text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
This film was the most longest film and the record breaking film for sure It had 30 actors After JAANI DUSHMAN(2002) i guess no one had the guts to do something like that<br /><br />The film as the title suggests is based on the Kargil war but the problem is there are too many characters and the romantic subplots and the songs of many characters are boring<br /><br />Even there are too many cinematic liberties like killing people with knifes, wonder which soldier does that?<br /><br />Direction by JP Dutta pales front of BORDER Music is okay<br /><br />Amongst the huge cast Ajay Devgan stands tall, Saif is very good in his part and also it's his first film with kareena, Abhishek is likable Manoj Bajpai has his moments Sanju is wasted, Suneil is okay Akshaye Khanna does his part well rest are passable Rani is good, Esha is okay rest are passable | 0 |
This was a movie that I hoped I could suggest to my American friends. But after 4 attempts to watch the movie to finish, I knew I couldn't even watch the damn thing to close. You are almost convinced the actual war didn't even last that long. Other's will try to question my patriotism for criticizing a movie like this. But flat out, you can't go from watching Saving Private Ryan to LOC. Forget about the movie budget difference or the audience - those don't preclude a director from making an intelligent movie. The length of the movie is not so bad and the fact that it is repetitive - they keep attacking the same hill but give it different names. I thought the LOC was a terrible terrain - this hill looked like my backyard. The character development sequences (the soilders' flashbacks, looking back to their last moments, before being deployed) should have been throughout the movie and not just clumped into one long memory. To this day, I have yet to watch the ending. But there was a much better movie (not saying much) called Border. | 0 |
Now please don't start calling me names like, "unpatriotic" , "weirdo" and more .<br /><br />The very length of this movie (4 hours .. !!!) is its biggest mistake . No editing at all - seems like J.P. Dutta fell in love with his project too much . Even Lagaan was 4 hours long - but it was entertaining and gave a message as well .<br /><br />It's based on true incidents and real people . Kudos to it , but were the repetitive war scenes really needed ? On top of it the focus constantly shifted from one battalion / squadron to another and it was impossible to keep a track of them all .<br /><br />Between the skirmishes , there were songs about loneliness , lovesickness and related stuff . There were chummy conversations . In the beginning it gave some relief from the violence but became so monotonous later that one could even correctly predict nature of the forthcoming talk .<br /><br />Why were the soldiers walking around as if they were lions in jungle , fully unaware that enemy was lurking somewhere near? And when they were shot , it elicited sympathy but it seemed unmindful of them to be so cocksure of their safety in the first place .<br /><br />Music was melodious and the lyrics were soulful but did not fit with the movie . Better to listen to them on the soundtrack rather than in the movie .<br /><br />Acting was the saving grace : From seasoned veterans like Sanjay Dutt and Ajay Devgan , to relative newbies like Abhishek Bachchan and Akshaye Khanna , everyone acted like a pro . Manoj Bajpai and Ashutosh Rana deserve a special mention for lightening up the mood whenever necessary .<br /><br />Dialogues ranged from brilliant ("From Madhuri .. with Love!!") to illogical / monotonous ("Pakistan se zyada musalman Hindusthan mein hain") . And the expletive spree consisting of all the MCs , BCs , Cs and F-words wasn't really required . <br /><br />LOC Kargil attempts to provide a fitting tribute to the brave Indian soldiers , but tries too hard and ultimately fails . Indian soldiers surely deserve a better tribute . | 0 |
Is this the movie??? Is this what Indians are trying to show?? I think this is one more effort from a sick-minded director to turn down Pakistani soldiers and in fact country....but what we Pakistani's know that we are always ahead of India in every part of our lives...not only in armed counters.<br /><br />Well...this is bad filmed as that of Border in early 1997...and director and writer just tried to overcome a shame of defeat in Kargil by Pakistani armed forces, by creating films like these..<br /><br />One thing is very clear...Whenever there will be an encounter between Pakistan and India....we will win....!!! So Mr. Dutta try to make some good movies instead of Nonsense movies like this | 0 |
I should put out an alert all over saying that the movie shouldn't be watched. It fails to a fitting tribute in such a magnificent manner that it is almost an insult to the memory of those brave men. The special effect were horrible, I hadn't expected the total failure on the part of the director to appreciate military technology. How can a machine gun which normally fires at the rate of 600 rounds per minute fire at 1/10th the speed? How can soldiers fall forward when a grenade explodes in front of them? How can people survive when there are artillery shells falling as close as 20 feet away? How come the artillery shells fall only on either side of the road and not the road itself?<br /><br />Not only did this disrespect for the weaponry appall me, it was the cliched situations and the incongruity of the dialogues which had me screaming murder. There were the standard dialogues like Ye bhi kisi ka bhai hai, ise laath mat maro and Pakistan se jyaada musalmaan to Hindustaan me hai and LOC cross mat karo ye mera hukum hai. Stupid to say the least.<br /><br />What Shobha De had written is true. The director worked without a script and it shows. There is no flow to the movie. There is no gradual progression from one battle to another. It is just one gunfight after the next with no connection to the overall scheme of the war. The explanatory scenes are awful. The chief of army staff looks unconvincing. To make matters worse the theatre people had indiscriminately cut footage to fit the four hour long movie into 3 hours. | 0 |
I saw this movie with some Indian friends on Christmas Day. The quick summary of this movie is MUST AVOID. JP Dutta wrote, directed, produced and edited this movie and did none of these jobs well.<br /><br />The movie tells the story of the attempt by Pakistan in 1999 to capture part of the disputed region of Kashmir from India. Supposedly based on fact, you get a hint from this movie of the difficulty the Indian army had in recapturing the area from the Pakistani troops - who occupied the high ground. But instead of telling what must have been a compelling and heroic story, all this movie does is make the Indian military look laughable and stupid, which I know is not true.<br /><br />I watched this movie with an almost completely Indian audience, who were very patriotic and clearly wanted to like this movie, but also found themselves laughing at scenes that weren't meant to be funny.<br /><br />The script was absolutely abysmal. It gave the impression that Mr Dutta knows nothing about how an army operates and was using bad war movies for reference. The result is a script that is brainless and repetitive.<br /><br />The acting from most of the principals was not stellar, but considering the script they were given, I find it hard to criticise them too much. As for the supporting cast, all I can say is that I hope they were amateurs.<br /><br />The editing was also pretty bad. It was pretty hard to follow what was going on for a lot of the time, and music would abruptly end at scene changes.<br /><br />Good things: The cinematography was pretty good, although it was hurt a little by the fact that the movie didn't appear to be colour corrected (the colour balance often varied significantly within scenes). Also, the few songs that were in the movie were quite enjoyable - for the first half a dozen or so verses at least. Unfortunately they went on a LOT longer than they should have.<br /><br />And the worst crime of all? This mess is FOUR HOURS LONG. There is enough here that a good editor could almost squeeze a good 1.5 - 2 hour movie out of what was shot. Sadly, a good editor was not working on this movie. | 0 |
This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.<br /><br />The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture. | 0 |
I thought I read somewhere that this was the last Monogram production, but whether that's true or not it doesn't matter, because if it wasn't, then it should have been. It's a deadly dull affair starring John Carradine with some gray in his hair to make himself appear like an older scientist who is experimenting with the aid of his young apprentice (Robert Shayne) in bringing the dead back to life. Every time their subjects are revived, they seem to have a whitish face like marble as they are lying strapped to the laboratory table (big deal). Carradine manages to restore his faithful dog to life after it's dead, and the mutt gains an unusual ability to walk through walls in a ghostlike fashion (wooooooooohhhh). That's about all she wrote.<br /><br />For an ultra-cheap Monogram quickie, this thing at least actually utilizes a more fancy-schmancy lab setup than is usually allotted. The funniest running joke in the movie is that the "older" doctor Carradine constantly refers to his "young" assistant Shayne as "m'boy" when, in fact, Carradine was actually 40 and Shayne was 45 when they made this! | 0 |
A scientist (John Carradine--sadly) finds out how to bring the dead back to life. However they come back with faces of marble. Eventually this all leads to disaster.<br /><br />Boring, totally predictable 1940s outing. This scared me silly when I was a kid but just bores me now. I had to struggle to stay awake! With one exception, the acting is horrible. Such expressionless boring actors! Hopeless.<br /><br />There are some good things about this: Carradine, despite the script, actually gives a very good performance. And there are a few mildly creepy moments involving a ghost of a Great Dane walking through walls. There's also one of the worst-looking knockouts in cinema history. Still, none of this is fun enough to sit through this. Avoid. | 0 |
My girlfriend has the habit of going to Blockbuster and choosing movies no-one has ever heard anything about. Admittedly, at times, it has led to some fun discoveries. Often times, the best that can be said is they definitely run an hour and a half.<br /><br />She brought home "Advice From A Caterpillar." She was excited because the box said it was funny. Lucky for us, the propaganda on the boxes never lie.<br /><br />This movie was an exercise in patience. This is one of those movies where, unless you are a pretentious and shallow person who likes watching movies about yourself, you will hate every character in the movie. Until the introduction of the one nice character. Which the lead annoying pretentious character will fall in love with and act in such a way that, in the real world, would drive anyone away.<br /><br />MILD SPOILERS FROM HERE ON<br /><br />So a bunch of emotionally vapid, stuck-up, pretentious artists swear off love and find success in their careers. Then, they meet a nice, intelligent, emotionally mature and loving character (an almost perfect guy). We then watch the woman, the annoyingly pretentious artist (in her 30's?) freak out as she falls in love. So she tries to flee from the nice, intelligent, emotionally mature man and stay with the married man with whom she's been having great but empty sex. She is rude to the man and does everything in her power to drive him away. In the real world, she would have been quite successful. I certainly wanted to flee from her and I wasn't even in a relationship with her!<br /><br />Although its nice that the man 'fought for his love', I never wanted her to have him. (Nor did my girlfriend) She didn't deserve him. And, why I wonder, did the director think that the 'almost perfect guy' should be punished by having to win a relationship with her? When the artist was asking the 'almost perfect guy' to leave, we were screaming for him to leave too. There's a problem with a movie when the heroine of the film is so annoying, childish and stupid that you want her to fail.<br /><br />Beyond that, let me say that Andy Dick made me laugh a few times even though his character was also pretentious to the point of annoyance. Regarding the other characters, they were well acted, morally bankrupt and annoying characters.<br /><br />It is a comedy and I can say I did laugh a few times in the film. Unfortunately, not much laughing happened until the last 10 minutes or so. But by the time I had those laughs, I had been praying for the movie to end for far too long. I needed to get these vapid characters out of my life.<br /><br />If you want to watch people you hate struggle with a love for people they don't deserve, then this is the movie for you. | 0 |
This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy. | 0 |
Why? Why did they make this movie? If Timothy Olyphant wasn't shirtless in it several times, there would be ABSOLUTELY no reason to watch this movie, ever. Um...Plot? Nope. Well-defined characters? nope. The only time I laughed was when my boyfriend made fun of the whole she-bang. P.S. Andy Dick? Nope. | 0 |
Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.<br /><br />It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts. | 0 |
Ostensibly a film that predicts the coming trends in British popular music, it's wrong on so many fronts that it's laughable. Tommy Quickly? The Honeycombs? The movie DOES include a song by the Spencer Davis group, two by the Animals, and one tacked on live film of the Beatles doing their live version of Twist and Shout (all 1:20). But all in all, an awkward display of British music circa 1964. Oh, and Herman's Hermits. | 0 |
Russell Hopton acted in many films until his death in 1945. He only directed 2 and "Black Gold" was one, (the other was also from 1936). Frankie Darro had a sometimes abrasive screen presence but in this he was playing a good kid. He was obviously quite popular on the "quickie" circuit - he made so many films. In this one he plays the son of an old oil rigger who is convinced that he will strike oil very soon.<br /><br />J.C. Anderson (Berton Churchill) is trying to convince the old man to sell up as he knows there is going to be oil struck at any moment. A geologist, Henry, comes on the scene and helps "Fishtail's" dad. He also convinces "Fishtail" to go to school regularly. Henry has his eye on Cynthia, the pretty teacher. This was Gloria Shea's last film - she had begun her career as Olive Shea in "Glorifying the American Girl" (1929). "Fishtail's" dad is killed when the rig is sabotaged and Henry is determined to bring Anderson and his cronies to justice. When Henry is kidnapped Anderson tries to persuade "Fishtail" to sell his oil lease. It all ends well with oil being struck and "Fishtail" going to Military school.<br /><br />It is okay for a rainy day. | 0 |
This movie was terrible to say the least. I was hoping for a lot better after seeing "High School Musical". The whole entire movie was a complete rip off of "The Simple Life", only it wasn't a reality show.<br /><br />The acting was not good at all. Amanda Michalka had her moments, when she wasn't that terrible. On the other hand Alyson Michalka was bad all the way through. Chris Gallinger, who played the love interest of Amanda was playing a french guy, but had an awful accent. One good thing about this movie was the completely adorable Michael Trevino, who played Alyson's love interest. Just something to keep in mind, if this movie had been aired before "High School Musical" it probably would not have seemed as bad. But it was no comparison.<br /><br />Overall I give it a 2. | 0 |
This movie is truly awful. After seeing the advertisement for it, i thought it could have its charms ... but it didn't.The girls cannot act, and they cannot sing either. The soundtrack to this movie is full of their songs, and its not a pretty sight, Terrible story line, unbelievable plot, its one of Disney's worst movies by FAR!. Ally is not a bad actress on "Phil of the Future", so i don't know what happened in "Cow Belles". And her sister, AJ, seems to be just hitching a ride on her sisters "fame", and she displays no talent what so ever.<br /><br />At the end of the movie the girls do finally learn some cliché morals, but this is to late to rescue this train wreck movie.<br /><br />Awful | 0 |
This movie kind of reminds me of A Mary-Kate and Ashley movie-only worse. Just the rich sisters kind of thing I think even though Alysons more the actress, in this movie Amanda michalka was okay sometimes but Alysons acting stunk. i think that after high-school musical they needed to come up with somethihng better and this definitely wasn't it. The story line wasn't that great and I think they should have gotten two other people to play Taylor and Courtney. I'm not a big Alyson Michalka fan and this movie didn't make me like her any better. i think they should definitely sick to singing and only watch this movie if you have nothing better to do (which sadly I didn't) | 0 |
I watched this movie really late last night and usually if it's late then I'm pretty forgiving of movies. Although I tried, I just could not stand this movie at all, it kept getting worse and worse as the movie went on. Although I know it's suppose to be a comedy but I didn't find it very funny. It was also an especially unrealistic, and jaded portrayal of rural life. In case this is what any of you think country life is like, it's definitely not. I do have to agree that some of the guy cast members were cute, but the french guy was really fake. I do have to agree that it tried to have a good lesson in the story, but overall my recommendation is that no one over 8 watch it, it's just too annoying. | 0 |
How Disney can you get? Preppy rich girls act like idiots, buy a bunch of stuff, and get taught a lesson. Is Disney trying to send a lesson to itself? That maybe while buying everything it should maybe still be human? Whatever the psycho-analysis, this movie sucked.<br /><br />The girls want a rich party for their rich lives. But then money disappears and they have to use their riches to get the milk plant (yes, milk) going to employ the workers. They keep it afloat until daddy comes home. And the man at the beginning, who appears to be the one that takes the money, is the one. But the ending is dumb. Webcam in the Cayman Islands? Huh? Not worth my time ever again. <br /><br />But it is better than Howl's Moving Castle. "D-" | 0 |
Aldolpho (Steve Buscemi), an aspiring film maker, lives in a battered NYC apartment and relies on his mother to help make the rent. He has a beautiful neighbor named Angelica (Jennifer Beals)who may or may not be married but who Aldolpho would love to star in his movie. When Al unexpectedly gets a financial promise of funding for his film from a strange man named Joe, he thinks he's got it made. That is, until Joe takes Al along on an adventure to steal a Porsche for part of the financial backing. Will the film be made before Aldolpho is completely without a moral backbone? And, will Angelica star in the film? This is, in this viewer's opinion, an awful movie. The script is abysmal, with a plot that wanders willy nilly. Beals practically snarls all of her lines and Buscemi, though likable, is nondescript. There is a good deal of distasteful material and unsavory characters to boot. Finally, the production values are very poor, too, making the film look second rate at all times. If you have time on your hands, it is still a good idea not to take a chance with this movie. But, if you are the proverbial glutton for punishment, go ahead and watch the darn thing. Beals does look beautiful, after all. | 0 |
A terrible movie as everyone has said. What made me laugh was the cameo appearance by Scott McNealy, giving an award to one of the murdered programmers in front of a wall of SUN logos. McNealy is the CEO of SUN Microsystem, a company that practically defines itself by its hatred of Microsoft. They have been instrumental in filing antitrust complaints against Microsoft. So, were they silly enough to think this bad movie would add fuel to that fire?<br /><br />There's no public record I see of SUN's involvement, but clearly the makers of this movie know Scott McNealy. An interesting mystery. | 0 |
It was interesting to see how accurate the writing was on the geek buzz words, yet very naive on the corporate world. The Justice Department would catch more of the big corp giants if they did such naive things to win. The real corporate world is much more subtle and interesting, yet every bit as sinister. I seriously doubt ANY corp would actually kill someone directly; even the mod is more indirect these days. In the real world, they do kill people with nicotine, pollution, additives, poisons, etc. This movie must have been developed by some garage geeks, I think, and the studios didn't know the difference. They just wanted something to capitalize on the Microsoft antitrust case in the news. | 0 |
AntiTrust could have been a great vehicle for Rachael Leigh Cook, but the director cut out her best scenes. In the scenes that she are in, she is just a zombie. She is involved in a sub-plot that is simular to a sub-plot in "Get Carter", but she handles the sub-plot better in "Get Carter".(I blame the director) The director's homage to Hitchcock was corny. (It's the scene were Ryan Philippe's charactor realizes he may not be able to trust Tim Robbin's charactor, at least I think it's a homage to Hitchcock. The DVD shows the scenes that were cut out. I think the director should have trust his instincts and not listen to the test audiences. | 0 |
Obvious attack on Microsoft made by people who don't appear to understand intellectual property or market economies generally.<br /><br />Loony liberal tim robbins plays a painfully obvious caricature of bill gates, and is a cartoonish corporate villain ordering murders right and left.<br /><br />While microsoft may engage in some anticompetitive activity at times, it's unlikely they actually murder people. Therefore, the film is over the top and ridiculous from the beginning.<br /><br />The "deeper" point is apparently that major tech innovations should be free to the public, and not subject to intellectual property laws. However, this ignores the fact that most major innovations would never have been developed if not for the market incentives (and rewards) provided by intellectual property.<br /><br />It's one thing to be opposed to anti-competitive conduct -- that's common sense. It's quite another to be opposed to market competition in the first place, which is what the film's mantra ("knowledge belongs to mankind") represents.<br /><br />Yet another example of Hollywood being completely out of touch with reality. | 0 |
One more of extremely unprofessional movies about computer programmers.<br /><br />Looks authors of that movie don't know real specific of programmers world.<br /><br />20 top programmers in the world, program which have own satellites (for what?), program which using satellite freq., somebody kill somebody to steal the codes (why?) and much more of stupid moments at this movie.<br /><br />Peoples who not programmers not will see something awful at that movie, because not professionals on this. But peoples will see not real things.<br /><br />Programmers will find that movie odd and awful - because lots of moments inside movie is not RELATED real life (why movie not scifi in this case?). | 0 |
I sort of accidentally ended up watching this movie. I'm still not sure if I regret it or not. I felt like I was watching the film made by that group of film school students that didn't quite make the cut. It plays up every Hollywood cliché imaginable, all the while flogging us with the 'corporations are the ultimate evil' message. Subtlety this movie does not know. As far as that goes, it even manages to provide it's own spoilers.<br /><br />The story appears to be a computer nerd's fantasy world come true. The lead character is an attractive teenage boy with a girlfriend, yet is a programming genius and apparent hacker (I think), among many other nerd-fantasy-come-true elements that you'll have to see for yourself.<br /><br />As well, I should've known it would be a z-movie when I saw Ned Bellamy... he tends to be a good tip-off.<br /><br />Can't recommend this one, I'm afraid. | 0 |
Antitrust falls right into that category of films that aspire to make some great point while being uplifting yet falls completely flat. I don't hate the film, but it is missing key elements, such as suspense. There have been other attempts to make an engaging film about computers, such as Hackers and The Net. They all fall short. The improbable ending of both The Net and Antirust seem to be nearly identical. These movie endings suffer from one huge error in perception: People in the PC business having this over-indulgent self ego that assumes the general population lives it's life waiting to hear the latest news about PC's and software. I have worked for many companies and industries, and they all seem to suffer from an expanded view of their own self-importance, as does this film.<br /><br />The way they introduced plot lines was pathetic. Showing Milo, who is deathly allergic to Sesame Seeds, almost ingest one from a restaurant breadbasket crossed the line of stupidity. Only his 'girlfriend' prevented him from sure death. This makes one wonder how Milo could have survived as long as he did, braving the perils of Big Mac buns and Sesame Seed breadsticks, as they cloak themselves as, well.... Sesame Seed breadsticks and Big Mac buns.<br /><br />Antitrust also doesn't provide much suspense. The patterned and predictable plot twists are easily figured out long before they are revealed (come on, was anyone REALLY stunned when Yee Jee Tso was killed?), thereby destroying any real shock value. And here again we have yet another film/story where at the end, the bad guys are chasing the good guys to 'get the disk'. We need to have a moratorium on this Simple Simon plot line for about 20 years. Still, I pressed on. Maybe the ending would be the payoff, but no. The completely ridiculous ending where we have the head of company security, another supposed evil guy, turn around and be the good guy that enables Milo to bring down N.U.R.V CEO Gary Winston was laughable. And of course, the news coverage of the arrest of Gary Winston is more fevered than when Hinckley or Oswald was brought into custody. Gary Winston, played by Tim Robbins, is a cardboard cutout of the same character Robbins played in Arlington Road. But that fits perfectly here in Antitrust, which should be called 'Anticlimactic' or 'Anti-Original'.<br /><br />In the years to come, this film will likely be banished, to be shown only on your local third rate UHF channel. | 0 |
After seeing the trailer of this film in the cinema, i thought that it was an original concept for a thriller, setting it in the competitive world of computer companies. The all star cast was another message that this film would probably be good. But when i didn't go to watch it in it's first week of release then it disappeared by week 2 i feared something was a miss. Patiently i waited for it's DVD release, then bought it rushing home for an enjoyable evening's viewing. The anticipation on the way home was far better than the film. For a start the direction is appalling. There's no thought gone into it at all and the director just makes up a part for himself, so he can appear in the film. I wouldn't be rushing out to employ him in the future. Secondly the lead role is completely miscast as Ryan Phillipe. Phillipe normally the cool character as in Cruel Intentions and Way of the Gun but in this he's supposed to be a bumbling hero which he attempts to portray by slipping when he's running and having geeky friends, but he just doesn't look right. The female stars, Rachel Leigh Cook and Clare Forlani don't feature enough but when they do neither of the performances are close to their bests. The only highlight of the film is Tim Robbins in a role that could have been made for him and it's his fiery temper and mysterious ways that drag the film along. The final point is that this film is another one which fills the trailer with scenes you don't see in the film and instead feature only in the deleted scenes section of the DVD. Causing even more disappointment as although some of these scenes are crude they do fill in important gaps in the story. | 0 |
Five minutes into this movie you realize that you have seen it all before. It is BOILER ROOM. It is THE FIRM. And it is THE DEVILS ADVOCATE. And there are NO new elements here. Except for the all-to-clear Bill Gates-allegory. Conpsiracies are always good stuff for movie-making, but why does it have to be so extreme ? Boiler room is a good movie, because it - for a while at least - seems realistic. In Antitrust everything is wrong. How realistic is it for example that your boss pay an impostor to be your girlfriend in order to make you work harder and control you ? I'd give it 1, but the soundtrack is OK, so 2/10. | 0 |
My friends and I rented that movie last night and we had one of the greatest laughs in awhile. The movie is not supposed to be funny at all, but it is just so ridiculous and it lacks any realism whatsoever. First, Phillippe (I forget what his character is called and I don't really care) uses his regular employee ID to go through all the top-security terminals. Not only is that pathetic but it gets topped when his enormous efforts culminate in his finding the so-scary Lego-room, which hosts the super computers. This is plain funny. The tense mood that we are supposed to experience is completely spoilt by the childish looking room. The ending, like all else, is very very very cheesy, especially when the bad guy's lawyer shows up 'right on time'. Anyway, this movie is a good laugh. If you need something to make fun of, definitely see it. | 0 |
The best thing about this movie was, uh, well, I can't think of anything. This was bad. The script was especially bad. The technical concepts were bad. The "suspenseful" plot was bad. The dialog was bad. Avoid at all costs. Do not rent. Do not watch. You'll be sorry. | 0 |
Very businesslike authority with little responsibility and only a desire to keep his/her name clean - check. A veteran cop that has bad relationship with his family - check. Mafia guys that while criminals, want to do something good vigilante style - check. A sociopath and loyal mafia guy not hesitant to kill people to make an example - check. Cops' methods being less effective than the mafia guy's brutal yet very effective methods - check. A corrupt cop tying the authority, the criminals and the police together - check.<br /><br />Slow motion and/or jerky frame rates for showing what the actor's reaction can't - check. A serial killer whose background is explained in far too much detail, esp. using childhood abuse as the reason for everything - check. A child spree killer that is very, very non-menacing - check. Foreshadowing of the veteran cop's moral values not being what the killer deserves in the movie's and the majority of characters' opinion - check. Morally ambiguous and predictable ending thanks to the foreshadowing and the good veteran cop's coming to terms he should submit to the vigilante attitude of the majority of the characters - check.<br /><br />Recently saw this on TV and decided to endure it because it had Dennis Hopper in it and I could not sleep - check. Realized that was a mistake and should just have stared at the ceiling - check. | 0 |
Dennis Hopper is without a doubt one of the finest underrated American actors of our time, and it was interesting to see how he would play out his role as a cop on the case of a child serial killer. Most movies Hopper has always played to psychotic menace threatening to blow up stuff or go on a killing spree, but in this movie, Hopper tried his best to keep that intensity and emotion while carrying a shield. Once I got into the plot of the movie, I was hooked, but it's just the little things that ultimately murdered the film.<br /><br />The concept of the film is great - not only are the cops on the move of catching the killer, but we get a chance to see how the gangsters operate in catching the killer. The subplot of the football stadium is kinda ridiculous, but necessary to involve the gangsters in the killer hunt.<br /><br />That's about all that is good you can say about the film. Although Hopper did try to act like a tough, experienced street smart cop, I can't help but feel his acting was below par, and there wasn't enough conviction that he was truly attached to the case. The directing was also terrible - it didn't have the feel of a true film, but rather a TV-movie production. This is most evident when the gangsters meet for the first time to form an elite team to hunt the killer down. When the leading gangster shoots the other mouthy gangster in slow motion, the acting was weak, predictable and terribly unexciting. That's when I knew that 1st of all, the action is going to be atrocious.<br /><br />The angling of the camera was amateurish, and the recalling scenes or haunting images of the killer's little sister had no true distinctive effect. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. Everyone's acting was terrible, and even for Hopper, I didn't feel for his character, and I just didn't really care too much about his relationship with his daughter.<br /><br />The final thing that bothered me the most is the swat team. Once I saw the swat team in action, I was thinking, finally, something good. But I was wrong. 1st of all, the entire swat team consisted of 4 guys. That is just impossible. 2nd of all, apparently the swat team has no training whatsoever because many times in the film they carry their HKA4 submachine guns with one hand. Had the killer been hiding near the staircase with a shotgun, these 4 idiots would've been blown to bits because they weren't even aiming at anything or paying close attention. They should have had both hands on the gun aiming forward, but it just looks like they're not taking the job seriously and are just flaunting around. 3rd, SWAT team members do not yell out commands such as "Keep your eyes open, watch out for yourselves, are we good to go...etc." In reality, they use hand signals or have radios. But they're literally yelling at each other - how are you supposed to catch the killer when he can hear you're coming??? And to top it all off, these guys have no plan - apparently they're just running up and down going on a wild turkey chase. Eventually they end up doing nothing. That was the last straw. I'm no expert on special forces, but basically what I've just outlined, is pretty common sense. When the audience knows the movie is terrible, the action pretty much becomes the life-saver of the movie - when you can't even make an effort to make the action great, the movie is lost.<br /><br />I give 2 stars for the concept, but the rest cannot be credited. If you want to watch a crime thriller, don't bother with this one. There's plenty of crime in the movie - but it has the lack of thrill. | 0 |
The movie had a good concept, but the execution just didn't live up to it.<br /><br />What is this concept? Well, story-wise, it's "Dirty Harry" meets "M". A child killer has begun terrorizing a city. The lead detectives (Dennis Hopper and Frederic Forest) have never dealt with a serial killer before. The Mayor and the Police Chief, in desperation, secretly hire the local mob to speed things up...to go places and do things that the police wouldn't be able to in order to bring an end to this mess as soon as possible.<br /><br />To be fair, this film DOES genuinely have some good things to offer.<br /><br />Besides the concept, I liked the look of the killer's hideout. Norman Bates has his basement. This guy has an eerie sewer. In some of the shots, the light bounces off the water and creates rippling reflections on the walls; often giving these scenes a creepy, dreamlike quality.<br /><br />The acting was good too. Dennis Hopper is one of those actors who gets better with age.<br /><br />Once you get past that, however, it more-or-less goes downhill.<br /><br />The film is paced way too fast. The actual investigation process from both teams feels very rushed as opposed to feeling intricate and fascinating. This could have been fixed in two ways: either make the film longer or cut out some of the many subplots. Either of these would have allowed the crew to devote more time to the actual mystery.<br /><br />For an example of how bad this is, one of the crucial clues that helps them zero in on just the right suspect is this: at one point in his life, the suspect went to a pet shop...That's right...I'm being totally serious here. It's like they went from point A (the first clue) to point Z (the suspect) and skipped over all the "in-between" steps.<br /><br />Then there's the characters. The only ones I actually liked were two pick-pockets you meet about half-way through the movie. Considering that they're minor characters, I'd call that a bad sign.<br /><br />Finally, there's the mob angle. This is the one that gets me the most because THIS is why I coughed up the $3 to buy the DVD in the first place. I mean, what a hook! There's been an absolute glut of serial killer flicks in the last 10-15 years. The mob angle was a gimmick that COULD have helped it rise above the rest..., but it didn't.<br /><br />I figured the gangsters's methods would be brutal, but fun and thrilling at the same time; kind of like a vigilante movie or something...maybe they'd even throw in some heist movie elements too. We ARE talking about criminals, after all. Instead, we're given some of the most repulsive protagonists committed to celluloid. The detectives question witnesses. What does the mob do? They interrogate and kill them. It's not even like these witnesses are really even that bad either. I actually found the criminals less likable than the killer they're hunting.<br /><br />Unless the good points I mentioned are enough to get your interest, I'd say give this one a miss. Maybe some day, they'll reuse the same story idea and do it RIGHT. I hope so. I hate to see such a good concept go to waste. | 0 |
This movie kinda let me down. It seemed a lot like the movie Jaws when the Hopper was telling the Mayor to close parks was like when Roy Shider was telling the Mayor to close the beaches. They both said no way its summer! But the box says Hopper has to get into the mind of a killer and think like one. But he really doesn't do anything too interesting or exciting. I'm not even a little convinced he and his partner have any experience doing police work when they are in the office wondering how they are gonna solve this case. They just say lets do police work and we'll solve it. And whats up with all the old men with pool cues. I didn't even begin to believe that they were mob bosses. And then the guy who was doubting the guy the mob picked to handle finding the killer. With his hundred dollar haircut and that he thinks his Di@k is the size of a schoolbus. Come on what cruddy lines. I thought he was gonna hit him with a baseball bat like in the other movies. I got this movie used and wouldn't buy it new. I suggest you skip this movie. Oh and it was funny seeing the microphone above the scene where hopper is going out to get coffee. | 0 |
Maybe I've seen one too many crime flick, or maybe I don't take the right drugs.<br /><br />This was the most cliché ridden, plot deficient, plot-absurd, just plain stupid movie I have seen in a long time.<br /><br />As for the direction, it looks like it took less time to show this than it did to put it together.<br /><br />In fact it looks like to made it straight to video before it was completed.<br /><br />It's a bad rip off of "M" the classic Fritz Lang film starring Peter Lorre. You'd be SO much better off renting that instead. | 0 |
***Possible Plot Spoilers***<br /><br />I adore Dennis Hopper. I question why he accepted the role of a police detective in 2000's The Spreading Ground. This movie flat out sucks and I'm about to tell you why.<br /><br />This is about a small town which is about to get a contract for a sports arena. One hitch: there's a killer on the loose and that is bad for business. The Mayor makes a deal with the Irish Mob to find the killer and make sure he never makes it to court. Det. Ed Delongpre has other plans. He wants this guy caught too, but he's on the level and believes in the system. He wants to see the system do it's job.<br /><br />That could have been pretty good. It could have been riveting. It was horrible. First, they label this guy a Serial Killer. Err no. There are specific criteria and none of it fits here. The bad guy has killed 5 kids the first day, and I think it was 2 the second day. This entire movie spans like a 48 hour time period.... Hardly Serial Killer action. I don't care what warped motives they give him in the end, Serial Killers do their deed over a long time span. They do not just all of a sudden kill 7 kids in two days. That's a Spree.<br /><br />Ok that irritant aside, the acting was atrocious. The only name here was Hopper, and he's the only one who came even close to pulling off his part. Unfortunately, he's kinda type-cast to me and I think he does psycho parts much, much better. This just wasn't a good vehicle for Hopper. It didn't allow him to do what he does best, which is to act all creepy. It's not that he did bad, it's that I've seen him do so much better.<br /><br />The Irish Mob guy, Johnny Gault (Tom McCamus - Long Day's Journey Into Night), who is in charge of their investigation is just over the top stiff. Contradiction? Not really. He is trying to play the cold, hard kinda guy and he does that to the point that the character is just wooden. Boring to the max. He didn't scare me. He didn't inspire any emotion at all except boredom. I cannot tell you how many times I checked to see how much longer it was til the end of this movie.<br /><br />The other thing about this is that it had the feel of a made-for-TV movie. You know what I mean. The poor production values, low budget, re-use of scenes to save costs. Just eh. Yanno? But, I feel like comparing this to those is an insult to those.<br /><br />Derek Vanlint was both the Director and Cinematographer on this project. He bit off more than he could chew. I can't help feeling that Hopper must have took this role as a personal favor to a friend. That's the only rational I can come up with. This was Vanlint's first job as Director, third as cinematographer. Hopefully this was a learning experience for him.<br /><br />I won't ruin the ending in case you do decide to torture yourself with this one, but I do want to say that they all dropped the ball here...even Hopper. In a scene that should have been emotionally gut-wrenching for the detective, it was just..well.. blah. I didn't see any of the angst at all that would accompany the total gear-change this guy made. Very disappointing.<br /><br />This 100 grueling minutes long and Rated R for violence and language. No kid under 13 is going to have any interest whatsoever in watching this, so no worries there. It's not suitable for anyone anyway. heh.<br /><br />Skip this one. You'll thank me later. | 0 |
The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you. | 0 |
the lowest score possible is one star? that's a shame. really, i'm going to lobby IMDb for a "zero stars" option. to give this film even a single star is giving WAY too much. am i the only one who noticed the microphones dangling over hopper's head at the station? and the acting, or should i say the lack thereof? apparently talent wasn't a factor when the casting director came to town. my little sister's elementary school talent show provides greater range and depth of emotion. and those fake irish accents were like nails on a chalk board. the only thing that could have made this movie worse would have been...oh, wait, no,no, it's already as bad as it can get. | 0 |
The thing that stands out in my mind in this film (sadly) is the introduction, where John Berlin (Andy Garcia) is driving into town. You see his Mercedes pass on a winding road through a forest that looks like its loaded with Redwood trees. It's quite beautiful. <br /><br />As to Andy Garcia playing a character with the last name of Berlin, well...Andy is just too hispanic/Latin for it to be passable. Maybe a caucasian father married his Spanish mother for this story? Who knows. But I can tell you that when you put him in a town of farm folks and hicks, he stands out like a sore thumb, especially with his accent that flares up when he gets angry. Yeah, I know, big deal right? He's still a good actor.<br /><br />The title concerns a serial killer who nicknames his victims Jennifer. All of the victims are blind and he dismembers them. The killer has taken a hiatus but suddenly resurfaces when a blind witness (don't ask) appears, Helena Robertson (Uma Thurman). Thurman does a good job of playing a blind person, to my surprise. When I saw Lance Henriksen playing Sgt. Freddy Ross I got worried. Henriksen's played in some pretty strange films, especially of late. I still can't forget him in the bloodbath movie, Pumpkinhead. <br /><br />Berlin movies into a small town from L.A. as a detective. He begins investigating the Jennifer murders after finding body parts in the local landfill. His brilliance in discovering one of the victims was blind seemed far-fetched. So did the irony of *SPOILER* Freddy's murder, with the recording and name similarities. I got very confused as to the logic of how there came to be eight "Jennifers". And the motive of the killer as simply deranged didn't pack much of a punch. In retrospect, this film is probably more true to life in showing an unsuspecting individual as capable of murder simply because they became a little wacko over time or maybe were born looney toons.<br /><br />John Malkovich does a stupendous job in his interrogation of Garcia! Albeit no cop would legally be allowed to press someone that hard and egg them on without rightfully get knocked out. As to the ending, it is a bit of a surprise, but is highly arguable, much like Sgt. Ross' murder. The killer chooses to walk after his running victim, opting instead to frolick I guess.<br /><br />And there are so many opportunities he has in killing her that it's ridiculous. I won't ruin the very end because despite it's shakiness, it's a good surprise. Afterward though, you'll probably say, as I did, "boy was she lucky!" 4/10 | 0 |
This is a thriller with a good concept, good acting, good photography and good intentions all around, but which is confused and disjointed in execution.<br /><br />Garcia stars as John Berlin, an L.A. forensic detective who has moved to a small California town at the behest of a friend of his on the force there. He soon becomes involved in the investigation of an unsolved murder which leads to his theorizing about the existence of a serial killer whom no one else believes in. The known victim is theorized to be blind, which leads to a romance with a blind girl - believed to be a witness - at a nearby school for the blind.<br /><br />Despite a basically intriguing story there were too many quantum leaps and plot holes in this movie where I found myself wondering, 'how the hell did we wind up here?' or 'how did we find this out?' I found it confusing and disjointed, despite the good acting, etc. John Malkovich has a small part toward the end as an F.B.I. investigator out to get Berlin.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 0 |
This one is bad. A really bad and boring crime movie that has nothing out of the ordinary in it. A series of crimes, the killer that you do not see throughout the whole movie, the classic investigations. And also the classic tale about a cop who figures out what's going on and isn't believed by anyone, so he has to fight by himself to reveal the truth. Not too much in this one. Vote: 4 out of 10. | 0 |
Let me start out by saying I can enjoy just about any bad Italian horror movie or jungle exploitation flick from the 1970's. Seriously. This one was downright awful.<br /><br />There are way too many elements that Martino tries to inject and none of them work (except for the croc-gone-wild thing) very well at all. There are some ignorant Westerners, of course, who set up a resort in the jungle somewhere. I don't even remember where it takes place...how sad is that... Basically, people come to the resort to see this native tribe and its' ceremonies but eventually they upset the 'Alligator God' of the river who then proceeds to go on a rampage, killing said vacationers and some tribesmen as well. Sounds good, yeah? Well, don't get your hopes up. There is minimal violence until the end, the special effects are so bad it was like a kindergarten class performed them and the love story thrown in is laughable.<br /><br />There is seriously a few scenes where it appears they set up a camera underwater in a pool and threw a toy alligator, like a dart, into the water and that is supposed to be the gator attacking. I'm not kidding. In another wonderfully crafted special effect, a Matchbox van is targeted by the incredible sinking plastic gator, who all of a sudden is five times the size of a van. (A few minutes ago, he was only big enough to eat a human, but now he dwarfs a full-size cargo van...) It is really pathetic. The only other flick I can think of where the effects were so bad I was pulled out of the story was Bruno Mattei's masterpiece, "Rats," what with the plastic rats on the conveyor belt and all who COULDN'T be terrified.<br /><br />Normally I'd say anything Sergio Martino was a solid must-see but this one is a must-pass. Waste of time and definitely not worth buying for the $15+ sticker price from No Shame. This one is a SHAME.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids. | 0 |
First off I want to say that this film is worthy of more than the four stars I rated it. I gave it four stars because for me this 86 minute movie always seems like 2 and a half hours and is not engaging enough to sit through it all. However, "The Big Alligator River" (the title my DVD calls it) is better than your average nature strikes back movie.<br /><br />A tourist resort in the jungles of Southeast Asia is just opening and employs the natives while trying to manipulate the wildlife around. Mother Nature seeking revenge comes in the form of the god Kroona, a giant Alligator. But the creature isn't the only thing the tourists and the main characters (a photographer and the resort staff) have to worry about, the natives are getting rubbed the wrong way too.<br /><br />This movie is a pretty well-done adventure/horror story with a good musical score and direction. But the alligator itself, the main attraction of the movie, is obviously fake looking. Some of the close-ups of its jaws are good but that should be all we need to see. Some of the underwater far-away shots make it painfully obvious that what we are really dealing with is an alligator squeaky-toy you can probably get at a zoo souvenir shop. But the natives are believable, if not authentic.<br /><br />Probably not the movie that will give you non-stop thrills, if any, but shot and produced well enough to be given good mention. And like a lot of creature movies, this one ends with an extremely high body count. It also has lots of good jungle scenery. Acting is below par though, but who was expecting it to be better, eh? <br /><br />Much, much better than its recent American counterpart "Primeival" but nothing to be compared with "Jaws". But remember it may not be engaging at a few points. | 0 |
I really do fail to see the actual surplus value of this movie. It's not bad enough to be hilarious. There's no sleaze or gratuitous nudity (although there was plenty of opportunity). There's no gore. There's no suspense in the first hour of the movie 'cause there's way to much scenes of tourist having a party and natives playing funky tribal music. That last part was actually funny on many occasions: You see these natives hitting congas and 'jembés' and that's indeed what you hear (badly synchronized) on the soundtrack. But they also added this funky bass-line on the soundtrack. So, where was the bass-player? At one point the natives get angry and start killing the tourists. Why all of the sudden? It's supposed to be because the evil white men build this tourist complex, which according to their myth awakened the wrath of the river-alligator-god (I actually missed the explanation for that one). But the natives did help for several months to build the tourist complex, so why the sudden angriness? And how in the hell did they manage to push the helicopter in the water??? It's all silly and pointless. This movie also features the skinniest Afro-American model I've ever seen.<br /><br />At one point our heroic leading couple visits this cave where a weird, crazy old man lives. The only point to that scene is that they make the "shocking" discovery that the killer-crocodile is actually an alligator. Crocodile or alligator, what's the difference? It's big, it's made out of plastic and it eats people. All the same to me. The alligator is a rather silly creation. It's very stiff & motionless and doesn't even flap its feet when it swims. The eyes don't even move when they're shot in close-up. I guess they didn't know 'animatronics' back then in Italy during 1979. There's also a lot of pointless inter-cut shots of the local wildlife. I suspect it's stock footage.<br /><br />Like, I said, the first hour was pretty lame and the only reason I didn't switch off the movie was because my cat was asleep on my lap and I didn't want to wake the sweet thing. But the last half hour of the movie did get better. We finally get to see some action when the alligator swims through a horde of panicking people snapping its teeth and munching on them. The most entertaining (and at the same time funny) scene is when Alice and Daniel drive a van over a bridge and it collapses. We're looking at a matchbox-version of the van falling in the river here. Funny. But nicely shot. In fact there are several other nice traveling camera-moves. Surprisingly for this type of flick. I was gonna point out some stupid details concerning the end of the movie, but I don't wanna spoil it completely, in case you do decide to watch this movie. My advice is to stay away from it. If you wanna see a decent alligator movie, then see Lewis Teague's ALLIGATOR. I admit, that one isn't Italian and isn't a JAWS rip-off, but it certainly is more fun. And if you're interested in other movies made by director Sergio Martino, then I strongly recommend the highly entertaining 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. That one's an over-the-top rip-off of every possible existing post-apocalyptic-future-of-doom-movie. "Italians" and "rip-offs", two words that go together very well. | 0 |
OK - the Cons first: The obligatory '70's alligator (all right, correction - caiman) with nonmoving limbs is made the worse for scale miniature underwater shots (with the full length of reptile comparative to the size of the boat) utilizing a toy alligator being swirled around the toy boat in broadly lit water - even for nighttime shots!<br /><br />Unlike most primitives-killing-exploitative-Westerners films, the superstitious natives going bat**** and start massacring the vacationers seems unjustified this time. No one really abused the natives - exploited, yes, but far from abusive treatment. After all it was one of the natives (canoodling with a spoiled supermodel during a taboo full moon) that brought the curse of the River Demon on them, right?<br /><br />The vacationers are easily annoying (with the notable exception of the token old-soul/mildly blasphemous-little-girl-who-takes-a-shine-to-the-heroes that you often see in 70's Euroflicks), but far from from deserving violent death - unless they were your next door neighbors, mind you. A couple actually get killed being heroic - notable in that none of them fill the role of sidekick. There are only two straight villains in the entire film, so the demises feel more arbitrary than cathartic.<br /><br />The sequence where the giant caiman crunches down and scarfs thirty tourists in under five minutes will probably strike you as unintentionally hilarious.<br /><br />The point at which the natives decide not to wipe the surviving Westerners and practically saying "hey, you aren't so bad after all, sorry about that fuss last night" - because they blew up the monster lizard - has you shaking your head as the corny music kicks in. You know, the local military dictatorship will wipe out the village for ****ing with the tourist trade after the credits roll...<br /><br />The Pros: Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. Barbara Bach. You ALL know WHY you're interested in this film in the first place, right? I thought so. If you're a Bach completist, get the DVD reissued by NoShame films earlier this year (digitally remastered with no real extras to speak of, aside from the director bemoaning the current state of international film distribution).<br /><br />The hero isn't half bad, being far from an idiot (always a plus in B films) and the cynical little kid provides most of the comic relief.<br /><br />Worth a look, but get it cheaply! | 0 |
Very bad film. Very, very, very bad film. It's a rarity, but it defenitly is not worth hunting down. This Italian Jaws rip-off makes little sense most of the time, and no sense the rest. The "alligator" is not at all convincing, and many of the sub-plots go nowhere. If it's at the local video store, you may want to watch it if you're a fan of monster movies, but it's not worth hunting down. | 0 |
Not to be confused with Lewis Teague's "Alligator" (1980) which actually IS an excellent film, this "Il Fiume Del Grande Caimano" laboriously ends the exotic trilogy Sergio Martino made around the end of the seventies (including the rather watchable "L'Isola degli uomini pesce" and the not so good "La Montagna del dio cannibale"). Tracing outrageously the plot of "Jaws", the script fails at creating any suspense what so ever. The creature is ludicrous and its victims are simply despicable. Stelvio Cipriani's lame tune poorly illustrates the adventures of these silly tourists presented from the very beginning as the obvious items of the reptile's meal. No thrill out of this, rather laughters actually! And we could find this pitiful flick quite funny if the dialogs and the appearance of the natives were not so obviously inspired by pure racism. Very soon the giggling stops in favor of a sour feeling witnessing such a patronizing attitude. We could excuse badly made films and poor FXs, but not that kind of mentality. Never! | 0 |
I'm sorry but this is just plain pathetic. The little girl was a brat, their were no enjoyable characters and the plot sucked. Besides it wasn't even a gator as the film would like us to believe. If you check out any complete guide to reptiles you will find that it really is a Crocodile, not a gator. Obviously they didn't hire a real animal expert or they would know that the creature is a croc. It is a sad excuse for a movie. Especially the ending. I nearly fell asleep with this one. | 0 |
Put aside a Dr. House repeat that I had missed, and a Desperate Housewives (new) to watch this one. I don't know exactly what plagued this movie. I never thought I'd say this, but I want my 15 minutes of fame back.<br /><br />Script, Direction, I can't say. I recognized the stable of actors (the usual suspects), but thought Herbert Marshall was a class addition and sat myself down for a good cheesy flick. Boy, was I wrong. Dullsville.<br /><br />My favorite parts: where the "office girl" makes with the 029 keypunch and puts the cards into a 087 sorter. LOL @ "the computer". I'd like someone identify the next device - a 477 ? It's before even this dinosaur's time.<br /><br />And we dinosaurs don't have that much time to waste. | 0 |
Well here I go with another B industry movie. It's sad enough to see some badly made films but I don't care if a B industry or C industry produces the film. Show some effort in your work. The characters are really bad. The acting isn't in question in this one (surprise), but plot is. How can a tight-knit squad witness two of their fellow soldiers butchered, and then go on as if nothing happened. What sickened me was how the writer even threw in the remaining members a scene where they joke about how nice the doctor's ass was. Give me a break. | 0 |
The third installment of the "Carnosaur" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an "Alien" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the "Xtro" franchise, all the "Carnosaur" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the "sequels," I guess. Obviously "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two. | 0 |
This is one of the most hilariously bad movies I have ever had the privilege to see.<br /><br />I watched this on DVD with a bunch of friends one Friday night and we just couldn't stop laughing from start to finish.<br /><br />The story is simple enough: terrorists hijack a convoy they think is carrying weapons grade uranium, but it's actually carrying a bunch of man-eating dinosaurs. Easy mistake to make. Cue a startlingly incompetent team of Army Special Forces to tackle the prehistoric beasts. They are led by Colonel Rance, played by Scott Valentine; a man who seems to have perfected 'Smell the fart' acting, as advocated by Joey in Friends.<br /><br />There's plenty of gore and an awful lot of shooting, but unfortunately Rance's team seem to have a problem aiming their weapons in the general direction of a horde of giant, lumbering monsters. Also, the lights always seem to flicker and go out whenever a Velociraptor attacks (preumably so we can't see how bad the creature effects are).<br /><br />Having said all that, we all had a great deal of fun betting on who was going to get their head bitten off next.<br /><br />As a Jusassic Park / Aliens style action adventure this movie stinks worse than a dinosaur's crotch, but as ludicrous, tongue-in-cheek entertainment it's a roaring success. | 0 |
I don't know where to start; the acting, the special effects and the writing are all about as bad as you can possibly imagine. I can't believe that the production staff reached a point where they said, "Our job is done, time for it's release". I'm just glad the first two in the series never made it as far as the UK. I would actually recommend watching this film just so you can appreciate how well made most films are.<br /><br />I don't know how any of the other IMDb users could find it scary when the "terrifying" dinosaurs waddle down corridors with rubber arms flailing around. | 0 |
Primal Species comes from B Movie legend Roger Corman and as such everybody who watches this needs to realise that this is a Low Budget B Movie and it knows it.<br /><br />A bunch of terrorists high-jack a Lorry and kill an entire army doing so, they believe it to hold uranium, but No..... It contains two Dino's with a taste for Human Flesh... Then a Crack team, who might as well be called Delta Force get called in.<br /><br />OK, This ain't Jurassic Park, and Yes The Dino's are never clearly seen because it's obviously a guy in a Costume that's not too dissimilar to Barney the Dinosaur - only slightly LESS terrifying,but come on guys this had about 1% of Jurassic Park's Budget and as such does what it can.<br /><br />Does this deserve to be in the bottom 100?....HELL NO!!! I think the nearly half of voters who give this a 1 - are being WAY WAY overly harsh, it's much closer to a 4... it's actually a lot better than a whole host of other movies not in the Bottom 100, and has a similar production value to a Sci-Fi Channel Production. (again Movies which get a overly harsh time from critics here on IMDb)<br /><br />The acting is as expected in a B Movie although none of the actors take it that seriously, neither does the script<br /><br />All in All it's an enjoyable B Movie - Not for Film Snobs<br /><br />** out of ***** | 0 |
I just couldn't stop laughing!! This movie is incredibly funny and stupid! But, never mind that, it is very entertaining! In this film, you don't need to pay attention to anything! The acting is the same - LAME! The dinosaurs are the same - RUBBER (Oh, my I could see the stick that holds T-Rex head for a moment.) The raptors are the same from the Carnosaur 2, T-Rex is also the same, but... in some scenes his head looks kinda stuffed and it looks like some kind of project failure from kindergarten. Action is fast, sometimes too fast, actually I talk about fast editing, they edited it so fast, so that we cannot see the rubber dinosaurs, but OOPPS! to late, they are rubber! Well, only things interesting here is to see Rick Dean in this sequel.<br /><br />What can I say... don't rent it... watch it on TV, with friends, it is much more entertaining! | 0 |
Everything in this film is bad , the story , the acting , the effects but its funny , funny , funny !!!Scott Valentine with the army uniform thats ten sizes too big is so bad with the permanent attempt at a scowl on his face as the leader of a special ops group its hilarious ! The ''terrorists'' are as scary and realistic as the ''raptors'' , this is so phoney and bad at everything it tries you have to laugh .The part where the giant T-REX who somehow snuck on board a ship and then somehow got below is blown up and you see the metal pole sticking up where its head was is the perfect ending .If your into bad films , this is the pot of gold , the mona lisa of b-b-bad !!! | 0 |
OK I had higher hopes for this Carnosaur movie simply because it seemed like the sequels were getting better as they came out. I did like Carnosaur 2 better than 1. I figured well this one is newer so it must be better right? Well... I quickly learned I was wrong. I was extremely confused with the casting. They brought back Rick Dean for another spotlight character and Michael MacDonald as a police officer. Now for Rick dean lol, in Carnosaur 2 I thought he fit the role pretty well and wasn't really annoyed by him, now in Carnosaur 3 wow they placed him as an elite soldier. Now we are getting goofy here. The movie actually started out pretty good with a decent gun fight and dinos escaping out of there little freezer trucks, but as soon as Scott Valentines team showed up we had a mix of a romantic comedy with very funny performances from retarded and floppy dinosaurs.<br /><br />I'll start with the raptors first, they had there tails drag the ground, which in the second one they were up in the air which looked more common for a dinosaur that can run up to 50-60 mph. Now when they ran they wiggled back and forth and the heads didn't move at all. there hands were floppy all over the place and since they were extremely poorly shot by the director they looked stupid and out of place.<br /><br />The t-rex was extremely pathetic, they would of been better off using the one from the previous 2 movies. At least that one looked somewhat frightening. The one in this film looked like it was smiling all the time. The legs when it walked was hilarious, like it was john wayne in the old west all stiff legged and stuff. LOL another thing I noticed is that the hands did not move, they were stuck next to its body so it looked and sounded (god the sound effects were awful) retarded!!! Now if I was the director and realized that I had this to work with maybe I would of maybe tried a little bit harder to hide the fakeness fact. As for the rest of the movie, well this was the sloppiest and loudest military team I have ever seen. The weapons they used wouldn't make sense for the scenario. They even had an arm wrestling scene inside the warehouse where the carnosaurs were roaming, now I was tickled at this scene because I thought that while this stupidity was going on that the Dinos would get in there and cause some damage. Instead the director wasted about 7 minutes of our time. I would like to look at this movie as the 3 stooges of dinosaur movies. You have retarded military, retarded dinosaurs, retarded scenario and you have a wonderful 83 minutes to spend of your day watching this.<br /><br />Now I'm not saying I wouldn't watch this, bc actually i do recommend everyone see this movie that wants 83 minutes of pure entertainment. It may seem like I'm ranting but really I'm hyping this movie up to what it is. Its really a lot of fun to watch because while watching this you think to yourself, "did the director really make this seriously?" | 0 |
OK..... This is the third in the series of carnosaur. Lets star with the dinosaur puppets! In the start of the film you cant See the Dino's cause when the body count starts you can only See the Dino's eye vision, pretty smart to hide the bad puppets! and maybe in 16 minutes forward on the film some special force team with Scott Valentine as the leader Rance, the team walks into the warehouse and then they begins to find body parts and dead body's after the Dino rampage, after a while some big box comes failing on the team and you can hear a velociraptor scream, pretty creepy!!! and then a black girl walks forward and now one blooper is found! It pops up a raptor hand and slashed her face but if you pause when the raptor hand comes you can See that its just a guy with a hand puppet!? WTF! The story is simple. 1. Some terrorist's attacks some truck cause they though It wash some weapons in there. 2. They where dead wrong it seams to be ten tons raptor and one giant t-Rex in there! How did the t-Rex fit in there??? 3. Rance and some nerds will kill the dinosaurs! Sadly some stupid blond girl told him to capture one of them alive=( 4. Holy Jesues the raptors have wheels on their feats! 5. The Dino's is now on a boat in the pacific. 6: Strange i didn't know that the t-Rex had a strange thing on hes neck??? 7. THE END. The film is good if you want a good laugh. 5/10 | 0 |
I haven't seen the first two - only this one which is called Primal Species in England. I don't think I'll be bothering to look them out though.<br /><br />This is an awful film. Terrible acting, bad dialogue, cheap rubber monsters. Everything about it is so nasty. The most sympathetic characters die really quickly and leave you with the annoying ones, especially one called Polchak, who is an incredible jerk. No-one like that would survive 5 minutes in the army. He lasted for ages but I was pleased when he finally got his head got chewed off - I was having nightmares he was going to survive. The Colonel was rubbish too - all moody pouts and clueless shouting. And the specky Doctor looked and acted like she was out of a porno. I was waiting for her to take her glasses off, shake her hair and turn into a vamp, but she didn't. Pity that, as it would've livened the film up no end.<br /><br />Didn't Roger Corman used to make half decent films once? | 0 |
Arg. The shuffling dinosaurs are back to take another bite out of our sanity in this all-awful third film. This time, European terrorists(Irish I'd say) hi-jack an army convoy supposed to be transporting uranium. They pull into a shipyard, open the truck and discover our old friends the carnosaurs. Pandemonium comes visiting then when the rubber dinos chomp the terrorists, the cops and some marines. The whole film seems to be (again) largely inspired from Alien(as Carnosaur 2 was) with the pathetic marines going through the "claustrophobic" shipyard? guns at the ready. This third opus is probably the driest and ungoriest film of the lot, with only one spurt of blood when a rubber dino rips a marine's head off. The dinos are stiff, shuffling creatures as usual and the T-Rex sounds like an enraged elephant when it roars(it also appears to have no eyes). One of the goofiest scenes of the film is when the coppers arrive on the scene: they enter the building where the hijacked truck is kept and hear some weird noise coming from another truck. On opening it, surprise! The Rubber Reptile Gang burst out and devour them. Why were the dinos locked up in the second truck after escaping from the first? How did they get locked in as the truck door could only be locked from the outside? What was the point of filming this scene???? Oh bother, who cares? Both thumbs down for the Over-sized Rubber Iguanas. | 0 |
Like all Carnosaur movies, this is a joke. The way the dinosaurs move, reminds me of when my sister plays with her dolls, because they cannot be any stiffer or more fake-looking than they were.<br /><br />The plot had no sense whatsoever. I mean, first they're on a bus, then in a warehouse then, all of a sudden, they're on a boat. And let's be serious, does it make sense that a couple of dinosaurs can stay together on a van, or on a ship? I thought dinosaurs were the biggest animals, and now they can fit on a moving van. It sounds stupid even when you think about it.<br /><br />The only reason for which I gave this a 3, is because it's still entertaining. I found it better than the first one (haven't watched the second yet). Just, don't rent it. I saw it on TV and it's a good thing I did because I wouldn't have wanted to waste money renting it. | 0 |
This is one of the funniest movies i've ever seen. I rented it as a joke, expecting to get a giggle out of the first few scenes, and let me just say I've never laughed so hard in my life. The first scene where ninjas randomly pop out of the air and start a huge and ridiculous fire fight is one of the most incredibly funny stupid action movie moments of my life. This is not a dinosaur movie, but more a movie that makes fun (and doesn't mean to at all) of the action genre. I didn't see the first two, but judging by the complexity of the plot, I don't think there's to much I missed. If you wanna see a movie that goes great with a six pack or any herbal remedy, than I insist you rent this movie and sit back and watch a 100 years of advancement in cinema get thrown in the trash and get shat on by carnosours | 0 |
If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot. | 0 |
This movie is the worst movie i have ever seen... it is humorous how bad it is.. the entire time i was watching it i half expected music to start and the doctor starts dancing..(i've seen porno's with a better plot) When the raptor was trying to get in the door i think someone was throwing a plastic doll against the door from about 2 feet away. But as i said it is so bad you need to watch it so that you can see just how bad it is me explaining it isn't going to do anything compared to if you watch it .. i don't recommend renting it but if it comes on TV watch it for about 30min just to see what i mean. I couldn't watch more than 30min but if you can sit through the whole thing then you have some good willpower | 0 |
In general I like dinosaur movies but this one is pure crap. No script, no dialogues, no acting. And the brave colonel Rance trying to show he is tough and so curving his mouth resembles as a twin brother the stupid Proctor from the Police Academy. So this was a complete waste of time (fortunately not waste of money as I saw the film on TV). And I really cannot understand 7 people who graded this sh*t 10. They must've joked. My advice, if you see this title run from it! | 0 |
Some people might consider this movie a piece of artwork - to be able to express your imagination on film in order to create a movie filled with antagonizing pain and death.. I personally think that this movie is a disgust, which should have never been released. This movie is repulsive, illogical and meaningless. Not only is it a complete waste of time but it makes you sick for days to come. The appalling images shown in the film not only make you grasp for air but they set in your mind and it takes days to forget them. Such a shame that people waste their imagination on such inhumane suffering.. "Kill Bill" would be another example but at least "Kill Bill" has its purpose, meaning, climax and resolution.. | 0 |
I wasn't really fond of the first "Cube" movie. It was a good idea, but the annoying acting and characters always kept me from liking it too much. Didn't really feel the need to see its sequel but when I heard they were making a third movie that would act as more of a prequel to the original. I was intrigued, thinking that maybe they would fix some of the original's problems and provide us with a memorable cast of characters. Well I thought wrong.<br /><br />"Cube Zero" starts well enough by introducing us with the two characters in charge of watching and maintaining the never-ending maze of traps that plagues the people in the Cube. The filmmakers succeed in providing a sense of mystery with the establishment of the two men's daily routine. Several questions are created from it, concerning the reason why people are send there and also the true nature of the ones who run the entire operation. All of which are left entirely to the viewer. The acting was a bit weak but all in all the movie's first half moved relatively well.<br /><br />With the story moving on, one of the two "watchers" begins to develop serious doubts about what he is doing. And later decides to go and help a group of the people trapped. Here is where everything rapidly starts to dissolve into dull cheese.<br /><br />Sent by the people who run the Cube program we are introduced to the character "Jax". Along with his two underlings play a major reason as to why this movie is failure. To start of "Jax" looks and talks more like a third rate villain taken directly from a James Bond movie complete with the ever "popular" glass eye, that alone ruins any atmosphere created by the first half's relatively nice pace. Whats more is that it begins to feel more like a comedy rather than a serious movie. With some incredibly corny lines, perhaps the screenwriter got bored and didn't care. The acting itself degrades to a further low when the former "watcher" meets the group in the Cube. The entire interaction is painful to watch as is everything else following it.<br /><br />Again failing to impress on anything but weak characters, dialog and acting "Cube Zero" is a waste of time for those searching for a good horror movie. | 0 |
Incredible. Does it get any dumber than this? Not a chance. The stupidity in this movie would shame even Ed Wood, De Palma, and Woo. If the first part in the series had mediocre dialog and the second one had bad dialog, then this one has cretinous dialog. Amazing. But this time the story has been lowered to the level of the dialog, too. In spite of the acting and the dialog, I liked the first two films, but "Cube Zero" will surely kill the franchise. The utterly moronic plot so obviously stems from the pen of a frustrated left-winger.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if such leftists even themselves realize just how anti-democracy and pro-dictatorship they are. In this movie they obviously target the US a democracy. Why don't they target Korea, Iran, Syria, China, Zimbabwe etc. in anti-military movies? Sure, most of these places are hardly likely to produce a cube like this any time soon, but that's beside the point. It's obvious: writers of garbage like this actually admire these kinds of regimes, whether they are aware of it or not. I would even go as far as to say that ANYONE who adamantly attacks US foreign policies all the time, has anti-democratic beliefs in his core.<br /><br />Back to the movie: apart from being so far-fetched that it isn't even funny any more, the film has many obvious illogicalities. For example, for some reason the two men who supervise the cube have done it for a while and are oblivious to the pain and sadism that the project entails, yet the first one than the other suddenly turn against the system! Anyone who has any idea at all about human nature will see right through this idiocy. Or how about that cretinous character, the one-eyed evil bureaucrat who talks as if he's in a bad Mel Brooks comedy. In fact, as soon as this creature appears the movie loses ALL seriousness and hence any chance of being exciting: it really does become a comedy. | 0 |
Pretty disappointing prequel to the first two films, it's got none of the suspense of the first nor the interest of the second. By concentrating on the guys who 'run' the cube, it basically takes away any of the sense of tension inside the cube, as we simply don't care about the characters inside. Much of the film is simply boring, and it only becomes truly terrible with the introduction of the glass-eyed superior and the green-eyed crazy marine. After that, though, it just descends into over-the-top unintentional hilarity. The ending is fitting though, tying it back into the first one in an indirect way. The script is terrible, the acting mediocre at best, and the direction unimpressive. A much lesser follow-up. | 0 |
As far as the movie goes, it's an OK science fiction movie. It has a lot of cool stuff in it, and some quality scenes. That said, it's not that good, and some of the stuff is pretty far fetched...<br /><br />As for calling this another cube-movie is utter and complete bullsh!t. This is the very definition of milking a great and inventive original movie... The whole feel to it can be somewhat translated into the core of the first, but the introduction of people/androids as part of the "team" behind the cube itself is somewhat a stretch...<br /><br />I gave this a 3*** because of the backstabbing of the original. This one should have been kept sterile in so many parts of the movie that there is no place or time to mention them all...<br /><br />Watchable for those who have not seen Cube & Hypercube, but not recommendable for fans of the series... | 0 |
I had high hopes for this movie, because I enjoyed the book so much. However, I don't think I would have understood the premise of the movie if I hadn't already read the book. The movie is a noble attempt to show the despair of people trying to break the bonds of overpowering government rule, but the book portrays the suffering much more thoroughly. The corrupt government officials have comfortable, almost luxurious lives, while the common people struggle to obtain the bare necessities for survival. Perhaps most people feel this way toward their leaders and rulers regardless of whether or not they are actually oppressed or repressed. Orwell's dystopia seems as if it could exist in many places in our modern world. It has been several years since I've read the book, but one hears references to Big Brother, the Thought Police, and Newspeak frequently in the media and casual conversation. Probably many people using these terms don't realize where the terms came from. I strongly recommend that you read the book. | 0 |
I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.<br /><br />Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.<br /><br /> The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.<br /><br /> Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.<br /><br /> And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.<br /><br /> But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.<br /><br />If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.<br /><br />Two stars out of ten | 0 |
After hearing about George Orwell's prophetic masterpiece for all of my life, I'm now 37, but never having read the book, I am totally confused as to what I've just seen.<br /><br />I am very familiar with the concepts covered in the novel, as i'm sure most are, but only through hearsay and quotes. Without this limited knowledge this film would have been a complete mystery, and even with it I'm still no more educated about the story of 1984 than I was before I watched it.<br /><br />On the plus side...<br /><br />The cinematography is amazing, Hurt & Burton deliver fine performances and the overall feel of the movie is wonderfully grim and desolate. The prostitute scene was a fantastically dark piece of film making.<br /><br />Now for the down sides, and there are plenty...<br /><br />There is a war going on, (at least as far as the propaganda is concerned), but why & with who? Nothing is explained. There are a couple of names bandied about (Eurasia etc), but they mean nothing without explanation.<br /><br />Who is Winston? what does he do? where does he come from? where does he work? why is he changing news reports? why isn't he on the front line? Why doesn't he eat the food in the canteen? What is that drink he's drinking through the entire film? Why is he so weak & ill? Why isn't he brainwashed like the rest of them? What's the deal with his mother & sister? What happened to his father? A little back story would have been nice, no scrub that, essential for those like myself that haven't read the book. Without it, this is just a confusing and hard to follow art-house movie that constantly keeps you guessing at what is actually going on.<br /><br />The soundtrack was dis-jointed and badly edited and the constant chatter from the Big Brother screens swamps the dialogue in places making it even harder to work out whats going on. I accept that this may have been an artistic choice but it's very annoying all the same.<br /><br />Also, I know this has been mentioned before, but why all the nudity? It just seemed totally gratuitous and felt like it had been thrown in there to make up for the lack of any plot coverage.<br /><br />I personally can't abide the way Hollywood feels it has to explain story lines word for word these days. We are not all brainwashed simpletons, but this is a few steps too far the other way. I can only imagine that it totally relies on the fact that you've read the book because if this film really is the 'literal translation' that I've seen many people say, I would find it very hard to understand why 1984 is hailed as the classic it is.<br /><br />There's no denying that it was light years ahead of it's time and has pretty much predicted every change in our society to date, (maybe this has been a sort of bible to the powers that be?), but many sci-fi novelists have done the same without leaving gaping holes in the storyline.<br /><br />I guess I have to do what I should have done from the start and buy a copy of the book if i'm to make any sense out of this.<br /><br />All in all, very disappointed in something I've waited for years to watch. | 0 |
I am a massive fan of the book and Orwell is certainly my favourite writer ever since studying Animal Farm at GCSE. I bought the DVD out of sheer curiosity, Burton is an actor I hold in high regard so when I heard that he played the role of O'Brien I was swung.<br /><br />I watched the trailer on the DVD first and some fears started to set in, mostly regarding the frankly terrible "Theme song", hearing the Eurythmics mechanically shouting "1984!" over and over again to an electronic beat is as bad as it sounds.<br /><br />The acting on a whole is pretty good, Burton and Hurt play their roles well and the tension that exists in the Ministry of Truth towards the end can be felt, especially in the harrowing Room 101 scene. However this is also where the movie is let down. The movie spends too much time focusing on the Love affair between Winston and Julia, which frankly isn't what Orwell was writing about. He was writing about a harrowing future, about how Ingsoc build up a mans beliefs and then shatter them all in the name of him being made to love Big Brother. The movie skips over what is essentially the most important part of the book, Winstons coming to terms with his position in life and the world, and his re-education via O'Brien.<br /><br />The comment on IMDb at the moment states that the movie sticks to the book is completely incorrect. Julia is not present when Winston visits O'Brien, they do not commit themselves to Goldstien's Brotherhood and confess their crimes. There is no obvious mention of the initial instances where Winston finds the article with the Unpersons but it does get mentioned near the end, if you have not read the book it is completely confusing.<br /><br />A terrible screenplay, which some excellent acting cannot rescue. Michael Radford seems to have completely missed the point Orwell was trying to make, and the electronica sound track is frankly terrible. | 0 |
I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.<br /><br />I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.<br /><br />What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!<br /><br />You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.<br /><br />The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting. | 0 |
A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O. | 0 |
'Ninteen Eighty-Four' is a film about a futuristic society in which the government controls everything and no one can be trusted. It is a very dark film, and it is one that will not make you feel good about yourself. It is about a romance taking place in this society and the betrayal of the lovers and about human nature being self-centred. The film has some very good ideas and is done well in portraying this society with the dark tones in colours (contrasting with happiness and bright colours in the dreams) and a general feeling of loneliness through objects and people and places. However, despite the film's cleverness at portraying this idea, the film was very slow and did not seem to quite get the idea across. It seemed to spend too much time being clever rather than telling a story. | 0 |
The book is fantastic, this film is not. There is no reason this film could not have embraced a futuristic technological vision of the book. Hell, total recall was released a few years later and that did a good job of it, even a clockwork orange released in the 70s did a good job of trying to make a futuristic world. The bleak German expressionistic colours, the black and white footage from the vision screens, there is no reason for this approach for when the film was made in 1984. The main character is in a white collar writing job yet he dresses like he works with oil and grease in a garage. This film decides to take a mock-communistic approach to set design, atmosphere and theme, yet the novel did not necessarily dictate a communist, worship-the-humble-worker theme itself. This book seriously needs to be adapted in a modern context as this book is more relevant today than ever before. I could not watch more than 20 minutes of this crap. The soundtrack is annoying, the lack of foresight is annoying, this film seems to have been made to deny a sense of realism or believability when that is exactly what is required to hammer the novel's messages to the viewer. | 0 |
I think that the shots and lighting were very poor. When I watched it for the first time I thought it was the old version(1956). When I really found out the true year of the film I was shocked. I didn't know that there could be such a bad film made so recently. Thats really all I wanted to say. This film had a good plot though, nothing you couldn't miss out on if you would simply read the novel that George Orwelll wrote. All I really want to say has already been said except for this: I can't believe that this film could have possibly received so many awards and nominations.I gave this film a One (awful), because I felt that it was very badly made. Well that is all. So long | 0 |
I must admit, there are few books with corresponding movies that I have actually read before seeing the cinematic adaptation. Nineteen Eighty-Four happens to be one of those rare cases. The book was great. It was immersive and interestingly prophetic. But the movie just plain sucked. It is easily the worst film I have ever seen. The only reason I didn't turn it off after the first 5 minutes was the fact that watching the movie was half of a two-part assignment for a class. It was dark and grotesque, but did nothing in the way of achieving the proper atmosphere. The acting was nothing above average, and considering the fact that there wasn't much to act out, this was severely disappointing. The book, for example, didn't give me the impression that Winston was unable to blurt out more than a single syllable at a time. Boring, disturbing, and visually unappealing, the movie totally cannibalized the book. Wait a second...Isn't it British? | 0 |
I saw this movie last year in Media class and I have to say I really hated it. I was in year 10 (and aged 15) so that may have has something to do with it. But for English this year, year 11, we had to read Animal Farm, also by George Orwell. Aside from the fact that the book is based on the Revolution, my opinion is that it is a terrible book, and I also hated it.<br /><br />But 1984, I think it was the most disturbing movie I have ever seen, and I think that George Orwell is one of the most deranged people ever to live on this planet. I'm sorry to everyone who loved his work, but I unfortunately did not. The themes in the movie were well portrayed, but the way the whole movie was set and the events that took place within it were not to my standards. This is only my opinion, and I'm sure many many other people thoroughly enjoyed this film. | 0 |
John Wayne & Albert Dekker compete for oil rights on Indian territory, and for the attention of Martha Scott in this Republic Pictures film shot out of Utah, USA.<br /><br />An interesting Western of sorts due to its characters and its more modern setting, with Wayne & Dekker playing the old and new factions of the West. It's based on a story by Thomson Burtis who co-writes the script along with Eleanore Griffin and Ethel Hill. Albert Rogell directs in the workmanlike way that befits his career. A pretty mundane story is in truth saved by its final third, where thankfully the action picks up and we are treated to something resembling a pulse. The light hearted approach to the romantic strand doesn't sit quite right, and a glorious fist fight between the two protagonists is ruined by Rogell being unable to disguise the stunt men doing the work. But hey, stunt men deserve their moment of glory always. Solid support comes from George 'Gabby' Hayes and Wayne as usual has much screen charisma, particularly when rattling off his pistol. But in spite of its better than usual Republic budget, it remains a film of interest only to 1940s Wayne enthusiasts. 4/10 | 0 |
I bought a set of 4 DVDs for 10 bucks at my local Suncoast, which contained this movie and three other trashy horror flicks (including its sequel "Witchcraft XI"). So basically I paid the rock bottom price of $2.50 for this movie, if you do the math. I can't exactly say I was ripped off. I have a thing for trashy horror movies, but this is the kind of trash that gives trash a bad name. The budget couldn't be over $1,000 (though it appears as if they spent a total of $1.50). I know it's a low-budget film, but that's no excuse for totally uninspired camerawork. The film "Blood Cult," though not very good, was made for an extremely low budget and still had fairly good camerawork and acting. The acting in this movie is the definition of "effortless," especially from that muscular guy with the Texas accent. Everyone is pretty much reading their lines off the page. You can take that figuratively or literally. I wouldn't be surprised if the script was off-camera as they were performing. I said before that I've never seen a bad English actor. This movie has quite a few bad ones. And though English movies aren't always good, they always seem to have at least a level of sophistication, which is why I don't see why any Englishman, or Englishwoman, would volunteer to do a home-video-style schlock flick like this. Did Merchant Ivory put a hold on their casting calls? Usually, I think people are too hard on directors and actors. Even some of the worst movies in Hollywood have some level of professionalism in the directing, acting and cinematography departments. Even when you watch a movie like "Glitter" you can't honestly say it looks like a third-grader shot those scenes (though a third-grader could've written the script). I've seen home movies that are shot better than "Witchcraft X," and that's no exaggeration whatsoever. Even the gore is minimal since the filmmakers only had money to buy some fake blood on sale at Party City. Not a single effort was put into making this movie--let's just sum it up like that. You get the picture. There's a good deal of nudity, though that doesn't save it. However, I must say that girl with the red-orange hair, who's either naked or wearing a cleavage-popping outfit throughout the film, is really hot! <br /><br />My score: 1 (out of 10) | 0 |
Ed Wood is eclipsed and becomes Orson Welles. This film is fantastic. Vampire witches who fight in terribly choreographed scenes and dialog that could have breaking ribs with laughter. Plan 9 From OUterSpace dons't stand a chance against this. Described by the writer and psychic Stephen Armourae on the Vampire Forum as a masterpiece- he's from England and thoroughly sarcastic.<br /><br />It has Stephanie Beaton and the producers know whats going to save them from bankcrupcy by repeatedly using her. Though she leaves me cold as she looks more like the undead than all the devil raisers. And Eileen Daly is just a lower rate Elvira. The whole thing is badly done.<br /><br />Watch it for the script though | 0 |
"Mistress of the Craft" Celeste works as an agent for the London branch of Interpol's Bureau 17, which specializes in (I think) occult criminals. She possesses the Eye of Destiny, good in her hands, dangerous if anyone else got it.<br /><br />Bureau 17 has caught a Satanist from California, Hyde (no relation to Dr. Jekyll). Detective Lucy Lutz of LAPD flies to England to bring him back to the US. Lutz is the connection to the earlier Witchcraft movies, having been played by Stephanie Beaton before in Witchcraft 9. In part 7, Lutz was played by another woman; in 6, Lutz was a man!<br /><br />Lutz's part in 9 was not terribly big, but she's one of the main stars in this one. Though she's left behind her high heels and short skirts, she still has revealing tops in this one. And this time around she has nude and sex scenes. Beaton is pretty appealing in the role.<br /><br />As usual, there are a number of sex scenes. An anonymous clubgoer has a fatal threesome with two vampires, the Satanist and head vampire get it on with some kink, Lutz finds an English pal, and Celeste and her boyfriend make love.<br /><br />The main recurring character of the Witchcraft series, Will Spanner, does not appear in this one, although Lutz mentions him to Bureau 17 agent Dixon in a conversation about vampires. She also phones her partner Detective Garner (parts 6, 7, and 9), though we don't hear his end of the conversation.<br /><br />Hyde is sprung from jail by a group of vampires led by Raven, for a Walpurgis ritual having something to do with a god named Morsheba (I think). Hyde delivers all of his lines in a very flat manner, while Raven overacts to a campy degree. The fight scenes are terribly choreographed.<br /><br />The audio in the movie was pretty poorly recorded, and poorly edited. Additionally, some dialogue gets lost under blaring music or sirens. Cinematography isn't great either. Having the movie set in and actually shot in the UK was a bit of a novelty though, at least for this series.<br /><br />Wendy Cooper is very good as Celeste; attractive, certainly, but more importantly she's easily the best actor in the movie (bad fight scenes notwithstanding). I'm quite surprised her filmography is so small. If there's ever a Witchcraft XIV, and I would bet there will be, they should bring her back, even if it means flying her to California!<br /><br />Witchcraft X is available on its own, or in the DVD collection Hotter Than Hell along with Witchcraft XI and two unrelated movies. | 0 |
Yeah i saw the rough cuts. The unedited sex scenes. The dire cut scenes. Almost on a par with the film 'The Need' for awful acting. This movie is as bad as bad films get.the bad script, bad acting, bad effects, bad locations, bad stunts bad everything. The best 'actors' in the film were the lap dancers they hired for the vampire extras!<br /><br />Sean Harry, the 'foppish actor' as someone else put it, makes a matchstick look talented here. His amazing ability to badly drive a car, when it is obviously being shook by people on the bonnet (check out the reflection in the windscreen), his inability to turn left, which is class. OH and don't forget the sex scene. plus his noteworthy use of a toy gun which the props guys couldn't even be bothered to disguise as a real gun. The other actors on screen could barely deliver their lines.It was as if half the time they were waiting for a line that wasn't there!<br /><br />The 'special effects' were soooo good to the point that the guys who did it took their real names off the credits!<br /><br />If you want a laugh at a party then rent this movie...then again there are plenty of good comedies that are just as funny and don't give money to people who don't deserve it. | 0 |
I still can't believe how bad this movie was. If I wasn't a massochist I don't know if I would have survived the viewing. It looks like it cost about $1000 to make, but it wasn't the money that brought them down. The acting was horrid - not just bad, 3rd graders could have read the lines better. Second, the only other reason to watch this kind of movie is the skin, and that is sorely lacking in this flick. We don't even get to see the more attractive chicas in the buff. <br /><br />Ahh well, better luck next time eh? | 0 |
Generally I like horror movies, but unfortunately this fell out of the one pound bargain bin into my friends hand. We sat down to watch it, ready to be scared and ended up spraying food everywhere we were laughing so much. The concept isn't that bad, but why they decided number ten in the series would be lucky I don't know. The worst thing about the movie is the actors. The camera work was poor, the special effects are actually not bad if I am being generous, but overall the story failed to connect on any levels because the actors were as effective as a small lump of badly charred elm. They were wooden beyond measure, especially a foppish young actor who was fifteen years too young to be taken seriously as any kind of government agent. He looked more like a public school boy in fact. There was a really amusing sex scene where he looked like he was bobbing for apples as a busty lady rode on top of him and later his nappy sized underpants were hysterical, but then I remembered it wasn't supposed to be a comedy. I'm desperately wracking my brain to find something positive to say about this movie apart from the occasional flash of breasts, but there simply isn't. Let's hope ten was the lucky number and they don't do another one, I'm not sure my ribs could take it. | 0 |
MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is one of those rare films that established its place in film history immediately. Praise for the film was absolutely nonexistent, even from the people involved in making it. This film was loathed from day one. While every now and then one will come across some maverick who will praise the film on philosophical grounds (aggressive feminism or the courage to tackle the issue of transgenderism), the film has not developed a cult following like some notorious flops do. It's not hailed as a misunderstood masterpiece like SCARFACE, or trotted out to be ridiculed as a camp classic like SHOWGIRLS. <br /><br />Undoubtedly the reason is that the film, though outrageously awful, is not lovable, or even likable. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is just plain mean. As a Hollywood satire it is cold-blooded and mean-spirited, but in a hollow pointless way. MYRA takes for granted that Hollywood is a corrupt town, but goes further to attack such beloved icons as Laurel and Hardy, Shirley Temple, Judy Garland and Gary Cooper. The film seems to imply that everything about Hollywood is by its very nature vile. It seems to think that there is something inherently courageous about mocking sacred cows, but doesn't supply a rationale for doing the mocking in the first place. The film is also viscously anti-American and anti-establishment and anti-this and anti-that, but all in a superficial, late-1960's, trendy way. Like CASINO ROYALE; SKI-DOO; I LOVE YOU, ALICE B. TOKLAS and other would-be hip epics, MYRA is a middle-aged vision of the hippy-dippy youth culture. It tries to embrace the very attitude that it belittles. But instead of being cheerfully self-mocking, MYRA makes no attempt to conceal its contempt for everything that comes within its grasp. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has the humor of a bully; there's not a single moment of innocence in it. Its intentions aren't honorable. TIME magazine aptly described it as being "about as funny as a child molester," but it's not nearly as sympathetic.<br /><br />For instance, poor Mae West bore the brunt of so much of the criticism aimed at the film, being described as looking like everything from an aging drag queen to a reanimated walking corpse. The octogenarian star obviously didn't know just how ridiculous she looked playing a lecherous talent agent lusting after men young enough to be her grandsons or even her great-grandsons. But, director Michael Sarne had to know, but he used her anyway. Why? Because, she apparently was the joke. Just like John Huston, John Carradine, Grady Sutton, Andy Devine and other veteran performers in the film, they are there only so the film can mock their age and use them to trash their film images. They are cast as smarmy self-parodies, as is Rex Reed, the arrogant, fey film critic, who is cast as just that in the film. But the real Reed, the celebrity hound, jet-setting, talk show gossip, can be charming in an obnoxiously funny way; but as Myron, Myra's alter ego, he is just obnoxious. Again, apparently for Sarne, Reed is the joke.<br /><br />You watch MYRA BRECKINRIDGE and you don't see actors, you see victims. None more so than Raquel Welch. No one will ever accuse Welch of being a great actress, but it is a testament to her tenacity and her appeal that she survived this film and her career prospered. Being in almost every scene, Welch was front and center as a target for abuse aimed at the film, but to her credit, she gives a remarkably nuanced performance. Though, of course, centered between the scenery chewing Huston and the almost catatonic West, Welch doesn't have to do much to strike a good balance. Even so, she renders her horribly unfunny dialogue with a deadpan smirk, with just the hint of self-righteous glee that would do any James Bond villain proud. Legend has it that Welch was snubbed by a condescending West and subjected to repeated verbal abuse on the set by bumbling director Sarne, not to mention being featured in one degrading scene after another, making it all the more remarkable that she was able to give such a cool and collected performance.<br /><br />The film's only intriguing element is trying to figure out just what the film's agenda is. The whole story is a fantasy fable, which should indicate that it has a moral to deliver, but what that might be is anybody's guess. With all of its talk about destroying "the last vestigial traces of traditional manhood from the race," it would seem to have a feminist axe to grind. But as a feminist, Myra is a monstrous figure, a sexual predator. Besides, Myra isn't a woman, rather she is a delusion of Myron, who presumably is a gay male. That might explain the male rape scene as well as the character's love/hate attitude toward the macho, seemingly straight, deadhead Rusty, but it doesn't explain his/her obsession for and the supposedly lesbian tryst with Farrah Fawcett's Mary Ann. The film is obsessed with sex, but can hardly be accused of being in favor of the sexual revolution; all the sex is treated as being, if not dirty, than at least perverse and degrading. Turning to Gore Vidal's original novel isn't of any help, because it is as confused and pointless as the movie.<br /><br />And this is a rare movie that actually seems to hate movies. Not just movies as a business, but movies as part of the culture as well. The film itself is wall-to-wall arcane references to old movies, all of which director-screenwriter Sarne approaches with a seething disdain. He has raided the film vaults of 20th Century-Fox and peppered the film with snippets of old films, not as an homage or to provide a social commentary, but to mock the innocence of old Hollywood. How can an artist -- if you generously want to call Sarne that -- make a work of art if he already hates the very medium he is working in? The very effort is totally self-defeating.<br /><br />MYRA BRECKINRIDGE doesn't seem to be in favor of anything other than being just nasty. It hates Hollywood, it hates America, it hates sex, it hates gays and straights and women and men and old people and young people and Laurel and Hardy and, well, you name it and it probably has a scene showing contempt for it. In a very sad and sorry way, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE may be the first punk manifesto, a celebration of pop culture nihilism. | 0 |
Seldom seen since theatrical release in 1970, MYRA BRECKINRIDGE has become a byword for cinematic debacles of legendary proportions. Now at last on DVD in an unexpectedly handsome package, it is as unlikely to win wide audiences today as it was when first released. <br /><br />Gore Vidal's 1968 bestseller was a darkly satirical statement. Most filmmakers felt that the novel's story, structure, and overall tone would not translate to film, and industry insiders were surprised when 20th Century Fox not only acquired the rights but also hired Vidal to adapt his novel to the screen. But studio executives soon had cold feet: Vidal's adaptations were repeatedly rejected and novice writer-director Michael Sarne was brought in to bring the film to the screen.<br /><br />Studio executives hoped that Sarne would tap into the youth market they saw as a target for the film, but Sarne proved even more out of synch with the material than the executives themselves. Rewrite upon rewrite followed. The cast, sensing disaster, became increasingly combative. In her DVD commentary, star Raquel Welch says that she seldom had any idea of what Myra's motives were from scene to scene or even within any single scene itself, and that each person involved seemed to be making an entirely different film. In the accompanying "Back Story" documentary, Rex Reed says that MYRA BRECKINRIDGE was a film made by a bunch of people who hid in their dressing rooms while waiting for their lawyers to return their calls.<br /><br />The accuracy of these comments are demonstrated by the film itself. The basics of Vidal's story are there, but not only has the story been shorn of all broader implications, it seems to have no point in and of itself. Everything runs off in multiple directions, nothing connects, and numerous scenes undercut whatever logic previous scenes might have had. And while director Sarne repeatedly states in his commentary that he wanted to make the film as pure farce, the only laughs generated are accidental.<br /><br />Chief among these accidents is Mae West. It is true that West is unexpectedly well preserved in appearance and that she had lost none of her way with a one-liner--but there is no getting around the fact that she is in her seventies, and her conviction that she is the still the sexiest trick in shoe leather is extremely unsettling, to say the least. But worse, really, is the fact that West is outside her era. Her efforts to translate herself into a hip and happening persona results in one of the most embarrassing self-caricatures ever seen on film.<br /><br />The remaining cast is largely wasted. Raquel Welch, a significantly underestimated actress, plays the title role of Myra very much like a Barbie doll on steroids; non-actor Rex Reed is unexpectedly effective in the role of Myron, but the entire role is essentially without point. Only John Huston and cameo players John Carradine, Jim Backus, William Hopper, and Andy Devine emerge relatively unscathed. Yes, it really is the debacle everyone involved in the film feared it would be: fast when it should be slow, slow when it should be fast, relentlessly unfunny from start to finish. It is true that director Sarne does have the occasional inspired idea--as in his use of film clips of everyone from Shirley Temple to Judy Garland to create counterpoint to the action--but by and large, whenever Sarne was presented with a choice of how to do something he seems to have made the wrong one.<br /><br />The how and why of that is made clear in Sarne's audio commentary. Sarne did not like the novel or, for that matter, the subject matter in general. He did not want to write the screenplay, but he needed the money; he emphatically did not want to direct the film, but he need the money. He makes it very clear that he disliked author Gore Vidal and Rex Reed (at one point he flatly states that Reed "is not a nice person"), and to this day he considers that Vidal and Reed worked in tandem to sabotage the film because he refused to play into their 'homosexual agenda'--which, when you come right down to it, seems to have been their desire that Sarne actually film Vidal's novel rather than his own weirdly imagined take-off on it.<br /><br />Although he spends a fair amount of commentary time stating that the film is widely liked by the gay community, Sarne never quite seems to understand that the appeal of the film for a gay audience arises from his ridiculously inaccurate depiction of homosexual people. When taken in tandem with the film itself, Sarne emerges as more than a little homophobic--and quite frankly the single worst choice of writers and directors that could have been made for this project.<br /><br />In addition to the Sarne and Welch commentaries and the making-of documentary, the DVD release includes several trailers and two versions of the film: a "theatrical release" version and a "restored" version. The only difference between the two is that the final scene in the "restored" version has been printed to black and white. The edits made before the film went into general release have not been restored, but the documentary details what they were. The widescreen transfers of both are remarkably good and the sound is quite fine. But to end where I began, this is indeed a film that will most interest film historians, movie buffs, and cult movie fans. I give it three out of five stars for their sake alone, but everyone else should pass it by.<br /><br />Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer | 0 |
I bought this DVD without any previous reference but the names of John Huston, Raquel Welch, Mae West and Farrah Fawcett on its cover. I found the Brazilian title very weird, but I decided to watch expecting to see a funny comedy maybe like "Switch". However the non-sense story is awful and hard to be described. Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed) is submitted to a surgery to change his sex in Copenhagen and he returns to Hollywood telling that she is to be Myra Breckinridge (Raquel Welch) and claiming half the property of his uncle Buck Loner (John Huston). Along the days, Myra and her alter-ego Myron corrupt a young couple in her uncle's academy with kinky sex. In a certain moment, the messy screenplay is so confused that I believe the whole story was only a mind trip of Myron induced by the accident. Unfortunately the beauties of Raquel Welch and Farrah Fawcett are not enough to hold this flick. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Homem & Mulher Até Certo Ponto" ("Man & Woman Up to a Point") | 0 |
Watching this last night it amazed me that Fox spent so much money on it and got so little back on their investment. It's the kind of disaster that has to be seen to be believed.<br /><br />I'm sure that the first morning of filming Raquel Welch dusted off the shelf over her fireplace to prepare a spot for the Academy Award she would surely win for this daringly original movie. Oops. That's not what happened.<br /><br />The infighting on the set was detailed in print by Rex Reed and this helped the movie attain a reputation before it was even released. When it was finally released there wasn't the usual three ring circus of publicity. If I remember correctly, in Houston it opened at drive-ins and neighborhood theatres and never played any of the big venues.<br /><br />I lay most of the blame on director Michael Sarne, who was hot after having directed (the not all that good) JOANNA, a film with music about young people in swinging mod London.<br /><br />If I recall correctly, Fox wound up firing him and piecing the film together the best they could. That's why scenes play out in no particular sequence and characters appear and then vanish. An impressive supporting cast (Kathleen Freeman, Jim Backus, John Carradine, Andy Devine and others) is wasted with nothing to do.<br /><br />To expand it to feature length there are numerous clips from Fox movies featuring stars like Carmen Miranda (in amazing footage from THE GANG'S ALL HERE) andLaurel and Hardy, who never dreamed they'd be playing in an X rated movie.<br /><br />The X rating is due to occasional language numerous sexual perversions; however, none of the characters seem to be having any fun. Maybe somebody involved with the film had a warped Puritan sensibility and figured that if they could make these things unappealing it wasn't bad to exploit them.<br /><br />This was one of the "youth" pictures that nearly bankrupted Hollywood in the 1970's. One writer joked that EASY RIDER (which was made for pocket change) was the most expensive movie ever made because so many films followed which tried and failed in the worst way to duplicate its success. Sixtyish, once honored directors like Stanley Kramer and Otto Preminger made movies like RPM and SKIDOO in an effort to attract a young audience. White directors and writers attempted to make films to attract a Black audience. Those movies are locked somewhere in a vault and the two named and many others from that genre have never, as best I know, been out on home video or cable. They're the studios' deep dark secret.<br /><br />Raquel Welch's performance in this is, all things considered, very good. With the right direction and script she could played the type of sassy liberated women Rosiland Russel and Barbara Stanwyck specialized in. She looks great and has awesome costumes. Mae West is the liveliest seventy-something actress I've ever seen. On the one hand it's kind of heartbreaking to watch her attempt to capture her glory from years gone by, but I'm sure she needed the money.<br /><br />If you want to see a big budget X-rated movie from this era check out BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (also from Fox) because it doesn't take itself seriously. It's crazy kids playing with the equipment at a major studio. MYRA BRECKINRIDGE tries to Say Something. There just wasn't anyone who wanted to listen. | 0 |
I have to say I was very curious on viewing this film, and it was considered a notorious disaster when released by 20th Century Fox in 1970. It has also popped up on several critics lists of bad films, and this only deepened an interest, as I just had to see what made this movie so bad.Upon seeing it, I think I have my answers. Although I will say it does make for curious viewing, the acting, direction, and script are so laughingly bad, that the supposed satire is completely missing. Racquel Welch seems to try to carry the film, but after the opening sequence of the sex-change operation, the film goes so far down hill that she cannot handle this task alone. John Huston as Uncle Buck Loner is certainly no help, as he licks and leers at the screen, he sometimes looks like he wonders himself what he's doing there. Rex Reed bounces around as Myron, Myra's alter ego, and even has his own celebrated masturbation scene. Bravo for debut performances! Farrah Fawcett plays a dumb blonde; she certainly seemed convincing in this role. But , of course, arguably the most notorious role went to Mae west. The sight of a 75 year old woman with a plastic face making sexual innuendos seemed more suitable for a horror film. I don't mean to put this cast down personally; but in this film, no one comes out looking good. The direction seems so unassured and non-existent, that the film is not only bad, but boring as well. Throw in some old film footage of old stars, and the movie becomes even more disconnected. To each his own to anyone that enjoyed this, and I was glad I at least saw it, but Myra Breckenridge seems to be the disaster that it was always reputed to be from the beginning. | 0 |
Anyone who knows me even remotely can tell you that I love bad movies almost as much as I love great ones, and I can honestly say that I have finally seen one of the all-time legendary bad movies: the almost indescribable mess that is MYRA BRECKINRIDGE. An adaptation of Gore Vidal's best-selling book (he later disowned this film version), the star-studded MYRA BRECKINRIDGE is truly a movie so bad that it remains bizarrely entertaining from beginning to end. The X-rated movie about sex change operations and Hollywood was an absolute catastrophe at the box office and was literally booed off the screen by both critics and audiences at the time of it's release. Not surprisingly, the film went on to gain a near-legendary cult status among lovers of bad cinema, and I was actually quite excited to finally see for the first time.<br /><br />Director Michael Sarne (who only had two other previous directing credits to his name at the time), took a lot of flack for the finished film, and, in honesty, it really does not look like he had a clue about what he was trying to achieve. The film is often incoherent, with entire sequences edited together in such a half-hazzard manner that many scenes become nearly incomprehensible. Also irritating is the gimmick of using archival footage from the Fox film vaults and splicing it into the picture at regular intervals. This means that there is archival footage of past film stars such as Judy Garland and Shirley Temple laced into newly-film scenes of often lewd sexual acts, and the process just doesn't work as intended (this also caused a minor uproar, as actors such as Temple and Loretta Young sued the studio for using their image without permission).<br /><br />Perhaps Sarne is not the only one to blame, however, as the film's screenplay and casting will also make many viewers shake their heads in disbelief. For instance, this film will ask you to believe that the scrawny film critic Rex Reed (in his first and last major film role) could have a sex change operation and emerge as the gorgeous sex goddess Raquel Welch?! The film becomes further hard to follow when Welch as Myra attempts to take over a film school from her sleazy uncle (played by legendary film director John Huston), seduce a nubile female film student (Farrah Fawcett), and teach the school's resident bad boy (Roger Herren) a lesson by raping him with a strap-on dildo. Did everyone follow that? <br /><br />And it gets even better (or worse, depending upon your perspective)! I have yet to mention the film's top-billed star: the legendary screen sex symbol of the nineteen-thirties, Mae West! Ms. West was 77 year old when she appeared in this film (she had been retired for 26 years), and apparently she still considered herself to be a formidable sex symbol as she plays an upscale talent agent who has hunky men (including a young Tom Selleck) throwing themselves at her. As if this weren't bad enough, the tone-deaf West actually performs two newly-written songs about halfway through the film, and I think that I might have endured permanent brain damage from listening to them! <br /><br />Naturally, none of this even closely resembles anything that any person of reasonable taste would describe as "good," but I would give MYRA BRECKINRIDGE a 4 out of 10 because it was always morbidly entertaining even when I had no idea what in the hell was supposed to be going on. Also, most of the cast tries really hard. Raquel, in particular, appears so hell-bent in turning her poorly-written part into something meaningful that she single-handedly succeeds in making the movie worth watching. If she had only been working with a decent screenplay and capable director then she might have finally received some respect form critics.<br /><br />The rest of the cast is also fine. The endearingly over-the-top John Huston (who really should have been directing the picture) has some funny moments, Rex Reed isn't bad for a non-actor, and Farrah Fawcett is pleasantly fresh-faced and likable. Roger Herren is also fine, but he never appeared in another movie again after this (I guess he just couldn't live down being the guy who was rapped by Raquel Welch). And as anyone could guess from the description above, Mae West was totally out of her mind when she agreed to do this movie - but that's part of what makes it fun for those of us who love bad cinema. | 0 |
It was the Sixties, and anyone with long hair and a hip, distant attitude could get money to make a movie. That's how Michael Sarne, director of this colossal flop, was able to get the job. Sarne is one of the most supremely untalented people ever given a dollar to make a movie. In fact, the whole studio must have been tricked into agreeing to hire a guy who had made exactly one previous film, a terribly precious 60's-hip black and white featurette called Joanna. That film starred the similarly talentless actress/waif Genevieve Waite who could barely speak an entire line without breaking into some inappropriate facial expression or bat-like twitter. Sarne, who was probably incapable of directing a cartoon, never mind a big-budget Hollywood film, was in way over his head. David Giler's book is the best place to go to find out how the faux-infant terrible Sarne was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. If there is ever an historical marker which indicates the superficiality and shallowness of an era, Myra Breckinridge provides that marker. It embodies the emptiness and mindless excess of a decade which is more often remembered for a great sea-change in the body politic. Breckinridge is a touchstone of another, equally important vein. Watch this movie and you'll get a different perspective on the less-often mentioned vacuity of spirit which so often passed for talent during those years.<br /><br />Many reviewers have spoken about the inter-cutting of footage from other films, especially older ones. Some actually liked these clunky "comments" on what was taking place in the movie, others found them senseless, annoying, and obtrusive, though since the film is so bad itself any intrusion would have to be an improvement. <br /><br />In my opinion, the real reason Michael Sarne put so many film clips into Myra Brekinridge was to paper over the bottomless insufficiency of wit and imagination that he possessed. That is to say, Sarne was so imagination-challenged that he just threw these clips in to fill space and take up time. They weren't inspiration, they were desperation. His writing skills were nonexistent, and David Giler had wisely stepped away from the project as one might from a ticking bomb, so Sarne was left to actually try and make a movie, and he couldn't. It was beyond his slim capabilities. Hence the introduction of what seems like one half of an entire film's worth of clips. The ghosts of writers and directors - many long since passed on - were called upon to fix this calamitous flopperoo because Sarne sure as heck wasn't able to. This was what he came up with on those days he sat on the set and thought for eight hours while the entire cast and crew (not to mention the producers and the accountants) cooled their heels and waited for something, some great spark of imagination, a hint of originality, a soupcon of wit, to crackle forth from the brow of Zeus. Um, oops. No Zeus + no imagination + no sparks = millions of little dollar bills with tiny wings - each made from the hundreds of licensing agreements required to use the clips - flying out the window. Bye-bye. <br /><br />As for myself, I hated the film clips. They denigrated Sarne's many betters, poked fun at people whose talents - even those whose skills were not great - far outstripped the abilities of the director and so ultimately served to show how lacking he was in inspiration, originality - and even of plain competency - compared to even the cheesiest of them. | 0 |
This hodge-podge adapted from a Gore Vidal novel (actually one of the great American writers) makes THE MAGIC CHRISTIAN and VALLEY OF THE DOLLS look like Fellini art-works. Raquel Welch, with an incredible body (and she's actually not very tall) in a lead role (except for KANSAS CITY BOMBER when she was quite good) playing Rex Reed's (bad movie reviewer; not critic) alter-ego, only to be surrounded by drag queen (great chick) Mae West, horny John Huston, a young and "naive" Farrah Fawcett (pre-Lee Majors; what a shame), and other various creep-azoids to pretend to spoof WAY too may things has nothing going for it except inter-spliced old films clips (i.e. Widmark in KISS OF DEATH, Lena Horne)...JUST so they can continue to bleed the life out of everyone.<br /><br />A 2 out of 10. Best performance = ?. It's so bad, it's worth seeing! | 0 |
THAT'S certainly a strange way to promote a film upon which a great deal rested. And it seems like plain suicide on the part of the studio, given that (1) The feuds between the cast were well known long before the movie's release. (2) The feud between the Producer(Robert Fryer) and Director ( Michael Sarne) was also common knowledge. (3) The cast made no secret of their contempt for the film and made it public at every opportunity, with daily bulletins from the set gleefully reported by gossip columnists everywhere.<br /><br />And (4) The author, Gore Vidal hated it practically from day one. Nevertheless, that tagline just about sums it up. Raquel Welch does <br /><br />give a decent performance as Myra, and she looks lovely besides. John Huston is very funny as Buck Loner, the ex-Cowboy Star who runs a phony acting academy. Mae West, (in her first screen appearance since 1943) naturally rewrote her part to suit herself, and she is great as ''oversexed'' (and that's putting it mildly) ''Talent Agent'' Leticia Van Allen. Still, she must have wondered (after waiting so long for a good vehicle in which to return) how she ever ended up in this mess.<br /><br />Tom Selleck (in his film debut) is one of her ''clients''. John Carradine and Jim Backus, as Doctors, also amble in briefly. Rex Reed as Myron, Farrah Fawcett and Roger Herren, as the victims of Myra/Myron's sexual passion, are neither here nor there. The same goes for the script, which not only fails to focus on the basic plot of the book, but seems to head in at least three different directions at once. Although West's part was originally larger, she was reduced to a cameo role by the time Sarne was through with the editing. And, partly because of this, she seems to be in a different movie. Apparently, at some point, the Producers realized that Mae was going to be the film's big draw, and, unable to replace most of her cut footage, they rushed her back to the set at the end of filming for the second of her two songs, both of which come out of nowhere. The device Sarne used of throwing in old film clips of bygone stars to emphasize whatever points he was making, doesn't work at all. By the time the movie concludes, all a weary spectator can do is wonder what in the hell it was all about. Not surprisingly, just about everyone connected with the production felt the same way, and it died at the box office. A technically flawless DVD includes, (among other extras) separate commentaries from both Welch and Sarne, each of whom have completely opposite opinions of just what went wrong.No doubt it's home video re-release was prompted by a 2001'' Vanity Fair'' piece, which attempted (in great detail) to do the same thing. True, the structure of the novel made a screen adaptation a dubious undertaking, but, with Sarne at the helm of what was obviously a ''troubled'' production, it really never had a chance. | 0 |
Myron Breckinridge (Rex Reed!!!) gets a sex change from a doctor (John Carradine--dead drunk) and comes out as Myra (Raquel Welch). She then decides to destroy male masculinity (or something like that) and proceeds to teach film history at an acting college run by lecherous John Huston (don't ask) and break up a young happy couple (young, handsome, hunky Roger Herren and Farrah Fawcett--yes THE Farrah Fawcett). <br /><br />They took a great novel by Gore Vidal that was unfilmable and, naturally, tried to film it. They also hired an English guy with a decidedly Anti-American attitude and hired a bunch of actors with questionable "talent" (Welch, Reed) and embarassed old professionals (Huston, Carradine, Andy Devine, Jim Backus, Mae West), threw it all together and....SURPRISE!!! An absolute disaster. <br /><br />The film got an X rating at its release (it's been lowered to an R), mostly because of a truly tasteless scene in which Welch sodomizes Rusty (Roger Herren) and a scene in which Welch attempts to have sex with Fawcett.<br /><br />The movie is very scattershot...scenes jump all over the place and people say and do things that make no sense. It's not good at all but I was never bored. <br /><br />Acting varies wildly...Reed is horrible...really sad. Huston chews the scenery again and again and AGAIN to a nauseating extreme. Welch is actually not bad as Myra but her lines make no sense so you never know what to make of her. West is hardly in the movie (a blessing) and it's really kind of sick to hear a woman almost 80 years old cracking sex jokes. Roger Herren (whatever happened to...) was very young, handsome and not bad as Rusty. Fawcett is OK.<br /><br />It's hard to find things to say about this...you just watch it in disbelief. A must see movie--to believe!!!! | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.