text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
I couldn't believe it. I had to rub my eyes a few times. Was it true? <br /><br />Yes, there were Billy Dee Williams, Jeff Conaway, Maxwell Caulfield and Tracy Scoggins - all of them have some manner of talent but here they all were in what basically adds up to a Cinemax-style skin flick set on board a spaceship!<br /><br />Sad as it is, "Alien Intruder" tries to be unique, with a computer virus/alien demon/harpy/whatever else you want to call her named Ariel (Scoggins) infiltrating this sort-of high-tech virtual reality station on board a spaceship where four men are allowed to live out their fantasies as the system is over-seen by their captain (Williams).<br /><br />Interesting? Maybe, but here everything just plays out like a well-padded episode of "Red Shoe Diaries". Williams out-classes everything right and left, and looks like he'd rather be doing anything else, ANYWHERE else. Ah, the things people do for money....<br /><br />The FX are pretty static, maybe even less than what you'd expect for a straight-to-video cheapie like this. Unfortunately, even the female nudity is less than you'd expect. SEXUAL INNUENDO is the real star here and, of course, it gets ALL the best scenes.<br /><br />If you like a movie that's all tease and no brains, check out "Alien Intruder". Of course, you'll probably have to look no further than Cinemax at 2 or 3 in the morning.<br /><br />No stars, not even for what star power this flick can muster.<br /><br />Leave this one lost in space. | 0 |
This tiresome, plodding Las Vegas casino heist movie in almost impossible to watch and get involved in. It's something you 'look at' if you have absolutely nothing else better to do. The only two decent things in this movie are both attached to gorgeous Stella Stevens and one spends the entire program hoping she'll fall out of one of those skimpy tops she wears. Many great shots of mid-70s Las Vegas (when it was still a cool place to visit) and the fashions of the day are good for a giggle as well. Otherwise, one big yawn. The Rhino dvd has a very good widescreen transfer but even at under 10 bucks it still ain't worth it in my humble opinion. | 0 |
Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN. | 0 |
Snow White, which just came out in Locarno, where I had the chance to see it, of course refers to the world famous fairy tale. And it also refers to coke. In the end, real snow of the Swiss Alps plays its part as well.<br /><br />Thus all three aspects of the title are addressed in this film. There is a lot of dope on scene, and there is also a pale, dark haired girl - with a prince who has to go through all kind of trouble to come to her rescue.<br /><br />But: It's not a fairy tale. It's supposed to be a realistic drama located in Zurich, Switzerland (according to the Tagline).<br /><br />Technically the movie is close to perfect. Unfortunately a weak plot, foreseeable dialogs, a mostly unreal scenery and the mixed acting don't add up to create authenticity. Thus as a spectator I remained untouched.<br /><br />And then there were the clichés, which drove me crazy one by one: Snow White is a rich and spoiled upper class daughter - of course her parents are divorced and she never got enough love from them, because they were so busy all the time. Her best girlfriend, on the other hand, has loving and caring parents. They (a steelworker and a housewife) live in a tiny flat, poor and happy - and ignorant of the desperate situation their daughter is in. The good guy (= prince) is a musician (!) from the French speaking part of Switzerland (which is considered to be the economically less successful but emotionally fitter fraction of the country). He has problems with his parents. They are migrants from Spain, who don't seem to accept his wild way of living - until the father becomes seriously ill and confesses his great admiration for his son from a hospital bed.<br /><br />And so it goes on: Naturally, the drug dealer is brutal, the bankers are heartless, the club owner is a playboy and the photographer, although a woman (!), has only her career in mind when she exposes Snow White in artsy pornographic pictures at a show.<br /><br />This review doesn't need a spoiler in order to let you add these pieces to an obvious plot. As I like other films by Samir, e.g. "Forget Baghdad", I was quite disappointed. Let's hope for the next one. | 0 |
This is a badly made, poor remake of Bimalda's classic Parineeta. The story is based on Sarat Chandra's book of the same name and it is a distortion of the original. Well one can appreciate some degree of creativity but not sham creativity. The acting by everyone is affected and the entire movie is a sham. Shekar's father's choice of words in abusing Lolita ( Balan ) sounds cheap and morbid and destroys the spirit of the original story. Again the scene where Shekhar ( Saif ) slaps Lolita is quite out of place with the flow of the movie and the characters, is quite jarring to the senses, and could have been easily avoided. Similarly the sex scene between Saif and Balan is quite unbecoming the movie and a cheap gimmick to attract the audience. When a creative work is not faithful to the original and destroys it's spirit, the work falls apart. The song "piyu bole" is quite OK. Another silver lining in the dark cloud of this movie is the scene where Saif stands up for himself and rebels against his father. This is a positive departure from the original and deserves credit. On these counts this movie deserves 3 stars. The song and dance by Rekha smacks of artifice and it is a put on. The song is tuneful but I remember having heard it somewhere before and if Iam not mistaken the tune appears to have been plagiarized. <br /><br />Well, agreed the times have changed from then to now. But then this movie is not even reflective of the modern times.<br /><br />This is what happens when the modern Bollywood film makers get increasingly obsessed with impressing the NRIs and grabbing the lucrative NRI entertainment market. Such movies end up neither belonging to India nor to any other part of the world. | 0 |
I stopped watching lost at this episode because I thought Ana-Lucia and Libby's deaths were unnecessary and really depressing. Then I found out that they kept Libby around just to die in the next episode! Gah! I can't handle it.<br /><br />I liked this show for the first season, but it definitely declined in the second season, I found Jack and Locke's little religious feud to be annoying. The deaths of Rodriguez & Watros' characters was the final straw! <br /><br />I give this episode a 4/10, for being the end to my viewing of this formerly great series created by Alias legend J.J. Abrams. I hope his series in the future will improve on this one. | 0 |
I was honestly surprised by Alone in the Dark. It was so bad, I could hardly believe what I was seeing. There are no characters, just a few stereotypes wandering around and getting killed. The extent of the character development was giving each character a name and an occupation, and that's about it. There was no real plot, and none of the characters seemed to have any motivation. In fact, many action scenes just began on their own, coming from nowhere with a pounding techno track. While I was watching this movie I kept asking "Where is this happening? What's going on?" The acting was high school drama quality, with stiff wooden delivery, as though the actors were reading from cue cards without comprehending their lines. Their trouble delivering lines was made even more obvious by horrible sound design. ADR sounded like it was recorded in an open room. The actors were constantly taking obvious care to hit their marks, looking almost robotic in their movements. So, these listless automatons are whisked through a series of implausible and confusing scenarios, often without even the benefit of transition scenes. They were here, now they're there. This was happening, now that's happening. Random scenes with little rhyme or reason. I had a lot of fun watching it. Definitely not worth nine bucks though. | 0 |
Can it ever be said that there are some movies that have no redeeming features whatsoever? Answer: Yes, and this is one of them. After helming the appalling 'House of the Dead' director Uwe Boll has now cast his less-than-talented eye towards yet another video game adaptation. Don't these guys get it? To anyone who can't understand, here it is in block capitals for you: VIDEO GAMES DO NOT MAKE FOR GOOD MOVIES! The acting here is, at best, sub-standard. The set design and special effects are poor. Unlike the video game (which did have its scary moments) the movie has no atmosphere of impending doom, no sense of danger or menace. Pacing and plotting is confused and the paper that the script is printed on would have been better used as toilet paper. The main culprit is the director. Uwe Boll uses the camera with the grace and skill of a monkey using a paintbrush. Hackneyed zooms, swoops and pans are spliced into the whole dreary affair at unpredictable moments leaving the audience disorientated and bored. Why this guy was ever let near a movie set in the first place must stand as one of modern cinemas greatest secrets. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
True, there are many movies much worse then this movie. This movie was no Manos: The Hands of Fate, or Troll 2 (yes, I have seen them both.. twice) but at the same time this movie is No Alien, Predator or even Alien Vs. Predator (Yes, even that movie surpassed this). Movies like this make Battlefield Earth look like a Star Wars it is so bad. Razzie awards lookout, your biggest competition has just arrived in theaters. This film I'm talking about is of course Alone in the Dark. I'll try to take you though a step by step process on why this film was so bad.<br /><br />Acting- I'll first start off with what perhaps was the best component of this film (next to the ending credits, which played 'Wish I had An Angel', the acting. Christian Slater must be proud of himself, he successfully proved that it is possible to act decent in a film worse then drinking antifreeze. Though all his awful dialog he had to speak, it made me wonder why he just didn't walk off the set halfway. Perhaps it was because of Stephen Dorff being in the film as well (somebody he wishes he could be but fails at it). Tara Reid is a bad actress but good looking and that's all that really matters in films like these. That is not to say the acting was perfect though, it was average, not good, and perhaps the only thing in the film not good.<br /><br />The Soundtrack- Except for 'Wish I had An Angel', the soundtrack is pointless and bad heavy medal being pumped into the viewers ears, perhaps to disguise the awful story (something I will get to soon). A long and very expensive 2 CD soundtrack is now up for sale for those musically challenged.<br /><br />The Directing- Directed by Hollywoods favorite director Uwe Ball who brought us the classic House of the Dead. Telling us "Yes, movies can get this utterly bad and that's just the beginning to my deadly saga of awful movies". At least it is said to be directed by Uwe Ball. Without being told I would have guessed a monkey was kidnapped from the Congo, brought here and forced to make opinions on how to make the movie under penalty of being shocked. The director of photography was probably a camcorder taped onto a skateboard and pushed forward until it hits a wall. On the scenes where the camera should stay still it is constantly moving, not allowing us to stop anywhere and when it should be moving in action, the camera stops for some reason.<br /><br />The Producing- Who on earth is stupid enough to put money towards this bomb? I pity the fool... sometimes. Sometimes I'm glad he or she was taught such a lesson to never put money towards garbage worse then dog dung tied up in a bag.<br /><br />The Writing / Storyboard- Trying to Analise the story is more painful then jamming an ice pick under a big toe and kicking a soccer ball as hard as I possibly could with it right after but I will still attempt it.<br /><br />Edward Carnby escapes as a child from an orphanage where 20 children where to go under science experiments. He escapes and hides in an electrical outlet where he is electrocuted (this is the point where it got so bad i started to laugh out loud). Then it fast-forwards many years later where he's a paranoia detective. He get's attacked by some zombie that can't be shot to death, kills it and moves on with life. Later on he gets attacked by some crazy looking monster and he discovers secrets that nobody else knows.<br /><br />Yeah, the plot is bad, really really bad. The film beings with expecting us to read approximately 10 minutes, which felt like 100, of random text about an untrue civilization called the Abskani. The film goes not to have one twist after another, more then the audience can handle, more then the audience wants to handle, more then the audience could ever care about. This storyline is rock bottom bad that even Double Dragon does better.<br /><br />Overall, miss out on this movie. I gave it a 1 out of 10 but that is because there is no 0. | 0 |
I don't know where to begin. Tara Reid needs to be stopped before she's put in another movie. Stephen Dorff looks like he got his character's motivation from Val Kilmer in "Top Gun". Slater sleepwalks through this dreck. The direction, editing, sound (do we really need a heavy-metal video in the middle of a gunfight?), costumes (bulletproof vests with muscles on them), and hey, there's no discernible plot either. It amazes me that no one attached to the project stopped and said, "hey guys, this just doesn't make any sense, let's start over". Hopefully Slater's career can rebound from this disaster.<br /><br />Hands down the worst film I've ever seen. | 0 |
Obviously a lot of talented behind the scenes crew members worked on this movie, so don't even look at the credits at the end, you'll only hold it against them. Nobody seemed interested in seeing this movie, only 3 were in the theater; two passed out after 10 minutes, and they were the lucky ones. The 'monsters' were the unemployed worm from Star Trek 2, The Wrath of Khan, and rejected designs for the space creatures in Alien. The creators of the movie obviously didn't want to overshadow the third rate movie monsters, so they hired forth rate actors who apparently didn't get to memorize their lines, or in some cases learn to pronounce the words before filming began. Some scenes are incredibly inept in conveying just what is supposed to be happening, if anything is. If you are unfortunate enough to be in a theater where this movie is showing, and you don't pass out, you'll laugh at what are supposed to be frightening or suspenseful moments of the film. The implausibility of several scenes will just stun you, and Stephen Dorff's regular spewing of the 'Queen Mary of curse words' conveys the feeling of anyone who pays to see this. If you must see this movie, do yourself a favor and wait until it's in the bargain bin at the video store. If there's any justice in the film industry, one of the main actors will be there to rent it to you. | 0 |
The movie starts out with some scrolling text which takes nearly five minutes. It gives the basic summary of what is going on. This could have easily been done with acting but instead you get a scrolling text effect. Soon after you are bombarded with characters that you learn a little about, keep in mind this is ALL you will learn about them. The plot starts to get off the ground and then crashes through the entire movie. Not only does the plot change, but you might even ask yourself if your watching the same movie. I have never played the video game, but know people who have. From my understanding whether you've played the game or not this movie does not get any better. Save your money unless you like to sleep at the theaters. | 0 |
Well where do I begin my story?? I went to this movie tonight with a few friends not knowing more than the Actors that were in it, and that it was supposed to be a horror movie.<br /><br />Well I figured out within the first 20 minutes, what a poor decision I had made going out seeing this movie. The Plot was crap, and so was the script. The lines were horrible to the point that people in the audience were laughing hysterically.<br /><br />The cast couldn't have been more plastic looking. Even some of the scenes seemed like they should have been made much quicker...like they dragged on for no particular reason. Very poor editing.<br /><br />All in all this movie was a giant waste of time and money. Boo. | 0 |
This movie succeeds at being one of the most unique movies you've seen. However this comes from the fact that you can't make heads or tails of this mess. It almost seems as a series of challenges set up to determine whether or not you are willing to walk out of the movie and give up the money you just paid. If you don't want to feel slighted you'll sit through this horrible film and develop a real sense of pity for the actors involved, they've all seen better days, but then you realize they actually got paid quite a bit of money to do this and you'll lose pity for them just like you've already done for the film. I can't go on enough about this horrible movie, its almost something that Ed Wood would have made and in that case it surely would have been his masterpiece.<br /><br />To start you are forced to sit through an opening dialogue the likes of which you've never seen/heard, this thing has got to be five minutes long. On top of that it is narrated, as to suggest that you the viewer cannot read. Then we meet Mr. Slater and the barrage of terrible lines gets underway, it is as if he is operating solely to get lines on to the movie poster tag line. Soon we meet Stephen Dorff, who I typically enjoy) and he does his best not to drown in this but ultimately he does. Then comes the ultimate insult, Tara Reid playing an intelligent role, oh help us! Tara Reid is not a very talented actress and somehow she continually gets roles in movies, in my opinion though she should stick to movies of the American pie type. <br /><br />All in all you just may want to see this for yourself when it comes out on video, I know that I got a kick out of it, I mean lets all be honest here, sometimes its comforting to revel in the shortcomings of others. | 0 |
The minute the forward started, I knew we were in for trouble! The premise is laughable at best. The story line was even worse, if that is possible.<br /><br />The acting was stiff and the actors gave off a sense of inexperience. You expect more from the likes of Slater, Reid and Dorff. Lines were delivered as if from a robot. And I'm sorry, I like Reid but she was VERY unbelievable as an archaeologist. Slater and Dorff picked a lousy film to try and stage their comebacks. <br /><br />The continuity was off through out the entire film. The creatures weren't bad, but they really weren't good either. <br /><br />Bottom line, I want that ninety minutes of my life back. They can keep the money, but give me the time! What a waste. | 0 |
The definition of an abomination as defined by Webster's Dictioary is "a cause of abhorrence or disgust." If someone can think of a more appropriate word or definition than this for Alone in the Dark, please let me know because this is the best I can come up with. However, I do no feel that in anyway this word describes how truly awful this film is.<br /><br />I went to see this film with two of my roommates. One has very similar tastes to me, the other is an action/adventure flick guru. This latter guy usually doesn't care about the size of the plot holes, as long as the movie contains lots of explosions he will walk away satisfied.<br /><br />That being said we entered the theater for the Friday viewing of Alone in the Dark. Little to my surprise we were the only people in the theater. When it started I knew why immediately.<br /><br />It begins with the worst opening scene of any movie, and unfortunately I have to admit it only gets worse from there. The opening scene is a 5 minute scroll text that is narrated. Yet, I understand why it was narrated. The director must have understood that only illiterate people would even ascertain the thought of PAYING to see this movie. Yet, not only is this first scene the longest scroll text in the history of cinema, but it also makes no sense. It seems as if in the same sequence we are hearing about to completely separate movies. One is about an ancient civilization and its tampering with a portal, the other is about a crazy scientist and his experiments on orphans. If you are reading this and are confused, you are not alone.<br /><br />Then the awful storyline, acting, effects, and camera work begin. Tara Reid is horrendous as an actress. She does nothing to even for one second make you think that she is a museum curator. Slater is just bad, not convincing, and has no chemistry with Reid.<br /><br />The plot is probably the worst thing ever created by man. The entire time myself and the roommate with similar tastes are asking questions like: What is this? And what is going on? Other than this scrolling garbage we have a few narrated sequences by Slater himself. Are they good? NO. Do they explain anything? NO. Do we at any point as an audience have the slightest inkling as to why we should care what happens? Once again, NO.<br /><br />Then we have a random sex scene. We are told that Slater and Reid are together, yet at no time do they act as though they even care about on another. But then BAM...sex scene. Once again I don't know.<br /><br />A good, oh i don't know, 30 seconds after that woeful scene ends we have a gunfight with 20 or so military and a similar number of alien things. This is set to a heavy-metal track and causes more brain hemorrhaging than one ever thought possible.<br /><br />And if that wasn't enough...<br /><br />There exists no main villain. There is the scientist and there are the "alien" things. At one point the scientist controls the alien things and stands on a hill commanding them to attack the military outpost. Why? How did he become the supreme commander of these things? Why do they listen to him? Once again I have no idea.<br /><br />The movie ends with Slater and Reid walking in an evacuated city. Why was the city evacuated? Did the alien things break through? Did the military tell them? Who knows...and by this point who cares? I didn't and you won't.<br /><br />But to top it off, Slater and Reid are attacked by an alien thing. Even though it was stated that alien things will be killed by exposure to sunlight. And thats right, you guessed it, it the middle of the *&%$ing day and it's bright as can be. Maybe the alien thing bought a pair of sunglasses, I don't know and I don't care.<br /><br />Now after the movie ended I ran outside the theater, all 6 foot 6 inches of me, waving my arms and shaking my afro telling everyone not to go see this movie. Even my gung-ho action/adventure roommate (who would consider a movie that just cut and pasted 2 hours of explosion into 1 film to be the greatest thing ever created) admitted that plot holes were very evident in this film.<br /><br />To sum up this CRAP-FEST i give it a 0.0/10 and would give it lower if I could.<br /><br />Unequivocally, the worst movie ever made. I wouldn't wish this movie on my worst enemy. | 0 |
I usually start by relaying the premise of the film, but before anyone makes any hasty judgments about my review, let me preface it by saying that I'm someone who likes most films (just check my other reviews). Alone in the Dark is a film by director Uwe Boll, whose film right before this one was House of the Dead (2003). Like Alone in the Dark, it was also a film adaptation of a video game. Almost everyone hated it. Well, I loved it. I even gave it a 10 out of 10! My point in stating this (which will surely turn some readers off immediately) is that if even I hated Alone in the Dark, there must be something wrong with it.<br /><br />The Premise: Who am I kidding? Attempting to state a premise for this film is about as easy as trying to balance the United States' budget, but here it goes anyway. Some archaeologists discovered evidence of some lost American Indian tribe. The Indian tribe apparently had discovered some means of broaching the "second world", which was evil in nature. The bad stuff wiped them out, but not before they could lock the door to the evil world and throw away the key. Later, some scientist/government researcher who had been experimenting with the paranormal, and specifically this tribe, decided to experiment on some kids, to try to produce some kind of hybrid with the second world. (Believe it or not--everything up to this point and then some is told to us in a written prologue to the film--it's just white text scrolling across a black screen with a voice-over also reading it to us). Then, there was something about the kids being in an orphanage, but the government takes them back out, and then a bunch of people are searching for archaeological relics, and there are super humans roaming around, and a bunch of military people are called in and on and on.<br /><br />In fact, the exposition never really stops. It's like a neverending backstory from hell. There are enough ideas here to fill at least 10 films, maybe 25. But not one of them is presented in a coherent way to create one good film. In addition to the mystical lost Indian tribe and the superhumans, we also get monsters that resemble a cross between Alien and a werewolf, worms that invade your body and turn into snake-like aliens, tunneling worms underground, zombies, Starship Trooper-like wars, evil scientists, underground lairs, gold mines, spooky warehouses, impalements, big mostly unused museums, government conspiracies, golden trunks pulled out of the sea, nuns, explosions, complex backstabbing plots, a very ambiguous romance, car chases, home invasions, kitchen sinks . . . wait, I can't remember if that last one was in the film. Even more amazingly (amusingly?), in Fangoria #240, producer Shawn Williamson was quoted as saying, "We're spending much more time on story, being very meticulous about that". Tara Reid called Alone in the Dark "a smarter film".<br /><br />Let me not mislead anyone. A lot of that stuff above might sound yummy to the potential audience for this film, but the problem is that nothing has the slightest connection to anything else. I usually had no idea what any setting's relation was to any other setting, why we were there, or what anyone was doing (at least when each scene began). It's just a random mishmash of settings and clichés, as if director Uwe Boll had 250 unrelated ideas in a hat and pulled them out like lottery numbers. Then when he was done, he and editor Richard Schwadel decided to cut the film by using dice, then reassembled it by throwing the I Ching. Sometimes the film plays like an extended director's reel (which is a combination of short, varied, unrelated scenes that directors circulate to try to get work), but perhaps that's being too generous. I'm not sure Boll would get work if this were his reel. <br /><br />Just as I tend to at least like most films, I tend to like most actors and most performances. It's very rare that I say that a performance was bad. Well, Tara Reid was bad here--and I'm someone who usually likes Reid. I don't know what happened. For a large percentage of the film, they just move her around the set like a prop. They might as well have just bought a blow-up doll. That would have saved them money that they could have used for some cgi ghosts and vampires in castle and graveyard settings. Maybe they chose to move her around like a pretty piece of driftwood after they saw the dailies of her mumbling nonsense dialogue in a monotone that's usually reserved for entertaining mother-in-laws.<br /><br />And speaking of that dialogue, a lot of Alone in the Dark plays like a Godzilla film without Godzilla. By that, I mean that it's a lot of pseudo-scientific gobbledy-gook. At least in Godzilla films, there's a campiness to it, because they know how ridiculous it is, and there's a big payoff in that we get to see Godzilla destroy downtown and battle a giant gnat with radioactive death beams shooting from its eyes or something.<br /><br />Just what Stephen Dorff and Christian Slater are doing here, besides overacting and filing lawsuits against their agents, is difficult to say. I can't say that I thought anyone in the film had a decent performance, although maybe Slater at least saw the cigar. I think that's unprecedented for me.<br /><br />Still, I didn't give this film a 1. There was some competent cinematography, even if Boll and Schwadel made mincemeat out of it, and the hard rock tunes over the end credits were good. Heck, even the novelette prologue wasn't so bad. I actually thought the film had promise at that point. But this may just be the worst film I've ever seen with a budget of 20 million or more. | 0 |
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.<br /><br />and<br /><br />3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.<br /><br />Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair? | 0 |
Spoilers ahead, but does it really matter? Have you ever read a movie review composed entirely of questions? Could this be it? Why did an ancient civilization bury artifacts all over the world? Why is this question never answered? Why was the opening text crawl incoherent? Why would a nun (she sure seemed nice!) hand over 20 orphans to a madman? Has there always been a gold mine in downtown Vancouver? Why does one of the gold mine's shafts exit in the front yard of an orphanage? Why does Tara Reid's character suddenly show up at Christian Slater's apartment for sex? (Or did I just answer my own question?) Why would even a non-archaeologist bang open an obviously valuable solid gold chest with a sledgehammer? Why would modern computers still display green pre-Tron-era grid outlines of objects, complete with little "bleeps"? And must all movie explosive timers have digital displays? Why doesn't ANYTHING in this movie make any sense? | 0 |
Tara Reid as an intellectual, Christian Slater(usually great) as a dollar store Constantine and Stephen Dorff as...well it's STEPHEN DORFF FOR Christ SAKE!!!! I personally just want to thank those brilliant casting directors for the hard work and effort. You guys are on. Heres an idea, just my humble lowly opinion as the movie going public but it follows directly with your previous choices,a movie about the most brilliant neuro-physicist in history invent one pill to cure all diseases ever known to man and get this, heres the clincher they have to be played by Jessica Simpson and Paris Hilton. I knew you guys would love that. Seriously though you owe me $7.50. | 0 |
This should be my kind of movie. Even if it sucked, it still should have been right up my alley; hell, I like "Congo," and "Allan Quatermaine" movies. I have a soft spot in my heart for silly alien/demon/adventure movies. Let's go over why I decided to watch this in the first place.<br /><br />1. Horror/Sci-fi almost always intrigues me 2. I'm a big fan of archaeology, and this movie does involve a rare treasure. 3. Super-natural enemies with quality FX. 4. Christian Slater and Dorf I generally enjoy. 5. Tara Reid is hot.<br /><br />So this movie had potential, at least in the cheese-horror section of the video store, but boy did it suck ass. The only redeeming aspects are Slater and Dorf, and not everyone finds them as entertaining as I do...I mean, let's face it, both are melodramatic. But now on to some of the many faults.<br /><br />Tara Reid. Even though the movie as a whole is worse, Reid's performance is truly awful. We're not just talking bad, I'm talking about nominating Tara Reid for worst performance of the year. I don't know if she is capable of acting, but playing the museum curator is simply out of her league...completely. Watching her try to carry the roll of educated scientist wasn't much different than what you get watching the setup in bad porn. I mean this isn't just bad, it is laughably bad. Oh, and for those of you curious, she doesn't get naked, only down to a bra in a silly, totally unnecessary love scene.<br /><br />Even with Reid's performance, perhaps the movie could have worked, but the plot is what dominates, and the plot seems written by a 10 year old. I hadn't realized this was a video game adaptation until AFTER watching the DVD, otherwise I would have appreciated the stupidity in real-time. <br /><br />The storyline jumps back and forth from Slater's childhood at an orphanage where he gets flashbacks of something terrible that happened, he has amnesia, of course. In his adult life Slater was recruited by some Unit 713, a paranormal military force that apparently hunts evil or something. Slater had to leave because he was too rebellious, I guess, you never really know unless it was in one of those voice-overs I zoned out during. The movie starts with Slater hunting artifacts, obtaining his latest piece after some dealings with a "Chilean mercenary force specializing in selling rare antiquities." I may have the exact quote wrong, but you get the idea.<br /><br />There is an evil doctor that wants to unleash some hellions on earth (no reason given), experiments on children, super demon/alien-human hybrids, "photonic" bullets (the demon things can't stand sunlight) and, of course, Slater and Dorf to try to save everyone.<br /><br />Jesus, I can't even being to wade through the clichéd elements. The script badly needed reworking to narrow the focus and provide SOME depth. I mean, why is this evil scientist so damn evil? Oh right, humans are doomed and he is just trying to save the human race. I guess he's infected? How did that happen? Oh right he has one of the evil demon things in a cage and draws its blood to shoot into himself. How the hell did that happen? Why and where did he get the super slugs (oh yes, they use the old sci-fi stand by of parasitic aliens/demons which "fuse" with the spine of their host)Of course, Slater is, like Blade, half super-slug powered, but his slug "didn't fully fuse due to an electrical shock," thank god. Oh, and the people with these "fused" spines, have no idea they're half-alien/demon and act as good members of the community until some secret signal is given whence they turn killer zombies. Yeah we get zombies.<br /><br />So lots of crap that could be entertaining, but none of it is.<br /><br />Also, the ending is completely stupid as everything turns out to be not that big of a deal to fix in the first place...at least nothing a little dynamite can't handle.<br /><br />Not the very worst thing you'll see, but a truly bad movie. | 0 |
The title of worse film of all time is one that gets handed out quickly and often. Most of the time it is exaggeration of the fact but I would like to welcome Alone in the Dark to the short list of real candidates: Plan 9 from Outer Space, Battlefield Earth, and the Adventures of Pluto Nash.<br /><br />As I watched the 90 minute bore I found it difficult to even stay awake even while I was trying so hard to laugh at the film. But alas I felt alone in the dark (I was gonna try to avoid the pun but I couldn't resist) as I looked around hoping to see Mike Nelson and his two robot friends. Alas my friends and I had to provide comedy throughout the film.<br /><br />So... about the film itself. Lets talk about the action and effects since that should be the only positive part of the film. The film contains evil creatures that are a cross between the Xenos in Aliens (they even call them Xenos), and the creatures in Pitch Black. The can turn invisible at random (and I assure you it is random) and get hurt by light. Also present are small centipede creatures used to control humans that transform them into something resembling a zombie. All of these are shown with outdated special effects that would have been mediocre in 1997. The action scenes are chaotic and are impossible to follow. People shooting randomly on a blue screen stage or an empty set at monsters who were inserted in post. Light quickly flashes on a dark screen making your pupils burn from overwork while bad rock music blares in the background.<br /><br />And those were the high points. The story revolving around a paranormal investigator (Slater) whose idea of looking tough is wearing a black wife beater Tshirt with a trench-coat and not shaving for 2 days. An archaeologist (Reid) who is rather inept. And a government agent(Dorff) whose lines involve barking order. All three should be ashamed at their performances (not that they have really ever done a good a job before) and the casting director should be ashamed. Reid and Slater are supposed to be lovers in the film I guess. The film contains the single most awkward love scene I have ever seen on film between the two.<br /><br />Then comes the plot. Quiet frankly the parts that make sense are not interesting at all. The rest is illogical at best. The plot holes could contain the collective egos of all three stars. The film begins with text and a voice explaining the back-story. This opening lasts for over a minute and already the viewer knows they are in for something terrible. This opening narration is later repeated adnausem in the awkward dialog in a very clumsy and heavy handed fashion through the rest of the film. And the ending did not make one ounce of sense. Not only did it not make sense in the world of the film, it simply did not make sense.<br /><br />Finally the direction of one Uwe Boll. Disgrace, thats all that can be said. His use of shaking the camera to simulate suspense. His lack of direction with the actors. Just watch Reid in scenes in which she is not center focus of the shot. The complete waste of special effects money for bullet time effects. And finally choosing to use voice over to explain something that should be painfully obvious to the viewers.<br /><br />I payed a $1.50 to see this show at a second run theater. And while the laughs me and my friends provided made it worth every quarter I would advise people to avoid paying any more for this film. Grab about 3 friends and split the rental cost and tear this movie a new one.<br /><br />Shame on you Uwe Boll. Shame on you Tara Reid. Shame on you Christian Slater. Shame on you Stephen Dorff. Shame on anyone who was associated with this film. | 0 |
0*'s Christian Slater, Tara Reid, Stephen Dorff, Frank C. Turner, Mathew Walker, Will Sanderson. Directed by Uwe Boll.<br /><br />Based on the video game director Uwe Boll attempts to recreate the game into an action-packed nail biter sadly he doesn't succeed. Instead he makes one of the worst movies ever MADE! Even though he gets minor celebrity such as Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff his movie lacks the necessary fundamentals that a movie needs to be good such as a story line, and some basic relativity of what's going on in the dark and the light. The movie bounces all around and Uwe Boll has no creative control. And not to mention the bad CGI used on making the monsters. Even though they did look cool and the feedings were well, a little lame. Honestly this is one of the worst movies ever made. My final rating 0/10. | 0 |
Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.<br /><br />I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.<br /><br />It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.<br /><br />Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.<br /><br />Don't watch this film. | 0 |
Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.<br /><br />If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.<br /><br />But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".<br /><br />These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.<br /><br />And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.<br /><br />For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered. | 0 |
There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.<br /><br />The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.<br /><br />It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.<br /><br />The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.<br /><br />The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.<br /><br />The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).<br /><br />In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.<br /><br />TOTAL: 4% | 0 |
Alone in The Dark is one of my favorite role-playing-games of all time. I remember spending whole nights facing the PC screen, trying to escape that mansion and actually being startled at times when monsters came surprisingly charging in. Now, mind you - I am weary of "computer-game-generated" movies. I don't remember a single success story in this new Hollywood genre, although some are entertaining enough to be watchable. And yet, I am such a big fan of the game that I couldn't resist. My rationale was that if the movie had a plot that so much as resembled the game's, it would be OK. <br /><br />Man, those were 90 minutes (which seemed like 300) of my life that I'll never get back. If I had that chance, I would have gladly spent them rearranging my sock drawer instead. This isn't even in the "so bad it's funny" category. You would think even Christian Slater had a bit more sense than joining this stink bomb. Now, Tara Reid... I'm not complaining about her presence. However, if the purpose of putting this chick in a starring role is to have a sex scene, - which I totally understand and support (hey, I'm a guy!) - I've seen more of her body on press conferences.<br /><br />There is no plot to speak of. Won't waste your time pitching it to you. The credibility of the story sinks below 'I did not have sex with Ms. Lewinski'. The acting is but a few notches above 'Street Fighter', which, by the way, being one of the worst movies I've seen, I would recommend OVER this one.<br /><br />Kids, I recommend the Video Game. It has far better story, acting and much more thrills. As for the movie, here's a spoiler - it STINKS! Wait for the porno version. | 0 |
We should all congratulate Uwe Boll. He's done the unthinkable. He may be the only director to have two movies in the bottom 100 on IMDb! He's like some kind of cinematic cockroach. No matter how little talent he has, and no matter how bad these movies are, he manages to keep making them. I know, he finances them all himself through some kind of bizarre German fund, but even so, his ability to keep making movies despite absolute, complete failure is one of the great mysteries of the universe.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so bad except that video game developers keep giving their best properties to this guy. I really enjoyed the Alone in the Dark series of games. Even the latest one, the New Nightmare, was good for a few hours of game play. There was a good movie to be made out of Edward Carnby's adventures, but this is not it. Now Uwe Boll has gotten his hands on Bloodrayne and Hunter: the Reckoning. What's next, Silent Hill? Doom? I can only imagine the swath that this guy is going to cut through game-to-movie adaptations if he's not stopped. Someone needs to take away his line of credit, or these video game publishers need to wise up and realize that when they make a bad movie out of a game that kills the franchise, no one is interested in that title any more.<br /><br />Think about it, is House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark a viable game title anymore? No way. A new House of the Dead game comes out for X-Box and nobody's gonna care. The title is dead, and all because of Uwe Boll. So if any of you out there work for a game publisher, or know a game publisher, or have access to a game publisher... please warn them. <br /><br />This movie itself is not even worth reviewing. I can't separate what I didn't like about this pile of dung from the rest of it. Literally, everything about it sucks. The writing, the acting, the music, the CG effects, the editing. I thought that if I waited until it came out on DVD and then rented it with low expectations, I wouldn't be disappointed. Boy, was I wrong. Never underestimate Uwe's ability to turn out a big, steaming pile of BOLL sh*t. | 0 |
I remember reading all the horrible, horrible reviews for this film when it came out. I meant to go see how horrible it was but it was out of theaters in three weeks. The only other movie to manage that is Gigli. <br /><br />When the movie came out on DVD, I bought it to see how awful it was. I couldn't think of the sheer horrible attention that this film was getting was possible. After seeing it, I can understand. <br /><br />First off, let me say that this film is not without some cool shots. There's a nice shot at the beginning that shows a bullet being fired from inside the gun, which I thought was neat. And the way the monsters in this movie die is sort of cool to look at; but it gets old after the first time you see it. <br /><br />Let me start with the worst thing in this movie: Tara Reid. If bad acting was a sin, then Hell would've chucked Tara Reid right out since she's so unbelievably awful in this movie it's unthinkable. And of all the roles, she plays a curator. Now if she played a dumb, empty- headed sex toy then maybe I might be able to forgive her for how she treats her character. Apparently, Uwe Boll didn't realize that, although he did seem to think that if she took off her shirt in the movie, people would see it. He just didn't realize that making her do that in the middle of the film at the absolute wrong moment just made the movie even more hilariously bad. And is that a Mexican song or something during the scene of dry humping? I couldn't tell. <br /><br />Which brings me to my next complaint: Uwe Boll shows off some of the worst directing skills you'll ever see in a movie. I mean, I'd give House of the Dead an F (and I only do that for very few movies) but HotD would score at least a B compared to this screwed up piece of junk. The movie starts off with a very, very long narration that causes immediate confusion (and read by a horrible narrator) and from there, the cuts are really, really dumb. There's this one point where Slater and Reid are looking around a building that's been destroyed and the screen blackens out. When it comes back, Slater and Reid are shooting everywhere and suddenly, an entire army has joined them. Huh? <br /><br />And someone did NOT bother checking the mistakes in this movie. At one point, a team breaks through glass, but the glass breaks before they touch it. Tara Reid's earrings switch colors in the middle of one scene and after Slater walks away from a dead comrade, you can see her begin to get up. <br /><br />As for the story... I was really lost. Something about an old tribe releasing darkness and someone "opens the path" or something and all the evil monsters pop out. It's just an excuse to have a lot of gun scenes (the technology is so advanced here that no character ever needs to reload in this film) that get, quite simply, BORING. <br /><br />I bought this movie hoping to laugh at how incredibly stupid it was. I didn't laugh, but I still think it's stupid. Very, very, very stupid. | 0 |
First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it. | 0 |
In 1967, mine workers find the remnants of an ancient vanished civilization named Abkani that believe there are the worlds of light and darkness. When they opened the gate between these worlds ten thousand years ago, something evil slipped through before the gate was closed. Twenty-two years ago, the Government Paranormal Research Agency Bureau 713 was directed by Professor Lionel Hudgens (Matthew Walker), who performed experiments with orphan children. On the present days, one of these children is the paranormal investigator Edward Carnby (Christian Slater), who has just gotten an Abkani artifact in South America, and is chased by a man with abilities. When an old friend of foster house disappears in the middle of the night, he discloses that demons are coming back to Earth. With the support of the anthropologist Aline Cedrac (Tara Reid) and the leader of the Bureau 713, Cmdr. Richard Burke (Stephen Dorff), and his squad, they battle against the evil creatures.<br /><br />In spite of having a charismatic good cast, leaded by Christian Slater, Tara Reid and Stephen Dorff, "Alone in the Dark" never works and is a complete mess, without development of characters or plot. The reason may be explained by the "brilliant" interview of director Uwe Boll in the Extras of the DVD, where he says that "videogames are the bestsellers of the younger generations that are not driven by books anymore". Further, his target audience would be people aged between twelve and twenty-five years old. Sorry, but I find both assertions disrespectful with the younger generations. I have a daughter and a son, and I know many of their friends and they are not that type of stupid stereotype the director says. Further, IMDb provides excellent statistics to show that Mr. Uwe Boll is absolutely wrong. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Alone in the Dark O Despertar do Mal" ("Alone in the Dark The Awakening of the Evil") | 0 |
It should come as no shock to you when I say that Alone in the Dark is a crappy movie. To put it bluntly, it's as if a dung monster defecated, ate the result, and then vomited. The final product would still outshine this movie.<br /><br />Seemingly based on an ancient (!) Atari video game, the movie has something or other to do with a portal to the bowels of the earth, the unleashing of demons, and ancient civilizations. Something about there being two worlds, that of darkness and that of light. (Guess which one's ours.) Oh, and 10,000 years ago a really super-duper advanced civilization opened the portal, demons came over and had a blast, then wiped out the civilization. Which is why we've never heard of them, conveniently enough.<br /><br />Christian Slater, perhaps pining for the days of Heathers and Pump up the Volume, plays Edward Carnby, a paranormal researcher to whom Something Bad happened when he was 10 years old. He's hot on the trail of one of the artifacts of said advanced civilization. Carnby used to be part of a secret institution called 713, which has been trying to figure out what happened to that long-ago civilization. But Carnby believed he wasn't going to be able to find the answers he sought, so he left the group.<br /><br />But see, these beasties are out, and they get their prey in varying ways, such as gutting them, splitting them down the middle, implanting neurological control devices in them, or just turning them into killing zombies. Yes, it's another zombie movie.<br /><br />That's about as distilled I can make the plot. It's pretty convoluted and incomprehensible. In similar movies, one might see the intrepid researcher/adventurer figure things out a step at a time, and when we the audience are mentally with the researcher, it's a lot of fun. But when the scenes shift from attack to attack with no perspective or context... not so much fun.<br /><br />The acting is dreadful, save for Slater, who (although he almost seems embarrassed to be in the movie) showed he was capable of carrying the acting load. He had to; get this - Tara Reid is cast as a museum curator! Honest to goodness, I thought I'd seen the casting of a lifetime when Denise Richards was cast as a nuclear physicist in Tomorrow Never Dies. But Reid here matches Richards, crappy emoting for crappy emoting. Hightlights include Reid pronouncing "Newfoundland" as "New Fownd Land," Reid delivering most of her lines in a dazed, throaty monotone (kinda like she'd been on an all-night bender for the past week before filming), Reid - a museum curator, mind you - spending a lot of the movie in a midriff-bearing top and hip-hugger jeans. Oh yeah, she was as believable as Jessica Simpson giving stock quotes. Oh, why must the pretty ones be so dumb? (Note: I don't think Tara Reid's all that good looking. She looks like she's in perpetual need of food.) Almost everyone else in the cast is completely forgettable, except perhaps for Steven Dorff, who played Burke, one of the leaders of 713. Dorff's character wasn't terribly well developed, but nothing in the movie was, from the sets to the characters to Tara Reid. But I digress.<br /><br />Anyway, the perplexing and utterly preposterous storyline is tough enough to follow with the film moving at such a breakneck pace, but director Uwe Boll tosses in a pounding, mind-deadening soundtrack; it's so loud you can't hear what the actors are saying in some of the scenes! That can't be right. Given the acting level, however, perhaps thanks are in order to Mr. Boll.<br /><br />Oh, and a fun note. The opening moments of the movie include narration... of the words that are crawling across the screen at the same time. Remember the first Star Wars? You heard that now-familiar Star Wars theme while the prologue crawled. There was surely no need for narration; why do I need some doofus to read what's on the screen for me? Were the producers simply looking out for blind people? Maybe that also explains why the soundtrack was so loud - they were also looking out for hard-of-hearing people. Also, the narrator inexplicably had a lisp for the first few lines of the crawl - then lost it. Bizarre.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark is a loud, dopey mishmash of dreadful acting, an incoherent script, and ham-handed directing. Hardly a note rings true. There's so much chaos that the audience simply gives up caring about the characters and roots for their demise. Even in the dark, the demonic creatures seem cooler and much more developed by comparison.<br /><br />Ironically, since there were only three other people in the theater, I watched this Alone in the Dark. I wonder if Uwe Boll planned it that way? I can't quite give this the lowest rating, because I had low hopes for it to begin with - and because it never grabbed me enough for me to get worked up about it. It's atrocious, although Slater redeems himself a tiny bit. | 0 |
I know I'm in the minority, but...<br /><br />Uwe Boll is about as talented as a frog. Not even a toad; just a frog. He's reminiscent of about a hundred other no-talent hacks who churn out one useless crap-fest after another. <br /><br />This movie? Is a crap-fest. Slater's talent is only minimally utilized leading one to believe he's got other things (like his failed relationship) on his mind. Reid performs as if she has either forgotten her acting lessons, been severely hit on the head and MADE to forget her acting lessons, or has one of the worst directors in the history of film. I'm voting on the third choice, myself, although the other two are always possible. <br /><br />Uwe Boll has never done a single thing from which I've derived even the slightest pleasure. Frankly, I'm satisfied that he made this stinker. I was concerned with Bloodrayne competing with "Underworld: Evolution" for ticket sales. Now, I'm confident that Len Wiseman has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to worry about.<br /><br />This rates a 1.0/10 rating for this messy, convoluted crap-fest, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 0 |
Joyce Reynolds seems a might grown-up for the role of Janie, a boy-crazy sixteen-year old in small town America who ditches her steady guy for a visiting soldier AND winds up on the cover of Life magazine (smooching at a blanket party) all in the same week! Non-stop barrage of wisecracks, put-downs, bull talk, and unfunny bits of business such as Janie's little sister bribing family members, Hattie McDaniel (as the maid) constantly scuttling after sassy kid sis, Janie's mother involved with the Red Cross, and Janie's father trying to write an editorial on the problems with today's teenagers (as the parents, stuffy, sexless Edward Arnold and pert, chatty Ann Harding make an unlikely couple, even for 1944; he looks incapable of helping to conceive a child much less raising two of them). Nominated for an Academy Award (!) for Owen Marks' editing, Warner Bros. followed this in 1946 with "Janie Gets Married". Reynolds must have outgrown her co-horts by then--she was replaced by Joan Leslie. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
It is considered fashion to highlight every social evil as a result of patriarchy and male dominance, however moronic this illogical 'logic' may be. However within the story and theme of the film, there is no grey area and the woman who should be called the film's antagonist, is the ''villain of the story''. Under no circumstances can what she did be justified. Sexuality of women is just hype in this case and has nothing to do with the actuality. It is betrayal of the ultimate sort. The man ended up spending his resources and time in the wasteful raising of another man's offspring. To top it all, the most feeble of arguments raised by the 3 'liberated' female characters in the climax is pathetic. A woman's sexual needs are no excuse for her to commit adultery and continually betray her husband and worse, there are no other children. So in essence his life has been wasted. In some societies where justice still prevails, such situations result in the execution of the unjust. | 0 |
Bridges of madison county is a better made version of this story. I felt the ending of this movie was not handled sensitively as they did in the original English movie. This movie is very indianised, if you are a very sensitive person who cries in a movie when hero dies in the end you'll love this movie, On the other hand if you are a fighter in life and think crying is for wimps you may not like the ending.But on the whole it's pretty good subject is well handled for indian conditions. Tabu was good as a caring wife and mother. Everybody acted well. | 0 |
Everybody just seems to be raving about the subject, and not really noticing how the movie was made. The deaf, mute guy is fine, the underdog wins - that's good, the cricket aspect is great, but the movie is average overall. I think it could be made much much better than it is.<br /><br />The plot is too predictable for a movie that is not based on a real life event. I'm sure the movie could have been made more interesting. The songs are just stuffed in there, and I had to literally forward the scenes where the same thing would be shown from different angles.<br /><br />Good acting, though. Watchable. | 0 |
This is one of those movies that's trying to be moody and tense, and instead, ends up tripping all over itself. Having seen it at a queer film festival, I was intrigued by the "young college threesome gone wrong" write-up, however, over-all ended up quite disappointed.<br /><br />It's hard to critique a "true story" since there's not much that can be done about the plot - but I found this disjointed, melodramatic and wholly depressing. It's dark and almost sinister, painting a darn creepy flash of the seventies with imposing music and jerky close-ups. It just doesn't work - some scenes where so cheesy that instead of hushed awe, my audience was supressing snickers and rolling eyes.<br /><br />The story has an interesting premise, but this just spins downward into a dark, miserable spiral. | 0 |
I basically found Eden's Curve to be a very poorly constructed that made it difficult to watch. However, there is something I must say about how the director captured something about the atmosphere of the early 70's in the choice of settings and clothing. The "back to the earth" philosophy and the interest in sexual exploration and drugs that was not dramatically decadent, as portrayed in many later versions of the 70's was right on, as was the "don't ask don't tell" pseudo-liberalism of the fraternity made up of east-coast intellectuals, except that I would have thought this was more likely of a New England school rather than one in Virginia, where I imagine the "good ole boy" mentality still dominated even elitist schools like this one. Another thing I appreciated and could relate to is that this was a time when homosexuality was not linked so much to leathermen or drag queens and I appreciated some homosexual roles not related to these terribly overused images. I felt it was very unfortunate that "gay culture" took on certain standard forms in the 80's out of Castro and Christopher Streets and these defined the movement and left out huge numbers of gay men that were more subdued in their lifestyles. I appreciated the film mainly as a way of remembering a more natural way we were about our sexuality and personal relationships without "the scene." | 0 |
I saw this film at the NY Gay & Lesbian Film Festival and thought it was pretty bad. First and most distracting was the way much of it was shot; that is, a lot of slow motion and overly arty close-ups that seemed to have no point--story wise or aesthetically--other than to show the skills of the cinematographer (who I believe was also the director). This film seemed what a pretentious film student would come up with. The lead actor (Sam Levine) was certainly very cute, but was a mediocre actor at best; and the rest of the cast ranged from so-so, to bad. The story itself was mostly annoyingly predictable. I do have to concede that most of the audience seemed to enjoy the film; laughing and sighing constantly, but I disliked it a great deal. | 0 |
I could not even bring myself to watch this movie to the end. I cannot comment on the story as I did not watch the whole film and the reason I couldn't watch it was because of the 'actors'. Firstly, for the most part they just looked stiff and I'm sure their scripts were in their hands just out of frame - but that's a minor issue. The main issue I have with the actors isn't really their fault... it's whoever cast this film! Come on, this movie came out in 2003... I thought that casting people in their late twenties to play teenagers went out of fashion with new wave?! I cannot watch a movie where one of the first lines, from a grown man older than myself, is "I'm 17!" How can anyone take that seriously????? Don't fall victim to this movie, go out for a walk for 90 minutes and you'll get far more than this movie could ever give. | 0 |
This could have been a very good film, if I had been able to watch it. The hand held camera was very bouncy. From the opening credits I was worried. Several of us watching it felt very nauseous by the end. But we did stay until the end because it was such a charming and interesting film, giving some insight to the young pop culture in South Africa. The black and white film did enhance the artful feeling of it. The acting seemed very authentic. Some of the dialog was a little hard to understand, but a theater full of non-South Africans seemed to find most of it funny. If you get motion sickness at all though, you may seriously consider skipping this film. It's quaint, but not worth the nausea. | 0 |
I so wanted to believe in this movie after the only form of mainstream comedy this country recognises is slapstick and stereotypes.<br /><br />Of course, it went completely the other way - let's be cool and edgy - and came out the other side with little to show for it. I bet One Small Seed went nuts for this. I know SL did.<br /><br />None of the main characters have the comedic chops to pull it off. Even Danny K had better timing. I'm actually being serious. Every time they introduced a bit character I kept thinking, "Darn, this person should have been the lead!".<br /><br />Independent doesn't mean that the camera work needs to be horrible. Black and white did nothing for this movie - actually with such flat dialogue it hurt this even more by bringing the boredom into sharp relief. The black and white also wasn't crisp. The composition was horrible. The use of music was horrible. Strangely enough I watched Little Miss Sunshine after this movie and the composition on that was superb - maybe that's why the deficiencies in this movie stick out in my mind.<br /><br />I think Corne (who was funnier than the leads before he even said anything) was speaking to this movie and not David - see it and you'll understand. I bet the guys who organise Oppikoppi were dismayed. One would think nothing happens there at all. I got the feeling it could have been filmed in someone's back garden. I know regular guys who have much funnier, raunchier and wittier conversations than any of these "comics". The dude who they hooked up with end was OK though.<br /><br />Guess SA comedy's gonna stay in the stone age a little longer. Nice work guys. | 0 |
I totally agree with the review by a reviewer of Variety that the film is never quite as funny, lively or insightful about the creative process as its premise would seem to warrant. Narratively it is messy and the lighting is really problematic. If the film is supposed to be character-driven the poor lighting doesn't enhance the acting and it is sometimes difficult to observe the facial expressions of the actors. Many non-South Africans will have difficulty in following the spoken English in the film and some of the local humor will be lost in the process. I watched the film at the Cape Town World Cinema festival last year. Comments and reactions to the film ranged from unwatchable and sloppy to a welcome departure from the films about our painful past. Unfortunately Bunny Chow won't be remembered as one of the bright lights of the South African New Wave, but some of the remarkable films about our apartheid history will indeed be rated among our best in our 110 year old film history. Not surprisingly the film disappeared from cinemas in Cape Town only two weeks after its release and from most of the cinemas in Durban and Gauteng. It has clearly limited appeal among South African audiences. | 0 |
This is the kind of movie which shows the paucity of French cinema when it comes to making thrillers.The director's desire to "sound American" is so glaring that you will not be fooled a minute,unless you have not seen a serial killer movie since "Peeping Tom".<br /><br />Two male cops (or one and a half,more like,as you will see),horrible murders,a plot more complicated than complex.Charles Berling is not lucky with the genre(see the astoundlingly dumb "l'inconnu de Strasbourg" a couple of years ago).The scenes with his pregnant wife -which are supposed to be a counterpart for the otherwise noir atmosphere of the rest of the plot-are among the worst ever filmed.Add a steamy love scene between them and a gory autopsy to get a PG 12 and thus to attract the huge adolescent audience.A violent and absurd conclusion,followed by a silent epilogue who could make a nice commercial for the côte d'azur,it's really the silence of the lame. | 0 |
It's sort of hard for me to say it, because I so greatly enjoyed both "Targets" and "Paper Moon", but I thought "The Last Picture show" was a somewhat fascinating but overly self-indulgent film. Its main positive, as far as I'm concerned, is the stunning photography. But for me the film had nothing to offer beyond surface beauty (and a kind of hidden beauty, at that). The characters were very hard to relate to or to care about. Basically you had this very slow pace and this naturalistic style of acting, but it was all there to prop up a very formulaic and predictable story, complete with all the trappings one would expect from any small town melodrama -- everything from the boy cheating with his teacher's wife to the handicapped kid who everyone picks on. It was like "American Graffiti" without the joy of life.<br /><br />Some might say this film is more realistic -- nowadays a lot of people seem to think that realism is the only virtue a film can possess. But for me the film was simply oppressive, and I want to see it again about as badly as I'd like to spend a few hours in that miserable town the characters live in.<br /><br />Maybe this film really just belongs to its time -- perhaps if I'd seen it in 1971 I would have been impressed by its novelty, just by seeing something different on the screen. But that would basically assume that I had never seen anything like, say, Godard's "Breathless". Maybe the overt references to classic films would have appealed to the movie geek in me and helped me to overlook some of the film's weaknesses. But in the post-Tarantino world that hardly seems unique or special either.<br /><br />It is interesting though how he uses the films in the film to give his own film more depth. We see 3 films as I recall in the picture show. First we see Vincente Minnelli's "Father of the Bride" -- Liz Taylor's exquisite looks provide a contrast to Sonny's girlfriend and Minnelli's studied upper-middle class milieu contrasts to the character's "real life" surroundings in a similar way. Later, clips from Howard Hawks' "Red River" emphasize the theme of a broken friendship between a mentor and a protégé. It really just reminds me that Bogdanovich is kissing his own mentor's butt, much as he did if I remember correctly by selecting a Hawks film as part of his own on-screen reverie with Boris Karloff in "Targets". I guess in 1971 this kind of thing was new but looking at it today it just seems self-indulgent, like so much of the rest of this film.<br /><br />Ultimately, I'd rather see another film by Hawks, Ford or Minnelli than to have Bogdanovich's film remind us of why they were so striking in such a less-than-subtle way. Maybe he intends to remind us of the giants whose time had passed -- all he really does is remind us how small he and most of his contemporaries are in relation. | 0 |
Many people see this as a classic, but I obviously must have missed something. Life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's is pretty dull - which means that a movie about life in Anarene, Texas in the early 50's will be pretty dull too! What is it that so many people see in this? Once the last picture show in Anarene closes there really won't be anything to do in town. Duane (Jeff Bridges) makes that point at the end of the movie. But even before it closes there isn't much to do, so basically everything revolves around sex. High school students make plans for how to lose their virginity - sometimes with each other and sometimes with some of the equally bored adults in town. You see, there's not much for them to do either - except to have sex (sometimes with each other and sometimes with the bored teenagers) or to whine about the local high school football team. Three times something happened that I thought was going to add some spark of drama to the movie. Sam (Ben Johnson) dies unexpectedly, but nothing really happens because of that, Sonny (Timothy Bottoms) and Jacy (Cybill Shepherd) elope, but nothing really happens because of that, Joe Bob (Barc Doyle) kidnaps a little girl, but nothing really happens because of that. The only thing that added anything of dramatic value to the movie came at the end with the death of Billy (Sam Bottoms) which really points out the emptiness of life in this pathetic little town, as the men stand around looking at the body debating where to go for breakfast.<br /><br />Peter Bogdanovic filmed this in black and white, which is intended I suppose to point out how grey this town is, but the only thing I found interesting was the early look at actors like Bottoms, Shepherd, Bridges and Randy Quaid. (As an aside it was terrifying to see how much Quaid - in 1971 - actually looks like his character of Cousin Eddie in the National Lampoon Vacation movies.) Classic? I don't think so! 3/10 | 0 |
I'm not going to comb over TLPS's obvious peterbogdanovichian flaws. Instead, I shall take a look at the positive aspects of this overrated celluloid pygmy of a film.<br /><br />1. Peter Bogdanovich managed to make a movie that can be endured in its entirety. This fact alone places the movie high up above and all the way up to the top of his lame filmography.<br /><br />2. Bogdanovich had shown how amazingly generous some lucky boyfriends can be, by sharing Cybill Shepherd's (his then-gal) fabulous body and breasts with his male audience - and not just on one but on two occasions. Brava! The unquestionable highlights of this cinematic festa del siesta.<br /><br />3. TLPS has barely a scene without stereotypical country music doodling in the background. (Peter tried to make the obvious point that the movie is set in America's Deep South (as if it weren't bleedin' obvious) so he hammered that point on and on and on...) How is this an advantage, you might ask? Well, when the movie finally ends and the monotonous country music finally ceases massaging your tired ear-drums, you start experiencing a strange exhilaration: "The movie's finally over!" It's pure joy.<br /><br />4. The movie gives all women who look like Cloris Leachman hope. Hope that they, too, may one day snatch a much younger and maybe even good-looking boyfriend.<br /><br />5. Cloris Leachman's biography (which I realize isn't technically a part of TLPS) gives hope to all women that look like that, that they too may one day win a Miss Chicago beauty pageant. (Provided they have enough money to bribe the jury with.)<br /><br />(You think I'm joking abut Cloris having won a beauty pageant, huh? Well, check out her bio and then we'll see who laughs last...) <br /><br />6. The movie was shot in black and white which spared us the sight of Cloris Leachman's face in its original, natural non-glory. | 0 |
A boring movie about a boring town in the 50's. How can anyone think this is a classic? The producer pretty much ended his career by pushing his girlfriend, Cybil Shepard, into several movies that were way above her acting ability. I think this movie gives an insight to how bad Peter Bogdonovitch's future movies were going to be. Cybil Shepard's career took a dive after being in several movies that Peter Bogdonovich produced. It wasn't until "Moonlighting" that her career started to come back. I thought the acting was poor rendition of the, "Graduate". I have noticed that this movie hasn't been shown in the US. The only place I have watched it was overseas in Europe late at night. | 0 |
I gave this movie a very fair chance, and it betrayed me. This is very little more than a black and white excuse to bore the hell out of the audience even as the egotist Bogdanavich (who did way better with TARGETS) gets "great performances" out of a ton of hams in their debuts. Lots of teenage sex clichés come out of this movie, such as Doing the Teacher's Wife, Impotence, Doing the Ugly Prostitute(which is very awkwardly shot and grinds things to a complete halt, not that things were really going anywhere anyway) and skinny dipping.<br /><br />I suppose this movie is supposed to be funny because of all the sex nonsense, to me, it was just annoying. I was seriously much more entertained by cleaning my finger nails than watching this mess. | 0 |
Black and White film. Good photography. Believable characters. <br /><br />Just awful.<br /><br />I have wasted another perfect evening watching a film that other rated as "worthy" and "very good." There is some good acting here and the back ground setting for the plot is good (more should have been done with this) but it is very slow to grow and never develops. It is totally bases on sex without much romance with much un needed nudity. More could have been done with the main characters. If you are looking for something to watch with you family this in not the movie and if not you will have trouble sitting through it. Though this film is long its only about 1 inch deep! | 0 |
For getting so many positive reviews, this movie really disappointed me! It is slow moving and long. At times the story is not clear, particularly in the evolving relationships among characters. My advice? Read the book, it's a fabulous story which loses it's impact on screen. | 0 |
After hearing raves about this movie for years, I finally decided to rent it and watch. Let me start by saying that I'm glad that the rental was free from the local library. This move was slow, boring, unrealistic and the plot made no sense. After 2 hours, I was ready to nuke that backwater Texas town and put the group of those characters out of their misery. I realize that taste is subjective, but believe me, I just do not understand all of the hype that I have heard about this movie. Dallas provided as good a detail of the life in Texas as this movie. Rent it only if you want to understand how movie studios can pay enough money to reviewers to convince the general public that a bad movie is good. | 0 |
This is your only spoiler warning. What a sad state of our cinema when unprofessional junk like this is considered "Oscar worthy".<br /><br />I divide material into three levels. The first is the stage theatre. Here the viewer is stagnant and the power rests in the presentation of the actor and, most importantly, in the power of the writer. A good playwright is better than a good screenwriter because he or she knows the ways of words better. The best playwrights know how to create imagery that the barren stage cannot show.<br /><br />The second level is film. In this medium, a weaker writer can be used, but the viewer is not sitting in one spot the entire time. With film, the context can take the qualities of visual poetry and meaning in addition to strong writing. Furthermore, film can manipulate everday elements like sound and color in ways that are almost surreal.<br /><br />The final level is literature. In this context, everything is imagined by the author, translated onto paper, and then re-imagined by the reader. Far more detail can go into a novel than is conceivable for a film studio.<br /><br />This is why adaptations can go up, but never down. Novelizations are never better than the base film (see the dime-per-dozen ones at your local book store), whereas the film cannot convey the same power as the original book (Catch-22 and LotR). Movies can rarely be made into plays and plays can always be made into movies.<br /><br />As for 'The Last Picture Show', it fails. It is a film that should stick to the stage because the director is too stupid to shoot anything right. The characters talk the same and act the same, it's pure futility. Add to that an obnoxious soundtrack and you have an entirely unwatchable film.<br /><br />I saw this in my high school drama class with about 20 other wannabe thespians. The instructor raved about how sad the movie was. What is sad is how such stagnant work is considered depressing when the material itself is hilarious. Had this been in color the scenes of impotence, the pool party, and the old hooker would be considered great comedy. Look what Lucas did with 'American Graffiti' a few years later.<br /><br />The American secondary education system needs to start teaching ABOUT film rather than trying to teach WITH film. Two visually powerful downbeat films: Apocalypse Now and Barry Lyndon. Rely on them, not this. It's the 'Last' I want to see of it. 1 out of 5. | 0 |
Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress... | 0 |
This little show is obviously some stupid little prequel/spin off of the original series.<br /><br />Compared to the live action series this show is utter crap. The live action show had intelligent jokes and story lines. While the animated series is basically a toned down bittersweet version for younger viewers to digest but i think maybe kids deteste this crap.<br /><br />The storyline in every episode is basically just Sabrina has some stupid and pointless dillemma and she uses magic to fix it. Thats basiclly the idea every episode. The most bizarre episode was when Sabrina uses magic to become Gem and Gem to become Sabrina. So then Gem becomes a witch and hypnotizes harvery to become her slave. This then leads to a bizarre yet rather interesting scene were Gem says "just adore me for now" and harvey get down on his hands and knees and starts kissing her feet like shes a god. (which is quite right since he's her mind control slave) But this stupid spin-off is not worth the time or the effort. | 0 |
One can only assume that Robert Osborne is contractually obligated to express delight at even the least appealing films in the TCM library as this would explain him extolling the 'virtues' of this "charming" film during his introduction when I saw this on cable TV. Seeing as any old film on IMDb receives 'classic' status from a number of fawning amateur reviewers, I thought there was a dire need for a more honest review of this film.<br /><br />This is not your father's 'Shop Around the Corner'. For all my quibbles with 'You've Got Mail', it still outshines this as a remake in just about every way imaginable. For those who have seen the original, the flaws will only be all the more obvious.<br /><br />From one of the lamest Meet Cute sequences I can recall seeing (a sad slapstick attempt at 'humor'), this film gets off on the wrong foot and it never really gets back in step. This 'musical' only qualifies as one in the sparsest sense of the term. There are a sprinkling of instantly forgettable musical numbers and then there's Judy singing "I Don't Care" while flailing her arms around as if in a seizure. The Christmas song she sings in the store is probably one of her better numbers here. Miss Garland was wonderful in a number of musical films, but here she seems horribly miscast. The role was originally to have been filled by June Allyson and Judy is definitely unable to fill the shoes of Margaret Sullavan's old part. Van Johnson also turns in a rather bland performance as a second rate Jimmy Stewart type. The leads never achieve the chemistry of Stewart/Sullavan or even that of Hanks/Ryan.<br /><br />This is a film that knows (some of) the notes, but not the music. It doesn't really seem to understand why the original worked and even feels the need to add another possible love interest for Van Johnson's character to complicate things unnecessarily. The remake's substitution for the original's infidelity subplot is a hackneyed plot device involving a priceless violin. It is almost embarrassing to watch and feels as if it had perhaps been lifted from an episode of Three's Company by someone with a DeLorean and a flux capacitor. It's really just an excuse for a Keaton pratfall. Even the big resolution scene between the romantic leads is mishandled. After seeing both films, you'll understand why they called it 'the Lubitsch Touch' and NOT the 'Robert Z. Leonard Touch'.<br /><br />Avoid this and rewatch either the original film or one of Judy Garland's earlier films unless you're an iconoclast who enjoys seeing a once great star falling down to earth. | 0 |
As has been noted, this formula has been filmed several times, most recently as "You've Got Mail", with Tom Hanks and Meg"Trout Pout" Ryan. Of the several versions, this is my least favorite. The problem i think is that the studio coasted on the Stars charisma, which doesn't quite cut it here.<br /><br />The chemistry betwixt the two leads never comes to a boil in this movie. There are no real sparks. Van Johnson and Judy Garland remind me of day old donuts, pleasant but bland. And when the leads are boring the rest of the movie can only follow. Judy in particular is disappointing. She looks like she has no neck! I don't know if she was having trouble with pain or something but she looks like a turtle trying to pull it's head into it's shell, all hunched up and everything. I couldn't figure out what Van Johnson was getting so hot about. I would have made a bee line for that cute violin player. And Van wasn't great either. I've always thought of him as a rather generic Hollywood leading man and he doesn't do anything to dispel that image here.<br /><br />If you're a fan of the stars or the early 1900's then you might like this movie. But there are a lot more entertaining romantic comedies out there, and they offer you much more than a mouthful of stale confection. | 0 |
I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.<br /><br />I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments. <br /><br />Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."<br /><br />The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.<br /><br />Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."<br /><br />With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.<br /><br />The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"<br /><br />That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.<br /><br />MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"<br /><br />The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.<br /><br />In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie. | 0 |
As a Mystery Science Theatre 3000 fan, I can withstand ANY motion picture that can be foisted upon me, but there is absolutely no reason for this.<br /><br />Rated "Super Action" in the Blockbuster Video section and given the dreaded "Restricted Viewing Sticker" I'm assuming these are the only methods that film maker (HA!) Robert Napton could use to get at least 4.50 from one unsuspecting person.<br /><br />Shame on you Robert Napton! Shame on you for exploiting these poor Mexican actors who you probably promised hopes for making it big in American cinema. You are a disgrace!<br /><br />There isn't one moment in this movie that holds the slightest bit of action. Did you use snot on these people? Oh, look, they're having a rave in a field! Like all 6 of them. And isn't that an Asian guy in the background? Why is it always daytime? Why did it take 1/2 of the movie to show anything.. and more importantly why did we watch the other 1/2?<br /><br />PS: You owe me 4.50. | 0 |
This isn't cinema. It isn't talent. It isn't informative. It isn't scary. It isn't entertaining. It isn't anything at all.<br /><br />I got this because my cousin says, "Diablo! COOL!" Yeah, right. The only thing cool about this experience was the lone fact that I didn't buy it but rented it instead.<br /><br />It's shot like a bad soap opera. No wait. Soap operas at least LOOK professional...sorta. This? This looks like it was shot with someone's camcorder. It's horrid! Wretched! It sux.<br /><br />The cinematography is detestable! WHO IS this director anyway? I don't even care enough to look him up. He STINKS! The performances by these poor unsuspecting actors were far better than this crap-fest deserved.<br /><br />2.6/10 on the "B" scale. <br /><br />That registers about a 0.3/10 on the "A" scale from...<br /><br />the Fiend :. | 0 |
It is one of the worst movies i've ever seen, but Hostel is definitely much more worse. This movie is more funny and ridiculous, than scary. I laughed most of the time when watched it. Low quality effects (when you gonna watch it, you'll understand what i'm talking about and HOW LOW quality is that), bad actors (i hear of them for the first time), and it seems like it's shot by an amateur camcorder (so it looks more like a TV show, than a movie). But at least i've had the patience to watch it till the end. Like comedies? Watch it. Wanna horror? Go watch Ju-On: The Grudge or some other good horror movie.<br /><br />If i'm talking about the Legend of Diablo, i don't even know if i can classify it to a Horror genre. Just some low-budget crap.<br /><br />I rate it 3 out of 10 | 0 |
The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.<br /><br />If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'<br /><br />I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids. <br /><br />SOME SPOILERS<br /><br />The basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon. <br /><br />Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special
and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!<br /><br />Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous! <br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'<br /><br />If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.<br /><br />I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger! | 0 |
me, my boyfriend, and our friend watched this "movie" if thats what u wanna call it, and we agree with the last person, but we were stupid and bought the damn thing, we thought it really was about diablo so we bought it.<br /><br />we hate it Really SUXZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so beware: DO NOT BUY THIS THING THEY CALL A MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />we would return it, but don't no if anybody would want this stupid movie.<br /><br />oh and another thing, the shouldn't call it "The Legend of Diablo" they should of called it "Legend of Azar".<br /><br />and this movie is rated R????? this should not of even been not rated.<br /><br />we think that diablo would be crying his eyes out laughing at this stupid movie.<br /><br />this is a movie that would have been done by a Church.<br /><br />theses "actors" are never gonna become nothing because this movie. | 0 |
This may be one of the worst movies to ever make it to production, ever.<br /><br />1. The most exciting part is the beginning, where the guy is walking... and walking... and walking (spoiler). There is about 15 minutes of just walking. How? <br /><br />2. Not to mention there's a lot of issues with the lighting, and it's almost like they even shot the night scenes during the day. <br /><br />3. The acting was TERRIBLE. It looks like they found a community theater (in Mexico)... and then took the people who were turned away.<br /><br />Please, for the love of everything holy, don't rent this movie. If you know someone who owns it, apologize to them. The director should be subject to punishment through the war crimes tribunal for foisting this on the public. | 0 |
The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid. | 0 |
I cannot get past the message of this movie. It's laid out much too clearly to ignore, and it is obscene because it has lost its sense of what it's about. I haven't read the novel, but Pollack's film opens with a scene at a CIA-front organization in New York, which is broken into by two professional assassins, headed by Max von Sydow, who proceed to brutally slaughter the half dozen quirky staff members we've come to know and understand. The staff include an elderly female receptionist, a fussy elderly professorial guy who's toupee falls off when he is machine-gunned (is that a joke?), and, last, the beautiful Tina Chen who looks up from the copier, realizes she is about to be murdered, and says, pitifully brave, "I won't scream." Von Sydow replies sympathetically, "I know." These murders are completely unexpected, savage, unmotivated by anything that we are aware of, and graphic. It is a brutal scene. <br /><br />There is absolutely no way in which von Sydow and his henchman can be redeemed. And yet that is exactly what Pollack tries to do towards the end.<br /><br />After having killed these innocent good guys, von Sydow switches sides (because the other side is willing to pay him) and assassinates the evil mastermind behind a complicated intramural CIA plot. The script then turns him into a perfectly reasonable, sensitive human being. "It is better to live in Europe. Things are not so rushed." Or whatever. I swear I'm not making this up. Pollack wants us to believe that it is better to be an honest mass murderer than a crooked bureaucrat. That's the message. You should write it down in case you forget. Just exactly what kind of psychiatric shambles do you have to be in order to turn ordinary values, not to mention common sense, upside-down like that? I understand that there are thoughtful adults who dislike the government of the United States, even hate it, and who see conspiracies just about everywhere, providing a knee-jerk explanation for otherwise unexplainable events. I know that people who think this way exist because I number some of them among my closer friends. Nevertheless, at some point this dislike, this hatred, if it increases in intensity, must pass beyond politics or ethics and into the realm of the psychiatric. I don't for a moment believe that a man who murders people for money is better than a sinister government official. I don't care how suave and cultured the murderer is or whether he knows how to reach the Louvre on the Metro. Whoever is purveying that message needs either medication or meditation.<br /><br />I'd like to be able to argue that the production is as thoroughly rotten as its message, but I can't. It's quite well done. (In some ways that's worse, because it makes the film less dismissable.) Even New York City looks photogenic on the screen. And it's been a long time since I've thought of New York as photogenic. Robert Redford does an admirable job of projecting his character's initial shock and confusion, but then turns into a telecommunicational semi-genius. And, man, he looks just fine! His wardrobe is just right. Even his rimless glasses are becoming. And his peacoat. It's not everyone who can make a navy pea jacket look glamorous. He seems extremely handsome too, the swine. I want to look like that. I want to wear a denim shirt and a tie with such panache. Faye Dunaway is alright in her role but it's not too believable a role. Would anybody eagerly sleep with a guy who has just kidnapped her and is holding her at gunpoint? Even if he did look like Redford? Would anyone be emotionally wounded if, when this ambivalent relationship is about to end, Redford asked her not to tell anybody about what happened? Cliff Robertson is surprisingly good. He does one or two extremely good double-takes. The mailman is superb. The fight between him and Redford in a crowded apartment is exquisitely choreographed and, for once, we really don't know for sure how it will turn out, because Redford (a book reader after all) seems mismatched against the brute cunning of this hired assassin. This is one of John Housemann's final roles. A shame. He's a magnet on screen. And what an end to his life: a friend finds him lost, wandering the streets of New York, in a neighborhood he'd been familiar with for most of his life. <br /><br />Yes, the movie is very well executed, but I can't ignore that vicious, paranoid message. I have the same problem with Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Or her Olympic documentary in which the announcer is watching a foot race in which Jesse Owens is pulling into the lead and says ominously, "This Negro is dangerous." | 0 |
1st watched 2/28/2006 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Sydney Pollack):-DVD version I watched titled "3 Days of the Condor"- So so CIA drama full of laid-back performances making for a very laid-back movie. The premise of the story revolves around 7 out of 8 members of a CIA research group being killed with Robert Redford's character, codename = Condor, being the one that was left. Who killed them and why? That's what Redford tries to find out while trying to not be the 8th victim at the same time. Along the way, he gets Faye Dunaway's character involved involved, originally because he needs a place to hide, and then she eventually helps him out after a little lovey-dovey time. This is one of a handful of innocent guy on the run stories but this one doesn't have a lot of suspense. The flat performances don't help and the finish doesn't seal the deal for the audience enough either. Despite having a good director in Sydney Pollack and a group of classic performers, the story and the performances are not what they should be and therefore the movie is not what it should be. | 0 |
Generally I don't like films directed by Sydney Pollack ("The Firm" being somewhat of an exception) and I've never been a Robert Redford fan either. Still, I thought "Three Days of the Condor" must be good because of the number of praising comments it has received.<br /><br />Although the widescreen cinematography is quite pleasing for the eye and Max von Sydow does a nice job as the sinister professional killer, I found the whole affair tremendously disappointing. The film undeniably radiates paranoid atmosphere, but everything is ruined by the muddled plot which doesn't seem to make any sense.<br /><br />The film also contains one of the most unsatisfying endings I have ever seen which really leaves the viewer hanging in the air. And what can one say about that absurd romance between Redford and Dunaway? I'd much rather watch any of Hitchcock's films five times in succession than to sit through this piece of waste once more. | 0 |
Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.<br /><br />See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.<br /><br />In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance. | 0 |
I'll admit that I don't expect much from a Roger Corman film. Generally, I expect a lot of walking and bad scripts. Yet in this case, I am pleasantly surprised.<br /><br />The Gunslinger is a story of a woman (played by the spunky Beverly Garland) who takes over as sheriff after her husband is brutally murdered. Ms. Garland is a pretty good shot herself, killing one of the murderers the next day at her husband's funeral. Her first task is to shut down the local bar that is violating the town curfew. The bar's owner is trying to buy land in anticipation of being bought out by the (hoped-for) railroad. However, Ms. Garland is a thorn in her plans, and the bar matron hires a man to kill Ms. Garland.<br /><br />Because of Ms. Garland's plays her role honestly and realistically, there is absolutely no temptation to go to Suzanne Somers "She's the Sheriff" jokes. With the exception of a couple of faux pas (the apartment door that opens OUT from the inside, jeep tracks, and the two horsemen waiting on screen for their cue to ride around a corner), the movie becomes quite passable as movie fare. However, Corman could not resist padding his film with horse riding scenes, much like he does walking in other films.<br /><br />Sterno says The Gunslinger is a horse opera worth your time. | 0 |
- When the local sheriff is killed, his wife takes over until and is determined to clean-up the town. Not everyone in town, however, is happy with what she's doing. When the sheriff orders a curfew in town, the local saloon owner (also a woman) hires a killer to take care of the sheriff. There's no way the saloon owner could know that the sheriff and the killer would fall in love.<br /><br />- Gunslinger is an example of what happens when you have a fairly interesting concept and combine it with poor execution. There's a good movie here somewhere trying to get out. In more capable hands or with a larger budget, Gunslinger might have been an entertaining look at the role of women in the Old West. As it is, Gunslinger is a sloppy mess of a movie.<br /><br />- There are just so many things wrong with the movie: a supporting cast with no acting ability, stilted and unnatural dialogue, and sets that look like sets. But the biggest offender is the editing. I was amazed at how many times a scene would begin with the actors (and horses for that matter) obviously waiting for Corman to yell "Action". The best is the scene of two riders on horseback just standing beside a building. All of a sudden, they take off and come racing around the corner like they had been riding hard for several miles. Or, take the example of people who can seemingly transport themselves across town. We see a man enter a building and a second later emerge across town to mount his horse.<br /><br />- It's not as if Corman didn't have a few decent actors to work with. While none were great stars, Beverly Garland, John Ireland, and Allison Hayes were all capable of turning in a good performance. But, in Gunslinger, they're not given much to work with.<br /><br />- I have now seen both the MST3K and non-MST3K versions of the movie. I would strongly recommend going the MST3K route. | 0 |
Beverly garland was born in the wrong time. She was an actress ahead of her time, bringing power and grace to even such lame flicks as the Corman films she starred in. In Gunslinger, she's the town sheriff's wife. He gets offed, so she takes over his job to pursue his killers. She's better than the material she's working with, by far. The movie is gray, stilted, and mostly boring. There's some(unintentional)humor with the tire tracks everywhere, people running behind one building to emerge suddenly in front of another (I've heard of false fronts, but this is ridiculous!), and the truly stupid plot line of the newly widowed sheriff falling in love with the guy hired to kill her. Even if she hadn't loved her husband, it had only been something like a week or two since he'd died! And she ends up shooting the guy to death in the end, anyway. No luck with men, this one.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is another woman, the saloon owner. She's scheming to buy up a bunch of land just in case the railroad goes through and makes her rich. Her plan of action if it doesn't is pretty lame-she'll just steal as much from the town as she can and skedaddle. Hell, it's just her and her hired gun at the end against an entire town. Are you telling me these people aren't armed? Look what happened in real towns of the Old West when bank robbers came in to rob the bank, then were cut down in a hail of bullets by the armed and dangerous town folk.<br /><br />There'a a lot of pointless talking and riding around, interspersed with a few lame shoot outs. The ending is as grim as usual in a Corman flick, although thank goodness it lacks the moral proselytizing at the end that was in It Conquered the World. The sheriff turns over her badge to Sam Bass and rides off into the sunset, although the movie was so gray that you never saw the sun. | 0 |
I guess that "Gunslinger" wasn't quite as god-awful as most of the movies that "Mystery Science Theater 3000" shows, but westerns just aren't Roger Corman's forte. Portraying Rose Hood (Beverly Garland) becoming sheriff in an Old West town after her sheriff husband gets murdered and having to fight off baddies, the movie is pretty predictable. John Ireland is Rose's new hubby, secretly working for unctuous Allison Hayes (yes, the 50-foot woman). Also appearing briefly is frequent Corman co-star Dick Miller as a mailman (Miller nowadays stars in Joe Dante's movies).<br /><br />I do wish to assert that you'll probably want to watch the "MST3K" version to really enjoy this movie. They had a great time with it. | 0 |
Sure it takes place in the west, but the title makes it seem like it is a conventional western. Instead, it is a movie of a woman sheriff. Make no mistake though this is a bad movie about a woman sheriff. She becomes sheriff when her husband is gunned down; she is only a tad bit upset by this. Her main goal is to go after the villain who is also a woman, but the villain hires a guy to kill her. So this is what happens, the hero falls in love with the killer and vice versa. Utterly stupid, as anyone killed in this movie has the new sheriff to thank. She had more than a few chances to put the killer behind bars, but I guess because she liked him she wouldn't do it. The killer is also after the mayor of the town for personal reasons that are also rather dumb. This movie is very boring and not really worth watching...it is not one of the better episodes of MST3000 they made. I can not imagine anyone seeing this without them because that would make it that much more painful. Corman is a low budget director, but even he should know better than to have people go into one place and coming out another. | 0 |
I'll be blunt. I'm not one for politically correct movies where the woman plays the bad ass who's not going to take any crap from anyone. If any one of the cast members wanted to, they could have just taken her out in a heartbeat. It was entertaining on MST 3K, but don't rent the real version. Trust me. Have I ever lied to you? | 0 |
One of the other commenters mentioned that they almost walked out. If I hadn't been with my wife, who wanted to stay, I would have left. It's a shame, too, because I think it could have been a good movie. But this is easily one of the worst adapted screenplays I've ever seen. It starts out nowhere and it goes nowhere (I would say it goes nowhere fast, but it really goes nowhere slow...painfully slow). From time to time there are hints that something interesting might happen, or that there is potentially some depth underneath one of the characters, but that's all we get - hints. There is not a single payoff or revelation in the entire movie. Not that I need a slick plot to be entertained...I love a good meandering character study as much as the next indie buff. But these characters add up to nothing. For the entire duration of the film you don't care what happens to a single one of them. As a matter of fact, you almost start hoping they die, because at least a death might be more interesting than watching their inexplicable behavior, which is so strange and unpredictable that you'd think it in itself would be compelling, but it's not. Instead of quirky, noir-esquire characters acting in hard-boiled fashion, you simply recognize it immediately for what it is: a bunch of talented but miscast actors, brooding and raising their eyebrows while reading bizarre dialogue without a hint of relevant context. All this for two plodding, painfully slow hours. Awful. | 0 |
This is a movie that demonstrates that mood and music and texture aren't enough to make a good film. Sure, the viewer is treated to numerous fine scenes of Los Angeles in the thirties--I especially liked the view of the trolley approaching the tunnel, and the tram rising up the hillside--but in a sense this fine cinematography is self-defeating, because it creates a mood that "something's going to happen"--and nothing does. The script too keeps feinting toward some plot or action or trauma--and time after time not delivering. Not even delivering the (I assume) theme of the movie, the characters' essential misfit. The lead actors, both too pretty for their roles, didn't convey any repression or agony, and the script didn't expose us to any.<br /><br />Now, Donald Sutherland? That's another story. His character was so well fashioned, so perfectly played, that I wanted the camera to follow him. | 0 |
This movie proves that good acting comes from good direction and this does not happen in Ask the Dust. Colin Farrell is usually a fine actor but in this he is juvenile. Donald Sutherland comes across as an amateur. Why? Because the script is awful, the adaptation is awful and the actors seem bored and half hearted. The atmosphere of the movie is bad - I could only think when it would finish and I turned it off half way. The director has done a very poor job and even though I have not read the novel it is certainly a missed chance. The atmosphere this film is trying to evoke and the message and storyline never reaches the audience. In one word, it is a TERRIBLE film. | 0 |
A friend told me of John Fante last summer after we got into a conversation about Charles Bukowski. I did not know that Fante was a favorite writer of Bukowski's - an author with similar edge and humor except from one generation earlier. 'Ask the Dust' was the first Fante book I read, and it remains one of my favorite novels. The novel was a brilliant piece of writing about a sad, frightened young writer posing to himself and the outside world as an overconfident, masterfully talented author who had no idea how to write about the real world experiences he had none of. In the novel the protagonist is a virgin, with no idea how to win the graces of the women he desperately wants to write about in magazines. The story of his bizarre relationship with Camilla, how he settles for his first sexual experience with a 'wounded' admirer, and how he eventually is left with nothing but the story of his failed attempts at love is biting and real, with no touching Hollywood ending. The film adaptation stays true to the book for a while, but meanders into the cinematic trap of love persevering through racism, sickness and death. The heart of this story lies in the fact that Bandini is a jerk and Camilla is f-ing crazy, and their love never was and never would be the real thing, no matter how much either of them wanted to find it in each other. This movie tore out the real meaning of the story out and replaced it with schlock. I can't believe the man who wrote Chinatown could read this book and make a movie about it that got it so wrong. | 0 |
It must have been excruciating to attend the dailies as the shooting continued on this failure of a film. Probably Cruise, the Exec. Prod., saw what was happening and had Towne use much, much more of the nude footage in the final cut then Towne wanted to, to make up for the disaster he saw looming.(Maybe Cruise even thought of "Titanic".)A few items: Colin Farrell can't act his way out of a paper bag. But he's one of the flavors-of-the-decade, a producer's darling and one is forced to avoid the embarrassment of watching him by not attending his films. He has so many moments of not believing in what he's doing and you can see it in his eyes. I think he would have been at his best as a film actor, albeit not as rich or famous as he is now, playing second banana to dynamic leads who can act. The trap of spending a lot of money for period sets, costumes, cars, et al and photographing them as if they just came from the dry cleaner or car wash/wax. No one seems to want anything to look, well, worn. Or dirty. Is this because the production designer was told by the line producer to make sure they didn't ruin the stuff because then the company wouldhave to pay for the ruined items?<br /><br />This was a story about the depression-thirties folks, not a Disney Broadway musical about that era. How about doing it in black and white or better yet, given Caleb Deschanel as your D.P., have him desaturate the colors during the mix to suggest some of the actual grime and poorness of the times. It should have been, after all, a bit depressing to live so desperately as these folks did, in the Depression. More on Farrell. Did anyone for a moment believe this guy was a writer? H.L. Mencken on the wall; did I see his eyes roll at one point? Hayek and Farrell as a sexually dynamic duo? Sending a boy to do a man's work? Perhaps in the book, which I haven't read, the story was about an older woman and a youth. I cannot delve too deeply into the middle to latter parts of the film because I bailed out early on. But the memory of the scenes I did see made me think that someone was doing a not-too-amusing parody of a noir movie. Sort of what Saturday Night Live has been like for the past decade: not funny. (In my mind I kept thinking of a Guy Noir sketch, music and all.) | 0 |
I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .<br /><br />BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! ! <br /><br />No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.<br /><br />The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.<br /><br />Stale approach to a tired plot. | 0 |
A film starring Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, two respected and talented actors, sounds like a great idea. An independent film sounds even better. The studios will control less of the content allowing the actors and writers and director more creativity.<br /><br />But then why is this movie so bland? Ask the dust.<br /><br />This film assumes right off the bat that we are deeply invested in the characters. No one is given a proper back story, so we don't ever know why the characters act the way they do.<br /><br />Explanations for physical and emotional scars are left to our imagination, if you still have one left at the end of this movie.<br /><br />I told a friend that I went to see this film, and that I thought it was awful.<br /><br />Her question: "Not even Colin Farrell could save it?" My response: "Not even Colin Farrell's ass could save it." | 0 |
"Ask the Dust" looked intriguing from the trailer, and we especially like all of the actors. Unfortunately, the movie was not compelling enough to be considered drama, and it wasn't funny enough to be a comedy. It practically seemed to satirize itself, and to no entertaining effect. After seventy minutes of waiting for this thing to get better, my wife and I walked out, valuing not having wasted any more time on such nonsense. It simply was not interesting, moving, funny nor artistic. It appears as though it were written, produced and directed by a high school kid; worse yet, it was such a shameful waste of otherwise extraordinarily talented actors, not to mention our time and money. | 0 |
Given the history of the director of this movie, it is hard to believe that this was such a painfully bad movie to sit through. I was at the European premiere last night and one of the Executive Producers was there. He was yet to see the movie and, boy, was he in for a surprise. I have not read the book that this is based upon, nor do I know if it highly rated or appreciated, but I have read "Captain Correlli's Mandolin" and given how poorly that was adapted for screen and how bad this movie was, I can only presume that something similar has happened here. The acting wasn't bad albeit that there were a couple-too-many raised eyebrows from Farrell. Honestly, I can't believed how little I cared for any character in this movie. Situations play out on the screen in an empty sequence of nothingness. Donald Sutherland's part comprises a few scenes where he opens a door, says something and closes it again. I kept looking at my watch when I wasn't cringing at the dialogue on the screen. I have never walked out on a movie but I was tempted to start during this. I gave this movie a score of '2' for reasons which seem horrendously shallow to me but these are the best things that I can say about this movie. The first is that I really enjoyed the all-too-short earthquake scene and the second is that Salma Hayek got naked and looked beautiful. I can say little else positive about this movie. Don't ask the dust anything, it can't talk! | 0 |
I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.<br /><br />I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.<br /><br />In a word: forgettable. | 0 |
The 1930' were a golden age of Los Angeles with its film industry and great potential of various other possibilities to become rich and famous and happy. People were arriving there hoping to fulfill their dreams. Expecting open arms and welcoming offers there were only a few who managed to succeed and find their way to stardom, majority then condemned to live starving, disillusioned and unwanted, searching for a bit of respect in dirty bars and nasty hotel rooms. <br /><br />Young Italian-American writer Arturo Bandini arrives to LA on a similar quest - to spread his charms around to get one of those beautiful wealthy women and to write an excellent novel that would set him on a career path, having so far written a single short story published in an obscure anthology. Wishing to create a romantic masterpiece he seems to be unable to produce anything without experiencing it himself though, occasionally, he sends pieces of magazine stories to a local editor that helps him survive. He is proud to present himself as an Italian but deep in his heart he truly feels his Italian origin as a burden. The little money and the courage to conquer the world he once had are all long gone and watching his dream turning into a hangover he holds a last single nickel to spend. <br /><br />The coffee she brought him was cold and sour and spitting a curse on her triggers a never-ending relationship of insults, unspoken excuses and a love concealed beneath. Camilla being an uneducated girl trying to receive US citizenship through a marriage also carries her heavy cross of a non-perspective racial heritage. Though she is much of a stronger and life experienced person her situation as a beautiful Mexican woman is much harder to deal with than Arturo is able to realize. <br /><br />Is it obvious that Arturo eventually finds his inspiration to work on the novel? Is it possible that their love finally finds its place in the sun? Is it likely that their romance takes an unlucky turn?<br /><br />It is very surprising to find out that the chemistry between the two main characters, performed by Salma Hayek and Colin Farrell, does not work. The relationship lacks the raw and authentic feelings. Hayek though livelier a character compared to Farrell's forgot to arm Camilla with the passion and strength of her once brilliant character Frida. Also it is hard to have faith in a character which being intelligent but uneducated and illiterate uses quite difficult vocabulary and complicated sentences. A tougher character of a Phil Marlowe sort would definitely suit Farrell better, though he looks stunning in a period costume, he seems very lost trying to find the fragile world of a twenty-year old dreamer balancing between a hidden love and desire to be true to himself. <br /><br />Feeling embarrassed watching the two on the screen is not right. Their relationship might have been wild but it is more likely what a thunder and a lightning are without a storm, far from real passion, feelings just described not felt inside. It is very sad that such a potential of an interesting script and good actors was wasted, turned into a grey average of soon-to-be-forgotten. | 0 |
This film is based on the novel by John Fante. Could someone please tell me why? I see absolutely no reason why this fine book should be adapted in this way. If you want to make a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek, then how could you possibly make a connection to Ask The Dust (the novel)? -And if you wanted to make this story into a film, then why would you want to make it into a romantic melodramatic Hollywood production with Colin Farell and Selma Hayek? I don't get it.<br /><br />The adaptation of the story is poorly made, and if you have read the book and liked it, I'm almost sure you won't like what Towne did with it. <br /><br />In the beginning of the film you'll maybe find the casting odd, the acting bad and the cinematography just a bit overdone. But you hope for the best. I really hoped a lot during this film. I actually wanted it to be good. But it only gets worse, and it is as simple as that: Whether you read Fantes novel or not, this is not a good film. Just another romantic melodramatic Hollywood production combined with bad acting, lack of structure and - of course - plenty of shots of Colin Farells naked butt.<br /><br />I could complain a lot more about this film, but why waste my time. I've seen it. Alright. I had to see it, because I like the book so much and was curious. And I'm very disappointed.<br /><br />1/10 is for Colin's sweet little mustache in the end of the film. So sweet... Had he worn it the whole time through, I'd given it 2/10. | 0 |
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing? | 0 |
What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was. | 0 |
A warning to potential viewers: if you are looking for an adaptation of the classic story "The Most Dangerous Game," look elsewhere. "Seven Women for Satan"<br /><br />only superficially addresses the original work by using the name of Zaroff and having said character murder people.<br /><br />Some of what follows might be considered by some to be spoilers. Or not.<br /><br />Boris Zaroff is played by writer/director Michel Lemoine. Whereas his ancestor hunted men because they were the only prey that were truly challenging, Boris' victims are usually in a position where they cannot defend themselves. The film rambles from scene to scene with a near-total lack of clarity. The director seems to have totally disregarded pacing and left the viewer with a suffocatingly dull film. A few individual scenes are mildly interesting (such as a torture rack sequence), but as a unit, the film fails to entertain. Viewers who are more<br /><br />interested in an assortment of attractive and semi-attractive actresses in various stages of undress might find the film watchable. Most will probably find their time is better spent watching Mentos commercials.<br /><br />In a side note, the DVD extras included a fair amount of information on the film's history. Apparently, it was banned for several years in its native France which pretty much ruined any chance it had for widespread distribution. | 0 |
You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"
During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts
" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one. | 0 |
Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable. <br /><br />It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.<br /><br />Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows. <br /><br />Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.<br /><br />A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn. | 0 |
I love watching early colour films - you mean those 40s clothes weren't all grey? <br /><br />Margaret Rutherford dominates this movie. Her "eccentric" garb is actually rather attractive and yes, she has an amazing hourglass figure. But I feel she was given her head rather too much. She probably developed this characterisation over many performances, and nobody told her "If it gets a laugh, leave it out." She does too much deranged fooling about when she's supposed to be surprisingly down to earth. The Madame Arcati joke is that mediums were usually portrayed as wispy females in long drapery. Arcati behaves like a retired headmistress (We'll really put our backs into it!). The contrast between her breezy, commonplace manner and her wacky beliefs isn't really brought out.<br /><br />Just because all the actors are English (apart from Cummings), the Americans feel they have to use the words "Brit", "stiff", "lip" and "upper". Oh, give it a rest! The three main characters lose their tempers constantly and make risqué remarks (Did he make love to you? Yes, but very discreetly - he was in the cavalry!). | 0 |
I recently saw the Broadway revival of "Blithe Spirit" starring Angela Lansbury, Rupert Everett, Christine Ebersole, and Jayne Atkinson. It's a terrific production, and shows what good actors can do with a play that is less than perfect. Angela Lansbury is extremely funny as Madame Arcati.<br /><br />It was probably a mistake, then, to check out the film version of the play starring Rex Harrison. The movie does not have the energy or the laughs of a good stage production.<br /><br />"Blithe Spirit" is probably one of those plays that works better with a live cast, in an audience full of people who have come to laugh. The actors can improvise, give touches and nuances to their performance and delivery of the lines, and involve the audience on a personal level that you can't get in a movie house, or with a DVD showing, where the audience is separated from the story by the "Fourth Wall." The story: Charles Condomine (Rex Harrison), a successful writer, lives with his wife Ruth (Constance Cummings) in a house in the English countryside. Seeking information for his next book, a book dealing with the supernatural, Charles invites Madame Arcati (Margaret Rutherford, reprising her role from the original 1941 London production), a local spiritual medium, over to his house to conduct a séance. Charles believes that spiritism is a sham, but hopes to pick up "the tricks of the trade." But then Madame Arcati brings back the ghost of Elvira (Kaye Hammond), Charles's first wife, who died of pneumonia seven years ago. Elvira refuses to leave, and develops a spitting rivalry with Ruth over Charles (complicated by the fact that only Charles can see or hear Elvira).<br /><br />On stage, the actors can give performances that invite laughs in this situation. But on the screen, the actors in "Blithe Spirit" tear through the lines as if they don't know that anyone is listening to them. They mumble lines that were designed to get laughs on the stage. The performances by Harrison, Cummings, and even Kaye Hammond are flat and lifeless. Only Margaret Rutherford seems to have retained her spark and humor as Madame Arcati.<br /><br />The Oscar-winning visual effects in the film are unimpressive -- not just by today's standards, but by the standards of 1946! They consist mostly of Kaye Hammond walking around in fluorescent green outfits and makeup, being photographed in special lighting to make her look like a glowing ghost.<br /><br />The cinematographer deserves some credit for creative lighting. But compare the dull visual effects of "Blithe Spirit" to the truly groundbreaking effects in Disney's "Song of the South" -- which was eligible for awards the same year. In "South," humans and animated characters share the screen seamlessly for minutes at a time. Compared to "South," the Oscar that "Blithe Spirit" received for special effects was completely undeserved.<br /><br />At any rate, I can only encourage you to catch the Broadway revival of this play with Angela Lansbury before it closes. As for the movie with Rex Harrison, skip it. | 0 |
David Lean's worst film. Even 'In Which We Serve' was'nt as bad as this. Usually a film with a really good reputation like this one, has at least some redeeming qualities, which makes one understand why it might be considered a classic. But after watching this I just could not get why this piece of crap was liked so much even back in 1945! I disliked the acting, stiff upper lip British mannerisms, story, script (which may be quite witty at times but totally unfunny) and soundtrack. The elvira character is meant to be alluring and attractive, but was in actual fact ugly and had a weird and annoying voice. Just another film that has convinced me not to trust a films reputation. Another very overrated 'british classic'. | 0 |
High heels are tricksy things. They can elevate women (or cross-dressing men) to newfound heights, put forward a sharp statement of style and bring a touch of fragile elegance. Alternatively, they can be a perilous foot pain that will inevitably lead to trips, falls and ultimate tragedy. Tacones lejanos is more of a disappointment trip than a stylish high riser.<br /><br />Almodóvar's mother-daughter drama is stylish for sure, but in terms of plot it's a tongue-tied and tedious affair full of confusing, complex characters that never fully engage or make sense. A few moments of comedy aside, Tacones lejanos just isn't interesting. The best bit comes at the beginning in a marvellously macabre case of manslaughter orchestrated by a child. From this brilliant bit of black comedy things are looking up, but then the film comes to a heel.<br /><br />There's solid enough acting performances and there's some stylish, arty direction that you'd expect from Almodóvar, but otherwise Tacones lejanos isn't an impressive piece of Spanish cinema. With a story of murder, showbiz, femininity, fractured mother-daughter relationship and a character who is alternately a judge, a transvestite and a police informer this could have been a melodramatic powerhouse. Instead it's poor. High Heels stumbles for sure. | 0 |
I saw this movie the other day in a film school class, and I hadn't seen an Almodovar movie before but went in expecting it to be good. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a pointless film with only a couple of laughs mixed in with two hours of sheer boredom. High Heels is just a collection of random scenes that might have worked in their own separate movies but together don't add up to any kind of meaningful whole at all.<br /><br />Or so I thought. Then, the next day, my film professor spent the entire class period explaining all of the movie's hidden little details, like how the mural depicting stereotypical flamenco dancers in the background of the drag queen scene is some kind of commentary on the lack of identity that Spain as a nation has developed under fascist rule. Apparently, the whole movie is chock full of clever little visual tricks and references like this.<br /><br />Great, but you know what? It's still a bad movie. It takes more than depth and complexity to make a good film--you still need to give the audience a reason to keep paying attention, something to interest the viewer enough to actually care about all the subtle tricks. High Heels gives us strange, off-beat characters but keeps them in mostly mundane situations recycled from other movies, and Almodovar doesn't seem to be using them to make any kind of point. What is the significance, for example, of the Hitchcockian surprise character revelation that occurs towards the end of the film? Why is that even in there? Just to surprise us?<br /><br />There is one funny scene that has to do with a news broadcast. And that's it, that's the only entertaining moment. The rest of the movie is just nonsensical filmic references and visual cues that apparently exist only for the sake of showing us how smart Pedro Almodovar is. But no matter what my film professor says, it takes more than self-indulgent trickery for a movie to be good. | 0 |
This was an awful movie. Basically Jane March was a half-Korean North Korean spy sent by Kim Jong Il to do something horrible to the American forces in South Korea. She becomes a maid for an American military family, they all regard her as being Korean even though she looks more white (I believe the actress is either 1/4 or 1/8 Southeast Asian, not at all Korean), and the teenage boy of the household starts out hating her and ends up sleeping with her. The way Korea and the U.S. military in Korea is depicted is completely insane. Of course, the screenwriter and the director were obviously white men who've never spent a day in Korea prior to this movie and had no intention of showing any real insight into life in Korea for either Koreans or American GIs and instead just tried to fulfill their pathetic Asiaphile fantasies without any regard to how completely unbelievable it made the movie. Anyone who's ever been to Korea will know this is utter garbage. In the end the North Korean honhyol spy-girl gets killed, in an obvious "paying for her sins" way. Very bad film with a made-for-TV feel to it. | 0 |
The name "cult movie" is often given to films which continue to be screened, or to sell in home movie format, more than a generation after they were first released. Superchick, which was first released in 1973, now comes into this category. Its cult status is largely due to ongoing interest in it by those women who regard it as an early and effective feminist film.<br /><br />Despite the "Superwoman" connotation, "Superchick" is not a cartoon character but a very competent young lady working as an air stewardess - a career option which in the 1970's was commonly regarded as one of the most glamorous open to any girl, and which also enables her to emulate the traditional matelot who reputedly has a wife in every port. Since she holds black belt status in karate, she is in a position to make it quite clear that she is very happy with her bachelor existence, and is in no way beholden to any of her extensive suite of male admirers. This film is a situation comedy which avoids the generally much shorter lived appeal of outright farce. Its appeal to feminists is also heightened by a climax in which our heroine uses her karate abilities to avert a hijacking and save all the other passengers on her plane from a potentially unpleasant fate. To ensure that this film will appeal to men as well as to their partners, the Director has wisely ensured that is liberally sprinkled with eye candy.<br /><br />Superchick can be enjoyed by those who are not too critical and want a very light easy to watch comedy which they will forget soon after viewing. It is so forgettable that they will probably find it equally enjoyable if watched again in a year's time; despite its age it may therefore retain its status as a cult movie for some time to come. However the dialogue and acting would make it hard to give this film a rating of more than 4/10. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.