself but has someone else do for her. Good production values for a Thai horror flick. But the bland script never generates suspense, the director approaches the material entirely conventionally, and the final act loses viewer sympathy for the victims by throwing logic to the winds. At one point, a character has a prime opportunity to simply shoot the villainess dead, and instead she gets up and runs away without picking up the gun. Bad writing you're soaking in it! <br /><br />Some icky gore effects, including a really tasteless late-term-fetus corpse and one guy dying from having hundreds of live eels burst out of his stomach. Only recommended for genre completists who simply have to see every horror film produced in Asia in the last 15 years. | 0 |
Ever heard of a taiwanese horror movie? Or any taiwanese movie? Propably for a reason. This one was a really boring one, even though it has black magic including withered baby bodies and people exploding from the inside with thousands of eels.<br /><br />Having read other peoples thoughts, I was looking forward for some violence and gore, but there's not much at all. Some blood puking and other lame stuff, if you are waiting for graphic gore or any gruesome effects you will be disappointed. They clearly didn't use the eel exploding and other things to their maximum potent.<br /><br />Pretty much nothing good about this movie; a single character that wasn't completely bland and a few OK black magic spells, like the eel one. The plot was confusing and boring. The characters were thin and annoying, including the main character. The horror aspect didn't work at all, the most horrifying thing was an albino girl (not that scary really). This is the worst Asian horror movie I have ever seen. | 0 |
"The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.<br /><br />Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!<br /><br />The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.<br /><br />The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.<br /><br />"The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.<br /><br /> | 0 |
OK, I am not a professional movie critic but come on...a true story!!!!<br /><br />They are tunneling under another store to get underneath the bank and stumble across a tomb. At tomb with a passageway which goes directly under the bank.<br /><br />OK, I'll play along.<br /><br />But then they get into the bank and decide to go to sleep. Yeah!!! I am sure with all the adrenaline pumping through them they are going to just fall asleep. <br /><br />This blows the whole picture!!!! How lame!!!!!<br /><br />Glad I didn't have to pay to watch this one. | 0 |
Impressed! This is the worst SRK movie and one of the worst Bollywood movies I ever saw! I didn't like the novel, but this movie made it worse! Very bad music, even worse actors (apart from SRK of course, though even he doesn't manage to save the movie), and not much sense. The director makes it all look very confusing, God knows why... Maybe it's because he's trying to make it all look very surrealistic, and yet credible. Well, he manages neither.<br /><br />Even if you've got a few hours to loose, don't watch this movie, please! (Saying this for your own welfare!) Keep searching, you will find something else to watch! | 0 |
Maya is a woman without any interests. She just dreams her life away and wonders, why she does not feel fulfilled. This could be an interesting topic. That would need a good story, a nice setting and good dialogues. It doesn't have any of these. This movie is totally boring. There are only lengths and no climaxes.The only climax is Shahrukh Khan. But although I am a huge fan of his, I couldn't stand this movie. Even he can't make this movie exiting. The movie is not as bad as "King Uncle" and if you're an Art-house fan or like it slow, you might maybe like it. It's not funny, it's not interesting, it's not catching. My recommendation: Don't watch it. | 0 |
I've been watching this movie by hoping to find a pretty and interesting story yet the story line wasn't good at all. The play of the actors weren't any better.<br /><br />Of course Shahrukh Khan was there yet he wasn't enough to make this movie "credible" and interesting.<br /><br />I've read that this movie was based on the novel of Flaubert "Madame Bovary" yet for me I didn't see it matching with the Indian mentality.<br /><br />In general we buy movie to dream and have a good time, not to waste our time and change our mood into worse. I just can't understand how it could get such a "high" vote with an average of 6.8/10.<br /><br />So it's the kind of movie you should run away & ignore because there is nothing to appreciate in it! You will just waste your time unless if you like "dark movie" with "strange and non sense story". | 0 |
Painful. Painful is the only word to describe this awful rendition of such a fun and interesting Shakespearean play. I gave it a shot but was terribly disappointed and couldn't bare to even finish viewing it. To the person who wrote a novel about how wonderful this twist of Much Ado was, I pity you and your bored brain. May your pretenses about young viewers be lifted without retribution. Please do not even bother with this gut wrenching, disgusting excuse for a performance of an acclaimed Shakespeare drama. You will be forced to induce vomiting and will require a commode close to the television with which you choose to watch this crap because involuntary defecation will take place. | 0 |
This is a very bland and inert production of one of Shakespeare's most vibrant plays. I can only guess that the intent was to make the play as accessible and understandable as possible to an audience that has not been exposed to Shakespeare before. By doing this, though - by making every line clear and every intent obvious - they have drained the play of life and turned it into a flat caricature. Somehow, it is actually boring - a very hard feat given such wonderful material.<br /><br />The acting is forgettable at best - Sam Waterston as Benedick and Douglas Watson as Don Pedro. Others, however, do not fare so well. April Shawnham's Hero is a pouty, breathless airhead that frequently provokes winces. Jerry Mayer's Don John is a nonsensical cartoon character on the level of Snidely Whiplash (though Snidley was much more enjoyable).<br /><br />F. Murray Abraham (you know, the guy who killed Mozart?) is not in this version, unless he was in disguise and had his name removed from the credits.<br /><br />Given that the producer, Joseph Papp, is basically a theater god, this production is not only disappointing but head-scratching as well.<br /><br />Don't bother with this. Watch Branagh's Much Ado instead - his version is overflowing with vitality and humor, to say nothing of wonderful performances. | 0 |
This is possibly the worst version of the play I have seen - several times on stage apart from the movie.<br /><br />A very nice idea for the set up - the American South can give a credible backdrop for the extreme reaction round Hero's supposed misdemeanour.<br /><br />But the execution! Widdoes is a very mannered Beatrice giving a particularly poor performance. Waterston, a fine actor, is not much better as Benedict.<br /><br />The poorest performance is in the role of Don John - it makes Keanu Reeves look good. Perhaps the desire to make it a caricature along the lines of the villain who ties the maiden to the train track fits with the keystone kops capers of Dogberry and his men - but the acting makes you want to cringe.<br /><br />Successful set-ups include the scene where they fool Benedict into believing Beatrice loves him - were the acting competent it would be superb. But the use of the river and the visual humour of Benedict moving closer is well produced.<br /><br />Overall I had to force myself to keep watching but it certainly didn't keep my attention.<br /><br />Very disappointing.<br /><br />With respect to latter comments above I am nearly 40. I've been watching stage and screen productions of Shakespeare for over 2 decades. Might I suggest when trying to defend your friends you speak to the piece rather than attack other reviewers when you are so inadequately armed in terms of fact. I can assume though, from your distaste regarding youth, that you are of sufficient age where the mannered acting of bygone days is more to your taste.<br /><br />My personal favourite pairing was Rylance and McTeer on the London stage. Unlike Widdoes, McTeer, a skilled and charismatic performer, can act. | 0 |
I consider Stuart Bliss the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and the plot ludicrous. I get the fact that the main character's wife leaving him triggered a mental breakdown, but it got so silly and boring, after a while I could have cared less about any of the characters.<br /><br />The movie kept going over and over the same ideas without anything fresh or surprising to add to the plot. The whole thing with the Geiger counter got too much after a while after Stuart started opening up his wall to see what was behind it after the counter indicated something was there.<br /><br />Then there was the repetitive scenes with the flyer, and the confusing ones where he meets himself.<br /><br />I should have guessed that this movie was a flop when I didn't recognize any of the actors. Do yourself a favor when this movie comes up, read a book! You'll be better off. | 0 |
I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).<br /><br />It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense. | 0 |
Despite being a 2001 movie, the direction is the kind of 90's art-house style that was considered "old" and out-of-date a few years ago. The cheesy cuts and effects were painful to watch. The script is decent enough, and a few scenes did kind of captivate me (like when the taxi driver brings her to the bridge at night). But the story line with the detective who's sister killed herself and how he was obsessed with suicide was just plain terrible. The performance by the actor who plays Selma Blair's married boyfriend seriously bothered me. I did sit through the whole thing, though, which is rare for the kind of random, what-is-this movie you just find on TV and decide to watch. | 0 |
this movie was clearly done poorly and in a rush. I realize that the funding for any such movie is hard to come by. However if the plot had any kind of original substance someone would have seen that it got the necessary funding, this was not the case and movies like this are not necessary themselves and have no purpose in existing. The plot for this movie has been done and done better i might add, many times before. There is no reason to make a movie that has no chance in competing with any others. i was informed by my computer that i need a minimum of ten lines to submit my comment so the following lines are just bull to fill in space. In my opinion there is no need for anything else to be said about this film. what i've said is plenty and if you wasted enough time reading this review, than for God's sake don't waste more time watching this movie. The only exception to this is if you are the kind of person who likes watching crappy movies that get played on the womens entertainment network at 2:00 a.m. in that case go ahead see what i care. | 0 |
Kill Me Later" has an interesting initial premise: a suicidal woman (Selma Blair) on the verge of jumping off the top of an office building is protects a bank robber (Max Beesley) who promises to "kill her later."<br /><br />The actual execution of this premise, however, falls flat as almost every action serves as a mere device to move the plot toward its predictable conclusion. Shoddily written characters who exhibit no motive for their behaviors compromise the quality of acting all around. Lack of character depth especially diminishes Selma Blair's performance, whose character Shawn vacillates from being morose to acting "cool" and ultimately comes across as a confused dolt. This is unfortunate, as under other circumstances Ms. Blair is an appealing and capable actress.<br /><br />Compounding matters for the worse is director Dana Lustig's insistence on using rapid cuts, incongruous special effects (e.g. look for an unintentionally hilarious infrared motorcycle chase at the end), and a hip soundtrack in the hopes of appealing to the short attention spans of the MTV crowd. Certainly Ms. Lustig proves that she is able to master the technical side of direction, but in no way does her skill help overcome the film's inherent problems and thus the movie drags on to the end. Clearly, Lustig has a distinct visual style; however it is perhaps better suited to music videos than to feature film.<br /><br />The producers (Ram Bergman & Lustig)can be commended for their ability to realize this film: they were able to scare up $1.5 million to finance the film, secure a good cast, and get domestic and foreign distribution. This is no small feat for an independent film. Yet given the quality of the product, the result is a mixed bag. | 0 |
After viewing this film, I felt the compelling need to vent a bit of my frustration. Selma Blair is a fabulous, currently underrated actress and Max Beesley was rather charming in "Kill Me Later". The story, while not exactly original, certainly showed some promise. None of that mattered though...at all.<br /><br />I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious "modern" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.<br /><br />There are a couple of good scenes in "Kill Me Later" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10 | 0 |
I see a lot of people liked this movie. To me this was a movie made right of writing 101 and the person failed the class. From the time Lindsey Price the videographer shows up until the end the movie was very predictable. I kept on watching to see if it was going anywhere.<br /><br />First we have the widowed young father. Cliché #1 movies/TV always kill off the the mother parent if the child is a girl, or a brood of boys so the single father can get swoon over his dead wife and seem completely out of his element taking care of the children. Starting from from My 3 Sons to 2 1/2 Dads. These movies are usually dramas and comedies are TV shows.<br /><br />Cliché # 2 When a pushy woman has a video camera in her hand she will play a big part in the movie. And will always have solutions or even if that person is a airhead <br /><br />Cliché #3 If the person in peril is a foreigner they have to be of Latino origin. And they must be illegal. Apparently there are no legal Latino's and illegal Europeans, unless if there is a IRA element involved.<br /><br />Cliché #4 The said Latino must be highly educated in his native country. In this case he was a Profesor who made 200 per month. And the said highly educated Latino must now act like he hasn't brain in his head now and lets the air head side kick take over.<br /><br />Cliché #5 The crime the person committed really wasn't a crime but a accident. But because in this case he has lost all of the sense he had when he crossed the boarder he now acts like a blithering idiot and now has put his own daughter in peril by taking her along on a fruitless quest to the border with the idiot side kick.<br /><br />Cliché #6 One never runs over a hoodlum running from a crime , but some poor little cute kid. This is because the parents of the child have to play a big part of the movie, and because the the person who accidentally killed the child can have ridiculous interaction with the parents.<br /><br />Cliché #7 Name me one movie in which one cop is not the angry vet and they get paired up with a rookie. Even if they are homicide detectives who have to be the most experienced cops on a police Force. Sev7n and Copy cat and Law and Order come to mind right away. And the vet even though gruff on the outside has a heart of gold.<br /><br />Cliché #8 Let's go and round up some unemployed Soap Stars. Now I like Lindsey Price. But Susan Haskell IMO can not act her way out of a paper bag and when she use to be on One Life To Live as Marty he swayed from right to left every time she opened her mouth. It use to get me sea sick. She might be anchored on land better now, but she still cannot act.<br /><br />The movie might have been more insightful if it wasn't filled with clichés. I don't think a movie has to be expensive or cerebral to be good. But this was just bad.<br /><br />***SPOILER**** Now I am not going to spoil the ending. Oh heck I will because I feel it will be a disservice to humanity to let a person waste time they will never get back looking at this movie. It involves Cliché #6 and #7. Unless a person has never seen a movie before you had to see what was coming. The father makes even a dumber mistake runs from the cops at the end and gets shot by the angry veteran, who all of a sudden is very upset. You would think she thought the poor guy was innocent all through the movie and she shot him by mistake. When she didn't. Now for the little girl who the dad brought along with him. Guess what happen to her? Times up, she ends up living with the family whose child was killed by her father!! Come on! You all knew that was going to happen, because she is a replacement child!! That is why she did not go and live with the Lindey Price character. <br /><br />This movie was a insult as far as I was concerned. Because there were so many avenues this movie could of explored and went down but it chose to take the cliché ridden one. The 2 stars are for 2 of the stars, the little girl, who I thought was very good and Lindsey Price who character was annoying but she did what she could with it. My advice is take a vice and squeeze your head with it instead of looking at this dreck | 0 |
Heavy-handed moralism. Writers using characters as mouthpieces to speak for themselves. Predictable, plodding plot points (say that five times fast). A child's imitation of Britney Spears. This film has all the earmarks of a Lifetime Special reject.<br /><br />I honestly believe that Jesus Nebot and Julia Montejo set out to create a thought-provoking, emotional film on a tough subject, exploring the idea that things are not always black and white, that one who is a criminal by definition is not necessarily a bad human being, and that there can be extenuating circumstances, especially when one puts the well-being of a child first. However, their earnestness ends up being channeled into preachy dialogue and trite situations planted to move the plot along. The decent production values and interesting use of documentary-style camera footage are not enough to accomplish their aim when the script and the acting fall flat.<br /><br />Logic is often compromised for the sake of creating tension: Soid first tries to blackmail Pablo into participating in her documentary in exchange for helping them escape, then in the same breath basically tells him not to trust her because she's not helping them out of altruism. Well, duh. And for a man on the run, Pablo is far too swayed by a temper tantrum. Cristina's well-being is so important to him that he's fleeing capture and jail or deportation for her, but he's willing to risk all that to appease her when she doesn't want to go to Mexico. Right. Talk above over-permissive parenting. Third, when Pablo's employer Charlie gives the phone to Detective Bright, she is remarkably unprofessional, especially given her seniority - did she really think she was persuasive? Oh, yeah, I would have turned myself in. CCH Pounder's Detective Wims could wipe the floor with her.<br /><br />To be fair, I'd like to list the things I liked. Um, I liked the midget. And I liked the fact that the midget was named Sexy. There's cross-dressing, always a plus; juvenile cross-dressing, no less! Harry is infinitely cuter than Cristina. But my favorite moment in the film has to be when Cristina kicks Detective Not-So-Bright. I also find it interesting that, in a heavily minority cast (which I much appreciate, by the way), the black character is the racist one. Too bad it's just thrown out there and not further explored.<br /><br />There's a distinctive, unconventional score, but it's nonetheless generally context-unspecific, not enhancing mood or tension in any scene, except the pathetic, anguished wailing every time the main character is in anguish, as though they think his acting doesn't show it enough: 'Just in case you weren't sure, he's upset, and we have the musical cues to prove it.'<br /><br />Stilted, clichéd dialogue results in a depressing lack of subtext; everything has to be spelled out in dialogue, even when the body language had been up 'til then conveying it just fine. For example, every impassioned speech Pablo makes, and Mrs. Knight's lament that her child won't be crawling into bed with them in the morning.<br /><br />'Papi, tell me about Mama again' - what shameless, blatant exposition introducing the generic dead wife! (She's always the most beautiful woman the widower had ever seen, the kindest he had ever met. Why can't we see a man cry over a woman like Shakespeare's - she may be fat, ugly, obnoxious, but his love for her is deep as oceans? Now _there's_ a story which would move me.)<br /><br />The police always being literally one step behind them gives many scenes the out-of-place feeling of a French farce. Most boring foot chases ever - Bright and Lightning are so out-of-shape and easily-fooled (he certainly isn't quick as lightning, and she, well, I don't feel the need to spell things out). Some guy dragging along a small child outrunning a bicycle cop, complete with macho biker picking a fight but then being felled by a child? To quote Margaret Cho, that's so sad. Would we ever see this on 'Cops '?<br /><br />Hackneyed and over-the-top deus ex machina: as an employer, would you really waive checking his green card just because he can quote the author of the inspirational saying on a poster behind your desk?<br /><br />Plus several scenes, including the above, threaten to devolve into porn: 'Well, I'll do this favor for you, as long as you do something for me...' I can almost hear the bowm-chicka-bowm-bowm.<br /><br />When the parents view the footage shot of Pablo's remorse, the grieving mom's freak-out is the most real the movie feels. Unfortunately, this is diminished by the fact that she looks completely swayed by his emotional speech right up until she goes ballistic. A more ambivalent look would be more convincing here.<br /><br />I'm in constant awe of the stupidity of the main character doing things for the sake of plot: holding up a convenience store without a mask, visiting the dead girl's grave. And why doesn't the mother recognize his face from when she saw him before he drove off?! 'You seem awfully familiar...'<br /><br />What is the purpose of that wholly unnecessary, somewhat gratuitous scene with Soid and the artificially-enhanced bartender? Character development? Tch. Too little, too late.<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary traits that never went anywhere, Detective Lightning's saying skeptical Detective Bright must be a Scorpio shows how little he really knows about the occult. And I don't think that believing in fate quite qualifies as voodoo mumbo jumbo.<br /><br />At the end, when Bright holds Pablo as he dies - wait, why does she care now? Her character is as inconsistent as Soid's. What, she has to shoot him just because she said 'Stop, or I'll shoot'? (She's cared _so_much_ about her integrity thus far.) He was unarmed. There was no need for lethal force. What's wrong with shooting him in the leg to immobilize him?<br /><br />Finally, Cristina's childlike acceptance of her mother's death giving Dr. Knight peace over his daughter's death - so forced. And the contrivance of the family whose child was killed becoming Cristina's new family... It angers me that she could be a 'replacement' for their little girl. It's also unrealistic that a white couple would take in the Latino daughter of the man who killed their own daughter. I'm not saying there aren't generous, loving people who would do that. I'm just saying that the characters here are never developed far enough for me to believe that _they_ would do that.<br /><br />I find it offensive that another IMDb reviewer said that of course as a woman she was moved by the sappy scenes. I am a woman who reserves my emotional movements for moments that don't wax sentimental in a manufactured manner.<br /><br />Co-writer, co-director, co-star Nebot said himself he wore too many hats during this production. Too many cooks may spoil the broth, but one cook alone just might end up making an after-school special.<br /><br />In conclusion, this film's title has less to do with the story and more to do with the feeling of regret, helplessness, and loss accompanying the revelation that you will never see your money again. | 0 |
This film has an interesting plot, but the acting is quite bad and the script is poor. I was very disappointed. The moral dilemma faced by the main character is an intriguing one, but due to poor writing and casting this potentially winning premise is plundered. 2 of the 4 other people in the theater left after about 45 minutes and the other 2 were laughing at how bad the film was. I stuck it out to the end, but I must admit I played Blackjack on my cell phone to make the last 30 minutes bearable. | 0 |
It makes the actors in Hollyoaks look like the Royal Shakespeare Company. This movie is jaw dropping in how appalling it is. Turning the DVD player off was not a sufficient course of action. I want to find the people responsible for this disaster and slap them around the face. I will never get that time back. Never. How is it possible to create such a banal, boring and soulless film? I could not think of a course of action that would relieve the tedium. Writing the required ten lines is incredibly difficult for such a disgraceful piece of cinema. What more can you say than reiterate how truly awful the acting is. Please avoid. | 0 |
Being a Film studies graduate I would like to think that I have seen a diverse range of films, some good and some bad, but I would have to say that 'Summer rain' is by far the worse film I have ever seen! I chose the film in the hope that it was going to be a great British classic such as 'Secrets and Lies' or 'Lockstock' but oh no this was so bad that my flat mates and I ended up laughing and cringing at the ridiculous acting and cheesy script (reminded me of a bad 'theatre in education' school production). The main characters Michelle and Gary began to annoy us from the start. 'Michelle' the main character who lives with her two friends has the type of face that you would never get tired of slapping and Gary was so wet (he kept breaking down in tears every 5 minutes) that by the end of the film I really didn't give a damn about either of them. All I could think was ' I paid £3 for this pile'. I have never written a review before but after watching this film it has spurred me on to warn people of this disastrous production. So please avoid at all costs. Thanks for reading. | 0 |
Well.......in contrast to other comments previously written I have to say that the only good thing about this film is the fact that one guy in it looked a bit like Jason Donavon which reminded me of my youth. I have no idea how it won any awards, and although I'm sure a great deal of effort went into making it it was all fruitless as the final outcome is one which screams of early 90's foreign soap operas. The plot was non-existent, the cinematography was hopeless and the acting was on par with an a-level performance. It was unfortunately long and the sub-plots were incredibly unrealistic....for example....if your best friend slept with your ex-boyfriend of 6 years after only 2 weeks of being broken up you would not all remain the best of friends. It was all fantasy. That's all! Oh yeah, and the weird 90's house/soft core indie was mind numbing! | 0 |
I'll give credit where credit is due, and say that Linda Fiorentino gives a good performance as a hard-drinking actress who does what she wants. She's brash, sassy, hard-edged, and very sexy; she is much better than this film deserves.<br /><br />But that is IT. This dull suspense film is a fragmented mess, attempting at once to be a stalker thriller, a murder thriller, a tale of loyalty and betrayal, and a steamy erotic thriller. The film, my friends, isn't thrilling in the slightest.<br /><br />For instance, who thought of casting C. Thomas Howell as a desirable leading man? He is not ugly, but for crying out loud, it looks as though Fiorentino's tough-cookie goddess is getting it on with a kindergarten teacher. Howell has neither the authority or screen presence to fill the leading man role.<br /><br />The script is by far the worst aspect of the film. There is no tension as Fiorentino's character gets eerie phone calls, there is no mystery concerning her guilt in the murders that are the focus of the film, there is no sense of liberation as Fiorentino gets wimpy Howell to lose his inhibitions.<br /><br />Look for interesting but poorly-done cameos by Adam Ant and Issac Hayes, and one really, really good sex scene between Howell and Fiorentino. Besides that, my first impulse would be to put this sorry piece of trash down and go rent something else. | 0 |
Perhaps not my genre but plot was horrible as was acting by Nancy Allen and Linda Farentino. C. Thomas also seemed uncomfortable in role of being seduced here (while on marijuana? why did this need to be included? this weakened plot considerably). Also Farentino's charac. would have been better had she had more respect for a relationship. Would does movie try to say? not much. | 0 |
A bondage, humiliation, S&M show, and not much else. The plot is flat, really just a banal setup for the stylishly depraved set-pieces. The host of the aforementioned show, a silly little man who spouts drivel while prancing around the stage in dresses, was almost as painfully distracting as the attempts at artful editing. The dream-like ending felt tacked on. To the film's credit though, Aya Sugimoto was fairly convincing as the tortured lead. Flower and Snake has been compared with Eyes Wide Shut but aside from some minor surface similarities, Kubrick's is easily the more layered, artistic, and atmospheric picture. | 0 |
when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.<br /><br />I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.<br /><br />Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.<br /><br />And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is "If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance", you know time capsule stuff.<br /><br />Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.<br /><br />The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said "hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.<br /><br />Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie. | 0 |
This is a depressingly shallow, naive and mostly unfunny look at a wildly improbable relationship between Brooks' psychotic film editor and Harold, his vapid girlfriend. The two have ZERO chemistry together - primarily because Harold is incapable of doing anything besides looking pretty at this stage of her career; but also because Brooks' character is neither interesting nor likeable. There are 15 static, excruciating minutes at the beginning where Brooks, having just broke up with Harold, stumbles about his apartment in a depressed, drugged out state - unbearable.<br /><br />Sappily and unimaginatively bookended by Joe Cocker's "You Are So Beautiful", there simply is not enough material here for a feature film. There is hardly anything going on on the periphery of their relationship to give the appearance that these people exist in a real world. I'm sure Brooks' intention was to shine a white hot spotlight on the affair and, in a way, deconstruct it; but if you're going to do that the writing and acting needs to be far far better than what it is here. | 0 |
Having read the other comments on this film, I would like to share my own view that this is one tough movie to see unless you are a total Brooksophile. I am not.<br /><br />When looked at by a purely objective observer, the film is an unbalanced narrative that presents us with more undistilled neuroses than are capable of being absorbed in one sitting. It is quite difficult to watch. The Brooks character (Robert Cole) is so unsympathetic and unpleasant that it is hard to relate to him---let alone root for him as he stumbles from one dysfunctional self-absorbed situation to the next. And he should NEVER do a topless scene and expect to be taken seriously in a romantic context. No man could have that much exposed foliage and be supposed to turn on a babe like Kathryn Harrold----unless, of course, he is Albert Brooks in an Albert Brooks-controlled production.<br /><br />"Modern Romance" has its amusing moments-----but they are fragmentary and infrequent. More often than not, I felt as if I were on a confined journey with a thoroughly dislikable person and wishing that it would end already. It confirms the problems that can develop when too much control of a film is placed in only one person---someone who lacks the self-discipline to be able to step back from it and see what is clearly happening.<br /><br />As most people probably know, James L. Brooks, who played the director in this film, is in fact what he portrayed. Six years later, he cast Albert Brooks in the very successful "Broadcast News." James showed us how Albert can shape a credible and entertaining comic performance. Albert allowed us to see James (generally not cast as an actor) do a rare comic turn in a surprisingly effective manner.<br /><br />Fans of "Modern Romance" will by now have moved on to the next laudatory comment about it. To you I say-----there is enough pain in the world without having to find it in a film intended as an entertainment. | 0 |
When I saw the previews for this movie, I didn't expect much to begin with - around a second rate teen horror movie. But wow, this movie was absolutely awful. And that's being generous.<br /><br />First of all, the casting for the movie was terrible. You feel no sympathy (or for that matter any morbid feeling) for the characters. The acting was so terrible that I was just simply waiting and hoping for the God-awful thing to end.<br /><br />Secondly, there are points in the movie that had absolutely no relation to the plot whatsoever. Can somebody please explain to me why the girlish-looking boy starts screaming "PANCAKES!!!" at the top of his lungs while going into Jackie Chan moves I've never seen before, and even further biting the guy who has the virus? Why does the father of the kid proceed to get angry with the virus-infected guy, and go on a redneck hunting spree to find him? I was left with a feeling of such confusion and utter disbelief that I literally said out loud, "Where the hell did that come from?"<br /><br />I just simply couldn't believe what I had seen. I really thought I had seen some bad movies, but I have to say that Cabin Fever tops them all. This movie made me want to puke and then puke again. Then blow my brains out.<br /><br />Please, save yourself an hour and a half and do something more productive. Watching grass grow, perhaps, is a proper alternative. | 0 |
OK let's get right to the point. We have five recent college grads (must have majored in the F word) going out on a weekend camping trip. They run into someone who is in need of help, but instead of trying to assist him, they decide to set him on fire instead. Nice bunch of people. Next some of them start go get sick - must be something in the water at the cabin they are staying at. However the neighbors seem to be OK. Oh well, when things start getting really bad, they lock up one their companions instead of getting help (try the neighbor by the way). Some locals don't take a liking to them. They chase one on a high speed romp through the woods for many miles, until the truck breaks down. Somehow ten minutes later he shows up at the cabin (how he could find it and how he could travel at the speed of light to get there is a mystery). Another of the brain surgeon type at the cabin realizes something is amiss so he hides out in a cave to let this blow over. He then decides the next day to return to the cabin believing it must be some type of shrine. He is giddy with relief that he survived (he must have thought it was a 24 hour bug). Unfortuneatley he is met by some not so friendly police officers. Another couple decide to have sex while the flesh eating bug is working its magic, and then the women realizes she needs to shave her legs (taking a lot of the diseased skin with shaving cream). Anyway you get the idea. Nothing makes sense here. These are five people I would not want to be friends with. I was rooting for the flesh eating bacteria. Other characters were introduced who were also somewhat amusing but utterly unlikeable as well. Ninety minutes of good life wasted here. | 0 |
Anyone who has read my review for Uwe Boll's "Alone In The Dark" will remember that I compared the unenviable task of sitting through that piece of human waste to having each and every hair on your arm pulled out. Well, take that analogy a step further with this irredeemable gutter trash and try to imagine the pain of getting your teeth extracted without novacaine. Do that, and you'll have a general idea of what Eli Roth's "Cabin Fever" is all about.<br /><br />I never believed any one film was capable of topping the sheer agonizing dreck that Uwe Boll cranks out as the "worst film ever made." But, in all honesty, I have to say "Cabin Fever" comes very close. This is yet another sad excuse for a motion picture that had absolutely no valid reason to meet with any form of theatrical release. For somebody who claims to love the horror genre as much as Eli Roth does, he has created the single most annoying and convoluted patchwork of a movie I think I have ever seen in my entire life. How do you screw up a story like this? Think of the potential this plot would have had without the poorly written characters, without the bad writing, and without all that unnecessary and unfunny comedy. A movie dealing with a grotesque flesh-eating virus could and should have been so much better than what Roth dished out for us here. This script failed on so many levels with me. And, while I do not doubt the evident talent this director possesses, I do know that he fumbled the ball big time on an idea that could very well have redefined the horror genre.<br /><br />To say this was a production of missed opportunities would indeed be a gross play on words. A generous amount of blood and unsettling special effects can't even save it, and that is one element I normally go for. There really was nothing about "Cabin Fever" that I could easily recommend to anybody. When three quarters of the crowd walks out of the theater halfway through, you know the movie is sinking fast. My best advice to those reading this would be to simply rent before purchasing. One viewing was more than enough for me to know that I will most likely never bother with it again. | 0 |
I wasted 5.75 to see this crappy movie so I just want to know a few things:<br /><br />What was the point of the dog being split in half at the beginning of the movie, the disease had nothing to do with being split in half.<br /><br />What was the point of dragging Karen into the shed, she already totally infected her room, they could have just locked her in there where she would have been safer.<br /><br />Why would the Hermit be running around the forest asking strangers to help him when he could have just asked his relative, the hog lady, to take him to the hospital?<br /><br />Why didn't any of the characters bother to walk into town to get help when things started getting bad, are they all really that lazy?<br /><br />Even if Paul was threatened by the guy w/ the shotgun for peeping on his wife, Paul could have just sent Jeff or Bert back to the house to ask for help. the girl he loves is deteriorating.<br /><br />What was the point of the box?<br /><br />Why did Jeff go back to the cabin after he left when everyone else was getting infected, if he was that big of a jerk to leave in the first place wouldn't he have just gone back home?<br /><br />If the police went to all the trouble of gathering up the kids and burning them on the fire pit, why did they throw Paul halfway into the river, it wasn't even necessary for the plot because the water was already contaminated.<br /><br />Who makes lemonade out of river water, that crap has dirt leaves and bugs in it. Why couldn't the two kids have just use the tap water, it was contaminated too, so the stupid ending would still work. | 0 |
I don't really know whether Cabin Fever is supposed to be a joke or a film... But as far as I know, it's much closer to being a joke than anything else. A few years ago, the community of horror film makers decided to take a new step and make fun of the genre, thus giving birth to the Scream series. A list was given in Scream, of all the stupid things horror film characters will do that are predictable, and the characters in Scream ended up doing exactly the same things, which added a lot of humor and irony to this analysis of the genre, and led to hope that horror films from now on would show a bit different, either full of irony towards the genre, self-derision towards the film itself, or at least different in their dramatic process than all the "old" films that responded to the same tired criteria. In seeing "Cabin Fever", alas, many will see how unoriginal, serious, pretentious, boring and even not scary some supposedly "scary" films are now, even a few years later. First of all, this film lacks originality in a way few others do. It has been said several times, how little imagination horror directors have today, remaking remakes of foreign sequels, but setting the film in a cabin in the woods just doesn't seem to be an "hommage" to anything, it seems to be, simply, a ripoff. Whoever wishes to be surprised by other factors of the film's story won't be: once again, we are dealing with a film whose characters are all in their early twenties, who won't think rationally when placed in front of a problem, will rather argue for hours and pick up fights than try to think and do something about it. Not much excitement there either. For the umpteenth time in a horror film, they are tempted to kiss, make love and just basically have fun, all sorts of things that don't really make them any different than any other horror film victims seen previously. Secondly, this film is unimaginatively serious. Every situation the characters are in, every dialog, every situation in the film is treated with such seriousness that any viewer with a little sense of derision will be relieved when some characters finally end up dying. Nothing in the way the film is directed, written or acted shows any sign of humor or sarcasm, which is quite amazing considering the film is about an invisible-never-heard-of-before-flesh-eating-virus (no laughs please). I won't even bring up the acting, since there are no actors in this film. The cast was most certainly hired for being friends or neighbors with the director. Thirdly, and this will strike whoever has seen a "good" horror film before, the screenplay is absolutely empty. Nothing really happens, some actions are repeated several times ("let's try to get help!"), nothing makes sense, either in the facts, the psychology of the characters, or even the hilariously lame last sequence of the film, which is probably supposed to be funny according to the director and screenwriters. In the end I will only remark that a horror film is supposed to have something scary in it. Gallons of fake blood, whether they are being vomited, squirted from severed limbs or simply dripping from wounds, never were enough to scare an audience. Such major features as screenplay, ideas, and even cruelty are requested for whoever claims to have shot something scary. If I wasn't considering it to be a total failure, I would agree to reckon that the film has one talent: it is filthy disgusting to watch. Yet being grossed-out and being scared are two very different feelings, let it be known.<br /><br />I would like to encourage anyone a tad curious or interested in seeing this film to check older major horror films first, why not from the 60s, the 70s, the 80s, films made by Wes Craven, Dario Argento, Sam Raimi, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Roger Corman, William Lustig, John Carpenter... it might not only give a good definition of what is scary, or self-derisory horror, but also convince viewers that "new" isn't necessarily "better". A good example related to the film is the few tracks composer Angelo Badalamenti provided for this film, even although they are unmistakably close to his previous compositions, they are below anything he has ever done before. | 0 |
Okay I had heard little about this film, so when it came on the movie channels on TV, I wanted to watch it, being a horror aficionado. I think I can do a collective "huh?" for everyone who watched it.<br /><br />I decided to move on with my life, but at a party with my closest friends, we saw it was coming on and some of us having seen it already decided we could laugh our way through it, both of us proclaiming "this is the dumbest thing I've ever seen". It wasn't scary; Ill give it to Roth (who I think is a young hack); characters do change throughout the film, ala "Cube".<br /><br />HOWEVER despite your typical "rats in a cage" scenario- who will turn on who, etc., it was pretty average horror.<br /><br />A few points: 1.) What was with that kid? I'm not even talking about him being weird and biting people. I'm talking about the whole "slow motion karate kicking", what was that? 2.) Okay I know Rider's character liked Jordan Ladd's, but as a young woman, I was appalled that he just went ahead and molested her in her sleep. Uh, thats illegal.<br /><br />3.) Roth was in the movie just so Roth could be in the movie. Talk about pointlessly writing yourself in! 4.) What was with the deputy? 5.) So she was just instantly pulled apart by the dog? And there was little to no blood left? Just a scrap of her jeans? Anyway we were LAUGHING our asses off, and I love laughing during horror movies (Return of the Living Dead 2, Evil Dead), but I don't know if we were supposed to be laughing here... | 0 |
**SPOILERS BELOW!!!**<br /><br />Cabin Fever has my nod for WORST film of the year...that I've seen that is. This movie is straight GARBAGE! There is so much wrong with the film you can't help but be amazed at how bad it really is. This movie had so much potential to be good, but ultimately made nothing of it. The characters were as dumb as one can be; for the entire movie you're just asking yourself "why would you do that?" or "what's your point in doing this?"...this is how illogical and stupid the characters are. We get NO background into them, so naturally you really don't give a rats as$ about their fate...you could only laugh at their stupidity. <br /><br />- The 'slut' (Marcy) for instance... was she that horny that she had to sleep with Paul (Rider Strong)? There was no point in that....its almost as if the filmmakers needed a excuse to give her the virus so voila! UGH. <br /><br />- Would anyone really go into the woods and drink water from the faucet of a cabin WITHOUT looking at it first?<br /><br />- Why didn't Bert just shoot the sick guy from the start? Movie would've been over that way....besides, they ended up killing him anyway.<br /><br />- Why did it take them so long to finally decide to leave the cabin, even if they had to walk? 'No, I'll just wait until 2 of my friends are infected (one a blink away from death) to finally opt to walk outta there.<br /><br />- What was exactly the reasoning behind Paul's attempt to fish out the body of the Hermit, only to fall in the contaminated reservoir and get infected with the virus? Pure STUPIDITY!<br /><br />I swear, common sense was not a friend, much less an aquaintance to these idiots. I don't think there has ever been a worse ending to a movie. In the beginning the kids ask the hick store cashier what the rifle was for, and he replied that 'its for the niggers'. In the end of the film, 3 young Blacks (dressed in baggy clothes, one of them in a du-rag no less) go into the store....come to find out that the cashier was cleaning it for them to be used for hunting. THEN, he proceeds to give them all pounds and handshakes and joke around with them as if they're his homeboys.<br /><br />Okay, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!?!?!? How tasteless can one be, what were the filmmakers THINKING putting that in the movie? I as a Black man was of course offended by the initial 'Nigger' comment. It was a tasteless, pointless remark. My question to the filmmakers: what was the point of the ending with the Black kids? Was that to force me to forget about the initial racist comment made earlier? To smooth things over with Black viewers, by making a joke out of it? Well, I for one, did NOT find that pathetic attempt at humor funny in the least bit. The whole movie was a joke....a PATHETIC attempt at filmmaking that shouldn't be given the time of day. Peter Jackson really thought this film was that good? What film was HE looking at? <br /><br />ZERO * out of **** stars....if I could give it a lower rating I would. Please, fellow IMDb'ers, don't waste 1 1/2 hours of your precious life watching this abomination of a 'movie'. This is one of the worst movies I've EVER seen. | 0 |
I've rented and watched this movie for the 1st time on DVD without reading any reviews about it. So, after 15 minutes of watching I've noticed that something is wrong with this movie; it's TERRIBLE! I mean, in the trailers it looked scary and serious!<br /><br />I think that Eli Roth (Mr. Director) thought that if all the characters in this film were stupid, the movie would be funny...(So stupid, it's funny...? WRONG!) He should watch and learn from better horror-comedies such as:"Fright Night", "The Lost Boys" and "The Return Of the Living Dead"! Those are funny!<br /><br />"Cabin Fever" is THE reason why I registered to www.IMDb.com so I can release my thoughts of discontent about it.<br /><br />I've decided to watch the movie a second time >AAARGH!< and make notes for my partial "review" to show how foolish the movie is. "Resident Evil" (horror) or "Dude, Where's My Car?" (comedy) I can watch over and over again and still enjoy! But this...!<br /><br />How bad can a script and a director be??? This bad. Here are the awful scenes in chronological order:<br /><br />In the early scenes we see Henry, who doesn't realize his dog lying on the ground with its tongue hanging out of its mouth and dead-glazed stare is dead!<br /><br />The movie doesn't explain anything about the blonde long-haired kid who like to bite people.<br /><br />And my answer to Marcy's unanswered question ("What's wrong with the woods?") is "nothing". The script has that bearded guy warn them about the woods just for "suspense".<br /><br />Then the "smartest" of the 5-pack, Bert, almost gives us an example of how to start a forest fire. He meets now-infected Henry who begs for help and from here on the movie wants to break the record in using the "F-word". Bert starts to freak out because Henry looks awfully ill. Bert:"Don't make me shoot you!" (he forgets to add: "...with my BB gun!")<br /><br />Bert heads back to the cabin but how about that? He meets Marcy and Jeff who were having sex, but now suddenly decide to go out for a walk! Marcy wisely takes out the unguarded campfire Bert had started earlier (A moment of clarity for a change?) Bert doesn't mention a word about Henry because the fool thinks he has killed him with his BB gun.<br /><br />Later, as the Five Estupidos sit around their campfire, another weirdo shows up with his dog. (Maybe that's what the warning about the woods is all about? It's filled with weirdos...and their dogs!?) They let him sit with them only because he has a huge bag filled with cannabis. (Their brains are completely intoxicated! No wonder why they are all so DUMB!) This is the last time we'll see this forgettable character...alive!<br /><br />Henry shows up at their cabin, (NOTE: He was lying all the time a few yards from their cabin!!!) looking worse, almost like a zombie, covered in goo! He says he needs a doctor. But the Young Einsteins refuse to help the poor sucker. He gets into their unlocked truck which of course also has its key in the ignition. Henry almost seems smart enough to drive the Hell away from there but instead starts puking blood all over the dashboard, seats and windows. The Fantastic Five come out running, armed with: a BB Gun, a knife, a baseball bat (*huh? Ever tried playing baseball in the middle of the woods???), a poker, and a (insecticide?) spray-can, ready to combat the single, unarmed and terribly sick man. (clever script!) Bert manages to kill the car with one single shot of his BB Gun, which is only possible in the mind of director Eli Roth. "What else am I supposed to do?" Bert yells in his defense. Jeff and Paul try to knock Henry down with their bat and poker but miss and crash the truck's windows instead. Henry walks up to the dumb girls who say: "He's coming towards us!" (Thanks for the info, dumb broads, I can see that! But I don't think he wants to do you any harm!) Marcy sprays in his eyes, making Henry yelp! And our "hero" Paul touches Henry's arm with a burning log from the campfire, which they recklessly left burning while they were INSIDE the cabin! (Where has all that wisdom gone? I guess the cannabis had started to take its toll!:-) Henry turns into The Human Torch and runs away, screaming.<br /><br />The following day, Bert and Jeff head out for a mechanic. And Marcy decides to "go for help" all by herself, in the woods, as Paul stays behind with Karen...Doesn't that sound idiotic? Marcy could have stayed with Karen and Paul because Jeff and Bert were already "going for help"!<br /><br />I skip my comments now to how we suddenly see Marcy in a CANOE rowing over a huge and winding river! How did she get a canoe? Does she even know where she's going!? Anyway, she goes to the riverbank and finds a very big and seemingly abandoned cabin and, like in most horror movies, walks inside the cabin saying:"Hello? Is anyone there?" Bert suddenly pops up from behind a furniture and scares her (and me at first). And along comes Jeff, as well. How did THEY get here!? Did they swim across the river??? Do you see how brainless the script is!?<br /><br />Deputy Winston meets Paul at the cabin. He somehow doesn't notice the blood on their truck. This happens around 35 minutes of viewing and I have decided to stop torturing myself anymore and popped the DVD out. (Before I take my own eyes out!...Now, THAT's funny!)<br /><br />If you liked this movie, do yourself a favor and watch "Fright Night", "The Lost Boys", or "The Return of The Living Dead". Then you'll see they are MORE entertaining than this...thing. Even the "Toxic Avenger part 2", which is also a lousy film, is way MORE funnier than "Cabin Fever". | 0 |
Liongate has yet to prove itself. Every single movie from lionsgate has been abysmal. i've tried and tried to give them more opportunities and they just keep slapping me over and over again. And Cabin Fever is definitely no exception.<br /><br />I couldn't even pay attention to most of this movie it was so frustrating and bad.<br /><br />here's the plot. Guy cuts up dead dog for some reason. Gets infected by random virus, transfers it to kids at a camp, kids start to get infected and die, town finds out about it and rather than help them, kills them. then the water is infected and everyone dies. the end.<br /><br />Seriously, that's the whole movie.<br /><br />all the characters are completely retarded, you don't care for any of them, and the one kid should have stuck with boy meets world. Me and my friend found that talking about how fat and bitchy our one classmate was to be far more enjoyable than paying attention to this movie. We did manage to make it all the way to the end while screaming bulls$@t, because this film will make you do that.<br /><br />and i'm still confused by the random slow motion karate moves of the one random kid and how apparently everybody out in the country is completely retarded and hickish. And again, why did this dog attack the girl? why did the kid the hicks were trying to kill sit in a chair waiting for them to kill him? that was part of the two of their's plan? wow. best plan ever. i cannot believe this movie got a theatrical release. i could barely stomach the DVD, let alone have to sit in a theater not moving for an hour and a half. It wasn't scary, or funny, or cool, or anything. it's just a waste of 90 minutes that you could be using to...i don't know, plant a tree or something. it's more productive than this piece of garbage. The acting, special effects, and script are a joke. don't ever pick this up.<br /><br />Cabin fever gets one nasty leg shaving scene, out of 10 | 0 |
This is probably one of the worst films i have ever seen. The events in it are completely random and make little or no sense. The fact that there is a sequel is so sickening i may come down with a case of cabin fever (I'M SO SORRY). I describe it as bug being smooshed to a newspaper because it seems to be different parts of things mixed together. e.g Kevin the pancake loving karate kid is just freakishly weird on its own, then there's the cop who is slightly weird and perverted, then the drug addict, then there's the fact that they attack some random guy who clearly needs help. then all of a sudden the main character is having sex with his friends girlfriend just because she says something stupid about a plane going down. then at the end some good old family racism followed by a rabbit operating on Kevin the karate kid. Its actually pretty despicable that they can use racism as a joke in this film. There is no reason for anyone to enjoy this film unless you love Eli Roth, even that did not make me like this film. Hate is a strong word but seeing as it is the only word i am permitted to use it will have to do. BOYCOTT CABIN FEVER 2!!!!! | 0 |
Truly one of the most dire films I've ever sat through. I've never actually taken the time to write one of these but felt compelled to after witnessing this affront to film-making and feel somewhat aggrieved to be wasting my time on such a piece of turd to be honest. There were so many parts that infuriated me with their complete randomness and lack of sense (e.g. when would the police force ever shoot people with infectious diseases? When would hospitals ever through out such people for lack of a cure? Why was the guy who spotted him spying on his wife wandering around outside in his dressing gown whilst carrying a gun as she rolled around on the bed?). Also, the characterisation - as we've almost come to expect in such films - was awful (e.g. the way the blonde guy - I don't remember his frickin name and don't give a toss anyway - completely turned against his girlfriend and ran off to leave her) and I ended up wanting them all to meet grisly ends! The production was horribly disjointed and the cinematography nothing to write home about. | 0 |
The premise of Cabin Fever starts like it MIGHT have something to offer. A group of college teens after finals (in the fall?) goes to a resort cabin in the woods where one by one they are attacked by an unseen flesh eating virus.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the first paragraph is where any remote elements of film quality stop. Cabin Fever is little more than college kids looking for sex, booze, talking non-stop about nothing, and seeing how many F-bombs they can get into 1:40 minutes or however long this mess is.<br /><br />The kids act and react stupidly to everything around them. One of them for instance discovers that the skin virus has infected her legs, so what does she do? She keeps shaving her legs failing to take proper medical attention for her wounds. The scene is little more than a gross out. In another scene, Rider Strong from "Boy Meets World" gets bitten on the hand by some kid who only says "Pancakes" and likes to do karate kicks on those who sit next to him. If you can figure out the reason for why the "Pancakes" kid was included, I'd love to know. Anyway, Rider pets a wild dog and goes off to wash his bitten hand in a most likely contaminated creek. Another kid likes to drop F-bombs in reacting to everything around him and shoot squirrels. Why? Your guess is as good as mine!<br /><br />Rider Strong is the ONLY kid with any recognition in this movie. He tries to calm people down in-between the yelling and screaming and F*** Y**! bombs that people are throwing around. When the kids aren't yelling, they are having or talking about sex or talking nonsense to the other adult characters who are EVEN MORE (if that is possible)idiotic than the kids! The idiot cop with an IQ of 60 at best may be one of the WORST acting jobs I have ever seen in a movie. You talk about people not playing with a full deck, this dork doesn't even know how to find the cards! LOL! I was like, "Will you PLEASE shut up already?!" He makes the kid actors look like geniuses! The only part that I sort of liked was Rider's scary story (although gory) about the deranged bowling alley guy. In interviews, Rider said that he had a great deal of respect for director Eli Roth. But the problem is that Mr. Roth appears to be going for little more than shock and gore. There are far too many bad things about this movie for Mr. Roth to get any credit. I wish I could agree with Rider and find something likable about this movie. Maybe the fall scenery in the beginning? Actually, Rider Strong JUST saves this movie from being a 1! Hopefully, he was compensated for this junk! | 0 |
I had heard some bad things about Cabin Fever almost as much as I heard the cultish hype. As it turns out, the first film from the new impresario Eli Roth, it's just a so-so effort with the IQ points dropping as the film progresses. There are worse movies out there, and surely more gory ones (while I'm not sure how the hype-meter got so high on the blood-count for Hostel, there is a good amount for genre fans here). The premise isn't necessarily bad either though: kids go to a cabin for a week of partying, only to come across a very sick man, covered in blood, whom in a panic they set on fire. He winds up dead in the water that feeds the reservoir, and soon the characters all succumb to the flesh-eating virus one way or another. The characters, either the lead college kids (including Rider Strong as the hero and James DiBello as the goofy side-bar) or the supporting 'village' folks are archetypal to the point of inertia, if not painfully so. <br /><br />As they meet their fates, the townspeople get pretty weird, and it just seems to be non-sensibly thrown together without the many laughs; 'Pancakes kid' comes out of nowhere, and maybe might have been funnier in another movie or by itself, but in the context of the rest of the movie, it just doesn't work. There's also a young police character who is even dumber and less convincing than the others. And the family that goes after DiBello following an incident has some possibilities that aren't realized. But all the while, Roth pumps up his script with common sense out the window and sudden scares and frights with people hacking up blood on one another and a killer dog rambling around. Which isn't all for not either. Now, unlike lesser Troma horror movies or even lesser ones of the 70s or 80s- to which I'm sure Roth is a die-hard fan- he doesn't make it unwatchable. It's also smart to not have any explanation for where the virus comes from. <br /><br />But unlike those films too, he also doesn't really have a fine idea of what makes for great campy-horror times. His film tries for that, of course, and only once or twice does he make it a goofy, bloody time (I did like the random bunny Strong sees while on the gurney). It's not even very poorly shot a lot of the time (albeit with its own contrived style-choices ala red tint on the lens or that story with the bowling-alley worker). It simply contains a lot of illogical scenarios and choices made (shave your legs with a deadly virus, uh-huh), and it aims for fairly typical ground. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you. But at the end I found it to be actually un-exceptional genre territory that doesn't offend audience sensibilities ala Saw, but doesn't swing for the fence either as a clever B-movie. Roth also has the temerity to end the movie on a true note of 'what-the-hell' as the Santa Claus bearded convenience store clerk from earlier in the film serves a bunch of black people. It could work if he followed up on it with something better, or if he dropped it altogether. Same could be said for a lot of the movie. C- | 0 |
Cabin Fever is the first feature film directed by Eli Roth.Roth and Randy Pearlstein co wrote the script from a story by Roth.this a zombie film,which owes a lot to George Romero and his earlier "living dead movies",and to the original Texas Chainsaw Massacrenot to mention Sam Ramie's "Evil Dead".there is nothing original here,and the story is not compelling.the acting is about par with this genre,it's just that the story fails.we have pretty much seen this movie before and better made.having said that,after having achieved commercial, if not artistic success from this movie,Roth decided he was a director and came out with the abysmally atrocious,mean spirited,pointless(though much more ambitious)crap fest Hostel.Roth should have quit while he was behind.Cabin Fever is not a good film,however compared to Hostel it is a work of art.I hope somebody (preferably a psychiatrist)convinces this guy that film-making is the wrong career choice.as for Cabin fever,a weak 3/10 for not being as abysmal as Hostel. | 0 |
The first five minutes of this movie showed potential. After that, it went straight from something possibly decent to some sort of illegitimate comedy. The best part is that I couldn't stop thinking of Supertroopers thanks to Joey Kern. I would recommend watching this movie for the sheer fact of learning how not to make a movie. There are so many scenes in this movie that makes one just stop and wonder if the entire cast and crew just stopped caring at some point. The thing that amazes me most about this movie is that it grossed $22 million in the box office and only cost about $1.5 million to make. Congrats to Lion's Gate for being able to pull that one off. | 0 |
There's a major difference between releasing an original, intense, edge-of-your-seat, scary, gore-fest, and doing like filmmaker Eli Roth and his team have done with "Cabin Fever" and simply acted like it. The film follows five college graduates into a cabin in the woods that begins to prove fatal as one after the other succumbs to this mysterious, fast-acting, flesh-eating disease. It's not long before the friends turn on one another, and can barely stand the sight of one another, much less want to be in the same vicinity as them. As gross as it all sounds, there's a certain spark behind the basic premise of this film that could have worked, in the hands of a less cocky filmmaker. Unfortunately what we end up with is poorly drawn characters whose sole purpose seems to be to look beautiful at the beginning to make the inevitable decomposition more contrasting, a hackneyed script so profanity-laden as to leave the viewer tuning out the dialogue, and several incomprehensible subplots that motivate little more than (in one instance) an on-screen appearance by director Roth. This is sloppy film-making in several ways! Avoid this time devourer. | 0 |
This film is about a group of five friends who rent a cabin in the woods. One of the friends catches a horrifying flesh-eating virus. Suddenly, the friends turn on one another in a desperate attempt to keep from contracting the disease themselves.<br /><br />"Cabin Fever" is a horrible film. For one, it tries to be many genres at once. Is it supposed to be a homage, a slasher, a black comedy, or a scary movie with unintentional comedy? Nobody can tell. There's a serious scene at first and a second alter, it turns funny. When the film tries to be funny, the humor is quite bland, excluding the ending. I liked the ending a lot.<br /><br />But apart from the ending, I was pretty disappointed and disgusted. The violence is cringe-worthy, more looking away from the screen than being scared. The tone changes within each scene, sometimes funny, sometimes scary, and sometimes quite random. In fact, you see a girl doing karate in slo-motion. What are we supposed to get from that? This same girl would bite one of the characters. Was that supposed to be funny? I don't know.<br /><br />Some of the performances were decent, and many were quite amateurish. I didn't care for most of the characters. I liked the plot but the execution was done horribly. As a horror film, I didn't know what it was trying to be. I didn't find it funny, tense, nor scary. By the end, you're left indifferent, thinking, "What have I just been through?" Unfortunately, you'll never know the answer to that question. | 0 |
Sure I've seen bad movies in my life, but this one was so bad that I actually became angry in the theater. I wanted my money back. I wrote to the director asking him to refund my movie ticket, of course I didn't receive a refund (or even a reply) but it's the point that matters. On a scale of 1-10 I give this movie a -42. Why did the "Jeep" (Chevy Blazer??) stop running from being hit with a bat? Why did they hit the "Jeep"(Chevy Blazer?????) with the bat in the first place instead of cracking the bum's skull? The plot was thin, the movie filled with obvious clichés, and certain parts of it just didn't make any sense. | 0 |
no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh). | 0 |
From the opening dialog and scenes, I knew I knew I was in for a train wreck. Didn't want to look, but couldn't turn away. If it weren't for the meer eye candy of this film, I would have given one star. The fact that the interaction between characters and relationship behavior were so far fetched, added by poor direction and horrible story make this movie nothing more than a low-budget disaster. Money is definitely not a necessity to make a good film. But this movie fails so horribly there was no chance to rebound.<br /><br />If you were stuck out in the woods, your childhood best friend dying from an unknown disease, other friends dying around you, stranded in a strange place, what would you do?<br /><br />A.) Run away from everyone and try your luck on your own. B.) Have sex with your friends girlfriend. C.) Take a hot bath to relax your sorrows to include shaving your legs. D.) Bash in the head your childhood best friend and life-long crush with a shovel. E.) All of the above.<br /><br />According to Eli Roth, none of these answers are that far fetched. In fact, all are plausible and well represented in Cabin Fever. The total lack of reality and illogical attempt at explaining what people would do in traumatic situations throws this film in the bonehead bin at your local rental store. Stay away. Stay far away. | 0 |
Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations. | 0 |
Well, finally got to see the remake last night in London, unintentionally hilarious, sexless and devoid of any real humour. I don't really know where to start, whilst I was entertained by this strange homage, it didn't really move me. The acting is screamingly hammy, there is no original music, the costumes are far too 'Disney' there is a ridiculous 'six months later' insert after the burning of Nic Cage (which didn't come soon enough for my liking) The bit with Cage in the bear suit had the audience suppressing mirth as did the comedy punching out of various 'baddies' on the island. It's such a weird remake that I cant quite believe I saw it, it reminded me of something that The Comic Strip presents would have done in the eighties, a bit like their Hollywood interpretation of the Miner's Strike, very strange! | 0 |
OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:<br /><br />A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage | 0 |
If Edward Woodward was the the flicks watching this film then that's what he would scream out in horror. <br /><br />I'm sorry folks but enough's enough. We had Get Carter, The Italian Job, Alfie and now this. What's the similarities? No. It's not exactly a coincidence that three of the originals star Maurice Micklewhite and the other stars another great British actor. The main common ingredient in those originals IS the britishness of the films. They weren't made to impress Hollywood. They were quirky English films with a unique charm/atmosphere that just cannot be replicated in the USA. The word is CULT and what better way to destroy a cult film than to bastardise it with a remake or even a sequel. <br /><br />Wicker 06 had a tough task before it even hit the road. Wicker 73 is even more enigmatic that other said cult films; it defies genre, intelligent scripts, A-grade actors, the music score, set-pieces that defy description and all the stories surrounding the film.<br /><br />So here comes a remake. Don't worry. No originals were harmed in the making of this remake. Some major aspects of the story needed to be reworked for the modern USA - communications, paganism, virgins. But that's just about the whole premise. So we give the cop a Nam style trauma past complete with shock music flashbacks for the cheap scares. Then with no mobile phone mast on the island that sorts the communication out - but in the real world this wouldn't happen. Cops just don't go missing. Give him a blood link for motivation rather than the clash of beliefs and you have the remake. Wafer thin though, isn't it?<br /><br />It's just that it was all laid on with a trowel. The name alterations were simply hammy, almost Carry On, there was no sense of community on the island, no centre of town to catch your bearings, just a few houses dotted about a forest and that was it. Willow was just annoying by not giving out any info at all and Cage was useless to let her get away with it. When he went into the well you just knew he would get locked it. The screenplay was signposted all the way to the end - and you just wanted it to hurry up and end. The epilogue was absolutely hilarious and didn't know when to stop. <br /><br />That ending is probably the best way to summarise the difference between the two. One ends in the most beautiful sunset after the most horrific day. The other ends with a post-production explain-it-all-to-the-thickies type conclusion.<br /><br />I loved the original but went to the cinema with an open mind and was excited to see the film. I left thankful in the knowledge that this film will probably end up beneath a highway somewhere only this time mercifully forgotten forever. | 0 |
Sometimes laughter in the middle of a horror film is a signal of its greatness. I remember the nervous laughter from the audience in the re-release of The Excorcist
really nervous laughter. It punctuated just how freaked out we all were watching the voice of Satan coming out of a 12 year old girl. In the case of the 2006 remake of the 1972 cult classic The Wicker Man however, it made me think that this new Wickerman is about as scary as the South Park character, Scuzzlebut, the friendly forest monster with TV's Patrick Duffy for a leg and a celery stalk for an arm who's favorite hobby is weaving wicker baskets.<br /><br />3 years ago a friend of mine in Hollywood told me that he heard that Nicolas Cage was going to do a remake of the film. I started laughing and my friend (Keith) got mad at me touting Nicolas Cage as a great actor. I just didn't think that he could pull it off and unfortunately for moviegoers I was right. Gone is the realness, the outstanding original music, the originality, the creepiness and the wonderfully powerful dialogue. Instead we have horror movie clichés, affected acting and changes to the storyline that make any believability fall apart. Like many of the countless Hollywood remakes we have been inundated with lately this feels like we are watching 4th graders on a playground "playing Wickerman".<br /><br />The original film takes place on a remote Scottish Isle where a Scottish police officer is lured there to find a missing young girl named Rowan Morrison. In the new spin a California cop (Cage) is lured to an island of the coast of Washington state by his ex-girlfriend to find her missing daughter. She sends a photo and the missing daughter looks exactly like a young girl he tried to save in a fiery crash not long ago. The crash still haunts him in part because the girl's body was never found. Yet even after he gets a letter with her picture in it that connection is completely cast aside as he heads north, alone, to help his ex-girlfriend find her daughter. He arrives to find an island full of actors pretending to be the descendants of Wiccans, many of whom seem like they didn't get call backs for roles in The Village. And like The Village it isn't long before you realize there is nothing to be afraid of here. Not even the cloudy eyed blind sisters who speak in unison.<br /><br />I think that the opportunity in Hollywood to make great amounts of money on a film often comes at great expense to the artistry. I think someone like Nicolas Cage who is in so many films these days loses touch with the magic that film can be when it gets to the point where he has a personal chef on the set preparing his snacks. We needed a bad re-make of the Wickerman like we needed yet another '9-11' movie. I'm starting to wonder if Nicolas changed his surname from Coppola because he wanted to or because he was pleaded with to do so. | 0 |
Waitress: Honey, here's them eggs you ordered. Honey, like bee, get it? That's called pointless foreshadowing.<br /><br />Edward Basket: Huh? (On the road) Basket: Here's your doll back, little girl. You really shouldn't be so careless with your belongings.<br /><br />Little girl: Yeah, whatever.<br /><br />Crash! Boom! Whoosh! Crackle
Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />(Later) Basket: Mmmm. Vicodin! What the
? (Tears open letter.) Wow! My ex-girl's handwriting has really improved. And look, her missing daughter looks kinda like the girl with the doll I accidentally was sort of responsible for getting killed, in a way. And she kind of has my hairline. I wonder, should I torture myself and go find her? Let's see what my friends at the precinct think.<br /><br />Basket's fellow male cop: HAHAHA. Willow's a funny name.<br /><br />Basket: I think that something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />(On the island) Basket: What's in the sack? AHHH.<br /><br />Tree-named crone: It's not her daughter, though.<br /><br />(In the tavern) Basket: Can you swing that? Big-boned, tree-named tavern wench: Huh? Basket: (smashes a bee). Everything is OK.<br /><br />Sensually pretty, formerly promising actress playing a lusty tavern scullery maid: That's good. Honey's not a plant, though.<br /><br />(On the greensward) Willow: Oh, yeah, and I forgot, you are the father my child, Conan, er, I mean Rowen. (Yawns.) I could have stayed and had a life with you. But I didn't. I wanted to be princess of the beehive, instead. I mean, never mind. (Nods off, jerks awake, widens eyes to anime proportions). Mwah, kiss-kiss. Love ya! What were we talking about? Basket: Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Who burned it? Willow: Edward. Sniff. Blink. Why. Are. You. Yelling. At. Me? Is it because I jacked your Vicodin? Sniff. Snore. What were we talking about? Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />Willow: My lips hurt.<br /><br />(In the schoolroom) Rose: What is man? Unappealling twins, in unison: Phallic symbol, phallic symbol.<br /><br />Rose: Echo? Echo? Basket: Step away from the bike.<br /><br />Rose: And I'm the good twin.<br /><br />Basket: I think something bad is about to happen.<br /><br />(At the beehives) Basket: Hmmm. Hallo? Ow, ow, ow, oh bother. Silly old bear. Snore.<br /><br />(At the Queen Bee's mansion) Sister Summersisle: You have so much potential. What are you doing here? Weren't you the stud Cher slapped in the face in Moonstruck? (Licks lips.) Basket: I was about to ask you the same thing. Where's the girl? Sister Summersisle: How you drone on. Let's talk about the significance of my superfluous "s." Basket: Look out for that semi-truck barreling toward us! Aaaaah! Oh. Never mind. Goddammit! (Pops another pill.) Mmmm. Thorazine.<br /><br />(Back at the tavern) Big-boned, supercilious tavern wench: I've tried Weightwatchers, Jenny Craig, South Beech, and I still went up a bear-suit size since last year.<br /><br />Tree-named crone: HAHAHA. All the better to roast that nosy cop in, my dear.<br /><br />Big-boned wench: Totally.<br /><br />Basket: That was the last straw that broke the Basket Case's back! Take that, wench! (Slugs her.) (Edward Basket is mysteriously attacked from behind) Voluptuous tavern wench: EEEE! Snap out of it! Leave the island already and take me with you! Do I have to tackle you or what? Snap out of it, I say! EEEE! Basket: Take that, wench! (Courageously kicks her in the face. Her eyes roll back in her head and become cartoon Xs.) Voluptuous wench: Snore
(At the Nicolas Cage roast) Ellen Burstyn: And who can forget the part where Basket's cell phone rings in the middle of his bear suit scene and then the call gets dropped. It's like a wireless ad: Help me! Can you hear me now? Hahaha.<br /><br />Kate Beahan: And remember when I produced the bullets I jacked from Basket's gun? He looked so surprised. You should be more careful with your belongings, Nick. Hahaha. And your movie choices.<br /><br />All: The drone must die! Basket: (screaming) Oh, yeah, you bitches? Well, roasting me isn't gonna help your goddamn honey! Aaah. My legs! Honey, (honey, get it?) put down that torch and step away from the Basket Case. Honey! Smokey bear says don't play with matches. Hahaha. What the
? Look out for that hurtling semi-truck! Ahh! Oh. Goddammit, these flashbacks from my drug experimentation phase in the seventies are getting old! Where's my heroin? Ouch. Ouch. My watch isn't fireproof. Ouch. I think something bad is about to happen. Can you hear me now? I'm ready for my close up. Goddammit! (Six months later) Voluptuous wench in modern-day slutty attire: I told that eponymous Basket Case to take me with him.<br /><br />Innocent young drone: I like to help people.<br /><br />Volptuous wench: Then get me out of my contract for the sequel! I think something bad is about to happen. EEEEE! | 0 |
I'm a big fan of Nicolas Cage and I never thought he would work on a movie like this. I couldn't believe the other reviews and I thought it shouldn't be bad to watch it at least once...but trust me, it is.<br /><br />I haven't seen the old movie..but why would they want to remake a movie like this. The very basic idea of a good horror movie is either it should have an extremely intelligent script or it should be extremely graphic. This film doesn't fall under any of those and just remains dumb.I just kept watching the movie hoping it would get interesting at some point , but it never does. <br /><br />So this movie is a big no no for both Horror movie fans as well as for the Cage fans. You could probably for it show up on television. | 0 |
It's unfortunate that you can't go any lower than one star. Prior to watching The Wicker Man, I had considered Aliens 3 to be the only movie that would actually merit negative stars. In all fairness, The Wicker Man doesn't detract from the enjoyment of an earlier film, but the fact remains that my cumulative movie enjoyment has been reduced by seeing it.<br /><br />There is a cheap trick all too often used in Hollywood when the producers are too stingy to hire good writers or in too much of a hurry to allow them to bring a plot to a satisfactory conclusion: slap in a shocker ending and hope that the public will mistake it for something artistic or meaningful. It is a gambit that rarely succeeds and in this case manages only to splatter embarrassment on a fine actor and ridicule upon the producers. Even more so in that the "carefully crafted" (or however they put it) conclusion didn't seem to follow logically from the plot (which naturally I can't elaborate on without introducing spoilers), and instead negates what merit the plot had up to that point.<br /><br />It is a film that might logically appeal to psychopaths, pedophiles, and possibly die-hard Nicholas Cage fans, but only to a few of the mainstream audience. If you really want something along these lines, I heartily recommend M. Night Shyamalan's The Village instead. Lacking some kind of memory-erasing pill, I suppose I need to watch something better to force it from my mind, say, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes or Pee-wee's Big Adventure? | 0 |
First this movie was not that bad.It was entertaining...at least to me for probably all the wrong reasons. I have never seen the original so can't compare the two.<br /><br />This movie reminded me of that weird Christopher Reeve movie Village of the Damned. THe two movies have different plots, but that creepy disgusted feeling and unwanted comedy exist in both.<br /><br />The wicker man is suppose to be a mystery/thriller/men please don't anger the women movie. I don't know the whole pagan thing and sacrifice was a little off.<br /><br />Nicholas Cage, his glorious bad self goes to a secluded Island called Summerisle when he receives a letter in calligraphy from his long lost fiancée who claims her daughter has been taken and hidden by fellow islanders. <br /><br />Cage is a police officer and being the weary policeman he is he goes to the semi uncharted island leaving no word of his whereabouts to anyone who is located in the real world. Stupid.<br /><br />Things get weirder when the large Amish-esquire women who populate the island snarl at him and lie about the whereabouts of the missing girl. His fiancée is no help who seems to be elusive and weary the whole time. Cage stays on the Island when he learns that the missing girl is his daughter and he is the lucky man tricked to come to this island as a sacrificial victim during the islands sick harvest festival.<br /><br />In this movie males do not fare so well. A sick twisted display of feminism? <br /><br />I found the movie laughable at times particularly when cage punches some women and runs around in a bear suit. I think there were too many potholes in this movie. I find the whole concept of angry women secluding themselves on an island without any care for males quite entertaining, but the way it was portrayed in this movie was just weird. While most women have had some jerk hurt and anger them this is clearly a form of sexism. I would have turned the movie off in disgust if the roles were reversed. This movie is something to watch maybe just once or twice. It is NOT a thriller it should be categorized as just strange. | 0 |
A trooper is on the side of the road making sure every1 is obeying the speed limit (doing his job); he then pulls over a woman who appears she is a mother (there is a child in the back seat); he then is telling her what is wrong and BAM...they get killed. Okay, this is the start of what i personally thought would have been a good movie. When I was watching this movie in the theatre I was with some friends. This was our first night out after the summer so we wanted to go and see a good movie. We all decided to see a suspense/thriller that looked good to everyone in the group...this was one of the biggest mistakes of my life. Not only did I waste $7.oo on a movie ticket, but I had to sit through torture for the brain. This movie started off with mystery and suspense and I seriously thought "this cant be bad"...I was so wrong. The whole problem with this movie is that it makes no sense; even if you can get passed the bad acting, the "not so scary" storyline, and the over all horrible mess this movie was, you will still be puzzled. It's not because you're not smart enough to understand it, it's because no human with a brain could comprehend what this stupid movie is about. Right now you may be thinking "Oh man! I have to watch this movie just to see if it's as bad as this person says it is". GET THAT THOUGHT OUT OF YOUR HEAD RIGHT NOW!!! I'm trying to save you the trouble of watching this movie by telling you that it is so bad that there is no point in even considering seeing it. Please people don't make the same mistake i did thinking that this movie has potential...it doesn't. I give this movie 1 out of 10 (if I could give a zero I would), and I do not recommend anyone to ever see this movie, you'll be saving yourself many sleepless nights trying to think w.t.f. that freaking movie is about. | 0 |
This movie is suppose to be a mysterious, serious thriller about a man looking for a missing girl. However, 30 minutes into the movie, it turns into a funny, unrealistic story with annoying characters and random scenes. I can't imagine anyone not laughing when Cage randomly Karate kicks that blonde girl or when he "bear" punches that old lady. The lines, characters, and acting are all poorly done from the get-go. I've always liked Nicolas Cage as an actor, but he has made some terrible movies this year; this being by far the worst one (yet...).<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone who wants to watch an intense story-gripping thriller. If you really want to enjoy this story, go rent the original. However, if you intend on watching it, get ready to laugh at some of the lines and end scenes rather than taking them seriously; that's the only way you enjoy this film. | 0 |
great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.<br /><br />Overall, not a well written story and too long. <br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this. | 0 |
The Wicker Man, starring Nicolas Cage, is by no means a good movie, but I can't really say it's one I regret watching. I could go on and on about the negative aspects of the movie, like the terrible acting and the lengthy scenes where Cage is looking for the girl, has a hallucination, followed by another hallucination, followed by a dream sequence- with a hallucination, etc., but it's just not worth dwelling on when it comes to a movie like this. Instead, here's five reasons why you SHOULD watch The Wicker Man, even though it's bad: <br /><br />5. It's hard to deny that it has some genuinely creepy ideas to it, the only problem is in its cheesy, unintentionally funny execution. If nothing else, this is a movie that may inspire you to see the original 1973 film, or even read the short story on which it is based.<br /><br />4. For a cheesy horror/thriller, it is really aesthetically pleasing. It's pretty obvious that it was filmed on location instead of using green screen or elaborate sets, so we get to see some very great scenery. There are also many nicely composed shots. It is a very good looking movie.<br /><br />3. Nicolas Cage is not so much an actor as he is a force of nature. Whether you're a fan of his or not, it seems as if it's impossible for Cage to play a "normal guy". There is always some kind of eccentricity or nerdiness he brings to the characters he plays, and personally, I am always fascinated by watching him in any movie he does. Whether Nicolas Cage is great or terrible, he always brings his unique energy into play, and he is never boring to watch. He is terrible in The Wicker Man, but in the most wonderful kind of way.<br /><br />2. A student could probably write a hell of a paper on this movie, as it seems to be the strongest anti-feminist movie ever made. "See?" you could write, "this is what happens when women are allowed to run a society!" Also, the similarities between this "Summersisle" society and a bee colony are pretty interesting and worth noting.<br /><br />1. If you're reading this, there's probably a good chance you may have seen a YouTube video that has become very popular: a collection of "highlights" from the movie, including Cage running around in a bear suit, and of course, the infamous "AAGHH!! THE BEES!! MY EYES!!!" line. These scenes are hilarious out of context, and they are still fairly funny while watching them in the film's entirety.<br /><br />I bought the used DVD at Blockbuster for about 5 dollars...when you work that out, it's about a dollar per reason. It's a pretty good deal.<br /><br />NOTE: The Unrated version of the movie is the best to watch, and it's better to watch the Theatrical version just for its little added on epilogue, which features a cameo from James Franco. | 0 |
Where oh where to begin in describing the comprehensive wretchedness of Neil LaBute's latest attempt at film making? <br /><br />There are many kinds of film fans out there, but by far the most annoying and shallow is Mr. Intriguing. You know Mr. Intriguing, don't you? <br /><br />He's the fellow that no matter how stupid, lame, and incomprehensibly dull a film is, he says "Gee, I don't know why everyone hated it, I found it intriguing." He's the kind of guy who finds the scent of dog poop intriguing. Especially when he smears it in the shape of a Hitler mustache on his upper lip and marches about the house ranting about the brilliance of science fiction that features thinly veiled references to Greek mythology. He's also the guy this version of The Wicker Man was made for. No one else could stand it. | 0 |
I watched this movie because I like Nicolas Cage and well, I found it strange and completely pointless... so I decided to poke around a little bit and got my hands on the 70s copy of it. Wow. what a difference. The original one was way better. I'd like you all to know it did originally actually make a statement, it's existence did have a purpose. It was really the Christian public expressing their fear of paganism. If you dig deeper into it it also makes comments on life but I don't want to go into details, just, simply put, if you were disappointed and you'd like to know what it SHOULD look like, feel free to watch the 70s version, a little dated, but A lot better. | 0 |
And I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go! | 0 |
I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.<br /><br /> As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some "dramatic" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia "heals" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!<br /><br /> Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic "no"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie. | 0 |
its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!! | 0 |
A mummy narrates vignettes about men, women, and the sex between them. Huh? At the beginning, the mummy randomly asks the viewer, "Imagine having sex with this girl. Imagine having sex with this boy" about 37 times, while flashing pictures of half naked mod youths. Later, said mods boys pelt mod girls with...vegetables? If you ignore (or fast forward) through the mummy's rambling, the shorts aren't bad in their own right. I found a few of them rather funny. My personal favorite is one where the sexually-confused man tries to convince a girl to have sex with him while his pet lizard sits on the bed. This is one, well, bizarre movie. | 0 |
The film had some likable aspects. Perhaps too many for my taste. It felt as though the writer/director was desperately trying to get us to feel the inner conflict of ALL of its characters. Not once, a few times...but all of the time. <br /><br />This is the job of television, not cinema. <br /><br />The location of the train station was well chosen and I enjoyed Sascha Horler's performance as the pregnant friend. <br /><br />I felt as though Justine Clarke's performance was wan. Her reactions to things felt forced, as though the director were trying to vocalise the themes of the film through her protagonist's expressions. I also can't believe that a director can make the wonderful Daniela Farinacci into an unbelievable presence. <br /><br />I cannot understand the choice of pop music slapped over entire sequences. This is a lazy device, especially where the pop music comes from no place diagetic to the film and/or where the lyrics of the song feel embarrassingly earnest. <br /><br />That said, there is a breezy quality about the film that evokes the Australian heat and local attitude with originality. It does create an atmosphere of heat and sunshine. Especially with the usage of wonderful animation sequences that rescue the film from complete mediocrity, infusing it with passion and hand-crafted charm. <br /><br />I am curious why the dialogue feels so overworked. "Who knows if there's a god? Like some guy sitting there up in the sky telling us what to do" or whatever the line was. <br /><br />Perhaps one of the more embarrassing moments was the friend returning home from cricket with a bunch of flowers to declare to his wife "I'm giving up smoking." <br /><br />An anti-smoking commercial? A TAC ad with some tasteful animation? I had to leave the cinema at the 50 minute mark -- it was all too much. | 0 |
Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.<br /><br />It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.<br /><br />I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity. | 0 |
This is, ostensibly, a movie about multiple grief. As such, it ought to move viewers and make them empathetic with the plight of the main characters. However, its irritatingly postmodern style makes it almost incomprehensible. The camera continually switches from one scene to another, from one personal crisis to the next, creating a choppy, disjointed effect. Most characters appear to live aimless, unstructured lives, held together by their professional commitments. (It also stretches credibility that a man who has just been given what amounts to a likely death sentence, would cheerfully indulge in a sex romp with a woman he has just met). The storyline (if there is a storyline) is difficult to follow. In sum, the overall effect is rather disappointing. In spite of all that, the acting is generally good and some of the scenes are quite powerful. | 0 |
I found this movie boring, monotonous and quite uninteresting with a hurried, shallow "upbeat" ending that didn't ring true to the overall story. Following these characters through a weekend of awful events, unfriendly attitudes and bad news just isn't my idea of a watchable, interesting movie and I got very tired of its "one note" theme and couldn't wait for it to end--in fact I almost stopped about halfway through. The whole movie just seemed pointless and wandering, and the characters were for the most part depressing and unpleasant, though the acting was good. A small movie with small ambitions and small appeal--sorry, but it just didn't make it with me, and I love good, small films! This one just didn't jell, though I kept watching it hoping and trusting that it would. I was disappointed, especially after two local reviewers put it on their "Year's 10 Best" list. I'd strongly recommend watching "The House of Sand" instead--now there's a good, small film! | 0 |
Bruce Lee was a great martial artist, but this film still is probably one of the worst films ever made. It has Bruce Lee die as the result of falling off a helicopter after being hit by some kind of a ninja knife to the back of the neck but it doesn't explain how he came to be on a helicopter since the prior scene has him near but not on the helicopter which is already 200 feet in the air. It just gets downright absurd from then, like something out of a cheap comic book. Maybe the idea isn't so rotten but it isn't done with any degree of artistry from a film making point of view. There are dozens of such martial arts bombers out there, usually all made in Hong Kong. I think that Jean Claude van Dam improved the genre with adding plausible stories in his films and having film makers who know how to use the camera. Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong. 'Game of Death II' falls into the category of junk cinema in my opinion, despite Bruce Lee being in it. | 0 |
This is even worse than the original Game of Death. A jumbled, incoherent storyline leads to "Billy Lo" falling from a helicopter to the ground below, killing him, as we're left to follow his younger brother, Bobby Lo. So not only do we start out following some Bruce Lee clone, the film kills that one off and has us follow another one thirty minutes into the story. The main reason to watch this one is when Bobby Lo fights a lion, which is quite obviously a guy in a lion costume. Jang Lee Hwang is also the villain, who is usually pretty awesome but his screen time is significantly small. Mainly watched this and the original Game of Death because they're a part of the Bruce Lee boxed set. It's no wonder they're included with Lee's finished works. No one would buy them otherwise. | 0 |
There are so many stupid moments in 'Tower of Death'/'Game of Death 2' that you really wonder if it's a spoof. At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.<br /><br />To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'. If anything, it's more a sequel/remake of 'Enter the Dragon', incorporating many elements of that film - particularly the actual footage. Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter. When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.<br /><br />Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film. His fighting abilities are very good however. Bruce Lee obviously turns up thanks to (no longer) deleted footage simply to cash-in on the legacy. Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.<br /><br />OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable. But there are so many daft elements to this film that it really tests your patience. First off, there's the supposed villain who lives on his palatial estate... or is that mental institution? Seriously, the nutter eats raw venison, drinks deer's blood, carries a monkey on his shoulder and owns some peacocks and lions (?!). This attempt to make him look tough and intelligent just makes you feel sorry for him - you half expect someone to escort him back to his room.<br /><br />In fact, this middle section is awful and when the scene involving a naked hooker and a lion suit arrived I turned it off. However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching. While the story is an embarrassment, the action is very good and contains excellent choreography.<br /><br />But even the finale disappoints if the premise was anything to go by. What we were told was that the 'Tower of Death' was a pagoda that was upside down and underground. This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level. Could this be the 'Game of Death' that was originally planned? No! The film should have been named "Generator Room of Death" because thats as far as the tower goes. Of yes, there were indeed one or two 'different' styles... there were foil clad grunts, leopard-skinned henchman and stupid monk. It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.<br /><br />Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts. If this was intended, then fine. Thumbs up, however, for recreating that projector room scene from 'Enter The Dragon'. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.