text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
**SPOILERS** Redicules slasher film that makes no sense at all with a killer running around dressed in a black robe and wearing what looks like a pull-over Peter Lorre rubber mask. Were told early in the movie, almost the very first scene, that young Beth Morgan was in rehab due to heavy drug use after her boyfriend was murdered in Tennyson Collage about a year ago.<br /><br />It's also brought out that FBI Agent Sacker's (Jeff Conaway), who's obsessed in catching the killer,daughter was also murdered in Tennyson around the same time. By the time the movie "Do You Wanna Know A Secret" is over it's never explained just what those two killings back in Connecticute has to do with the slaughter in Florida of some half dozen collage students a year later? other that the killer, at least in the murder of Beth's boyfriend, wore the same silly Halloween outfit. <br /><br />At spring break in the Sunshine State the six students spend their vacation at a beach house and before you know it they start getting knocked off one at a time. Starting with computer geek Brad Clyton, Chad Allen, the killing even spill over into town with a number of people who have nothing to do with the targeted student including the police chief Gavin, Jack McGee, getting sliced open. <br /><br />The masked killer saves Beth for last in this weird ceremony at a deserted church, in what looks like the Florida Everglades. He then finally reveals who his is and what he intentions are which make as much sense as the movie does, none. Trying to scare it's audience all the movie does is confuse and bewilder it with a number of not-too convincing slasher scenes. The most effective ones having the victim Oz Washington, Tom Jay Jones, survive at least three attempts on his life and ending up, together with Agent Sacker, the hero in the film. <br /><br />Oz also had a vicious cut on is foot from a large splinter of glass that almost cut it in half and crippled him but later he miraculously recovered, after getting arrested for a murder he didn't commit, in fact he had it out two more time with the killer with him not as much as having a slight limp in his walk! It also made no sense at all why Oz and Beth went on their own to tack down and catch the killer instead of calling the police, with a cellphone that Oz had, instead? <br /><br />Beth's boyfriend, who loses his head over her, in the movie Hank Ford, Joseph Lawrence, is also very unconvincing as well as the two girls at the beach house.They together with with Beth Oz end up being the killers victims and then somehow disappearing from sight! for a moment you didn't know if they were really killed at all or if it was some kind of hallucination on Oz's or the local police part. Until the off-the-wall final scene where they popped up in the church.<br /><br />We also get an insight on a previous relationship between Tina and Hank with her, drunk and acting obnoxious, trying to get it on with Hank as Beth walks in without Hank and Tina even noticing her. That seemed to have upset Beth even more then her boyfriend being murdered at the beginning of the movie! | 0 |
OK, a slasher movie. a very, very stupid slasher movie.<br /><br />We got your stereotypical teenagers in a house thing going. We got a FBI agent that's seen Dirty Harry one time too many. "So what's the secret....punks?" We got about 4 different little camera shots and scene that make no sense at all. "Hey man, i'm fixing the sprinklers" ((that guy was my favorite part of the movie)) Suddenly there's a preacher tied up on a couch watching home movies, he gets killed.<br /><br />they follow the killer into the middle of nowhere, with no cops. suddenly she's in a church, wearing a wedding dress. i swear this is the stupidest slasher movie i've ever seen. | 0 |
Do you guys wanna know a secret?. This movie sucks. Well actually i don't know because if you allow yourself to be indulged by plagiarised versions of original movies, then perhaps you may find this movie astounding (this movie being a plagiarised copy of i know what you did last summer). The first 30 minutes of the movie is based on a typical story setting; a bunch of so-called cool teenagers relishing their vacation in Florida and being themselves by behaving very much like the juveniles they are. The only insight we get at this point is the extent to which the director succeeded in illustrating a pretentious sense of adolescent decadence within the characters. The second half hour of the movie gains a little momentum and begins to illustrate a start to the no- where-near unprecedented killings. The third half hour of the movie will most definitely remain a mystery to me because i switched it off before i could further delude myself into thinking that the movie may still have something interesting and original left to show. As far as the story is concerned, it can easily be explained in a few lines. A bunch of teenagers go to Florida on vacation. While they are busy partying, they slowly (and i mean SLOWLY) begin to get killed because they know some sort of silly secret. The only thread to the killings is that all victims were matriculates of a common high school. One thing that did however amaze me about this movie, was how much betty (im not sure about her name..the blonde character) looks like reese witherspoon. Another thing that amazed me about the movie was that it made me jump from my seat a few times. Does that make it a work of art? absolutely not because my 12 year old niece made me drop a glass of orange juice because she "boo'ed" me when i was just about to go through the guest room door..whats the difference between the director and my 12 year old niece???? <br /><br />Do you wanna know a secret??? I'm not sure about you guys, but i don't.. | 0 |
This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen... Unfortunately, I am a horror movie buff and will rent any horror movie unless it's not made for t.v. When looking at the box it says it is rated R for gore and some language... Where was the gore? Was their one good death scene where you actually saw gore? I could have overlooked that if there had been some brief nudity or some good dialogue. There wasn't even one remotely witty or amusing line in this lame movie. Sometimes horror movies are awesome because they are so stupid, but this was just sad. | 0 |
I know slashers are always supposed to be bad,but come on,what the hell is this?It's like a bunch of 10-year-olds saved their lunch money and started filming this by the end of their week.<br /><br />Anyway,six young people all go to the same house to get killed off screen.We have the brainy one,the slut,the other slut,the black guy,the killer,stereotypes like that.After one gets eaten by a shaking boat,the others all get stalked by some guy who wears a mask the people at the poor box rejected.There's one pretty decent murder somewhere in the middle,but then it's back to even more boredom,and especially more false scares.Seriously,we actually know it can't be the killer when a person gets attacked because the guy sure loves to take his sweet time for everything.<br /><br />After every character you expected to die dies,the standard ugly blonde chick and her soon-to-be-boyfriend eventually get captured by the killer(they get like,pushed down and then faint)and the killer reveals himself.I think the writers of this movie just took a blindfold and a pen and put it somewhere on the list of characters.The motive is just lame and don't even get me started on the damn secret.The killer then of course takes way too much time to explain everything(and then about ten minutes extra in which he slices up his own arm for some reason)and eventually gets overpowered by a guy with a gun.Hey,no fair!<br /><br />Really one of the most awful movies I've ever seen.I could enjoy myself more by watching a Lindsay Lohan-movie,I swear.I mean sure,most 80's slashers sucked as well but at least they threw in some T&A.This movie just has nothing going for it. | 0 |
This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.<br /><br />Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.<br /><br />Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up! | 0 |
The American Humane Association, which is the source of the familiar disclaimer "No animals were harmed..." (the registered trademark of the AHA), began to monitor the use of animals in film production more than 60 years ago, after a blindfolded horse was forced to leap to its death from the top of a cliff for a shot in the film Jesse James (1939). Needless to say, the atrocious act kills the whole entertainment aspect of this film for me. I suppose one could say that at least the horse didn't die in vain, since it was the beginning of the public waking up to the callous and horrendous pain caused animals for the glory of movie making, but I can't help but feel that if the poor animal had a choice, this sure wouldn't have been the path he would have taken! | 0 |
Not too keen on this really. The story is pretty horrid and unconvincing. I enjoyed the first 10 minutes, bill nunns good. After that it was pretty appalling. Tim doesn't fit the role, he comes across as a smug self inflated ass & Pruitt taylor vince is entirely unconvincing as a trumpet player. It's a idealist film and as a musician, feel slightly offended after watching it. There's no scenes of 1900 practising or playing with his fellow band mates, he's completely self indulgent. I find it hard to build any relationship with this kind of character, maybe i'm watching the wrong film. If you have no real passion for life or sense of what musics all about then happily indulge in the suspension of disbelief and watch this waffle. | 0 |
a friend of mine bought this (very cheaply) and decided to give it to me as a birthday present. i thought i'd never watch it 'cause i knew it was a joke and the cover of the DVD looked pathetic, but then my friends and i got really bored and watched it. from start till finish! i know quite an accomplishment but it really is a masterpiece. it's hard to describe. you should see it, it's a real lesson on what people are capable of when they believe they're creative and smart and really aren't. The "acting" is sous-terrain (you can actually see the "leading lady" laugh on some occasions, she's definitely the worst). the "story" is to stupid to be summed up and really everything in this film sucked. please, pay special attention to "the sheriff". the guy is an adult and therefor has absolutely no excuse to be involved in this. he's extremely bad as well. whatever it did have some hilarious moments. check it out, haha | 0 |
Please! Do not waste any money on this movie. It really is nothing more than a boring German Blair Witch ripoff made by some high school kids. I couldn't finish watching it, and usually I like watching all kinds of B-movies. How on earth could they find a distributor for it?!!! Funny however: Check out Wikipedia for "dark area". The guy who wrote the entry must be completely out of his mind. Maybe he got loads of money from the producers. Money that should have been spend on actors, camera and editing. Even that wouldn't have helped, since there is absolutely no interesting idea behind this film. Unfortunately "dark area" has already gotten too much attention. Please, director, producer and author of this movie, STOP making movies like that...you are not doing yourself a favor. The world would be a better place without this film. | 0 |
I watched this movie. To the end. And that was really not easy. It is so boring, bad played and in nearly every detail stolen from "BLAIR WITCH PROJECT" that you can't believe the makers take this serious. Even harder to believe, is how this "product" made it onto VHS and DVD.<br /><br />So, if want to see a horror-movie, just watch "Scream", but if you want to laugh out loud and have a good time, watching some kids running through the woods screaming at each other and showing of their inability, watch dark area. | 0 |
It makes one wonder how this show is still on the air. There's been one couple that has stayed together, married, and has children, but everyone else has broken up. What's the point of continuing this? The show can be entertaining at the beginning. You see all the girls swooning over one man, that almost all of them like instantly. It's just like in real life! The girls start to take sides, bitch one another out, and show their true selves (or so we think). But that one man is left to decide who to pick that he thinks he can marry and live happily ever after.<br /><br />What is true love exactly? How can you fall for someone when you're forced to pick them? This show is unbelievable. You thought dating online was bad, but people have to go on TV to find love? It's not realistic. How could a girl be with a man when he is going out with several others, making out with them? None of these questions are answered, and finally when the show ends, you know there won't be a happy ending in the future. For all we know, everything is scripted. | 0 |
Yes, even as a fan of shows like survivor and the apprentice, this show is pretty bad. I didn't mind the first couple of shows, but then realizing how pathetic everyone was to actually go on the show in the first place.The antics of Alex and Aaron giving men a bad name at the way they cheated on or dumped their choice at the first opportunity really was not a good look for the show.<br /><br />Ryan, you can have Trista. She had the most annoying voice I've ever heard on television, and she definitely wasn't the smartest girl around (very media savvy, but I doubt there's much more there).<br /><br />I haven't really watched any of the shows since, apart from the occastional re-run on daytime TV. I think the point of reality TV is to treat it as "entertaining trash". View it as something you can laugh over, and don't have to think too hard about ( I don't watch CSI its like reality TV-tired and clichéd, but you have to think too much anyway while watching).<br /><br />A couple of thoughts on some reasons fro going on the show. At the very first 'the woman tell all" Woman such as Amy ( who had a lot of class about her) commented that she had tried every scene aka the bar and club scene to meet a guy and it wasn't happening for her. Hey Amy, how about joining a club? getting a hobby? doing charity work? changing your job to one where you meet more guys? gees, all I know is that going to a bar is not the ideal place to meet a future partner.<br /><br />Amy and many of the other girls seemed to be obsessed with the idea of meeting "the perfect man'. Clue to ladies: he doesn't exist. There are, however, many great guys out there that would make great husbands, some who may be right for you! they may not earn six figures a year or be a JFK junior look alike, but they are great guys all the same. The shallowness of woman on this show is quite unbelievable. Im still a youngster, at was lead to believe that woman gradually grew out of their shallowness as they got older and more realistic about their future partner. This show is proving otherwise.<br /><br />Overall this show does a lot to confirm many stereotypes of how woman view men in society. It really is a terrible show and I think all of these types of shows should just stop being made. The best dating shows by a country mile are Blind Date and The Fifth Wheel because they are fun. Nothing is manned more between the "couples" than a simple night out. the bachelor, sadly takes itself way too seriously. | 0 |
Sitting down to watch the 14th season of the Bachelor ("On the Wings of Love"), I knew I would be in for an "interesting" time. I had watched some of the previous seasons of the Bachelor in passing; watching an episode or two and missing the next three or so. I find that the Bachelor is often appealing and intriguing, though its quality and morality are often lacking.<br /><br />"On the Wings of Love" details the journey taken by Jake, a 31 year old commercial pilot from Dallas, Texas, to find true love, as true a love as one can find in a season-long reality-drama dating show. Jake meets 25 beautiful girls from all over the country. He begins to get to know them a bit, but it is mostly superficial; how well can you get to know someone in a few 5 minute conversations? Jake tries to make his true intentions known from the very beginning, at least to the audience. He noted that he doesn't just want love or a good time, but he wants a fiancé or wife. We can only assume that he has made this clear to the women in the competition as well. If that is the case, it might explain, to a degree, some of the women's actions. The women are super competitive. While they don't even know Jake at all yet, they are still in it to win it no matter what the cost.<br /><br />Not only were the women competitive, but they were also confident and catty. Threats, backstabbing, and warnings of "Watch out!" all show that these women weren't there for a good time either. Jake noted that he was not just looking for sex appeal, but looking for "a connection." However, the girls pulled out all the stops to try to impress Jake with said sex appeal. They arrived at the mansion in skimpy dresses either low-cut or short.<br /><br />While some girls seemed to maintain their sense of decorum, others missed that memo altogether. One girl, Channy, noted that Jake was a "good guy" to whom she could be a "naughty girl." She went on to say that Jake could land on her "runway anytime." She got flack from the other girls for her provocative statement which showed their take on these situations.<br /><br />So, a reality dating show couldn't be that bad, could it? Besides the obvious issue of sex-driven attraction, there are other issues that mar this seemingly harmless show. Is this the right way to find a future mate; vying for someone's attention by flaunting oneself to extreme proportions? Unfortunately, however, that is what America has reduced dating to these days: pleasure and sex without commitment and a little happiness on the side.<br /><br />Another problem is the premature emotional attachment by which many of the girls bound themselves to Jake. A few girls in particular seemed to be overly attached. One girl said "If I don't get that first impression rose it will kill me!" As mentioned before, they don't even know him yet and she was talking about a specific rose, not just one of the 15 roses to keep from being eliminated.<br /><br />Michelle, in particular, seemed to have some issues with attachment to Jake. The other girls noticed it too. After one particular Michelle outburst, Vienna asserted that Michelle had a "mental breakdown and we've only been here an hour." Michelle got the last rose of the evening on the first show narrowly missing elimination and was extremely emotional about it. The other girls thought it was simply ridiculous. Another girl also cried, but because she was eliminated.<br /><br />It began with Survivor, and from there it just took off reality TV. It shows our entertainment interests as a country; if we weren't watching the shows and giving them good ratings, the networks would not continue to run them. The only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that enough of America is hooked. One thing is clear: America (in general) loves reality TV and its ensuing trappings.<br /><br />This begs me to question: why is it that we even like reality TV? What is it about it that draws us to it? Is it because we see the similarities to our own lives, or is it because we want to be sure that we are more stable and less pathetic than others? Whatever it is that draws us to it, we should be careful of the media and entertainment that we allow to fill our minds. I'm not saying that all reality TV shows are bad; however, I am saying that we need to evaluate each one.<br /><br />Episodes used for critique: Season Premier and Episode 2. | 0 |
After watching this movie on DVD, I watched the trailer. The voice-over describes the movie as surreal. Well, there's surreal, and there's surreal. <br /><br />There was really only one part of the film that seemed surreal to me, but frankly, it was more confusing than surreal. The other unusual imagery, particularly the lunchroom scene where everybody is on the floor, were so nonsensical they had no meaning. I don't mind imagery that doesn't mean anything, but these scenes just seemed irrelevant.<br /><br />My impression is that the director was trying to convey Logan's inner monologue. I don't know what else would explain what was going on. Unfortunately, nothing I saw gave me any clue what Logan was thinking about, what his perspective was, or even his emotional state. All I could tell was that he wasn't particularly happy with his physical appearance, and that he had a crush on an older boy. <br /><br />I thought the ending signaled what the relationship between the boys had become, but not much else did. Purposely juxtaposing ambiguous scenes with those that were more straightforward seemed more like a cop out than an artistic decision. <br /><br />Still, as tiresome and as content-free the movie was for me, it was a definite change of pace. I very much liked Madagascar Skin, and I had the feeling this movie aspired to that kind of narrative, and perhaps even style. It didn't even come close. For me there's no question about it: this movie deserves an A for effort, but a D for execution. | 0 |
I see that someone already thought of a similar analogy, which was similar to the first thing that came to mind after I watched this movie. They said that the ingredients were there but there was no plot. Besides the sexual scenes which bordered on child-porn (which I feel could have been edited out or been presented more suggestively in nature rather than graphically, I would liken this movie to a recipe that's been torn in half. It's kind of like being handed a list of ingredients, with no directions on how to put them together into a finished product. From the start, character development and story development are lacking...unfortunately, many times in this monotonous drivel we are teased with bits of plot and we think "Ahh-OK...finally we are going to find out something more about WHY this scene is going on...or...WHO this character is...or maybe we are finally going to get to know and appreciate this character more...or understand and get involved more with this inter-character relationship...etc." But no such luck! On the contrary, many times I was tempted to just turn it off more than once but stuck it out when the carrot was dangled, only to find that whatever mini-plot within whatever mini-plot (and that poorly presented) was just a ruse. Why I stayed with it till the end is a mystery, other than usually IFC has better selections and they gave it 2-1/2 stars (another mystery). It's not that the characters aren't likable to SOME degree, or that you can't identify with them or their humanness at all...it's just that this could have been so much better with just a little more effort. I notice this was shot around Santa Cruz and find myself wondering if it was someone's film school project. I wish I could have given this a better review but honestly it was a frustrating and disappointing waste of an hour and a half. | 0 |
Visually disjointed and full of itself, the director apparently chose to seek faux-depth to expand a 5 minute plot into an 81 minute snore-fest. <br /><br />The moments that work in this film are VERY limited, and the characters don't even feel real. How could you feel invested in a main protagonist who was made so surreal? <br /><br />Substantively AND stylistically, it all feels like a quirky dream sequence. Jarring irregular camera work, awkward silences and gaps in action, and what's with the little spider image crawling across the screen? Whoever thought of that needs to go back to film school. It added no meaning, just cheese, and didn't even stylistically work with the rest of the film (assuming the film even had a style, which is a close call). What a flop. | 0 |
had some lovely poetic bits but is really just an artsy-fartsy toss-together with no direction or resolution. how do these people get through film school? who gives them money to make this crap? could have been so much more, fine lead actor, and i always like Fairuza Balk, but come on, the alt-rock metaphor of just staring vacantly unable to find anything compelling is just so tired, and it sure doesn't make for good films. the director needs to go away and live life for a good long while and not come back to the camera until they really have something to say. this is like the throw-spaghetti-at-the-wall school of art-making, just juxtapose a bunch of earnest imagery and hope hope hope like hell that poetry emerges. that can work, if the director actually has any kind of vision, or has a brain that knows when it's in the presence of potential, but here it's just space filler, of no consequence. i felt the lazy ending coming moments before it hit, and was yelling "you lazy bastard" at the screen when the credits popped up. | 0 |
I read the half dozen other user comments on this board and it seems as though the opinions vary greatly. I have to agree with those who found this movie to be awful. It pains me to write that since I would have hoped this would have been great, or I wouldn't have bothered to see it the other day. I like supporting indie cinema, especially if they are gay-themed, but this movie is almost too much to tolerate. Those that walked out, as I considered doing after about three minutes, probably didn't mind shelling out $11.00, or just figured it was going nowhere, fast, and not going to improve. Maybe I am slightly more optimistic than they are..either that or they didn't pay to get in in the first place.<br /><br />Logan is bored. He's a klutz. He's gay. I'm okay with that. The problem is that because the main character in a movie is bored does not necessarily mean that the movie about him has to be boring also! There are ENDLESS scenes of this kid just laying around like a load of laundry, re-establishing everything that you already learned in the first scene, and the second scene, etc., etc...Nothing or no one goes anywhere. NO ONE says anything even remotely insightful or funny or interesting. Probably most appalling of all is that I didn't feel the slightest bit of empathy for Logan. That in itself is a major accomplishment. He didn't grow, he didn't change, he didn't learn (there is no one to teach him anything), he DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, and neither did the movie! Scene after scene of the same thing do not a movie make.<br /><br />Additionally, the title makes no sense at all. 1/10. | 0 |
Wow, I hated this movie. The subject matter should have resulted in a really fine film, and the lead actor was definitely sensitive and talented enough to handle the topic, but the script - if there even *was* a script - is a mess. This is less a movie than a random slide show that goes nowhere. I'd say it goes nowhere fast, except that it's actually the longest 81 minutes you'll ever sit through. As I've mentioned, the lead actor is good. So is Faruza Baulk (SP?), as his sometimes-harsh-but-ultimately-loving-and-accepting mother. The film makers have a lot to answer for here, because this is a mess. A real shame,because I really wanted to like this movie, but it's basically out-takes from a movie that never got made. Skip this one - it wasn't even worth the $6 I shelled out for pay-per-view. | 0 |
I haven't actually finished the film. You may say that in this case I have no right to review it, especially so negatively. But I do, only because I stopped it on account of I couldn't watch anymore...I got over halfway, and I only got there by promising myself something good was just around the corner. This film is so tiresome, so lackluster that I was actually insulted. I haven't read many of the other reviews, so I'm not sure if there are other homosexual teens who have suffered through it, but I am homosexual, and I did go through "similar" revelations, day dreams, issues etc etc. There were maybe two moments where I actually felt this film could go somewhere, where I felt it may have some inkling of meaning, or relativity, but these hopes were dashed the moment the next set of cliché-ridden narration came on. I mean, just look at the quotes on the IMDb page. Unfortunately you're not able to hear the scratchy play back, nor the echo-ey fades if you're just read the quotes, because they are just too painful/ridiculous/stupid to miss. I did give the film three stars, and all three of those stars go to the films cinematographer who did a fantastic job attempting to transform Archer's tired "concepts" into something watchable. Mind you, I pray he wasn't the one who decided to include all the long shots of TV closeups...another unnecessary cliché already over done in films such as Korine's Gummo... I think it is extremely fitting that this film premiered at Sundance (only because Archer had connections in the festival via volunteer work he did, by the way...) because Sundance seems to be the one festival where cliché heavy drivel like this is still accepted as "arthouse". No, it's not art house, I'm afraid it's just plain s**t-house. Do not watch. | 0 |
First of all, this film is GLACIALLY slow-moving, and I can see most viewers losing patience with it altogether in the first thirty minutes.<br /><br />The film's subject matter was one I think would form the basis of an excellent film; what was most lacking here was a plot that would advance the underlying themes.<br /><br />It's unfortunate, because in the hands of a writer like (say) Lanford Wilson, I think symbolism like a mountain-lion invading a school campus could take on great, Tragic proportions without being heavy-handed.<br /><br />I think, with a good script supporting the film, the same filmmaker, with the same tastes, and even with the same actors (who didn't really even get a chance to impress me), might have been able to present a meaningful and touching depiction of the pains and struggles that a boy goes through when he develops a powerful "crush" on an older boy that he admires.<br /><br />However, I'm sorry to say that without this foundation, and armed with a vague, dull-witted, and vastly uninteresting script, without any sort of plot in sight, and lacking any sort of sensible structure (for example, after viewing it, I believe you will find that you cannot point to climactic scenes, and instead, will find yourself enumerating "well, maybe that scene, or that one, were climaxes...")--the result is 95 minutes of tedium.<br /><br />Without a good plot, we never get terribly interested in any of the characters; their trials and difficulties are simply dull and boring.<br /><br />Without a good plot, dramatic devices and surrealistic directorial liberties become puzzling and confusing rather than enhancements to the story-line. I never really could believe, for example, the creation of "Leah" and I think that most viewers would be utterly baffled by the conventional way in which her telephone calls were filmed.<br /><br />As the film stands, I'm afraid it's one I cannot recommend at all. What I can never understand is why a film like THIS one isn't re-made by an enterprising film-maker...instead of all the mediocre remakes of films that were superlatively good in the first release! All it needs is a good script, written by good writers, and I think this film could be easily turned into an unforgettable classic about an aspect of male coming-of-age that is rarely treated in drama. All the elements that were so tedious and seemed so recherche in the film (the messages written on the boy's belly, the "Leah" scenes, the television-screen fantasies) could become rich if underpinned with a good STORYLINE.<br /><br />I see in quite a few comments that people are talking of this film as somehow being about a "gay" subject, and I think that's mistaken. Obviously, the "crush" depicted is that of a newly pubescent boy on an older adolescent boy, but the character of Logan is far too young to have settled on any particular sexual choices, and, indeed, in his depicted masturbation fantasies, we see all sorts of stimuli, sexual and non-sexual, as we would expect in a very young boy like him. I believe "crushes" such as Logan's are common among male youths who grow up to have a decided preference for female sex-partners. | 0 |
About the only thing I liked about this film is that there was JUST enough in it to keep me in my seat to the end... I kept thinking that maybe in the NEXT scene things would gel... Alas...<br /><br />Those who like Gus Van Sant's films - especially his later ones - will probably like this. Personally, I find van Sant's films to be dull, pretentious and facile. Well, he was an executive producer for this film, so it is no surprise that the film could almost have been made by him - although personally I actually liked this better than van Sant's latest efforts (e.g. Elephant).<br /><br />Contrary to many here, I did not think the film was difficult to understand or disjointed, I thought that above all it is a film that wishes to portray a certain mood - the mood of an adolescent moving slowly into the adult world - but so slowly that the changes are barely visible if at all. But I feel that the problem with the film is that "mood" is not enough... and not only that, but that the mood painted here is, to my mind, incorrectly chosen for the story that is supposedly happening. The dream-like quality, so closely linked to nature, is beautifully captured here, but it is a mood which belongs much more to a much younger child, one who really still does get totally caught up in watching nature unfold (waves on a beach, grasses and flowers, spiders etc). The rhythm of the film reminds me of my summers when I was about eight or nine. There is a LANGUOR to the film that is in opposition to what SHOULD be a very tense time in an adolescent life. When you are caught up in a crush on someone - or being the object of bullying at school - you are anything BUT languorous! There are only two moments that truly worked for me in the film...SPOILERS HERE - first when Logan drops the groceries and his mother throws a bit of a fit. The frustrations of an adult dealing with a klutzy kid - especially with no father present - seemed real to me.<br /><br />The second, and ONLY part of the film with any tension to it, were the scenes where "Leah" (Logan's re-creation of himself) phones Rodeo and tries to seduce him into phone-sex. The first reason I liked it is because the person who did the voice-over of "Leah" was the most convincing actor in the entire film. (It made me think of Claire Danes from My So-Called Life ...the voice even sounded like Claire.) She and Rodeo had the only scenes that seemed totally believable between the kids. And what I especially liked was the fact that Rodeo only pretended to play along... it was perhaps the best moment in the film as - finally! - we got some character development.<br /><br />All in all, a somewhat misplaced effort... we will have to see what he does in his next film before we can really say much about the director's possible talents. In the meantime, if he can get away from van Sant's influence, it might do him a world of good. Who is this director anyhow - one of van Sant's boy toys? | 0 |
"Wild Tigers I have Known." It will only be showing in big cities, to be sure. It is one of those films SO artsy, that it makes no sense what so ever, except to the director! I HATE those! And all of those oh-so-alternative/artsy people try DESPERATELY to find "metaphors" in what is EVIDENT horseshit.<br /><br />There was NO plot, no story, no moral, no chronology, and nothing amusing or even touching. To me, it was a bunch of scenes thrown together that had nothing to do with one another, and were all for "show" to show how "artsy" and "visual" they could get. It was an ATTEMPT at yet ANOTHER teen angst film, but missed the mark on every level humanly possible. Then the credits roll! I was waiting for it to make SENSE! I was waiting for "the good part." I own about 60 independent films in my DVD collection, many of which could arguably be called "art house" films. This will NOT be amongst them. You will be very angry at yourself for paying to see this film, much less ever buying it on DVD. | 0 |
One would think that a film about a young person's coming to terms with his burgeoning homosexuality would be anything but boring. Think again. This production should be bottled and sold as a cure for insomnia because it's about ten times as potent as any sleep aid on the market. It's almost as if the film maker *considered* making a movie, but got lazy and decided instead to run a series of random (and randomly BORING) images and go-nowhere scenes, throw in a couple of actual scenes featuring actual acting, pretend that good lighting ins't important in the film-making process, and wrap it up under the auspices of an "arthouse" film. This is exactly kind of crappy product that makes it easy for a lot of traditional film-makers to poo-poo the indie film movement, and which keeps the general public from more easily embracing indie films.<br /><br />If you're interested in films covering this subject matter, you'd be much better off tuning in to some of the great short films available at Logo's website or renting Get Real. Better yet, read Stone Butch Blues. Whatever you do, skip this long-winded piece of dreck. | 0 |
As a lesbian, I am always on the lookout for films relating to gays & lesbians. However, with this kind of crap out there--it would be enough to discourage any audience.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen--anything!--a story to develop, or just for it to make some kind of sense. Neither occurred. It was just meaningless scenes, unconnected in any way with anything. The film failed to conveyed any kind of story or depth to the character.<br /><br />After an hour or more of this nonsense, I simply turned it off.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this absurdity.<br /><br />1 Star - and it doesn't even deserve that. | 0 |
I really must have caught a different film from the rest of the commentators on this site because at a screening of the film last night the audience was so mortified by the dialoge that (I'm not even kidding)half walked out. Shot as if the filmmaker thought he were approaching some daring new territory by presenting a homosexual coming-of-age story, the film utilizes David Lynch inspired visuals with Fassbinder inspired acting. The performances in this film are so dull and bored that I figured one of the actors was going to pass out by how uninspired they seemed to be by the script. What's worse is that it's colored like an episode of Miami Vice. I don't know who this director thinks he is; maybe he has pretensions of the surreal like Bunuel, Jordowsky, etc. But the problem is that all of the afore mentioned directors display a level of erudite sensibility that is sorely lacking here. I could understand the meaningfulness of this film about ten years ago, but when we've got masterpieces such as Bad Eduction, Mysterious Skin and Show Me Love why bother with this cinematic turd? There is nothing new to be seen here. | 0 |
I am very surprised by the positive comments because there were four of us that saw this at one screening and we all walked out. We personally felt that it was painfully slow to watch and couldn't sit through the whole movie. And we really tried to stick with it. In particular, those in the group who really wanted to like it because of their personal experiences with sexual orientation alienation in the school years depicted didn't like or identify with it at all. :(<br /><br />That said, it is great to see that this film really resonated with a lot of people here on the boards and with reviewers. That's the beauty of the subjective art form of film. :) | 0 |
In The Lost Son, a private eye searching for a missing man stumbles upon a child prostitution ring. This film incorporates all of the worst stereotypes you could imagine in a worst-case scenario that exists only in the minds of Hollywood, the press and AG John Asscrap. If you get a chance to see this, you'd be better off getting lost yourself. | 0 |
For Daniel Auteuil, `Queen Margot' was much better. For Nastassja Kinski, `Paris, Texas' was much better. The biggest disappointments were from Chris Menges (`CrissCross' and `A World Apart' cannot even be compared with this one), and Goran Bregovic for use of a version of the same musical theme from `Queen Margot' for this movie (Attention to the end of the film). If this was an American pop movie, I would not feel surprised at all; but for a European film with more independent actors and director, a similar common approach about child abuse with no original insight is very simple-minded and disappointing. There are those bad guys who kidnap and sell the underage people. There are those poor children who hate people selling them and wait to be saved by someone. And finally, there is that big hero who kills all the bad guys and saves these poor children from bad guys. Every character is shown in simple black and white terms: the good versus the evil. Plus, from the very beginning, I could understand how the story would end. Is this the end of the history of child sexual abuse? I believe that the difficult issue of child molestation and paedophilia is much more complex than how it is portrayed in this not very original movie. I think this movie was not disturbing, but very disappointing. | 0 |
I really, really didn't expect this type of a film outside of America. How anyone can take the subject of sexually abusing children and turn it into a "thriller" is just sick. Auteuil (whom I had previously admired) going around like some sort of child-saving Rambo was ignorant and insulting to all the children being sexually exploited around the world.<br /><br />What's doubly depressing is that the stunning and ground-breaking film "Happiness" came out the year BEFORE this film. Menges and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. It's admirable to read some of the comments by the more intelligent viewers out there. They were able to see the shoddy and ridiculous handling of this topic. Those of you who think this is great cinema display a disgusting amount of ignorance and you need to watch "Happiness" to open your minds to the true horrors of pedophilia.<br /><br />Do you think your child is more likely to be kidnapped and sold into sexual slavery or be molested by a neighbor, teacher, friend or even a relative? Hmm...I wonder. If they are going to make a film about international child slavery of whatever kind they owe it to everyone to make it realistic and emotionally involving instead of this button-pushing crap. 1/10 | 0 |
What this movie does well is combine action and horror with comedy and drama in a unique way that teases more emotion form the audience than a typical horror movie. Unfortunately with disjointed storytelling, frustrating plot-holes, and contradictory scenes this movie mainly caused me frustration and is hardly "the greatest monster movie ever." <br /><br />Let's start with the good stuff: comedy, acting and special effects. From the get-go, this movie starts off fast paced and cheeky. The opening scene - the monster's origin - is campy and quick, paying homage the the classic 'environmental' disasters that have given birth to so many other monsters. The pacing is fast, which was a welcome break from the long and often pointlessly dramatic opening scene from other monster flicks and allows the movie to jump right into the action. With in the course of 10 minutes you get the 'why', 'where,' and 'how' of the beast and are ready for action. In this the movie delivers.<br /><br />After another short and well shot sequence the characters are introduced: the lazy son and his precocious little girl, kind grandfather, and talented sister (aunt) and, of course, the monster. The characters are introduced in context to each other and their conflicts are instantly apparent, allowing the audience to feel for them when the monster shows up suddenly to wreak havoc in the river area where they live and work. <br /><br />The monster it's self looks great: alien yet familiar - kinda like a dog and fish pooped out by a squid. The effects of the creature are second to none and although it looks strange it is believable and at no point in the movie could you 'see it's strings.' Even the movement of the monster was horribly familiar, like a growing and excited rottweiler on linoleum the monster barrels through the crowd, slipping on surfaces, crushing and eating those in it's path. When the monster's path intersects with the family and tragedy ensues it truly is a painful moment, and you can feel the need for revenge but from there on out the movie's appeal begins to unravel.<br /><br />Following the dynamite beginning the movie quickly loses focus and continuity. Plot-lines are introduced, then abandoned, characters change their position for no apparent reason, and comedy is interlaced into dramatic scenes confusing intent, while obstacles appear and disappear seemingly at random. <br /><br />As for the comedy, let me say this: I'm willing to accept that a lot of the humor is probably cultural. I am not familiar with Korean humor so maybe things were lost in translation. However, as an Asian studies major in college and as someone who has been living in Japan for the last 5 years (still here) I'd like to think I have a better grasp on Asian humor than the average white-guy. That being said there were many parts of the movie that I understood were supposed to be funny, but, to me, weren't. <br /><br />*********** SPOILER************* For example: after the initial attack where the young daughter is lost the family is at the funeral; everyone is mourning. A new character is introduced - a brother - and tension is raised even higher as it becomes obvious that the two brothers are at odds with one another. They both begin to grieve for their loss and wind up competing with each other over who is grieving harder. This competition is, at it's core, funny: two brothers who dislike each-other so much they even compete at a funeral - it shows the prickly nature of familial love common in Asian comedy. This subtle slap-stick comedy poking fun at family and ritualized mourning is supposed to be funny but, seemed really out of place in the context of a lost little girl. ************** END SPOILER **************<br /><br />Then come the plot holes. there are so many points brought up in this movie that are never explained, or, worse, are explained and fretted over only to be proved impotent and pointless in the end. Finding out an obstacle isn't an obstacle can be a good thing for a character, but you'd expect some comment to that nature. Instead the audience is barraged by moments of anti-climax when problems just 'aren't there' anymore and no one gives an indication that it was ever a problem to start. So I ask you: why even bring it up in the first place? <br /><br />This was prevalent through out the film as problems gave rise to new problems, and suddenly the world of the movie is filled with opposing forces that never resolved each other. Of course introducing new and greater problems is a time-tested story telling tradition, but if the introduction of a new arc leads the the forced shortening of another you would expect at least that the new arc gets full explanation. Not in this movie. Instead it was as if you get several stories, each only explained 20% of the way and, in the end, the parts never converge to complete the whole.<br /><br />Again, I'm willing to accept that a lot of this might be 'cultural.' Maybe its in Korean story- telling tradition to put comedy inside a tragedy. Maybe it's normal for stories to go all over like a child who colors outside the lines on every-page, but never finishes one. Maybe it's OK to present a problem in order to develop the plot but then remove that problem randomly without any apparent solution or catharsis. Or maybe these are all hallmarks of sloppy work and bad storytelling rampant in a movie that seems to have a much better reputation than it deserves. | 0 |
Gwoemul (The Host) - Due to pollution in the Han river a mutated beast goes on the rampage. The youngest member of the Park family is snatched by the beast, and it is up to the rest of her family to find her, before she becomes the beast's latest meal.<br /><br />Firstly, I love monster movies: Mutated bears, over-sized alligators, packs of ravening Komodo dragons, the whole lot. Creature features are my favourite kind of Horror film. So, I really wanted to like The Host, but it wasn't to be. <br /><br />There were three major problems with it:<br /><br />The first can be seen with a quick look at it's IMDb page<br /><br />Genre: Action / Comedy / Drama / Fantasy / Horror / Sci-Fi / Thriller<br /><br />Too many damned genres. It took itself too seriously to be a comedy, and yet was too light hearted to have any real message (though it did seem to be trying to make some kind of statement. Anti-pollution, anti-American or anti-government). The drama was misplaced and mixed in a confusing mish-mash with all the other styles.<br /><br />Secondly, after the initial monster attack nothing happens for almost the entire film. The central family wander about looking for one of their own while the governments of Korea and America, apparently, do nothing. And that's it, they just wander about, occasionally hitting one another, presumably for a bit of comedy relief. This lack of action made my attention wander, and apparently it did the same for the director, as whole plot threads go unresolved (a mystery plague invented by the evil Americans is completely forgotten about, and is never resolved).<br /><br />And lastly, the film is clumsily political. It paints the Americans as being stupid and evil, but gives us no American characters with any more depth than a cartoon villain. The opening scene has the most obvious stupid American vs wise Korean moment. With a Korean morgue assistant asking his boss, the coroner, not to pour chemicals into the Han river. The American coroner all but cackles maniacally as he orders the assistant to carry on. As well as being racist, it's lazy film-making and there is no excuse for that.<br /><br />On the plus side, the monster is good, kind of a mix of The Relic and Deep Rising. Some of the movement effects are quite cool, and the initial monster chase through the park is a lot of fun. There are also some nice shots in the film. Some of which remind me, strangely, of the way Firefly was filmed (shuddering cameras, out of focus shots etc).There is also a nice scene at the end, where the hero and a little boy he has saved are sitting in the family's mobile food stall. It's night-time and snow is falling, the street-lamp is giving out a cold light, but the food stall has a warm glow coming from it.<br /><br />Overall, I was really disappointed by this film. I'd been looking forward to a decent creature flick, and instead I get some pseudo-political,horror-comedy lite. Looking at the comments on IMDb I can't help but think that if this had been a US production it would have been slated. Just 'cause it's a foreign flick doesn't mean it's any good. There have been some great movies out of Korea in recent years (The vengeance trilogy and Brotherhood, for example), but this certainly isn't one of them. <br /><br />For once I'm in favour of a remake. Tighten up the directing, improve the scripting and this could have been a nice film. As it is, it's not worth a couple of hours of anyone's time. | 0 |
First of all let me say the first 20 minutes are great, the monster looks superb and the CGI is reasonably done. It's a shame then that the rest of the movie is such a disappointment, <br /><br />******** SPOILERS BELOW ******** <br /><br />From the opening scene we can see this movie is anti-American, normally this sort of stereotyping wouldn't bother me (we Brits get enough from Hollywood) but here it's not subtle about making the Americans brain-dead morons. It goes past the point of realism and your left wondering if a Yank has raped the directors mother.<br /><br />The grieving scene was really poor and the part of the movie where it starts going downhill.<br /><br />Here we are introduced to the Olympic medallist Auntie and drunk Uncle who walk into the memorial and start blaming the father for his daughters death, then hitting him before they all start rolling around on the floor crying. Hardly realistic bonding at a time of crisis!<br /><br />The whole virus sideline is ridiculous. If the Americans know there isn't a virus, why are they wasting time, money and resources investigating? The US government agent orders the brain drilling of an innocent Korean for nothing, making the Americans look evil (or stupid), it wasn't helped by the fact this guy was cross-eyed for comical effect.<br /><br />The movie is about hunting the monster. US and Korean special forces are assigned to finding the creature although through-out the movie they are invisible. The only people hunting the monster, in the whole of Korea, is the main family and some random tramp who appears at the end to save the day! Naturally a few US/Korean agents try to stop them along the way.<br /><br />The sister was only included in the movie so she could make the vital shot at the end. It was clichéd, you knew it was going to happen but to make it worse she does bugger all until that part! and my final annoyance, how the hell did that kid survive at the end? the monster had been swimming with it's head underwater for about 5 minutes! why didn't the monster eat the kids in the first place? | 0 |
Don't be deceived as I was by the 'glowing' reviews quoted on the DVD box. "Wildly entertaining.", "a seriously scary freakout.", and the worst of all, "ON PAR WITH JAWS." This movie is none of the above.<br /><br />Normally I don't bother with writing bad reviews for films but I can't believe this one is resting at a comfortable 7 on IMDb. It doesn't deserve it.<br /><br />After a so-so opening daylight attack by a monster created by, what else, chemicals dumped by lazy scientists, this movie goes absolutely nowhere and it goes there sloooowly. Basically and improbably, a girl is snagged by the monster (I'll give them points for a good creature design but this ain't no WETA creation) and her semi-comical family spend an hour-and-a-half tracking her down...in the sewers surrounding the Han river. Their search lacks any suspense-again, someone called this on par with Jaws?-and by the time they find her you realize it was all pretty much pointless. Other than that, a big bulk of the movie is committed to a government quarantine that culminates in one funny scene involving a guy spitting in a gutter in front of a crowded bus stop.<br /><br />Blech. This was bad. I'm not kidding. You want to see a rotten monster movie? Rent Deep Rising. At least you'll save 30 minutes of your life. | 0 |
What a terrible movie. Rotten tomatoes had a good rating for this too. don't be fooled by the positive comments; It wasn't scary. It wasn't funny. It wasn't clever. It won't even hold your attention. I just wasted 2 hours of my life viewing this crap-fest. the computer generated monster was interesting to see the first couple times. after about 15 minutes it no longer entertained. the dialogue was terrible, must be a translation thing. another negative that stood out was the idiot Americans. 3 were portrayed and they were all lacking character, intelligence and judgment. Now I will write a couple of lines to pad this since we have to have 10. The employees at the video store should have slapped me for bringing this title to the counter. | 0 |
MONSTER - He was great; I loved the special-effects which created this monster which looked like an updated version of "The Creature From the Black Lagoon." The scenes with this beast roaming the land and capturing people ranged from good to jaw-dropping.<br /><br />SOCIAL COMMENTARY: Much of the story takes place in the quarantine area as the doctors (under orders from the government) state that SARS-like disease is out there. In a nutshell, we get the familiar government cover-up story. You know, I expect this Liberal paranoid mindset with Hollywood films always painting our government as corrupt, but it looks like the Koreans are copying the format, and it's very tedious. In here, it takes away from the excitement and suspense of this "monster." It just drags the film down. The main family featured in the film has to watch from a distance while the young girl in their family, presumed dead, was hauled off by the creature.<br /><br />MORAL: A typical "don't pollute the water" message because this is what can happen - a horrible mutated monster. This used to be the anti-nuclear bomb message from the 1950 when radiation caused giants ants, spiders, fish or whatever in those schlocky sci-fi films. Now its "environmental issues" that are the focus.<br /><br />THE HUMOR This was mostly stupid. I normally laugh at slapstick but this wasn't funny. I don't know if the Korean sense of humor is that pitiful, or the film was purposely trying to be ultra-corny with a take on the old "Godzilla" movies. Let's hope it's the latter.<br /><br />TRANSFER - The video transfer was good. This was a sharp-looking picture and sound was decent with a lot rear-speaker crowd noise. I watched this in Korean with the English subtitles. That might have been a mistake as the Korean guttural voice sounds got annoying after a half hour.<br /><br />OVERALL - This had a promise but turned out to be a big letdown and even boring in too many spots, which is inexcusable for a modern-day monster film. Two hours was WAY too long for this story. How this film drew record crowds in Korea I don't know. They must not have much in the way of films to enjoy and support. | 0 |
I already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact. | 0 |
this by far one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. I gave up to watch it after an hour and regretted that hour a lot. the acting is horrible and there is almost no plot. my guess is that someone came up with a strange shape of an animal and started to make a story around of it. borrowing some ideas from movies like Resident Evil and Aliens doesn't result in a movie like them. if this going to be a top Korean movie, I'd rather won't bother to see even a Korean movie trailer...<br /><br />By the way, this movies is a good reason to believe that not necessarily a high rating means the movie is promising. I think every Korean who has internet for online gaming rated this movie over the 8, even though has no clue what it is about. | 0 |
Not only was he invariably annoying to listen to, but he had NO jokes. I swear, some fobby Asian guy telling yo momma jokes would've been funnier than Leary's crap. (Well, maybe funny for a couple minutes but at least I'll be able to laugh at least once!) Leary claimed he stopped taking drugs during one of his "jokes"... apparently he was still high on something; he was just some crackhead imprecating rants mostly drug related. One of his jokes was something like, 'I wouldn't use crack, especially having the same name as between my ass' - Oh man, how did he come up with that one?! I swear the only guy that needs to shut the f**k up is Denis Leary. Thank god I didn't have to see him live. This guy totally sucks.<br /><br />If you're easily amused by swearing, and "jokes" where you can come up with yourself, then waste your time with this junk. | 0 |
Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful. | 0 |
Is there a book titled "How to Make a Movie with Every 'Man vs. Nature' Cliché Imaginable"? If not, Ants would make excellent source material for the chapter on killer insects. Ants doesn't have one shred of originality to be found at any point of its 100 minute runtime. I suppose the most surprising thing about Ants is that they actually stretched the film to 100 minutes. The set-up, the characters, the various sub-plots, the death scenes, and the way the ants are presented have been done before any number of times and in most cases, much better. It's amazing that so many of these Insects on a Rampage films were made in the 70s because they're all basically the same movie.<br /><br />And can someone please tell me what in God's name Myrna Loy is doing in this monkey-turd of a movie? A woman as talented and classy as Loy deserved better than Ants as one of her final movies. | 0 |
I remember watching this movie when I was young, but could not recall the title to it then going through horror movies I find it and think to myself "that is the title?" This movie is a kind of combination disaster film/insect attack film with fewer notable stars in it. It is also somewhat boring too, as it has that television vibe to it where you can see the movie fade out for commercials and such. The plot has this sort of resort being invaded by ants. I think they were a bit disturbed by construction or something going on nearby, but do not quote me on that. The most memorable ant attack for me in the whole flick was the first one involving the kid who falls into the swimming pool after being swarmed and of course Summers attack scene too. What else stands out in this one is the very goofy ending where the survivors use cardboard tubes to breath through. In the end though like most television movies this movie is very tame and not very scary in the least unless you panic at the sight of ants. | 0 |
A pretty worthless made for television movie that pretty much follows the killer insect script. Ants mysteriously turn into killer ants near a hotel. I think it is from the hotel food because the sewage from the hotel kitchen drains directly into the ant bed. There is a lack of suspense in this film and it is not scary either. Watching a bunch of ants sting their victims is not very terrifying.<br /><br />Spoilers section The stupidity of the hero is near incredible. He is told that the health inspector that the ants could not be the hero. It has to be a mysterious virus. After the inspector says this, the hero takes his bulldozer and wrecks the huge ant colony. This disturbs the millions of ants and traps the people in the hotel.<br /><br />End spoilers Overall, this movie is extremely lame. I don't understand why it got a DVD release when so many deserving movies have none. My only guess for the DVD release is that Suzanne Summers is featured in the film. This is a movie to avoid. | 0 |
This is another one of those 'humans vs insects/eco-horror' features; a theme that was popular in the late 70's. Only you can't really call it horror. There's zero suspense and no gruesome events. In other words: this movie is pretty lame. It's not that it's really bad or something; it's just very boring. A construction site near a hotel uncovers a big nest of ants. Later on we learn that, probably due to different sorts of pesticides used in the past, their bite became poisonous. Some people get bitten and rushed to the hospital and it takes ages for the residents of the hospital to figure out what's going on. Robert Foxworth figures it out first and then you can see him go berserk with a digging machine for what seems like several hours. Then they flee in the house, waiting to get rescued. And, man, you should see all the efforts they make for rescuing them. I won't spoil too much, but at one point they even use a big helicopter. All the time when I was watching this, I sat there thinking "Come on, people, you all got shoes on. Just run out of the building. I'm sure a bunch of ants won't catch up with you." It's all pretty ridiculous.<br /><br />Of course, lots of close-ups of crawling ants are shown throughout the whole movie. Ants in the garden. Ants in the garbage. Ants in the kitchen. Ants on the roof. Ants in the bedroom. Ants in the sink. And the best part: Ants crawling on people's faces while the actors are breathing through straws. But when you see groups of ants in wider shots, they indeed look like black rice the set designers glued to the wall.<br /><br />One small surprise came near the end. No, it has nothing to do with a twist in the plot. It was just that Brian Dennehy made an appearance as a chief-fireman. Ehrr... What more can I say? This movie is called IT HAPPENED AT LAKEWOOD MANOR but the box-art of my copy read ANTS and the title during the opening credits was PANIC AT LAKEWOOD MANOR. There you have it. Now, since this is a made-for-TV movie from the 70's, I'll be once again extremely mild in my final rating. Now, THE SAVAGE BEES, another 'humans vs insects' TV-movie from 1976 was much better than this one. I even feel I have to go back and add a few points to its rating after having seen ANTS. Lacking suspense, action, thrills, shocks and creepiness, the only thing you'll be left with after seeing ANTS is an annoying itch. | 0 |
I remember seeing this movie a long time ago on television. I remember the premise of the movie being about a bunch of hotel occupants being attacked by man-eating ants. What I didn't remember was HOW AWFUL IT WAS!!!<br /><br />I recently caught this movie on television late at night. I'm sure it must have been a mistake because movies like this usually disappear from existance and are never to be found again! Suzanne Somers (at the pinnacle of her career playing Chrissy on 'Three's Company') plays a vacationer at Lakewood Manor. Constructions workers are installing a swimming pool outside and accidentally disturb an ants' nest. Or should I say, a *MAN-EATING ANTS' NEST*!! One of the workers actually gets attacked by the ants. One minute he's picking them off his clothes one by one, the next minute he's covered in them. The next scene shows a skeleton in the dirt.<br /><br />If you thought that was pretty far-fetched, you should see Myrna Loy playing a wheel-chair bound resident who gets airlifted out of the Manor via helicopter! I could almost picture her thinking in relief that she was getting airlifted out of the movie!<br /><br />The final scenes depict Suzanne, Robert Foxworth and a third guy sitting on the floor of a hotel room with their backs to each other, blowing through straws and covered in ants.<br /><br />That's basically the movie. There's really no "disaster" appeal or "big-star" draw to the film. It was intended to be a 'grand-scale' television event at the time. Now, it's lucky if it gets dumped in a 4:00am timeslot on your local television station.<br /><br />If you want to catch Suzanne Somers at her best, then watch an episode of Three's Company. If you want to see Myrna Loy doing anything to put bread on the table and pay the bills, then watch this movie.<br /><br />0/10 | 0 |
Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.<br /><br />Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!) <br /><br />Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable "twist") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another "twist." It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.) | 0 |
'Anita and Me' is a drama about growing up in multi-ethnic Britain, rather like 'Bend it Like Beckham', or more closely, 'East is East', with which it shares a 1970s setting. The tone is resolutely chirpy (in spite of the dour Black Country accents), but the film lacks 'East is East's vigour and the result seems rather thin and trite. Moreover, the portrayal of the film's central relationship, between an Asian girl and her white friend, is insufficiently deep to justify the way that the movie is structured around it. I have also grown tired of films where the hero years to be a writer, this is naturally often something that real writers have experienced, but hardly a fresh element in a fictional story. 'East is East' was fun and sharp; 'Anita and Me' seems obvious and dull in comparison. | 0 |
I had high expectations following "My Beautiful Laundrette", "Bend it like Beckham" and (less so) "East is East". The histories of British Asians fitting into their adopted home has had many good runs on the big screen, as well as a number of excellent TV and radio series (Goodness gracious me, etc). This one falls flat. Inspite of a good start it rapidly went down hill.<br /><br />Ultimately this was a horribly typical BBC effort, complete with strong regional accents, whacky over-acting characters, a "those were the days" soundtrack, and lots of "issues" in an attempt to be worthy.<br /><br />I found myself cringing at many points during this film. The writing is predictable. Every possible cliche was dragged out and aired. In fact, I have trouble thinking of any cross-cultural/cross-generational devices that could have been used that weren't. The characters were thin and cliched: the eccentric non-conformist minister; the well meaning but ultimately racist old woman; the over weight, overbearing aunt; the pushy Indian parents; the working class neighbour; the 'wise' profound grandmother; the motorbike riding thug. The script was weak, with every chance to shock the audience with overt racist dialogue from the two dimentional racist white characters taken. And why it had to be set in the 70's (apart from needing an excuse for a 70's soundtrack) is a mystery. Possibly it make unbelievable characters slightly more believable to people born after 1979. I don't know.<br /><br />Even these things aside, good acting could have carried this into respectable obscurity. Instead, the usual "BBC comedy" suspects were wheeled out to ham it up. "Bend it like Beckham" had far better comic acting (and serious acting, in fact) than this, with a virtually unknown cast.<br /><br />In summary, a lazy cliched script, over acted, in a dull predictable story. Give it a miss.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Anita and Me seems to be little more than an excuse for Meera Syal, the author of the novel and screenplay, to air her prejudices, grievances and general antipathy towards the English. The general sentiment of Indian superiority over the English in this film is foul.<br /><br />The English people in this film are portrayed as overweight, violent, foul-mouthed, promiscuous, engaging in child neglect, stupid, uneducated, racist, ugly, eating poor food, and dim-witted -- tellingly, only by turning to Indian culture can the local priest be "redeemed" at the end of the film.<br /><br />By contrast, the Indian family are beautiful, clever, educated, can speak many languages, are caring and loving parents, and grammar-school fodder. The film is so insidiously prejudicial that I am astonished the BBC funded it at all. Had it been the other way round, an English family in an Indian community depicted this way, the film would have been seen as racist.<br /><br />There were a few moments where my eyebrow shot so far up my forehead, I thought it would lodge in my hairline. First, the gossip scene between the women at the Divali celebration -- undertext: the English are dirty and promiscuous -- and the men -- undertext: English women are prostitutes. Second, the meal with Anita where Neema's family lie to her about cutlery -- undertext: the English are so stupid, you can make them do anything.<br /><br />But the underlying contempt towards anything English -- even English weddings are an object of scorn -- is evident all the way through the film. The character of Anita was drawn so appallingly -- almost the fallen woman trope -- that I finished the film feeling angry.<br /><br />This is not a "Bend it like Beckham" where the humour is focused on loving exaggerations of a community's behaviour and customs from somebody within that community, and is a film about two girls from different backgrounds coming together. Instead, Anita and Me seems to convey that a form of cultural apartheid is inevitable, as the English are almost an version of the Indian Untouchable caste, and this is underscored by a thinly-veiled series of attacks upon the film's "other" community: the English.<br /><br />I felt Anita and Me is a hate-filled, grievance-based piece of work. On that basis, the BBC should not have funded its production. | 0 |
I'm sure this was one of those "WOAH!" attractions in 1982 when Epcot opened, but now it's just silly. The film's message is cliché. The Circle-Vision is disorienting. And that awful song at the end is grating. And I really wish they'd install seats. After so much walking, all you want to do is sit down for a few minutes. And when you hear there's a film to see it sounds pretty glamorous! You get entertained while sitting down, right? WRONG! You're standing there for 18+ minutes leaning against a short little railing. Disney should make a newer Maelstrom like attraction to liven things up and replace this dull, lackluster film. NOT FUN. Skip it. In fact, skip Canada altogether unless you're eating there. Move directly to the United Kingdom. | 0 |
"Rois et Reine" is a sprawling mess of a movie which will probably irritate as many viewers as it delights. It focuses by turns on ex-lovers Nora (Emanuelle Devos)and Ismael (Mathieu Amalric) as they each confront a major crisis in their now separate lives. While Nora's story is played straight and is sombre in tone, Ismael's is played mainly for laughs, although it's not particularly funny. Nora's crisis is triggered by the terminal illness of her father Louis (Maurice Garrel), and Ismael's by his sudden incarceration in a mental hospital at the instigation of a mysterious third party. Ismael and Louis are just two of the males who have shaped Nora's life, and in turn have been shaped by her, the most notable others being her now deceased first lover Pierre and their young son Elias. As events past and present are played out for the audience, and the ex-lovers become involved in each other's lives once more, it gradually emerges that Nora's personal take on her life story may be less reliable than first meets the eye.<br /><br />Cult director Arnaud Desplechin has fashioned a considerable oddity here, one which has garnered major plaudits in France. He wilfully eschews established narrative convention and develops the movie via a series of dramatic shifts in mood and tone. Had this approach been founded on a coherent unifying core idea or theme it might have worked, but it's not clear in the end what exactly Desplechin's film is actually about. Heavy-handed allusions to Greek mythology and Freudian theory are evidently freighted with meaning but, at least for this unschooled movie-goer, remain less than helpful in illuminating and interpreting the lives of the characters. At other times the treatment lapses into kitsch but the use of the anodyne "Moon River" as the film's theme tune suggests this is probably deliberate.<br /><br />**Spoiler alert** I suspect a major theme of the movie is the not very original observation that how we see ourselves can differ radically from how others see us or even how we think others see us. This idea is most obviously represented in the film by the violent death of Pierre and the revelation contained in Louis' secret diary, but unfortunately both events seem entirely disconnected from what has otherwise been revealed to the audience of Pierre and Louis' respective relationships with Nora. This seems a cheat on Desplechin's part, as if he is thrusting the idea upon us in unmediated form rather than illustrating it more subtly in the natural course of the narrative. One or two darkly surreal touches imply the presence of an alternative but largely unconscious world of persons stripped frighteningly bare, but again these are felt more as pretentious intrusions of film-making technique rather than eruptions from a deeper reservoir of truth inherent in the story. In fact, for all its heavy-handed hints at depth, the characters are curiously undeveloped and unnuanced, as if they function more as ciphers for their creator's many ideas about people rather than as real people in their own right. Much of the detail of their lives seems arbitrarily applied rather than organic. For example, Ismael, as we are constantly reminded, is a viola player, but more than two hours pass before we actually see or hear him play, and the effect of his chosen instrument or profession upon his personality is never elaborated. Hence, he may just as well be a marine biologist or a trapeze artist. <br /><br />Amalric brings a certain manic charm to the unhinged but ultimately sane Ismael, but I found Devos cloying and monotone (which may be intentional, however) as the elusive Nora. Meanwhile Jean-Paul Roussillon as Ismael's father, Elsa Wolliaston as his psychoanalyst and Magalie Woch as the psychically wounded but defiant Sinologist he befriends in hospital make the biggest impact amongst the supporting actors. Catherine Deneuve's in it, too, though her role is little more than a self-referential cameo.<br /><br />Ultimately, "Rois et Reine" is very much an acquired taste. Should it fail to push your buttons, it's very likely that Desplechin's undisciplined and florid approach will frustrate and exasperate even as you somehow keep watching. | 0 |
"Kings and Queen" is a bloated French drama that rambles on for an interminable two hours and thirty-two minutes to no discernible point or purpose.<br /><br />The film features two stories that seem unrelated at first but which eventually connect with one another about halfway through the movie. The first centers around Nora and her struggles with various men in her life, including an elderly father who discovers he has only a few days left to live. The other story involves a young man named Ismael, a violinist who finds himself placed - unfairly, he believes - in a mental institution through the machinations of an unknown third party. After traveling along on separate tracks for awhile, these two narrative strands eventually come together when we learn that Ismael is a former lover of Nora's and the man she has chosen to adopt her son from an earlier, tragic relationship.<br /><br />With a bit more focus and a considerable amount of streamlining, "Kings and Queen" might have been a potent, engrossing drama about modern day relationships. It certainly has moments of tremendous insight and emotional power, and the performances are, for the most part, complex and touching. But, taken as a whole, the film meanders and maunders to such an extent that, quite frankly, it begins to wreak havoc on our patience and to wear out its welcome early on. Even more distressing is the fact that, even though we spend what seems like a mild eternity in the company of these people, we really don't know quite what to make of any of them when the show is finally over. For instance, Nora's father, on his deathbed, writes a withering diatribe against his daughter's character that simply doesn't gibe with the woman we've been looking at for well over two hours. Nora is admittedly no Mother Theresa (then, again, who is?), but she certainly doesn't deserve the invective thrown at her by her very own father. Nora could be accused of being confused, indecisive, a bit self-absorbed at times, but evil enough to have her father wishing he could give her his cancer and make her die in his place? I don't think so.<br /><br />Perhaps this film is simply operating at a level of depth that I was unable to fathom. But my suspicion is that even writer Roger Bohbot and co-writer/director Arnaud Desplechin would have trouble fully explaining their purpose here. This is a well acted, pretentious bore of a film that takes the viewer on a long, rambling voyage through a sea of personal crises, a journey that leaves him no wiser or more enlightened at the end than he was at the beginning. | 0 |
Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, "deep real love"
You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the "super-deep" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.<br /><br />Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing. | 0 |
In sum, overlong and filled with more subplots than swiss cheese has holes! The director and co-writer says he wanted to mix genres - in this case drama and comedy. Well, at least here, these two mix like vinegar and oil. To boot, the comedy is not very funny and juvenile. Additionally, the film is not really realistic. Liberties are taken regarding the legal system in committing French Citizens against their will and the apparent ease of absconding with drugs in French Hospitals. I watched this film on my big screen TV at home and found myself shouting at the film to move on. Eventually toward the end I fast forwarded the final long speech one of the main characters makes to his ex-lover's son. By that time I was worn out by the preposterous confused plot that deals with a dead lover, marriage of convenience and a nutty ex-lover. At times the plot diverts to the families of the two main characters and then reverts back to one of them - either Ismael or primarily Nora. To the detriment of the audience, viewpoints keep changing from Nora and Ismael, her ex-lover confined against his will in a psychiatric hospital. There probably are two potentially interesting films here neither of which are well developed. The epilogue does not really wrap up many of the sub-plots and seems to want the viewer to believe Nora somehow will find happiness although given her circumstances in real life the chances are equivalent to a snow ball's chance in hell. The actors do their best and are appealing, but this is not enough to overcome all the glaring faults of poor writing, editing and lack of focus. | 0 |
It's hard to tell if Noonan and Marshall are trying to ape Abbott & Costello, Martin & Lewis, Curley & Larry, or some other comedy team, but whoever it was they were trying to imitate, they failed miserably. There's barely one weak laugh in this whole incredibly stupid picture. Noonan (who helped write the alleged "script") and Marshall have no chemistry whatsoever; Marshall seems to be trying for a Dean Martin type of devil-may-care coolness, but he doesn't come even remotely close. God knows what Noonan thought he was doing, but being funny sure wasn't it. He seems to think that flapping his arms and legs a lot and staring dumbly at everyone and everything is the height of screen comedy; maybe for him it is, but not for the audience. I remember seeing this in the theaters when it came out. It was on the bottom of a double bill with a three-year-old Jeff Chandler western ("Pillars of the Sky," which was pretty good) and a Three Stooges short ("Sappy Bullfighters", which wasn't), and about 20 minutes into this thing all the kids in the audience were throwing stuff at the screen; it was so staggeringly unfunny that it didn't even measure up to the worst of the Three Stooges shorts. I stayed around for the end of it (not that I wanted to, but my folks weren't due to pick me up until after the movie ended), and by the time this mess was over, I was the only one in the theater. I saw it again about 15 or so years ago on cable one night, and stuck around to watch it to see if it was as bad as I remembered. It was worse. The only thing it had going for it was Julie Newmar, who was as smokingly hot as ever; other than her, this thing has absolutely NOTHING to recommend it. The two of them also play Japanese soldiers, and the way they do it makes Jerry Lewis' infamous playing of Japanese characters as thick-lensed, buck-toothed, gibbering mental defectives look benign by comparison. Marshall went on to host "Hollywood Squares," and Noonan kept trying his hand at making movies, but most of them were almost as bad as this. Not quite, though, as I don't think ANYTHING could be quite as bad as this. A truly pathetic waste of film. Don't waste your time on it. | 0 |
The Rookie suffers from so much. There are the random musical songs interspersed through the movie, the long pointless script and enough grating slapstick to make Jerry Lewis blush. Noonan and Leavitt just don't know when to quit. It takes a full hour before the story finally gets to the main plot and the characters are shipwrecked. Then the guys start playing Japanese sailors with the standard racist caricature of the day. It is a shame the funniest parts of the movie are when Noonan and Leavitt are playing the stupid, stereotyped Japanese guys. But, it gets pretty tiring after switching back and forth between two sets of characters. Then it just abruptly ends. Even a naked Julie Newmar in a towel can't save this one.<br /><br />There is really little charm in the movie and it is over a half hour too long. The story just flounders along trying to set up funny situations and failing. Stick to Martin & Lewis. At least Deano had charm and Jerry had that animated face. | 0 |
This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.<br /><br />In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.<br /><br />It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas. | 0 |
This film was slow but tedious and the acting often drifted into the land of ham. Redgrave's character was unappealing as the 60 something woman trying to compete with Thurman's 20 something for the love of Fox's character (why is beyond me). The title of the movie should have been "Shallow people on the lake". The actors played like they were in a rehearsal. A dreadfully predictable ending to boot. I can't believe this is on this website as a comedy! | 0 |
This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.<br /><br />For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.<br /><br />Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.<br /><br />There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.<br /><br />Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you. | 0 |
Well, Jesus of Montreal is basically an intelligent movie. The actors are indeed good and the technical side of the movie is okay. But, although I was very interested in the topic and like to think and discuss about religion (I am an atheist), it was hard to force myself to watch the movie to the bitter and in my opinion somehow unconsciously funny end. Why is this movie so incredibly boring? I don't know. It just is and so it is not recommendable. | 0 |
You believe in God or you don't. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You believe He is the Son of God or you don't. The choice is up to you.<br /><br />Director Denys Arcand has really done everything he could to bring back Jesus to a mere historic figure, social worker, son of two humans, instead of the Son of God the Holy Spirit and Mary, Who opened Heaven again for us. Encouraging the Big Bang, a world come from evolution, instead of seeing the beauty of creation. The film depicts a theologian bringing some "modern findings" to the actor who plays Jesus in the Passion Play, who happily incorporates them in his play.<br /><br />The depicted priest who runs the sanctuary where the Passion Play is performed in Montreal has a sexual relation with one of the female players of the Passion Play instead of showing his love for God through celibacy. More often than not the director's abhorrence of the Church is clearly visible.<br /><br />The director has tried to make a parallel between Jesus' life and the Passion Play actor's life. This is an admirable attempt, but depicting the Resurrection with the transplantation of the Passion Play actor's organs in other bodies signifies how the director thinks about Jesus.<br /><br />My opinion is not important, God's opinion is, but I wouldn't want to stand in the shoes of the director and actors when standing before Jesus' throne. | 0 |
As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, "Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!" Chances are, you will too. It does start out intrigueing. A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago. Then, one day she dissappears. The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search. So far, so good. Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability. At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart. None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting. The film moves slowly, and there's very little action. There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway. No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense. Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters. One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together. By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake. | 0 |
It's interesting at first. A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time. They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning. He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity. And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story. The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable. Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense. And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying. What a sorry waste of a good idea! | 0 |
I go to a lot of movies, often I bring my 5 year old son, I am so glad I did not bring him to this one. There are many references to sex and a skinny dipping scene, however, that is not the primary reason I would not take him to it. The trailers lead you to believe it is a light-hearted comedy; nevertheless, virtually all of the funny moments are in the previews. I kept waiting for it to get interesting, funny, or anything but serious; however, I nearly fell asleep as the plot-less story dragged on. I understand that dogs can be great company, that being said, the entire story focused on a poorly behaving dog that the owners were not savvy enough to train. If a human caused this much damage and mayhem that person would be banned. The worst movie I've ever seen with Jenifer Aniston or Owen Wilson, a waste of their talent. The best way to sum up this movie is, couple gets unruly dog, couple falls in love with dog, dog dies, couple sad. The End. | 0 |
I love B movies..but come on....this wasn't even worth a grade...The ending was dumb...b/c THERE WAS NO REAL ENDING!!!..not to mention that it comes to life on its own...I mean no lighting storm or crazy demonic powers?? Slow as hell and then they just start killing off the characters one by one in like a 15 min time period...and i won't even start on the part of the thing killing the one guy without its head....and then you don't even get to see what Jigsaw even does with his so called "new jigsaw puzzle"....Unless you have nothing better to do...Id watch paint dry before Id recommend this God-forsaken movie to anyone else...oh and to make it even better the other movie totem you can see the guy throwing the one creature in the basement scene from the window..that was funny as hell and probably the only good part of watching that waste of film | 0 |
Whether you want to spend nearly 2 hours of your life watching this depends how you like your horror movies. If you like them so god damn awful they're hysterical, watch away. Jigsaw is without a doubt the worst movie i've seen in my life (and i've seen 'Long Time Dead'), and i say this as a fan of the low-budget horror/gore genre and having seen a good few to compare it to. I'm not even going to go into the specifics of what makes this movie was bad as it is, the only good thing about it is it's so so terrible it's one of the funniest things i've seen in years. If you can find this to rent cheap it's definitely worth watching, if you were involved in making it - shame on you. :o) IMDb need to introduce a 0/10 ranking especially for this movie, it thoroughly deserves it. | 0 |
OK another film bought by me and Joe Swatman. OK this isn't the worst film i've reviewed this week but it still sucked royaly. we had a lot of fun watching this piece of crap.<br /><br />The Monster Jigsaw is a mish mash of all these dysfunctional students ideas, u just know ur in for trouble when someone equips him with a buzzsaw and a sawed of shotgun, the film wasn't as gory as we hoped, i mean on of the deaths is a heart attack. Again i think the acting sucks, sum of the actors must be porn stars and one get into her undies for what ever reason. <br /><br />The absolute worst part is the ending, it leaves it open for a bit of a Jigsaw 2 but thats never gunna happen lets face it.<br /><br />My ratings:<br /><br />funny 4/100 mock (how much fun we had mocking it) 73/100 acting 8/100 generally 12/100 | 0 |
We've all been there, sitting with some friends watching a bad movie, laughing at how terribly it was made and how poor the acting was; eventually the credits roll and everyone looks around and says "how is it possible such a movie was made? who paid money to have this script made into a feature film?" Well Jigsaw is not that kind of film, instead of asking how this garbage was budgeted you wonder why the makers were shot out of a cannon into the sun. Yes, Jigsaw is quite possibly the worst movie ever made or conceived, this coming from a guy who has seen Campfire Stories and Fever Lake. The film starts out in some kind of college class, what kind of class I am unsure, but it is imagined to be an art class. Now these dorks have been given a final project by their idiot teacher, five of them are given pieces of a mannequin and told to design it in any way they see fit, and since there are only five pieces the other students in the class receive and automatic A, oddly enough there are only six students in this entire class so the one goth chic gets a free A, good for her! A week passes and the five students, plus teacher, plus one hillbilly husband meet in a bar to discuss their and complete their project, they put the pieces together, head, arms, legs and inform the others why they chose their specifics designs, now these creative geniuses used the week to their full advantage, one puts a saw blade in the left hand, the other gets a sawed off shotgun, the right leg gets a bunch of broken ceramic glued to it and the left some magazine clippings, the head is the worst getting a camera in the eye, ala Hellraiser 3, with some bottle rockets for a stylish mo-hawk. After they have all spilled their guts about their specifics designs the now drunk teacher says they are to burn the mannequin, now aptly named Jigsaw. Now up to this point it has been standard horrible movie fair, bad acting, dialog and everything else, but has still been pretty plausible, yet after Jigsaw catches fire things take a turn for the worst...Jigsaw comes alive.. How you ask? I have no idea, he just does because the writers couldn't think of a realistic way for two pounds worth of molded plastic to become alive (Come on guys, a bolt of lighting, a traveling voodoo priest, anything could have worked.) So once Jigsaw comes to life he uses his new abilities of walking very slow and stilted with the use of his molded fingers to wreak havoc. First he kills the cool guy with some barb wire, this guy who was about to get it on with a hot chic decides drinking ground beer off in the distance is more important than what is in front of him. With him gone Jigsaw shoots the sexy girl in the face and then gives an old man a heart attack with a slight twist of his head, he then saws up a nasty looking southern woman and then her hillbilly husband; Jigsaw then kills the nerdy guy with some headless deception. Did I mention Jigsaw was taking body parts off his victims to make a human version of himself? No! Well its not important they don't even show his macabre creation, they don't even show him steal away a torso from his poor creators (Maybe he was trying to create the head detective from In Living Color). So after these five have been killed the teacher and the nerdy girl are all who is left, the teacher figures out that Jigsaw only needs a head to finish his masterpiece, since he is still uninterested in that torso thing. So being the coward he is the teacher ties up the girl as a sacrifice to Jigsaw who comes in only to go for the teacher with his electric buzz saw which isn't even plugged in. That is where the freaking movie ends, we don't even get to see the teacher get killed or what happens to the girl, let alone an explanation why Jigsaw came to life or how he cleaned himself off after being burned. This movie is so shameful it has too be seen, it is only 71 minutes so it is a small part of your day; For the memories of a lifetime, Jigsaw, Jigsaw, Jigsaw. Thank you Total Recall! The Judge has ruled, watch Jigsaw only if your plans of severing off your genitals seems played out. | 0 |
I might not be a huge admirer of the original "Creepshow", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. <br /><br /># The first story "Old Chief Woodenhead" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. <br /><br />-Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! <br /><br /># Second story "The Raft" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. <br /><br />-Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. <br /><br /># Finally number three concludes with "The Hitchhiker". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.<br /><br />-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat
and repeat the line, "Thanks for the ride lady!" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. <br /><br />In all, the second short story "The Raft" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel. | 0 |
CREEPSHOW 2 is the ill-fated sequel to the George Romero's (overrated) original, CREEPSHOW. Any sequel following a Romero film that's not directed by Romero himself has got some large shoes to fill, mostly because of the Romero fans out there who think he's God. I didn't care much for the first film and funny enough, I didn't care much for the sequel. The film series had so much potential but it was short-lived because both films were less than stellar. <br /><br />The biggest problem with CREEPSHOW 2 was that it only had three stories (excluding the in-between story), and because the first story sucked beyond belief, it only left the chance for almost half of the movie to be *really* good. I saw CS 2 at the movies and the first segment was a real groaner. Anything dramatic with George 'I can't act' Kennedy is automatically doomed and the Indian Statue story was too hokey and simply didn't belong in this sequel. So after a really trite and dull start, there were only two other stories left to reverse the fiasco of the aborted beginning and unfortunately the two other stories weren't great enough for me to forget the first story. THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER are moderately successful, moderately because though the two other segments have their moments, they still sorta fall flat. The two last stories are basically stretched out for too long. It's not that I wanted the stories to happen at a dizzying pace and end fast, but both good ideas found within those stories were sorta nullified by the fact that they were slow and padded and eventually fell flat when the segments needed to be more energized, more erratic and with punchier endings. Also, if the two last stories hadn't been stretched out to pad the movie or had all three segments been more brief with better editing and direction, they could have added a much needed fourth story to the bunch. Having only three padded segments made for a boring feast.<br /><br />The acting and writing in both THE RAFT and THE HITCHHIKER segments are from awful to good. I like Lois Chiles in the last segment. It's probably her best moment on screen aside from her role as Bond Girl Holly Goodhead in MOONRAKER and in DEATH ON THE NILE. But even her role is difficult to understand at times because of the serviceable direction and the unfocused story. Are we supposed to hate her or sympathize with her? Are we supposed to sympathize with the annoying hitchhiker? If the hitchhiker's body was found by other people on the road, what was he when he attacked Chiles? Was he a ghost or a zombie or what? How did the body eventually left the presence of the other people who found him dead in order to attack Chiles? The whole thing is not very clear, even for a supernatural story. And the ending is rather dull and uneventful.<br /><br />As for the infamous THE RAFT story, well, the acting is mostly on the awful side and none of the characters are sympathetic or interesting. The characters would have been more interesting had the actors played themselves. None of the actors are convincing in their specific roles. Paul Satterfield looks smarter than the dumb jock he's playing and the actress who plays his girlfriend is not very convincing as the typical bitchy slut. She seems too timid. The same could be said with the two others who play the "plain" teens. The idea of the killer oil slick is interesting and creepy but not well executed. There should have been a fifth character to the story, maybe a homeless man or a ranger who lurks around the lake and knows about the oil slick and could have been the watery monster's alter ego of sorts. As creepy as the oil slick is, it doesn't make for a compelling "character". And the way the story ends, everything seems pointless. No punch to it whatsoever.<br /><br />Except for the few titillating aspects which always seems to make boring things worthwhile, seeing CREEPSHOW 2 at a theater was basically a waste of money and time. CS 2 is more rental material than something you pay to see on the big screen. | 0 |
Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better. | 0 |
"Creepshow 2" is little more than a pale imitation of the original, designed with little purpose other than to cash in on the name of the previous film. It even amplifies the flaws of its predecessor, which was often predictable and heavy-handed. Still, the first time around, there were enough thrills to make up for it's periodic lulls, resulting in an uneven but overall fairly entertaining effort. The sequel has few worthwhile moments, so the transparency of the stories are even more apparent. Once in a while, it delivers, but most of the time, it just lingers there.<br /><br />As in the original, all the stories revolve around the common theme of revenge and just desserts. A wooden Indian comes to life, wreaking vengeance upon the killers of its owner. Teenagers are devoured by an aquatic monster. A hitchhiker returns from the dead to pursue a careless motorist. None of these premises are inherently bad in themselves, but they are utterly lacking in inspiration. There are few surprises and no scares. This a textbook example of unmotivated, by-the-numbers filmmaking. It doesn't help that this cheap-looking movie suffers from a flat directorial style, although to be honest, there wasn't much to work with. In the end, the second story comes off best, but not by much. <br /><br />For the most part, the performances are okay at best. George Kennedy, as the ill-fated general store owner, does an adequate, if not particularly inspired job. Dorothy Lamour, on the other hand, is quite good as the guilt-ridden motorist, evoking sympathy for her plight despite the predictable, redundant material. However, most of the characters are pretty thin overall. <br /><br />One would think that "Creepshow 2" would have turned out better. George Romero, who directed the original, returned to pen the screenplay, based on more of Stephen King's stories. Makeup effects artist Tom Savini turns in some good, gory work. So why is the film a letdown? I guess Romero didn't really want to make a second film, but was forced to do so for financial reasons. It was a decade of horror sequels, clones, rip-offs, and whatnot, so this one was certainly inevitable. I can imagine the guy writing the script in a hurry, picking up his paycheck, and running off. I guess he had to do what was necessary to get his own projects financed; we can't blame him.<br /><br />Rating: *1/2 (out of ****)<br /><br />Released by New World Pictures | 0 |
I am a big fan of old horror movies, and since I am middle aged, old to me is a movie made before 1970 with most being made in the 1920's to 1960's period. I am not a big fan of more modern horror movies, with one exception being Creepshow 1, which I thought was great. I could reminisce about the stories there but I really really enjoyed the monster in the box story with Hal Holbrook, and also the one about the really clean guy was a great ending. All the stories were great though. So why did I like them so much? The characters had some decent development, the lines were very plain about who was good and who was bad, the horror bits were heightened with a close up of a face aghast with fear, and the funny bits were really funny! This sequel is either greatly lacking of these elements or they are totally absent! I am writing this only having watched it partially because the movie was a complete waste of time and I turned it off to do other things like write movie reviews on IMDb.com, lol. When George Kennedy and an old Dorothy Lamoure get top billing it's telling you something.....4 of 10. Also, Romero's expertise is hard to find here, they must had told him to tone it down to a PG standard (I don't know what this was rated at but it looks PG to me), and that's not a good thing for a movie with nothing else going on. It's shown on the Encore cable channel if your dieing (yuck yuck) to see it. | 0 |
Sequels have a nasty habit of being disappointing, and the best credit I can give this is that it maintains that old tradition. These three tales aren't anything as good as any from the original Creepshow.<br /><br />By far the best of the trio involves a wooden idol which comes to life to take revenge on the thugs who killed its owners. The second story is about a lake monster which seems to be nothing more than a lot of floating slop, makes you wonder how anybody could possibly be scared of it. The third story includes a cameo from Stephen King as a truck driver, but other than that is a pretty unmemorable tale concerning the victim of a road traffic accident who comes back from the dead for the person who knocked him down.<br /><br />Watch the original Creepshow instead, or if you already have done then be happy with that. | 0 |
Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars. | 0 |
I rented it because the second segment traumatized me as a little kid. I snuck downstairs really early one morning, started watching HBO, and The Raft (segment 2) terrorized me good. This time around, I still enjoyed The Raft, although I couldn't tell whether it was for nostalgic reasons or if it was actually a good short. The other two segments were complete trash. I can't believe a producer somewhere payed to make this junk. All I've accomplished by watching this was to ruin one more childhood memory. Creepshow 2 will now join Rad among my list of tainted childhood classics. 4/10 | 0 |
Andy Lau stars in another cop undercover tale. Daniel Wu plays Nick who is working for the cops and is also close to the top of a drug dealing gang(Lau). The movie begins as we watch the police try to make a drug bust only to see it go to pieces. We then are introduced to the young drug addicted mother and her daughter living near Nick and to his cronies and the cops, and 45 minutes in I shut off the movie and put on the news. Well acted and great to look at this is as uninvolving a movie as I've seen in a long time. Its not bad as such its just you really don't care. I mean I really didn't care at all. I actually started to do something else completely forgetting I had on a subtitled movie on, thats how much I didn't care. I wish I could have hated the film but the film is such a nonentity that it made almost no impression on me (its not even something I could sleep to its just something to ignore). Come on the box called it the Chinese Scarface,what after he was dead? This is one to avoid. | 0 |
Protégé runs in a linear fashion; expect no fast-paced action, and neither will you find yourself with baited breath because there are simply no seating-on-the-edge moments.<br /><br />There is not much of a crux, so don't expect one either. I would not fault the acting - the show would have been much worst if not for Wu's acting which was the film's only saving grace. And, oh that cute little girl too.<br /><br />The humour is at best, weak, and the show must as well pass off as an anti-drug campaign which employs the usual shock-tactic (esp in the scenes with Zhang) to tell us stuff that we already know - i.e. drugs break up families, heroin drives you crazy, it is not so easy to wean off, you will fall into a vicious cycle.<br /><br />I know it may seem all a little harsh, but I feel that the show is far from seamless and somewhat patchy (*SPOILER ALERT*: Take for example when Andy Lau got brought to the police station: what? we were just told 'oh we have all the tapes and evidence against you since 1997', and THAT is how he got caught. Nope, no chasing-car action, just a jump-of-scene, which kind of undermined Wu's role as an undercover in the first place.) I suspect the lack of creativity is attributed to the fact that it is after all, a production of Mediacorp Raintree - a Singaporean production film company. | 0 |
Whoa. In the Twin Cities, we have a station that shows a "Big Bad Movie" Monday through Friday. Tonight's nugget was a film with Carrie Fisher called "She's Back" about a really annoying woman who ends up getting murdered when thugs break into her house. Bea (Beatrice) comes back to haunt her husband. She wants him to seek revenge on her killers, hence "she's back". And she won't let him rest until he does so. She irritates him endlessly... and the viewers, too! This movie is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Hey, I like bad movies, though (my fave movie is Xanadu). I was really shaking my head throughout the whole film, wondering who thought this would be a good idea for a movie. Bea is just so annoying. The plot is silly; the acting is bad; the story... well, you get my drift. Anyway, if you wanna see a really bad movie - really really bad movie, check this one out. You won't be disappointed. Heh. | 0 |
This movie should be number one on the bottom 100. The acting is so horrible that when my son and I watched it we nearly got physically ill. And the story is worse. I could go on and on about how bad it is but all I really wanted to do was add a warning to frankbob's review as I see no one else has gone to the trouble of doing so yet. Don't waste your time, money, energy or anything else on this movie. Thank goodness we saw it on TV so we didn't spend anything on it. Had we, I would have been forced to write the people responsible for this abomination and be forced to hurl an execration in their general direction. In conclusion, I would like to say that I have always enjoyed watching Carrie Fisher act. But I am sad to say that she is not worth watching in this particular film. Don't spoil your opinion of Carrie by viewing it. | 0 |
Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud. | 0 |
OK this movie was really "unique" shall we say. Carrie Fisher was by far the most talented in the movie, even though it is said she had a coke problem during the movie. but she said that she can't remember to much of it. well thats her excuse but whats everyone else's??? i can't imagine they all had a coke problem.whatever it wasn't all that bad i mean i guess the plot was OK and it had some pretty funny moments. although the part where the guy gets that thing shoved in his head was a little too violent for my taste. oh well i guess i was disappointed cause Carrie fisher is like so awesome and this movie did nothing for her. | 0 |
While the acting and directing could be argued as having some merit - the storyline is a very poor wannabe Vietnam movie with the country name simply changed.<br /><br />At the very least, for a movie to hold some credibility, try and have some semblance of accuracy in equipment, weapons and tactics. Nevermind the gross misrepresentation of the behaviour of the troops as a norm.<br /><br />Aside for the limited use as silly propaganda about the South African Defence Force, it serves little purpose - definitely no entertainment value.<br /><br />Aspiring movie makers - this is how not to make a war movie. Do some research, and have some pride in your product. | 0 |
I am a relative latecomer to the transcendent work of film auteur Yasujiro Ozu, whose masterfully understated views of Japanese life, especially in the post-WWII era, illuminate universal truths. Having now seen several of his landmark films such as 1949's "Late Spring" and 1953's "Tokyo Story", I am convinced that Ozu had a particularly idiosyncratic gift of conveying the range of feelings arising from intergenerational conflict through elliptical narratives and subtle imagery. It is Taiwanese director Hou Hsiao-hsien's keen aspiration to pay homage to Ozu on his centenary with this generally enervating 2003 film. Among with co-screenwriter T'ien-wen Chu, Hsiao-hsien appears to get the visuals right but does not capture the requisite emotional weight that would have made the glacial pacing tolerable.<br /><br />The story concerns Yôko, a young Japanese writer researching the life of mid-20th century Taiwanese composer Jiang Wen-Ye in Tokyo after coming back from Taiwan where she taught Japanese. After 25 drawn-out minutes of character set-up, she reveals to her father and stepmother that she is pregnant by one of her students in Taiwan. At the same time, Yôko's coffeehouse friend Hajime, who runs a used bookstore, has an obsession for trains and seems likely to be in love with her. Hsiao-hsien connects this slim plot line with a series of shots held for inordinately lengthy takes as the frame composition changes. There are also long stretches of silence as well as an abundance of scenes featuring trains. While these techniques are consistent with Ozu's style, Hsiao-hsien cannot seem to dive into the characters' psyches the way Ozu did with maximal fluidity and minimal theatrics, in particular, Yôko's plight seems rather non-committal in the scheme of the drama presented and her parents' reaction overly passive to hold much interest. In fact, the whole film has an atmosphere of exhaustion about it, which makes the film feel interminable.<br /><br />The performances are unobtrusive though hardly memorable. J-pop music star Yo Hitoto brings a natural ease to Yôko, while Tadanobu Asano is something of a cipher as Hajime. The rest of the characters barely register, even Nenji Kobayashi and Kimiko Yo as Yôko's parents. Cinematographer Lee Ping-Bing provides expert work though he violates a cardinal rule of Ozu films by not keeping the camera stable during shots. Hitoto speak-sings the fetching pop song used over he ending credits, "Hito-Shian". The DVD includes an hour long, French-made documentary, "Métro Lumière", which actually does help provide some of the context for Hsiao-hsien's approach to the film. It includes excerpts from Ozu's films, in particular, "Equinox Flower", to show the parallels with this film though surprisingly no mention of either "Tokyo Story" or "Early Summer", the obvious basis for some of the scenes and situation set-ups. There are also edited interview clips of Hitoto, Asano and Hsiao-hsien, as well as the film's trailer. | 0 |
I've given 'Kôhî jikô' a low score not because it was a bad movie, but because it doesn't do anything worth praising.<br /><br />I've not seen any of Hsiao-hsien Hou's work before, but for the uninitiated (me included) 'Kôhî jikô' is advertised as a homage to Yasujiro Ozu. (A Japanese director whose last film was way, way in 1962) The film is an extremely sparse work...containing very little dialogue, story, music or emotion.<br /><br />Yo Hitoto plays 'Yoko' a jobless, wandering character who spends her time in her local coffee shop or loosely investigating a Taiwanese composer she likes. Tadanobu Asano plays her friend, who works in a cd shop and occasionally indulges his otaku interest in trains. And that's about all it.<br /><br />We watch as Yoko drinks coffee alone...walks around...waits for a train...catches a train...falls asleep on the train. The kind of mundane reality anybody in Japan can see on a daily basis. Hou captures these ordinary moments of these characters life, but without any meaning to these vignettes it's an entirely pointless film to make or watch. | 0 |
Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.<br /><br />There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it. | 0 |
It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?<br /><br />Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that. <br /><br />Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing. <br /><br />Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.<br /><br />The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise. | 0 |
"The seventh sign" borrows a lot from "Rosemary's baby" and "the omen" (it actually blends the two stories).Even its title recalls Bergman' s "the seventh seal" .<br /><br />Nevertheless,it begins well enough,with all the omens scattered on the whole earth,and in parallel ,a -seemingly- distinct plot with Moore's husband trying to save a poor boy (who killed his parents who were brother and sister)from death penalty.This time,both Christian and Jewish religions are called to the rescue (even the Wandering Jew is involved),which makes the lines sometimes unintentionally funny (Have you ever been to Sunday school? But they taught me that God was love!).The best scene IMHO ,is the short dialog between priest John Heard -who does not seem to take things seriously ,too bad he was not given a more important part because his laid-back acting is priceless-and the young Jew.<br /><br />Demi Moore probably registered the same desire as ex-husband Bruce Willis :saving the world.She does not save the movie for all that. | 0 |
When I saw this film on FearNet, I thought it would be a scary movie. Apparently, it wasn't. I have no clue how this movie was allowed to be featured on that site. FearNet is a site that shows scary horror movies.<br /><br />The acting is wonderful from all the actors. I hated the story. The story was stupid. The movie starts out with a man with a scroll with a signia stamped onto it. He breaks the seal and certain disasters happen. The water turns to blood, the oceans die out, the moon turns red, etc. <br /><br />The female character was annoying as well. A lot of the stuff she did didn't make sense. Like when she sees a piece of paper with a date on it. Coincidentally, it's the date she's expected to give birth to her baby and she starts freaking out about it and starts researching it and asking religious people what it all means.<br /><br />*Spoiler Alert* <br /><br />The two worst things happened in this movie are the execution of a mentally retarded man who claimed that God told him to murder his parents and the end where Demi Moore dies after giving birth to her baby and transferring her soul into it.<br /><br />Here's what happens. The mentally retarded person gets shot and killed and the apocalypse begins. Demi Moore gets into a hospital in the middle of a massive earthquake and gives birth to her child. She touches her child's head, transferring her soul into the child and then dies. Then, the apocalypse stops.<br /><br />Why does God all of a sudden have a change of heart? He gets furious when the Governor allows the execution of a mentally retarded man then he's all about forgiveness once a lone woman transfers her soul into her baby? <br /><br />*End Spoiler* <br /><br />The movie is pretty stupid. It's another religious end of the world propaganda piece. The acting from Demi Moore and Michael Biehn and everybody else is excellent. That's about all there is.<br /><br />I give this movie 2 stars out of 10. Good acting with a lot of nonsense! | 0 |
one word boring.<br /><br />the young demi looks good, but she's pregnant (- point for that =D) the movie is not scary at all...<br /><br />the first scenes looked little crappy, i could render better clouds with my laptop, and after effects. but that was then... and now is now. some movies do not get old well... this is one of them.<br /><br />not worth renting or buying... get something better instead like the exorcist, ...<br /><br />next =D<br /><br />oh the drama part in the beginning just and simply suxor =D | 0 |
The movie confuses religious ethics and ideals so much that it fails to create coherent argument against the death penalty on any level. By presenting the lawful execution of a convicted murder as the catalyst for the apocalyptic end of mankind the movie elevates a parent killer to the status of martyr for Christ. Somehow, according to the plot, god is outraged that society has chosen to rid it's self of a fanatic who killed his own parents by starting them on fire while they slept defenselessly in their beds. Yet this same god has no indignation for the acts of the killer. The lead character, an nonreligious pregnant suicidal woman, ultimately gives her own life in a defiant but implausible attempt to unsuccessfully save this convicted killer. In other threads of the underdeveloped plot Jesus comes back as a powerless and frustrated vagabond to symbolically unleash the wrath of God. The modern lackluster incarnation of Christ not just dehumanizes him but mocks the messianic ideal of all religions as well. He is unable to affect humanity for good and unemotionally skates the edges of life waiting for mankind to destroy it's self. Meanwhile, with little help from Jesus the mentally unstable pregnant woman finds herself with the ability to reincarnate herself into her newly born soulless child which somehow saves all of mankind from the wrath of the almighty. I also interpreted that as a statement in support of abortion on some levels. This movie which attempts to weave many religious themes into a thriller fails to make any religious point that I could clearly interpret except to mock people's beliefs. It raises many questions that it never even attempts to answer. It disregards the religious values of its audience while attempting to portray an asinine version of their fulfillment. Silly | 0 |
<br /><br />Dull Demi, going thru the motions. Ditto Prochnow. Ominous portents that elicit yawns. Michael Biehn trying to be dynamic, which ain't his shtick.<br /><br />To quote Buffy Summers, "If the apocalypse comes...beep me."<br /><br />Going back to sleep now. | 0 |
THE SEVENTH SIGN has a great opening hook as the Israeli defence force come across a terrorist base . This is the type of hook that is a must when writing a script , it grabs the reader / audience and the introduction of David Bannon as he rents a room from Abby and Russell Quinnn telegraphs the point that this is a man who`s not who he says he is . However after the great opening third I found the rest of the movie confusing and uninvolving with a large number of plotholes and isn`t all that different from umpteen other supernatural thrillers that I`ve seen | 0 |
Really. Does any week go by that Oprah doesn't remind us that she was abused as child?<br /><br />She makes herself the focus of every interview.<br /><br />Oprah cannot resist commenting on the answer to every question she asks. She often interrupts guests before an answer is finished to interject her own aside or anecdote. Directors are obviously instructed to focus on her closeup reaction rather than guest's faces because that's what counts - what Oprah feels, what Oprah says.<br /><br />Oprah, Oprah, Oprah. It's always all about Oprah.<br /><br />Oprah says - Feel sorry for me, I was so poor. Feel the pain of my battle with my weight. Feel my hurt when I'm turned away from a fancy store after they've already closed. Feel good for buying my magazines and books. Feel good for my success. Feel good when you give to my charity to make me look good. Feel good for making me rich beyond belief.<br /><br />My interpretation of her point of view: YOU VIEWERS ARE ALL DEEPLY FLAWED AND YOU NEED MY DAILY ADVICE. I have all the answers for your life though I have nothing in common with you plebes. I have never been married nor do I want to be. I have never had to raise a family - but I know all about it. I have little respect for men or marriage. I clearly prefer people like me over others - witness "Legends Ball 2006". Gayle is my best friend but we are not gay.<br /><br />As of 7/31/2006, the heading on her website actually reads : "Oprah.com is your leading source for information about love, life, self, relationships, food, home, spirit and health." How presumptive and obnoxious is that ? <br /><br />In June 2006, she crashed two private wedding receptions in Oklahoma to gather footage for her September 2006 shows. She keeps promising to quit TV but her yapfest drags on with no end in sight.<br /><br />Contrary to what she thinks, Oprah is neither a queen nor a goddess nor on a personal mission from God. She's just one very lucky, overweight, black woman who copied Phil Donahue's style and called it her own. She happened to be in the right place at the right time and knew exactly how to suck up to the right demographic. <br /><br />Oprah is the P.T. Barnum of this age and it amazes me that people cannot see through her facade. <br /><br />So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls and you too Oprah if you can fit that inflated ego through the door - This way now to the great egress ... | 0 |
As the 2000's came to a close, king Kong's adopted daughter went ahead and made a tearful announcement her show as coming to an end.<br /><br />While Miss Winfrey was tearing up, i was laughing and screaming like a wild Indian from the old west.<br /><br />So what does Oprah do? she takes famous people, and puts them on her show. what kind of famous people? people who've suffered (just like her, except these people have lost more than their virginity) they've suffered melted faces (true story), missing limbs (True story, see end of paragraph), and spousal abuse (too many to count). and somehow they come on the show and tell their story, as if we haven't heard it before tons and tons of times (Bethany Hamilton, i've heard your tale about losing an arm to a shark since day one, which was October 31st, 2003. don't tell me you have no hard feelings.) But the biggest thing probably on Oprah was Michael Jackson's interview in 1993, after being accused of being a child molester. sadly, Mr. Jackson has since passed away. but that one particular show told about Michael's personal life, something not many people knew about at the time.<br /><br />Oprah's Real influence comes from middle aged women and soccer moms. They seem to think she's like a personal Jesus sometimes. but all i see in Oprah is some big ghetto lady who made it big, and she's just showing off how rich she is.<br /><br />I'm glad her shows going to end soon. we need better television programs. | 0 |
Guy de Maupassant was a novelist who wrote a novel about a man, a poor man, without any moral qualities. He only wanted to success in a society where all the people, the politic men, the businessmen, the journalists, the women are corrupt. The only king is MONEY. The Maupassant hero, Charles Forestier is going higher and higher in the society scale thanks to his seduction poser. He is in love with all the women who could help him in his action to climb the society stapes. At the end of the novel, he married himself with the biggest daily paper owner's daughter, in the greatest church of Paris : "La Madeleine". "Le Tout Paris" is there. He has a fortune and more, he will become a member of Parliament and later a Minister. The "useless" women are out of his view, but he is always keeping in touch with the pretty and the usefull women. The picture "THE PRIVATE AFFAIRS OF BEL AMI" is a story of MORALITY. It is everything, but not a story in the Maupassant idea. Why had they put "BEL AMI" in its title ? | 0 |
From the decrepit ranks of the already over-saturated 'Hillybilly Horror' sub-genre comes this woeful tale of a vacationing family terrorized by inbred rednecks. Sound familiar? Well it most definitely should to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of the horror genre. There is absolutely new here. The film seems content to recycle all thee old worn out clichés (deformed hicks, a peaceful family turned gun-toting killers when push comes to show, the rebellious daughter, the one 'freak' who's good at heart, etcetera...), but does even that half-heartedly enough to make this an utter waste of time. This is forgettable dreck, but humorously enough lead J.D. Hart once starred in a movie called "Films that Suck" earlier in his career, quite an ironic omen indeed.<br /><br />My Grade: D- | 0 |
A family looking for some old roadside attractions to include in the father's coffee-table book come across an ancient, decrepit old freak show run by an eccentric one-eyed man. When their family van breaks down upon leaving the sideshow, they're forced to stay at a nearly abandoned fishing camp that was the site of a prison break decades prior.<br /><br />There have been many films in the 'freak' subgenre of horror, ranging from Tod Browning's beloved 'Freaks' (1932) to Alex Winter's hilarious 'Freaked' (1993). Those are both classics (or soon-to-be with 'Freaked'). 'Side Sho,' however, never will be. And if it ever does reach classic status. . . well, it will be an obvious clue to the sad state of our genre. From the ridiculously bad opening song to the 17-year-old daughter that's obviously older than her natural mother, this film did not have much going for it. The writing was subpar, but not completely awful. . . just boring. The direction was poor, and the rare freak effects were pretty horrendous and unbelievable. The acting was abysmal and the casting was even worse. Anyone who would believe the ages of these two camp-age teenagers must not have met a teenager in a long, long time. There was far from enough gore & violence to make up for the lack of any other quality. . . and when there was a bit of violence, it was not well done at all. And, I can't forget to mention the ending fight scenes which were, with all honesty, some of the worst I've ever, ever seen in a film. Overall, this is an easily forgettable and poorly made horror film that deserves to be left alone at the bottom of the dollar bin.<br /><br />Final verdict: 2.5/10. | 0 |
After 30 seconds, you already realize that there was no real budget for this cheap knock-off. The story is taken from great movies like "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "Hills have Eyes". I like those kind of movies, even if they're duplicated well (Wrong Turn, Timber Falls, Carver). <br /><br />But "Side Sho" is hard to watch: the actors are really bad, the dialogue is cheesy and the music is stupid and totally misplaced. You do not care at all what happens to the characters. The so-called bad guys are also not interesting at all and rather stereotypical. So how about the blood and gore ? Well there is some, although it is rather cheap and the action is executed very poorly. 2 Points, just for the gore and blood but do understand that this is hardly worth a look, even for the gore-hounds.. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.