text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
There have been more interesting polish documentaries on worm farming, in brail_!! The competition (worm farming) had a better plot and more interesting characters. I was physically ill after watching this movie. The cheating husband (i think dougray_scott_) was a joke in every meaning of the word. Poor Jennifer must really need the work, and what was with the accent!!. The locations and random meetings reminded me of a high school prank, and showed the humility of a 10 year old in cooking class. It was that bad that I think I will write the sequel named "this is not a laxitive". Thank you for listening it was a great weight of my conscious. | 0 |
Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here. | 0 |
Daddy's girls Florence Lawrence and Dorothy West receive some terrific news at the local post office, unaware they are being stalked by burglar Charles Inslee. Meanwhile, father David Miles receives a message (from young Robert Harron) which necessitates daddy leaving home; so, when the young women return, they can be
home alone. As the vulnerable pair bed down for the evening, the local "Grand Ball of the Black and Tans" gets underway; and, a dark-skinned drinker portends additional danger for D.W. Griffith's dynamic duo
<br /><br />Mr. Inslee has one of his better Biograph roles, stealing the film from "The Girls and Daddy". Ironically, Director Griffith appears as one of the black-faced extras at the "Black and Tans" ball. "Biograph Girls" Lawrence and West are suggestive of later "Griffith Girls" Lillian and Dorothy Gish, especially in "Orphans of the Storm" (1921); and, they are excessively affectionate in bed! The racist tone is unfortunate, since the story of a burglar redeemed by saving his potential victims from a greater danger, is intriguing. <br /><br />*** The Girls and Daddy (2/1/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Florence Lawrence, Dorothy West, Charles Inslee | 0 |
I can't believe anyone liked this movie. I've seen a lot of low-budget indie films, but this one absolutely sucked. Low budget doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. Horror doesn't mean the movie has to be demented. There was nothing scary about this movie at all. It was just a gore-fest, and a particularly disturbing one at that. The acting was average, considering they were all unheard of actors, but the story was pathetic, the dialog was pathetic. The movie tries to come off as "artistic", or something. This is not one of those really great indie films that cost only thousands of dollars to make, but are incredibly well done. This was nothing more than an excuse for some extremely sick people to put their perverse obsessions on film. Other reviews here also said that the soundtrack sucked...that's because most of it was written by the same person, and some of the songs were written by one of the writers of the movie. There were no redeeming qualities to this movie at all. A complete waste of my time and money. | 0 |
I think this movie was supposed to be shocking. But the only way in which it is indeed shocking is how shocking badly it's been made ...and simply is. It's one-and-a-half hour of torment. Even more so for the viewer than for the characters in the movie (the five girls).<br /><br />Sure the main characters get their bloody piece in a bad way, which is basically fine, since it's a horror-movie. And I (usually) like horror-movies. I've no problem with violence in these type of movies per se. However all the violence in this film serves no end whatsoever. It's no spectacle other than that it's simply grotesque. It's so lame it even gets boring, and really quick too.<br /><br />The worst thing (if the above wasn't bad enough for ya) about this movie is that they've tried to copy the Blair Whitch Project, by filming with cheap hand-held-cameras. But (again, this too) serves no end whatsoever. In the "Blair Which", sure enough, there's an explanation, namely they are their with a camera looking for the blair witch. In this film, there's no other explanation than: "Hey ya'll we wanted this to LOOK LIKE the Blair Whitch!!" The sound in the movie is also something to get depressed about. The girls are screaming so hysterically that many a time you can't make out what they're saying. Also, no effort has been made to make anything any better, sound-wise or other wise.<br /><br />Than finally, there's the soundtrack, which is just as bad as the rest, and varies from cheap euro-house to the worst grungy hard-rock...<br /><br />My advise: Don't watch this under ANY circumstances. | 0 |
The word in the summary sums it up d'oh ;) Five girls get lost trying to find their way home, when they stop at a store to get directions they hit a parked car breaking one headlight on it, they flea the scene in fair of getting in trouble but suddenly they see one headlight coming up behind them (ooooh).<br /><br />From there out everything is screaming, crying and violence when they try to get away from this crazy person who lost it because of a headlight ;), well the screaming and crying pretty much stays through the entire movie (very annoying) The movie is shot, with a cheap camera trying to make it seem "real" or "shocking" I guess, it's just embarrassing and useless though. In lack of anything better to compare it with, "Blair witch style".<br /><br />The screaming and crying for pretty much the entire movie with crappy sound was over the top annoying, you literally get a headache :)<br /><br />I'm sorry but this was not scary, only an annoying painful piece of crap movie. | 0 |
After just watching FIVE ACROSS THE EYES, I gotta be honest...I just didn't like it. I had read so many good reviews on this movie, but I just did'nt get where these reviews have came from,<br /><br />I have got a lot of time for newcomers into film-making, and I'm sure the directors will do well for themselves, but the budget they had was the main problem, there was two cameras used in the entire film (which was OK) but they seemed like really cheap cameras. Another problem was the sound, you get all these girls screaming and shouting all at the same time, all talking on top of each other - it's just impossible to hear what they're saying.<br /><br />It had a good idea going for it, in a nutshell, they hit a parked car then drive off, a short while later they are getting chased by the car they hit, driven by a mad woman, who wants to kill them, and has plenty of chances to do so!...and on the other hand the girls have plenty of chances to escape, but don't! <br /><br />Very frustrating...I only just scraped through this one! | 0 |
This movie has many problem associated with it that makes it come off like a low budget class project from someone in film school. I have to give it credit on its campiness though. Many times throughout the movie I found myself laughing hysterically. It was so bad at times that it was comical, which made it a fun watch.<br /><br />If you're looking for a low-grade slasher movie with a twist of psychological horror and a dash of campy ridiculousness, then pop a bowl of popcorn, invite some friends over, and have some fun.<br /><br />I agree with other comments that the sound is very bad. Dialog is next to impossible to follow much of the time and the soundtrack is kind of just there. | 0 |
Do not waste your time watching this! Unless you want to study it for all the wrong things you shouldn't do to make a good film. I am not one to usually review a movie, but this one is personal. I wasted precious time which they cannot give back. I feel compelled to write this report to warn others not to waste their time watching this crap. If this was a student project, i would have to say not bad, but only for the first 15 min... after that it gets annoying. the screaming, the bad audio, the bad video (a good camera man could have made it much better). and yes, whats with the Blair-Witch effect? no budget? I was hoping it was going to get better, but it doesn't. Now how the hell did it deserves a 4? 2 is more fair but 1 for wasting my time! I have said my peace. | 0 |
This really is the most dreadful film I have ever seen. I simply have no idea how anyone has the audacity to put this on release.<br /><br />The production standards are atrocious. There is no pretence here at cinematography. The camera work, scripting, acting and sound are unbelievably crass. I think there is a plot, but it could have been done in 10 minutes sparing us the time to watch it. The hysterical neurotic girls at the centre of this piece have no credibility whatsoever.<br /><br />I would urge anyone to avoid spending any time or money on this Title. It is truly atrocious.<br /><br />JDD - 14 December 2008 | 0 |
This film was positively the worst film I have ever watched. I couldn't sit through the whole thing. I also think writer must have some weird fetish for women peeing puking and crapping... I mean what was that all about! I cant believe this was even made and am disgusted at have #ingwasted a £4 rental fee. The quality both picture and sound are terrible, the acting... well doesn't exist . It was a poor excuse for a film and the scenes of pee, crap and puke were reminiscent of 2 girls 1 cup. Urghh....... AVOID AT ALL COST! The girls looked like they had been picked off the street and only got the part cos they'd be willing to take their tops off... While these girls have nice bodies it certainly didn't make up for the fact their shrieking was awful unconvincing and a pain to my ears.<br /><br />This was like (possibly worse) than an ammateur school production without any proper direction and hey there is no need for a set as it all seems to revolve around a car?! <br /><br />Definatey not one to buy folks. Sorry if my first comment is terribly negative but I could not find anything positive to say and I would like to think I may save someone else wasting their money like I have. | 0 |
How, in the name of all that's holy, did this film ever get distribution? It looks as if it has been shot on someone's mobile phone and takes the screaming girl victim scenario to whole new depths. They literally scream for the full 90 minutes of the movie. And that's all they do. There is no plot, no tension, no characters, and not a lot of acting. Just screaming and more screaming.<br /><br />I gave up after fifteen minutes and fast-wound through it to see if anything happened. It doesn't - except for screaming, of course. Odlly enough, the act of going through it on fast forward highlights another problem - there is no camera-work to speak of. Every shot looks like every other shot - middle distance, one angle, dull, dull, DULL.<br /><br />It's not so bad it's good. It's just plain bad. | 0 |
I can't believe this is on DVD. Even less it was available at my local video store.<br /><br />Some argue this is a good movie if you take in consideration it had only a 4000$ budget. I find this funny. I would find it very bad whichever the budget.<br /><br />Still more funny, I read the following in another review: "Dramatics aside, if you love horror and you love something along the lines of Duel (1971) updated with a little more story and some pretty girls thrown in, you'll love this movie."<br /><br />What?!? This is a shame comparing those two movies.<br /><br />I give a "1", since I can't give a "0". I just don't see any way this movie could be entertaining. | 0 |
As horror fans we all know that blind rentals are a crap-shoot. Sometimes we find a real gem, but many times we find that the film we've just spent our hard earned money on is nothing more than a putrid steamer made worse by the completely undeserved rave reviews and film fest awards listed on the box. Such is the case with Five Across the Eyes ( a title I'm sure is a double entendre referring to both the films budget and the compulsion anyone watching it might have to using all five fingers to stab their eyes out ).<br /><br />The story, or, at least what the *ahem* writers think passes for one, centers on a group of teen girls who unwisely decide to go on a backwoods joyride late at night after leaving a football game and run afoul of a crazy woman who plays cat and mouse with them as punishment for what she thinks the girls found in her car after a fender-bender in a gas station parking lot.<br /><br />In fairness, it's an interesting idea. Some of the best horrors have very simple story lines. It's in the execution of Five Across the Eyes that this idea falls flat. The film tries to be a cross between The Blair Witch Project with its shaky camera work and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre in its bare-bones approach to the material but succeeds at being neither. What we get instead are redundant scenes of chase, torture, release; chase torture, release, in that order for 94 minutes with long interludes of bitching, moaning, and incoherent rambling acting as plenty of padding in-between chase sequences.<br /><br />The look of the film is incredibly grainy and dark, which, in a better made film might have enhanced the tension and the realism. Here it's merely annoying. The characters are undeveloped and the viewer is hard-pressed to find anything to sympathize with them. One character stops to get a first-aid kit and tend to some scrapes on her face while gunshots heard in the background indicate her friends may be getting killed. Another girl mutters hilariously dumb lines like "Don't go out there, she'll get you, if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kill's you you're dead".<br /><br />It was an accolade from Fangoria magazine and Dreadcentral.com listed on the box that compelled me to check this one out. Talk about a fake orgasm! Perhaps my expectations would have been met had this been in the comedy section. I'm all for low-budget Indie horror but this one takes the crap-cake. Give Five Across the Eyes (or FATE; get it?) a pass.<br /><br />RazorFriendly gives FATE 1 slash out of five / | 0 |
The writers and producers of this little outing have plummeted new depths of depravity. Did writer's block set in so badly, OR had ideas dried up so much, that they were forced to include a disgusting scene where a young woman defecates in the back seat of a van, and then promptly throws the excrement at the car behind (mind you at least this summarises what this film is worth). We had already been treated to one of the other women urinating over one of her friends at gunpoint, as well as numerous episodes of graphic vomiting; once would have sufficed... we got the message! This really is taking toilet humour to another level! Had the script and acting been better then I could have easily forgotten that I was watching a film shot entirely on low budget video. This was a fairly original storyline, with a clever (the only) piece of direction in that we only ever got to take the viewpoint from inside of the van; thus making it feel much more real. We never got to see inside any other locations, such as the store or the field where several of the women disappeared, and this could have added much needed tension.<br /><br />The script was dire. Lines like: 'I don't feel too good... I want to go home' after one of the girls has been pursued by a psychopath; subjected to rape by a screwdriver and shot at, seem a little undercooked.<br /><br />The acting was diabolical (apart from the maniac). Did all the main 5 actresses in this learn acting by taking a correspondence course during a long postal strike! The sound was so bad that I had to watch the entire film with the subtitles on.<br /><br />The director seemed to have an easy job in this. It seems that the only direction he must have given was: 'Scream girls'.<br /><br />AND AS FOR THE SCREAMING...... If you watch this please be sure to have some paracetamol at the ready! | 0 |
This was probably the worst movie ever, seriously. I could actually do better myself, it wasn't even set up properly. It's like this movie had a $5 budget and left with change. Don't watch it. I didn't even get all the way through this movie, had to turn it off. I've give this a 1/10 because it was hilarious how the producer of this movie wanted it to be a horror movie, but actually turned into a really bad comedy. Basically, a bunch of girls crashed into a car, broke a headlight, and the owner of that car went after them. The bit that i saw was a women with a gun telling a load of girls to take all their clothes off, what the hell? it must be some kind of cheesy porn movie as well. | 0 |
Five across the eyes ain't worth one off the wrist, I must admit at one point i was really worried, for about 30 seconds nobody made a noise and i thought my speakers had blown or that i had gone deaf with the constant screaming and high pitch yelling, me and the speakers are OK now thanks for asking, funnily enough that was the best bit of the film.<br /><br />I won't waste your time telling you the plot, read the other comments for that.<br /><br />If you have bought this DVD but not yet unwrapped it Don't, take it back and demand your money back, i've wasted mine don't do the same.<br /><br />I was actually shouting at the telly " they're over here in the car, look for the camera lights, and get the camera man first ", i have left the swear words out but you can guess where they go.<br /><br />If anybody would like to buy this film (it's really good) it's yours for a ten quid. | 0 |
MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS...BUT DOUBT IT CAN ACTUALLY BE SPOILT!!.<br /><br />Five Across The Eyes can be summed up in one word....Amateurish. This film tries it's best to be different from most films by the 'Blair Witch' type of filming....it doesn't work....it just ends up looking and feeling like somebody had a cheap video camera, a van and decided to make a movie. The story has no explanation, the protagonist is given no real motivation (and looks like a lesbian wearing a power-suit compared to the five girls) and there is no violence to speak of...just the sounds of screaming and crunching. The whole film takes place inside a van which means decent scenery is out of the question. The five girls really do their best with what they've been given but on the whole come across as pretty terrible actresses...although with the material given it's hard to judge if they can actually aCt....they spend THE WHOLE movie screaming, squealing and whimpering....so much that half the time it's hard to make out what was said and the cameras are so bad it's actually hard to tell who said it. This video paints itself as a violent torture film but is in fact just five girls in a van screaming in terror...that literally sums up the whole movie.....we then get to the end after what seems like 5 hours of constant screaming and all five girls are still alive... with one minus a finger. The only thumbs up(get it...finger....LOL) is for the poor actresses who tried hard and probably lost their voices(and their pride) after making this terrible movie. Do not judge this by the poster....you'll be very let down. | 0 |
I'm dumbfounded. Yes that's right. I'm really caught here. No way did I find it awful, but on the other hand it was a frustrating experience in macabre hysterical and murky incoherency. The idea behind such a trim, minimal low-budget Indie production isn't bad, but it's a confused muddle and in the end didn't do anything for me. It's amateurish and simple; it wants to exploit beyond reasoning and do so in that of-late fashionably rapid filming style. We have the documentary laced (hand-held) camera moving everywhere (despite never leaving the van), and sometimes feeling unfocused and blurry making certain details hard to figure out. Lately you kind of get use to it, but there are times when it does become too distracting and even nauseating. Keeping it still will help. The context has little groundwork (which has five teenage girls on their way home from a football game late at night and becoming lost on the back roads. At a road-side store they become involved in a minor accident which smashes an unoccupied SUV headlight. Scared, they flee and not too long that one-light SUV appears behind them. Soon to make their night an unforgettable ordeal in terror) spending most of the time playing out a drawn out, noisy and relentless cat and mouse game. <br /><br />As for being disturbing
I guess that depends. Some moments can make you squirm with its attention to pain, desperation and demented brutality (with good use of piercing sound FX that seem to be more favoured over the imagery and not forgetting the alienating background sound effects), but also I found myself snickering too. In passages it can be repellent and intense with a real gradual rush, but hardly believable. The injuries of random characters never seem as serious like you were to believe, despite obviously they should be. Watch how blood runs freely, but it's not entirely convincing and can get dull. The constant nocturnal car chase could only do so much before getting repetitive. We get screaming, spewing, bleeding, running, cursing, body fluids and so on. Quite unpleasant details followed too. With little really to do, it needed a much stronger script than the measly forced one that was penned up. Too many cringe-moments arose from it, and there was not much in the way of depth for the characters and situation they were in. It was about set-pieces, waiting for next torturous encounter and it drew it out long enough. Helping out is it had an unpredictable pattern. <br /><br />The performances; Jennifer Barnett, Angela Brunda, Danielle Lilley, Sandra Paduch and Mia Yi are workman-like with their distraught characters and draw an authentic chemistry to make up for the script's weaknesses in its character-foundation . Veronica Garcia's flipped-out, bug-eyed intensity as the loony driver of the SUV was something
yeah something. Her character's real motivation for terrorising the girls and her unstable state of mind is virtually non-existent. I guess being psychotic was good enough. Now probably the most unnerving thing I came across in the feature was that hideous soundtrack. Terrible techno music, to cheesy hard-rock and an overwrought closing score. It never felt overdone or got in the way, but it did stick out like a sore thumb. Co-directors Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen try to get the most out of their slight resources, but even with it edgy spirit it ends up being something quite ramshackle. Maybe it was enjoyable to make, but watching it just wasn't the case. | 0 |
- Contains miner spoilers - <br /><br />I have seen a number of decent Indie horror films such as The Hamiltons, The Boys Love Mandy Lane and Cabin Fever; unfortunately I felt Five Across the Eyes does not fall into this category. From start to finish the film is plagued with amateurish acting resonating from a very poor script, god only knows why the writer(s) thought dialogue such as "No don't go out there; don't go out there she'll get you: if she gets you she'll kill you and if she kills you you're dead" is of movie quality.<br /><br />This film displays very little character development and to be honest I couldn't care less about what pain and torture was inflicted upon them as they are just a group of ditsy college girls who show almost no redeeming qualities'. All they do is cry and whinge throughout the entire movie and if the girls aren't crying their arguing; when they do converse the topics are completely random: about dating boys or how one of the girls father was recently cremated (appropriate subjects when you're being chased by a psychotic killer).<br /><br />The soundtrack is also abysmal exhibiting corny techno music during both the start and end credits (although hearing the credit music knowing the end was nearing seemed like heaven).<br /><br />The camera-work is appalling and at times makes the film unwatchable. I'm guessing due to having little or no budget the director was limited to just one digital camera which resides in the girls' car almost the entire movie. I think this was an effort to stick the audience as close to the action as possible: to feel and experience what the girls are going through. But due to a very shaky camera, grainy picture and being too close to the action it can be hard to tell what is going on during action scenes and is simply chaotic. It's one thing to make a film subjective but it's another to have action on the screen that an audience can't decipher because of the poor cinematography.<br /><br />I understand that Five Across the Eyes is a low budget indie film but that does not excuse the extremely poor quality. There are no redeeming factors to this film: bad acting, poor scripting, shoddy camera-work and no story. In light off all this I decided to give the film 1 out of 10 as it left me very disappointed; wanting a meteor to hit the earth bringing me sweet relief. Its 94 minutes off stupid college girls crying, arguing, aimlessly running and having random inappropriate conversations. However, how many times do you get to see girls defecating into their hands and throwing the crap onto the windscreen of a chasing car. | 0 |
The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life. | 0 |
I'll keep this fast and sweet. Five girls on their way home from a football game decide to take a 'short cut' that leads them down a deserted forest-ridden road. Of course nothing but good things happen to them, and they safely arrive at their destination.<br /><br />Alright, they don't. Soon they're hunted down by a deranged chick who has some severe mental issues, and what ensues is 90 minutes of sheer boredom.<br /><br />I hope to never see any of these actors in any movie ever again. Their screaming, screeching voices gave me a headache, and the script was so poorly written that it included a lot of repeat phrases and nonsensical hysterical screaming. All in all, one of the worst cheap horror flicks I've ever seen...and I've seen a lot. | 0 |
Given that a lot of horror films are based on the premise that one or more of the central characters does something stupid at some stage during the proceedings, the girls in this film would be collecting Gold, Silver and Bronze at a Darwin Awards Olympic ceremony. A mentally disabled baboon would have made better choices than they did, and would have screamed a lot less while doing so.<br /><br />If you like films with a grainy picture, deliberately amateur camera-work (my 92 year-old grandmother wields a camcorder with better results), extremely poor sound and no discernible plot/narrative, then this is your ideal film. Also note that you should enjoy the following: women screaming for no reason, women whining for no reason. In fact reason and logic don't appear much in this film. For example: "we have to find Stephanie" "yeah I can't believe I was speaking to her, like, last night" "she called you last night?" "yeah, she wanted to talk about some date she got asked one" "WHAT? How come she didn't tell me"? As in, our friend is being chased by a serial killer with a shotgun and an array of grisly weapons but I have a problem with the fact that she didn't tell me she was going on a date.<br /><br />Okay, so the budget is low. That doesn't mean you have to make it look like it cost half the budget. The 'score' is interesting since all - with the exception of one - tracks have been written and performed by the writers/directors of the film itself. In fact it would appear that the entire budget has been blown on sampling a track by The Duskfall, a death metal band from Sweden.<br /><br />The most worrying thing of all in the entire film is the ending which leaves us with the possibility for a sequel. | 0 |
DO NOT WATCH THIS SAD EXCUSE FOR A FILM. I have wasted time and money on this and am pretty p**sed off about it.<br /><br />The acting is comparable with high school plays. The script is shocking. There is no plot. Twenty minutes from the end (which I believe I should be rewarded for reaching) I had a headache from all the screaming, crying and wailing the five girls make.<br /><br />The majority of the violence is (rare for a film nowadays) suggested rather than graphically depicted but I found the characters so damn irritating that I wanted to see them, and indeed every single person involved in the making of this piece of s**t, die in the most horrible ways possible.<br /><br />I spend ten more minutes of my life saving you from a very poor 100 minutes of yours. Don't do it. | 0 |
Watching this Movie? l thought to myself, what a lot of garbage. These girls must have rocks for brains for even agreeing to be part of it. Waste of time watching it, faint heavens l only hired it. The acting was below standard and story was unbearable. Anyone contemplating watching this film, please save your money. The film has no credit at all. l am a real film buff and this is worse than "Attack of the Green Tomatoes".<br /><br />l only hope that this piece of trash didn't cost too much to make. Money would have been better spent on the homeless people of the world. l only hope there isn't a sequel in the pipeline. | 0 |
Definitely, definitely the worst film I've ever seen, no questions asked! Contradictors of this opinion might argue that this title should not be judged by the same criteria as others, since it's an independent, low-budget film, but c'mon already the amateurism and meager innovation is horrifying.<br /><br />Agreeing with everything that has been said about this film, for example the mind numbingly weak acting (when it's this bad you take another go at shooting the scene, god damn it), the thing I found the most annoying was the total lack of common sense in the script, assuming such a thing existed during the production. There was an obvious absence of a dialogue with respect for the viewers, the girls switched personalities several times and they seemed to show absolutely no sing of any rationality or even brains - five relatively fit girls against one slight female psychopath gang up on her, why don't you?<br /><br />The only thing that can be regarded as somewhat of a conquest for this title is the camera not leaving the van at any time thus the viewer seeing everything from inside it - which is, as the rest of the film, a good idea executed exponentially dreadfully.<br /><br />
oh and by the way, this movie is NOTHING like The Blair Witch Project or Cloverfield or any other title filmed with a hand-held camera this is an effect and not a trait! Used cleverly it can be breathtaking, but in this case it's an excuse for inadequate cinematography. | 0 |
Um... Okay, I guess I get the whole shaky-cam, gorilla-style filming technique but unfortunately I think a gorilla could have made a better movie... This thing was just a complete mess from the get go. Bad acting, bad directing, bad story and horrific cinematography. How this piece of garbage was released I will never know, but it has and unfortunately I watched it. Filmed on location in Tennessee by the directing team of Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen (Harry and Lloyd), "Five Across The Eyes" I'm assuming is supposed to resemble a "Blair Witch" type film but falls short... Okay it nose dives off a cliff. I was actually embarrassed for these young women, whom I'm sure were promised Hollywood stardom, but ended up in this dung heap. The dialog is ridiculous, and actually aggravates you as you listen to it. How this is supposed to be a horror flick is another mystery, as there is nothing even remotely scary about it, except for the fact that I watched it... Try this one on for size: There is 5 of you and 1 of her, do the math and beat her ass... "The End". Saddly it went on (and on) for 95 more minutes of mind-numbing stupidity...<br /><br />I saw it for free, and wanted my money back. | 0 |
This "film" attempts to follow the genre of low budget, hand-held camera flicks that have proved to be very effective and successful.<br /><br />This one, fails, and HOW.<br /><br />It's amazing how many so called "awards" this piece of garbage has got plastered on the cover..... it makes you wonder what these critics were on when they actually submitted this....<br /><br />Words fail to describe just how absolutely appalling this movie really is. Seriously, it's THAT BAD.<br /><br />I watched it in 20 minutes flat, on almost continual fast forward.<br /><br />From rubbish lighting to dreadful directing, grainy visuals to muffled sound, and of course not forgetting the ABYSMAL acting, this was one completely and utterly pathetic piece of so-called film making.<br /><br />It seriously, has NO redeeming qualities - whatsoever. Save your cash and watch a decent low budget horror flick, there are plenty out there - Dead End, The Blair Witch, REC, to name but a few.<br /><br />AVOID this rubbish at all costs. DO NOT waste your money or time on this piece of trash pretending to be an actual film.<br /><br />Take heed of all the other comments! You've been warned! | 0 |
Less than 10 minutes into this film I wanted it to end as it was painful. All this "horror" movie was about was a group of whiny bitches doing stupid things for 90 minutes, arguing, crying and screaming. Do not let the positive reviews fool you as this really is a terrible movie and you really shouldn't watch it.<br /><br />The movies plot had potential to be something great, but it just doesn't happen. A group of five "teenage" girls are driving home one night when they find themselves being pursued by a crazed female driver who wants to kill them. Two minutes into the movie, and the characters are already arguing and this doesn't stop. All we have for 90 minutes is a bunch of girls whining, crying, screaming, "acting" and arguing. None of the dialogue is even remotely interesting too, so you don't get to really know these characters or enjoy them.<br /><br />The acting was terrible and I was shocked to find out that these characters were meant to be teenagers. None of these women looked a day under 20, and one of them easily looked like she was nearly 30 years old. At least get people who look the age. None of them gave even remotely decent performances, and just seemed like they were picked off the street or were friends of the director with no acting abilities. The "actress" who played the killer overdone it, but she at least showed something that the other girls didn't - a little bit of talent.<br /><br />The characters don't help things because these girls are a bunch of whiny, stupid bitches. That is all I can really say about them, and it did not help that they ALL survived. If I have to go into detail, in one scene the girls are being chased by the killer and having their car knocked a lot. One girl injures herself and is whining about it...four of them aren't wearing seat-belts...what do you expect? One of your friends is being brutally attacked by the killer...and you all just happen to be conveniently "too hurt" to help? Whatever.<br /><br />The filming of the movie is absolutely terrible. I don't care if this movie had a budget the size of a peanut, the filming was terrible and it was like watching a pirated version of a movie. The cameraman was clearly in the car with the girls, pushed up against a window somewhere and the amount of times the camera blurred out, shook and brushed up against an "actress" was horrendous. It was also grainy, and at times you couldn't hear what characters were saying (not that it was anything worth listening to).<br /><br />Supposedly the killers car in the movie (that supposedly got hit, even though we only heard the accident) is actually the directors car in real life. No wonder they didn't show the car getting hit! This movie is so cheap, they can't even show a car getting a little scratched up. Oh, gotta mention the soundtrack also...if that's what it was. It was horrid...sad one second, then hard rock the next. <br /><br />At the end of the day, Five Across The Eyes just feels like a terrible home-movie filmed in the middle of the road at night with a bunch of stupid girls screaming and arguing for 90 minutes. It doesn't help when the script is terrible, the scares/tension/suspense and (hardly even any gore to make up for it) are absent, the acting is terrible and the picture quality and filming are horrendous.<br /><br />This was a horrible low-budget movie. Avoid it at all costs.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
Im the type of person who always goes 2 to horror section when I'm picking a film, so i picked five across the eyes, i was disgusted with this film and thought there was no story line and no point that you could enjoy it,it made my skin crawl to think that people like to watch films that just encourage violence for the hell of it it was low budget and very rubbish! i think i could of done better myself. i think that it was the worst film i have ever seen in my life and you should not bother to watch it the actors were rubbish the camera was awful the picture was bad and the sound was not up to scratch, i think it was a little bit like a cheep rip of off the baler which project and it has not worked at all it was foul. | 0 |
I never finished this movie for a reason, it was dreadful and thats just the acting. I wasn't even sure what the film was about tbh it didn't make a lot of sense and the violence was awful. I mean ususally i like some nude in a film (lol) but it was just sick because of what was happening. ALL the characters annoyed me and it was just full of loud screams and the camera was shaking at parts and it looked like a sequel to the blair with project but without any good qualities. This is one of the worst movies i have seen in a long time and would like my time back please. i wouldn't recommend this film to anyone or even consider it. (N) | 0 |
Five Across the Eyes starts as five young teenage girls are driving home in time for their curfew, they stop off at a store & accidentally hit another car & decide to just drive off & leave it. Soon after the other car forces them to stop & a crazy woman with a shotgun gets out & shouts at them, makes them take their clothes off & makes them pee on them & then randomly drives off. Shaken & shocked the girls think their ordeal is over but the crazy woman comes back for seconds as she seems intent on killing the terrified girls who are lost & are low on gas...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Greg Swinson & Ryan Theissen with Swinson writing the thing & Theissen responsible for the cinematography & editing I have to say that Five Across the Eyes is easily one of the worst films I have ever seen if not the worst, I mean I'm struggling to think of a film I have seen that's worse. Now let me start off by saying that I am sure a lot of the film-making decision taken here were deliberate to try & provoke atmosphere, tension, realism & suspense but there is not one aspect of Five Across the Eyes that I didn't hate it to be honest it looks like a bad home video that has been put up on YouTube & even then it's still slightly embarrassing & a frankly worthless waste of 90 odd minutes of my time that I could have been doing something more entertaining & fun like pulling my fingernails out with pliers. The reviews on the web seem quite positive but on the IMDb (the amount of 1 Star comments is revealing & they can't all be wrong, right?) & it's message board which I think is much more of an indicator of what the average person thinks it's absolutely trashed by just about everyone & the phrase 'the worst film I have ever seen' is used a few times & to be fair most of these negative comments mention th same things & I have to agree with them. The story is terrible, alright I suspect it's meant to be minimalistic but this minimal? There's never any reason or explanation for the events that happen & it just feels totally random. It goes on for ages, the amount of plot here would struggle to fill a thirty minute made for telly program let along a full length feature. The dialogue is awful with these annoying girls who don't seem to have a brain cell between them taking about random stuff & screaming a lot. Oh god the screaming, there are seemingly endless scenes of these girls screaming or crying or whining which not only irritates & annoys & prevents any sane viewer feeling any sort of sympathy for them it also makes what they are trying to say almost impossible to hear properly. Then there's the real killer, the entire film is set & shot within the confines of a mini van, seriously the camera never leaves this car & as you can imagine it gets really boring, add that the low body count of just one person killed on screen & Five Across the Eyes is a film that I hated with a passion.<br /><br />On a technical level again I can see that the film-making style here was a deliberate choice but I have to be honest again & say Five Across the Eyes is the worst looking film I have ever seen. As a fan of film I like my films to look like proper films as it's a visual medium & I definitely don't want them to look worse than the average YouTube video or my home films shot on a camcorder while I was drunk. It really does look that amateurish & that bad, it's a complete eyesore & I hated every moment of every second of it. Just think The Blair Witch Project (1999) only ten times worse looking & sounding & you will be almost there. There are times during Five Across the Eyes when you literally can't tell what's going on or happening because of the camera-work & the almost pitch black & grainy contrast levels. The violence is tame too with a few splashes of blood & a stabbing at the end.<br /><br />Low budget doesn't even begin to describe Five Across the Eyes, with a supposed budget of about $4,000 this is easily one of the lowest budgeted films ever given a wide release. The two vans in the film were owned by members of the production & that's basically pretty much the entire budget right there, the locations. The acting is pretty bad by the main cast, I just hated all the fake put on crying & screaming that didn't convince at all but did irritate immensely.<br /><br />Five Across the Eyes will go down as one of the worst films I have ever seen & I have seen a few films, whenever anyone now ask's me what's the worst film I have ever seen Five Across the Eyes will definitely get a mention. I hated it, every single aspect & wretched moment of it. | 0 |
And maybe, as Fred Sandford used to say, "one across the lips". That to those who released this film on an unsuspecting public. And perhaps to the person in "Rue Morgue" who called this a "Fender Hellbender" and said it was good.<br /><br />Five young girls, apparently taking a short-cut home from a high school football game, become lost and stop to ask directions at some small store in the middle of nowhere. While there the driver accidentally hits a parked SUV & knocks out a headlight, but the girls all decide to just leave & not go find the driver. But the driver does come to find them, and it's not just that the headlight on her vehicle got dinged, it's for another reason that the girls do not yet understand. When the driver does first catch them she (yes, it's a she) brandishes a shot gun & makes them strip down, and keeps screaming at them, "how much did you see?". Of course the girls are scared to death & don't know what she's talking about.<br /><br />As the night rolls on the girls end up in a cat and mouse game with the driver of the SUV, who manages to inflict all manner of injuries on the girls, who are remarkably resilient to shot gun blasts and screwdrivers where they didn't want them. Eventually they come to find that something happened back at that store after they left that is the reason for this woman's psychotic rage. And eventually they have a chance at revenge and take it about as far as they can go.<br /><br />There are elements of this film that are rather disturbing and scary, but unfortunately, those moments are undermined by bad acting, bad dialog, and huge lapses of credibility. One girl is hit by a shot gun blast and appears to be mortally wounded, and she's feeling cold, her life is passing before her eyes, but she got better? And how far can a mini-van run on an almost empty gas tank at speeds of 80 miles per hour? I need one of those things, it apparently gets GREAT mileage.<br /><br />There should have been an ending when the girls got their revenge, but the film goes on for a bit after that, which is an anti-climax, but they at least learn some of what set the woman off, and the driver is still worried about "messing up her mom's van", which is obviously the least of anyone's worries.<br /><br />So this isn't the worst film I've seen, but it's too amateur to be good and yet a bit too scary and gruesome at times to be completely terrible. But it does take the cake for plenty of shrill hysterics and you'll want to put two across your ears if you watch this. Which, by the way, I don't necessarily recommend. 4 out of 10. | 0 |
I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.<br /><br />I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.<br /><br />I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had. | 0 |
This doesn't quite plumb the depths of Creepshow 3, but it comes close. It also uses the same technique of using some of the same actors in multiple roles throughout the anthology, which is distracting to say the least.<br /><br />It also rather irritating rips off The Twilight Zone (with the bookshop being comparable to Serling's later Night Gallery). Unfortunately, the producers & writers forgot that Serling would build up sympathy for his characters before messing them over. None of the characters are particularly sympathetic or interesting until the last segment.<br /><br />Framing story: Adam West is... well, himself. He doesn't go the Bruce Wayne/Batman campy 60s route, but he rarely does. He simply plays the not-particularly-enigmatic "Jay" (there's an ominous spine-chilling name to compare to the likes of Dr. Terror, Eramus, and The Cryptkeeper), and makes some mildly awkward/creepy statements.<br /><br />Abernathy: Seen Rod Serling's "A Stop in Willoughby"? Then you've seen this. The red herring of the nutso wife is introduced to no purpose, but even the main character's friend identifies him as a wimp. As well directed as can be expected, but basically incoherent.<br /><br />Nex's Diner: Reminiscent of various Serling time travel stories, mixed with Steve Allen's "A Meeting of Minds." Most of the actors aren't too bad (except for Josh Astin as Cassius, who manages to walk, talk and even breathe awkwardly), and the idea is mildly interesting. But like Abernathy, it doesn't go anywhere. The main character raises some relatively reasonable questions, bugs out a bit (who wouldn't?), and for some reason he ends up banished to a nuclear wasteland.<br /><br />Life Replay: Not a bad little piece, and manages to predate both Click and Creepshow 3. I suppose it says something that people are fascinated by the magical properties of remote controls. The main character is mildly sympathetic. Nothing substantially innovative here, but it's okay.<br /><br />Fighting Spirit: You see the twist coming a mile away but like the main character, it has some heart and it's a decent story of defeat and redemption.<br /><br />Finale: So... why do people end up in cold storage in silver lame suits? Don't know. And doesn't make sense. So... all the protagonists wandered into the bookstore and became trapped? Kinda undermines the happy ending with the boxer (thanks, guys!), and the guy in the first segment died. So how did he get trapped? Did he visit the bookstore before he died, got trapped and... didn't die? What? Huh? I supposer this isn't expected to make sense because it's supernatural. But still...<br /><br />Overall: basically not dissimilar from the two newer Twilight Zone series, or some episodes of Tales From the Darkside or Monsters. The last two stories and part of the second are probably worth your time. But there's nothing really spectacular here. | 0 |
I can't believe it, IMDb really does have every TV show known to man! I have not seen this show in over 20 years. I only remember two episodes, and I barely remember those. I remember that Tony may not been on from the start, because one of the episodes I remember is the one in which everybody trying to get Tony to join, but he rejects them, but typically at the end of the show he becomes a member of Power House, with everybody cheering.<br /><br />The other one I remember is the one where Lolo for some reason pretends to be dead,(complete with funeral and mourners). I don't remember why he plays dead, or how the show ends.<br /><br />This is one of those shows that I convinced myself that I must have dreamed up since no one else had ever heard of it. | 0 |
I've read all the comments on this film. I am a great admirer<br /><br />of the Dalai Lama. As such, I read the book upon which this<br /><br />film was based. The movie is an ugly and demeaning fictionalization of the truth. I do not criticize it for<br /><br />altering small details or events for dramatic purposes; it is<br /><br />not a documentary. But the script CHANGES the impact, reaction,<br /><br />realities, and changes in EVERY main character. It vastly alters<br /><br />the real relationship between Harrar and the young Dalai Lama. <br /><br />From the ridiculous rivalry for a Tibetan woman (which demeans<br /><br />the culture of Tibet) to Harra's music box gift, to Harrar's<br /><br />change of heart, everything about this movie is false - except<br /><br />for the amazing photography. I understand that the shots of the<br /><br />Potala (the palace) were smuggled out of Tibet. However,<br /><br />changing a real story about the relationship between two people,<br /><br />one of them very important to this world, in order to build up a<br /><br />movie star is sad | 0 |
i read the book "7 years in Tibet" from Heinrich Harrer and was fascinated of it. then i immediately grabbed the DVD and started to watch the movie. i remember the first time i saw it back in 98, i kinda liked it. well, now i watched it again in full knowledge of the book it is based on. and soon i realized how WRONG it all was told:<br /><br />when they enter Lhasa the people start to stick their tongues out of their mouths and Thewlis and Pitt have the impression that its the way to say hello in Tibet, so they greet back... in the book Harrer explains, that sticking the tongue out is a sign of absolute humbleness and loyalty in Tibet and they may do it in front of the Dalai Lama but certainly not for these two europeans! not only the mother but even the Dalai Lama himself was wearing glasses in the public. in the book Harrer mentions, that no one in Tibet wore glasses to that time(sorry forgot the reason, but its explained in the book too).the young Dalai Lama did, but only when he was alone and nobody could see him! and what about that Mao tse tung lookalike, destroying the mandala in front of the young "living buddha"?? childish... and the tailor made Harrer and Aufschnaiter tibetan clothes not European designer suits! why are so many events that really happened eliminated from the story, just to fill the time with a fictional love interest (the female tailor...)that is completely unimportant? just like the whole story about harrers son, rolf. not one word is mentioned about him or even any family member of harrer in the book. but that was OK for me because "7 years in Tibet" is not a book about harrers person. its about tibet. I'm very disappointed by this "adaption" of the famous book. and i bet heinrich harrer was, too... 3 stars, just for the cinematography. | 0 |
OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie? | 0 |
The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.<br /><br />Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.<br /><br />It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.<br /><br />Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me. | 0 |
"Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?" "Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it". "And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us". "Wow this thingie gives off vibes!" "Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open". "Hi there handsome, check out my nips". (Later that day); "DO NOT OPEN"!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. "I've never seen such organic technology!" "Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it.". "I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!" "Look! it's the friendly aliens from "The Abyss"! They want us to come with them". THE END | 0 |
Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.<br /><br />Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.<br /><br />The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.<br /><br />3/10 | 0 |
With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one. | 0 |
Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie<br /><br />Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.<br /><br />This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.<br /><br />Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget<br /><br />I give it 3/10 | 0 |
An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!<br /><br />The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.<br /><br />The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.<br /><br />Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10) | 0 |
Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...<br /><br />--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Is it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.<br /><br />So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.<br /><br />Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly. | 0 |
Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other "science fiction" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back. | 0 |
This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).<br /><br />I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. <br /><br />The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.<br /><br />Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff. | 0 |
I am oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby. | 0 |
Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot. <br /><br />Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him
. he turns her down. AGGH!) <br /><br />In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.<br /><br />With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title. <br /><br />I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.<br /><br />That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.<br /><br />Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie. | 0 |
I just saw this film tonight and I have to say that it's a mess. I love Vince Vaughn but he ends up more annoying that funny here and the film is more than less a remake of the crappy 80's classic " Santa Claus the movie" but with out the camp or the bad Sheena Easton song at the end. .The story is your run of the mill black sheep in the family who comes back to face his family for the holidays kind of thing but with North Pole as its setting. Of course Fred (Vince Vaughn) is the family screw up who comes home after a series of set backs that include his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz in a cameo role) dumping him, so he comes home to face his parents and his more successful brother Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti) and wacky high jinks follow with a bit of sibling rivalry and a bit of anarky as well that threatens all of Christmas. Now if you think you know the ending of this film, I think you would be right because it's predicable to the hill. As for the acting, Vince Vaughn plays the same lovable loser he always plays but this time he ends up more annoying than likable, Miranda Richardson plays Mrs. Claus but the role is more than less one note, Elizabeth Banks plays Santa's assistant but she's not much of a character at all other than a neurotic joke and poor Kevin Spacey ends up basically playing the same person he plays in the film "Glengarry Glen Ross" but a little more anal. The only two actors who come out of this film with their dignity intact is Paul Giamatti, who brings a real sincerity and warmed to his role as Santa Claus but he looks somewhat embarrass to be in the movie and you can't blame him and Rachel Weisz, who manages to do a lot more with a very small role than most of the main actors do with theirs, which is a shame because both Rachel Weisz and Paul Giamatti deserved a lot better than what this script gave them.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell, a major disappointment. | 0 |
Painfully bad Christmas film that has an equally painfully bad performance by Vince Vaughn, who is paying his usual frat boy self but this time for a children's movie but with out the wit or charm that is in his R rated films. Vaughn seems like he's on autopilot though most of the film and he keeps running into walls with his lackluster performance. After 30 minutes into the film, you would be in touch your inner scourge and say "Bahumbag" at how unfunny this film is and after another 30 minutes, you will want to walk out over how unbearable the film has gotten during that point. Out of all the actors involved in this mess, only Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz brings some life to there perspective paper thin roles and that's manly because they are both way too good of actors to be in this film. Paul Giamatti brings some depth and warmth to the character of Saint Nick himself but he's forced to Vaughn's level of juvenile behavior when they are doing their sad sibling infighting. You can see in Giamatti face that he's not having fun with his role and it painfully shows in certain parts of the film. Rachel Weisz brings a sense of fun and spirit to her role but she really does not have much of a character to work with and you can see in her face that she's well aware of that, so much so that she seems irritated in certain parts of the film. Fortunately for her, she's not in the film much at all and is able to save some face, unlike Giamatti, who looks like he's about to fire his agent by the end of the movie. The direction also feels uninspiring, like there is no feeling or flow to be had and this is a supposed to be a holiday movie but it ends up feeling like you are just staring at a fancy widow display that is being torn down.<br /><br />I don't know what went wrong here but with only two actors involved (Giamatti and Weisz) trying their best to at least bring something to the table with a unfunny script they had to work with, spotty direction with no feeling for the subject at hand ( and this is a Christmas movie of all things) and a actor who just does not care about his performance (Vaughn), you have a very unevenly bad film that is very painful to watch. | 0 |
Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that. | 0 |
How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.<br /><br />I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of "funny notion" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.<br /><br />The director/producer tried to go "tear jerker" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.<br /><br />Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days. | 0 |
Okay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say. <br /><br />To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely. <br /><br />Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care. <br /><br />Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem. <br /><br />Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)<br /><br />so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick. <br /><br />In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental. | 0 |
Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through. | 0 |
I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes. | 0 |
Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark. | 0 |
For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer. | 0 |
This film uses all art-house clichés (slow pace, long static shots, minimal amount of dialog) to try to hide the fact that there really is nothing worth watching here: There is no plot to speak of, the characters are dreary (female lead) or cliché (Tersteeghe's character), and they do not ever talk to each other about anything that concerns their rather uneventful lives. The film is centered around a woman who finds out about her husbands adultery. Instead of confronting him, she half-heartedly takes revenge by committing adultery herself. After a fight and a reconciliation with her sister - who knew about the adultery without telling her - she asks her husband to stop cheating on her. They seem to be re-united as a family. Two other story lines - the planned move of the woman's elderly father with his young wife to Guernsey and the rivalry with the woman's sister - do not offer any interesting developments. The suicide of a colleague of the woman that seems to set off events in the film is not a subject in itself. For 2005 - or any other year for that matter - this is not enough to make an interesting film.<br /><br />Moreover, what little possibilities for dramatic development there are in the script are not used or are consciously avoided, as when both the woman and her sister mark a particular piece of furniture from their fathers house which is going to be sold because of his planned move. Both sisters want this particular piece and given their rivalry in the past - over much more important things than furniture: men - this could in theory lead to a confrontation. Or the matter could be resolved by one sister giving way to the other. Either way, this would not be a very interesting or original development of the story but at least it would constitute some development. The film clearly sets this situation up (with both sisters looking intently at each other during the marking and one sister having mentioned she does not want to draw straws) but it cheats us out of any resolution: the scene simply ends and how this - in itself rather dreary and materialistic - issue is solved, is not shown. <br /><br />Although almost completely absent, the dialog that is in the film is excruciatingly flat and tepid. For example, when during a visit to Guernsey, the 2 sisters address their rivalry it is in a three line dialog that has a childish "yes it is - no it isn't" ring to it. The fight and reconciliation scene with the 2 sisters is completely without dialog - giving a highly artificial, overly stylised and unrealistic impression and considerably reducing its impact. The way the woman finally - finally! - addresses her husbands adultery in a single line of dialog has to be seen to be believed - and is at the same time completely unbelievable. The husband does not seem to have any noticeable reaction or if he has any, it is not shown. The woman does not mention her own adultery to her husband. The scene showing the woman, husband and their young son asleep on an airliner, watched by the sister is possibly meant as a happy end, but the way the characters addressed the issues of their lives in what went before makes this unlikely.<br /><br />Because of its slow pace, uninteresting story, leaden direction and absurd lack of dialog, I found this film an example of everything that can be wrong with an art-house movie and a complete waste of time. | 0 |
Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.<br /><br />(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.) | 0 |
GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).<br /><br />The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?<br /><br />I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, "I want to do something from a woman's point of view". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.<br /><br />To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: "Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 1/10 | 0 |
This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt. | 0 |
For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents. | 0 |
I can understand after watching this again for the first time in many years how it is considered one of the worst Laurel & Hardy's. For me, it isn't as close to as bad as "Air Raid Wardens" and "The Bullfighters", but there are some definite huge flaws in it. The film is set up to show Laurel and Hardy as the owners and instructors of the dance studio. Hardy is funny as the prancing lead of a "London Bridge" dance, surrounded by 20th Century Fox starlets, while in the next room, Laurel teaches the beginners ballet while wearing a ballerina outfit. A clumsy carpenter spills glue on the floor, leading to a predicable gag where Hardy ends up the looser. Then, in come the racketeers, now selling insurance covering up their protection racket. One of them is a very young and handsome Robert Mitchum. But no sooner do they bully the boys into buying insurance, they are arrested.<br /><br />This is the end of the gangsters and the last time we see the dance studio. The rest of the film is devoted to Laurel and Hardy's support of wealthy patron Trudy Marshall and her inventor boyfriend, Robert Bailey. They first try to help them hide their relationship from her disapproving parents (Matt Briggs and Margaret Dumont) and hopeful suitor Allan Lane, whom we can tell right off is a no-good swine. This leads to Briggs' hidden bar being revealed to tea-totaling Dumont, and a gag where a rug is literally pulled out from the wealthy patriarch which crashes his bed into a pond below. When Bailey uses the boys to help display his ray gun, pandemonium ensues. The dead-pan butler announces to Case and Dumont that their house is on fire.<br /><br />Later, Hardy wants to use the insurance policy to gain money to pay their dance studio rent and hopes to get Laurel to break a leg to do so. There is no reference to the fact that the insurance salesmen were gangsters and that the policy would probably be invalid. (Even if they were to have become legitimate insurance salesman, after being arrested, their licenses would have been revoked). Laurel ends up getting off a bus which had been abandoned by the driver over a supposedly rabid dog (only a frosting covered, cake devouring Toto look-alike, or possibly the actual pooch), causing Oliver to end up on a huge beach roller-coaster that somehow the bus has ended up on, perfectly fitting its wheels onto the tracks. Roller-coaster gags can be exciting, as evidenced in "Abbott and Costello Go to Hollywood", and this one is amusing but anticlimactic.<br /><br />As the story wraps up, all of these gags seem to have no point, giving the impression that this was simply a series of one-reelers put together to make a full-length feature, hopefully part of a double bill. L&H, as I've mentioned in other reviews of their later films, had lost much of their luster after leaving Hal Roach's employ, but surprisingly here, they do not come off as old and tired looking as they had in films made in the same year. Had the gags not been as amusing, as was the case with some of their other films, this surely would have ranked a "2" as opposed to a "3". | 0 |
I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.<br /><br />Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.<br /><br />Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy "insurance" on Stan.<br /><br />Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of "A Chump at Oxford" or "Bohemian Girl" or "Sons of the Desert" instead. | 0 |
As a big fan of David Mamet's films and plays, especially his first film House of Games that also starred Joe Mantegna, I was expecting great things from this film. Instead, I found myself annoyed by the film's superficiality and lack of credibility. Racial slurs are thrown about without any feeling or meaning behind them, in the hopes of setting up a racial tension that for me never materialized. Identity is totally reevaluated and men become "heroes" for no apparent reason. Because of his oaths taken as a cop, the lead character adamantly refuses to perform one relatively small action that would harm no one and could possibly save lives, and yet performs another action which is very violent and VERY illegal, but then still refuses the minor action. In addition, a highly unbelievable subplot involving a man who has killed his family is introduced just for the sake of a plot point that was all but advertised with skywriting, and the cop's reaction to that occurrence stretch credulity way beyond all reasonable limits. Needless to say, after expecting another exciting thriller from David Mamet, I was extremely disappointed to say the least. 3 out of 10. | 0 |
David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.<br /><br />So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.<br /><br />This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.<br /><br />Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated. | 0 |
Very disappointing film. By the end I no longer cared for any of the characters. I did enjoy seeing Ving Rhames in a very small part, and William Macy was good as always, still not worth watching. It starts out strong and just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Insomniacs will like it as I am sure it will put them to sleep. | 0 |
This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have<br /><br />have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe<br /><br />Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply<br /><br />disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and "different". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same. | 0 |
Pere is an idiot, but he is aware about it and acts in consequence. His life is totally boring and he doesn't know how to change it. When his last friend, Nicco, dies. He feels totally empty and he decides to go out to become drunk. When he is returning home, he crashes with a girl that puts advertisements. Although she ignores him, he fells in love and starts to follow her, obsessively. Well the beginning of the film is a bit slow, and can result boring for most people. However, as action begins, it is a little better (not much!, maybe, the best part is the 5 minutes of sex (almost 30 different scenes about it) that you can see in the middle of the movie; it is not good for the erothism, but for the funny and unexpected that is the scene. Probably it is the best of the film. Neither the actors nor the directing is good, and the results is a boring film that that can result funny for some people (not for me). All the film is based on absurd situations (idiot, as the film says), that have anything interesting. I like Ventura Pons, but I have to admit that this is not one of his best films (maybe his worst!), he knows to do it better. | 0 |
Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say. <br /><br />As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.<br /><br />Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them! | 0 |
Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.<br /><br />It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there
Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.<br /><br />If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc
the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).<br /><br />I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.<br /><br />Save yourselves and watch something else. | 0 |
OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.<br /><br />Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.<br /><br />Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.<br /><br />I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking clichés. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.<br /><br />No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and ½ out of ***** | 0 |
This movie fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.<br /><br />Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.<br /><br />The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.<br /><br />All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me! | 0 |
Despite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is. <br /><br />The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era. <br /><br />For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.<br /><br />Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half. | 0 |
Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. Despite the tragic nature of a middle-aged man seemingly unable to pursue his dreams because of his overbearing, manipulative father, it was incredibly light-hearted and fun to watch in practice. In my opinion, it is without doubt one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. The TV series has my 10 out of 10 rating without reservation.<br /><br />This movie spin-off on the other hand is a true tragedy in every sense of the word. Hardly any of the essence of the TV show is transferred successfully onto film. This movie has a very dreary, depressing tone that almost moved me to tears on several occasions. Seeing Harold being beaten up in a pub (and not in a comical way) is not my idea of comedy but is most definitely one reason why fans of the TV series will not like this movie. The movie was painfully unfunny except for the scene where Albert bathes in the sink and is seen by a neighbour.<br /><br />The romance between Harold and Zita is completely out of tone and it makes me wonder whether the producers of this movie ever bothered to watch the TV series. In the TV series, Harold always went after respectable girls, not strippers.<br /><br />Albert's reactions to the remarks made against him by Harold's girlfriends were absolutely priceless in the TV series. In the movie, Albert says virtually nothing when such an opportunity rises.<br /><br />Most movie spin-offs of British sitcoms tend to be quite dull, with the notable exception of the ON THE BUSES films (which in some respects were actually better than the TV series itself!). But, STEPTOE AND SON has to rank right at the very bottom of the pile, even below GEORGE AND MILDRED.<br /><br />My advice - skip this one and see the second spin-off, STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN instead. It has a much lighter tone, is more faithful to the TV series, and is actually very funny. | 0 |
"Women? They're all scrubbers...!" <br /><br />No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...<br /><br />All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair. <br /><br />But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time. | 0 |
Truly a disgusting, vile film, with only a small amount of real humour.<br /><br />The character of the father in particular is vulgar in the extreme (intentionally so, obviously), and portrayed in the most pathetic, seedy manner.<br /><br />My wife and I found this film horribly upsetting, with absolutely no redeeming features at all. Frankly, I wish I had never seen it.<br /><br />I consider this British effort to be a sick and gross embarrassment.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed this film have an ability I totally lack: that of rejoicing in a display of deep depravity and squalor.<br /><br />The producers should be ashamed of themselves. | 0 |
This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. <br /><br />It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. <br /><br />As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. <br /><br />As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.<br /><br />Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. <br /><br />Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! <br /><br />In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't. | 0 |
Forest Whitaker's performance is all the more impressive for making it almost worthwhile to sit through this dreck. "Historical fiction" does not justify changing history. The absurdity begins from the ground up with the imaginary lead character played by James McAvoy. To create a fictional observer for the purpose of giving the reader a point of connection in the book is regrettable, regrettable that white people can't just read a book without a white protagonist to connect to, but at least he was placed in a somewhat passive role. Making up a fake historical actor and crediting this fiction with exposing Amin to the world is irresponsible, lazy and stupid. Not making the actions of this creation believable or even sane is just criminal, and has opened the door for movies like the one they're planning to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as a heroic Enron whistleblower who NEVER EXISTED. The logic of the world does not apply in this film where some Scottish kid thinks its okay to sleep with the wife of a murderous dictator. It doesn't apply where the wife of the dictator desires to sleep with some stupid scrawny irresponsible white boy. For that matter EVERYBODY is lined up to sleep with this scrawny, irresponsible, arrogant white boy, he even has Gillian Anderson licking her comely chops.<br /><br />Let me declare, I do not like James McAvoy. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I thought his Mr. Tumnus in Narnia was creepy and pervy. I think that Kerry Washington would never look twice at him so I can't believe that the wife of a powerful dangerous man like Amin would risk and lose her life for him. I don't believe him as a Doctor, and I just don't see the appeal. His character seems to have far more arrogance than would make sense, and trying to make him look like a badass in shooting the cow was just...there's that word again...absurd. Think about it, you are watching all of these characters bend themselves into knots in order to accommodate this unbelievable main character and there never was such a guy.<br /><br />Gillian Anderson looks incredible and sounds more British than most Brits. Whitaker gives a great expansive magnetic performance, and highlighted, with his incomprehensible pre-Oscar speeches, just how much he was acting. It's a shame the film around him had no reason to exist. | 0 |
Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.<br /><br />However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.<br /><br />There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.<br /><br />But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.<br /><br />So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then "redeeming" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.<br /><br />Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly "true" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth! | 0 |
Funny that I find myself forced to review this movie, but here I am.<br /><br />I am reviewing it, because just recently, I have had the chance to witness the revival of R.C. Sheriff's play "Journey's End" on stage in New York, at the Belasco Theatre, starring Hugh Darcy, Boyd Gaines, Jefferson Mays and others, as well as being masterfully directed by David Grindley.<br /><br />I left the theater shattered. I am not exaggerating, I was flabbergasted. After almost two and a half hours of a recreated and very claustrophobic depiction of soldier's life in the trenches of the Somme (I speculate), during World War One, brought to life vividly, by everyone involved, I came out of the theater with the shakes.<br /><br />Mind you, I am not easily shocked, nor am I too sensitive. I am a stage actor and a director myself, so I know the buttons being pressed to achieve certain effects, both emotionally, as well as psychologically.<br /><br />But what I had just witnessed, came so much to life, that I had chills in my spine as I left.<br /><br />None of these emotions came to life, while watching "Aces High", the movie based on this play and even adapted for the screen, in cooperation with R.C. Sheriff himself, shortly before he died.<br /><br />The screen adaptation takes place in the skies over France. So, gone is the claustrophobic ambiance to start with.<br /><br />The only plus of the movie, are the aerial battle scenes, which look dated in their special effects, compared to today's standards, but still very valid in the flying tactics adopted on screen.<br /><br />Granted there had been a couple of screen adaptations of "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque, which takes place in trenches, and not in the sky, but that was the "German" vision on things, if one would like to be picky on such things.<br /><br />"Journey's End" is just the other side of the medal, and would have made it into a great movie, if they had left it alone and intact.<br /><br />The transfer on DVD is poor, even though in Widescreen and adapted for 16:9 TV screens, the quality of the film itself is that of a movie theater. Nothing more, nothing less. It sports various defects, such as minor scratches and dots, although the copy, for the rest, is clean.<br /><br />If you want another WWI movie in your collection, especially for those who love and enjoy to see aerial battles among old-timers, then this is a picture for you. But I rather would suggest "Von Richthofen and Brown" as an alternative, although that too, is a movie filled with inaccuracies.<br /><br />For the rest of you, who love good acting and drama, I would leave this one out. Buy the play. Go watch the play, if you have the chance to get a decent revival of it near you, but keep off this would-be adaptation.<br /><br />It is an anti-war movie, granted, but the weakest I have ever seen in my lifetime ever.<br /><br />The presence of actors such as Trevor Howard, Ray Milland, Richard Johnson and John Gielgud, is just a bluff, since they are just seen in very weak and very brief cameo roles throughout the movie.<br /><br />McDowell, the very talented Christopher Plummer, Simon Ward and Peter Firth, all deliver very weak performances, not due to their lack of skills, but rather due to lack of true and solid direction.<br /><br />There are too many gaps in it, and as said before, it drags itself to the dubious end. Dubious because in the original play, none of the men we come to know and sympathize with, stay alive. They are all killed in a fatal and futile mission. In the movie they all die, except Malcolm McDowell, who manages somehow to stay alive another day, being the wing commander of the unlucky bunch, just to receive another three pilots to fly and die for another lost cause.<br /><br />The end of the play leaves a bare stage in total darkness. You just hear the cannons roar, the machine guns rattle, and grenade impacts throughout the theater. Then, suddenly, total peace and silence. The curtain comes up. Lights. And here they all are. Lined up, standing straight and rigid. Obedient corpses...<br /><br />Far more interesting and far more shocking than "Aces High" finale, which is also dragged by the hair.<br /><br />It is up to you to judge.<br /><br />For me, if I had the money and the contacts to do so, I would take the play and develop it, the way it was meant. Adding here and there some action scene in the field, just to visualize the "outer" horror and slaughter going on in the "vasty fields of France", around the men involved, but then, just strictly concentrating on what is going on, in that tiny "shack" at the edge of sanity and the world...<br /><br />Want such a movie?<br /><br />Then ask for it.<br /><br />This is not it. | 0 |
Despite the excellent cast, this is an unremarkable film, especially from the aviation perspective. It may be somewhat better than the egregious "von Richthofen and Brown" but not by much. "Blue Max" remains the best of a small market over the last 35 years while "Darling Lilli" is fun if not taken seriously. It's interesting to speculate what ILM could do with Zeppelins and Gothas in a new, high-quality WW I aero film. | 0 |
I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.<br /><br />Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.<br /><br />Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances. | 0 |
Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film. | 0 |
I anticipated the release of the film as much as any fan of the Broadway play. I waited and read reviews for months about the award winning performances. I mean with the star power of Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles, Danny Glover... the movie couldn't be less than 4 out of 4 stars, right? WRONG! I was definitely disappointed by the finished product. The film did not match up to the publicity hype it was given and the only saving graces were Eddie Murphy, Anika Noni Rose and Jennifer Hudson.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy's James Brownesque performance rescues the movie just when it hits its multiple lulls and Jennifer Hudson's performance compels you to pay attention each time she's on screen. Her performance of "And I Am Telling You" was the only time that I felt the hype was deserved. You cringed as she begged her no good man to let her stay in the group and in his life. As many reviewers have stated, she steals the movie from the more experienced actors and deserves all the accolades she's receiving for this performance. Anika Noni Rose was also a strong presence with a great voice and comedic talent. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles, on the other hand, cruised through their performances. Foxx's acting skills for this film seemed to predate his extraordinary "Ray" performance and Beyonce Knowles was on an extended fashion photo shoot or video taping, posing and shimmying her way through the movie. Her performance wasn't strong enough to make you care about her character at any point in the film.<br /><br />The movie was too hyped, 30 minutes and 1 song (Beyonce's "heartfelt" solo to Jamie Foxx) too long.<br /><br />DH -- Vancouver, WA | 0 |
It makes sense to me that this film is getting raves from Hollywood because oftentimes in Hollywood it's all just a popularity contest. It also makes sense when you think that people who are liking the film may just be reacting to the countless songs being spit out at you rather than story content. Yet, this film is overrated and overblown. Eddie Murphy looks just ridiculous. No way do Jeniffer Hudson and Beyonce Knowles give the Oscar rated performance so many have raved over BEFORE the film was even out. I can't even believe that Condon is being set up to be nominated for a Directing Oscar when all he did was put together an album. Glitz does not replace a nothing storyline. A bunch of songs does not a movie make. | 0 |
This was longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again) | 0 |
Yeah. Pretty sure I saw this movie years ago when it was about the Supremes.<br /><br />Another recycled storyline glitzed up Hollywood-style, borrowing scripts from better making-it-in-the-music-industry films.<br /><br />Nothing original here.<br /><br />More make-up, glammier costumes and choreography = more money for the questionably "talented" Beyonce draw.<br /><br />If you like the throwback style, you should appreciate actual groups who struggled (without having digitized voices and a Hollywood empire).<br /><br />Beyonce's involvement makes this hypocritical garbage. | 0 |
Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic. | 0 |
I just saw DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!<br /><br />Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the "rise to the top" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.<br /><br />Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people "singing" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big "love me" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!<br /><br />AND note to all involved--that "sing-talking dialog" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that "I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't "songs."<br /><br />Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release "one to beat" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype! | 0 |
We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do. | 0 |
This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, "strong" (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with. | 0 |
Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. <br /><br />Beyonce ??? That was acting??? <br /><br />This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. <br /><br />If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.<br /><br />And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap. | 0 |
Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.<br /><br />Well, let's start with the good news first:<br /><br />THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.<br /><br />The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.<br /><br />The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa. | 0 |
From the stupid "quaint African natives" travelogue footage with our badly-superimposed principals acting as narrators, to the horrible fake ears which transform docile Indian elephants into African elephants, to the utter lack of any logic at all, to Maureen O'Sullivan's incessant whining of "Tarzan! Tarzan!", there is nothing about this movie which deserves classic status.<br /><br />4/10 | 0 |
A memorable line from a short lived show. After viewing the episode where that line was introduced my fraternity intramural flag football team started using the line to break our huddles on offense. Instead of Ready / Break, our quarter back said FOOTBALL and the rest of the squad responded YOU BET! A fun way to break the huddle that had our opponents scratching their heads as very few of them had watched the show. Using this line added a unique element to our season that I'll never forget. We had our best season during my time in college that year and in a small way it was due to the fun that we had using this line. The show was pretty much a stinker but it lives on in the memories of the 1977 Pi Kappa Phi intramural flag football squad at West Virginia Tech. | 0 |
Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.<br /><br />But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.<br /><br />So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.<br /><br />I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.