text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch! <br /><br />The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue! <br /><br />The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess! <br /><br />I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!<br /><br />By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.<br /><br />Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter. | 0 |
Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.<br /><br />Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.<br /><br />The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.<br /><br />No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you. | 0 |
I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. <br /><br />Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. <br /><br />Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off. | 0 |
This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.<br /><br />Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers. <br /><br />(Possible spoiler warning) <br /><br />The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic "caveman meets fluffball" yarn, where a "charming" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's "wit" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance. <br /><br />I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it. <br /><br />In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive! <br /><br />Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10 | 0 |
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu starring Peter Sellers in a spoof of the characters created by Sax Rohmer is an injustice to the end of Sellers' career. The plot was very simplistic, and if done the right way could have been handled nicely, but instead it was poorly executed. Part of the reasons why this film wasn't that good was the poor dialog, cheap laughs, choppy directing, and an awkward feeling that the film was somewhat incomplete.<br /><br />The acting, on the other hand, was really the only thing that kept my interest during this mixed up picture. I found Sellers portrayal of diabolical Manchu brilliantly done, with the occasional lines that will be remembered. For example, there is the scene where Fu Manchu is confused which henchman is which in which he says "Ah, you all look the same to me." I hate to admit it, but I laughed out loud with that line.<br /><br />Then of course a fistful of strong supporting characters really caught my attention with the likes of Helen Mirren as the backstabbing constable, David Tomilson as Sir Roger Avery (his last film as well, not a way to end a career), and Sid Ceasar (who gives a rather whimsical performance of Al Capone's relative who works for the FBI). These characters also kept me watching.<br /><br />The sets were also nice. Oriental designs and English society in 1933 was depicted with elegance in this dud-of-a-picture.<br /><br />In all honesty, my advice to you is to watch the film if you are a Peter Sellers or Sid Ceasar fan. Otherwise, you're better off settling on chewing aluminum foil. | 0 |
I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...<br /><br />Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.<br /><br />Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...<br /><br />...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.<br /><br />It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.<br /><br />There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? <br /><br />As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one? | 0 |
It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers. | 0 |
There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else. | 0 |
Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.<br /><br />And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. <br /><br />A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU. | 0 |
Ok so here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.<br /><br />This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Rating 1 out of 10. | 0 |
....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience. | 0 |
It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film! <br /><br />Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!) <br /><br />Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that. <br /><br />It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!! | 0 |
This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying. | 0 |
I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.<br /><br />The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.<br /><br />I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.<br /><br />Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE? | 0 |
An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made. | 0 |
This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2) | 0 |
The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980). This is hands down the worst film I've ever seen. What a sad way for a great comedian to go out. | 0 |
I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film. | 0 |
This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.<br /><br />This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.<br /><br />Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television. | 0 |
... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10 | 0 |
There isn't one decent scene.<br /><br />Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well. <br /><br />Then the dialogue is also crap.<br /><br />Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them... <br /><br />Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?<br /><br />Lame.<br /><br />The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.<br /><br />And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?<br /><br />Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid. <br /><br />There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.<br /><br />After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera. <br /><br />The end... <br /><br />Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting. | 0 |
If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing. | 0 |
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first. | 0 |
They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie. | 0 |
Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one. | 0 |
Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.<br /><br />Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.<br /><br />There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.<br /><br />This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other. | 0 |
I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.<br /><br />The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...<br /><br />They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad... | 0 |
The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...<br /><br />1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.<br /><br />3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.<br /><br />I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel. | 0 |
This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching. | 0 |
I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this. | 0 |
From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons. | 0 |
What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.<br /><br />The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.<br /><br />The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.<br /><br />I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts. | 0 |
<br /><br />When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)<br /><br />Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form. <br /><br />I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)<br /><br />One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class. <br /><br />As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series. | 0 |
Alright normally i am not as harsh on sequels especially if the first film is done well and was ultimately a good movie. As for 1999 i feel that one of the top five films was Cruel Intentions. It had everything a great movie should have except for an original story, being adapted from a novel it was still damn good. On to Cruel Intentions 2 which was supposed to actually just be the opener for a series based on the film called manchester prep. Which must not have happened. Actually after seeing this trifle of a film i can understand. Before the thing started i was like at least the writer and director Roger Kumble did this one also. Well 1 minute into this movie i was disappointed. It starts off with a rehash of the opening of the original with a different twist sebastian instead of putting the shrinks daughter's naked picture on the net he puts the schools principals wife in the school directory naked. This would have been alright if the lady was not like 50. And basically the rest of the movie is a wannabe carbon copy of the original. Which i understand the if there is nothing wrong with it leave it the way it was. But you can not do that with a movie. This actually being a prequel i gave it a chance just to see how they turned out like they did in part 1. But with Sebastian being more or less just a prankster and Kathryn being a herself and turning sebastian into the sexual predator he was in the real story, this movie had no foundation to it. Whoever did the casting on this thing was way off. They could have at least tried to get people who looked like the original cast but no, they just hired a bunch of not even really good looking actors. I am using this term although i dont know why. They for sure didnt do any in this movie.<br /><br />All this movie is a bunch of one liners that dont even match the wit that the original had, well some of them did but that was just because they were from part 1. Another bad point was in part one you could understand the need for them to act out for attention because there was no involvement from teir parents this one had them in it and they were poorly used, as if to show why the kids are like this. It didnt work though. The best thing though about the original was that the cast had chemistry they took you into this world. The on screen tension that was there made the film what it was. This thing Really ruins the experience of the first one stay way from this. | 0 |
I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed. | 0 |
This movie was like "The Disney Channel after Dark." Take out the "aren't we naughty" language and themes and you are left with dialogue and plot devices that insult the intelligence of anyone who doesn't describe "Saved by the Bell" as quality television. The dialogue so laughably cliched and knowingly dirty, one might think the screenplay was the product of locking Aaron Spelling and Joe Eszterhas in a room with orders to produce an amalgam of every bad script each had ever had a hand in creating. If that was Roger Kumble's intention, mission accomplished. | 0 |
Christ, oh Christ... One watches stunned, incredulous, and possibly deranged, as this tawdry exercise in mirthless smut unfolds with all the wit and dexterity of a palsied Galapagos tortoise. Can such things be? Does this movie actually exist, or was I the unwitting guinea pig of some shadowy international drugs company, sipping my coffee unaware that it had been spiked with a dangerous hallucinogen? I've seen a lot of films, and a lot of bad films, but nothing prepared me for this; by the end of it I was a gibbering, snivelling wreck, tearing at the carpet with my teeth like a dog, clawing at the walls, howling till my lungs were sore. I pleaded desperately, frenziedly for mercy (to whom this appeal was made, I don't know), and longed with burning desire for the soothing balm of Ozu Yasujiro. Sweet Weeping Jesus, the memories... sometimes they come back to me. When I'm at my most vulnerable, when I'm least able to handle them. I shudder, I break down in tears, I bite my fingernails till my hands are slathered with blood, but I can't quite banish the awful flashbacks from my mind. I'm haunted. I'm damaged. I'm a shell of a man.<br /><br />The other user comments here suggest that I am not alone in having undergone this terrifying experience, which can only mean one of two things: a) the film does, in fact, exist, or b) I am but one victim among legions of an international conspiracy of truly sinister proportions. What is quite mind-boggling is that some people seem to have enjoyed their ordeal, or at least have not been left traumatised by it. Perhaps they're part of the operation. God damn them, the maniacs! God damn them all to Hell!!!!!! | 0 |
This review also contains a spoiler of the first movie -- so if you haven't seen either movie and want to but don't want the spoilers, please don't read this review!<br /><br />While this movie is supposed to be about Christian and Kathryn meeting for the first time, the movie is a poor copy of the first Cruel Intentions. The actors that they had portray Ryan Phillippe's Christian and Sarah Michelle Gellar's Kathryn are very poor substitutes indeed. Neither can pull off the smarmy, snooty rich-kid attitude that the original actors did. It's absolutely appalling that some of the dialog was verbatim -- not so much between Christian and Kathryn, but if you listen closely enough you'll recognize it. There are also inconsistencies in the plot - if this were truly the first meeting of Christian and Kathryn, then why is it that Christian fell in love with a girl at the end of the movie? He supposedly was supposed to be in love for the first time in the original movie (with Reese Witherspoon's character).<br /><br />Also, the tie-in with the photography/"You could be a model" comment at the end was totally lame and didn't add anything at all. Overall, this movie was a waste of time. I can't believe they made a Cruel Intentions 3. | 0 |
There is a reason why certain films go straight to video and of course the obvious reason is that if its too naughty for theater audience then release straight to video. Of course it really wouldn't be fair to the films that are good and yet they are also released straight to video. This one is not an exception although the film has good actors or at least actors with potential: Amy Adams (am Oscar nominee and talented actress), Robin Dunne who deserves better or at least a better agent, and Sarah Thompson who deserves roles that are a departure from teen melodramas. The film is also misstated: this film takes place before Cruel Intentions so therefore this film is actually a prequel and rather stupid one at that. This was a waste and its really a film that is in the same level as soft core porn and pay-per-view masturbation films. Fortunately for the actors, hopefully they will be able to erase this from their resumes. So if you are looking to see something naughty, but don't have the courage to buy porn then rent this film as a starter. | 0 |
Who actually created this piece of crap this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my life it is such a waste of time and money. I hate it how they create low budget sequels featuring D-Lister actors and a storyline so similar to the 1st one.<br /><br />I found this movie in the bargain bin sitting right next to Wild Things 2 and Death To The Supermodels for $2.99 what a fool i was to actually think that this could be good instead i watched in disgust as poor acting stereotypes ripped of the storyline and script from the 1st one.<br /><br />Whoever thought that this straight-to-video production was actually even a half decent film you must be on crackd or something because I think what pretty much most of the people who've seen this film thinks WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP!!!! | 0 |
I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.<br /><br />Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.<br /><br />Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.<br /><br />This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min. | 0 |
Okay, let me break it down for you guys...IT'S HORRIBLE! <br /><br />If Roger Kumble did such a fancy job on the first Cruel Intentions then why did he do such a bad job on this. I'm sorry but this movie is stupid, true it may have improved if its series was ever aired but lets be realistic...this movie a crock! A lot of bad acting *NOTE The Shower scene* "Kissing Cousins" ?????? What kind of line is that? "Slipery when wet" ?????????? Can we say DUH-M! This movie had effort, I'll give you that, but it was too stupid! They even tried to make it funny by giving the house servants stupid accents which actually....WASN'T FUNNY! It was pathetic. Not to mention that they made everyone in the this one look Absolutely NOTHING like the original cast. It's as if they made them look different on purpose or something! I like watching it when I'm really really really board which doesn't happen occasionally. For those of you who did like it...Okay, what were you thinking? Could you possibly choose this movie over the other one which had great acting and the fabulous Sarah Michelle Gellar? A movie is gold if it has Sarah Michelle Gellar in it, DUH! But this movie doesn't, no offense Amy Adams. Oh, yeah since when does Sebastain have a heart????? UGH! | 0 |
I've seen this movie today for the first time and I never heard of it before, probably because of it's poor message. <br /><br />First of all, the directing itself is quite good, the actors played well and the CGI (I'm not a fan of CGI) is magnificent. But that alone doesn't make a movie. No story at all, no message behind beautiful exploited talents.<br /><br />Or do I have to make people remember, the art of a director is not only your vision but to know how to tell a story. And this is what's missing the whole 7 minutes.<br /><br />There for a simple 4 rating. | 0 |
Friz Freleng's 'Speedy Gonzalez' was the second cartoon to feature the title character after Robert McKimson's 'Cat-tails for Two'. In that cartoon, Speedy has been an ugly little creature with a big gold tooth but by his second appearance the famous design had already been adopted. Despite looking significantly more handsome, Speedy never developed into much of a character. A big hat, tremendous speed and a bad Mexican accent do not a classic character make and that's pretty much all Speedy ever had going for him. Nevertheless, the cocky little mouse proved enormously popular and went on to star in many shorts including some truly abysmal films from the studio's latter days. While these early Speedy shorts are better than those later atrocities in which he was frequently (rather oddly) paired up with Daffy Duck, they still leave much to be desired, relying on predictable gags usually based around a similar chase formula. In this self-titled episode, Speedy is recruited by some other mice to steal cheese for them from the local factory which happens to be guarded by Sylvester the cat. Although he brings the extra weight of a star turn to the cartoon, Sylvester's role here could just as easily been filled by any other generic cartoon cat. His personality is sapped by his being forced into the predictable. undemanding role of pursuer. This was always a problem in the Tweety cartoons too but Speedy makes an even duller adversary thanks to his detestable cockiness and the blatant impossibility of his capture. Poor old Sylvester would be forced to appear alongside Speedy for many years to come. Despite it following a pretty basic formula and featuring minimal laughs, 'Speedy Gonzalez' won an Oscar and a thoroughly undeserving star was born. | 0 |
Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.<br /><br />Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what? <br /><br />None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.<br /><br />This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!" | 0 |
A propaganda film for the Palestinian "cause". If you were expecting an unbiased documentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you will need to look elsewhere. If you are an anti-Semite (or merely an anti-Zionist---nothing wrong with advocating the destruction of a country, right?) or uncritically in support of Palestinian goals (e.g., mass murder, the destruction of Israel), this is the documentary for you. Should make for an entertaining evening on college campuses around the UK and US. However, any informed and intellectually honest person would be outraged at the sheer number of lies presented in this video. I just hope those who truly are unaware of the situation aren't corrupted by this anti-Semitic filth. | 0 |
The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer. | 0 |
It's been said several times - not least by me - that watching an Eric Rohmer film is like watching paint dry; it seems that Monsieur Rohmer resents this (he doesn't deny it, but then how could he, he just resents it) so much so that his new movie, which may also be his last, Inch Allah, is set so far back in time that it's like watching woad dry. Those wonderful people who gave you the Nouvelle Vague, Cahiers du Cinema have already named it one of the best films of 2007 so that should give you some idea. Reality is not high on Rohmer's agenda so that in 5th Century France we have at one extreme a château that would not be out of place in the Loire valley whilst the only other dwelling we see is a rude wooden hut. The story involves nymphs and shepherds and as he often does Rohmer has cast it with unknowns who just happened to be passing so that the overall effect is that the annual class play at a school for Special Needs pupils was captured on film by accident. One is almost tempted to say 'Come back Godard, all is forgiven' but even this woeful production can't make me utter those words. | 0 |
How do I begin to review a film that will soon be recognized as the `worst film of all time' by the `worst director of all time?' A film that could develop a cult following because it's `so bad it's good?'<br /><br />An analytical approach criticizing the film seems both pointless and part of band-wagon syndrome--let's bash freely without worry of backlash because every other human on earth is doing it, and the people who like the film like it for those flaws we'd cite.<br /><br />The film's universal poor quality goes without saying-- 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' is not without competition for title of worst film so it has to sink pretty low to acquire the title and keep a hold of it, but I believe this film could go the distance. IMDb doesn't allow enough words to cite all the films failures, and it be much easier to site the elements 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' does right. Unfortunately, those moments of glory are so far buried in the shadows of this film's poorness that that's a task not worth pursuing.<br /><br />My impressions? I thought I knew what I was getting into, I had been warned to drink several cups of coffee before sitting down to watch this one (wish that suggestion had been cups of Vodka). Despite my low expectations, 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' failed to entertain me even on a `make fun of the bad movie' level. Not just bad, but obnoxiously bad as though Jobson intentionally tried to make this film a poetical yawn but went into overkill and shoved the poetry down our throats making it not profound but funny . .. and supposedly Jobson sincerely tried to make a good movie? Even after viewing the 'Sixteen Years of Alcohol' promotional literature, I have trouble believing Jobson's sincerity. Pointless and obnoxious till the end with a several grin/chuckle moments (all I'm sure none intentional)spiced the film, and those few elements prevented me from turning the DVD off. So bad it's good? No. It had just enough 'I can't believe this is a serious movie moments' to keep me from turning it off, and nothing more.<br /><br />Definitely a film to watch with a group of bad-movie connoisseurs. Get your own running commentary going. That would've significantly improved the experience for me. So bad it's Mike Myers commentating in his cod Scottish accent on it as it runs, to turn this whole piece of sludge into a comic farce "Ok dare ma man, pass me annuder gliss of dat wiskey". | 0 |
Rounding out the 1929-30 all-talkie "Our Gang" release schedule, "A Tough Winter" features two storylines. First, Wheezer and Mary Ann, home alone on a wintry day, decide to make some taffy. Little Wheezer relays the directions to Mary Ann from a radio cooking show. The problem: Wheezer relays information from different shows and Mary Ann ends up putting soap in the mix! Funny moments occur when the rest of the Gang shows up to pull the taffy - and end up getting it all over the house!<br /><br />The second storyline deals with Stepin Fetchit, a neighbor/handyman of the Gang, and his interactions with the Gang.<br /><br />"A Tough Winter," to my knowledge, has never been shown on television, although it is available on home video. The reason for this is the Stepin Fetchit characterization which shows a shifty, sly, and slow-moving character. "Our Gang" producer Hal Roach called Fetchit a "skilled comic" and used this "Our Gang" entry as a pilot for a Fetchit comedy series that never saw the light of day. Understandably, Fetchit's characterization is offensive to many people today, which explains why the film has been shelved.<br /><br />Although there are some funny moments both with Fetchit and the taffy, "A Tough Winter" is a plodding and meandering effort. If one positive came out of this film, it was that the Hal Roach Studios grew confident and experienced in making talkies. The sound in the film is good, and some of the sound effects used are very funny. For this reason, this film in part paved the way for the excellent 1930-31 "Our Gang" films.<br /><br />3 out of 10. | 0 |
This Hal Roach comedy short, A Tough Winter, is the ninety-ninth in the "Our Gang/Little Rascals" series and the eleventh talkie. Bascally a showcase for black comic Stepin Fetchit who gets special billing here, we see him going to his shack where the gang hangs out. Farina retrieves a love letter from the mail for him and is told by Stepin to read it since he can't read it during the day as he goes to NIGHT school. It happens to be from his sweetheart in Tennesse so now Farina has to have his ears stuffed with cotton since it's too hot for him to hear! In another room, Weezer relays instructions to Mary Ann of making taffy from the radio but because he keeps running back and forth to the kitchen, he misses the lady announcer's segue to rice pudding and Spanish tamale confusing Mary Ann with additions of Tabasco and Lux! After the concoction is completed, Jackie and the rest of the gang help themselves with the awful tasting but very sticky substance as everyone gets stuck on the walls as a result. As they all try to clean the mess, Stepin works in the basement on various pipes and electrical outlets that mixes variable appliances' functions such a telephone that vacuums, a vacuum that rings, and a refrigerator that plays music! The End. What I've just described portends the meandering nature of this "Our Gang" short that served as the pilot for a potential Stepin Fetchit movie short series. It's just as well that it never took place as Fetchit's characterization of the lazy Negro was amusing only in small doses and would be considered highly offensive today. Many of the scenes I've just described are good for some laughs though the final sequence was so confusing that the results were just too blah for me. So in summary, A Tough Winter is a curio worth seeing at least once. By the way, Stepin's real name was Lincoln Theodore Perry. | 0 |
What a wasted cast.<br /><br />This is one of the most disappointing films I've seen.<br /><br />Usually Roger Ebert does not let me down, but I feel cheated after seeing this movie.<br /><br />The only thrill is seeing Elizabeth banks in her bra. That is a sorry statement about this movie. It held so much promise, but it was like dry humping a transvestite.<br /><br />This is self absorbed tripe.<br /><br />I cannot express deeply enough my bitterness at having sat through this movie, and hope I can forewarn you of the same disappointment. | 0 |
I thought they should have called this movie "Whites" instead of "Heights". Godawful...the kind of film that makes people hate New Yorkers. People who are so self obsessed and think their lives are so important...give me a break. Such a lily white cast that Glenn Close was the most ethnic character in it, this film was crying out for someone real to come in and steal it...and so they introduce, get this, a character even whiter than the rest of the cast (I thought he was an albino at first)who's supposed to be Welsh!I'm still trying to decipher that accent! Intellectually dishonest...this movie is the kind of film that's able to fool so many people into thinking it's worthwhile because it has the trappings of something more ambitious. Better to fill the theaters with MI5-10 than with this pretentious crap...must have been a better play because you can't fall off the floor. | 0 |
Pam Grier stars as Coffy. She's a nurse who seeks revenge, on the drug dealers who got her sister hooked on bad heroine. Like any 70s Blaxploitation flick, you can expect to see the racist bad guys get their just desserts. <br /><br />There were scores of these films made during the 70s, and they were really demeaning to both black and white audiences alike. This is mainly due to the vicious racial hostility in these films, and the degrading, stereotypical characters. Especially the female characters. <br /><br />Other common threads between Coffy, and other films of its type, include brutal violence, corrupt cops, car chases, a generous abundance of nudity, and sex-crazed gorgeous women. Not to mention urban ghettos populated by drug-dealers, pimps, mobsters, and other criminal scum.<br /><br />Pam Grier, was the undisputed queen of 70s Blaxploitation heroines. She was magnificent, being both tough-as-nails, and drop-dead gorgeous. Like in her other films, Pam outshines the other characters, in Coffy. In fact, Pam is so charismatic on screen, that these sorts of films are unwatchable, without her as the main character. <br /><br />If you like Pam Grier, you're better off seeing her other films, like Foxy Brown, or perhaps Friday Foster. These films have much less empty sleaze, than Coffy does. Pam's character in Coffy, degrades herself way too much to get the bad guys. Pam's characters in her other Blaxploitation films, don't stoop as low to get revenge, as Coffy did. <br /><br />I'd say, only watch Coffy, if you're unable to see any of Pam Grier's other films. Otherwise, Coffy is a waste of time. Only Pam's talent as an actress, makes viewing Coffy bearable. | 0 |
Far from providing the caffeine kick you'd expect from a film that shares its name with the most energy-boosting of warm beverages, Coffy clunks about and never really rises above being just a ropey revenge tale. Indeed, if the movie was a cup of coffee, it'd be rather weak and watery, littered with a few undesirable dregs and lacking in a lingering aftertaste. Sporadically it hits the spot, but otherwise it isn't the hot action-drama it hopes to be.<br /><br />Plot-wise, Coffy is a nurse who takes the law into her own hands and delivers hard justice to the drug-pushing, lady-pimpin', mob-suckers that hooked her younger sister into a depraved, sick state. Socio-political commentary on the plight of urban black youths in America is prominent in Coffy, and it makes for some thought-provoking stuff as Coffy crusades against the political corruption and white establishment racism that profits and acts as a parasite off the targeted Afro-American minorities. Sadly, the timely messages are undermined by the film's poor quality and lack of focus. Coffy's ideas are important, it's just that they are not well-aimed.<br /><br />One of the plus points of Coffy is the presence of Blaxploitation icon Pam Grier. Grier goes at her role with gusto and makes for an appealing action heroine as she shotguns down the scum in her often spectacular acts of vigilante violence (how do you deal with a house full of hoods? Drive the car right through the front door!). It's just a shame that the storyline wavers on occasions, wasting time squeezing as much sexual exploitation as possible. The low budget can't have helped, but neither does the fact that for a Blaxploitation flick, Coffy lacks groove. Just as the issues are undermined by the lack of quality, consequently the entertainment and excitement are also skewered by moments of dullness and misdirection.<br /><br />The total result is workmanlike and wooden. We get a hip heroine but not a hip movie. It's a shame as Coffy has its moments and should rightly be regarded as a key film in the Blaxploitation craze; it just never ascends above being an average, lukewarm number. | 0 |
Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couplea blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamedare swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time. | 0 |
An OK flick, set in Mexico, about a hit-man (Scott Glenn) who hitches a ride with struggling American writer and his Mexican girlfriend after a hit. He pays them to take him to the border but things get out of hand.<br /><br />It starts well enough, but quickly struggles and dies.<br /><br />**SPOILER**<br /><br />The eventual relationship twist is badly set up and difficult to believe. An absence of passion, and essentially no reasoning behind her leaving one man for the other, made it ridiculous - and the ending was predictable and dull.<br /><br />**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Harvey Keitel is the US agent on the hit-man's trail, but he seems a little confused as to how boring and slow the script is... | 0 |
Terrible!!! I don't want to be too negative but this film has an IQ of stupid monkey.What a disaster.I just couldn't believe how bad this movie is.The dialogs are just very strange and off topic,the camera work at times just horrible,the music at times like a soundtrack for Lawrence of Arabia,I just watched this film to see how much worse it can get.Some of the side kick "actors" are total disaster.Sorry but all my thumbs and toes and anything that can hang downwards on my body is falling to the ground. Harvey Keitle is a great actor but who knows maybe he is in financial crunch to take a part in such a fiasco film. . . . . this movie should have been presented to all the students in all the film schools just to teach them a lesson of how not to make a film | 0 |
It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today. | 0 |
Are we talking about the same movie? This movie is totally ridiculous, the plot is disgusting and completely without logic. Its a typical straight to DVD/TV-movie including all the necessary ingredients for a horrible movie experience: Over-acting by has been actors, side steps from the plot that are left unexplained, THE GIRL SHOWS HER T*ts(why, god, why??), people do not react to things as they would in real life. I'm not even gonna bother you with details, it would take all night. Well, OK, just one: If two people were murdered in front of you as you were walking down the street, one of the victims practically dies in your arms, his blood spurts from his head-wound all over you, would your first concern be; "Oh, he left the world and the last thing he saw was my angry face!"? My thoughts goes to Harvey and his lost career. | 0 |
Saw this movie recently and had higher hopes. Not so much based upon the director, who hadn't made a cinematographic release before, but more based upon its cast. Harvey Keitel, Scott Glenn and Craig Wasson (lead role in Body double, a Brian De Palma masterpiece) have all starred in great movies. Not together though, and this fact hasn't exactly changed because of this one.<br /><br />The film is unbelievable, very predictable and cliché. The only thing that might make it slightly appealing is the selection of locations on which it's been shot. In my humble opinion: don't waste your time on this one. | 0 |
One of the worst movies I ever saw. My only thought was: "how can I get my money back from Hollywood Video". This is no way worth four dollars, or any dollars. I think it was an attempt to rip off The Mexican, or Vin Diesel's movies, but it failed miserably to do this.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, I felt sorry for the actors that they couldn't find something better to do with their time. The story was ridiculous. We were calling out the lines ahead of the actors, it was so predictable. The Mexican accent of the leading lady was insultingly exaggerated, worse than a cartoon. <br /><br />Skip it. | 0 |
Lucky me! I got a sneak peak at this pathetic little shot-in-Texas 'horror' flick from Artisan Entertainment a week before it hit video shelves and let me tell you...I've rarely laughed so hard in my life as I did watching this atrocious megabomb fly off the rails and steal the title of 'worst killer clown movie ever made' from the insufferably stupid Full Moon fiasco KILLJOY (I'm sure many of us horror fans have suffered through that one!) From all indications, it was shot on DV, and it doesn't really 'look' all that bad quality-wise for digital, but boy does it ever fail miserably in every other area where it counts!<br /><br />The story (slight and cliche as it is) goes as follows... An executive (Ken Hebert, who also scripted and co-produced with the director) takes skeptical co-worker Tracy (Amanda Watson) and horny married couple Mark and Susan (Hank Fields and Chris Buck) along on a weekend getaway to a (yawn) secluded cabin `12 miles' from the nearest town. On the way there, they pick up a bitchy/slutty hitchhiker (Melissa Bale) in a bar and end up at their destination where a nightly campfire tale about a murderous clown stalking the very same wooded area comes true when each of the profanity-yackin, pot-smokin friends' disappears one-by-one, with only mutilated doll parts left behind to tell the tale of their fates.<br /><br />The killer clown doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and it looks nothing like the demonic depiction of it on the video box (aside from being morbidly obese). It basically spends an hour prancing around in the woods, chopping up wood and blabbing nursery rhymes. I cannot say enough bad things about the cast, especially the two guys and the hitchhiker chick, who either deliver their insipid dialogue with a bare minimum of enthusiasm or overact at the most inappropriate times. Doesn't really help that the script is completely and utterly devoid of suspense, originality, intelligence, general coherence or humor. I could go on for days on how inept this film is, how many continuity errors there are and how amateurish the whole production is, but I'll just nod off by pointing out the whole package is quite a riot in that Boy-This-Sucks kind of way.<br /><br />Also noting that the film has been released here in the US as S.I.C.K. (SERIAL INSANE CLOWN KILLER). It's currently catalogued under its (original title) of GRIM WEEKEND.<br /><br />Score: 1 out of 10 | 0 |
This was, so far, the worst movie I have seen in my entire life, and I have seen some REALLY bad movies. I saw this movie at my local video store, and the cover looked like it could be a decent horror movie. Little did I know that the cover would be the best part of the movie. Where to start? The filming of the movie was scattered and boring. At one point, there is a one-minute scene of no one talking, just a car driving to a ranch on a normal sunny day. Nothing happened, they just drove in silence. The whole movie is boring, with annoying, unbelievable dialogue and basically no plot to speak of. If you rent this movie, watch it with some friends and it might make a good comedy. Otherwise, when you see this movie, run. | 0 |
Me and a group of friends rent horrible videos to laugh at them, trust me it has lead to some horribly spent money but also some great laughs. S.I.C.K. is one of the better horror-but-funny movie we've rented. The plot is over-done, the whole take your friends into the woods and never return thing is very old. The goriest part of the movie looks like your visiting the local butcher shop except a little dirtier and with blood on the play dough looking meat. And if anyone has ever been scared of this movie at any time they should stick to Cartoon Network for the rest of their life, it's pathetic. The good aspects of the movie are that the two girls in it are reasonably hot, one better then the other and you see them both naked during the movie. The other good aspect is that this movie is so bad at times that you will laugh till you cry. I don't like watching horrible acting or renting these horrible videos, I don't find that fun but seeing the amount of effort these people put into it and still come out so bad is hilarious and worth renting.Unless you are too mature to laugh at someone's downfalls I would recommend it.<br /><br />If your renting/buying it to laugh at it I'd give it an 8.5. | 0 |
S.I.C.K. really stands for So Incredibly Crappy i Killed myself. There was absolutely no acting to speak of. The best part of the whole production was the art work on the cover of the box.The budgeting of this movie was sufficient. The filming was sub sesame street. The production looks like that of the underground filming for mob hits. The props used in this movie were stolen from a clothing store. The ending was so predictable you should fast forward to the last 5 minutes and laugh. If there is a book out there for this movie I'm sure it's better. I would avoid this at all costs. I did enjoy the intimate scenes they made the whole movie worth it. just kidding. | 0 |
OK i own this DVD i got it new at amazon... i mean i think its badass and a pretty cool flick and melissa bale the slutty/bitchy girl they pick up is hot as hell ..., the acting sucks and the whole polt just sucks the clown is some huge guy wearing a mask and its disgusting but its OK i wouldn't recommend it if like u wanted to rent a good entertaining flick after a hard days work but if u have nothing else to do and ur obbsessed with this stupid movies like i am, watch it sometime, and i do not know how artisan DVD has S.I.C.K. in its DVD collection , s.i.c.k. is not good enough to be owned by a half way decent movie company OK well thats all | 0 |
What did I just watch? I spent 90 minutes of my precious life watching one of the dumbest movies I've ever seen. The concept of a serial killer clown is actually quite scary seeing is there are a lot of people who are afraid of clowns....but having it be a 300 pound nursery rhyme reciting killer clown makes a mockery of the genre. I still am wondering how the character Mark wasn't able to run away from the Clown...he's 300 pounds, he's gotta get tired eventually. The whole ending made me get up and literally say aloud "What did I just watch?" Apparently Brandon is Denise's cousin.... and they had got it on near the middle of the movie meaning he had sex with his cousin.....yeah that's something people want so see *shudders*.<br /><br />Another thing I found hilariously stupid was the opening scene where the clown stabs a woman and she says "What did you do?" Well bytch, what do you think he just did? The last thing that was stupidly funny was one second the main character was slapping the hitch-hiker and calling her a c*nt and then 5 minutes later saying violence isn't helping anything....did the writer of the script give the line to the wrong guy? None of this movie makes sense anyway.<br /><br />The movie was more or less a dumb low budget porno which I got sucked into buying (all 3.99)and got no entertainment out of it besides the sex scenes. I'm surprised the fat clown didn't join the orgy, would have fit right in. I hoped the movie would have some entertainment value like other B movies might have, but I was wrong. This is a moronic piece of garbage that's not even worth watching.<br /><br />1 out of 10 | 0 |
Please do not let the cover of this movie fool you. And if you're looking for a cheap horror movie to laugh at: this isn't it. Usually I will go for stupid if it's funny, but this stupid was so stupid it almost (or possibly did) make me stupid.<br /><br />The film quality is better than a handheld, but not by much, and it's quite possible the music was created by pressing the Samba 2 key on a Casio keyboard. These problems should never really be a deterent from seeing a horror movie but add this amazing (weep) cast, and you have a real humdinger.<br /><br />The story is about a guy who invites his friends up to his family cabin in Texas for the weekend. He also extends the invitation to his lady crush in his office. On the way there they meet a female in distress, who is then invited to come along by the other girls.<br /><br />The stay at the cabin includes sex and nudity and soon everyone's panties are in a bunch when one girl disappears and odd items turn up in the house.<br /><br />From there you (the audience) and the morons, um, actors, try to figure out what's going on and they soon begin to distrust one another. Overall I think I have made it sound better than it is. The main struggle with this movie is that the characters are very underdeveloped, the plot contrived, the acting bad and the motivations clueless. Once more this could be forgiveable it it was the least bit funny but alas, it is not.<br /><br />The twist ending is only a twist in that no one would guess it simply because if you really thought back through the movie it would not have made sense anyway. Please don't let this review stop you from seeing the shear wonderment of this movie. (Woah, my nose just grew eight inches.) | 0 |
I rented this movie roughly 4-5 years ago and was instantly disappointed.<br /><br />I wanted to see a b-movie slasher flick, but ended up with a fecal matter for my eyes. The acting was similar to watching grass dry. I've seen better acting in a softcore film...<br /><br />The idea that a crazy killer comes out of nowhere baffled me. How was this a horror movie?<br /><br />this movie's production value, was laughable at best. There were no scares. It seemed like a high school student got a new video camera for Christmas. The plot was all over the place, if existent. If you are bored looking for a bad horror movie to rent, skip this one. There are much better b-movies out there. | 0 |
If this film was a comedy, I would have given it a 10. Oh my, where do I begin? Put it this way -- I've seen lots of terrible horror films, but this one makes Troll 2 look like freakin' Saving Private Ryan. It's as if a group of porn filmmakers decided to make a horror film, changed their mind in midproduction and decided to do a comedy, then went back to horror, and then decided that they should have just stuck with porno (softcore at that). Everything about this film is simply terrible: the musical score (someone shoot the guy who invented the Yamaha keyboard), the script, the directing, the cinematography, the acting. There simply are no words to describe this. Oh wait, yes there are: Holy $*%!. | 0 |
I don't know what you guys are talking about, the first time I watched this movie with two of my friends we couldn't stop crying. This is one of the funniest shits I've ever seen. That comment about the porn is so right though hahahaha.<br /><br />Yeah this movie actually is the worse, but it did bring tears to my eyes due to the phony characters, poor dialog and acting. Not to mention the expensive cameras they used to film it?! It looks like one of those movies out of my drivers ed. class. The props look like they came out of a high school drama show. The music sounds like it is from an original Nintendo system game. The only thing that even came close the scaring me about this movie was that it had a killer clown which, who isn't creeped out by fat, lurking clowns? hahaha if someone were to ever watch this though, they need to look out for the actors verbal errors like lisping on words and some of their facial expressions. hahahaha I died.<br /><br />SUSAN | 0 |
This is quite possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen. Again I made the mistake of buying the movie because the synapse on the back sounded cool and the front cover looked pretty cool too (After buying this and the movie "Malevolence" which I reviewed on here as well, I have learned my lesson). I love horror movies that take place in the woods or in the desert or on a farm. This supposedly takes place in the woods of Texas but was probably filmed in the director's backyard. The production was probably the worst I ever seen. The actors were absolutely the WORST. The story didn't have anything to do with what the back cover said. I even tried to sell it to F.Y.E and some other "mom and pop" store that buys used DVDs and neither would take it. Thats how awful this poor miserable excuse for a movie was. I have seen some bad movies before (Troll 2 for example) but this definitely takes the cake. I didn't think there was a worse movie than "Troll 2". Boy was I wrong! Do not buy this movie unless someone hands it to you for free but even than your stuck with it unless you throw it out which is what I am about to do!!!! | 0 |
I bought this from Blockbuster for 99p. The guy behind the counter said the reason it was so cheap was because the disc was scratched to sh*t, but failed to mention that the reason it was so cheap was because the film was a p*ss poor effort that sucked harder than Paris Hilton in a hotel room home video. Talking of home videos, since when has it been fair game to release them as films - I mean to say, films used to employ actors and technicians and scriptwriters and so on - not any more - just gather your friends and lame-o ideas together for the weekend, lavish the production with an £8.00 budget, and get someone to fall down the stairs with a Casio keyboard (the soundtrack) - then slap it on the shelves, for some poor sap (me), to take home in lonely desperation. But here's the clincher - I fast forwarded through most of this, and tossed it to one side, ready for the hammers... until the next night, while watching a Darren Day horror 'Hellbreed' (£1.99 to take home and keep from a different Blockbuster). Now this film made 'Grim Weekend' look like The Exorcist, so I slapped Grim Weekend back on, to catch up on some of the moments listed on the wonderful IMDb boards, that viewers claimed were hilarious. Sure enough, once I had got over the misery, the pain, and the horror, of realising Grim Weekend was utter chod on toast, I could enjoy, savour, and downright get down to the funny stuff. And there's a lot of it. Check the boards. Then check the flick. Hell, it might even be worth it. AWWWWW CRAP! | 0 |
OK, so I rented this clown-like-Chainsaw-Massacre-esquire film, not expected much, but I did like the novel approach to a serial killer film. (from the back of the box is the following synopsis) "At first, it was just a joke - a myth around the campfire - for five friends staying at a remote cabin in the Texas woods. But when they began to disappear one-by-one, replaced by scattered, bloodied body parts and voodoo effigies, the remaining few scramble for their lives. But he's out there. And he's sick. And all he wants is blood..." So obviously from the get-go it doesn't make sense: why is this clown in the woods to begin with? Why a clown? Why are their dolls with the word "food" drawn on them? Why why why? Hardly anything gets answered in this 1 hour 30 min. bore fest except where this clown lives. The characters are dumb guys, dumb girls, and a hell of a lot of bitchiness. One in particular is a girl whom they brought from a restaurant up the road, whom they thought they should help because she was getting hassled by some guy she knew. What warrants that as an excuse to bring a girl into your circle of friends or their cabin? She, of course, begins planting seeds of jealousy, having the men have sex with her by feeding their dumb minds everything they want to hear.<br /><br />The music was an average affair (standard frantic keyboard music like in every horror film without differences). The actors seemed to be brought from some soap opera the way they complained and whined about everything. The idea that the main guy in the film takes this girl to the cabin as their first date makes for a horrible date, but of course, she unrealistically gives herself to him on the first night of getting to know him. There was hardly a budget spent of anything, it seems, but there was a clown outfit and plenty of cheap $1-store dolls lying around in the woods, which was a horribly bland place to shoot this whole movie (been done too many times). I was also waiting for the clown to jump into the house to kill the remaining 4 characters of the film (in through the glass maybe), but nothing exciting like that ever entered the film. I guess you were just supposed to like the clown being a killer or something.<br /><br />I had to give the film a 3. It was an interesting premise (clown as the Texas Chainsaw Massacre character, essentially) and I'll give them a star for acting serious all the way through when the movie could've totally been a B-movie-style video, but they opted for the more legitimate style of video. But ultimately, I probably would've felt like renting the Killer Klowns from Mars video again before going back to check this out. Ah, but that cover art...pretty awesome drawing. | 0 |
This movie was so bad! It was terrible! It was awful! I cannot stress it enough! The acting, directing, story, characters and everything about it was bad! It was so corny and clichéd. Don't be fooled by the cover, or the tag line "The 'texas massacre' is nothing to laugh at." Are you frogging' kidding me! It was ridiculous.<br /><br />The first 2 minutes of the film is good until it gets to the main character Brendan, OK now turn it off. What I got from the film was, A bunch of ugly, annoying and immature people go to a cabin in the middle of the woods and a clown that sings nursery rhymes kills them in unoriginal and fake ways.<br /><br />This movie was a waste of my time and money, and it would be a waste of your money and time too! I fast forward through most of the movie because it was so terrible, I just wanted to see how each bad actor died, and it STILL wasn't worth it! Just looking at the cover is a waste of time. This IS seriously THE worst movie EVER! Rating: doesn't deserve one. | 0 |
Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure. | 0 |
This was by far the worst low budget horror movie i have ever seen. I am an open minded guy and i always love a good horror movie. In fact, when I'm renting movies i specifically look for some good underrated horror movies. They are always good for a laugh, believe i know, i have seen many. But this movie was just so terrible it wasn't worth a chuckle. I was considering turning it off in the first five minutes... which i probably should have. There is nothing good about it, first and foremost, the camera crew suck3d A$$. The intro was stupid just like the ending. Acting and special effects were terrible. Please I'm begging you, do NOT watch this movie, you will absolutely hate it. | 0 |
Worst movie on earth. I don't even know where to begin but I hope I can save another person from punishing themselves with this movie. When it comes to acting and lighting, this movie is similar to a bad porno without the sex. The actors are some of the worst I've ever seen, and couldn't have been worse even if they were trying to make a complete mockery of this movie. The movie must have had a record breaking low budget which I'm sure was wasted almost solely on the movie's cover. This movie has now become a running joke with friends of mine and has become the standard for comparing other garbage movies. I would like to point of that no other movie even begins to compare. I feel personally responsible for suggesting a friend and me watch this movie and am surprised she still considers me a friend after the torment I put us through. Don't see this movie! | 0 |
The cover on the DVD and disc is freaking awesome, you would think they made a movie about sweet tooth from twisted metal black which is still a really great idea, but this movie's actors are worst then Ben's performance in pearl harbor, porno's have better quality and better actors. i was gonna buy the DVD but luckily i rented it first, the plot and script are also horrible, nothing seems to go to together so the movie really never makes sense. The poor attempts to frighten you using flashback scenes are worse then ones used in 80's sitcom shows and in the end it'll leave you wanting to bang your head against the wall of your house. | 0 |
OK - I ADORE this film...I will credit this movie - alone - for making me such a die-hard horror fanatic. I could never watch this movie alone. I've also heard many many stories of the effect it had in it's original release at the theatres , on its viewers. Incredible masterpiece.... Horrible , psychological stuff scares the pants off me .Oh bless their hearts, whoever made this awesome film. I love it. I thought the whole film was decent and interesting. This movie is SO scary - this is the scariest movie I have ever seen in my life! Not that what happens in the film and the idea of the film are not scary enough , but what always got me - was Brendan's fabulous acting. Best horror film EVER. Nothing can ever be this scary again. Halloween viewing at its evilest. | 0 |
Hey everyone...<br /><br />There really isn't much to say for this movie at all. The basic plot is that a guy (Brandon) takes a few friends on a trip to his cabin in the woods for a weekend holiday away from work. After picking up a girl on the way there, things start going badly wrong for all of them.<br /><br />The storyline alone (written by the actor playing Brandon, I believe, although I could be wrong here) is unlikely and unconvincing, and is acted out accordingly. The "Clown Killer" himself is a rather a sad excuse for a psychotic killer. Far from being a dark, mysterious but most of all, intelligent predator, we are instead offered a rather clumsy, nursery rhyme-singing buffoon who appears to be going through a minor mid life crisis. The only thing that warranted the writing of this comment were the sex scenes and whatever gore there was in the film (the quality of the film led me to derive some enjoyment out of such things).<br /><br />In short, this film falls below every possible set standard. Admittedly, I was sharing a few beers with a close friend as I watched this, so we managed to scrape together some relative entertainment value out of this film and it is therefore only fair to mention that S.I.C.K did fall just shy of a two rating. However, in reality, (and with the benefit of hindsight) the one star rating is a more than legitimate score for this film.<br /><br />1 star out of ten. | 0 |
this movie was definitely the worst movie i've seen in my entire life, and i've seen some pretty bad movies. i didn't like the way this movie was filmed. all of the actors are unknown, and it looks as though a bunch of friends got together and decided to film their own movie. but it's absolutely horrible. i've never seen a worse movie. the story is so fake, and i just found that it took a really long time to get to the end of the movie. there was no plot, it looked as though it wasn't planned out before they started filming. the story is too weird. i didn't like how slow it took to get to the point of the movie. there was no point in even filming this movie. if you're considering watching this movie, don't. you're just wasting your time. | 0 |
I rented this film about a month ago when I had nothing else to do on a Friday night. All I can say to describe this worthless film is 'TRASH' The acting is so badly done I've seen kids in high school do a better job The whole cast seems like they're just reading their lines out, no feeling, no emotion, and no room to capture the viewer. On another note the special effects were insanely cheesy and the whole thing looked like it had been shot with a camera anyone can buy a radio shack.<br /><br />The clown himself looks nothing like the one on the video cover. Heck he doesn't even show up in the film until near the end and all he does it hum songs and go around stalking a few characters. There is no real murder shown either so this isn't a real slasher film either Since I've seen it I've questioned a few things 1. If is 'Serial Insane Clown Killer' Wouldn't that be a Serial Killer who kills clowns? 2. If your friend goes missing why would you go out into the woods to have sex rather than look for her? Sad really.<br /><br />3. Why is it that the only REAL acting sputtered vainly out at the end all of a sudden? Did the cast finally decide to show effort in their jobs? This film is as sad as they come. My advice is to avoid renting it lest you waste an hour or two of your time laughing more than screaming. | 0 |
This film is the worst excuse for a motion picture I have EVER seen. To begin, I'd like to say the the front cover of this film is by all means misleading, if you think you are about to see a truly scary horror film with a monster clown, you are soooo wrong. In fact the killers face doesn't even slightly resemble the front cover, it's just an image they must have found on Google and thought it looked cool. Speaking of things they found and thought it looked cool, there is a scene in this film where some of the gang are searching for the friend in the old woods, then suddenly the screen chops to a scene where there is a mother deer nurturing it's young in a glisten of sunlight... I mean seriously WTF??? How is this relevant to the dark woods they are wandering through? I bought this film from a man at a market hoping it would be entertaining, if it wasn't horror then at least it would be funny right? WRONG! The next day I GAVE it to my work colleague ridding myself from the plague named S.I.C.K<br /><br />Bottom line is: Don't SEE THIS FILM!!! | 0 |
Me and a friend rented this movie because it sounded really good. But we were wrong. First of the acting....wow...the acting was the worst, the effects were really bad as well, it seemed like a film a college kid made. The plot was pretty good, but it'd been done. The thing that ruined the movies the most were the actors. The main guy was the worst actor ever...it's a shame I'm even calling him an actor...The only good thing about this movie was it was so bad it was funny...so if you want a good laugh see it....but other than that...stay far away from this one. I usually love B list movies and such, but this one... I do not know how it was passed to even be put on video...this one is the worst I've seen..and I've seen some bad ones. | 0 |
I have seen a lot of stupid movies in my life, a lot, but this is without a doubt the worst one ever! I usually like dumb movies, if they are somewhat entertaining, but I can't even think of one good thing about this movie. I like "Teen Witch" for Heaven's sake. But S.I.C.K. has horrible acting, lame porn music throughout the whole thing, and even the sex scenes sucked! I would have to compare the lameness of this movie to the likes of "Twin Dragons", "Puppet Master vs the Demonic Toys" or even "a Very Brady Sequel". Although, this is by far worse then any of those. I beg you, don't even waste your time. Believe me, its 2 hours you'll never get back. | 0 |
I am writing this review having watched it several months ago....the trailer looked promising enough for me to buy this lame excuse for a movie. It is a complete joke....and literally a spit in the face of real classics of the early generation of horror like Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) which they even had the gall to compare itself to on the back of the cover art. The producer who played Brandon should go flip burgers and serve up greasy hamburgers....hell he might not even be good at that either! The lighting was bad bad bad and a big annoyance through out the film you couldn't even see the actor's faces sometimes. I don't even remember the rest of the cast members which is sad really, bad they never do anything to impress you to make them memorable. That's all the time I will waste on this review PLEASE stay as far away as you can from this pile of junk even if you get it for 25 cents don't do it buy s piece of gum at least IT would keep you entertained!<br /><br />If you want good quality low budget fun, far better than this... then check out a Jeff Hayes film....because it takes talent to make it in horror and the kid has it!<br /><br />I gave this 1 star just for the cover art....thats the only thing worth liking abut this so called "film"<br /><br />-Rick Blalock | 0 |
This movie is just horrible. It's boring, it's low quality, the actors are just the worst actors I have ever seen and the scenario is so bad that it's hilarious.<br /><br />The "main" actor is supposed to be the hot guy who gets all the girls, but he's ugly, overweight and looks like he's from the early 90's.<br /><br />All the characters are away for the week-end for a get together amongst friends, but nobody are actually friends! The married couple hasn't seen the "main" guy in over 5 years and even back then they weren't really friends. The "date" of the main guy only knows him from work and than there's a girl they pick-up at a bar. Now tell me that you would risk losing your job to spend a week-end at your cabin with people that aren't even your real friends. Because that's what he does at the beginning of the movie!<br /><br />Do not waste even one minute of your time on this lemon. I've made home movies scarier than this!<br /><br /> | 0 |
Spoilers ahead if you want to call them that...<br /><br />I would almost recommend this film just so people can truly see a 1/10. Where to begin, we'll start from the top...<br /><br />THE STORY: Don't believe the premise - the movie has nothing to do with abandoned cars, and people finially understanding what the mysterious happenings are. It's a draub, basic, go to cabin movie with no intensity or "effort".<br /><br />THE SCREENPLAY: I usually give credit to indie screenwriters, it's hard work when you are starting out...but this is crap. The story is flat - it leaves you emotionless the entire movie. The dialogue is extremely weak and predictable boasting lines of "Woah, you totally freaked me out" and "I was wondering if you'd uh...if you'd like to..uh, would you come to the cabin with me?". It makes me want to rip out all my hair, one strand at a time and feed it to myself.<br /><br />THE CHARACTERS: HOLY CRAP!!!! Some have described the characters as flat, I want to take it one step further and say that they actually have a reverse character arch.. They actually start working on a parallel universe and almost start acting backwards...<br /><br />THE ACTORS: Worse than the characters are the actors. They take already poor written characters and add in terrible high school drama acting. The "Woah you totally freaked me out" was said so monotone and slow - like it was dumbed down. I could complain for hours on the actors alone.<br /><br />TECHNICAL: LIGHTING: An eight year old would be disappointed with lighting on this movie. Too shadowy in areas, too bleached in others. The director shouldn't use light as an emotion until he learns how to light a basic scene properly. Baby Steps! SOUND: How many sound guys does it take to make a really shotty sounding movie? 9. With that many sound guys this should sound amazing but quite the opposite has occured. There is one scene in particular that really sticks out, these guys are driving in a car and the sound of the car changes with every camera angle....WEAK! CAMERA: Learn to use it.<br /><br />Anyway, I'm running out of complaining space.....rent it - I dare you...Rent it and learn from it...give it a 1 rating..it deserves it.<br /><br />Signing off... Amanda Christmas | 0 |
Spoiler Alert Well I think this movie is probably the worst film ever made. Probably in the style of Ed Wood(without the heart). The lightning is terrible. The music is very bad(piano and orgue... come on!). The acting is... well there is no acting!<br /><br />There's a guy who actually goes in the wood to search for his missing wife and take the time to have sex with a stranger.<br /><br />The killer is a fat, unscary clown who couldn't outrun a turtle!<br /><br />Every members of the cast is stupid and the director put every clichés of slashers movies in the film without effort.<br /><br />The end is so far the most stupid ever made. Think about it: The guy(ken hebert) who's acting skill is about the same as his writing(he's the brain behind this flop) invite a co-worker and two of his friends to his cabin for the week-end and kills them... On monday morning he goes back to is office like nothing happen.<br /><br />The tragedy is that Mr.Hebert try to make us beleive that it's a family affair that goes on for generation(his uncle is the clown killer)<br /><br />So of course NO cops are gonna question him after his co-worker goes missing...<br /><br />WHATEVER.<br /><br /> | 0 |
While I watched this movie, I tried to figure out why they bothered making it. Though the main plot of the movie is potentially good, there are all sorts of unrelated/unnecessary subplots. The marketing people in Hollywood must have dictated the multiple bad guys, perpetual double-crosses and the man and woman who get too close and have sex. It's odd that we see more of them having sex than we did of the President and his mistress. The many plots and subplots make the film too broad and none of the characters are properly developed - I really didn't feel like I knew any character, except that everyone is corrupt and evil. The ending is totally incomplete - it left me more than just wanting what might have been, but what was supposed to be. In the end, there is really no explanation of why anyone does what they do, except to serve as additional corrupt characters who commit a double-cross. I'm surprised that so many established (and good) actors agreed to make such a hollow movie. This seemed like a movie made by college students who are working on their 2nd or 3rd project.<br /><br />Don't waste your time unless you are in a film class and want an example of what not to do when making a movie. | 0 |
The banner says it all, this is one really bad movie, which is sad because I normally like Sheffer, and I have been impressed with Andrea Roth in other roles. This, however, is terrible. I wont waste any more time...its just that bad. | 0 |
I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest. | 0 |
Normally, I am a pretty generous critic, but in the case of this film I have to say it was incredibly bad. I am stunned by how positive most reviews seem to be.<br /><br />There were some gorgeous shots, but it's too bad they were wasted on this sinkhole of a movie. It might have worked if "Daggers" was purely an action flick and not a romance, but unfortunately the film is built around an empty love triangle. There is no chemistry between either of the couples, whatever exists between Mei and her men seems to be more lust than love, and for the most part the dialogue is just silly. This may be just a problem with translation, but the frequent usage of the word "flirt" in particular reminded me of 8th grade, not head-over-heels, together forever, worth-dying-for love; I also felt we were beat over the head with the wind metaphor. The audience is given very little about the characters to really care about, and therefore very little emotional investment in the movie as a whole. I was wishing for a remote control to fast forward, I was slumped in my seat ready to snore, but mostly I just cringed a lot.<br /><br />*******spoiler*****<br /><br />Now, the icing on the cake. Or rather, adding insult to injury. The ending was truly one of the most horrible, laughable ones I have ever seen. The boys are having their stag fight and screaming and yelling and hacking at each other. Oh, and then it starts to snow. Randomly. Oh, and then Mei (dagger embedded in heart) suddenly pops up out of the weeds. Then she throws a dagger that seems to take about 5 minutes to reach it's destination, even slowing conveniently midscreen to hit a tiny blood droplet. Wow, cool.<br /><br />Well, then Mei dies finally I guess because she threw the dagger that was lodged in her chest and bled to death. Jin sings, sobs, holds her body close, screen goes blank. I, and the people surrounding me, are chuckling. Not a good sign.<br /><br />Visually stunning, but ultimately a failure. | 0 |
I was very surprised how bad this movie was. Nice cinematography and beautiful landscapes can only take the movie so far. I was hoping for a rerun of Hero, but this is much, much worse.<br /><br />This movie is why kung fu movies got a bad reputation in the first place. No believable characters (even within the cartoonish world of kung fu movies, these characters are ridiculous), virtually no plot, and ridiculous story twists.<br /><br />This movie is so boring and so frustrating because it reminds you of trying to play a make believe game with a child. Every time you think your silly battle makes some sense, they invent another ridiculous twist that makes no sense ("Ah ha, you only think you've got me with your super powers and 10,000 ray guns, but I ate my vitamins laced with plutonium and teflon, so your ray guns don't work and I'm invulnerable to your super powers....tap tap no trade backs infinity PLUS one.") Children can continue with this lunacy, because they don't really care whether anyone is listening because they are having a fun time. However, for the VIEWER, especially the adult viewer, this long movie is worse than a bout with bad gas.<br /><br />SPOILERS AHEAD Note to kung fu movie makers, (a) if you have a knife in your back it hurts unless you are on PCP, in which case your kung fu is not strong, (b) if you repeatedly fall on your back, which has a knife in it, it will hurt more and do more damage, unless it is a fake prop, (c) when you get stabbed in the heart with a knife, you die, especially in ancient china where there isn't a Kaiser Permanente around the corner, (d) kung fu fights don't last for hours while 3 feet of snow falls, and (e) sometimes it is worth while explaining your characters and their motivations.<br /><br />In any event, go watch Hero again, because at least within its own little world it is comprehensible. | 0 |
As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of "Hero," I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.<br /><br />I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.<br /><br />Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no "Hero" of mine! | 0 |
After just 15 minutes into this film, I began to miss Zhang Yimou's earlier, more weighty films that looked at the politics and society of China from unique perspectives. His turn to martial arts films was a serious misstep in my humble opinion. Hero was his worst film since Operation Cougar, with a needlessly complex story and acting more wooden than that found in a John Agar film. Shi Mian Mai Fu is no different. As an American who has been studying Chinese films for a few years now (and understands and can speak some Mandarin), I'm sure my opinion is different from many others as I'm coming from a different background. SMMF, like Hero, is not really a traditional a kung fu film, and it's certainly not a wuxia pian film. There are no sword & sorcery or chivalry elements here. This is a completely different vehicle than infinitely more watchable films such as A Chinese Ghost Story (all 3), The Butterfly Murders, Green Snake, et al. While those all featured charismatic leads who looked like they were actually enjoying what they do, SMMF features bland, and sometimes laughable, dialogue combined with cardboard acting. Zhang Ziyi plays a blind person about as well as Ben Affleck. There's an air of superiority with this film that's really quite insulting. It takes itself so seriously, it just becomes a huge joke by the end. All the actors look as though this is the most important piece of celluloid in history, they destroy any chance of actually conveying emotions, and the complete humorlessness of it really makes you wonder if Zhang Yimou was making a film per se, or simply a showcase (i.e. an "ego booster") for Zhang Ziyi. The camera is literally making out with her face and she gets sexually assaulted not once but twice in the film. Her acting range really hasn't extended past her ability to play a naive "w"itch. She's so concentrated on her acting, she comes across as cold and lifeless, as though she's reading her lines from a notecard. It's so funny to hear American critics and film people (like the completely clueless Quentin Tarantino) call this film a masterpiece. I guess if they see a bunch of Asian actors on screen looking really important while flying through a bamboo forest, they're tricked into thinking it's brilliant film-making. Ching Siu Tung's choreography, while still retaining his trademark style, editing, and postures, lacks the vitality and originality of his earlier films like A Chinese Ghost Story, Dragon Inn, and Duel to the Death. Sadly to say, the wirework in this film is really subpar, and if there's subpar/obvious wirework, then you probably shouldn't have filmed it at high speed. The same goes for the special effects which have a distinct B-movie feel to them. Beans, daggers, bowls, arrows, swords, and other random objects fly through the air (after being thrown) with no regard for logic, turning, climbing, and banking as though there's a little pilot inside. I know that logic doesn't really hold a place in stylized Chinese martial arts films, but if you don't want to induce a mass amount of giggling from your audience, then you should probably work on your compositing a bit more. Mass melodrama, unintentionally funny dramatic moments, boring fight scenes, really uninspired plot twists are what await you with Shi Mian Mai Fu. It's obvious that Zhang Yimou is no longer making movies for Chinese audiences. This is meant to crack into the Western market just as CTHD did. After watching Hero and SMMF, I've come to the conclusion that if Zhang Yimou wants to make Hollywood films, he's definitely off to the right start. SMMF is basically The Phantom Menace of Chinese martial arts films. And I thought Hero was bad. | 0 |
First of all, I too was expecting another Hero--a fantastic work of art for the action genre. I've only seen parts of Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, but I can imagine that it is better than HoFD.<br /><br />Basic elements from Hero are found in HoFD: Great landscapes, mesmerizing cinematography, and sincere acting (I mean, if you can't understand a word they are saying, without the subtitles, but you still care--that's good acting)<br /><br />What went wrong? What begins with political intrigue wanders into a love story. Worse, it's a soap opera-like love triangle. You have three characters who, I guess, fall in love with each other- for no good reasons. This movie basically falls apart after the escape from the jail (I fell asleep about forty minutes into it). It's almost as if they changed writers at that point. The remainder of the movie is about how a character is "like the wind." Ick. Also, you really have to stretch your suspension of disbelief to believe the action set pieces. This isn't unique to this genre, but since the story is weak, you can't wait for the action, and then, when the fighting does breaks out, it really wasn't that good. The beginning grabs you, but then this movie just runs out of gas. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.