text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
This film is the worst film I have ever seen. The story line is weak - I couldn't even follow it. The acting is high-schoolish. The sound track is irritating. The attempts at humor are not. The editing is horrible. The credits are even slow - I would be embarrassed to have my name associated with this waste of film. Don't waste your time even thinking about this attempt at acting. | 0 |
What a disgrace! I was checking this out hoping it would be an undiscovered James Garner gem and what a stinker it turned out to be! The production quality was fine, but the plot was undeniably lame and I can honestly say that I am only a couple hours older and a lot dumber now. The movie really had no redeeming qualities and if this kind of stuff keeps coming out, it will give Hallmark a bad name. For those of you who insist on knowing what it was about, it's about nothing, and in this case, it's not a good thing. We are subjected to watching one old ornery woman who is one of the dumbest creatures ever to roam the earth, who happens to be married to a real sweetheart who is probably the only person alive that could put up with her. She drags him through one mess after another, gets him into one embarrassing situation after another, and is proud of herself the whole time. Then the movie ends. What a relief that was! Not worth the time it would take to watch it, so do yourself a favor and skip this one, you'll be glad you did if you knew how bad this one really is. | 0 |
Before writing this review, I went back and reread the reviews of others. This movie was a particular disappointment to me, since it features two of my favorite dancers, Gene Kelly and George Chakiris, boasts a score by the often wonderous Michel LeGrand ("Wuthering Heights," "Ice Station Zebra," "The Thomas Crowne Affair"). The dancing was stilted, unmotivated and unoriginal, the songs forgettable, the story a joke. Even the costuming was not particularly flattering. Only the photography correctly captured the proper mood and spirit. I'm glad other people enjoyed "The Young Girls of Rochefort," though I most certainly did not. | 0 |
The comparison is perhaps unfair, but inevitable. Those attracted to the intimacy and depth of Umbrellas will be slightly horrified to discover a cut-and-paste musical in the American style - awkward, stilted dialogue with inexplicable song-and-dance numbers. Gene Kelly's French accent was apparently so poor, that a dreadful job of dubbing was substituted (as you'll remember, the dubbing was almost perfectly pulled off in Umbrellas). The translation of the French (for subtitled versions), as well, leaves something to be desired, although this can't be attributed to Demy. The film also has several self-aware moments that come off a wee disconcerting, such as references in songs to LeGrand himself. And the costumes - well, the tight pants/white boots combination, and the freakishly unnatural colors, reminds one of an Austin Powers film . . .<br /><br />But Demy does reward the viewer with allusions to Umbrellas; note, for instance, the suitcase carried by Maxence in his departure from Rochefort - this is the same suitcase carried by Guy in his departure from Cherbourg. Also, note the "Convenient Brunette of Resolution" - Madeleine in Umbrellas, and Josette in Young Girls.<br /><br />Generally speaking, those expecting the natural feel of Umbrellas (save the floating bicycle scene), or looking for similar deeper questions and ambiguous endings as in Umbrella's script, should probably pass this one b y. Those looking for a French version of a thin '60s American musical will be quite happy. | 0 |
Despite much style, flash, and glitter, this French musical fails to speak. The tunes are repetitive, predictable, and tedious. The story is uninteresting, as are the many characters. <br /><br />People break into song and dance, without motivation or reason. Most of the cast wears phony looking wigs and hairpieces, and the sets look hopelessly studio bound.<br /><br />To be honest, this video of the restored version was stopped before the end, so negative an effect it had on me. Certainly a shame, to have such a multi-talented cast in so feeble a final effort. <br /><br />Goes to show, I guess, where followups (in this case, to the great classic, "Umbrellas") often do go awry. One cannot recapture, only recreate. | 0 |
A wonderful television mini-series completely ruined by a 45-year old woman trying desperately to pass herself off as a 16-year old ingenue! No exaggeration - that's the ACTUAL age of the character played by Ali MacGraw when the film opens just prior to the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor. This TV mini-series really is the most classic example of the title of this post and one I refer to whenever the topic comes up.<br /><br />That alone makes this completely unwatchable, despite the fact it's one of the best filmed WWII 'global' dramas TV has ever produced. If you have the stomach - or a decent fast-forward ability - you might be able to enjoy the late Robert Mitchum in a very strong performance. <br /><br />I'm stunned at some of the comments referring to the love story (pun intended). Did they watch the film with their eyes closed? Or are they aging boomers who never cease to amaze me with their "selective memories" and "selective vision". I'm a Boomer myself so don't think for a second I'm some hubristic young punk. 45 WILL ALWAYS LOOK 45. Get used to it. Deal with it. Age gracefully damnit.<br /><br />The Winds Of War could have been... so good. How much more would we be talking about this mini-series today, some 25 years later, had an ACTUAL ingenue been cast in such an important & critical role? Right now, with the constant haggard old biddy distraction, that alone cancels out most of the wonderful aspects of The Winds Of War. | 0 |
....this mini does not get better with age. I saw this and it's sequel when originally broadcast, and like so many others was blown away. In early 2002 I borrowed the novels for both WOW and W and R and was even more impressed. I then decided that I had to see both again and invested $200 plus on the DVD sets. I watched both minis again in painful detail and realized I had done things backwards - I should have purchased the novels and borrowed the DVD's.<br /><br />Don't believe it is abysmally miscast? Read the novels and see for yourself. Don't think this is dated? Screen it for somebody not old enough to have seen it originally broadcast and watch the reaction you get (warning - reactions from such people range from looks of horror to belly laughs).<br /><br />According to the trivia section for this mini - Dan Curtis himself chose Ali MacGraw and Robert Mitchum. Yikes!! Production quality, music scoring, dialog - a great story was turned into a late 70's soap opera by an overly ambitious producer/director who was in way over his head. This thing was dated the minute it was completed.<br /><br />These two minis were great when original broadcast and to those of us who saw them then, tug at a nostalgic string that reminds us of younger days. IMO - this mini does not nearly live up to its reputation and severely disappoints. | 0 |
I am commenting on this miniseries from the perspective of someone who read the novel first. And from that perspective I can honestly say that while enjoyable, I can see why it hasn't been rebroadcast anytime recently. More specifically, this mini has some serious problems, such as:<br /><br />1) It is terribly miscast. The actors who played the younger generation were all 15 to 20 years older than the characters. Ali McGraw (45 at the time) was playing Natalie Jastrow who was supposed to be about 26. Jan-Michael Vincent (39 at the time) was playing Byron Henry who was supposed to be about 22. The other Henry children, and Pamela Tudsbury, were also played by actors way too old for characters who were supposed to be in their 20's.<br /><br />2) Some of the acting was absolutely awful. Ali McGraw at times almost made this mini unwatchable. I have seen more convincing performances in high school plays. <br /><br />3) The directing was poor. To be fair to Ali McGraw, the bad acting and character development were probably the directing. The portrayal of Hitler was way overdone. His character came off looking and behaving more like a cartoon villain than the charismatic, sometimes charming, but always diabolical genius Herman Wouk painted him as in the novel. Some of the other characters are done so stereotypically (Berel Jastrow) they do not gain the depth of character that Wouk created for them.<br /><br />4) This mini is very dated. The hokey music, the pretentious narration (it sounded like a junior high school history film narration), and the entire prime-time soap opera feel of the mini made it almost comical at times. Also, too often Byron and Natalie are costumed and made up to look like they are in 1979 rather than 1939.<br /><br />Someone who watches this without the benefit of reading the novel first will probably not sit through it all, because it will come off more as a late 70's / early 80's "take myself too seriously" prime-time soap drama, rather than the television version of what is certainly a modern American classic.<br /><br />Remakes of older movies and the like are sometimes poorly done, but this is probably one case where a creative and inspired director could make a very stunning, memorable, and critically acclaimed production. I don't ever see that happening since a remake would have to be just as long (15 hours) or longer to do it right, and given the short attention span of most of the current American viewing public, it wouldn't fly. | 0 |
*** Warning - this review contains "plot spoilers," though nothing could "spoil" this movie any more than it already is. It really IS that bad. ***<br /><br />Before I begin, I'd like to let everyone know that this definitely is one of those so-incredibly-bad-that-you-fall-over-laughing movies. If you're in a lighthearted mood and need a very hearty laugh, this is the movie for you. Now without further ado, my review:<br /><br />This movie was found in a bargain bin at Wal-Mart. That should be the first clue as to how good of a movie it is. Secondly, it stars the lame action-star Dolph Lundgren. That should be the second clue as to how good of a movie it is. I'm still shocked that it was even put on DVD (who would waste their money doing such a thing?), though as you might imagine, there aren't any extras or bonus footage on the DVD. In fact, there's not even a menu; the movie just starts playing.<br /><br />First, the writer for this movie deserves to be tortured and killed. It has one of the worst scripts ever written and is plagued with terrible one-liners; remarkably unbelievable, fake dialogue; and inappropriate comments (like Lee's comment on Lundgren's. err. manhood, which I'll mention later). There isn't one single sincere sounding line in the entire movie. The dialogue and plot go hand-in-hand, as the script and plot both progress in an entirely nonsensical fashion. The two cops hate each other for no apparent reason at the beginning, and then for again no reason at all, Lee's character pulls over to the side of the road, runs around to the other side of the car, and says `I'm not going to let you go alone, 'cause despite myself, I like you! And I don't want to see you get killed!' . or something to that extent, anyhow. There are disgusting one-liners, mostly said by Lee. For instance, when duking it out with a bad guy, Lee says `You have the right to remain silent . You have the right to be dead!' Lastly, I'll mention the entirely inappropriate and nonsensical comment that Lee makes about Lundgren's nether-regions. When bad guys start to attack after a seemingly random love scene between Lundgren and Carrere, and Lundgren decides to fight them off in his underwear, Lee says to him: `Incase we die, I just wanted to let you know that you have the biggest dick I've ever seen on a guy.' . Yes, he actually says that. It makes no sense and isn't even possible (Lee never actually sees Lundgren naked, so how would he know?), but the writer threw it in the script anyway. The entire movie looks like some kind of action video game, and Lee even admits it. After Lee and the underwear-only Lundgren defeat all of those bad guys, Lee makes a comment that is also truly beautiful: `Wow, this is sort of like a video game; we just defeated the first wave!'<br /><br />Second, the plot of this movie is despicable. It suffers, in my opinion, mainly from the fact that it just doesn't exist. The trailer for this movie - which IMDb has available for viewing, by the way - makes it sound like the movie is about two cops trying to stop the Japanese Yakuza from taking over Lost Angeles. This is extremely misleading, however, since the movie has practically nothing to do with that at all. They make very brief, vague references to the Yakuza trying to start up a methamphetamine business with local drug dealers, but the entire movie ACTUALLY revolves around a poorly-written attempt for Kenner (Lundgren's character) to revenge the death of his parents, whom the Yakuza leader (named Yoshida) killed when he was only 9 years old. The entire plot can basically be summed up like this: Yoshida wants Kenner dead, Kenner wants Yoshida dead, and the two try two kill each other. And of course all the while Kenner's sarcastic sidekick (named Johnny and played by Brandon Lee) acts like an ignorant idiot, and Tia Carrere gets naked. twice.<br /><br />The acting is one of the worst parts of the entire movie. The dialogue is so unrealistic, and their entirely insincere portrayal of it emphasizes this even more. You'd expect poor acting from action stars anyway, but this movie highlights some of the most unimaginably bad acting ever recorded.<br /><br />Finally we get to the heart of the movie's baseness: the flagrantly bad action. There are so many astoundingly bad, unrealistic action sequences in this movie, it's just downright impressive they managed to fit them all in. Although Lee has his fair share of bad scenes as well, most of the truly terrible action involves Lundgren. For instance, Lundgren nonchalantly takes on four or five kung fu bad guys one-handed, without spilling his tea. Then, when surprised by an oncoming speeding car, Lundgren casually leaps over it. Or how about when he reaches THROUGH a closed door, grabs the villain on the other side, pulls him back through the door, and beats him up? Or when he picks up Tia Carrere, gently walks (not runs) backward through a glass door that shatters around him, and leaps down a one-story height with Tia still in arm, only to then lift up an entire car without the slightest effort and uses it as a barricade to shield them from bullets? All of the shameless gunfights are terrible as well, with Lundgren and Lee killing every bad guy instantaneously, while the rain of bullets from their fifty attackers never seem to hit either of them. That is, of course, until the final fight scene of the movie. Lundgren gets shot point blank in his bare chest in a region that even if it did manage to miss his heart, would still immediately begin to fill lungs with blood and kill him within a matter of seconds. Despite this, Lundgren remains in top-notch condition and manages to duke it out in the middle of a parade with Yoshida, the evil super villain. And of course the passing people in the parade dressed as samurai are carrying REAL, fully sharpened katanas, which the two use to sword fight. Now in addition to his bullet wound, Lundgren gets several deep slices in his chest and arms. Does this stop him? No, of course not! In fact, a few seconds later after easily killing the evil Yoshida (who gets pinned to a dartboard-like wheel and then bursts into flames for no reason), Lundgren casually walks off with Tia and Lee as if he wasn't injured at all. God, it's terrible.<br /><br />All of these factors are then mixed up with an entirely unnecessary, gratuitous nude scene every five minutes, including topless women at a party, the beheading of a topless woman, women at a strip club, nude women at a Japanese spa, and the pointless hot tub and love scene with Tia. Not to mention the trip to the bizarre sushi bar, at which rich Japanese men are eating sushi off of naked women. Which, by the way, prompts Lee to say with much fake enthusiasm that after defeating the bad guys he and Lundgren will `go eat fish off those naked chicks!' Which, of course, is followed by a disturbing high five. And we can't forget the terrible editing either, like when the villains are crushing a man trapped in a car at a junk yard, and the editors left in a really obvious glimpse of a prop dummy. The credits also list an enormous list of stunt workers, which implies that a lot of the action probably wasn't done by the movie stars after all.<br /><br />In the end, this movie repeatedly outdoes it self with brazen badness. It is illogical and impossible, and as a result, remarkably entertaining. If you're looking for any kind of thoughtful cinema, this movie will make you want to die. If you're looking for a good laugh and a good time mocking bad movie making, this movie will delight you. As an actual movie, I'll merit this movie a 0.5 out of 10. As an entertaining way to waste an hour and eighteen minutes, however, this beauty takes the cake. | 0 |
This movie is one of the most unintentionally bad action films ever put to film. Dolph Friggin' Lundren with a Japanese accent is funny enough, but add really corny buddy-buddy action to the mix, an eccentric and over-the-top villain, a clichéd love interest subplot and one of the worst endings of all time, and you've got yourself quite the little suicide-inducing cure for people who enjoy their life and, up till watching "Showdown," had never contemplated killing themselves with a blowtorch.<br /><br />I don't know if it's just me but the whole homosexual subtext is none too subtle. There are constant references to male genitalia, and not by females, either. Brandon Lee and Dolphin talk about each other's manly parts, and in fact before going on a suicide spree, Brandon says to Dolphy, "In case we don't make it, I want to tell you, you have the biggest d--- I've ever seen."<br /><br />Now, is this what a normal man would say to another man? In an ACTION film no less? And would you want those to be your _dying words_??<br /><br />Later, there's this gem:<br /><br />Dolph (regarding the villain): "I would like to cut off certain parts of his anatomy." Brandon: "Man, you've got a fixation." <br /><br />As the guy at RuthlessReviews.com pointed out, "Unfortunately, Dolph doesn't respond with, 'I've got a fixation? I've got a fixation?! You're the one who decided that his last words should be about my privates! I was just gonna chop of his ears and his nose, man."<br /><br />This is relentlessly silly stuff and great fun if you're someone who enjoys receiving root canals from unlicensed dentists, without novocain. It's about on par. Great fun for the whole family! | 0 |
Seeing all of the negative reviews for this movie, I figured that it could be yet another comic masterpiece that wasn't quite meant to be. I watched the first two fight scenes, listening to the generic dialogue delivered awfully by Lungren, and all of the other thrown-in Oriental actors, and I found the movie so awful that it was funny. Then Brandon Lee enters the story and the one-liners start flying, the plot falls apart, the script writers start drinking and the movie wears out it's welcome, as it turns into the worst action movie EVER.<br /><br />Lungren beats out his previous efforts in "The Punisher" and others, as well as all of Van Damme's movies, Seagal's movies, and Stallone's non-Rocky movies, for this distinct honor. This movie has the absolute worst acting (check out Tia Carrere's face when she is in any scene with Dolph, that's worth a laugh), with the worst dialogue ever (Brandon Lee's comment about little Dolph is the worst line ever in a film), and the worst outfit in a film (Dolph in full Japanese attire). Picture "Tango and Cash" with worse acting, meets "Commando," meets "Friday the 13th" (because of the senseless nudity and Lungren's performance is very Jason Voorhees-like), in an hour and fifteen minute joke of a movie.<br /><br />The good (how about not awful) performances go to the bad guy (who still looks constipated through his entire performance) and Carrere (who somehow says her 5 lines without breaking out laughing). Brandon Lee is just there being Lungren's sidekick, and doing a really awful job at that.<br /><br />An awful, awful movie. Fear it and avoid it. If you do watch it though, ask yourself why the underwater shots are twice as clear as most non-underwater shots. Speaking of the underwater shots, check out the lame water fight scene with the worst fight-scene-ending ever. This movie has every version of a bad fight scene for those with short attention spans and to fill-in between the flashes of nudity.<br /><br />A BAD BAD MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 0 |
Well, I couldn't even enjoyed this movie much for its cult values. It's a B-movie action-flick, by the director of "Commando", that is however far too lame and silly to consider it a good B-movie with enough entertainment value in it.<br /><br />It's an '90's flick but foremost the movie should remind of an '80's action movie, when these type of B-movies were at an all time high. These movies always went over-the-top and never paid much attention to its story or acting. It was all about blowing stuff up, big muscle heroes and bullets flying around. This movie has all of that ingredients in it but yet I really didn't liked watching this movie as much as I like watching some similar type of movies. Hard to say why really, since the story and acting and such are just as bad as would be the case in basically any other genre movie from the same era.<br /><br />It's probably because the movie is being often far too silly. All these type of movies have its silly moments but this movie is just filled with it. The fighting, Dolph Lundgren running around shirtless, the characters, the story. It all just isn't very good because it's often just too lame for words. The story at times isn't even trying to make a bit sense and what's even the main plot-line of the overall movie? Its story is all over the place really and seems only to be written to create a movie out of with fighting sequences, gun fights and such. And those sequences aren't even much good to watch really. The moments are way too short and quite disappointing to watch really, from the man who brought us "Commando".<br /><br />It's foremost a Dolph Lundgren, in which he gets to play the big action hero star, who kicks butt with seemingly relative ease, knows how to handle guns and other weapons and of course also gets the girl, played by Tia Carrere. This all also brings us one of the worst montage sequence in action movie history and also definitely one of the worst sex sequence I have seen in any movie really. Both are just too lame for words and just very poorly put together.<br /><br />None of the characters work out really. The good guys are cops but they never seem to behave like one. They simply kill around without having to face responsibility to anyone and they are not very keen on making any arrest, or to inform anyone about their discoveries. Not even when they find out a big Japanese crime syndicate is trying to take over the streets of L.A. and a beer brewery is working as a cover for a drugs factory and large scale drugs smuggling. And also just think about it for a moment, what is Brandon Lee's overall purpose in the movie? The movie could had easily done without him and the girl as well.<br /><br />Too silly, lame and simplistic and just not entertaining enough.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
Extremely poor action film starring the ever wooden Dolph Lundgren and Brandon Lee trapped in a sidekick role that never seems to gel. The action is at best average, a bit of nudity chucked in and yes Tia Carrera does use a body double! <br /><br />The set-up is the usual renegade cop forced to break in a new partner on a big case, the makers at least try to give the formula a twist making Lundgren the cop with Oriental values and Lee the modern city slicker but there is zero character development making it almost comical, Lundgrens oriental warrior outfit for the big showdown has to be seen to be believed. The action sequences are by the numbers and Lee(who would go on to make the excellent The Crow) is never given the scope to show off any particular martial arts brilliance. But given his illustrious parentage he must have been under a hell of a lot of pressure and was far better served not having to live up to his father by taking on a very different role in The Crow which showed what a unique actor he may have become if not for his tragic and early death.<br /><br />Unless your a hardcore Lundgren fan or a fan of poor 80's style action movies (think Cobra etc.) then avoid.<br /><br />Poor 3/10 | 0 |
The fight scenes play like slow-motion Jackie Chan and the attempts at wit are pathetic (worst pun by far: "Guess what? This time I heard you coming"). The stars are a mismatched pair: Brandon Lee, despite the terrible lines he has to say, actually shows traces of charisma and screen charm - things that Dolph Lundgren is completely free of (at least in this movie). Note to the director: in the future, please stay away from any love scenes, especially when your main actress won't do any nudity and you have to rely extensively on a body double. (*1/2) | 0 |
There aren't enough gay-themed movies and there aren't enough `coming out' movies. Every one is a welcome addition to the genre. Although the production values are high(the movie `looks' good, Matthias Freihof (Philipp) looks REAL good in a pair of jeans) this is a bad one. It is a period piece: gay life under an oppressive regime(East Berlin, 1989) a life that seems 40 years behind the west. In a way we're seeing our own history; what it might have been like for gays in the 40's and 50's here(it often reminded me of `Last Exit to Brooklyn :the book not the film).But it is unremittingly depressing and SLOW in a contrived way that evoked an old SCTV send up of Ingmar Bergman. It is so sloppily edited I wonder if the director just didn't hack at random. Yes, it is a miracle that this was filmed and released before The Wall came down and yes, life behind the `Curtain' was hard for gay people. A good director could have shown all that without stupefying the audience. A good director would have had me mark this one as one of the great coming-out movies and not one of the misses. | 0 |
The easiest way to describe this movie is as a satire. The target of the satire is quite vast, from the US Government to corporate America. It is also not a stinging satire, but rather a silly one.<br /><br />Think of this movie as a mix between the Kentucky Fried movie, Airplane and Police Squad series, done with a much smaller budget and not as funny. I can see how this movie is a satire of many sci-fi disaster movies from the 50's and 60's. I see this movie as a big influence on Tim Burton's Mars Attacks.<br /><br />The plot is simple enough. Genetically engineered giant tomatoes go "crazy" and start attacking people and cities. At first there is a cover up and then it blows over into full blown war.<br /><br />The movie runs the gamut of characters and characterizations : Lois "Fairchild" (a Lois Lane clone), a very ambitious Presidential Press Secretary, Clark Kent, Mason Dixon (FIA agent who hasn't worked since the Bay of Pigs), a useless President (who only seems to be able to sign his name and attack New York), an even inept Congress, a sleazy marketing CEO, and Mason's team consisting of an obese East German "female" swimmer, a scuba diver, a crazed WWII paratrooper and an African-American disguise expert (disguised as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Hitler and finally as a tomato). Did I also forget to mention, lots and lots of tomatoes? There are all kinds of tomatoes from small tomatoes, to giant plastic tomatoes, to smashed tomatoes, to tomato juice and finally to people dressed up as tomatoes.<br /><br />On top of all this, you have a couple of musical numbers as well. They aren't that good and seem to be dubbed. The best tune is by far the theme of the movie ("Attack of the Killer Tomatoes"). It is way too catchy and you might end up humming or singing it in public. Be warned.<br /><br />Most of the movie is quite amusing and shows the absurdity of various real life situations as well as various entertainment genres. I don't believe I was induced to laughter, but mostly smiled and scratched my head. I definitely recommend this movie for fans of B and C grade movies, but only as a rental.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab | 0 |
In case you're a self-acclaimed connoisseur of cult cinema and/or bad movie-making, there comes a certain point in life preferably sooner than later that you have to watch "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes". It's an inescapable certainty, as this is one of the most notoriously awful cult movies ever made. One tiny but essential detail, however, is that "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is deliberately awful. Right from the opening message already, mocking Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds", this is clearly intended as a zero-budgeted parody and I can't escape the impression that writer/director John De Bello never expected for his film to become such a hit. The film spoofs the contemporary popular trend of so-called "eco-horror" movies (plants, animals and nature in general revolting against humanity) and introduces the least menacing type of vegetable imaginable as undefeatable killing machines. A secret government agricultural project to produce bigger and tastier tomatoes goes horribly wrong and soon there are reports about tomato-attacks coming from all over the country. The president puts together a Special Forces team to battle the juicy enemy, which includes secret agents with very specific areas of expertise and scientists with horrendously dubbed voices. The first half hour of "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is very entertaining. As silly as it is, the sight of normally shaped vegetables jumping up from the sink and attacking hysterical housewives is quite original and funny. The first half hour also contains numerous memorable moments like the catchy theme song, the "Jaws" homage and the infamous unforeseen helicopter crash (see the trivia section for more details) that made it to the final cut. After that, however, the whole thing turns into a tedious, unstructured and insufferably amateurish mess. The quality level of the jokes goes from fresh and inventive towards embarrassing and downright not funny and there are too many characters and sub plots. Personally, I prefer the late 80's and early 90's sequels (which I saw before seeing the original) because they benefit from slightly better production values, incredibly over-the-top tomato special effects and the presence of veteran actor John Astin ("The Addams Family") as the mad scientist Dr. Gangreen. But, as said before already, the original inexplicably remains obligatory viewing material at some point in your life. | 0 |
When I heard the plot for this movie I simply had to see it, I mean whole cities being wiped out by killer tomatoes! Sadly the title is about as funny as it gets.<br /><br />Led by Detective Dick Mason, a special team of military and scientists (including Greg Colburn who never takes his SCUBA outfit off and Lt. Finletter who is never pictured without his parachute trailing behind) 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' is a parody of B-Movies, in particular Japanese horror of the 1950's. The film begins with a standard sized tomato being discovered by a women washing up in her kitchen before we find ourselves in a middle of a crime scene as the tomato has supposedly murdered this lady, and let me tell you it doesn't get any saner as the film progresses! To be fair there are a couple of funny moments, for instance anytime the Japanese scientist Dr Nokitofa speaks his voice is dubbed over in an American accent, or when disguise expert Sam Smith infiltrates the tomatoes 'hey, can somebody please pass the ketchup?'. Equally this film was probably a lot funnier in 1978 with the whole so bad its good concept. Unfortunately for 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' spoof films such as the 'Airplane' and 'Naked Gun' series have been released and done this kind of comedy a lot better since.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious; there is zero continuity in the editing and it just feels genuinely slow and lacking energy. For a parody film to work you need a lot of things happening at once, one gag after the over. The singing in the film seems pointless and the adverts for the furniture store that flash across the screen are damn right bizarre, even for this film. Ultimately, however, you can see why this film is a cult one; I can't see many people being indifferent to it. Unfortunately terrible would be the way I would sum this up. | 0 |
I have only had the luxury of seeing this movie once when I was rather young so much of the movie is blurred in trying to remember it. However, I can say it was not as funny as a movie called killer tomatoes should have been and the most memorable things from this movie are the song and the scene with the elderly couple talking about poor Timmy. Other than that the movie is really just scenes of little tomatoes and big tomatoes rolling around and people acting scared and overacting as people should do in a movie of this type. However, just having a very silly premise and a catchy theme song do not a good comedy make. Granted this movie is supposed to be a B movie, nothing to be taken seriously, however, you should still make jokes that are funny and not try to extend a mildly amusing premise into a full fledged movie. Perhaps a short would have been fine as the trailer showing the elderly couple mentioned above and a man desperately trying to gun down a larger tomato was actually pretty good. The trailer itself looked like a mock trailer, but no they indeed made a full movie, and a rather weak one at that. | 0 |
Yes, it can be done. John De Bello and Costa Dillon cleaned out the garbage of their minds and come up with the worst comedic, horror , Sc-Fi musical. If there is any acting, it is terrible or way over the top. Special effects; take your pick...very low budget or kindergarten. Every cheap cliché thought of is used. No doubt a fun movie to watch. Worth a cold six-pack or two. Point the finger at radiation if you need an excuse. Mutant tomatoes grow to almost the size of a tow truck and begin attacking mankind. San Diego is a good place as any to start. Scientists and an absent minded military must find the way to stop this red rolling menace. This cult favorite features: David Miller, Eric Christmas, Al Sklar, Tom Coleman, Sharon Taylor and John Qualls. | 0 |
Awlright, damn it, the MooCow will grudgingly admit the truth: I kinda' like this cheap, cheesy 70's parody. The idea that vast hordes of killer tomatoes are destroying the US is a great idea, and in spite of itself, the moovie does provide some decent chuckles, moostly the sight of terrified extras running away from large, obviously fake tomatoes. This film, along with The Kentucky Fried Moovie, is one of the earlier attempts at spoofs, which became so popular in the 80's & 90's, thanks largely to Airplane!. This one, like moost spoofs, is pretty poor. Many attempts at humor are dismal failures, and will induce much groaning. But thanks to the ravenous tomatoes hordes, the obnoxious "Puberty Love" song, and the awesome helicopter crash scene, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes does provide some goods, though largely for the wrong reasons. There are sooooo many things wrong with this film...and so right, it's hard to explain. Enough people must also have enjoyed it as the Tomatoes made a comeback in 2 moore films, and a cartoon series!! Large chunks of time spent away from the tomatoes are pretty dull. And dig those 70's clothes, dude!! ;=8) This tomato is seedy and cheesy, but worth a chuckle or two; the MooCow says grab a pizza and pop in the Tomatoes!! : | 0 |
I knew this film was supposed to be so bad it was funny, so I went into it with that expectation. I just found it to be so bad it was murderously boring. The whiny theme song is funny for about 10 seconds, until you realize there is nothing clever about it except its intentionally irritating quality. Seeing things get splattered with tomatoes gets old in about 30 seconds. There is just nothing clever or funny about the film except for the premise. It could sustain a 3-4 minute comedy sketch maybe, but this is just not a feature film by any stretch of the imagination. | 0 |
<br /><br />Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes is a "parody" of bad monster movies which ends up being worse than the movies it spoofs. The (very meager) story tells of tomatoes who revolt against those who treat them badly. Basically,they spin and growl (yes,they growl) and the next thing you know the person is covered in ketchup. The actors are no-names who never made movies after this,so there would be no point to name them. There's a guy who's hired by the governement to try and stop the menace of tomatoes. He's accompanied by a black guy who's master of disguise and a girl and a guy who dives. Anyway, there's another woman who spies on the first guy that works for the government. if this isn't making much sense to you, you understand. This movie never would have been very good in the first place, but it even lacks the fun of laughing at stupid attack scenes. The movie is horribly cheezy, which although being the whole point,really really hurts what could've been a (reasonably) entertaining movie. At one point, a giant wax tomato "slides" on an unconcealed plank of wood with wheels on it! Maybe I would've recommended the movie if it would have enjoyable camp value, but even this is lacking from this terrible movie. 2/10 | 0 |
This movie's heart was in the right place, no matter where its brain was.<br /><br />"Attack" is basically a spoof a la "Airplane!" (two years before the fact - nice going.) of what happens when vegetables, or in this case fruits, attack.<br /><br />Through all manner of film magic (stop motion, papier-mache tomatoes on skateboards, reverse filming, people watching off-screen tomatoes, people throwing basketball-sized tomatoes at the on-screen actors), the tomatoes do indeed attack everyone in their leafy grasp. <br /><br />Then, it's up to Mason Dixon (Miller) and a group of spies I wouldn't wish on any government's side to save the day. Of course there's a meddling reporter (Taylor) who pops in at the worst times, dancing and singing Army soldiers, Japanese scientists with dubbed-in voices, some guy dragging around a parachute and a samurai sword...and oh yeah, the San Diego Chicken before he made it big.<br /><br />The gags here aren't all that great. In fact, you could probably make up better yourself after watching these. Some of the dialogue is inutterably bad ("Please pass the ketchup" - not something to say in front of tomatoes.) and as far as "Puberty Love" goes...well, I can't blame the tomatoes for shriveling up on hearing it.<br /><br />What's good about it? Well, I liked the theme song and the beginning credits, and there was a scene with four people on the phone at once that was pretty well executed. ...that's about it.<br /><br />Three stars. Not a "Killer" comedy, but it tries.<br /><br />Rock on, Peace. | 0 |
"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" consists mostly of rambling, poorly assembled footage in search of a movie. The plot makes no sense, and the various characters drop in and out of the picture with no explanation at all. Watching this silly spoof, you get the feeling than so many other comments have captured so accurately: that it's easy to make a cheap, low-quality film and then use the "parody" angle as an excuse for its cheapness and low quality (in one scene, female swimmers are terrified of tomatoes that are floating near them; how far can "suspension of disbelief" go - even in a parody?). The title song is great, though. (*1/2) | 0 |
Never see this movie.<br /><br />It tries to be a spoof on scifi/thriller films of the 1950s and 1960s but all it succedes at is making you wish really badly that you were watching one of them and not it.<br /><br />It is very lame. A spoof has to have some aspect which has some above par quality to it. This movie does not have any such aspect.<br /><br />Save yourself. It's too late for me but... just don't watch it. | 0 |
The only aspect of this film that saves it from being my least favorite piece of celluloid trash is a single line uttered by an agent attempting to infiltrate the man-eating tomatoes by dressing in a tomato costume: "Can somebody please pass the ketchup?" I highly urge anyone with a sleeping disorder to use this film as a sedative; it works better than an overdose of demarol. | 0 |
With a title like "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes!", anyone going into this thing would be expecting either a) a bad science fiction movie or b) a comedy making fun of bad science fiction movies. It's supposed to be a mix of both, with a dose of parody splashed in. Unfortunately, it falls flat very soon.<br /><br />You're never supposed to take this movie seriously, I realize that, but you're supposed to think it's funny, right? I found only a few of the jokes or situations were funny (i.e, the side-by-side phone conversations, the Russian Olympic spy eating steroid cereal, Superman walking by Lois, etc.). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" strives to be a cult classic, but it doesn't make it. A cult classic is a movie that is so different that only a select group of people understand it (or a similar description). "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" could be enjoyed by any 8-year-old with a bad sense of humor, so therefore, it does not qualify as a cult film.<br /><br />There is one good actress in the entire thing: Sharon Taylor as Lois Fairchild. She is a thin, gawky reporter, but has an endearing personality, loves to overact, and is a natural comedienne. Unfortunately, she is put to bad use here.<br /><br />"Attack of the Killer Tomatoes" is not as funny as, say, "Amazon Women on the Moon" or "Kentucky Fried Movie", but it does have a few hilarious moments, so I would still recommend seeing it once. Avoid the director's cut, it has interruptions by the producer of the movie and some supposedly "lost" footage dubbed in a pretend African dialect (it can be found in English on the out of print tape). | 0 |
The same night that I watched this I also watched "Scary Movie 4," making for one messed up double feature. Unfortunately for these killer tomatoes they could not stand up to the laugh riot that is the Scary Movie franchise. While I fought boredom here watching jokes that were silly and stupid, brutally dated and brutally bad, the more recent parody had me laughing out loud. How could I desire any more than that. Director John De Bello uses the basic premise that some sort of growth hormone has gone terribly wrong and turned the tomatoes into killers. But his main objective here is to slap around the disaster movie genre that was so big back in the day. The script reeks of stoner humor, and perhaps if you take illegal substances with your movie nights this could be your cup of tea. I, sober, was stuck watching a grown man go under cover as a tomato. And that one joke, that is never funny, where the discrepancy between the Japanese speaking actor and the voice over is also here. Some may giggle, I did not. They even had a Hitler joke that wasn't funny, and I thought all Hitler jokes were funny.<br /><br />The narrative of this film is so splintered (for no good reason) that it is nearly impossible to explain. Tomatoes kill people, the government tries to stop it, bad jokes are told. Their aim may have been correct as their targets include the media, consumerism, and paranoia (three things that still control our lives today). Oddly enough the main selling point of this film, those gosh darn tomatoes, really don't make much of an appearance. And when they do, get this, they're played by real tomatoes. That washed up gimmick did nothing for me as I get very little out of watching a pack of tomatoes devour a body thanks to the magic of stop action camera tricks. There is also a fear of going for broke at work here that prevents this film from being truly funny. The gag of having somebody fall asleep in nearly every scene may please some audience members, but more than likely it will be seen as an invitation to join in the fun.<br /><br />I might also add that there does seem to be some old fashioned human egotism at work here. Man eats tomato and that's dinner, tomato eats man and that is a worldwide catastrophe. But that is just the way the world works. In the film the produce becomes evil because of genetic modification, but in the real world our produce (see: Taco Bell) becomes evil thanks to neglect. And like those evil doin' green onions this film's shelf life expired a long time ago. There are a few good chuckles to be had. The last shot was really quite splendid, but it was nowhere near enough to save this moderate stink bomb. I'm pretty sure there is a good movie buried deep within this concept, but the script needed to be filtered through about a dozen rewrites to get there. And by "there" I mean to the level of "Scary Movie 4." **1/4 | 0 |
(spoilers)<br /><br />I shoulda figured. The dvd didn't even show the time or how long it was. I thought Wild Cardz was the worst anime movie I'd ever seen. This one is much worse. Makes no sense. Thrown together plot. All so we can see oversized breasts on a figure that doesn't support them. <br /><br />It had to of been a student film. That musta gotten a C grade<br /><br />2/10<br /><br />Quality: 1/10 Entertainment: 6/10 (until I found out it wasn't going to end.) the ending made no darn sense<br /><br />Replayable: 0/10 | 0 |
Well, there's no real plot to speak of, it's just an excuse to show some scenes of extreme violence and gratuitous sex (which can sometimes be fun, too, but it's not in this case). What else can I say about this...? The action, when happening, is inventive and there's a cool scene where two characters are falling from a skyscraper (one that has to be several miles high), but overall there's not much to recommend "Kite". Watch it if you want, but you're not missing much if you skip this one... | 0 |
A famous show master enters the elevator with his girlfriend. Suddenly, she kills him and runs away while an old lady gets a heart attack. The name of the female assassin is Sawa. She is still going to school and works for an vicious criminal, Akai, who is sleeping with her. One day Sawa finds out he killed her parents..<br /><br />------- <br /><br />Even the biggest anime fans will have to admit that this vicious action thriller is an disappointing gore fest. "Kite" has style, but it is still trash. The weird plot about a teenage girl that kills people as an assassin tried to be scary and touching at the same time, only causing the story to fall flat on it's face. One of the highlights is an action sequence in which the good/bad heroine Sawa is falling together with a bodyguard from a building, yet the dramatic structure isn't nearly as good orchestrated and the director Yasoumi Umetsu's weird and grotesque animation of the character's faces is awful. Not only that, the intercourse sequences are just simply creepy.<br /><br />Grade: 3/10 | 0 |
I'm a Black man living in a predominantly Black city. That being said, I have some major misgivings about Tyler Perry's work. I realize that some people out there feel the need to praise him, because he's Black and trying to portray a positive image about the culture. But, I honestly do believe that, were Perry White, this film would have had the NAACP, Al Sharpton, and Jessie Jackson all over his ass.<br /><br />I have been forced to watch this movie one whole hell of a lot recently and each repeated viewing makes my blood boil. The characters are poorly written and acted. The jokes are so bad, I have to actually be told something is supposed to be funny. I'm just going to break this big pile of sh-t down.<br /><br />Madea=suck. The character may have had some appeal, but it doesn't anymore. When the only thing she ever seems to do is smack around children and threaten adults with violence she is less than useless. She is unnecessary.<br /><br />The situation with the wife beating fiancé was horsesh-t. If a woman was so scared to death of her husband, why would she try to run away when he's sleeping in bed. Wouldn't it have made more sense for her to leave when he was at work. At any rate, the characters in this arc were so annoying and overbearing that I hoped he would throw her off the balcony and was royally ticked when he didn't.<br /><br />Then there are the two lovebirds. A bus driver asks a woman out by harassing her while he's making his rounds. I couldn't believe it. I really couldn't believe when she agreed to go out with him even more. But, what takes the cake is that a grown man was reduced to tossing pebbles at a window and passing notes like a ten year old by a castrating mega bitch. I don't use this term lightly, but that woman only had two modes. Morose victim and psycho momma. No matter which of these two faces she showed, however, there was one constant. The bus driver wasn't going to get any. He even married her without sampling the goods--WTF! <br /><br />Then there's the family reunion scene. Here we've got the mother load which includes implied incestual taboos, grinding for the sake of grinding, shirtless, overly musclebound, b-ball, plus the great taste of Maya Angelou. When those babes dragged their butts outside and called a meeting, was I wrong to wish that the oldest of them was claimed by a heart attack. All this crap is going on at the reunion, in laughably easy to separate groups, and then they ring a bell. When they do, everyone drops what they're doing and heads on over for a stern talking too, just like a pack of Pavlov's doggies--WTF!! <br /><br />Then you have the final five minutes of the film. In it we see the abusive fiancé get manhandled by his longtime victim and all around bad actress. There is an impromptu wedding where Black people are dressed like angels and are hanging from the ceiling--WTF!!! The only reason to watch it this far, besides testing your threshold for pain, is the hope that the second villain of this story gets her ass handed to her as well. Guess what, it doesn't happen. Instead, Perry takes the testicularly challenged way out and plays it safe, ending the movie on a tone of forgiveness--WTF!! <br /><br />I'm pretty sure that, if given a day , I could probably write a doctoral dissertation on all the ways this movie sucks. Don't even get me started on the rest of Tyler Perry's films. I'm just going to say this. In my opinion, as a Black guy, D.W. Griffith's legacy lives on. The irony is that it is doing so through a Black man who will be praised for doing what Birth of a Nation did, selling us down the river. I only wish Perry's films were dudes so I could kick them in the nuts. Thanks a lot, dude!! What are you going to follow this up with in 2009, a comedy about the raping and savage beating of slaves in Colonial America? | 0 |
The original show was so much better. They should have left on a good note. This movie killed the whole idea. It was boring, over-dramatic, and the funny parts were too far in between to make up the slack. This movie really seemed like it was trying way too hard to be serious, and that was definitely not what I was wanting from this sequel. Not to mention, that for a long time it was just depressing about the same thing over and over again. So, sorry, Tyler Perry, but try harder next time. This movie is just kinda dull, and not that funny either. Sorry. 4/10 stars is it.<br /><br />Jay Addison | 0 |
I saw the movie last night here at home, but I thought it was too long first of all. Second, the things I saw in the movie were way too out of text to even have in this what I thought was going to be a comedy type movie like the rest before. The things isn't funny in the movie: fiancé hitting his girlfriend, beatings. The movie was way too long--talk about wanting to go to sleep and wondering when it will end when you wake up and still have it playing! Some of the things at the reunion were too much to capture--like the lady singing--i felt like i was almost watching a spiritual song show here! come on Perry, you can do better then this! | 0 |
I expected a comedy like the "Big Mama" movies. Instead, the movie was a bizarre mix of comedy, drama and a love story.<br /><br />This movie has three plots: The first involves Madea and her taking in a foster child. The second involves a woman who is engaged to a rich man who is abusing her. The third involves a relationship between a single mother with 2 children and a single father.<br /><br />There is actually very little comedy in the movie. There are also a number of very twisted messages in the movie. For example, Madea beats the foster child with a belt (in a comedic manner), to convince the child to straighten out. The child does, in fact, turn herself around. Apparently, it pays to beat children.<br /><br />There are plots dealing with child rape (with the consent of the mother). There are scenes with old men ogling young girls who are related to them. (The ogling takes place at a family reunion.) The movie jumps from plot to plot such that you are always off-balance. Is this a comedy, a love story, or a drama? It is, in fact, nothing ... except a waste of time and money. | 0 |
Can I give this a minus rating? No? Well, let me say that this is the most atrocious film I have ever tried to watch. It was Painful. Boringus Maximus. The plot(?) is well hidden in several sub-levels of nebulosity. I rented this film with a friend and, after about thirty minutes of hoping it would get better, we decided to "fast forward" a little to see if things would get any better. It never gets better. This film about some dude getting kidnapped by these two girls, sounds interesting, but, in reality, it is just a bore. Nothing even remotely interesting ever happens. If you ever get the chance to watch this, do yourself a favor, try "PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE" instead. | 0 |
This mini-series is actually more entertaining than some others with much bigger budgets and grander aspirations. SOTD falls somewhere between "Kung-Fu" and "H R Pufnstuff" on the entertainment spectrum. If it weren't so long (nearly 3 hours) I think that kids would like it quite a bit. It's got adventure, action, "cliffhanger scenes", and not too much romance or other "icky" stuff. When you're young, you're not too critical of flexing rubber swords, campy acting, and scenes that are repeated. (At least two scenes are repeated identically in the movie, just as was done in old-time serials in order to bring the audience up to speed.) Finally, kids are usually more accepting of American English dialogue coming out of the mouths of Asian actors. (Not to mention the fact that several of the leading roles are played by non-Asian actors.) <br /><br />I was going to give this movie three stars, but I felt like the director, producers, and cast deserved some extra credit for at least carrying through on the project. This movie is not art, but, like painting your house, it actually took some time, effort, and discipline to get it made.<br /><br />Overall, not a recommended use for your time, but it might keep the kids entertained while traveling in the mini-van.<br /><br />Oh, yeah...hey, IMDb! "Dialogue" is the preferred and traditional spelling. Your spell-checking seems to think that "dialog" is the proper spelling. While "dialog" is acceptable, both Webster's and the OED consider it an alternative form. | 0 |
Yeah, stupidity! I just finish watching and I still have bad taste in my mouth. Too much colors, too much unnecessary "addons" to a story, too much stupid characters (I presume they wanted to achieve comic relief, but I only wanted to cry)... too much of everything. Shame to spoil one of divine stories from "Arabian Nights" like this. Childish, naive (both on a bad way) and with lot of magic-breaking mistakes, I don't think this could keep a child of five for more then ten minutes. Princess is lovely, but should be tongueless, cause actress don't know how to carry a role. Rest of the cast is even worse...our "bad guy" is REALLY bad. Shame that the "good guy" is not better. Only light in this dark is, of course, David Carradine, who goes unfortunately deeply down under his level with this, but at least keep his actor/"fighter" skills at top. I'm still sorry to see him in a thing like this, but glad that I had something to watch in whole charade, so thank you David. Only, ONLY, for him, I give this 2 stars to this fiasco...I would give more for him, but that would rise final score to entire movie. The rest is so bad, that I would, maybe, like to grade it, but there is no grade lover then 1 here, and I think that would be too much. | 0 |
I was in such high hopes of seeing an adaptation of a classic story like the Arabian Nights. Instead i was disappointed in a film that failed to keep my attention from the very beginning, even though i tried watching it twice!! <br /><br />It was a bonus that Caradine was in this movie but it didn't amount to much as the actors lacked likability. For something a little similar Zorro with Anthony Hopkins and Bandaras is much better for action, comic moments and overall enjoyability.<br /><br />OK, so Son of the Dragon has many possible fans out there, but if your looking for something to wow about in terms of martial arts and plot line you wont get it. If you just want the kids to settle down on a Sunday afternoon then maybe this it for you along with the 3 ninjas. | 0 |
Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine. | 0 |
Is there anything that happens in this movie that is NOT predictable? I think not. Basically the movie is cliché after cliché and really nothing ever comes as a surprise. It makes the movie extremely predictable and because of that the movie is also seriously lacking in tension. So for a thriller it is not tense and unpredictable enough but also as a drama it's a failure. This is because the movie its story is highly unlikely. I mean, no way this could ever happen in real life, as in the same way as the events occur in this movie. So the movie has a real suspense and credibility problem.<br /><br />But it truly are the clichés that killed the movie. It was cringing stuff at times. Everything is so formulaic in this movie. The predator is portrayed as a cool heartless, almost psychopath like sexual frustrated boy and the victim as a naive young woman, who acts like she didn't see any of this coming. Everything that happened in the movie was so obvious and all seemed to happen for a reason. Such as the sequence in which the 'predator' fixes the 'victims' broken car. That has got to be one of the oldest clichés out of the book. I knew what the movie tried to achieve after that point. I tried to look as if the teacher and the student were really growing toward each other trough the eyes of the other persons around them. It was so incredibly obvious and cheap that I almost wanted to stop watching the movie after that point. The movie is filled with moments like these.<br /><br />The title might suggest that this is a cheap porn movie but this in fact is a sappy made for TV movie. Which means that everything is slowly happening and the movie spends halve its time on character development and unnecessary sub-plots to make the movie even more drama like.<br /><br />I'll admit that Elizabeth Berkley is pretty good acting in this movie. She makes some of the clichés and events look even almost realistic at times. Her Hollywood career is as good as over after appearing in the Paul Verhoeven movie "Showgirls", so unfortunately she will probably only still appear in movies- and television series like this one. It's a waste of her talent and she surely deserves better. All of the other characters are a disappointment. Corey Sevier plays the cliché pretty 'untouchable' rich boy and the way the husband of the main character is portrayed is even worse. He looks more like a sexual frustrated predator than the true predator of the movie. He basically tries to have sex with his wife in every sequence. He wakes up, he wants sex. Before he goes to sleep, he wants sex. He gets home, he wants sex. It might be a realistic thing but I don't know, it just didn't feel right for a movie like this one and the story in general.<br /><br />A cliché filled movie and I can't think of any reason why anyone should ever watch this movie. It's predictable and therefor also lacks in suspense and credibility. Not an 'horrible' movie and it certainly is a watchable one at times but all the weak and cliché elements in the movie also make this far from a recommendable one.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.<br /><br />I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.<br /><br />The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).<br /><br />The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.<br /><br />Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."<br /><br />Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."<br /><br />This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. <br /><br />But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.<br /><br />This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination." | 0 |
Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.<br /><br />Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more. <br /><br />So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.<br /><br />Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move. | 0 |
Anyone giving this movie a good review obviously must have had something to do with its creation. This movie is a painful suckfest. The acting is stiff, the stock generic soundtrack is laughable, the direction is bland and strangest of all, the teacher really isn't all that attractive (making the student's blatant advances all the more awkward). The creative minds behind this trash should disband and spread out to prevent further displays of such concentrated craptitude. I'm certain that some starving kids in Africa could have used the money squandered on this project. Hell, the funds would have also seen a more enlightened purpose fueling a crack-addict; at least someone would be getting some entertainment out of it. For the sole reason that it didn't give me a terminal illness, I'll give this film a two. | 0 |
If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. "I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me | 0 |
Terrible film made on a budget of about $9.99. Very obvious miniature sets used, poor acting and an awful storyline concerning aliens who use discarded meat from a butcher shop as fuel for their spaceship. The film contains some blood (not enough to disturb) and a character with an eggbeater replacing one of his hands. (Yes you read that correctly.)<br /><br />One saving grace was a song performed at the "talent show" (how's that for irony?) by a punk/new wave band that I think was called "I'm A Heat Seeking Missile". Other than that, this is not worth your time, not even on a "so bad it's good" level. Watch if you are into cheesy alien films, but anyone else should steer clear. <br /><br />Rating: 1 out of 10 | 0 |
I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way.... | 0 |
First of all I would like to point out that this film has absolutely nothing to see with the Dutch folklore story of the ghost ship that is also called THE FLYING DUTCHMAN. In this film, you will not see a single sailing boat. You will not see sailors, ghosts, or anything remotely exciting. It is not the story of the ghost ship, and I wish they had notified it in the main credits or I wouldn't have watched it, because I really thought it was the film about the legend. It seems many people think the film has to do with the legend of the ghost ship, since the film is listed on the Wikipedia page for the "Flying Dutchman" legend... I don't understand why. It is maybe based on the resembling legend called "The Wandering Jew"? Or maybe did they just adapt the worst parts of the legend? The film begins with a fight sequence that would let anyone hope the film will have battle scenes. Unfortunately, it is the only battle scene of the film. Then you see Daniel Emilfork (who was Krank in City of Lost Children) for about two seconds, and that would let anyone hope the film will have good acting. Unfortunately he is very bad in the film. The same thing can be said about Italian actor Nino Manfredi, who was one of Italia's best actors ever, and who here is condemned to embody a crazy bird wrangler with no back story whose only purpose is to seem to be the "wise man" of the film. And boy, does that film need wiseness! Every other character of the story seems to enjoy swimming in excrement, yelling, torturing others (in excrement), fornicating (in excrement) or laying in excrement some more just for the fun of it. It seems to be such fun that each character of the story gets to have his or her turn being dumped in feces at a point or another. Coming from a Dutch director, you might think that extreme dirtiness and shockingly real filth are necessary elements in a period piece, elements which contributed to make Dutch filmmaker Paul Verhoeven's film, "Flesh + Blood", such a great film. The thought of "Flesh + Blood" would let anyone hope that a film similarly filthy and visually straight-forward would be good. Unfortunately, and unlike "Flesh + Blood", there is no dramatic progression, no fights, no good acting, and put simply, no "Flesh and Blood". The photography, as the opening sequence unfolds, is well-done and enticing. This too, stops very early in the film. The music, from Nicola Piovani (of "La vità e bella" fame) is repetitive and annoying, when not irrelevant (it sometimes implies that there is grandeur in a sequence, while on screen the actors are splashing in liquid dung). Throughout the first "act" of the film, which lasts nothing less than an hour (!), the film takes place within the same perimeter, which is around the farm where the main characters live. The characters play with excrement a lot, drown in it, play in it. A long period of time elapses through numerous ellipses to allows the main character, a young boy who loves to play in excrement, to become older and play in excrement some more. The bird-man talks a lot to say foolish things in Italian. Spanish conquistadors speak French. Nothing makes sense. Everything is confused and takes hours to happen. Then there is a second act called "the Ship", in which we see what might have been a ship, a long time ago, but which is now remains of a ship (covered with excrement did I mention?). The main character, while walking a bit further away from the farm, just happens to run into it, and decides it's really cool so let's live in it. The hunchback who lived in it before is trying to kill him, but he doesn't really mind because (did I mention?) he's not very bright. He thinks the ship can navigate and hopes to sail on it, until more conquistadors show up (at least they seemed to be conquistadors because of the Don Quixote style hats but as I've said it's really confused who's who), make the Dutchman a prisoner, along with the retarded hunchback, and they burn the ship to the ground. The last part of the film, which is really hard to bear for the spectator because it just consists of even more excrement with even more retarded middle-age peasants fighting in it, takes place in a mad asylum. Yet more torture and drowning each other with feces. Yet more loitering for the director, who seems to have definitely given up on his job, or passed onto the second crew camera assistant to do the rest of the job. In the end, a lot of the mentally-challenged new "friends" that the Dutchman made die. The woman he had sex with who was his brother's wife to begin with tries to have him meet his son. The Dutchman and his son talk. The film ends after two hours of dungy images and calamitous acting and technical performances. Then the credits roll and the spectator fells immensely free from having to watch atrocious films with no plot that pretend to be something exciting like fantasy films based on legends, while they are nothing but a mere catalog of how full of excrement some films can get when they don't have enough financing powers to put battles instead or even horses. | 0 |
Confounding melodrama taken from a William Gibson story, produced by John Houseman and directed by Vincente Minnelli! Richard Widmark heads up posh, upscale rural nervous asylum, where his loose wife battles with self-appointed queen bee Lillian Gish, and Widmark himself gets the straying eye for staff-newcomer Lauren Bacall, who is putting her life back together after the death of her husband and child. Facetious and muddled, set in an indiscriminate time and place, and with a "David and Lisa" love story hidden in the plush morass. Widmark and Bacall do have some good chemistry together, but this script gives them nothing to build on. For precisely an hour, most of the dialogue concerns what to do about the drapes hanging in the library (this thread isn't used as symbolism, rather it's a red herring in a non-mystery!). The picture hopes to show the loggerheads that disparate people come to when they're working in the same profession and everyone thinks their opinion is right, but unfortunately the roundabout way Minnelli unravels this stew is neither informative, enlightening nor entertaining. ** from **** | 0 |
This film just goes to prove that not every film made during the glory days of Hollywood is worth seeing. Just because you've got an excellent ensemble cast doesn't mean that this can overcome a script that was probably written by a chimp! Think about it--the film featured Richard Widmark, Lauren Bacall, Charles Boyer, Gloria Graham, Lillian Gish and Paul Stewart and yet it still was a bad film! The basic premise of the film isn't bad--a private psychiatric hospital where the staff are more screwed up than the patients! Also, the subplot involving the overworked husband and wife (Widmark and Graham) had a lot of promise. However, the script was handled with all the finesse and deftness of a drunk buffalo--with bellicose and way over the top scenes again and again in the film. In fact, it was less like a drama and more like a very bad episode of "General Hospital". Subtle, this film ain't!! Realistic, this film ain't!! <br /><br />While most of the reason this film reeked was the awful script, but I also blame the producers as well for miscasting and misusing come veteran actors. For example, Paul Stewart may not be a household name but this character actor had exceptional talent--especially when playing gangsters in Film Noir movies. Yet here, Stewart is cast as a very nondescript psychiatrist with some bizarre European accent--it just didn't work since this was well outside his acting range and his character was totally undeveloped and one-dimensional. Also, Charles Boyer just seemed hopelessly miscast and totally out of place. Seeing this fine romantic actor as a psychiatrist in the heartland of America just seemed bizarre.<br /><br />Overall, this is a rather awful film. It is very watchable in a train wreck sort of way but it certainly isn't very pretty. My wife and I disliked much of the movie but also felt it could have been very good had the writing been competent.<br /><br />PS--In a case of art imitating life, Oscar Levant played one of the patients. In real life, the brilliant Levant spent much of his life in and out of mental institutions. | 0 |
"The Cobweb" is an example of many examples of movies that feature strong, sometimes noteworthy performances and high points, but unfortunately are shattered and slowed down drastically by a murky plot and very little to interest the audience. It stars Richard Widmark as a doctor working at a mental institution whose life becomes in turmoil due to family problems and a rather ludicrous and overworked conflict that really seems like no big deal at all.<br /><br />The plot is preposterous. Its time for the institution to get new drapes for the library windows. One old woman wants to have her drapes put over them, but a lot of the patients want to make their own. And somehow, this ridiculous and unintentionally loony conflict breaks out into the point where lives are in danger and families start to fall apart. It sounds more like a conflict that would occur between very young children.<br /><br />The questioning of the logic of the plot and whether it could really happen is so massive that one wonders if only a real-like lunatic could buy it. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with the acting. The cast following Widmark is composed of other great actors, many of them Academy Award-nominees and winners. And there is occasionally a moment in the film that works out brilliantly, but it always excludes the stupid plot about window drapes. Unfortunately, there is too much about the doggone drapes and thus, the movie slows down. A lot of the takes are long and done from one camera viewpoint, adhering to the slow pacing and lack of viewing interest.<br /><br />In a short analysis, "The Cobweb" is an unrecognized film and it becomes obvious why to the viewers basically as soon as the plot comes into focus, which it does pretty quickly. It just really doesn't sound like much fun to watch and I tell you that it is not much fun to watch. | 0 |
Featured in 1955's THE COBWEB is an all star cast ranging from silent screen veteran LILLIAN GISH to Actors Studio progeny SUSAN STRASBERG. Set at an exclusive psychiatric hospital, what is this movie about you wonder......high drama ? Doctor & patient relationships ? Shock therapy treatment ? No, this howler is about who exactly will get to pick the draperies for a psychiatric hospital ! You think I'm kidding ? You won't believe your eyes as you're watching this unbelievable storyline that was turned into a movie ! Progressive head shrink Dr. McIver (RICHARD WIDMARK) wants to have all of the hospital's patients involved in the design, selection and execution of the needed new draperies. McIver's wife played by marble mouthed GLORIA GRAHAM wants to get her 2 cents in on this monumental task too. So does long time staffer Miss Inch (LILLIAN GISH). Directed by VINCENT MINELLI, you kinda wonder if he really became this overly involved in minute detail because of his marriage to worry wart JUDY GARLAND. Talented actors like LAUREN BACALL, SUSAN STRASBERG, CHARLES BOYER, and JOHN KERR are wasted in this hokey story. What were they thinking ? | 0 |
Sean, you know I think that you are absolutely the greatest actor in the world, but I can't commend you for this. Comedy just isn't your strong suit.<br /><br />However, it wasn't all your fault. Some of the stuff was just too hard to understand. Alfred Lynch did a decent job, but you gotta wonder where the lines came from from the beginning.<br /><br />Once again, Sean... I apologize. | 0 |
Snow White is in my opinion a bad movie on an artistic point of view. The plot is pretty much foreseeable, the characters are stereotypes, the editing too exaggerated. Anyway, the movie seems not to have a lot of artistic ambitions. <br /><br />Instead, I think this is a straight commercial thing. Including a character from the french part of Switzerland (the actor IS the leader of the band he is touring with in the movie - the band's called SENS UNIK) seems to aim to a larger audience. A straight German-swiss movie would not have sold in the french part - and vice versa. What really got on my nerves were the product placements all over the movie. Sometines scenes remembered of advertisement clips! <br /><br />I also think the topic of "young people taking drugs without any other targets in their lives" is a wide spread reality in Zurich. Therefore, it should be elaborated with more care. I hope Samir got enough money with Snow White, in order that his next movie is gonna show his true artistic skills. | 0 |
I blind bought this movie and am pretty upset that I paid as much as I did but I would say that it's at least worth a rent for some cool deaths and laughable acting. It is not a good movie in any way but I must say that I was pretty darn entertained. I guess it could be called so-bad-it's-good.<br /><br />As I said, the acting is awful, I feel like I could have done a better job showing, at least, any emotion. The story is nothing new and has been done better. I guess I just have a soft spot for any carnival-esquire type film. I would say rent this or download it but definitely don't buy it. It is not worth more than one watch. | 0 |
A family traveling for their daughter's softball league decide to take the 'scenic route' and end up in the middle of nowhere. The father is an avid photographer, and when he hears of an old abandoned side show in the town, he decides to take another detour to take some photographs.<br /><br />Of course, the side show is filled with inbred freaks, who promptly kidnap the women and leave the young son and father to fend for themselves.<br /><br />The only cool thing about this film is how the family actually fights back against their inbred captors. Other than that, there's nothing worthwhile about the film. | 0 |
I'm a huge Randolph Scott fan, but this film is a dud. The whole thing has a canned, fake, soundstage feel to it, with truly awful rear-screen projection. It has a good plot idea that the screenwriter has successfully buried in a nitwit script, which makes it impossible for the audience to become immersed in the action and truly care about any of the characters. The directing is pedestrian, and only accentuates how bad the script is instead of helping to improve it. I've seen plenty of thoroughly enjoyable "soundstage productions" before, but this is not one of them. All it does is make you appreciate the gritty Scott/Boetticher films all the more.<br /><br />Randolph Scott is tanned, trim, and shines that million dollar smile throughout. He's always a pleasure...even in the worst of his films. Aside from Scott, the other main reason I wanted to see this movie was due to how much I enjoyed Ms. Wymore in Errol Flynn's movie, "Rocky Mountian". In "Man Behind the Gun", she is just as beautiful, and you can tell she's a good actress, but she was forced to say some pretty dumb lines, and the blocking she was given by the director was truly awful. I've only seen Phil Carey in "Operation Pacific", and he plays the exact same character here...an arrogant pain-in-the-butt you want to beat into unconsciousness. I guess it proves he's a good actor...he made me hate him. There are some lame attempts at comic relief that only detract from the film, in my opinion. Although there are many elements to knock, I must say that I found myself truly enjoying the two Spanish songs sung in the musical numbers...but that's not why we go to see Randolph Scott movies, right?<br /><br />There are definitely worse Scott films out there, and this one certainly isn't unbearable, but it also certainly couldn't be deemed anything beyond mediocre. | 0 |
Oh dear!What a disappointment. I've been watching old Westerns on British TV for decades, and I wasn't aware of this one until its showing yesterday - most other Scott Westerns come around every few years or so and are usually worth watching again.<br /><br />The rich colour and outdoor sets were good, but that's all I can say about this film. I have to agree with most of the other negative comments already made. Several times I felt like turning it off, and finally I did, halfway through, something I hardly ever do.<br /><br />Scott seemed unusually oily in charming the girls, his two sidekicks were annoying and so was the Mexican bandit lad. And I've a feeling the army uniforms were 20 years or so too modern, not that this has bothered makers of many other Westerns.<br /><br />Perhaps it got better in the second half, but I couldn't be bothered to wait and see. | 0 |
The explosion of TV channels must be eternally grateful to the Randolph Scott Western production line, because any any moment there must be one of what seems like a hundred Randolph Scott movies playing on at least one no-budget station.<br /><br />"Man Behind The Gun" is a typical early 1950's period melodrama with pre-WWII production values that relies on a historically-topical murder mystery plot peppered with action scenes to disguise the script's complete absence of character development, and thus lack of suspense. In years to come the role of these films would be taken over by TV shows like 'Gunsmoke', 'Bonanza', etc - and these actually did the job better. Randolph Scott, looking particularly grizzled in this, is the good guy, struggling against the bad guys against whom he will eventually prevail. There's no more interest in what he goes through emotionally than in what his horse is feeling, unless you count wondering whether he'll sort out the initial misunderstanding with the female lead by the end. The music is a stronger indication of the emotional state of the 'characters' than the acting is. But it's fine if that floats your boat; and I wouldn't berate you for enjoying 'Diagnosis, Murder', either.<br /><br />Workmanlike, pedestrian, and ageing rapidly. 3 stars for being competently put together; 0 for artistic endeavour. | 0 |
This piece of crap might have been acclaimed 60 years ago, but it is one of the most racist movies ever made with the Native American Indians played by white men. The right-wing Republican James Stewart was a huge racist in real life, just like his close friend John Wayne. In 1971 Stewart had actor Hal Williams fired from "The Jimmy Stewart Show" (a short-lived series that mercifully flopped) just because Williams was black. As if that were not bad enough, this film is very dated and boring. Watch "Dances with Wolves" instead for a less racist view.<br /><br />Stewart was in his forties when this awful movie was made, and even with his ridiculous wig he still looked like a paedophile chasing after 16-year-old Debra Paget. I'm surprised it was even allowed.<br /><br />0/10. | 0 |
I guess if you are into the sci-fi and horror stuff it might be interesting. The acting was okay but not great. The two pregnant girls are supposed to be fifteen but are played by obviously older actresses who turned out to be twenty and twenty-one at the time. The plot is okay, but the story does jump around a bit, leaving one guessing whether you're in Boston or Pennsylvania. The priest seems to use warp speed between the two. The catholic church is portrayed as having a secretive sect for investigating events which only happen to those of that faith. What if the two girls had been protestant? Would the catholics of cared? Therefore some what contrived. Who knows, some day the catholic church might even learn what the Bible teaches. If you miss this one, don't feel you've lost anything. | 0 |
Actually, the movie is neither horror nor Sci-Fi. With a very strong Christian religious theme, this movie delivers minimal content and no suspense. Second-tier actors do half-decent jobs of reading their boring roles. The only good performance is by Sydney Penny who plays a role of a mother of ... I won't spoil the movie, it's either Christ or Anti-Christ. Avoid watching this movie unless you a Christian religious fanatic obsessed with apocalypse.<br /><br />Being a non-Christian, I had to force myself to watch this movie just because I wanted to write this review. It's a pity that Sci-Fi channel had to air this movie at the peak evening time. | 0 |
This movie is AWESOME. I watched it the other day with my cousin Jay-Jay. He said it was alright, but i think it RULEZZZ! I mean, it's so cool. Ted V. Mikels is so brave and smart. He made a movie totally unlike those terrible Hollywood films, like the Matrix and STop or my Mom will Shoot. It could have been better, though. I like ninjas and pirates. I also like that big talon that the funny man wears. I think he's the coolest guy since that Domino Pizza claymation guy. Not only does this movie look really cool, like those out-of-focus movies my dad made of my birthday when I turned 6. BUt it tells a complex tale with dozens of characters that seem to be totally unrelated, but they all meet up in the end. It's genius how this web is woven to make everything meet up. I wish Ted V. Mikels would make a sequel. But it needs more aliens. And a pirate. | 0 |
The original exploitation classic-though far from enjoyable on almost any level concerning some guys who turn cats into human flesh eating monsters because the cat food they make is made with people is remade with scifi elements added. The cats can't get enough and when the flesh tainted food runs out the cats turn on their owners. Poorly put together on almost every level this is an example of the absolute bottom of the barrel material that used to actually play movie theaters in the early 1970's updated with alien cat and dog races battling for supremacy. Director Ted Mikel is a hack, but is so lovable a person (I generally like the guy thanks to his smile inducing interviews and commentary tracks) that you can pretty much excuse the garbage he mostly turned out. Mikels wanted to make films and he didn't care how they turned out so long as he was producing something. More power to him, but I wish he wouldn't subject us to his home movies | 0 |
Want a great recipe for failure? Take a s****y plot, add in some weak, completely undeveloped characters and than throw in the worst special effects a horror movie has known. Let stew for a week (the amount of time probably spent making this trash). The result is Corpse Grinders, a movie that takes bad movies to dangerous and exotically low places.<br /><br />The movie utterly blew. My words cannot convey how painful it was to watch. This is not one of those bad movies that you and your friends can sit around and make fun of. This is not Plan 9 From Outer Space. This is a long, boring, sad waste of time. Corpse Grinders II is the biggest waste of energy and talent I have ever seen. I depresses me when I realize that people actually took time out of their lives to act in this shit, if you can call it acting. But than again, when you have poor direction, poor storywriting, poor everything, acting is the last thing to criticize.<br /><br />This movie is like a huge, disgusting turd that you yearn to quickly flush out of existence, fearful that a friend or loved one might somehow see it. I really with I could somehow destroy every copy of this film, so it will not pollute the minds of aspiring filmmakers. Thank you, Ted V. Mikels, for giving me new found respect for every movie I have ever seen. You have shown me what is truly awful, and why I should appreciate all those movies that are merely crappy or boring. | 0 |
Ted V. Mikels's film Corpse Grinders 2 is 103 minutes of excruciating cinematic swill. The plot is pretty much a mixture of nonsensical business dealings among people who grind corpses into cat food while cat aliens, who are losing a war with dog aliens, looking to get some of this cat food. Watching this movie, I began to look for any kind of distraction, anything to reassure myself that I was doing something else besides losing my mind from the inside out.<br /><br />Several scenes go on for far too long, as characters take forever to do simple things. I've heard that Mr. Mikels doesn't like to use jump cuts too often, fearful that they will confuse his audience. I'm not sure if this attitude is "avant-garde" or just "stupid." Try as I might, I could not bring myself to care about any of the characters in the unnecessarily huge cast, well with the possible exception of the old men who are the caretakers of the factory. The majority of the cast are a bunch of no-talent amateurs who don't even bother to learn the lyrics to "Amazing Grace" before they have to sing it on camera. Although perhaps the blame should go to the poor sound quality, since I only actually heard around 80% of the dialogue while watching the DVD.<br /><br />This is quite possibly the worst film to ever be shot. I've listened to snippets of the commentary,and Mr. Mikels comes off as a surprisingly sweet old man, what the hell was he doing making this kind of trash? I'd like to hear the explanations from the old men who had to lie shirtless on a metal conveyor belt waiting to be ground up. Movies I've long hated suddenly seem a lot better. I long for the intermittedly appropriate music of Excalibur, and the consistent lighting of Dawn of the Dead. I need to go do something, anything. Don't see this movie. | 0 |
I am a huge fan of Ted V Mikels and the original "Corpse Grinders" is the main reason why but this is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Even the brilliant casting of the legendary Liz Renay ("Desperate Living") could not save this worthless piece of garbage. This film should serve as a lesson to all past, present and future film makers...when you have a film as successful as the original "Corpse Grinders" was you should probably leave sleeping dogs lie and you should definitely not try to revitalize it over twenty years later (unless you have the financial backing to pull of a superior sequel such as Herschel Gordon Lewis did with "Blood Feast 2: All U can Eat") Even if you do decide to do this you should probably spend a little bit more money than you did on the original and for god's sake...NEVER film a movie onto video...why do film makers even attempt to do this when everyone knows the quality is going to turn out hideous...I personally have yet to see one film made in this fashion that's even worth the powder to blow it to hell...if you can't afford to make a sequel that is better than your original film then sell the rights of the film to someone who can...and what was Ted V Mikels thinking about (or smoking) when he wrote this god-awful script? I mean come on, dog and cat "aliens" from another planet? A cardboard box painted to look like a devastating machine capable of grinding up human bodies...bones and clothes and all? If any of these actors, aside from Liz Renay, were paid more than five dollars for their hideous performances than they are grossly overpaid! Avoid this film at all costs and watch the original instead. | 0 |
In a far away Galaxy is a planet called Ceta. It's native people worship cats. But the dog people wage war upon these feline loving people and they have no choice but to go to Earth and grind people up for food. This is one of the stupidest f#@k!ng ideas for a movie I've seen. Leave it to Ted Mikels to make a movie more incompetent than the already low standard he set in previous films. It's like he enjoying playing in a celluloid game of Limbo. How low can he go? The only losers in the scenario are US the viewer. Mr. Mikels and his silly little handlebar mustache actually has people who STILL buy this crap.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />DVD Extras: Commentary by Ted Mikels; the Story behind the Making of (9 and a half minutes); 17 minutes, 15 seconds of Behind the scenes footage; Ted Mikels filmography; and Trailers for "The Worm Eaters" "Girl in Gold Boots", "the Doll Squad", "Ten Violent Women" (featuring nudity), "Blood Orgy of the She Devils", & "the Corpse Grinders" | 0 |
The plot of Corpse Grinders 2 is very much similar to the original Corpse Grinders, what is left that is different from the other film consists of weird aliens.<br /><br />It is my belief that this film would be the #1 worst film on IMDb - if anyone had actually watched it. The plot is disconnected and, in several (way too many) instances, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The real wonder here is why in the world was this sequel created to such an unsuccessful and horrendous (but still somewhat better) film.<br /><br />I would highly recommend this film if you enjoy watching terrible movies for a good laugh. | 0 |
This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead. | 0 |
I found myself very caught up in this movie, at least at the beginning, and any credit I give to this movie, is Lacey Chabert, she was fantastic!! But thats where it ends. I seem to be very good at figuring out who the killer is, and I like it when a movie is able to completely baffel me, but I felt out and out lied to, they whole time they lead you in one direction and then suddenly they decided to go in a completely different direction at the end, they gave no hit to it at all, thats not misleading that very bad writing and planning, someone did not think at all!<br /><br />I felt the movie would have been much better if they had stuck to the plot that the lead you on, they also seemed to not answer anything, why did Jane(maria) burn down the professor's house.<br /><br />Its a great pity as I felt it started out as a relatively good movie. | 0 |
I found the writing in this movie absolutely terrible.<br /><br />The only thing that saved this movie from me rating it as a 1 out of 10 was Lacy Chabert's performance who I thought played the multiple personalities really well. For me she was definitely the highlight of this movie.<br /><br />Dina Meyer was pretty as always but I found her role pretty bland so I don't think one can say that her acting was great.<br /><br />As for the male lead, Armand Assante, his interpretation of the role reminded me mainly of doctors in cheese 1980s hospital series.<br /><br />All of that I could have lived with. However the terrible, terrible, terrible end/solution, the role of the psychic and even the role of psychic were just some of the worst writing I have seen in a long time. | 0 |
"Cement" is a bad movie about a bad cop (Penn) with a bad attitude and a bad disposition who has a bad guy in a bad way up to his cajones in fast drying concrete. While we're waiting for the cement to dry and the film to figure out what it's about, we're periodically jerked back in time without rhyme or reason so we can watch events leading up to the cement thing. A boring junk flick overall, "Cement" suffers from lack of a story, a clumsy execution, and that most ubiquitous of filmdom's faults; no reason to care. A time killer for the needy couch potato at best. (D+) | 0 |
Where to begin? How about with the erroneous synopsis: <br /><br />"X-Men Origins: Wolverine tells the story of Wolverine's epically violent and romantic past, his complex relationship with Victor Creed, and the ominous Weapon X program."<br /><br />His epically violent past turns out to exceptionally non-violent.<br /><br />His relationship with Creed is so glossed over it's difficult to understand how they have any connection at all. We are thrown from one point in the opening scene that shows them as children on the run, to a montage of war scenes that they have fought in throughout their long lifespan, and finally to the present where they are a part of a hardcore government team of assassins.<br /><br />There is nothing by way of showing their relationship as brothers at all. Nothing complex is laid down for us to believe is authentic or even loving. <br /><br />The romantic element of the movie between Silverfox and Wolverine was forced and abrupt. We are thrown into a romance so fast that it's over before you can blink an eye. Having just introduced the character, Silverfox is killed off roughly fifteen minutes later. We are left wondering why we should care about this. Who was she anyway?<br /><br />For a pivotal element of this weak revenge driven story, the romance is surprisingly unexplored. It was rushed in simply because it was required.<br /><br />Oddly enough, when Wolverine finds that his love is dead he leaves her in the woods to rot as he goes off to find Sabertooth. Being the romantic that he is this was out of character for him yet necessary to serve the plot in pulling off a very predictable surprise.<br /><br />As for the weapon X program, lets just say that after the painfully crippling procedure Wolverine is up and running. Eventually he arrives at the home of a conveniently old yet overwhelmingly loving couple. Surprisingly Ma and Pa Kent aren't alarmed when finding a naked sweaty man in their barn. Is it any wonder what fate awaits them?<br /><br />In the previous films and the comic books, the main reason that Wolverines' amnesia plagued him partly hinged on the fact that he was said to have been viciously evil and coldblooded.<br /><br />Knowing this was the case...did he really want to remember such horrors or keep them hidden and continue his current more positive lifestyle of fighting against the villains of the world alongside his team mates?<br /><br />As hinted to in X2: X-men United when Stryker gives up some of his secrets it is said that Wolverine would be disturbed if he had known of the evil works they committed together. This film sets up the team fairly well only they don't really do much of anything. No disturbing violence, no ruthless actions, they merely harass a few natives in foreign lands for the ten or fifteen minutes they are on screen. <br /><br />It seems that Wolverine wasn't an evil man under Stryker at all. Instead he was constantly trying to put a leash on his brother Sabertooth which consequently WAS the violent agent we all thought Wolverine was. Eventually he just leaves all together.<br /><br />No conflict of duality here at all.<br /><br />Idiotically REMOVING that character conflict of good and evil DULLED the story immensely. They may as well have given him rubber claws.<br /><br />There were a ton of other errors in this film that contradicted the X-Men trilogy, including the introduction of one of the lamest Deus Ex Machinas to ever hit a script.<br /><br />Magic memory-erasing bullets. <br /><br />Really?<br /><br />Apparently they are the only thing to bring down Wolverine. Yet this was apparently forgotten when agent after agent was sent to bring him down with bullets and bombs that would surely not work on him at all.<br /><br />Another problem with this film is that it tried to focus on Wolverine while throwing in a ton of other mutants which did little to nothing at all. Interesting characters were mere window dressing and did nothing for the story. Most were in the film for 5-10 minutes max and yet you find yourself wishing we saw more of them and less of Wolverine.<br /><br />Fred Dukes (the Blob but not the comic version) can punch a launched tank missile with little to no physical damage to him at all, but a simple headbutt from Wolverines metal noggin is enough to daze him?<br /><br />Cyclops optic beams (which instead of being concussive force are now more akin to lasers) can burn through buildings but when fired at Sabertooth directly it simply smashes him into the ground without even damaging his clothes. Adamantium trench coats anyone?<br /><br />The (gravity defying) mutant Gambit, instead of utilizing his signature cards, is made into some sort of crazy acrobat. In one poorly edited scene he is knocked unconscious by Wolverine...then amazingly enough a few minutes later he is on a rooftop running TOWARDS Wolverine. How he regained consciousness, ran away a few blocks, climbed up a building, then ran back to Wolverine and Sabertooth in the middle of a scratching match is a mystery yet to be explained.<br /><br />Some have excused this films weakness by claiming it was made from a comic and therefore should be weak on character and heavy on flash. The idea that this movie being a comic film is flimsy and superficial because of that fact is incorrect.<br /><br />The comic book source material, the REAL origin of Wolverine...is a story worth bringing to the screen. It doesn't sugar coat his past nor treat the reader like mindless CGI junkies. It is a well crafted story and although retold and readjusted over time, began with WEAPON X by Barry Windsor-Smith. A much more intense and exciting story.<br /><br />This FOX film should seriously be forgotten. <br /><br />Anyone have that magic gun?<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
All of the X-Men movies were great. And I mean all of them, including the long hated X-Men 3. They had solid characters (Magneto and Xavier were the best ones, in my opinion), and a good story arch.<br /><br />I was all excited when I heard this movie was on production, and my expectations grew bigger and bigger until I saw the movie. I was so disappointed.<br /><br />Hugh Jackman is not a bad actor (his best movie is The Fountain, although you won't hear about this movie when they talk about the actor), and his acting is not what screws the movie up.<br /><br />The whole film is plagued with lots of meaningless characters that add nothing to the plot (like Blob or Gambit), which were tossed there to make fans believe that the film makers had read the original comics.<br /><br />I am a fan of XMen, I have read many, many of their stories and this movie respected none of them. None. Not even the continuity. It doesn't respect Weapon X project, or the relationship between Wolverine and Sabretooth, or Emma Frost, the motivations for wolverine are plain stupid and seen in millions of movies: Revenge for the death of a loved one.<br /><br />Oh. What I was expecting the whole darn movie was a Berseker moment for Wolverine similar to the one he has in X2 in the school when Stryker men come in and he alone decimates the enemy forces, but hey, this is Fox, this a family flick and you will not see explicit violence from the most violent and gruesome Marvel hero.<br /><br />Besides, I had a feeling of constant dejá vù with this movie because Wolverine's Origins are already explained in X2, we already know how he got his adamantium skeleton so it kind of does not make sense to make a movie of something we already know.<br /><br />I personally believe that wolverine is one of those few characters that does not need a solid back-story because mystery is the nature of the character. Do we really want to know how the Joker got his scars? | 0 |
This film was slated to be a blockbuster film, and it really is. This is the type of movie that is made to eat popcorn to and watch the flashy graphics. With that in mind, the movie delivers, perhaps not as well as the ultra flashy Iron Man, but well enough. Outside of the popcorn munching action and special effects, the film drops off of the cliff faster than Wile E. Coyote.<br /><br />Many viewers, myself included, will complain about how most of the characters were severely altered, but that only makes the film a poor adaptation, not a poor film. This film is unsatisfactory for other reasons. The makers focused more on making it appealing to the eye than they did to the mind. The characters that have been long awaited and promoted are reduced to 4-scene cameos. The main characters of Wolverine, Victor Creed (never called Sabertooth in the film) and Colonel Stryker are well developed. I was pleasantly surprised by Liev Schriber's performance. The rest of the characters are tossed to the wayside to make way for the all important eye-candy. Wolverine's character is fully developed after 30-minutes, as is Sabertooth, though Victor does pull off some surprises late in the film.<br /><br />The "final boss" of the film is a twisted and perverse adaptation of the original character and barely gets any development to show just why he is the way he is. The filmmakers obviously felt that all they really needed to do was create a bad ass character who could do anything they wanted and slapped on the name of a popular character.<br /><br />Very disappointing... | 0 |
Soulless milking of cash cow franchise. Generic superhero flick. CGI showcase. Gavin Hood's "A Series of Improbable Events." Combinatoric iteration of mutant fight scenes strung together by inane exposition justifying formation/dissolution of arbitrary alliances. I'm not expecting Shakespeare here but the cliché per minute meter was off the charts: Primal scream while looking skyward and kneeling over murdered girlfriend. Renegade military commander. Predictable double crosses. Revenge sought for slain lover. Erased memories. Evil character discovering morality at last minute. Misguided failures to execute nemeses after defeating them in melee. Lover not really dead. Lover actually acting as spy for hero's arch-nemesis. Girlfriend/spy actually falls for protagonist. Good people work for antagonist in order to save kidnapped family members. Evil mastermind fails to honor promises to reluctant employees. Kindly old couple care for weary hero and get murdered for their troubles. Certain deaths averted as third parties arrive on scene before coup de grace. Hero reluctantly joining secret government agency. Abandonment of elite squad in protest over slaughter of innocents. Scientists unable to control indestructible killing machine of their own creation. Outdated but lovable government 'secret weapon' kills off better designed but heartless successor. Hero strolls away from wreck and casually lights a trail of gasoline behind him. After everyone has given up, flatlined heart monitor picks up a pulse. Evil mastermind explains plans to hero he no longer sees as a threat. Hero refuses to kill defeated foe because he's "better than that". Transparent comic relief character makes hilarious understatements and offbeat comments. Cheerful psychopath revels in random murderous rampages. Nigh indestructible Goliaths hurl one another through a series of walls and other physical traumas that would kill a mere mortal. Man dispatches dozens of gun wielding enemies with nothing but skillful swordplay. Common sense and the laws of physics, biology and chemistry temporarily abandoned. Antagonist using loved one's murder as justification for misguided crusade.<br /><br />I could go on but this is just exhausting. If you're over the age of twelve and not living in mom's basement, there's probably nothing here for you. Depressingly enough, it's not too far off of par for superhero movies so discount all I've written if you can't get enough of the genre. | 0 |
Most would agree that the character of Wolverine is one of the most intriguing characters in comic book history. I'm no Marvel expert, but I did grow up with the adventures of the X-Men and definitely approved of Hugh Jackman's now widely known portrayal of the scruffy Logan. I enjoyed the first X-Men, found the sequel too heavy and messy and liked the third one as comic book entertainment. All through the three movies, I probably enjoyed Jackman more than anything else. I figured the idea of making an "origins"-movie about Wolverine could very well end up being a better movie than all of the three X-Men movies. If we concentrate on one character, I figured there could be a movie that achieves what I found the second movie failed at - being a fairly complex and character driven comic book adventure.<br /><br />The reason that the Wolverine-movie fails is not because the competition is tougher after The Dark Knight. It's not even because of a plot development that is beyond obvious and rudimentary - even though that certainly isn't good - no, it's because the movie doesn't even seem to try. To begin with, this does not qualify as good entertainment. There is something about the action in this movie that comes off as so very, very automatic. With no greater special effects or elements of suspense, and when one event will make you predict the following five, it almost feels like an Uwe Boll movie, imitating an action/adventure movie concept that you've seen a dozen times before. Of course, nothing in this movie is as downright awful as a piece of Bolls**t but when everybody's talking clichés as if they are part of a chain of events that is so standard, you at least make the connection and that surely is bad enough.<br /><br />But there is an even bigger problem. Even a generic action movie is a generic action movie and, by the way, that makes you forgive a lot of plot holes and character stupidities. I think you find the most fundamental flaw in the very title. I mean, "Origins". Really? What to the people behind this movie think about that title? What do they mean?? You want to know the origins of Wolverine? He grew up with his brother. They ran away from home during dramatic circumstances. Then they went off to war. All of them! The Civil War, World War I and II and Vietnam too. Why did they do this? Still unknown. Eventually, the brother (Sabertooth, played by Liev Shrieber) became evil. "How?" you ask. I don't know, it was somewhere between Omaha Beach and Hanoi. "Yeah, but why?" you still ask. I just said I don't know!! The movie doesn't explain. He's evil alright! "Yeah, but... you know, 'origins'"... Yeah, well that's an origin! I mean, duh! Anyway, eventually they end up with a super secret team of mutant elite soldiers. Something with the government, ho-hum. Wolvie gets enough and leave his brother. For six years he's a happy lumberjack with a loved one, who ends up a little defenseless around the time Sabretooth suddenly appears again. "Yeaaah... but... whyyyy?" - Oh shut up! - and Wolvie decides to be a guinneapig for a bunch of evil scientist who make him a flesh-covered metal war animal. He goes after all the bad guys and they come after him and after all the fighting he ends up with his memory wiped, cue X-Men the first movie.<br /><br />There. That's the origin. You can also find it on the back of the DVD cover. The actual movie won't tell you anything else. With no worthwhile scenes of action, no good heroes, villains or characters in general (lines from my couch audience: Fat suit! Token black guy! Oh, I give you 200 in cash if that girl survives this movie.., That is supposed to be Gambit...? mmhm, yeah well... uh-huh, right), not one line of memorable dialog and zero lines to cover a T-shirt with, added to that the common stupid things that ruin the plausibility in general that you might usually forgive...... well, that sounds pretty much like a waste of time, right? Fans will check this out, or have already. There's no stopping that. But if you liked the X-Men movies for no other reason than that they were well-made and entertaining - see them again and do yourself no favors by trying to look for origins where there are none. | 0 |
It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.<br /><br />To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.<br /><br />And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.<br /><br />Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.<br /><br />Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.<br /><br />And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.<br /><br />And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, "The bullet will take his memory away." Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.<br /><br />Seriously, this was "Daredevil" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution. | 0 |
I saw most of "My Bollywood Bride" today at the IAAC film festival in New York and had to leave the theater due to feelings of nausea welling up within me. I've seen Bollywood movies, and I've seen satires of Bollywood movies. This movie couldn't decide which one it wanted to be, so it ended up being a joke on itself.<br /><br />It seems to have been liberally copied from movies like Bride and Prejudice and Bollywood Calling, and what a sloppy, lazy job at that. How can Bollywood ever be weaned off of its determination to stick to overused, well-trodden scripts? Is there no one who can bring to the screen the millions of real, fascinating stories that surely exist and transpire in the land of a billion people? The over-smart auto driver, the cow on the street, gratuitous scenes of foreign locations, pointless scenes of Mumbai streets, they're all in there. Every possible cliché about India has been faithfully included. So sickeningly predictable. ugh!!! Acting performances are weak across the board except for Neha Dubey, who is talented and beautiful. One wonders why she would pick a project like this. | 0 |
Unbelievable!<br /><br />this film gets a 7 out 0f 10. This has to be one of the worst films i have seen in years. not only was the acting incredibly bad, the storyline (if you can call it that) was just as bad. Offcourse everyone knows what's going to happen within the first 5 minutes. Which is not a bad thing if you can captivate the audience during leading up to that moment. That however, is not the case. There is no action, no suspense, not even a spark between the 2 leading actors. It was unfortunately a waste of my time, and certainly a waste of my money. <br /><br />and the 2 of merely for trying | 0 |
I didn't expect much when I saw this at the Palm Springs Film Fest this weekend. It was an alternate choice when two other films were sold out. Still, I held out hope. It sounded a bit much like "Bride and Prejudice" (L.A. guy falls for an Indian beauty, parental conflict, blah blah blah). B&P was not perfect but it was an enjoyable film with some good laughs and likable characters.<br /><br />"My Bollywood Bride" had none of that. The acting seemed stilted and way to by-the-numbers. Characters were so cliché the story seemed like it could have been written by high school freshman drama student. Technically, the sound really bothered me. It seemed as if there was a lot of over-dubbing of dialogue. I mean a lot. I know sometimes it's necessary but it sounded like half the film was shot in a closet and it became very distracting.<br /><br />Two stars is being somewhat generous. | 0 |
An excellent performance by Alix Elias highlights an otherwise mis-directed and confused pile of dreck. I have seen this movie, perhaps 12 times, and with each run through, I find less and less pleasure. Why are Munchies so lustful? Is that ever explained? Are they a reflection of our wanton, boorish 'animal selves?' If they are, why not make it more obvious? Why not peal back just a touch of the subtlety that plagues this movie, and make that connection explicit? Another part of this movie that bothers me to no end - motorcycles. The jacket the little monster wears on the front cover seems to suggest 'street-wise' traveler. The sun glasses say 'pretty cool dude.' With all this I'm ready for Easy Rider meets the Muppets. All I get is Munchies (1987). What gives? Stick to the Gremlins series if you're a fan of diminutive, wise-cracking, reptile puppets - it'll give you the treatment you deserve. | 0 |
Not a knock on Korman as he was very funny on the Carol Burnett show. He was also good at playing secondary characters in Mel Brooks' movies ("High Anxiety" comes to mind). He is, however, not a person who can carry a movie in dueling roles no less. This one is basically a "Gremlins" knockoff, following a tradition of such movies as "Critters" and "Ghoulies". It is not a very good knockoff either, on par with "Ghoulies", but with a much lighter tone to it as it is no where near as dark as that movie got. In fact, this one is too light and frothy, and unfortunately many of the jokes end up falling flat. Though I did give it a 3 for a score, this is only because there is a movie that is even a worse "Gremlin" knockoff. If you watched Mystery Science Theater 3000 you know the one I am talking about...the infamous "Hobgoblins". This one has a guy finding a little critter in some underground place (I only saw this movie once a long time ago so I don't remember everything to clearly) and it starts out friendly enough. However, this creature quickly becomes unfriendly and of course more are spawned and that is the movie. More misses than hits in the joke department, and it is also really lame to see Korman playing the evil brother role. Best to skip this one, but then you may want to check it out just for kicks. | 0 |
Munchies starts in deepest darkest Peru (looks more like a dirt road to me) where archaeologist Simon Watterman (Harvey Korman) & his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are on an expedition. Simon thinks that ancient Aztec buildings were in fact spacecraft control centres & he is on a mission to gain proof that alien lifeforms have visited Earth, while in once such structure he discovers a strange small creature which he sticks in his backpack & takes back home with him to the small American town of Sweetwater in California. Simon feels that the creature is the proof he has been looking for & for some inexplicable reason decides to leave the thing at home while he goes to share his discovery. Simon ask's Paul & his wife Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde) to take care of it. Meanwhile Simon's brother & fast-food businessman Cecil Watterman (Harvey Korman again) steals the creature so his brother won't make any money out of it, but his idiotic stepson Dude (Jon Stafford) has a fight with it & chops it up with a knife but the individual parts grow back into separate little creatures that proceed to cause much havoc amongst the townspeople...<br /><br />Directed by Bettina Hirsch this has to be one of the worst horror comedy's ever, if not the worst. The script by Lance Smith is so unfunny it's painful. Every joke in Munchies misses the target by the proverbial mile, I doubt the humour in this piece of crap would even appeal to pre-teens. There just isn't anything even remotely funny or even amusing in Munchies as far as I'm concerned. The basic story is crap too, they just happen to find this creature running around with no explanation of what it is, why no-ones ever seen it before, how it manages to learn English so quickly & how it learns to drive etc. The whole thing is a big Gremlins (1984) rip-off with none of the elements that made that film so good. The character's are moronic, the stupid Deputy (Charlie Phillips) & his dad (Hardy Rawls), Cecil wearing an embarrassing wig & fake moustache & his air head wife Melvis (Alix Elias) & more besides. They just plain embarrass & are ridiculous, I defy anyone to find any of this rancid rubbish funny. Basically Munchies fails spectacularly at being either a comedy or horror & ends up being, yes you've guessed it, crap.<br /><br />Director Hirsch was obviously working with a low budget here & it shows, the entire thing takes place in two houses, the desert, some caves & a miniature golf course. This is really cheap & incompetent film-making. The special effects on the Munchies themselves are really awful, their just dolls that have no movement unless someone off camera pulls a string attached to it's arm. I cannot stress how bad the effects are, these things wouldn't convince my 4 year old nephew (as proved by me & him yesterday!). Total incompetence all the way, this film sucks.<br /><br />Technically the film is terrible, bad special effects, lame production design, rubbish sets & well, just everything's crap. The acting is rotten through & through, from the cops to Korman who has two roles both of which prove he can't act & isn't funny.<br /><br />Munchies is a really bad film that fails in everything that it tries to achieve, sure watch it if you want I won't stop you but just don't say you weren't warned! My advice would be to watch Gremlins again instead, but the decision is yours! | 0 |
Ridiculous-looking little boogers that spawn foam and reproduce themselves. So far for the horror-elements this movie has. All the rest of MUNCHIES plays out like a really retarded comedy that's so stupid you won't find it funny anymore after about 15 minutes. I can imagine little kids cheering for these little boogers, but adults will be left with only those supposedly "smart" references translating to on-screen stuff like Capt. Kirk's log entries from STAR TREK, the most well-known scene from E.T., a blatant statement from the filmmakers going "Look! We're cashing in on GREMLINS' success here!" and a cardboard cut-out of Clint Eastwood telling us... what about his western movies exactly? That last one was totally lost on me... Oh yes, and chemical waste disposal in caves seems to be a bad thing. Don't know where they got that idea from.<br /><br />Not to say that MUNCHIES is the most insufferable film to sit through, for that matter. It's just really, really dumb. And if you manage to crack a smile while watching it, you'll probably feel as dumb yourself for having done that after the film's finished.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes, but only if "dumb", "retarded" & "ridiculous" are criteria you're looking for. 3/10 and, well, uhm, 6/10. | 0 |
I think i watched this movie, but don't quote me, as i may have fallen asleep during watching it as it didn't exactly "grip my excitement and imagination." At least i know i watched enough of it to know i won't be watching it again soon. Or ever.<br /><br />Jeez, talk about lame... Really lame. Totally lame. It wouldn't even appeal to a six year old. It basically had NO worthwhile dramatic impact. Zilch. Nada. Just shlock turned into dreck. Comedy? That was supposed to be comedy? Ya coulda fooled me-ee-ee...!<br /><br />Now, if the aliens had been insatiably carnivorous like in the movie "Critters", we could have had the human characters do something a little more profound than be overly smugly cutesy... like yelling and screaming and running for their lives so they wouldn't be eaten so the story could be something more exciting than watching paint dry.<br /><br />Don't bother watching this. It's not worth the effort. You can find something more interesting to do. Like watching paint dry. Or falling asleep. | 0 |
Cute and playful, but lame and cheap. 'Munchies' is another Gremlins clone to come out from the 80s. I'm not much of a fan of the imitations.<br /><br />First it was the excellent 'Gremlins'.<br /><br />Then came the very average 'Critters'.<br /><br />Lets not forget the lousy 'Ghoulies'.<br /><br />But the complete pits would have to go to 'Hobgoblins'.<br /><br />Is there more?? <br /><br />Now 'Munchies' for me would have to fall somewhere between 'Ghoulies' and 'Hobgoblins'. Actually I probably found it more entertaining than 'Ghoulies', but I preferred thst one's darker tone. <br /><br />From the get-go it plays up its goofy nature (which it's better for it), but due to that nature the hammy acting (Alix Elias and Charlie Phillips), can get rather overbearing that you rather just see the munchies running amok. That's where the fun occurs. Mostly light-hearted fluff though, as the story mainly centres on the munchies (who are either hungry, horny and destructive) in a whole bunch of supposed comical encounters (some moments do work) in the small desert town as a couple of people are on the chase. It's silly, but strangely engaging thanks to the zippy pacing. The creatures themselves look rather bland and poorly detailed, as they're basic dolls being chucked about. Where their personalities arrived from is that they can actually speak... and with attitude.<br /><br />Charlie Stratton and a feisty Nadine Van der Velde (who was in 'Critters') were fair leads. Harvey Korman was acceptable in two roles. Robert Picardo also pops up.<br /><br />Amusingly low-cut entertainment for the undemanding. | 0 |
. . . And that's a bad thing, because at least if this had been a Troma film, it would have had wanton violence and a greater sense of anarchic abandon that might have brought my rating up a bit.<br /><br />So what we have instead is a very tame (rated PG), barely lukewarm, low budget (Roger Corman produced it with an unknown director who has subsequently remained unknown) Gremlins (1984)/Critters (1986)-wannabe with almost exclusively flat humor, little of the logic that made Gremlins work so well--fantasy logic or not, no suspense, no sense of adventure, and no violence or nudity to make up for it.<br /><br />Although I'm sure some of the problems with the film are inherent in the script--let's face it, no one could deliver these jokes so that they would be funny--it seems like the biggest blame has to fall into the lap of the director, Bettina Hirsch. In more capable hands, Munchies could have been entertaining.<br /><br />After all, it starts out like many great adventure films. Simon Waterman (Harvey Korman) and his son Paul (Charles Stratton) are in Peru on an archaeological dig. Simon is a bit of a wacky archaeologist who is always floating theories about the connections between ancient sites and alien civilizations. For example, he thinks he sees evidence of laser-cutting on ancient stonework. So they're at Machu Picchu looking for more evidence of Simon's theories when they happen upon a secret chamber. Inside they quickly find the animal they later dub "Arnold", one of the titular munchies.<br /><br />They take Arnold back home to their small California desert town. Simon, who thinks that Arnold is probably an alien creature, has to go off to a colleague's lecture, and he plans on telling the colleague that he finally has an alien specimen. Paul and his extremely cute girlfriend, Cindy (Nadine Van der Velde), are left in charge of Arnold, but as they haven't seen each other in a long time, they leave Arnold unsupervised while they hop in the sack.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Simon's brother Cecil (played also by Korman in a dual role), owner of a successful snack foods company, is eager to buy off Simon's home and land--they're adjacent to his own. Simon doesn't want to sell, so Cecil hits upon a scheme to steal Arnold. Things gradually spiral out of control, and the munchies, who have a mean streak to go along with their cravings for junk food, begin to overrun the town.<br /><br />That reads better in a summary than it plays on the screen. The best shots in the film are those with natural landscapes in the background, such as when characters are driving on the outskirts of the desert town. Interiors, with the exception of Cecil's home, tend to look like poorly decorated, cheap sets, and more importantly, they tend to show that Hirsch is not very skilled at blocking and setting up shots. Oddly, given the paucity of the production design overall, Cecil's home is quite a gem, imbued as it is in overblown 1980s style down to the smallest details, and Cecil's stepson, Dude (Jon Stafford), was an amusing counterpoint. Too bad, then, that he's out of the film so quickly.<br /><br />At any rate, Korman is a fun actor, but he comes across much better here as Simon than as Cecil. Unfortunately, Simon ends up being absent for most of the film. Cecil, who is differentiated physically by a ridiculous wig and facial hair, is not only the "evil capitalist" of the film, he's one of Korman's classic inconsiderate, boorish characters--that was one of his specialties, frequently capitalized on in "Carol Burnett Show" (1967) skits. Unlike "The Carol Burnett Show", which tended to succeed because directors Clark Jones and Dave Powers had a studied way of pushing the skits just to the brink of chaos, Hirsch reins Korman in way too far, and the Cecil character just doesn't work the way it should.<br /><br />There are a lot of other director-related problems, not the least of which is wonky pacing and editing, which completely sap any possible suspense or compelling dramatic impact from the film. Even scenes that should have been shoe-ins for amping up the drama--such as when the munchies are harassing an old lady on the road--are put together far too awkwardly to have much affect.<br /><br />There are also serious logical problems with the story as it stands. Where did the munchie in the chamber at Machu Picchu come from? The film's trailer seems to show an answer to this, but it was edited out of the final cut. A more serious problem is that, unlike gremlins, there is no clear reason for munchies to go from cute, cuddly furballs to menacing monsters. It just happens. Further, because Munchies was kept PG, and the violence remains toned down, when the creatures are in their monster phase, they're never very threatening. They're also easily dispatched, at least temporarily.<br /><br />Admittedly, the gist of the film isn't suspense, horror, compelling drama or any of that other stuff, but humor. It's intended more as a spoof of Gremlins and the countless rip-offs in its wake. The only problem with that is that the film just isn't funny, even though I chuckled a couple times. A surprisingly high percentage of the jokes are bland clichés. Too much of the remaining material consists of non-sequiturs. Given bad timing from Hirsch, it all just falls flat. There was potential to make a film that while a spoof, was both funny and frightening, hilarious and disturbing, cheesy and suspenseful, all at the same time, ala Killer Klowns from Outer Space (1988). Too bad, then, that Munchies comes nowhere near that. | 0 |
The title creatures wreak havoc at a peaceful little desert town. That's basically the whole plot for this film, and while the scenes devoted to the Munchies themselves are somewhat fun (in a lowbrow kind of way), all the rest is just filler, and bad filler at that. From the "hero", who is a painful Woody Allen wannabe, to the ultra-dumb town cop, it's hard to pick the most irritating character in the film. There were some times when almost all of them were on the screen together and I was thinking, "OK, at least the girlfriend is cute, but why do we have to put up with the rest of those morons?". The film is also filled with pop references (from Ozzy Osbourne to Linda Blair), which probably made it already dated by the early 90's. (*1/2) | 0 |
I suppose all the inside jokes is what made Munchies a cult classic. I thought it was awful, though given the ridiculous story and the nature of the characters, it probably could've been a much better (and funnier) movie. Maybe all they needed was a real budget.<br /><br />Munchies, as many viewers have pointed out already, is something of a Gremlins parody. Hence, all the references to the movie. The movie begins somewhere in Peru during an archeological dig. An annoying dufus named Paul, aspiring stand up comedian who offers no sarcasm or witty jokes during the movie despite his career plans, is holed up with his dad in the caves. His dad is an unconventional kind of archeologist, searching the caves not for artificats or mummies or anything, but proof of U.F.O.'s. And that's where the Munchies come into the picture. Hidden in the crevice of a rock is an ugly little mutant that looks like a gyrating rubber doll with a Gizmo voice. They name him Arnold, stash him in a bag, and bring him home so Paul's dad can finally show proof of extra terrestrial life.<br /><br />Paul, the idiot that he is, breaks his promise to his dad to watch Arnold (a wager he made with his dad, if he loses, it's off to community college to get a 'real' career). The creepy next door neighbor with the bad rug, Cecil (television veteran Harvey Korman), wonders what his neighbors are up to. So, he and his lazy son, some airhead hippie type (who looks more like they should've made his character a biker or heavy metal enthusiast) to go and snatch Arnold. Why? A get rich quick scheme of course. And of course, even Cecil's son is too dumb to look after Arnold. And after a few pokes and prods at Arnold, he multiplies into more Munchies.<br /><br />This wasn't even a movie that was so bad it was good. It was just plain awful. I was hoping that the Munchies would've mutated and killed the morons that were always after them, even Paul and his girlfriend. At least it would be one way to get rid of all the bad acting in this movie that really hams up the movie. Not to mention poor special effects that look like hand puppets. And really bad writing all around--it wasn't even funny--not even that young cop who can really give you the homicidal twitch in your eye. Like I said, Munchies, if they had been given an actual budget and better actors, they might've been able to pull off a good parody. Pass. | 0 |
When I saw this movie, I couldn't believe my eyes. Where these hilarious creatures, dustbin muppets with big pointy teeth, really meant to be scary? Or where they designed to have a good laugh (I sincerely hope so). If you watch carefully you can even see the strings operating them (better; dragging them across the screen). The whole was rather funny than scary and I had a good time watching the movie because I was amazed by its overall incapacity to have only one good part. It is one big joke from beginning to end and I believe this movie belongs into a new category: So unbelievable crappy you'll be laughing from beginning to end. (I'm not even gonna try to comment on the acting or all the other things) | 0 |
This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.<br /><br />The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.<br /><br />Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.<br /><br />By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.<br /><br />So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves. | 0 |
Not sure why this movie seems to have gotten such rave reviews.<br /><br />While watching "Bang" one night on TV, I found myself bored by the nonsensical, random plot which was occurring on screen. The entire movie seems to be nothing more than an exercise in meaningless, artsy-fartsy self-indulgence on the part of the filmmaker. The fact that the director/writer goes by a one name moniker only reinforces this sense of pretentiousness. <br /><br />Those interested in indie flicks would be better off looking for something better written and dare I say, more entertaining than this complete waste of time. | 0 |
Germans think smirking is funny (just like Americans think mumbling is sexy and that women with English accents are acting). I had to cross my eyes whenever the screen was filled yet again with a giant close-up of a smirking face. One of those 'housewife hacks corporate mainframe' tales where she defrauds a bank by tapping a few random keys on her home PC which is connected only to a power socket. The director obviously loves the rather large leading lady. Can't say I share his feelings. There's quite a funny bit when the entire family sit in front of the television chanting tonelessly along with the adverts. Apparently this review needs to be one line longer so here it is. | 0 |
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-) | 0 |
At the beginning we get to see the start of a secret council of some sorts. It all looks very promising from the get go. With some supernatural elements thrown in, the mystery gets more interesting by the minute. The main character who seems like a good bloke gets into trouble because of his claim for money he is entitled to (temptation) and other factors. You really empathize with the guy and you want to know what exactly is going on. Normally a person in his situation would have several options. Somehow he does not have those options. In this movie there only seems to be one solution even when it is clear it is not his fault. Out of the blue he encounters characters who talk about church,prayer and God. And they provide the answer for his problem. It should be obvious at a point in the movie what this solution is. Now let me say that there is nothing wrong with this message. Since it always is helpful. But was it really necessary to disguise this message. This religious element actually ruined the viewing experience for me. While the message is good,it's simplicity can't escape the fact that in real life more needs to happen to resolve issues presented in this movie. The mystery that is presented to us never gets solved. In stead you are forced to deal with another topic that essentially has nothing to do with the plot. Don't get fooled because of Malcolm Mcdowell. The once brilliant actor is adequate,but if you watch closely you will see that he is not serious at all. He really must be desperate for money. Otherwise what would posses an actor of his caliber to act in a movie like this. | 0 |
It started out with an interesting premise. I always like Civil War stuff and ancient secret societies. The more the film progressed, the more I realized that this was a B movie at best. In the latter half, it quickly became a C movie, then D, then F, then "I wish that this wasn't a rental so that I could put it in the microwave!" I can't say that the acting in all cases was awful, just most. The writing, however... I never read the book. Maybe the book is well written. The screenplay was written by a 10 year old. It was ridiculously shallow, the dialog drab and uninteresting, the characters about as interesting as a 5 pound bag of fertilizer. I really hated this movie, as did my wife. I am a Christian and I have no problem with movies that promote or support Christianity. This movie did a great disservice to the cause. Awful, terrible, worthless. If you liked it, I strongly recommend Superman 4. | 0 |
The IMDb plot summary in no way describes the essence of this film. It should have read 'Be prepared to be catapulted back to the prison of the 3rd pew from the back of your family's church at 8 years old, listening to the preacher drone on about God's will while all you can think of is getting back home to your Lego'.<br /><br />It starts off well intentioned, building intrigue by planting some real and surreal clues such as Renny's 'how did the cut on my thumb heal so fast?' moment. It then slowly morphs into a Christian jamboree, sacrificing its plot completely in a wash of evangelistic-induced babble. I believe I counted the use of the word 'pray' about 53 times in a five minute span near the end. After the 31st, I tried to twist the context of the word to its synonym, 'prey'. Sadly, this little mind game of mine made the film at least bearable for the last 20 minutes. Plus it made me laugh whenever a character would say 'prayer' ('preyer' to me) as it became totally zany. Indeed, even my Catholic wife sunk in her chair from boredom, almost to the point of ending up on the floor.<br /><br />For all the salivating Christians who ranked this film 8-10 stars, I suggest sticking with your theology-reinforcing safety standards like Circle Square, The Ten Commandments, anything from Narnia, Jesus Christ Superstar and the like. Stay away from more cerebrally challenging subject matter in films such as Jesus Camp, The God Who Wasn't There, What Would Jesus Buy, or the soon-to-be released Religulous.<br /><br />Maybe Robert Whitlow's book is better. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.