text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
How sad there is no option to post a mark lower than 1. I watched this piece of nonsense and could barely believe what i was watching. Every single part of the film was awful. Music, acting, direction, story, everything, simply everything. I actually found myself laughing out loud at various points in the film. I particularly loved the bit where our hero is dashing through the hospital in soft focus slow motion, and knocks the clipboard out of the nurses hand, because, .............well. Just because. Product placement? Crucifix's (crucifi?) everywhere. If you are of a Christian persuasion and very easily satisfied, you may like this movie. If you do like this movie, you really need to get out more. | 0 |
didn't know anything about the film or that it was based on a best selling book.Tried guessing from the opening scenes what it would be about,best guess,buried treasure and a death list.That lasted about 15 minutes when i got the sneaky suspicion that the film was crap.I'll not bore you with how bad the plot and acting were but anyone who gave it more than two stars must work for the film makers.I watched until the hero jumped into his corvette to rush to the hospital.He had his on his suit,shirt and tie arrived at the hospital in jeans and a t/shirt.Couldn't even get the continuity right. I got the Christian theme,hard to miss it . | 0 |
...then they will have a proper place to file this crap. Sorry, not a "mystery" as claimed, it is religious mumbo-jumbo. I kept waiting for the "unimaginable evil" that was promised me, but the "evil" in this flick would only be unimaginable by a five year old with learning disabilities.<br /><br />I can't believe that they actually managed to find some bigger name actors willing to be involved in this embarrassment. Unfortunately it has forevermore changed my opinion of them, and I will likely avoid anything they do in the future. I'm also a little cheesed off that I now have a writer's name and director's name to memorize as I'll be avoiding anything they do like the plague from now on too.<br /><br />It's really unfortunate that all the religious fanatics posting on here and saying that this movie is 10 out of 10, etc. will get their reviews posted first. This could lead to more people getting tricked, as I was, into believing this movie was something other than religious preaching.<br /><br />Well, it's off to the video store to get my money back for false advertising. Too bad they can't give me back the 105 minutes I wasted watching this thinking that it was actually a Hollywood horror/supernatural film. | 0 |
I have nothing against religious movies. Religious people need something to watch on a Saturday night, I guess. But what really ticks me off is when the write-up on the DVD box does not indicate this fact to the potential viewer. Passing off religious propaganda as entertainment is NOT cool, bro.<br /><br />And even if I was a religious person, I would have to agree with most of the other posters here, this movie was a mess. Poorly directed, poorly acted, poorly edited, and the attempt at a soundtrack was hilarious. The fake accents were terrible, the characters were mainly stereotypes, and continuity was out the window. The only reason we sat through this lame waste of time was that it was too late to watch another movie instead. Should have just gone to bed.<br /><br />Absolutely no redeeming qualities to this movie, unless you are the religious type who will immediately endorse anything that will preach your beliefs to the unbelievers, even if it's a pile of garbage. If you aren't, avoid this at all costs. Do not be deceived by the box write-up. | 0 |
I believe in keeping religion out of government and out of the movies. When I want a sermon, I'll go to church, but I don't want one from a movie. I don't mind some supernatural themes, (after all, religion is about as supernatural as you can get!) but this movie had so much preaching in it that I was really annoyed. The landlady reminded me of witches that of seen in other movies. The bad guy even looked like he had horns. <br /><br />And what a silly ending: the hero went into the meeting and yelled at all of those old men, and that broke the spell. If only life were that simple. I think that when movies are that stupid, they ought to be distributed with a warning: DANGER! PREACHING CONTAINED HEREIN! | 0 |
Things I learned from "The List".<br /><br />A decent cinematographer, a hot girl who can act and Malcom McDowell couldn't stop this movie from sucking.<br /><br />Blockbuster won't give you your money back.<br /><br />Even when he reads the script and says "Ugh! Really?!", Malcom McDowell still tries.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington desperately needs acting classes.<br /><br />Hire a writer.<br /><br />Jesus hates me too and punished me by making me pay $ 5.50 to see this movie.<br /><br />When making a movie, you don't need an ending. Just leave everything unexplained, unresolved an uninteresting enough so that the audience falls asleep BEFORE the ending. Genius.<br /><br />Any random landlord can cure death just by drawing a cross on a window. So make friends.<br /><br />Your maid can sing you back to life.<br /><br />Chuck Carrington still needs acting classes.<br /><br />Your roommate will hate you and make fun of you if you bring home this movie.<br /><br />Apologies will not be accepted. | 0 |
The deceptive cover, title and very small hidden print of Power of Prayer tricked me into renting this movie.<br /><br />It started out really well and pulled me in. I REALLY liked it. Between 1/3 and 3/4's of it, the film started throwing in things that were not set up and made no sense. My first thought was, "This is not written by someone who knows how to tell a story." I ended up re-watching parts of the movie, thinking I had missed something.<br /><br />By the time I reached the last 1/5 of the movie, it was all BORING, ANNOYING, RELIGION THUMPING DIALOG that made no sense, said nothing, and was annoying to listen to; I turned off the sound and did a fast forward to the end.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this flick.<br /><br />Beware of DVDs labeled Whitlow Films and Level Path Productions.<br /><br />And I'm a practicing Catholic. | 0 |
After stopping by the movie store to find something to watch, we stumbled on this. It looked appealing from the summary, at least, so we gave it a try. And here's the kicker: the first 20 minutes are interesting! It's actually enjoyable! Oh, wait, spoke too soon.<br /><br />Somewhere in there, the movie took a disgusting turn into fundamental, right-wing Christian brain-washing. Not entirely sure what happens, but I think the screenplay writer found God somewhere in there, finished writing this script, and had no time to edit it because he had a KKK meeting to get to with his friends from the Westboro Church and his hood wasn't clean.<br /><br />Can they put warnings on this? I refuse to support this religious idiocy. Much like video games have rating systems, movies need some sort of symbol: maybe a small cross in the bottom corner to show us that a movie is going to take a turn for the worse.<br /><br />Unless you share sentiments with whatever moron came up with this story, and will have your Bible open in your lap while you watch this and plan on how you'll convert your neighbors, don't waste your time. It's some of the worst junk that's come out in a very long time, and the radical religious nuts don't need anymore funding. | 0 |
This film is a portrait of the half-spastic teenage boy Benjamin who has to visit a boarding school because of his lousy marks in Math. He didn't make the best experiences in life before and got serious self-esteem issues. After a rough start at his new school, he starts making friends, falls in love with a girl and does some American Pieish teenage stuff.<br /><br />Beside some comedy elements, the film is told in a very serious way, focussing on Benjamin and his problems.<br /><br />If you already don't like this story outline, save your time and watch something else. If you do, please be aware of the following:<br /><br />1) Benjamin is a total loser. Whatever he does, he does it terribly wrong and then he goes for self-pity all the time. For me he wasn't that kind of "charming loser" who you can feel sympathy for and laugh with. Instead he and his behavior really annoyed me and with my own teenage years not so far behind I could barely stand watching.<br /><br />2) The film hardly tries to be realistic and the story seems to be but from my experience the characters just aren't (except for Janosch maybe). And yes, I know this film is based on an auto-biography written by a 17-year old - but having some experiences with German schools and German youth myself, I don't believe him.<br /><br />3) Showing the sexual awakening really is an important thing for a film with this subject. But I doubt that teenage boys do an "Ejaculate on the cookie"-contest where everyone has to hit a cookie with his sperm during mass-masturbation in the woods and the loser has to eat the sperm-wet cookie afterwards. Although it kinda amused me in a contemptible way, it's nor funny neither underlining the serious attempts of this film.<br /><br />4) There's a sub-plot about Benjamin's family and his father betraying his wife - still, I don't know why it's there and where to put it. It just bored me.<br /><br />Well, I personally hated this film for having the character of Benjamin, being without a message, concept, scheme, whatever and it's failing attempts to be dramatic and serious. However, I can image that some people may find it sensible and touching. If you liked "The Other Sister" you'll probably like this one, too. I hated both.<br /><br />17-year old boys shouldn't write an autobiography and if they do, it doesn't seem to be the best idea to make a film out of it.<br /><br />2 out of 10. | 0 |
Animal Farm (1954) was a very good read about the dangers of totalitarianism. How good ideals can be changed and distorted by those who are ignorant or rule with an iron fist and an empty head. Sadly this movie does not portray either of these. What we're shown is a propaganda piece with a lot of finger waving and pointing. The animation and the direction were good considering the budget and the time period but the very essence of George Orwell's novel is sorely missing.<br /><br />If you're one of those who want to see how not to adapt a novel or are just interested in seeing an adaptation of this brilliant novelette then by all means watch. I just found this one to be somewhat mediocre. Just one man's opinion however.<br /><br />The remake is a notch below but not by much. | 0 |
First off, I have to say that I loved the book Animal Farm. I read it with my 9th grade class, and it was great. We also decided that watching the movie would be beneficial. The movie was so disappointing to me. The movie cuts out some characters, and misses a lot of the main points of the book. It skips around a lot, and doesn't explain anything in detail. If someone was watching this movie without having first read the book, they would be confused. The most disappointing thing in this movie to me, was the ending. The ending in the book was the most powerful, and in the movie, they changed it! It was supposed to be the pigs and men in an alliance and sort of "melting" together, but instead, the movie made it seem like the animals were going to rebel against the pigs. To sum up, I don't think that this movie captured the real meaning that Orwell portrayed in his book. | 0 |
I am a big fan of the original book and this adaption is simply bad. First of all, it had trouble deciding if it is a kiddie toon or an adult one, that caused a strange mix of an adult story and some pretty violent scenes with a silly little duck that keeps giving "funny" moments in the beginning.<br /><br />But that's hardly important, the film is simply boring, unmoving and not true to the original story. It simply fails to transfer to the picture all the points Orwell tried to make to his book.<br /><br />{SPOILER}<br /><br />Second revolution?!! Haven't they guys learned anything?? Who be the next Napoleon then? Benjamin?!! | 0 |
The makers of this film have created a future where not only is abortion and birth control illegal in every state,but women are prosecuted for murder and sent away to serve long prison sentences.In other words,this film is every liberals worst nightmare!The political agenda is so heavy-handed here and the style of the film is so low-key that it just loses steam pretty quickly.Regardless of which side of the fence you're on,I'd recommend skipping it. | 0 |
At a panel discussion that I attended after viewing this film, the filmmakers stated that one should look at this not as a movie but a provoker of thought. Well, the only thoughts that were provoked from me were of the time wasted watching the movie. The gimmicks of the film (documentary style, futuristic setting) served as distractions of what was supposed to be a thoughtful examination of the abortion debate. This film illustrates the problem when people try to use film as a platform for their political views - usually a very boring movie that preaches to the choir. | 0 |
I've seen many of Guy Maddin's films, and liked most of them, but this one literally gave me a headache. John Gurdebeke's editing is way too frenetic, and, apart from a tour-de-force sequence showing a line of heads snapping to look at one object, does nothing but interfere with the actors' ability to communicate with the audience.<br /><br />Another thing I disliked about this film was that it seemed more brutal than Maddin's earlier works--though his films have always had dark elements, his sympathy for the characters gave the movies an overriding feeling of humanity. This one seemed more like harshness for harshness' sake.<br /><br />As I'm required to add more lines of text before IMDb will accept my review, I will mention that the actor playing "Guy Maddin" does manage to ape his facial expressions pretty well. | 0 |
Okay, I've tried and I've tried, but I STILL DON'T GET this Guy Maddin thing. Tales From the Gimli Hospital left me cold, that movie about the Austrian villagers and the one about the Ice Nymph were pretty to look but lacking in the story department...and this nudie movie about abortion and hockey is just boring. I'm glad Maddin has an appreciation for silent film, but I dislike his films for the same reason I dislike the films of Quentin Tarantino: they're empty homages to better, more imaginative films--films that advanced the art form or broke new ground--and are all style and no substance. No amount of jump cuts and odd camera angles can disguise the fact that Maddin is an unoriginal David Lynch wannabe, though he DOES have one advantage over Tarantino: he generally doesn't write embarrassing dialogue, because most of his films rely on intertitles. The bottom line is, Maddin's schtick is clever clever film-making for aspiring film majors. | 0 |
'The Hills Eyes II', one of the most pointless and blatantly stupid sequels to come around in some time, is 90 minutes of incompetent film making at its finest. Or worst, however you choose to look at it. While 2006's 'Hills' remake was one of the year's best, and truly frightening, horror films, this sequel takes every spark out of what made that such an accomplishment. Part 2 never gets off the ground, and neither does its mind numbing dialogue. Worst of all, it's not that scary.<br /><br />2006's remake followed a family who find themselves in the middle of the New Mexico desert, deserted, and one by one being picked off by deranged and sadistic hill people. People who, as a result of the military testing the atomic bomb on their land years ago, have become who they are. Surviving off travelers who wander into the region. The sequel puts audiences in the same desert, now occupied by the military as they covertly investigate the hills and what might have happened to that poor family. When a group of military trainees are brought to the campsite, they find it deserted with no signs of life. A grim reality soon befalls them, as they come to the realization that they're not alone. And the bloody fate that was handed to many before them will soon become their destiny.<br /><br />It doesn't take a genius to realize that 'Hills' has no legitimate reason to exist. But because last year's remake was received well both at the box office and by critics, it came to no surprise that a sequel would be rushed into production while there's still money to be earned. There's no rhyme or reason to it this time around, just an unbelievable and ridiculous set-up to pave the way for thoughtless characters, unoriginal killings, a non-existent story, and slipping interest. Originally, director Alexander Aja made Craven's cult classic into a remake that was a unique and thoroughly disturbing experience. One that gruesomely crossed the line on more than one occasions. Its frank display of violence, sadistic torture, well-rounded characterization, and white-knuckled suspense were all effectively used to shock and repulse audiences. The second time around, it's rehashed hand-me-downs. There's no style, no grit. It tries to build up tension by dismembering bodies, when all it really does is make for a been there, done that kind film, where even the gore seems tame compared to more recent bloodbaths.<br /><br />It's a sad state of affairs when deformed mutants who capture women for breeding purposes fails to keep your attention. It's a bore, nothing more. 'Hills' has no bite. Despite a jump or two here and there, there's nothing very scary about this by-the-numbers horror flick. It feels like something you'd see on the Sci-Fi channel, only with some F-bombs, a blood splatter here and there, a rape, and a graphic birth scene that's more gross than shocking. It's cheap. And with 'Hills', you reap what you sew. With no effort given, you can't expect anything in return.<br /><br />Replacing Aja with Martin Weisz as director was the film's first big mistake, all he does is drain the film of any sort of emotional resonance. But even more shocking is the uncharacteristically bad script penned by Wes Craven and his son, Jonathan Craven. You ask, how bad could it possibly be? This is the kind of dialogue that makes any comparison look like Shakespeare. Craven has had his fair share of clunkers in the past, but I'd never expect something like this from him. It's so unintentionally funny, you have to wonder, is Craven playing a joke on this? Or did he dump this one on his son after the studio payed him off? The film's characters are one-dimensional talking heads with no emotions or common sense. The acting is just as bad. The only character who may win you over is 'Napoleon' Napoli, the scrawny kid who doesn't fit in with the others. Even the deranged and instinct-driven villains, who we might have found some favor with in the deepest of our thoughts a year ago, are met with indifferent. You don't hate them, you don't like them. You honestly couldn't care less. Just like this movie.<br /><br />Even if you were giddy with fear during 'The Hills Have Eyes', as I was, you'll have a tough time finding anything to enjoy in this piece of garbage. It's as generic as generic gets, and there's absolutely nothing here we haven't seen done many times already. I can't express this enough, avoid 'The Hills Have Eyes II' like the plague. It's frightless, unoriginal, frantic, and a bore. Stick to the remake or Craven's original vision. Because if you don't walk out after the first thirty minutes, don't say I didn't warn you. | 0 |
Last year's remake of 'The Hills Have Eyes' was one of the better attempts to update the vaguely exploitational horror flicks of the 1970s for a new audience. Alexandre Aja allowed for an admirable degree of character development and when the violence started it was mean and savage and all carried out in a landscape of impeccable photography and production design. I was one of the few people who actually thought that it was better than the original and looked forward to a second visit to the particularly dark and cruel world of the savage desert mutants.<br /><br />'The Hills have Eyes 2', released just a year after the original, seems a rushed and ill-conceived attempt to cash in on the franchise with little thought to quality. Jonathan Craven's screenplay could have been written in a weekend, and given the speed with which this movie made it into cinemas, probably was. It falls back on every hackneyed genre cliché in the book while offering absolutely nothing new to the desert mutant mythology. I always let out a groan of disappointment when a sequel replaces civilian characters with the military. Soldiers are always so lazily written and never fail to thoroughly bore with crude caricatures of strutting macho bullshit. In my mind, 'Aliens' was the only movie to successfully make such a transition, due to James Cameron's talent, not simply for directing the best action sequences around, but never forgetting that an audience has to care about the people being butchered. He was also ably assisted by some genuinely talented actors. With 'The Hills have Eyes 2', it's clear that video director Martin Weisz is no James Cameron, and the cast of television bit-parters haven't the talent or even the inclination to turn their cardboard cutout characters into anything approaching living, breathing human beings.<br /><br />Needless to say, every character is a broad and generic cliché. They act in dumb and illogical ways, making dumb and illogical decisions that lead them to predictably dumb and illogical deaths. The latter half of the movie becomes just another tedious chased-through-dark-corridors scenario. 'The Descent' (on which Sam McCurdy, coincidentally, also worked as cinematography) proved that even this most derivative of sequences can still be carried out with genuine originality and suspense, but we see no such innovation here.<br /><br />'The Hills Have Eyes 2' is just a very lazy movie, devoid of any suspense, tension, or surprise, with not a single individual involved remotely interested in producing anything of quality. It's a tame and tired excuse for a sequel and deserves to spend the rest of its life in a Blockbuster's bargain bin. | 0 |
The Hills Have Eyes II is what you would expect it to be and nothing more. Of course it's not going to be an Oscar nominated film, it's just pure entertainment which you can just lose yourself in for 90 minutes.<br /><br />The plot is basically about a group of National Guard trainees who find themselves battling against the notorious mutated hillbillies on their last day of training in the desert. It's just them fighting back throughout the whole film, which includes a lot of violence (which is basically the whole film) as blood and guts are constantly flying around throughout the whole thing, and also yet another graphic rape scene which is pointlessly thrown in to shock the audience.<br /><br />I'd give the Hills Have Eyes II 4 out of 10 for pure entertainment, and that only. Although even then I found myself looking at my watch more and more as the film went on, as it began to drag due to the fact it continued to try and shock the audience with graphic gore and the occasional jump scene just to make sure the audience stays awake. The Hills Have Eyes II is just decent entertainment, something to pass time if you're bored, and nothing else.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
THHE2 is entertaining in that you'll laugh a lot and cringe and probably say "oh sh*t!" and "get your face away from the goddamn hole you dumb**s" or things along those lines but I don't know if its really worth seeing- I was very annoyed throughout the entirety with the horrible military characters who don't seem to know the first thing about combat.<br /><br />Yes there was more violence, gore, and a higher body count than the first one but I am still am debating whether that cancels out my feeling throughout the whole movie about how ridiculous it is (and not a good ridiculousness like Dead Alive or Feast). My time would have been better spent watching Aja's remake for the 5th time.<br /><br />So go for some laughs, or go for some gore, but don't go hoping to come out of it satisfied. | 0 |
Okay, let's not get confused here. If this is a sequel to a remake of an original horror classic, does that mean it also automatically is a remake of the original horror classic's sequel? Here's to hoping that's not a general rule, as Wes Craven's own sequel to the original "The Hills have Eyes" released somewhere during the mid-80's is easily one of the worst and absolute most redundant horror movies ever made. Part two didn't have an actual plot and re-used footage of the original only to further exploit the success of the genuinely gritty and petrifying premise. Craven also wanted us to believe even dogs suffer from flashbacks and painful memories, as the loyal German Shepard of the Carter family re-experienced his bloody fight with one of the mountain hillbillies. There were quite a bit of alarming signs indicating us that this sequel would be a horrendous failure as well. The remake came out barely one year ago and here's the sequel already? The incredible speed of its release righteously causes you to question the quality of the script. Don't they need a little more time if they want to come up with a film that should be scary, menacing and disturbing? With his excellent film, Alexandre Aja nearly single-handedly altered the general opinion about horror remakes, as he had the courage and intellect of changing essential elements in the plot and adding more nauseating gore than anyone could ever had hoped for. Also, Aja is quite a talented young director and made himself noticed with his French instant cult classic "High Tension", but who is this new director? Aja's "The Hills Have Eyes" was an unexpected hit, appreciated by both experienced and older generations of horror fans as well as the younger and over-enthusiast target groups. It's a really good film and, even though an avalanche of new sequels and clones will be inevitable, it's highly unlikely that one of them will ever equal the surprising quality level of Aja's smashing hit. Bearing all this in mind, plus a rather large dose of personal skepticism, I must admit this rushed sequel really isn't as awful as anticipated. The screenplay is routine and clichéd horror fodder, introducing a fairly large number of characters with few or even no backbone and tastelessly depicting how they get slaughtered by traditionally repulsive-looking freaks. After the events of the first film, the US army has set up a camp in the middle of the New Mexican desert to investigate the effects of the nuclear tests, which took place there in the 50's and 60's. For the horribly mutated survivors of the miner's community that stayed there during the radioactive testing, the scientists and researchers form a tasty starter until the main course of incompetent soldiers arrives by truck. They are just supposed to drop off food and supplies but encounter their ultimate military training exercise when faced with the relentless humanoids that live inside the remainders of the mines.<br /><br />This basically is just another by-the-numbers slasher with dumb characters who are, even after losing several of their friends already, still stupid enough to separate themselves from the group and act like easy targets to kill. It's also very easy to point out which ones will make it out of this adventure alive, especially when one of the soldiers is against all types of violence and another one continuously stares at video images of her cute 3-year-old son. "The Hills Have Eyes II" completely lacks as to be expected originality, logic and plausible situations. The mutated miners aren't nearly as menacing as their colleagues in part one, mainly because they aren't organized this time and only just behave like drooling and sex-hungry prototype monsters. Since you don't care for the amateur G.I. Joe "heroes" and definitely don't feel any sympathy for the eyes in the hills, this film is a whole lot less compelling and involving than last year's original. Most peculiarly, this second film isn't nearly as violent and gory as the first! Sequels usually compensate the lack of suspense and the absence of surprise-twists with extra bloodshed and more graphic killing sequences, but the action in this sequel is really tame compared to the sick footage featuring in its predecessor. There are a handful of scenes to satisfy the bloodthirsty horror fanatics mainly showing soldiers falling down cliffs or getting shot by their own guns but there sadly aren't any outrageous pick-axe battles or virulent dog attacks. What a shame! What's the point of a sequel if it even fails to surpass the level of grossness and/or gratuitous filth of the original? Luckily enough the film is never boring or unnecessarily sentimental, and you'll have the most fun spotting all the things that don't make the slightest bit of sense! For example, wallets falling out of people's bloodied heads, women without any muscle power cast as tough-ass soldiers and my personal favorite assigning the ONE soldier with a speaking disability to operate the radio communications. | 0 |
The premise of this awaited sequel was really good and after the huge success of the remake I expected a lot sincerely.<br /><br />The sad truth is that this movie is really absurd and inept. The situations are dumb and beyond reason and the acting is truly awful.<br /><br />This time there aren't likable characters or violins unlike the remake. Also, the gore is not that abundant and when it happens it's truly bad.<br /><br />The violence is minimal and it's a shame because there are many arguments that make you think that there's room for heavy violence. I mean, there's a SWAT team that is hunting a family of cannibal mutants. You surely expect something different! When I watched it on the movies I wanted my money back.<br /><br />Anyways this is a clear example of how rushed out movies turn out to be a mess and demonstrate poor quality on all aspects.<br /><br />A mess that let down the fans of the remake like me. That's why sequels are never welcomed; at least this movie isn't as terrible as the 1985 sequel to the original. | 0 |
Martin Weisz, who directed the solid "Rohtenburg", will be taking the heat, with Wes Craven, for another shabby "The Hills Have Eyes 2". The memory of the legendary original, which boasted an unbelievable storyline and a dog having a flashback, will be erased forever by this more technically polished remake (in name only). A bunch of National Guardsmen (and women) are sent to a desert research area surrounded by hills filled with mutants. One by one the weekend soldiers are picked off. That's it. There is some hardcore violence and a reasonably brutal rape scene, but there is precious little else to get excited about. The film's "heroes" are the usual bunch of clichés and the mutants, a far cry from Craven's original "family", mostly resemble Brian Thompson from "Cobra" coupled with some creatures Stan Winston had left over from the "Wrong Turn" shoot. Much of the action takes place in caves, ala "The Descent", and is well shot by Sam McCurdy. A laughable aspect is Wes and Jonathan Craven's addition of a sympathetic mutant who skulks around his cave like Leatherface in Hooper's original "Chainsaw". Weisz will be blamed for this dull debacle, but he's not really at fault because he does his best to maintain suspense and squeeze some freshness out of the contrived situations. Not a fan, unfortunately. | 0 |
My God. This movie was awful. I can't complain about it too much. I went to see it just to be grossed out. It did suffice, sort of. It's funny that the most disgusting part of the movie was in the very, very beginning where the woman is extremely vividly forced to give birth to a horribly mutated baby.<br /><br />I also think that it's funny that the most notable actor in the movie was the Hispanic soldier, who was a supporting actor in Next Friday. Everyone in the movie did a horrible acting job. It was some of the worst acting I've ever paid to see. <br /><br />I also expected that it would be much more gruesome than the first one. It wasn't. I expected it to be more gruesome because it's a sequel and horror movie sequels are usually much less successful than their predecessors. I expected it to be more gruesome since gore and violence usually sell a horror movie these days (Grudge 2, Saw 3, Jeepers Creepers 1 & 2, Dead Silence), but It actually wasn't nearly as gruesome as the first one, which was yet another disappointment. <br /><br />The mutants in the first one were kind of disturbing but the filmmakers were trying so hard in this one to make them creepy that they were absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />I also hated the entire concept of showing the clip of the female soldier's son on her camera-phone saying "I love you, mommy" FOUR TIMES. It was stupid to show it in the first place because they were just trying to make us feel worse for the vulnerable mother than the rest of the soldiers, and it was even more stupid to keep trying to make us feel even WORSE for her by showing it three more times for no reason. This movie was a joke. | 0 |
I appreciate the need to hire unknowns for these kind of 'horror' movies, but they should at least hire some proper actors. The sergeant especially is guilty of using his monotone to bulldozer every single line he has. But let's face it, the lines aren't really important. There isn't really a recognisable plot, so most of the writing involves the words f**k, s**t, m*****f****r and other assorted bad language in place of proper dialogue.<br /><br />The 'story' as it is, is mostly made up of seemingly random gore and death, with a couple of cringe-worthy 'surprises', which happen around 10 minutes after you see exactly what's going to happen. Not only this, but there are several glaring plot holes and continuity errors (Why are they going in there? Didn't he have a weapon? Wasn't he dead?), so it makes the whole film seem as if it has been cut down by the several hours it would take to fix them.<br /><br />Another film which simply relies on blood and gore instead of any real cinematic experience. | 0 |
Isn't anyone else tired of that old cliché' where a nearly dead person shows up in a horror film, gives us some informations, and then blasts his head off for no apparent reason? I know I am.<br /><br />The sad thing is that it's use in this film is worthless. If you have seen the first film (the first remake I should say) then the information given is completely worthless, because you would have already known it. I guess, you can that it isn't worthless to the main characters..but then why does the idiot shoot himself in the head? Wouldn't he want to live? Sure, he would have died anyway..<br /><br />This is the second film to be titled "The Hills Have Eyes II." The first being the sequel to the original 70's film. This is where it gets a little complicated for someone like me. See, I'm probably part of minority of people my age that even knew there was a HHE2 to begin with, much less an original HHE1. And now that we have a sequel to a remake and the fact that this sequel is named exactly as the sequel to the original HHE1...it just makes it worse! But anyways..<br /><br />Wes Craven's original Hills Have Eyes was decent. In the end, though, the idea was better than the presentation, but he most likely had a low budget. To be quite honest, Wes Craven isn't that good of a horror director. He's only made a few good horror movies (Nightmare on Elm St., New Nightmare), a few alright ones (Scream) and a bunch of horrible ones (Cursed, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn). Oh yeah, and he made Swamp Thing, as well...but the original HHE2 falls under the latter category. I've only seen a few minutes, but it was terrible.<br /><br />Now he has co-written the new HHE2..and it's such a disappointment! Last year's HHE remake was even better than the original film. It was tense. I guess it had to do with the fact that the main characters were a family, and not a bunch of beer and pot and sex crazy teenagers. It made us feel dirty. For the first hour, we were in hell, and finally in the last few moments, the good guys got revenge on the bad guys and it felt good..<br /><br />This new film has no tension. No suspense whatsoever. Just violent things happening to mostly stupid people. There is hardly any menacing presence here. Just ugly hobos hiding under rocks.<br /><br />I'm getting tired of horror movies where people die because of the stupid mistakes they keep making. It was just the other day that I watching "Deep Blue Sea" where Samuel L. Jackson kept on walking around the water, while giving the speech, and then he gets eaten by a shark, only because the idiot stayed to close to the water..something that nobody would do in the given situation! Here is the exact same thing. People go off by themselves to take a leak even though they know people are dying..seriously, couldn't a potty break wait? And then when you think people would have learned, someone else goes of by themselves! Seriously, isn't more scary when the characters are bringing their A-game and still losing? I would think so...<br /><br />It even under delivers. It should have made the first remake look like "The Fog" remake (which was less menacing than an episode of "Becker"). More bad guys. More time in the caves. More tension. More of everything.<br /><br />But it actually downgrades. Less bad guys. No tension. Sure we have more time in the caves, but not a whole lot happens there. In the end, it only seems like there is two or three bad guys. The last film made it seem like a whole tribe of people. Where is this tribe? Who keeps on watching them through binoculars? Seriously, these are the things this film should have brought us, but it ends with the exact same promise that the last film gave us, with that exact same "being watched" scene. Come on! I'll give the devil it's due. The look of the film is good..but thats it.<br /><br />I don't even think fans of gore will like this..though I'm probably wrong! There is gore (though most of it is sped-up while in the dark), but without the tension, and characters you even care about..the gore does nothing in my book! In the end, you're not frightened. You;re not shocked (unless you're an 8 year old girl). You don't even feel like you have seen anything new. | 0 |
This movie pretty much sucked. I'm in the Army and the soldiers depicted in this movie are horrible. If your in the Military and you see this movie you'll laugh and be upset the entire movie because of the way they acted as a squad. It was ridiculous. They acted like a bunch of normal people with Army uniforms on not knowing what to do. It was a pretty gory movie I'd have to say the least. There was a couple scenes where they try to make you jump. I'd recommend seeing it if you are bored and want to see a violent, gory movie. It will be a better movie also if your not in the Military. I also would have to say I liked the first one better than this one. | 0 |
I couldn't believe my eyes once I've watched this movie. There's no point in it either then blood and violence. Unlike other scary movies that had gore and a meaning to it this movie is just blood, gore, and killing one after another. This movie isn't interesting at all, has no meaningful plot or story line, nor does it have an intelligence in it. The blood looks very fake and this movie overall, is pointless. Don't even waste your time with it. It's just an hour or two of mindless violence. It has many bloody scenes that aren't scary but just plain revolting. This is probably the worst horror film I have ever watched out of all the horror films I ever saw. | 0 |
wow this is the worst movie ever. the only reason i signed up for IMDb was so i could complain about this movie. i have never walked out of a theater or stoped a DVD but i almost stopped this one (and i should have). but i watched it all the way to the end just to get let down again with an absolutely terrible ending. wow if this is all that wes craven can produce his time is long up. I've never seen the first one and will never after watching this. its terrible acting with a terrible plot. hey looks someone is shinning a mirror at us lets go check it out. and the sad part is that when this movie came to DVD it was completely checked out at blockbuster forever. so i feel bad for all the people that saw this junk. | 0 |
No plot, crappy acting, and pointless gore....<br /><br />This is supposed to be a horror movie? There's no fear, or suspense, just BOOM BANG GORE, then done. Some kinda Marines are in the desert for some weird, crappy reason and they get hunted down by those mutated beasts from the first movie, which was good, and should have been left it at that.<br /><br />This is just another excuse for money, and use of pointless violence, just like the "Saw" sequels. They know no matter how pointless the plot is, and the more gore they can add, people will see it. I miss good suspenseful horror movies. Come on Hollywood, you can do much, much better. | 0 |
I'm no horror movie buff, but my wife's nieces and nephews are. So, I saw the first movie. It was gruesome, and tense, but not my taste. Still good though. For similar reasons, at this very moment, I am being exposed to a sequel.<br /><br />The premise itself is beyond absurd. I can buy that disasters occur in the desert. I can buy that mutants exists. I can even buy that the events might be so weird and strange that the military may decide to get involved. It is unlikely, yes, but I'm willing to suspend my belief.<br /><br />HOWEVER, under no circumstances am I willing to believe that the military squad assigned to recon such an area would be unable to fend off the mutants. Being a member of the United States Army, I can assure that while fresh recruits may lack the seasoned eyes and experience of combat soldiers, any such recruits would be integrated into a capable squad.<br /><br />A squad of armed soldiers is not about to be taken out by a few mutants with knives. That's just the way it works. Squad movements, vastly superior firepower, and of course, radio support, would ensure nothing less than total victory. I'm not saying you wouldn't have casualties, but as soon as the area was verified as hostile, military training would take precedence, no-one would go off on their own even to use the bathroom.<br /><br />And if it were discovered that the area was so infested with hostiles that the squad was unable to handle the danger, they would radio in for backup. And believe me, their radios would not be jammed, if there was a chance that normal radios would not do, the squad would have a military issue satellite phone. Chances are, if they were unable to check in every hour, a search would be called.<br /><br />In order to accept this movie, you must accept that our soldiers are incompetent fools, with incompetent leaders, and an incompetent chain of command. While it may still be true that the most dangerous thing in the world is a lieutenant with a map and compass, our military forces are filled with intelligent, well-trained, competent soldiers. Mutants with knives are far below our ability to deal with.<br /><br />With the whole execution of the movie depending solidly on the impossible to imagine, the film fails to deliver. Instead, we are expected to believe that our soldiers, sailors, and airmen are incapable of dealing with even the most mediocre threats.<br /><br />As a combat veteran, I find the movie insulting. | 0 |
As has been stated countless times, "The Hills Have Eyes 2" is NOT a remake of the (generally disregarded) mid-'80s sequel to Wes Craven's 1977 original. But wishing to give this postmodern sequel-to-a-remake the official stamp of Diminishing Returns, Craven himself (a double threat alongside his son, Jonathan) has decided to pen a film that is of the same quality--in plain English, HORRIBLE. Former music-video director Martin Weisz takes the reins from Alexandre Aja, and is clearly in way over his head--yet one wonders how anyone could have created a watchable film from the Cravens' Screen writing 101 scrawl. Not only are the characters (in this case, a gang of goofball National Guards(wo)men sent to investigate the turbulent hills of the original remake) completely obnoxious and prone to really annoying genre pitfalls (played without a lick of irony, mind you), but they are constantly cracking jokes that aren't funny. After viewing their total ineptitude during a training exercise, their fate against the repulsive, roaming cannibals is painfully obvious. Only this time out--as in the original '80s sequel--the script is so simplistic (barely existent, actually) that any potential subtext is jettisoned in favor of upping the ante in repulsive shocks (we're treated to a combo childbirth-murder during the opening credits, plus a gratuitous rape for those who haven't ejected the DVD by the midpoint!). Even the mutants in this outing are personality-free freaks of no memorable stature--the tacky, rubbery-looking makeup FX seems, like the rest of the film, to be trying to hide its face from embarrassment. I really groaned at the lame 'surprise' at the end of Aja's otherwise excellent film, and the producers quite literally go for broke at the end of "Hills 2," setting the stage--VERY lamely setting the stage--for a third installment...yet the Cravens and Weisz have created a film that is such a cynical bastardization of what made the 1977/2006 versions work that they'd be hard-pressed to find an audience after this insulting slap in the face. | 0 |
Alexandre Aja's remake of The Hills Have Eyes was one of the bright spots of 2006. Not only was it a remake of a classic horror film, but it was pretty damned good too. So, nearly a year later, we are being treated to the sequel to that remake. While original scripter Wes Craven is back as producer and co scripted, this film just fails to rise to the level set by the original and the remake. A group of military trainees stop by in the desert to check in on some scientists and find themselves run afoul of the mutant family from the first film (at least those that remain plus some new ones). There's plenty of gore to be had here. What annoys me about this film is the utter lack of characterization. The viewer does not give a damn about what happens to any of these people because we haven't gotten into them. Even the mutants had some characterization last time out and this time, nothing. Gore for the sake of gore is pointless. There has to be a reason for this to happen for it to be interesting. Nothing that happens here is interesting. And what is it lately with rape scenes in films? Here we get yet another one for no real reason. Hopefully this is one set of hills that won't be visited again. | 0 |
The film picks up after last years remake with the military setting up electronic surveillance equipment in the desert where the attacks in the first film happened. The crew is killed not long before a group of soldiers on a training exercise show up to find no one around. You can fill in the rest.<br /><br />This is a paycheck picture all around. There seems to be no passion in anyone's performances, nor in anyone behind the camera. This is a movie that was made for the money and nothing else. On some level this should have worked, it could have been a more horrific Southern Comfort (where National Guardsmen run afoul of some people in the swamps), but instead its not much of anything. In large part you can blame the script, written unbelievably in part by Wes Craven, which hits the same old targets again and again. Add to the mess the fact that the direction is dull and the set up of sequences is so lack luster as to remove any inherent tension in any scene.<br /><br />Its not bad as such, but badly made and dull. Let me put my feelings into context: The reason I saw this film was because a local multiplex screwed up and ran this film instead of the kids flick the Last Mimzy and I wanted to see what caused the out cry(I mean the films have so much in common-he says sarcastically). I'm convinced that this film will only scare those who like the last Mimzy. | 0 |
this movie was just plain dumb i do not think it was scary at all i went in hoping to be shocked and scared but was mostly laughing some of the scenes were just to fake and thrown together blood scenes were extremely over cg and some of the mutants were ridiculously gay looking it also sucked because the acting was just plain horrible u think they could get some good actors and most of the characters i hated just because how stupid and lame they acted even though they were supposed to be in the military i get to watch movies for free and seen many people walking out im guessing because it was so dumb kinda glad i didn't have to pay for it in short DUMB ASS MOVIE don't see it...but then again thats my opinion | 0 |
Just recently, I've been obsessing over and anticipating this movie so much that I almost had to see it. Well, having just seen it today, the 5.8 rating is completely understandable. I think that if you anticipate something so much that it becomes a dire need, it turns out not to be worth it. <br /><br />Sure, The Hills Have Eyes 2 has its moments. It has a very cool and well-developed storyline that ties in well with the actual product itself, but the whole thing is so self-indulged that it becomes so hard to follow. And if it weren't for Wes Craven's production on this film, it wouldn't be anything to do with The original remake. <br /><br />But the whole thing makes you go "Is this supposed to be horror or COMEDY?" because there are lots of ridiculous, randomly placed jump moments and stupid one liners (I.E. "There's a hand in the sh**er!" or "You motherfu**er! I'll kill you all damn sons of b**tches!") and the acting (God don't even remind me how bad it was.<br /><br />STORYLINE: (this part contains spoilers, beware!) The movie begins with a woman giving birth to a mutant baby (ooh la la!), and then the screen fades to black with the movie's title appearing, and a monologue. Then we go to this office where there are randomly placed war veteran mannequins. We find that this is for this one scientist keeping track of people looking for mutants. The box to keep track of audio feeds is gone, and everyone dies! After that tone-setting opening, you'd expect more.<br /><br />Then, we go to this one team of military recruits training in Baghdad. As the captain parades them "A good job at stupidity", their last day of training is in New Mexico, the desert where the family in the last THHE had stayed because they were stuck. While in training, things go ultimately wrong, people die, and... do I need to tell you any more? Because right now I have the attention span of a goldfish just forcing myself to sit here and type this.<br /><br />The thing that's wrong with THHE2 is that it just dosen't work. No flashbacks here, and the ending is pretty safe... but with a twist! A stupid one, that is. I'm pretty sure the Ultra Super Director's Cut with a holographic cover and a ticket to The Hills Have Eyes 3 will showcase all of it's alternate endings, but at this point, I'm not sure if I care. <br /><br />So by all means, if you loved the first THHE so much it's almost a sin not to see this, then by all means, see it. But if else, then, Avoid at all costs. It's for your own good.<br /><br />3/10 | 0 |
You know, I went to see "The Hills have eyes 2" wanting to like it. I really enjoyed the original, and the remake was fairly entertaining. They obviously had more money to throw around than Wes Craven did on special effects the second time around. Even though I still prefer the original film, the remake was done well, and it was kind of a guilty pleasure for me. Bloody, intense, and great special effects. In short, a great popcorn movie for any horror fan.<br /><br />Which brings us to "The Hills have eyes 2". Man, where do I start? The plot, or lack of one, is paper thin. We are not exactly breaking new ground here.The military has decided to monitor the area, and all of these people turn up missing. So what do we do now? Let's send in the National Guard to investigate. In true Hollywood fashion we need to make them the dumbest, and worst soldiers ever seen. Gee, I've never seen that premise before. To make a long story short, you have the mutants killing off the moron soldiers one at a time in graphic fashion. Once again the special effects by Nicotero are great, but the kills no matter how graphic become boring, and predictable. Honestly it seemed to me that this flick was done just to grab a quick buck. It was bloody, and graphic, but I found it predictable, boring, and not scary at all. For me it would have been nice if this film contained one original thought.Wes Craven and his son shared the writing duties, and he has been involved with many of my favorite horror films, but sadly this isn't one of them. | 0 |
THHE remake was a superior movie remake in every way. Most remakes end up being total garbage but under the very talented direction of Alexandre Aja became one of the best ever made in terms of remakes and also as far as the mutant inbreed human sub-genre of horror is concerned. In steps part 2 directed by another individual Martin Weisz and written by the father and son combo of Jonathan and Wes "I cannot make a good horror movie to save my life anymore" Craven and if this is any indication of Weisz directing skills and young Craven's writing skills we are all in for a painful future as THHE 2 not only fails to be as good as the first but also fails to entertain on ANY level.<br /><br />We start off with a fairly graphic mutant baby birth which though is rather cool will not prepare you for the utter garbage that is to come, only hint to what could have been in this film. We then get to see a crew of scientists who all to briefly are introduced and dispatched by our radiated rejects. In steps our main cast of army reservist to save the day, this is where the major problems begin.<br /><br />From very sub par acting (yes even for this kind of movie) to the horrible characters to the lack of true carnage for most of its running time THHE 2 becomes a labor to watch as a lot of nothing happens as idiotic soldiers make mistake after mistake only to meet there demise not by the mutants but themselves. Think the Marines in Aliens only the exact opposite and you have the idea of how well these soldiers are trained. This is the true shame of the film as most of the Hills occupants do not get the kills you would like to see, like in the first film, in fact if this did not have THHE 2 attachment in the beginning and the brief overview in the beginning tying this loosely to the first this could have nearly been a Sci-Fi Channel original.<br /><br />The Mutant Mountainbillies as well are not as amusing this time around in fact in a lot of way they are far inferior to our prior batch as they all come off as being rather under designed and uninteresting. Also the one that took the cake was the Sloth-like Mutant (you know Sloth from the Goonies) who helps them out in the 3rd act. I was waiting for him to ask for a Baby Ruth or start going on about Rocky Road Ice Cream. Truly disappointing and shameful is the only way to describe most of the goings on here.<br /><br />The gore is in the film but not nearly as visceral as the original in fact it seemed toned down for the most part as other than the mutant baby birth scene there really isn't anything that stood out like in the first. Another major strike against this movie. So what did work here, the answer is nothing at all. This felt like a sequel designed specifically to make money off the success of the first and not to make an actually "good" film.<br /><br />I can go on about the crappy Drill SGT., the radio man that has a speech impediment (that's right, he is the kind of guy I want radioing in for help in a real crisis) or the pacifist fighter that resembles the exact same character mold as our "hero" in the first film but I believe you get the point. This movie is not even in the same league or even the same planet as the first. It should have been given another title and been added to the Saturday Night Line up on The Sci-Fi Channel. A true shame as a solid sequel could have been made but alas it looks like another horror movie that drops the ball on nearly every level and will get one of my lowest scores as I give THHE 2 the same score as its part: 2/10 Dreadful: Words cannot describe how bad this movie is a total polar opposite of its predecessor in every way, uninspired and down-right unnecessary. Next time guys if your going to make a sequel this bad...don't even bother. Please don't go support this garbage at the theaters, save your money and thank me later!!!! | 0 |
No one goes to a movie like The Hills Have Eyes 2 and expects the second coming of Citizen Kane. The same is true for the majority of low-rent horror flicks, especially those Roger Ebert has dubbed "Dead Teenager Movies." The Hills Have Eyes 2 definitely qualifies as a Dead Teenager Movie, only here, the teenagers have been given the superficial appearance of military trainees.<br /><br />Some will argue the line "it's only a movie" when questionable facts are raised in a movie review, but I've always been a firm believer that all good fantasy must be rooted in reality in order to be effective. In the Hills Have Eyes 2, we're to believe the main characters are military people on a training exercise, but they look and talk like high school kids camping in the desert. The dialog is awful and frequently vulgar to excess. Though the films aren't nearly comparable, I kept imagining these "soldiers" being in Platoon, and shuddering with dread.<br /><br />Very little about the characters evokes a soldier other than rifles and fatigues: radio transmissions are carried out like teenage phone conversations; a Colonel is addresses as "hey, asshole" by a Private. And nobody seems to have the slightest idea what to do, or any sense of command structure, when things begin to go wrong. I think of the soldiers in James Cameron's Aliens, a film of pure fantasy, and how even those futuristic Marines behaved like real soldiers despite their fantastic situations. Fantasy rooted in reality.<br /><br />I try to begin watching a movie as a 5 on a scale of 10, and judge it's strengths and weaknesses from there. You have to allow concessions for the material; there's no way Star Wars is as good of a movie as The Godfather, on equal terms. But both are excellent examples of their type.<br /><br />In that respect, while the Hills Have Eyes 2 is a pretty dreadful exercise in amateur and immature writing, it's only modestly worse in that regard than the typical Dead Teenager Movie. On a technical side, the movie appears to have decent production values and is pretty well made from that perspective. Scenes that are intended to shock, or which are intended to evoke urgency or suspense generally work. So, while watching The Hills Have Eyes 2 may indeed be a fate worse than death, there are certainly far worse horror flicks in circulation.<br /><br />It's worth a watch for those who enjoy this type of stuff without the usual fanboy baggage, or those who don't tend towards thinking every movie they see is either the Best Ever or the Worst Ever of all time. If you don't "get" horror, especially the Dead Teenager variety, you're not likely to have a good time with this one.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
This is a weak sequel: it lacks the interest and light touch of the magnificent "Man Called Horse" in nearly every aspect and when compared to each other they hardly seem to be the same genre.<br /><br />The Return is almost a parody of the first and tries to evoke different Indian ceremonies but comes across as trying way too hard to bottle the magic of the first. In this film the tribe is lost and abandoned, having lost their homelands, modern life has encroached on paradise and they are living in abject misery and poverty. Perhaps this is the point: the first film took us to a place where we would want to be, a simpler time. This takes us to broken Indians in a miserable world and the White Man is the hero and savior which rather negates the whole idea of the film.<br /><br />The beauty of the first lay in the fact that the white man learnt and discovered that real civilization lies in values rather than western materialism. In the second film this is all but lacking and so we end up with a weak film.<br /><br />A huge disappointment. | 0 |
Caught this by accident on a t.v. showing - and could hardly believe how utterly awful the whole experience was. By comparison, the original "A Man Called Horse" was spell-binding because it held one's interest throughout. But this piece of nonsense - words fail me. It was bad enough to have some kind of a "story" presented with all the impact of a wet loaf of bread, but that error was compounded by the obvious lack of subtitles throughout whenever the so-called "Sioux" spoke. For goodness sake, couldn't the film-makers have found enough North American Indians who were also actors and near-actors to perform as "Indians" in this farrago instead of the imposters they actually used? I also found it quite embarrassing watching Richard Harris cavorting all around the countryside at the obvious behest of the director standing just behind camera, telling him to run and jump from pointless Point A to pointless Point B just to make up film footage and minutes. Absolutely terrible in all respects! | 0 |
I thoroughly enjoyed A Man Called Horse when it was released in 1970, but Return played like a typical sequel. Everything about it -- budget, script, plot, casting, and acting -- was inferior to the original. Gale Sondergaard as Elk Woman, an elder of the Yellow Hand tribe, looks nothing like an Indian, and neither do half of the other "Indians," who were played by Italians, Mexicans, and Latinos with cheap wigs. And the old guy who played the chief acted more like a fat old squaw than a fierce leader of warriors. He even used the bow like a woman! Finally, Richard Harris, who did such a superb job in the original, seems to be coasting this time around. I guess he couldn't resist the easy paycheck he got for reprising his role as Horse.<br /><br />To be fair, there are some interesting moments in the movie, such as Horse's undergoing a painful purification ritual to "find his vision" and rally the Yellow Hands against their Indian enemies and white oppressors, but on the whole, Return is uneven, boring, corny, and predictable -- just like most sequels. | 0 |
This movie is told through the eyes of a young teacher at a catholic school, watching as the RAWANDAN genocide un-furls around him.<br /><br />The movie starts off with a brief explanation about the past history and rivalry of Rawanda. Then it jumps to the story as told through the eyes of a young idealistic "NEW-COMER" a young teacher who doesn't take life or the situation too seriously. As he and the driver approach a road-block he plays around with his drivers I.D. not realizing that this is a serious moment and that if the driver can't identify himself as being of the right tribe to the soldiers they'll be killed. And thats how he treats the unfolding story of chaos and unfolding around him. Suddenly realizes that every Rawandan (including his driver) is involved and that the Europeans soldiers and tourists cannot and will not help. The media cameras cannot stop machete's, and there's too many machete wielding militia-men too shoot. the title comes from the armies captain saying he's going to shoot the dogs eating the dead-bodies around his compound, but won't shoot the Militia-men that are killing people around the compound. Mainly because they haven't fired at the soldiers yet. Finally he realizes the hopelessness of the situation and the guy who tells the evacuation team that he wants to give up his seat for one of the intended victims, flees with his tail in-between his legs, rather than face immanent death with the school kids he's promised not to leave behind.<br /><br />It's more of character study, and a come to Jesus moment for one character, than a story about the genocide in "RAWANDA". This movie didn't have to take place in RAWANDA, it could have taken place any one of the Genocidal hell holes going around this world at any given time. | 0 |
Serge Farnel made a very precise critics of this film in the revue "The Rwandese night" (www.lanuitrwandaise.net)<br /><br />A critics which shows how France was behind all the situation undergone by the United Nations in Rwanda.<br /><br />The UN soldiers were in a dangerous situation while the french soldiers were warmly welcomed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />The day before, ten UN soldiers had been killed by the genocide forces.<br /><br />That is why the UN soldiers decided to protect their own lives by driving behind the french trucks.<br /><br />By doing so, they gave up the Tutsi which is unforgivable of course.<br /><br />But we must keep in mind that the french soldiers organized this situation. | 0 |
This film was basically Velvet Goldmine if the writers of party of five got a hold of it and made it a t.v. movie. The film lacks what Velvet Goldmine had which was good acting, writing, and basically everything else. The film had some of the worst writing I've seen since Wild Wild West. It definitely needed to be interesting. I know vh 1 has become a household name for their behind the music shows. which are a lot better than all this which would have worked if it was a behind the music episode but didn't and feel flat on it's face. | 0 |
The majority of Stephen King's short stories are little gems, with original ideas that don't take a long time to develop; basically lean and mean--he sets them up quickly in a scarce number of pages, you read 'em, and you're finished before you know you've begun. They're like the equivalent of a carton of McDonald's fries--they taste Really good and you know there's not much nutritional value in them (re: from a literary standpoint, they don't say much about the universal human condition), but you're still gonna scarf 'em down, just don't be a pig and go for the extra-super-sized portion and fill up on too much grease ("too much grease" is a metaphor for the prose in King's novels when find yourself reading one of them and saying come on--enough with the pop-cultural observations or clever Yankee asides--get on with the story already!) He has compiled four books of short story collections. I've read them all--from NightShift to the latest, Everything's Eventual, and they all display an efficiency of getting-to-the-point which is sometimes sorely lacking in his tome-sized novels.<br /><br />But his short stories never overstay their welcome...which brings us to the TV adaptations of Nightmares And Dreamscapes...<br /><br />How in the hell did they (the series' producers) get a green-light to turn stories that usually averaged 15 pages into 50 minute episodes? I'll tell you how--two words--"Stephen King." Stories with his name on them probably didn't come cheap, and one hour shows enable more advertising than half hour ones, so...what should have been an anthology of mostly 23 or 24 minute episodes is turned into double that length, and double the commercial time...Ka-Ching!<br /><br />I'm not going to waste time synopsizing the plots of these stories--this review supposes you have already read the stories and/or seen the show; what follows is merely my gut reactions to what TNT presented... Of the four installments so far, here's my ten cent assessment (from first to worst): <br /><br />Battleground-- Not a classic by any means, but hey, how could anyone argue with keeping William Hurt from opening his trap by filming this episode without a single line of dialog? And the tongue-in-cheek reference and destruction of the killer Zuni doll from Trilogy Of Terror proved to me the producers (and the writer of the teleplay, who is Richard Matheson's son--the writer of TOT) knew their mission with this one was to make the action deadly, yet at the same time, fun. It took longer to get to Hurt's apartment than it should have, but I think it fulfilled it's objective. 8/10<br /><br />Umney's Last Case-- Liked this one primarily because of William H. Macy's performance. I think the writer/Umney should have appeared in the story sooner into the private eye/Umney beginning because he was the actual reality of the story, and anyone familiar with the King short story (probably half, if not more of the audience) knew the Chandleresque set-up was due to get interrupted by the writer's reality, so let's get on with it already, and cut-out the cute and clever hard-boiled repartee' Private Dick banter already. Once the writer/Umney's family tragedy began to reveal though, I thought the show developed an emotional connection that made the viewer (me, at least), feel sympathy for the real-life Macy's attempt to escape his sorrows by usurping his fictional creation's exciting life. 6/10 <br /><br />The End Of The Whole Mess-- Uh, this title is how I felt about this episode when it was over. After twenty minutes, I was ready to scream at the TV--OK, we get it already, the younger brother is a Mega Mensa Genius Prodigy Extraordinaire! We know from Ron Livingston talking to the camera ("time is running out for me"--not fast enough, I thought) that the young whiz kid is going to discover something really bad for humanity--we know this because he's already built an airplane but almost died because he couldn't steer it out of the path of a tree; and, he blew up his chemistry lab while teaching himself chemistry (to think the end of the world could have been prevented if only this kid had some more parental supervision). So much time was wasted on establishing the uber-genius of Henry Thomas, when we finally get to the resolution of his discovery--the end of the world through unintended idiocy--how much do we get to see of the world "ending?"--a cheap video shot of a reporter starting to forget what she's reporting on, and brief radio broadcasts announcing the day of judgement is at hand. Oh, and the brother's parents drooling and singing old songs. My point is, if your story is really about the "end of the whole mess (world)", I wanna see the "mess" as it goes up in flames and crashes and burns. Talk about ending with a whimper, indeed. 2/10 <br /><br />Crouch End-- This episode just ticked me off totally. I could have lived with the taking-forever exposition of the happy couple arriving at their hotel, playing slap-and-tickle, having lunch, and getting a taxi (that was half the episode right there), if once they finally crossed-over into Crouch End the episode delivered the chills, but it failed miserabley. Not only wasn't it scary, it was practically laughable. Ooh, look--a kitty...wait, it turns...oh my god! Look at it's scary eye! Uh-huh. They could have gone a long way towards filming the Crouch End sequence at night instead of in daylight, too. Things you might unintentionally find funny can become scarier when you see them in the night shadows. But I guess the budget wasn't high enough to shoot at night on the fake London sets they slapped together for this one. On the page, this is a very scary story about tourists wandering into places they shouldn't and the terrible things that might lurk just around a corner there. The only terror in this adaptation was the directing and acting--those were truly horrifying. 1/10 <br /><br />Overall Series Average (so far): 4/10 | 0 |
The first episode set the bar quite high i thought. It starred William Hurt as a hit-man who is contracted to kill a toymaker. We are given very little information on his character or who is paying him to kill, indeed the episode is notable for having no dialogue at all. Returning to his modernist penthouse he is delivered a package containing toy soldiers, this gives him a smile but he dismisses it and goes about his business. But he is in for a night of hell, the soldiers are alive and are about to wage war, driving jeeps, shooting machine guns and bazookas and even flying helicopters!. The special effects are good for a TV show and it becomes quite tense as he dodges around the apartment using his wits to survive, sometimes getting the upper hand and other times not. I wont spoil the ending but suffice to say it was a clever little twist. This gave me hope for the rest of the series but i was in for a disappointment, the other episodes were all rubbish and i lost interest by the fourth one. Stephen King adaptations are always a mixed bag and these are no exception | 0 |
Man, I really wanted to like these shows. I am starving for some good television and I applaud TNT for providing these "opportunites". But, sadly, I am in the minority I guess when it comes to the Cinematic Stephen King. As brilliant as King's writing is, the irony is that it simply doesn't translate well to the screen, big or small. With few exceptions (very few), the King experience cannot be filmed with the same impact that the stories have when read. Many people would disagree with this, but I'm sure that in their heart of hearts they have to admit that the best filmed King story is but a pale memory of the one they read. The reason is simple. The average King story takes place in the mind-scape of the characters in the story. He gives us glimpses of their inner thoughts, their emotions and their sometimes fractured or unreal points of view. In short, King takes the reader places where you can't put a Panavision camera. As an audience watching the filmed King, we're left with less than half the information than the reader has access to. It's not too far a stretch to claim that One becomes a character in a King story they read, whereas One is limited to petty voyeurism of that same character when filmed. For as long as King writes, Hollywood will try shooting everything that comes out of his word processor, without any regard to whether or not they should. I don't blame the filmmakers for trying, but it takes an incredible amount of talent and circumspection to pull off the elusive Stephen King adaptation that works. The task is akin to turning lead into gold, or some arcane Zen mastery. Oh well, better luck next time. | 0 |
i usually don't write reviews but i can't understand why this is rated so high and wanted to give a warning to horror lovers since i can only assume that all those high ratings were given by average TV watchers.<br /><br />i have only watched the first two episodes but those two were so cliché, it wasn't even funny any more. the same old stories you've probably seen/read a couple of times already - living toys, evil things from other dimensions... and it's not just that these stories aren't innovative, they are also pretty bad versions of those clichés. i'd prefer e.g. "chucky" and "silent hill" over those two episodes anytime. and don't even ask about the visual effects... the ones in the first episode are alright but the ones in the second... awful. looks like some film student's project gone wrong. blood... or gore... erm... nothing worth mentioning.<br /><br />it might be interesting for some ten year old kid who probably hasn't seen/read that many scary stories yet (although i'd rather recommend "beyond belief" - now that's what i call a decent mystery TV show). but for an adult horror fan this is worthless. i only gave the 3 points because there is in fact some beautiful cinematography (especially in the second episode) and some nice acting. | 0 |
I just saw the third week of Stephen Kings' Nightmares and Dreamscapes mini series; meaning, I saw 6 episodes so far. I have to say that the stories are really weak. I have read Stephen King's Skeleton Crew, a collection of his short stories that was published way back. I recall most of the stories were average to poor but there was one that was really excellent, if not outstanding.<br /><br />What I'm trying to say is that just because this mini series is from a collection of stories from Stephen King does not mean that it will be any good. In fact, if his previous collection of short stories are of any indication, then most of this mini series will be average to poor.<br /><br />In Stephen King's defense, I have not read these new short stories. Perhaps they are good as stories in a book and not readily adaptable to television, or perhaps it was the fault of the scriptwriters in trying to write an interesting script. Who knows. Also, these short stories may have been made exclusively for this mini series and not not for print purpose. Maybe that may have been the problem. If Stephen King had submitted these crap stories to an editor, I am sure the editor would have immediately told him to make it more interesting because as is, it is simply boring.<br /><br />What is clear from all of this is that the problem is with the stories/script and not the actors and actresses because this mini series has some excellent people acting on it.<br /><br />Seeing this mini series really makes me appreciate those old "Twilight Zone" series. Each series was only half an hour but it was compelling and riveting. I don't understand why this mini series could not accomplish similar feat. I am sure this mini series had a good deal of money to make a good mini series but unfortunately, something must not have clicked.<br /><br />For instance, this week there were two episodes shown. The first involved a horror story writer who buys a picture drawn by an artist who committed suicide. The writer begins to see changes in the picture as he is driving homeward. Feeling uncomfortable, he throws away the painting but it keeps appearing near him. Also, the portrait of an individual in that picture is killing people and is out to kill him. (I will not even mention the second episode for this week involving criminals and their loot because it was even more boring than this episode!)<br /><br />This premise is interesting and so the story should be good but after seeing it, I was frustrated because there were too many gaps in the story as well as extraneous materials that was shown that did nothing to help the story. After the last scene, I was left with more questions than answers.<br /><br />I tried for 3 weeks to get into this mini series but it was just too aggravating due to poor stories/script. If this was a movie, I would have recommended that people should wait for the movie to come out on cable or such. I would not even recommend that it be rented in your video store. However, given that this is on TNT, a cable channel, I would say if you have not seen it already, then try it for one week. If you do not like it that week, then you will not like the past series nor the future ones, since they all share the same boring trait. | 0 |
I've barely just made it through one episode ("Crouch End"). The dialog was stilted and down-right cringe worthy. The acting was tragic. Eion Bailey, despite his best attempts to be dramatic, remains mostly expressionless. His eyebrows hint at a recent botox treatment. Claire Forlani could have just as easily been playing the damsel in distress in a silent movie. The characters were cartoons, each playing their stereotypical cog in the plot mostly random, meandering plot. Cheesy special effects can be excused given the TV miniseries budget. But attempts to create suspense and surprise through distracting cinematography added to the unwatchability. I get the feeling that the ending was supposed to be witty and surprising, but it was lame and had little to do with the rest of the story. If I had to compare it's overall quality to something else, I'd put this episode of "Nightmares and Dreamscapes" on par with the NBC's Hercules. | 0 |
With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.<br /><br />Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.<br /><br />Stephen King is simply illiterate in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.<br /><br />True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of "Realism". But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.<br /><br />Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.<br /><br />At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.<br /><br />Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.<br /><br />What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting well, they can't actually hear him, you know he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.<br /><br />Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.<br /><br />Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.<br /><br />But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.<br /><br />In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.<br /><br />And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.<br /><br />Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.<br /><br />Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show! | 0 |
So far Nightmares and Dreamscapes has been erratic and disappointing. The first segment, directed by Brian Henson, may have offered little in the way of groundbreaking storytelling or real scares, but at least it was well-directed, suspenseful, and visually interesting, with solid acting by William Hurt and very impressive special effects for a mini-series.<br /><br />However, the second story in the series was just dreadful, and not in the good way. The screenplay is bad, requiring the shallow, unlikable protagonists to act illogically in order to move the plot, and having characters ramble on endlessly for the purposes of clunky, unnecessary exposition. The acting is overdone and unconvincing, and I felt far more empathy for a cold-blooded killer in the first story than for the newlywed couple in the second. The director used a million tricks to try to make the narrative spooky, but with the amateurish acting and writing, the end result looks like a freshman-year film school project, with camera moves for their own sake, and little in the way of plot or tension.<br /><br />If the rest of the series continues like this, I'll be sorely let down. I look forward to William H. Macy's installment, and hope he gets a decent director and screenwriter for his segment. So far the quality is far too inconsistent to predict either way. | 0 |
The beginning of the 90s brought many "quirky" and "off-beat" independent films, a particular sub-genre of which is the semi-spiritual desert crime movie. Others of note are "Wild at Heart", "From Dusk Til Dawn", and to a certain extent "Natural Born Killers". Good films like those spawned junk like "Highway 666", "Destiny Turns on the Radio" and this ineptly surreal anti-masterpiece "Under The Hula Moon". It's a comedy that aims for a certain emotional tone, attains it, but keeps going to the point of irritation. While the pursuit across the spirit-world of the desert and the casting of Chris Penn are good ideas, the film is not dirty enough or hard enough to be a good crime movie, and isn't focused enough on laughs to really be a comedy. I won't blow the ending, but let's just say it's bad. The film is basically a bad side effect of genre-cancer. This is the dregs of indie-mania. | 0 |
Along with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the "hip" quotient. You're better off skipping this one. | 0 |
First, let me just comment on what I liked about the movie. The special effects were fantastic, and very rarely did I feel like I was watching a video game. There, that is the last nice thing I have to say about this film. In fact, I would just like everyone reading this to take note that I can't even put into words how hard it was for me to write this review without swearing. <br /><br />I have innumerable complaints about the film, but four major complaints jump to mind. My first major complaint has to do with the incredible cheesiness of the "plot twist" (if you can call it that since most people probably saw it coming a mile away) where Lois's 5 year-old son turns out to be the super-powered child of Superman. When the crying super-child throws a piano at Lex's henchman to save his mother, I almost got up and left the theater. Singer could have made a much better Superman movie without resorting to cheap gimmicks like a seemingly fragile but latently super-powered illegitimate child. It's been 5 days since I saw the movie and I still want to vomit. <br /><br />My next major complaint has to do with the fact that Superman lifts a continent made out of kryptonite up into outer space. It doesn't take comic book guy from the Simpsons to point out what's wrong with that. I don't know how many comic books Brian Singer has read, but when Superman is exposed to even a small amount of kryptonite he barely has the strength to stay on his feet. Whoever had the idea to have him fly a large island made out of his greatest weakness into space has no business being associated with any Superman-related projects ever again. The concept is as ridiculous as making a Dracula movie where the title character has a stake through his heart and still manages to fly a spaceship made out of garlic into the sun. Why not just have Superman eat kryptonite? He can eat it and then brush his teeth with it, and then go to sleep in kryptonite pajamas. That's not any more absurd then having him hoist a continent of kryptonite into space and then fall powerless through the atmosphere without burning up in re-entry or splattering all over central park when he hits the ground. <br /><br />My third major complaint has to do with the fact that Singer slaps movie-goers across the face with religious symbolism the entire movie. I have to take issue with his characterization of Superman as the only son of a God-like Jor-el sent to Earth to be a savior. Jor-el wasn't all-wise, he was just a scientist. And he didn't send his son to earth to be a savior, he threw him in a rocket and hurriedly fired it into space because his planet was about to explode. I'll buy the Christ allegory if Brian Singer can show me the part in the Bible where God sends Christ to Earth because Heaven was about to explode, and then radioactive pieces of Heaven become Christ's primary weakness. Furthermore, the "crucifixion" scene where Luthor stabs Superman in the side with a kryptonite "spear" just makes me want to slam my face into a brick until I'm too brain-dead to notice the brazenly obvious and inappropriate symbolism that will be tainting the man of steel for the foreseeable future. They might as well rename this movie "Superman Returns: the Passion of the Christ."<br /><br />And speaking of Luthor, my last major complaint has to do with Singer's depiction of Lex Luthor. Lex Luthor is a shrewd, cold-hearted business tycoon who is more apt to run for President (which he does in the comics) than try to destroy the world. The man wants money and power; he wants to be in charge, not wreck everything. Yet the Luthor we see Superman Returns, as well as all the previous Superman movies, is a wacky theatrical dunce who comes up with zany schemes to destroy the world. If Singer had the slightest loyalty to the characters instead of the (quite awful) previous Superman movies, this film might not be such an unbearable travesty. Maybe Singer's next project can be a Batman movie where he focuses on the interpretation of Batman from 1960s TV show. ZAM! WHAP! POW!!<br /><br />To summarize, I don't know what I hate more, the movie itself or the fact that so many people seem to be giving it good reviews. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but if you don't hate this movie then your opinion is wrong. I sincerely encourage anyone who reads this not to see this movie if you haven't already. Don't see it, don't buy it when it comes out on DVD, don't rent it...basically don't contribute any money towards it in any way. This movie does not deserve to make any money. In fact, I think that for every person that sees this movie, Bryan Singer should be fined 45 billion dollars. If you're a Superman fan and you really want to see this movie, just bend over and have someone kick you in the balls and you'll get the same experience without having to waste 2 hours of your time. | 0 |
Special effects? Good.<br /><br />Script? Terrible. No plot. No depth. No meaning. This film rendered Superman as a meaningless hero, a hero with no archetype. In the original film, he represented America in the Cold War. Here, he represented nothing but a Hulk.<br /><br />Sure, the actors were fine. Kevin Spacey was a fine choice, among others.<br /><br />This still does not resolve the problem that this film had no depth whatsoever. I cannot see how anyone can come away with anything meaningful from this film, when Superman was, and is, daily created to be a meaningful hero in not only comics but also in people's minds. This was a real waste of money considering how many directions this film could have taken.<br /><br />Just a few instances: Lex Luthor could have been a villain of global corporatism, political domination, totalitarianism, and on and on and on. He was just another goofball Hackman incarnation.<br /><br />And Superman? For what did he stand in this film? Nothing but another hack "savior" figure.<br /><br />Wait until it comes to the dollar theater if you see it at all. | 0 |
I guess this movie is a fitting tribute to the first Superman film,as it is just as crummy and painfully long as the original.<br /><br />After an opening scene consisting solely of murky intergalactic visuals, the credits pay homage to the even-crummy-looking-for-their-time futuristic sweeping credits of the original Superman film.<br /><br />Then there is some more murky stuff. Ma Kent sees some kind of murky ruckus on the farm, and spends a good portion of my life slowly walking up to some debris in the cornfield. Then Superman sneaks up on her and faints.<br /><br />Next we catch up with Lex Luthor in a scene about many murky close-ups of an old lady as she dies. We don't see Luthor's face until the end of the scene, an early instance of the film's drive to leave no hackneyed stone unturned. Lex Luthor is a guy who doesn't like Superman because he is not human. Also, he probably doesn't like humans either, as the movie occasionally features some kind of plot about Lex Luthor planning to kill most of Earth's population.<br /><br />After a while, Clark Kent shows up back at his old job (I forgot to mention, he had been away on a five year trip where nothing happened). Then he finds out Lois Lane has an illegitimate kid and is dating Cyclops. It upsets him so much that he loses control of his super strength to such an extent that he accidentally breaks a picture frame.<br /><br />At this point we see that Miss Lane is on some kind of jet attached to some kind of space shuttle. It is some kind of important event on account of it is on television. Then we learn that there are people in a control room monitoring this event. There are also people watching it on television and there are pilots in the cockpit. The film then reminds us that these people are involved by cutting between them for most of the summer.<br /><br />As the events leading up to the inevitable disaster started to build, I excused myself to get a soda. I accidentally walked back into the wrong theater and watched that movie about Al Gore showing slides in its entirety. I tried to find my way back to Superman Returns, but I somehow wandered into Prairie Home Companion, which I watched twice in a row. Then it was time to stop messing around.<br /><br />I walked back into the first theater, found my seat, and looked up to see that the impending Lois Lane space shuttle disaster was almost upon us. Still, it seemed to be taking forever, so I wandered around the theater, met a girl, got married, raised a son and sent him off to college. While attending my son's medical school graduation, I remembered that I should probably check in on Superman Returns, so I excused myself and raced back to the theater only to learn there was no need to hurry. It still took about another half hour before things went wrong for Space Shuttle Lane. When they did, Superman saved everybody, which was pretty cool.<br /><br />. And then there is a a subplot where Superman turns really creepy and starts stalking Lois Lane and her family with his x-ray vision and super-hearing. Then he tries to get her to cheat on Cyclops, who seems like a good guy.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Lex Luthor is involved in some kind of contest to display every possible generic villain behavior before the end of the movie. I forgot to bring my scorecard home with me (they give you one at the door), but I think he scored damn close to one hundred percent. I hope he wins the million dollars.<br /><br />At this point, things start to gear up for the big murky finale. I think maybe the projector was broken, on account of the movie seemed to be in some kind of loop for a while here. I remember seeing murky things growing out of the water, Superman getting sick, Superman getting better, back to the murky things, he's sick again, no wait, he's okay again.<br /><br />Then Lex Luthor unleashed his final bad guy move: yelling at his girlfriend a little bit.<br /><br />Then Superman died and came back to life. I thought the movie was over, so I left.<br /><br />Ninety years later, the nursing home where I lived felt a little chilly. I realized I left my sweatshirt back in the theater, and I went to retrieve it. When I did, I was slightly surprised to find that Superman Returns wasn't over yet. I tried to ask some of the viewers what I missed, but most of them were only skeletons with long gray beards by now.<br /><br />I sat back in my old seat and watched as Lois Lane puttered around her house for a while. Then Superman showed up and started quoting the beginning of the movie, and since I already saw that part I thought it was okay to leave.<br /><br />So that is my review of Superman Returns.<br /><br />Oh, also, if you like jokes about people eating dogs or jokes about one dog eating another dog, you will love this movie. On account of there are two jokes like that in it. | 0 |
I saw the movie last night and I really wanted to like it. My expectations for the movie had been going up and down ever since I heard it was being made. Some days I'd see something spectacular and some days I'd be disappointed.<br /><br />Yet being the kind of fan I am, I had high hopes for this movie but in the end I was sorely disappointed.<br /><br />While I love the Richard Donner movies I didn't like their sometimes campy nature or the changes they made to Superman's character and his powers.<br /><br />Singer however chose to take the worst elements of the Donner movies and put them in his version.<br /><br />While his Lex Luthor is slightly darker he's still nothing more than a shyster, a conman and a common criminal. He's no more intelligent than when Gene Hackman played him. Kevin Spacey does his best to play Luthor well but ultimately he falls victim to shoddy writing and unremarkable dialog.<br /><br />His henchmen are more two dimensional than even comic book henchmen. Most of them literally have no dialog in the movie.<br /><br />****SPOILERS AHEAD**** Kitty Kowalski is almost exactly the same character as Ms. Tesmacher. She seems to be as evil and cold as Lex Luthor but she proves to be just an underling who melts after seeing Superman in trouble and quite predictably betrays Luthor.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment in the movie was Frank Langella as Perry White. I wasn't a huge fan of the over the top Perry White in the Donner movies but at least he had a soul. He was after all said and done, a veteran reporter who cared about the truth and a good story. Langella's Perry White is nothing but a corporate stooge. He wants everyone to concentrate on the Superman related stories because they sell papers even though every other paper is doing the same thing. He doesn't care about the real stories, the real mysteries like the black out and what Lex Luthor is up to now that he's out of prison.<br /><br />The worst thing about Langella is that he's DULL! Some actors can be quiet and sober and yet have an undercurrent that lets you know that still waters run deep. Frank Langella is puddle.<br /><br />Brandon Routh is not a bad actor. He's OK but again there is not a single memorable line in the whole movie. Not the actor's fault. His movements are clearly meant to look graceful, like even the slightest movement of his fingers effects the way he flies. But it still looks choreographed and artificial.<br /><br />Lois Lane while badly written was surprisingly well acted by Kate Bosworth. Unfortunately, again, for a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and writer, she is about as eloquent as any teenage on Dawson's Creek.<br /><br />James Marsden was my favorite actor in the whole movie, mostly because he looks more like Superman than even Routh. Without any superpowers he manages to figure out Lois Lane's message, flies a plane to the location, gets on board Luthor's yacht and rescues Lois and her son.<br /><br />The only moving moment in the movie is when they are all trapped pantry as it is flooding with water and the ship is sinking. You see them slowly going being immersed in the water. You know Superman's going to come by at the last moment to rescue them but still you can't help but feel sorry for them.<br /><br />As I said before the plot is very haphazard. Unlike Singer has said, this is not a movie about a superhero returning and trying to find his place in the world. As soon as he returns the world welcomes him back with open arms. Lois is the only one who's not happy to see him back. Even Luthor is happy to have Superman back because it gives him a chance to settle the score with the man of steel.<br /><br />Superman is shown to be probably one of the dumbest heroes in the universe. A big green piece of meteorite is stolen from a museum, Lex Luthor is out of prison, he now has knowledge about Superman's powers and weaknesses, and yet he's still not able to connect the dots enough to know Luthor would be using kryptonite against him.<br /><br />According to the movie the only thing Superman is good for is lifting really, really heavy things. The action sequences are all incredibly predictable. | 0 |
This movie was extremely poorly conceived from every angle except technological. I stood and watched everyone waddle out of the theater, their faces drained like their lives flashed before their eyes -- eyes wandering at their neighbor, wondering if it was just them. I mean, how could the movie really be bad. Nobody'll admit it, it's a classic case of The Emperor Wears No Clothes. "Who am I to question a movie containing a guy who stops a jet liner?" But the fact remains, every member of the audience is thinking what I'm writing right now. I actually plagiarized their faces.<br /><br />Obviously Lois is only aroused by power, she won't even have a cup of coffee with the Superman With Glasses who doesn't stop jet liners. It can't be the look in "his" eyes to the depths of his soul or anything like that. In the old Supermans, she had some level of connection with him, he wasn't priority number 1, obviously, but it strengthened her character that she was "torn". I bet Henry Kissinger would have even won this Lois over before Clark Kent.<br /><br />And now it's official, Kryptonite does to Superman what eating at McDonalds does to the avg. person.<br /><br />SUPERMAN "ONE" He loses his earth dad, then finds his real super dad, the story is captivating every step of the way. He's human, he relates to people and he feels love for people, he relates to highschool students, he relates to people who feel different. He relates. The Superman Returns superman seems to relate only to Superpeople and it seems he's just "doing a job" when he's saving people.<br /><br />There's something about Clark that Lois likes, she's really internally in love with him but can't admit it, and when he comes into the picture as Superman, it throws a kink in the on-the-rocks love. Without Superman, she would've fallen in love with Clark (at least that's what the movie points to, whether it was the intention or not). Superman Returns is a love story between a woman and SUPERMAN, Clark is like a pile of horse maneur to Lois. Literally.<br /><br />SUPERMAN TWO I just watched it again. As a kid, I "thought" I enjoyed the action, but now I know it was the STORY that held me then too, watching it over and over again. If I saw Superman Returns as a child, I would've hated it then too, I think.<br /><br />There is so much heart and soul and superpower going around in this movie, it's sick. Superman gives up his powers for love as a world plot is going on and meanwhile, MEANWHILE, Lex Luther's got something fantastic up his sleeve.<br /><br />SUPERMAN THREE Now there's a three-way love story between Superman and Lana and Clark, only humanity wins and Clark's inner nature beats Superman's power, because when his SUPERmoral nature is gone and he's SuperHUMAN (who does human things with his superpowers), she sees it's not the power of Superman that she's in love with, it's not SUPERpowerman, but SUPERMORTALman that she loves -- and who's really SUPER. And when she tells Clark she "prefers" him to Superman, he is elated, he has made a human connection again. He wants to be accepted for who he is, not just for his ability to bend steel. THIS IS THE KIND OF STUFF THAT'S MISSING FROM SUPERMAN RETURNS.<br /><br />Clark super-sneezes to help the kid get a strike - humanity again. Plus, it's an INERESTING use of superpowers. He's not just using straight brute strength.<br /><br />He crushes the coal into a diamond for his woman because she had to sell hers, love is the only thing that drives him to use his powers other than for saving.<br /><br />It seems there's nothing at stake in Superman Returns. Even in Superman Three, we see the damages caused by the nemesis' world domination plot.. we see suffering, we see how it effects Pryor and others and people in the middle of it.. there's no damage, esp. emotional from Lex's plot to sink the US. We see a glob of crystal thrown into space.. Superman had to get very creative in the first three Supermans in order to stop the plot against him, he couldn't just "access" his superpowers. In the first one, he had to stop two missiles going in different directions and then break his universal mandate and erase history to save Lois' life... (this was THIRTY YEARS AGO!!") In the second one, he had to outsmart three guys that he was already more POWERFUL than, but combined with Lex's genius, and the villains' immoral tactics, Superman's overpowering wasn't enough, he had to work one against the other and outsmart them... In Superman III, again, his superpowers weren't enough to win.. He had to outsmart a computer that calculated everything it saw. He couldn't use straight aggression on the computer because it calculated it in advance, so he had to use a benign acid that would only become deadly to the computer after the computer responded to the aggression. And he found that acid earlier when he couldn't simply use his superpowers to BLOW out a fire because it was a chemical fire, so he had to use his superbrains -- he couldn't carry water, so he froze a lake and dropped it on the fire.. Now in Superman Returns, he simply lunges the island into outerspace, like a night temp for UPS. He doesn't need to figure anything out, he just uses his "super strength". And Lex Luther's brilliance was shown at the premeditation level of a junkie who just ran out of junk.<br /><br />To say nothing of the fact that he threw that island into outerspace after getting stabbed with a KNIFE of kyrptonite right in the bloodstream AND the island itself was dripping kryptonite spores in his face, but he just averted his eyes and nose like it wasn't Grey Poupon he was looking at. | 0 |
This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!<br /><br />I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV ! | 0 |
Did the movie-makers even preview this before they released it? The script jumps from place to place without giving much explanation. The beginning doesn't clarify if its a prequel or not. It starts with Superman's beginnings on Earth and then jumps to a point after the last movie - but doesn't really alert the viewer of this. VERY confusing! Superman himself is weak and in need of Prozac. He is portrayed as a potential home-wrecker, a stalker, and someone who is clearly depressed and confused. This type of character rarely makes for an interesting hero. The ending is absolutely ridiculous. Superman ending up in a hospital just made me want to kill him off myself. I'm seriously waiting for a SNL skit where Superman appears on Maury Povich and Maury says, "The results are in - in the case of the child, Superman, you ARE the father." To sum up - OK acting by this Superman and Kevin Spacey, but HORRIBLE script. The movie is basically unwatchable. | 0 |
or: It's a bird ? It's a plane ? No, look... It's a disaster ! or: No need to look up in the sky.<br /><br />or: (... OK, that's enough.) If singer tried to make a romantic titanic like movie to crash the box office record, he failed. The SR structure can't do this, the dark and restricted color scheme (I would call it "wishi-washi"), the boring usual dialogs, the clown with advanced alien technology, the missing fun and magic, etc. makes the movie completely disappointing.<br /><br />It simply doesn't work.<br /><br />The main thing at a character like superman is, that he is a superhero. That's the core, the most important thing.<br /><br />Love trouble and a sadly lost depressive Supersoftie can maximal only be a facet in a 2:40 long Superman movie, not the whole time.<br /><br />Because then it is not a superman or superhero movie anymore. It's like a (and in this case a very bad and boring) social study, where every 30 minutes a person flies around.<br /><br />That's a big difference.<br /><br />This movie is a joke. Holy skywalker, this is Superman, so give us Supervillains, Superaction and the most important thing, Superfun.<br /><br />We want ENTERTAINMENT ! Singer, if you want to make a 2:40 long soul love trouble drama about lost and sadly people ? Then take normal human characters and make a yentl remake.<br /><br />They say: Superman returns. And then, supersadlysoftie stands in the door.<br /><br />Maybe singer has tried to kill the legend without kryptonite, but one bad movie can't do this. Don't give up, they plan a sequel...<br /><br />Next time singer (and Warner Brothers), make a superhero movie, not a depressive superlame soap, or let it be. A superhero movie means a colorful fantasy with a lot of fun and magic.<br /><br />This movie is like a very cheap chocolate box with a super cover. Yes, technically there are all sorts in, yes, there is a lot of small talks, there are a few jokes, a view action scenes, etc, but the only one what all these worse pieces have in common is their poor quality.<br /><br />It's not more than a super boring patchwork and one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my live.<br /><br />The ridiculous cast strategy (Cast them young as possible, so we can make sequels in the next 25 years) gives the rest. Kate Bosworth plays a 22 year old star reporter, she's looking like 19. Superman was full five years away, so he slept with her 6 years ago, so she was 16, (looking like 13) and a daily planet reporter, wroting "I spend a night with superman". Warner Brothers, that's too much.<br /><br />Routh is not so bad, he is playing a little bit wooden, but the whole movie is wooden, so... ?! Temporary good were marsden and sometimes posey. The rest, forget it. Even spacey, this is not his terrain.<br /><br />Reeve/Hackman/Kidder were acting so easy, with fun. What a difference.<br /><br />The Jesus poses at the end are ridiculous too. What the hell should that be ? The problem here is, they mean this serious, not as a joke. Next time Spiderman or Batman or Ironman falls and rises like Jesus or angels ? Or they speak with god directly. Why not ? They are superheroes, saving human lives every day. So at least one talk with god every week should be possible... Oh my god.<br /><br />Maybe this was not the real announced movie, instead it is from a bizarre dull parallel universe.<br /><br />For the warner brothers this superlame depressive flick will be possibly the greatest disaster in history. Not only because of the money.<br /><br />I understand how difficult it (maybe) was to create and transport some messages or feelings, but showing lone, lost and sadly people isn't new and thousands of movies or TV-Shows did it better, in very old or new ones like magnolia. And the flying frogs there were more impressive than this flying superwoman, sorry, superman of course.<br /><br />Singer and WB, that's simply nothing. In fact it's even more than nothing, it's like a black hole that destroys the passion for (comic/superhero) movies and steals us three hours of our life.<br /><br />Mrs. Smilla's little brother. (Very angry and green like the hulk.) | 0 |
...This would be the worst film i'd ever seen. Hmmm, OK maybe tied with Boogeyman then. Awful, truly awful.<br /><br />I had low expectations and it failed to meet them! I honestly cant think of one good thing. so here are the worst points...<br /><br />1. THE ACTING 2. THE PLOT 3. THE CGI (Xbox 360 has better graphics....seriously) 4. THE PLOT 5. THE DIALOGUE and finally.... 6. THE PLOT <br /><br />There are so many unanswered questions, Did they make a 2:32 hour long movie then realize they hadn't put Lex Luthor and Superman in a scene together and were forced to settle for the 3 minute bit or did they actually think no-one would notice that the main hero and villain have less screen time together than Superman's son and the henchman he kills?!!<br /><br />Was half the budget spent on persuading Kevin Spacey to do it?<br /><br />When Superman goes to hospital, why don't the doctors ask "What the F*** do you want us to do?! He's a F***ing alien! We don't know jack about his anatomy!"? <br /><br />What happened in the 5 years Superman was away to cause technology to advance 28 years? <br /><br />Where the people who wrote good reviews watching the same movie?<br /><br />and finally, Why? Just, Why? <br /><br />BTW, for those of you wondering how come Superman could lift an entire continent of krypyonite, i think i've figured it out...<br /><br />...since superman is unaffected by the kryptonite till he sees something green in the rocks, it is clearly all in his head. therefore the continent thing is just him suppressing his fear of shiny green rock....<br /><br />either that or the writers are slack-jawed half-wits who didn't think that was a fairly obvious mistake. | 0 |
I usually don't walk out of a movie, but halfway thru I did. This movie promised something different, but I kept thinking haven't I seen that before? Spoiler Alert! Back in 1, the spaceship crashes and lands on earth, well, all these years later, with a super adult on board no less, this thing still manages to burn up and crash! What, this advanced civilization can't seem to develop landing gear? For an industry that's so liberal, we get to see another Woody Allen movie, no blacks please! Superman runs around saving people, making sure he sticks to Europe and the US, don't go into darkie areas please. Maybe I could stomach this about 30 years ago, but now now. | 0 |
at the beginning i was happy to know about a new superman movie , i though that will be great but it wasn't.<br /><br />is a bad copy of the Richard Donner work,Lex is again a villain that makes no more else , even played by Kevin spice.<br /><br />the evil plan is the same of the first movie of Donner just a lot forced.<br /><br />the script is predictable and simple (all stuff Luthor finds in a museum or an old lady).<br /><br />the story is the wrong thing , it must be the Kevin Smith Script and may be it could be better.<br /><br />i just hope a sequel without Brian Singer and with a new talent director to do something new and not a copy.<br /><br />all read you later | 0 |
It really doesn't matter that Superman comic books are unbelievably naive and their target is ten year old. What matters is that "Superman Returns" is bad movie. <br /><br />In the beginning,a question for You Dear Readers, how many of You actually believe that Superman will be defeated by bald Kevin Spacey? Anyone? Just as I thought. No spoilers here. So let's get to some major issues right now.<br /><br />Firstly, this movie looks like commercial (scene in the bar with Superman/Clark Kent drinking Budweiser is only scene which looks as it supposed to). Imagine commercial of Superman, two and half hour long. Let's be serious this isn't "Amadeus" or "The Departed". You actually feel, that this movie is way too long. And special effects are not so special by the way.<br /><br />Secondly, scenario is silly. Sometimes even if something is acceptable in comic, in cinema it looks just stupid. And it's like that in this case. Of course dialogs are disgrace. I can't believe somebody took money to write them. How many times we will be fed with villain making speeches? How many times laws of physics will be raped? (Jesus, it's not only the matter of Superman's strength but also a resistance of materials his dealing with.) How many times Lois Lane will be fooled by Kent? How many times Hollywood producers will seek for a story in a trashy comic books? Since there's hard to make a good story, why having a weak story for a starter? It just doesn't work. Guys, get a grip. Try harder, please. Or just stay on this strike forever, who cares. I got the feeling that WGA is permanently on strike. No offense. I'm not questioning the lame money those people are paid, but the quality of the product they deliver. In this case there is no quality at all. (At this point You may ask yourself: is it that bad? Yes it is.)<br /><br />Thirdly, acting is weak, which is quite a surprise since Bryan Singer (Usual Suspects) is directing. Kevin Spacey is having fun, but he's the only one. Audience is rather not in the mood for jokes. Thing is that comic book hero can be developed into real personality, with clear motivations but also with doubts, fears, some depth. In this case nobody did that job, and characters aren't really interesting.<br /><br />Finally, whole effort of creators turns this movie into parody. Second unit is so bad that attracts attention, since there's nothing interesting going on on screen anyway. The harder they try (if they try), the funnier it gets (but it isn't laugh You could expect).<br /><br />Final conclusion? One word: shame. <br /><br />This particular movie, ladies and gents, is camp. Don't waste Your time and don't waste Your money too. Stay home, read a book. | 0 |
As a long-time fan of Superman from the comics, through the 1950s series, the first two of the Chris Reeves films and Lois & Clark, and finally Smallville, I was *really* hoping for something clever with "Superman Returns".<br /><br />Instead we got Lex Luthor making *another* attempt at real-estate conversion, another Superman-beaten-up-while-wearing-kryptonite sequence, and internal inconsistencies: he couldn't stop himself falling into the ocean when stuck with 6" of kryptonite, but when Lois breaks off 3" of it, *leaving the rest embedded in him*, he can lift *a continent* into space?? Really, the only hero in the story was Lois' partner - I can't remember his name off-hand. He did all kinds of life-saving, heroic things with nothing but guts and skill - no superpowers, no invulnerability...just a normal human.<br /><br />They keep making Superman so small. Why can't we have Superman battling Brainiac or fighting to save the universe from General Zod instead of Lex's petty schemes. Oh, I forgot...they're doing that in Smallville.<br /><br />Yeah...I think I'll stick to Smallville...<br /><br />You probably should, too... | 0 |
After a long period in the space, looking for the remains of planet Krypton, Superman (Brandon Routh) returns to Earth. He misses Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth), who got married and has a son with Richard White (James Marsden). Meanwhile, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) plots an evil plan, using crystals he stole from the Fortress of Solitude, to create a new land and submerge the USA.<br /><br />After so many delightful movies of Superman with the unforgettable Christopher Reeve, or TV shows like "Lois and Clark" (and Teri Hatcher) or "Smallville", a great expectation was created for the return of Superman in this Bryan Singer's version. Unfortunately, the awful story is too long and boring, with many unnecessary parts, lack of emotion and overrated in IMDb. In addition, the romance between Lois Lane and Superman is something shamefully ridiculous. The twenty-two years old actress Kate Bosworth is wrongly miscast, playing the role of a mature reporter and experienced mother of a five years old boy. Brandon Routh is two years younger than Tom Welling, who plays a teenager Clark Kent in "Smallville". The character of Parker Posey, Kitty Kowalski, is actually a silly caricature. Last but not the least and in spite of being a terrific Lex Luthor, Kevin Spacey is forty-five years old, therefore older and older than the rest of the lead cast. The corny conclusion looks like a soap opera and is terrible. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Superman Returns" | 0 |
In my eyes this is almost the perfect example of Hollywood ego, only beaten by the new king kong movie. Superman is the original super hero and deserves to be treated with respect even though he wears tights. Brandon Routh was the worst superman I've ever seen, from the start of the movie u just wanna shove a chunk of kryptonite down his throat. He looks just silly wearing the costume. But enough about him, Kate Bosworth was a bad choise for lois lane, she is supposed to be a hard ass reporter, but in this movie she looks more like a schoolgirl. The plot was weak and predictable (WOW, He is actually supermans son, who would have ever thought....) and the acting was horrible. This movie has one good thing going for it, and it's name is Kevin Spacey. His portrayal of Lex Luthor was brilliant but even he could not save this movie. What this movie needed was the cast of "lois and clark" (except Kevin Spacey of course) and a different story. I watched this movie after watching "the hills have eyes" and I was chocked to learn that there existed worse movies then that. | 0 |
In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.<br /><br />Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.<br /><br />I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.<br /><br />Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life! | 0 |
Here's how you do it: Believe in God and repent for your sins. Then things should turn around within the next day or so. <br /><br />Until the last fifteen minutes, this movie just plays as a bad recap of a drunk's crappy life. His mom dies. His stepmom's a b_tch. His dad dies. He drinks. He gets married. He has kids. He drinks some more. His wife gets mad. He disappoints his kids. The wife threatens to leave. He calls up a reverend late night b/c he wants to kill himself. Then after the recap happens, that's when we get the "Left Behind"-like subtle message.<br /><br />"He needed a paycheck". This is the phrase I had to repeat over and over once credits started to roll so I wouldn't lose my respect for Madsen.<br /><br />Madsen drops to his knees and begs Christ's forgiveness. Once he does, he walks outside and actually says that he sees the world in a different way. He tells his wife that he's found God and that's good enough for her. Flip scene four months and the wife is tired of going to church. End the movie as Madsen walks by the bar and gives a soliloquy about how happy he is with Christ and without alcohol. Final moment? He gives a little dismissive wave to the bar (i.e. sin house) and give a gay, Miami-Vice, after-school special congratulatory jump in the air as the camera freeze-frames. See why I had to repeat the phrase? "He needed a paycheck".<br /><br />Man this movie is bad. The B-Grade 80's production values don't help much. The script could have easily been a "Touched By An Angel" episode. It could have been knocked out in 30 minutes plus commercials. The acting is wooden and never believable. Even Madsen, of whom I'm a big fan and is the sole reason I sat through this, makes it clear that this is his first acting job and he doesn't know his a$$ from his elbow yet on camera. 45 minutes into it I started to get discouraged. This thing was like homework. I just wanted to put it away and say that alright, I saw half of it. That's good enough. But no. If I sat through Cheerleader Ninjas, I could sit throughout this.<br /><br />The only reason I'm not giving this thing a 1 is for two points: 1) I love Madsen. I know it's not fair. But it's great seeing the opening title "Introducing Michael Madsen". Sue me. 2) Some of the Dialogue is so bad that it's classic. I'll stick some quotes at the end of this so you can enjoy them too.<br /><br />That's about it. To wrap it up ,this thing is a piece of crap that should stay flushed with the rest of the turds. But hey! Look! Michael Madsen! (See also TILT, EXECUTIVE TARGET, MY BOSS'S DAUGHTER, etc). Now I've gotta rewatch Reservoir Dogs and watch Madsen torture a cop to get my respect back for him. See ya, Kids.<br /><br />"This stuff's gonna make me go blind, but I'm gonna drink it anyway" - Madsen's first taste of cheap alcohol<br /><br />"I don't understand! Everything seems so beautiful!" - Madsen walking outside after confessing to God<br /><br />"I'm going downtown later and pick up a bible and I'm gonna get a haircut too" - Madsen after converting at the dinner table, because Satan lives in your hair | 0 |
Against All Hope is a very poorly made, sometimes painfully so, movie. This is Michael Madsen's first movie, and it shows, he isn't that good in it. Some people might find the story laughable; an alcoholic realizes his life and family are falling apart so he calls a preacher as a last resort for help. After telling the preacher his story, he accepts Jesus Christ into his heart. <br /><br />I actually found many of the religious scenes, as when Cecil Moe (Madsen) goes to a church but walks away from it, pretty realistic. I also liked how Cecil knows his life is breaking apart and tries to get help, but realizes only God can help him. At the end he realizes with the help of God he can go through life without drinking again.<br /><br />This movie is not well made at all. The acting is bad, the script could use some work, and looks worse than my home videos, but it has a good message. Now, just because you become a Christian doesn't mean you will automatically be able to stop an addiction or heal your broken family, and Cecil realizes this and works hard to stay on track. Overall, if your a Christian you will appreciate how this movie portrays Christianity and if you aren't, you may find yourself being called to find out more about the faith. | 0 |
Definitely an odd debut for Michael Madsen. Madsen plays Cecil Moe, an alcoholic family man whose life is crumbling all around him. Cecil grabs a phone book, looks up the name of a preacher, and calls him in the middle of the night. He goes to the preacher's home and discusses his problems. The preacher teaches Cecil to respect the word of God and have Jesus in his heart. That makes everything all better. Ahh...if only everything in life were that easy. The fact that this "film" looks as if it was made with about $500 certainly doesn't help. 1/10 | 0 |
I am a huge Michael Madsen fan, so needless to say, i bought this movie without even renting it or anything... This movie was so horrible, i didn't even take it back to the store, i wouldn't want anyone else to be subjected to this human poison, i just threw it in the trash, never mind the money, it was worth the price to be able to throw it away. The acting wasn't that bad, it wasn't good or anything. The story was horrible, and the ending was something i despise. He was a broken man, alcoholic. his life was a bunch of junk. i thought his horse, peanuts, was an awful device to show his childhood innocence, a dog would have been much much better. i also hate religion, so this ending without a doubt angered me. Jesus heals all... i hate that i know people just like this that are huge Christians and catholics, and time will show that god doesn't heal all, or anything. It was a horrible movie, if u have the option to see it, pass, or better yet buy it, or rent it, and throw it in the garbage, and leave the coffee grounds on it in the morning | 0 |
I have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see. | 0 |
I'm just quite disappointed with "Soul Survivors". It doesn't worth even a comment in this forum. The script is very poor as well as all the "acting" and for our entertainment it features a pointless plot.<br /><br />Please, do yourselves a favor! Be a real "Survivor"...Don't waste your time in this piece of crap! Someday you'll thank me! | 0 |
May I start off by saying that Casey Affleck is a very talented actor and I respect his work very much. I wish he was in more movies that showcased his talent. With this said, Soul Survivors was a very, very bad movie. Very bad.<br /><br />I would have to say that I lay almost all the blame on the poor script. Affleck is a very talented actress, Wes Bentley had an outstanding performance in American Beauty, Melissa Sagemiller did well, and Eliza Dushku is currently the it girl in Hollywood. I don't think any of the actors really got into the script, and I understand why. To say that this movie belongs to the horror genre is an overstatement. It did have the twists and turns you would expect, but they just didn't lead anywhere... except to more confusion. I just found the ending very anti-climatic, because it just didn't seem to make any sense or really answer any of the questions that I had about the storyline.<br /><br />I wish I could give this movie a good review, but I can't. In all honesty, the only thing I think you will find scary about this movie is that you paid for it. | 0 |
What a bad, bad movie! I tried watching without fast forwarding...That failed. After about 30 minutes I stopped the movie, went on-line to see how many minutes this disaster was. (Only 84 minutes, Whew!) It was a confusing, boring movie. I don't think anyone can get knocked down by getting hit with a fluorescent bulb much less gutted by one!! The one funny thing is that I watched "The Killer Cut" version of the movie. The box boldly states "More Blood!" "More Sex!" "More Terror than the theatrical release!" Yikes! If this movie was horrible with all those claims I wonder just how lame the "UN-Killer Cut" was??? If you want to see a great movie about the world of the living & the world of the dead watch any of The Night of the Living Dead series!! | 0 |
This film concerns a very young girl, Cassie, (Melissa Sagemiller) who leaves her family and heads off to become a college freshman. One night Cassie and her friends decide to go to a wild party with plenty of drinking and dancing and Cassie is riding with her boyfriend who she likes but never told him she loved him. As Cassie was driving, a car was stopped in the middle of the road and she was unable to avoid an accident and as a result there is a bloody loss of lives along with her boyfriend. Cassie becomes very emotionally upset and has nightmares which cause her to have hallucinations about her boyfriend coming back to life and encounters men trying to murder her and she is struggling to find out who her real friends are, who wants her dead and will she survive this entire horror ordeal. Cassie dreams she is being made love to by her boyfriend after he died and finds another guy in her bed and is told she was asking him to make love. This is a way out film, and not very good at all. | 0 |
Having seen the hot Eliza Dushku in the pretty good Wrong Turn, I decided to pick this one up instead of Return of the Living Dead, of all movies. Haven't seen that one yet, but, considering it is one of the most highly acclaimed horror movies ever, safe to say I made the wrong choice. There is simply nothing to recommend this movie, and I am talking about the supposedly superior killer cut. It didn't even have the youthful sex appeal of mediocre to poor movies like I Know What You Did Last Summer or Valentine or Urban Legend. It simply made no sense, held no excitement, had very little interesting acting or compelling writing. The release date was apparently put off numerous times for about a year running, and the reason is obvious. The whole movie comes off as a bunch of meaningless scenes thrown together haphazardly, to meaningless effect. Get Wrong Turn instead, if you want to see Dushku. I would like to see a movie with her and the super-hot Elisabeth Harnois--but I don't think even that would have made this movie watchable. Casey Affleck, so promising in Good Will Hunting, is awful here--he seems to lack both intelligence and guts. That's enough on this one. | 0 |
What's wrong with this film? Many, many things. The editing tries too hard to look good, and does nothing but confuse the viewer whilst also supplying him/her with a powerful headache. The plot is muddled and obviously prolonged from what started as a short (story or film). The plot only makes for less than ten minutes of good story, and this is just stretched out painfully until it reached the minimum length for a feature film. We all know what happens to things when we stretch them, right? Exactly. They get thinner. In the end, the plot is just so paper-thin that you might even miss it, if you aren't paying attention, which is hard to do when watching this movie. The acting is not even slightly impressive. The characters are poorly written and dull, uninteresting. One of the worst things that are wrong with this film is that apparently, whoever was in charge of the score/soundtrack had no idea what the movie was, or what it was supposed to be about(not that I blame him, I couldn't figure it out either). As a result, half of the music in the film doesn't fit the scenes at all. Also, what was with all the sexual undertones between Eliza Dushku and the main character? Naturally, this was in order to attract young males, but it was just so cheaply done. And did the first scene have anything to do with the rest of the film? On any conceivable level? At all? The two creepy guys didn't seem to have anything to do with the film at all, they were just there in order to have some chase scenes. I doubt anyone would really enjoy a film so poorly put together and such a shameless and awful Hollywood-like attempt at a somewhat interesting idea. But I digress. I recommend this to teenagers with low attention spans who don't mind a really bad horror-thriller as long as there's some sex and gore in it(although that may only be true for the Killer Cut, which I saw). 1/10 | 0 |
Inept, boring, and incoherent supernatural "thriller" in which college student Cassie (Melissa Sagemiller) is the constant victim of hallucinations and nightmares after a car accident claims the life of her boyfriend Sean (Casey Affleck).<br /><br />I can't begin to tell you how bad this is...nothing of any importance ever happens nor is there ever any sort of actual entertainment value. I did not like this cast in this particular film - they are all sadly unconvincing (then again, their roles are no good). To promote this as a horror film is a joke. Where are the scares? There's no sense or suspense - there are a few good songs but that's about it.<br /><br />How on Earth did this project get the green light? Writer-director Steve Carpenter has no discernible vision or talent that I can sense. Worst of all, the conclusion really makes the whole movie pointless.<br /><br />The alleged "killer cut" that I watched is 86 minutes of pure tedium.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
The film began with Wheeler sneaking into the apartment of his girlfriend. Her aunt (Edna May Oliver--a person too talented for this film) didn't like Wheeler--a sentiment I can easily relate to. The aunt decided to take this bland young lady abroad to get her away from Wheeler. They left and Wheeler invested in a revolution in a small mythical kingdom because they promised to make him their king. At about the same time, Woolsey was in the same small mythical kingdom and he was made king. So when Wheeler arrived, it was up to the boys to fight it out, but they refused because they are already friends--which greatly disappointed the people, as killing and replacing kings is a national pastime.<br /><br />I am a huge fan of comedy from the Golden Age of Hollywood--the silent era through the 1940s. I have seen and reviewed hundreds, if not thousands of these films and yet despite my love and appreciation for these films I have never been able to understand the appeal of Wheeler and Woolsey--the only comedy team that might be as bad as the Ritz Brothers! Despite being very successful in their short careers in Hollywood (cut short due to the early death of Robert Woolsey), I can't help but notice that practically every other successful team did the same basic ideas but much better. For example, there were many elements of this film reminiscent of the Marx Brother's film, DUCK SOUP, yet CRACKED NUTS never made me laugh and DUCK SOUP was a silly and highly enjoyable romp. At times, Woolsey talked a bit like Groucho, but his jokes never have punchlines that even remotely are funny! In fact, he just seemed to prattle pointlessly. His only funny quality was that he looked goofy--surely not enough reason to put him on film. Additionally, Wheeler had the comedic appeal of a piece of cheese--a piece of cheese that sang very poorly! A missed opportunity was the old Vaudeville routine later popularized by Abbott and Costello as "who's on first" which was done in this film but it lacked any spark of wit or timing. In fact, soon after they started their spiel, they just ended the routine--so prematurely that you are left frustrated. I knew that "who's on first" had been around for many years and used by many teams, but I really wanted to see Wheeler and Woolsey give it a fair shot and give it their own twist.<br /><br />Once again, I have found yet another sub-par film by this duo. While I must admit that I liked a few of their films mildly (such as SILLY BILLIES and THE RAINMAKERS--which I actually gave 6's to on IMDb), this one was a major endurance test to complete--something that I find happens all too often when I view the films of Wheeler and Woolsey. Where was all the humor?! | 0 |
Oh dear, what a horrid movie.<br /><br />The production was so cheap and nasty... Remember the shot from "the Natural", where the lightning hits the tree (leaving a glowing stump) that Roy Hobbs makes a bat from?? Well the producers of this movie used that same scene to prefix a scene where a tree branch slammed into the house.<br /><br />I wonder if they paid to use the footage from The Natural, or did they just hope that no-one who would watch the film would pick it up ?<br /><br />Then at the end where they were getting trying to get away in the truck. Such over-acting in the cabin. <br /><br />A really bad film, a really bad film. | 0 |
As a premise, this backwoods version of the Dead Calm storyline had promise.<br /><br />However, director Eric Red's inability to render a convincing hurricane leads to a deluge of continuity and lighting errors.<br /><br />Ultimately, the viewer is more spellbound by the bizarre weather effects than the intended storyline. Intermittent spates of ham-fisted over-direction are similarly distracting.<br /><br />Charles Dance, doing an 'inbred backwoods hardass' schtick, does his best to save the movie. But ultimately, Undertow squeals like a pig ... and has more ham to boot. | 0 |
I sat through this turkey because I hadn't seen it before, and because the premise sounded like it had potential. It was mildly entertaining until the hurricane sequence. At the height of the storm, the wind is strong enough to blow windows out of the house, yet the trees in the background are perfectly upright and not a leaf is moving! In fact, when the characters move outside the house, bright sunlight is visible illuminating the treetops. At that point, whatever credence the filmmakers had developed evaporated faster than the highly localized rain in their film. Too bad all hurricanes aren't like this one, it would surely help our homeowners insurance rates here in the Sunshine State. | 0 |
The viewer leaves wondering why he bothered to watch this one, or why, for that matter, anyone bothered to make it. There is no plot - just random scenes of ridiculous action. Mia Sara's shower scene appeals to the male libido, but that's not much reason to make a movie. | 0 |
just below the surface lies what? a simply awful movie is what.<br /><br />as other viewers have justifiably commented, the storm sequences are just plain ridiculous. chopping already sodden firewood in the pouring rain? now that's smart. menace? foreboding? sexual tension? for those read dull & contrived, dull & contrived and dull & overly contrived.<br /><br />i want to say thank god for mia sara's shower scene but in retrospect i think the producers of the film, having seen the completed mess realised that they had to put something in to make it half way worthwhile at all. so it just becomes yet another contrivance. do yourself a favour and give this a miss. | 0 |
A warning to you not to be seduced by the names Bigelow and Red. _Undertow_ is pointless and unengaging, and made me think often of a phrase by Twain about wishing all the characters would be drowned together. When someone brings up the category of Worst Films Ever Made, it's not the likes of _Plan 9_ or _Attack of the Killer Shrews_ that I think of; it's the likes of this. What a complete waste of time--my own and everyone who was involved with this flick. | 0 |
Suppose you've been on a deserted island the last ten years. Haven't heard of Scream and left when Halloween part 1 entered the cinema. Then this movie would have been a blast and a completely new vision on the horror scene.<br /><br />At the moment, a 2.7 rating is on IMDb and it doesn't deserve a that low appreciation. Slashing all the way, like "I know what you did", and a who-is-it that when getting to the end convinced me of that who-and-why.<br /><br />No big surprise, just a nice flick to watch with a cola, popcorn and no urge to get a difficult plot, deep characters. If the video rental is out of the top titles, you can take it without a risk, but don't expect a masterwork. I've seen a lot worse. | 0 |
Simply awful slasher, molded from the I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER type of fodder, has beautiful wealthy college students spending spring break in a Florida condo being murdered one by one. A misfire in every category imaginable from properly built suspense to the executed death sequences..nothing is handled properly and the characters leave little more than caricatures you root to see decimated as quick as possible. Del Tenney(The Curse of the Living Corpse;I Eat Your Skin), of all people, executive produced, co-wrote, and stars as a priest in a pivotal role whose relationship to the killer I guess means something to why he's psychotic. The revelation of the killer is awkwardly handled and ineffective, probably not surprising a soul who watches it. There are a lot of attempted jump scares, with one character popping out to frighten their friend, which couldn't even manufacture a few cheap thrills, because they are so calculated in such a tepid way. Most of the attacks occur off-screen with bleeding throat cuts(..or pools)representing the only real display of violence. The protracted finale, where the killer goes on and on with the actor desperately trying to make his villain as diabolical and demented as possible, is embarrassing and tense-less. There's not one single positive to derive from this clichéd and dull exercise with the pretty cast making little effort to rise past their one-dimensional roles. And, for pity sake, they could've at least allowed us to see Joey Lawrence get decapitated or something for withstanding the misery of sitting through this junk heap for 90 agonizing minutes.<br /><br />Dorie Barton, as the heroine final girl, Beth Morgan, who the killer seems to be obsessed with, couldn't be more vacuous and uninteresting(..oh, she was in rehab, and takes pills for her nightmares;such intriguing exposition). Chad Allen, cast against type as a very intimidating "friend" of the group(..who happens to disappear from the film first, setting up the idea that he's the first victim), has a tough hill to climb with his role, so steep he eventually stumbles, rolling uncontrollably with no end in sight. Jeff Conaway, needing some cash I guess, has the beleaguered FBI agent role, whose daughter's murder motivates him to seek out the killer, leading him to Florida. Jack McGee has his usual a$$hole role as a smart-mouth Florida Police Chief who is often nose to nose with Conaway's agent.<br /><br />Oh, the answer to the title's question..not really. Because once you get the answer, you will wonder why you bothered with this anyway. | 0 |
No? Didn't think so! Well, in that case all you have to do is stay far, far away from "Do You Wanna Know A Secret", as it's just the umpteenth pointless post-"Scream" slasher with absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. The plot is extremely ridiculous; the characters are insufferably dumb, the gore-factor is negligible and the whole thing is just plain boring! As you can derive from the title already, this film is mainly inspired by "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer", as the events take place in a similar setting and the killer's motivations are equally stupid. Why anyone would want to steal ideas from junk like "IKWYDLS" is a complete mystery to me, anyway. At least that film could depend on the precious rack of Jennifer Love Hewitt, whereas the girls in this junk are, apart from brainless, also terribly unattractive. One year after the still unsolved murder of her boyfriend, Beth Morgan, her new adulterous lover and four other simple-minded college students go to Florida to spend their Spring Break holiday in a fancy beach house. The killer hasn't made a move all year, but now he follows the posse to Florida and starts butchering them whilst leaving behind the titular message as some sort of business card. You really don't need to be a horror-expert in order to quickly figure out which face hides behind the unspeakably ridiculous mask and the writers' attempts to put you on the wrong track are downright embarrassing. Since the plot is so thin, most of the film is purely irrelevant padding, including the sub plots regarding the incompetent Floridian police force and the 'mysterious' FBI inspector who seems to have a personal score to settle. The murder inexplicably happen off screen (don't you hate it when that happens?), there isn't even any gratuitous T&A to enjoy and you better don't get me started on the quality of the dialogs. Suffering through crap like this only makes you realize that the delightful spirit of the 80's slashers is gone for good. | 0 |
I am so confused. What in the world was this movie about? What was the killer's motivation? He seemed quite angry, but I have yet to figure out why. Nothing in this movie made sense. It had zero depth. Or less than zero depth. Which I guess would make it a hill. Or a pile. Of crap. The acting was horrible. When I searched for a few of the actors in this movie, they had been in very few things that I had heard of, and that came as absolutely no surprise. I can't decide whether to feel sorry for them for the embarrassment of being in a movie this bad, or to feel that they should never be offered another acting job again. Starting . . . NOW! (Seinfeld reference.) Really, though, don't waste your time with this. There's so little substance that there's nothing there even just to make fun of. This was undoubtedly one of the worst slasher flicks -- NO, one of the worst flicks of ANY KIND, that I have ever had the misfortune to watch, and I've seen quite a few. | 0 |
Well OK, I watched this movie a little over 2 years ago and now I pulled it out of the dusty shelf to watch it again and I must say, I actually think this movie is good. This movie caught a buzz as the bootleg I Know What You Did Last Summer 3, much like Final Stab was to Scream 4, and well this movie isn't that bad. I mean it had flaws and of course it would be laughable to release this in the theaters but still for a midnight popcorn flick, this movie is not half bad. It has some scares, and some really hot women I might add. Plus it shows off Joey Lawrence's new beefy look though obviously even that hasn't won him any big Hollywood roles either......I feel bad for the man, he had such a career in the early and mid 90's with blossom, some Disney movies and the everlasting Lawrence brothers show.....Joey Lawrence was a bit player in the sitcom scene, but then like in a 360 degree turn, his career went south only doing low budget movies like this one.<br /><br />The movie also throws you off guard in, it makes you think between the crew, there really is a secret that someone knows, to only be disappointed in the end to find out the secret. It also throws you off on who the killer is, I had an idea but still woulnd't think the killer was who he was, but his motives combined with the secret was a huge letdown. Now, had there been a secret that was let out? This movie could've been one of the better b rated movies. But also I am a sucker for college themes and I also in college went on spring break in a mansion sized beach house similar to the one in here so it just made me feel sentimental about this movie.<br /><br />A so-so slasher flick. Good for a midnight movie. | 0 |
I normally have no problem walking away from a bad movie, however this was an unique case. This movie was so bad that I actually sat through the whole thing almost praying it would have one minute of good movie time to justify the hour and a half that was wasted. Needless to say I was brutally disappointed. Set at a beach house where a group of college friends are celebrating vacation, this movie suffers from numerous problems making it not worth seeing. First, there are gaping plot holes. Second, very few of the C-list (i don't even dare call them B) actors can act worth a damn, so any scenes that have potential fail miserably. Third, the rate of the film is very choppy and awkward to watch most of the time making suspense building very difficult, leading to very few surprises for the audience. Fourth and most importantly, the ending is completely anti-climatic partially because of how it ends (setting/who the killer turns out to be) and partially because the dialog is just atrocious. To the films credit, it is the only movie that I will ever say is the worst movie I have ever scene, and i've seen a lot.<br /><br />So, just like a bad joke you would have been all the happier never hearing, the next time someone asks you if you want to know a secret you will be yelling no, you really don't as you run in the opposite direction. | 0 |
The secret is...this movie blows. Sorry, but it just did. <br /><br />****SPOILER****<br /><br />In this bad riff on I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and SCREAM, Beth, played admirably by Dorie Barton, joins several friends on a Spring Break trip. The group rents a fancy house and tries to enjoy a fun vacation. Then, the deaths begin. First one then another then another of the friends is murdered, leading to a sad and trite climax with predictable results. <br /><br />One note, Dorie Barton is the poor man's Reese Witherspoonshe looks like Reese, acts like Reese and could pass for Reese in a police lineup. Maybe that's how they cast her? Anyhoo, decent cinematography and fair acting could not quite make up for bad dialog and terrible writing. | 0 |
Good Deaths. Good Mask. Cool Axe. Good Looking Girls....But Watch Out!!! No Plot and Little Scares Completely lower it's Standards. They Tried to make an "I Know what you Did Last Summer", but ended up making A "Scream". But Hey, What do people Expect From a Horror Movie? Answers Totally Vary. Rent It If You Want, but I Regret Ever Seeing It. | 0 |
In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.<br /><br />Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.<br /><br />With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.<br /><br />Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.<br /><br />Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity. | 0 |
This mindless movie is a piece of crap and boring like the full house repetitions. For all the people who want to see a great, exciting and cool horror movie shouldn't even think about watching this bunch of mindless work. a F- in my opinion. I have one question, what were they thinking? Let's make a list: 1) bad script 2) bad script 3) bad script 4) bad acting 5) bad directing and last but not least a bad script. I mean I am not like grumping about every movie, but I was disappointed when I watched it. This movie should be banned into a box, locked and sunk down into the sea. So please don't do something like this again, please, please, please!!!! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.