text string | label int64 |
|---|---|
Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!<br /><br />1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie. | 0 |
An absolutely atrocious adaptation of the wonderful children's book. Crude and inappropriate humor, some scary parts, and a sickening side story about the mom's boyfriend wanting to send the boy away to military school to get him out of the way makes this totally inappropriate for the kids who will most likely want to see it because of the book (3-8) yr olds. Don't waste your money, your time, or your good judgement. | 0 |
Shame Shame Shame on UA/DW for what you do! <br /><br />I was appalled. <br /><br />Do NOT take kids to see this movie. The humor is totally inappropriate for children - plus they'll be bored and disappointed. Certainly *we all* have read Theo's wonderful children book and certainly we have expectations...but this is pure trash. Dr. Seuss would be ashamed and certainly would've never given his "thumbs up" at such a dastardly attempt to capitalize on a classic.<br /><br />What a pity. <br /><br />Spend your money on the book. If you own a copy, then buy the book and donate it to a Toys for Tots program. This movie is NOT worth a "free" ticket viewing.<br /><br />Stick with the book. The tv cartoon version works well if you want a visual portrayal - save your money...seriously. SAVE your money - it will be on cable by saint patty's day.<br /><br />Shame shame shame on what they do!! | 0 |
There's only one thing I'm going to say about cat in the hat...as a KIDS movie and a good comedy movie it sucks...I lost track of how many terrible jokes in the movie that not only sucked but weren't exactly kid appropriate. Oh and by the way the way the cat in the hat talked was annoying...as for the plot I completely forgot. Who cares it sucked anyway. i'm not sure why Mike Myers joined but I think the writers were trying to make it sound like him in Austin powers without the swinger talk and it overly succeeded- but so what it was annoying. don't see it-it belongs in the bottom 100.............................. the jokes are so unkiddy it's funny | 0 |
If one sits down to watch Unhinged, it is probably because its advertisements, video boxes, whatever, scream that it was banned in the UK for over 20 years (as virtually every video nasty does). It's true; exploitation and taboo excites people and draws them in with their promise of controversy. Being an exploitation fan, however, none of this was new to me. The advertisements that scream that the film was banned in the UK don't necessarily make me want to watch it; in fact, the first thing that usually pops into my head is how disgustingly paranoid British censors are. How I came to viewing this then is simple: it promised gore and it was only $6.99. The price alone alerted me not to have any hopes of this being the next Halloween, but a cheap padding of your DVD collection never hurts. I did force myself, however, to watch it all in one sitting, because I find that deciding to save the rest for another day makes you even less inspired to finish it. So anyway, after 90 minutes of Unhinged, I found that I had come across the cheapest sleeping aid in existence. I think the distributors could make a fortune if they simply changed their marketing technique.<br /><br />The layout of Unhinged is of any common slasher from the 80s. There's unnecessary shower scenes and exploitative gore. That's about it. Anyway, it starts with a group of three attractive co-eds crashing their car on the way to a concert. Though two of them (Terry and Nancy) are okay, one (Gloria) is severely injured and is out of commission for the rest of the movie. They are rescued and receive shelter at a mansion (that happens to have no phone, of course) with rather strange occupants: Marion is a middle-aged woman with a man-hating mother who constantly accuses Marion of sneaking men into the house in order to sleep with them (echoes of Psycho?). She also happens to have a crazy brother Carl who lives in the woods, because her mother's hatred for men is so intense that she refuses to let him stay in the house. After hanging with Marion for awhile, Terry (our "hero") and Nancy decide they must contact their parents. Despite everyone's warnings, Nancy braves the dangerous woods to make it to a phone (her fate is not hard to predict). After that, we see Gloria again, who is then promptly butchered with an ax. When Terry discovers that Gloria has disappeared from her room, she decides something isn't right with this picture and sets out to find her missing friends. That may be easier said than done, however, with crazy Carl lurking around
<br /><br />After viewing Unhinged, I read an overwhelming number of reviews declaring that Unhinged worked perfectly because it took its time to build its subject matter that created real tension by the time the moment of truth comes at the end. Normally, I do not drag other people's opinions into my reviews (especially when they contradict my views), but in this case, I was so puzzled by their reactions that I thought it would be relevant to mention. This is because in actuality, the film crawls. Normally for the slow-building tactic to work, the audience must have a strong sense that the characters are in danger. Oh sure, we see two of them get murdered, but between that are endless scenes of conversation and boredom. We are aware that there's a killer on the loose, but this is only focused on three times in the film; that means there's no reason to fear for the victims. Instead, the film's events are explained not by the actions of the characters, but are drawn out for us by perpetual talking. If there's one thing I can assure you from watching this, it's that scenes of characters merely conversing with each other for 75 minutes are very tedious. None of this is helped by the atrocious acting. It seems that this was another case of the director needing actors and decided to gather his friends around instead of finding anyone with experience.<br /><br />Of course, I'd be a liar if I said there wasn't one part of the movie that I enjoyed. Specifically, the ending was one of the best I've ever seen in a slasher film; you just do not expect that to happen. Just knowing that the director had the balls to do something like that is spectacular. Ah, I won't spoil it for you, nor will I say that the ending completely makes up for the rest of the slow-moving film, but it definitely will get your attention. Other than that, the other two murder scenes bring at least some faster paced material, but it's not like you couldn't tell exactly who was going to die fifteen minutes into the film. Anyone looking for a bloodbath will be disappointed, however; those are the only scenes of gore present. That and, of course, no one scene can save an entire movie. I normally preach the doctrine that as long as there's action, the worse a movie is, the better it gets. Unhinged only grasps one part of this concept. The whole film just feels Luke-warm; there's potential alright, but the director either wasn't experienced enough to make it work or just didn't know what the hell he was doing. | 0 |
I tried to like this slasher, like I try to enjoy all slasher films. I mean mindless slaying mixed with a little nudity and some suspense, how can you go wrong. But Unhinged I think is an example of that formula going wrong. The main issue is the horrible acting of the main three girls that landed up in the house. It was as if they were under sedation, and it stopped me from ever getting interested in their plight. The film aims for suspense and creepiness but the by the numbers direction saps it of those, and leaves the movie pretty dull. It's a shame, because if the movie was better executed, it would have have been ace. The story and characters are pretty creepy and there are some dark and bizarrely humorous moments of interaction between the mother, the girls, and the daughter in the old house. There's some good nudity, and occasional splashy bloodletting, just not enough to give the film the kick it needed. The finale is pretty twisted and fearsome, and does give the film a big lift but sadly, its too little too late. So, in my opinion, one to avoid, unless you really love obscure slasher films. There's a fair amount of potential, but the film delivers too little to be worthwhile. | 0 |
this movie was banned in england? why? tom savini, george romero, dario argento, lucio fulci and others had done far worse before and have continued to so since...<br /><br />this movie has all the basic elements of a decent 70s or early 80's horror film. good looking girls (who can't act to save their lives, by the way), a terrible lightning storm with a torrential downpour, a scythe, a crazy brother wandering around the family estate, and actually a pretty damn good twist at the end. but banned? seriously. when the English parliament banned this movie, the italians probably laughed their collective asses off at how backwards and prudish the brits really were.<br /><br />there was maybe two minutes of total screen time devoted to the violence and gore (which was greatly underdone). there was nudity but no sex although allusions to sex were made, obviously. but absolutely nothing worthy of being banned.<br /><br />i would like to see what could have been done if the filmmakers had a decent budget to work with. as it stands, the film is entertaining, but the lack of picture and sound quality take away from the end result.<br /><br />banned... what a joke... | 0 |
Unhinged was part of the Video Nasty censorship film selection that the UK built up in the 80's. Keeps the gory stuff out of the hands of children, don't you know! It must have left many wondering what the fuss was all about. By today's standard, Unhinged is a tame little fairy tale.<br /><br />3 girls are off to a jazz concert... and right away, you know the body count is going to be quite low. They get lost in the woods, & wind up getting in a car accident that looks so fake it's laughable. They are picked up by some nearby residents that live in the woods in a creepy house. One of the girls is seriously injured and has to stay upstairs. Then there's talking. Talking about why the girls are here, and how they must be to dinner on time because mother doesn't like it when someone is late. And more talking. Yakkity yak. Some suspense is built as a crazy guy is walking around and harassing the girls, and someone's eyeball is looking through holes in the walls at the pretty girls in something that looks like Hitchcock's Psycho. I digress because there is so much blah blah in this film, that you wonder when the killings are going to start. In fact, one of the girls gets so bored out of her mind that she walks in the woods, alone, looking for the town. Smart move. She probably knew about the lonely virgin walking alone in the woods part, but just didn't care. More talk continues after this as we wait, wait, and wait some more until the next girl may or may not be killed.<br /><br />And then there's the twist ending. The "expected" unexpected for some viewers, for others a real gotcha. Quite possibly the ONLY reason why someone would really want to watch this. I don't care how twisted it is, nothing in this movie makes up for the most boring time I had watching it. Even with the minor impact of the ending, the director just didn't have what it takes to really deliver a good story with it. It would have made a much better 30 minute - 1 hour TV episode on say, Tales from the Darkside.<br /><br />If you really must get this for any reason, perhaps just to say you've watched every slasher movie, do yourself a favor and have the fast-forward button ready. Since the movie has so many unimportant scenes, just zoom through them, and in no time, you'll get to the "WOW, that's what it was all this time" ending. Oh and halfway through the movie there's a shower scene with 2 girls showing boo-bees. Horray for boo-bees. Those beautiful buzzing honey-making boo-bees. | 0 |
Twist endings can be really cool in a movie. It's especially interesting when the twist is right in front of our eyes, but we just don't pay attention. Those type of twist endings are the one's that make people think. Then we've got twists like this film has. Twists that, whether or not you pay attention, you have no clue what's going to happen. When they reveal this kind of random twist, instead of shock, it's somewhat a dumbfounded reaction. This film starts off like it's going to be an interesting take on horror, but after about 20 minutes, it's nothing but boring dialogue and a stupid twist.<br /><br />Three young women are going to a concert, so they get lost traveling through the woods, and hit a tree trunk. They end up at some old creepy lady's house, who hates men, and they are greeted by her homely daughter Marion (Laurel Munson). Strange goings on happen as these girls stay at this house for several days instead of trying to leave or get home, and the suspense progresses into a dumb slasher.<br /><br />This film is too caught up in it's dialogue, and it's always between only a few characters. We have the main three girls, the creepy spinster and the old lady, and conversation of any importance does not go beyond these five. To make matters worse, they never have anything interesting to say. It's actually quite maddening sitting through their conversations. We want to know what's going on, and instead they just talk and talk and talk (about nothing).<br /><br />Plot holes are abundant here. The house these girls stay at when they get in their car accident is apparently three miles from anywhere...wow, three miles! A two hour or less walk will kill them. Why didn't they get a ride with the worker for this household who was driving into town? Did he have a one seater? How come these girls never question leaving and just willingly stay, rarely even checking up on each other? Why did this have to have so many dumb twists? Maybe the answers are in the boring script.<br /><br />Having a slasher film with five characters is really a bad idea. It's not thrilling, it's not scary, and the ending is definitely out there, but undoubtedly dumb.<br /><br />My rating: * 1/2 out of ****. 79 mins. R for nudity and violence. | 0 |
Ever watched a movie that lost the plot? Well, this didn't even really have one to begin with.<br /><br />Where to begin? The achingly tedious scenes of our heroine sitting around the house with actually no sense of menace or even foreboding created even during the apparently constant thunderstorms (that are strangely never actually heard in the house-great double glazing)? The house that is apparently only a few miles from a town yet is several hours walk away(?) or the third girl who serves no purpose to the plot except to provide a surprisingly quick gory murder just as the tedium becomes unbearable? Or even the beginning which suggests a spate of 20+ killings throughout the area even though it is apparent the killer never ventures far from the house? Or the bizarre ritual with the salt & pepper that pretty much sums up most of the films inherent lack of direction.<br /><br />Add a lead actress who can't act but at least is willing to do some completely irrelevant nude shower scenes and this video is truly nasty, but not in the way you hope.<br /><br />Given a following simply for being banned in the UK in the 80's (mostly because of a final surprisingly over extended murder) it offers nothing but curiosity value- and one classic 'daft' murder (don't worry-its telegraphed at least ten minutes before).<br /><br />After a walk in the woods our victim comes to a rather steep upward slope which they obviously struggle up. Halfway through they see a figure at the top dressed in black and brandishing a large scythe. What do they do? Slide down and run like the rest of us? No, of course not- they struggle to the top and stand conveniently nice and upright in front of the murder weapon.<br /><br />It really IS only a movie as they say.. | 0 |
I've never really considered myself much of "student" when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled "How Not to Make A Film". Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun. | 0 |
Unhinged follows the typical plot of the early 80's slasher trend. Pretty Young Girls In Peril. I have to give it up for the filmmaker who used a helicopter for some of the early road-trip shots, you actually think for a second there's going to be quality in the production. Watching "Unhinged" was like seeing an amateur acting class go through it's warm-up. Some of the most awkward, badly lit, overlong scenes are played out with the gusto of a Valium overdose. I wondered why they didn't just put the cue-cards on camera so the actresses wouldn't have to constantly shift their gaze. The two main girls were obviously chosen for their T&A factor rather than talent. Laurel Munson as the main chick Terry is as exciting as watching paint dry. Two nude scenes make for an adolescent thrill. Janet Penner and Virginia Settle as the crazy/creepy daughter and mother the chicks find themselves stranded with compete for Worst Acting Ever. Long pauses, weird expressions, emphasis on the wrong word, it's all there and is a delight for those of us out there who love bad films. The scenes shift suddenly with long black-outs you could drive a Mack truck through. Cartoon lightning crashes across shots without even bothering to show the sky. Eighties eyeshadow assaults the viewer. But ya know, it grew on me. I felt sorry for it. I wanted to hug it, kiss it's boo-boos and make it better. The ending doesn't make up for the damage it's caused but I grinned anyway. I have my own theories regarding the whole "banned" hype and hope that anyone who chooses to view this film does so with substantial substance abuse and a sense of humor. Otherwise pass. | 0 |
I had never heard of this one before the owner of my local DVD rental outlet mentioned it to me; being a 1980s horror flick with the notorious distinction of having been banned in the U.K., I decided to check it out. The film turned out be a dull, amateurish and ugly-looking ride; the sound recording is so poor that dialogue is unintelligible half of the time, whereas the acting gives new meaning to the word inept! <br /><br />What’s worse, the film follows the awfully tired formula of a trio of teenage girls being involved in an accident and finding themselves sheltered by a dysfunctional family living in remote surroundings. Soon, one of the girls goes to look for help and is never heard from again; another, still bed-ridden, is quickly disposed of (after being forgotten for most of the duration). The heroine is the one to interact the most with the three inhabitants of the house: a harridan of a bible-thumping mother (cue horrendous overacting), her repressed (and long-suffering) daughter, and the latter’s weirdo brother who occasionally appears on the scene to drool over the sleeping female guests.<br /><br />Often resorting to dinner-table reminiscences by the man-hating mother (as a means of filling in the dreary, to say nothing of unoriginal, backstory) and which invariably develop into mother-daughter sparring contests, the film does have one ace up its sleeve – the twist ending is as unexpected as it is ingenious, but it does little to remove the bad taste left in the mouth by the film (as much through the lameness of it all as the intermittent gore) or the inescapable feeling of having wasted 80 minutes of my time... | 0 |
Banned as a 'Video Nasty' in the UK, Unhinged has naturally gained quite a bit of notoriety. However, the most shocking thing I found about the film was its amateurishness in all departments. The bloodletting I could handle: the terrible acting, shoddy editing, awful direction, lousy script and abysmal soundtrack were much harder to take.<br /><br />Three girls on their way to a music festival crash into a ravine during a storm. They are rescued by a friendly stranger who takes them to a nearby house. The owner of the house, a batty old lady, and her spinster daughter, welcome the girls in, allowing them to stay for a few days in order to recuperate. However, someone doesn't want the girls to leaveever! One by one they fall victim to an unseen assailant.<br /><br />Taking a long time to get going and featuring some of the worst performances ever in a horror film (and that takes some doing), Unhinged is a truly awful film. The music is a total mess (it sounds like a three year old has been let loose on a synthesiser) and as such, it complements the movie perfectly. Only a couple of bloody scenes towards the end and a bit of gratuitous nudity save Unhinged from getting the lowest possible score.<br /><br />If you are a horror completist (and unfortunately, I am), you will want to see this in order to tick it off the Video Nasty watch-list. But be warnedit is really, really bad. | 0 |
I bought Unhinged because I got suckered by the gory picture on the cover. If you want to see all the good parts of the movie just look on the back of the box. All the kills are shown and I can honestly tell you that they look much better in the still frames than they do in the movie.<br /><br />Having said that, let's look at the plot. A group of college girls driving to a rock concert (by way of the deep, dark woods in one of the longest driving sequences ever captured on celluloid) slide off the road. No visible damage is done to the car but apparently it was enough to put one of the characters in a comatose state for the rest of the film (or perhaps she read the script and was already in a coma before filming began).<br /><br />The two remaining girls wake up in a big, isolated house. The house, by the way, is fabulous and manages more drama just by its presence than any of the actors in the film. For some reason, though, this house has no roads going to it. The only way you can get to the main road is by hiking five miles through the woods. The girls spend the rest of Unhinged sitting around listening to weird conversations between an old rich bitch (who looks like George Washington in drag) and her equally homely, sexually repressed daughter. The girls apparently were in no hurry to get back from that concert anyway being that they packed more clothes than the cast of Gilligan's Island for that three hour tour.<br /><br />By the time we, the viewers, get to the kill scenes, we no longer care. We wish that someone would kill us just to end our suffering . Unhinged finally wraps up with a quite shocking ending that deserved to be in a much better film. It's almost as though the ending, the one good idea in the film, was written first and then the writers tried to make a movie leading up to it.<br /><br />Unhinged is ultimately a boring film with bad acting, inept directing, and a plot with more holes than a leper in a porno film (sorry. I'm not sure where that came from). You will get an idea of how bad this movie is during the opening credits when, for some reason that is never explained, the screen goes black for about two minutes while the characters talk about nothing worth remembering. Don't waste your time. You'll just feel Unhinged and want your time and money back. | 0 |
"Unhinged" is one strange little film, a forgotten slasher from the golden age of the genre. It's hard to really write a satisfying review of this film simply because of the fact that the film is so unique. It's plot is fairly overdone--three young women on their way to a rock concert get in a car crash and end up stranded at the mansion of an eccentric old woman and her spinster daughter. Very quickly, the ladies realize something is not quite right when they hear strange breathing and noises from the attic. On top of that, the mother and daughter seem to have a very, very strange relationship, as they quarrel intensely in front of their houseguest at dinner. The old mother even goes as far as calling her daughter a whore and slut and accuses her of sneaking guys in at night to sleep with them. Halfway through the film, when one girl finally decides she better wander off to find help, the killing begins. <br /><br />As far as the acting goes, this film is at the bottom of the barrel. NONE of the three stranded girls can act, particularly the "lead" girl. It is almost unbelievable to hear them deliver their lines in the same, wooden tone throughout the film. The mother and daughter are better, but not much. The film is also quite dull in parts and really, really drags. The killings are gruesome, but nothing we haven't seen before. However, as mentioned on here, the film really gains points with it brilliantly disturbing and gory ending. It comes totally from left field and has the same shock value as the ending the the camp classic "Sleepaway Camp." Unfortunately, the rest of the film is a bore and suffers from horrendous acting and boring, boring pacing. The isolated, creepy looking mansion and the dark, foreboding lighting does give the film a grainy realism, but that is quickly shattered when one of the characters attempts to act. It may be worth it if you can stick it out until the end, but I say you are better off just fast forwarding to the last 10 minutes. 4 out 10 | 0 |
Basic slasher movie premise, 3 young ladies wreck their car and end up staying with a creepy family. YAWN.<br /><br />Watching 36 minutes of a premonition of OJ's car chase with a white sedan instead of a bronco. YAWN.<br /><br />Old lady with hot and cold dementia controlling her daughter... YAWN<br /><br />23 minutes of watching the actors eat - YAWN Trying to identify what the heck they are eating ... OK there might be a drinking game here ... nope - YAWN <br /><br />Complimentary shower scenes ... OK got my interest for a couple of seconds.<br /><br />Completely random and uninspired killings ... YAWN <br /><br />The ending ... dude! that psycho is deranged - why couldn't the rest of the movie be like the last 5 minutes... unfortunately that is it - My advice - fast forward to the last five minutes and watch that and then put something good in the player - for me I am going back to sleep. | 0 |
I, too, was fooled by the packaging. I, too, fell for the gory packaging and the DVD casing that claims "grieved fans as every copy was pulled from shelves". Though it was inexpensive ($6.99), it wasn't really all that worth it - no scares, and very limited gore. The ending was very cheesy and didn't deliver the punch it should have. I really don't even know how it became a "Video Nasty" with how very tame it is. The story drags, the characters are obvious amateur actors...it doesn't live up to the promise. The DVD bonus feature (the "interview")is very strange as the director appears very incoherent and not all there. The lead actress talks like she's appearing in a Shakespearean production. It's a great laugh. | 0 |
I bought this movie for $5 at a used CD store, and I kinda regret it. I'll start by saying I'm a huge fan of cheesy horror flicks. They provide a horribly tacky cheap entertainment. This movie entertained for the first half hour, because it was so bad it could be made fun of in an MST3K style manner quite easily. Then it got boring.<br /><br />The acting is the scariest part of the movie. While great acting is not to be expected, this was laughably bad and, honestly, provided all of the entertainment that was to be had. This is the plus side to the movie. Where the movie really falters in entertaining is the writing, lighting, and the editing.<br /><br />This movie provides way too many "What the %$@# is going on?" moments. There are many moments, such as the mother having strange fits at dinner, and then that having absolutely no consequence in the movie. Along the lines of dinner, someone in charge decided it was fun to watch people eat refined food for five minutes straight without dialogue every time a meal was served. During the meals and other inappropriate moments, the scene cuts away to pure darkness outside. Then cuts back in. And speaking of darkness outside, one of the funniest parts of the movie is the climate, where apparently it isn't nighttime unless it's raining. And speaking of darkness, a big problem with the movie is that it's so poorly lit you can't see what's going on half the time, which is more of a frustration than anything. In one of the climactic scenes, you can't even tell what you're supposed to be seeing that's so shocking.<br /><br />And when it comes to climactic scenes, Unhinged contains one of the worst. I've seen people say "Wow, that surprised me, and that's good." I can say that the big reveal did surprise me, because I didn't see it coming. The reason I didn't see it coming is because it made absolutely no sense. I won't ruin it for you, but I will tell you that my friend and I spent a good twenty minutes rewinding to various parts of the movie to find anything that would have validated that at all, and all we found were more things saying that it wasn't possible.<br /><br />All in all, this movie is actually better when you watch it with the commentary tracks that make fun of it. I love crap horror movies, but this was too much. | 0 |
I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time. | 0 |
When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10 | 0 |
After the opening credits, there's a black screen for about a minute. A minute of nothing, then a girl wakes up and takes a shower.Then her and two college friends are driving to a rock concert, after much padding, they hit something and skid off the road. They awaken in a cabin inhabited by a wheelchair-bound old lady and her offspring.The killings are sadly very tame for a supposed Video Nasty. The twist ending silly and predictable. No one involved in the mess would ever make anything of note again. So there are still happy endings sometimes.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Sara Ansley gets topless, and Laurel Munson has full frontal on display <br /><br />My Grade: D | 0 |
Did anyone edit this film? Or was it only the DVD release that had huge thirty second gaps between scenes? It's OK though, I fell asleep watching it the first time. Then I fell asleep the second time and the third time. The plot is actually not the worst I've seen, but it's close. The acting is not the worst I've seen either...but it's close. The production .... well, I can honestly say that it was the worst I had ever seen in my life! Not trying to be spiteful, but Unhinged could have used some more production.<br /><br />Please don't think I'm a hater of horror films, or even that I didn't enjoy this film. I just felt I was laughing at the film much more than I felt I was laughing along with it. The gruesome moments were not too poorly done, but could have been done better even with a shoestring budget.<br /><br />Characters seemed awkwardly developed, or ignored all together, twist ending was pretty bad, and the exposition took forever without exposing much.<br /><br />I'd recommend avoiding this movie.<br /><br />1/10 | 0 |
This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.<br /><br />Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker. | 0 |
This film describes the experiences of a couple of hit men (one of them Burt Reynolds), a prostitute, and two drag queens over the interval of a few hours on one night in Miami. The convergent storylines eventually bring all the people together at one place and time. The movie was mildly entertaining, but the big problem was that everything happens at night and many scenes were literally under-exposed to the point that it was impossible to see what was happening. In a few scenes you can actually see where they tried to "stretch" the developing process to save the images. Somebody didn't know how to operate a movie camera. Amazing that this film was even released! | 0 |
If you liked watching Mel Gibson in Million Dollar Hotel then you might enjoy watching Burt Reynolds in yet another film so bad it could never be distributed. I can only attest to the DVD version so maybe the VHS version is better quality wise but the movies night and dark scenes have been so poorly done that everythings seems red. I first thought my DVD players was messed up. It wasn't. If you insist on watching it I recommend you adjust the color on your TV until it is black and white. If you don't you will never be able to get through the film. If you do it will simply remind you of a poor film students attempt to revist the style of Pulp Fiction. | 0 |
Follow-up to 1973's far better "Cleopatra Jones" has statuesque black actress Tamara Dobson returning to her signature role as chic, super-tough narcotics agent, here busting a heroin ring in Hong Kong. Cross-pollination of blaxploitation action-flick and kung-fu B-movie is fun at the outset but eventually flags. The shoot-out finale is right off the assembly-line, and Dobson herself seems less energetic than before (she's still sexy, and she puts a unique spin on her comically-stilted dialogue, but these surroundings may have been too much of one thing for her--she's jaded). Stella Stevens plays the villainess this time; she's good, but can't match Shelley Winters in the predecessor. ** from **** | 0 |
I'd never heard of this, then found out it's the man with the deadly lens, which I'd heard of but not seen. Connery's presence drove me to buy it, and it's not good. It wants to be a sort of cross between Dr Strangelove and Mash, but it just isn't that funny, unless you find the name General Wombat (?) funny. It comes across as a flat 70s thriller until the last ten minutes, when it springs to life. There are many, many flat scenes in the Whitehouse between the president and his aides which don't work. It's almost as if the initial cut was too long, and the first half was edited down to get to the whole nuclear bomb ransom storyline and the suicide bomber attacks, which i think are meant to be played for laughs, but again, aren't that funny. The location filming is excellent but the studio stuff looks like cheap TV. I could not believe the man responsible for Key Largo, Crossfire and Elmer Gantry did this. Only laugh: Connery throws away his wig before putting on his helmet and jumping out of a plane. It makes Never say Never again look like genius. | 0 |
This is a weak film with a troubled history of cuts and re-naming. It doesn't work at all. Firstly the dramaturgy is all wrong. It's very slow moving at first and then hastily and unsatisfactorily moves to an end. But there is also (and that may have to do with the cuts) an uneasy moving between genres. It starts off with being a thriller to be taken at face value and then degenerates into a farce rather than satire. the ending may be funny but it's also so blunt that I almost felt it insulted my intelligence (what little there is). So the film tries to be everything but does not really succeed on any level at all. You can also see that in the very unsteady character development.You almost get the impression Connery plays three roles rather than one. | 0 |
When the remake of When A Stranger Calls was out, obviously I was interested in watching the original. Then when I read about the original (which I recall had my sisters totally freaked out back in the day) I saw that the real money is on Black Christmas, which apparently beat everyone to the "the caller is in the house" punch. So I Netflix that, and it sits at the top of my list for months due to its "very long wait." All this time I am getting more and more eager to see it! Then one day, out of the blue, it finally arrives! ...And it's a total snore.<br /><br />Sure, maybe I had elevated expectations, but I don't think it would have gained more had I seen it fresh. The thing is it's Christmas in some Canadian college town, and there's this sorority having a party. We see some killer-POV shots as he climbs this trellis and sneaks into the attic. So we KNOW he's in the house. Then we're introduced to our characters-Olivia Hussey as the mousy, whiny, Canadian-accented Jess. Margot Kidder as the annoying, overtly aggressive alcoholic Barb. She's so annoying even her mother dis-invites her for her Christmas festivities. There's also this irritating Janis Ian clone ("Phil") and this alcoholic den mother Mrs. Mac, seen taking nips from the various bottles of booze she has stashed all over the house. We also meet Jess's highly-strung boyfriend Peter, played by Keir Dullea of 2001 and Bunny Lake is Missing fame, though halfway through the film I was still asking myself "Which one's Keir Dullea?"<br /><br />So it seems that the house has been receiving obscene phone calls, but this was before email, so they couldn't ask him to send a photo. Then-well, you know how they say those plastic dry-cleaning bags are not a toy? One of the sisters finds that out the hard way. Don't worry if you don't catch the first 14 shots of the plastic-encased corpse face as it reposes in the attic-there'll be 28 more interspersed throughout the film, obviously there to make you say "Oh my God! There's a corpse in the attic!" Though after the first hour that changes to: "How come the dumb police haven't found the rather prominently-placed plastic-encased corpse in the attic?" Especially as it is made abundantly clear that it is clearly visible from outside the house. Really, any time before CSI came on the air must have been such a golden age of crime; the cops are so dumb. Fortunately some of them look like John Saxon.<br /><br />Anyway, after a lot more darn boring human drama, the house mother fears that her precious kitty has ascended a vertical ladder and has pushed open a heavy-looking trap door that rests atop it (those wily cats!), for she sticks her head in there and ends up with a hook pulley in her neck for the trouble. Now we have two corpses up in the attic-hey, why don't we have 75 more shots trying to chill us by the fact that there are now TWO corpses in the attic?<br /><br />So by now the police have begun to take the situation seriously, and tap the houses' phone and station a cop outside. They inform Jess and her pal Janis Ian that if the obscene caller calls back, they need to keep him on the phone. Jessica, who has grown even more whiny, mousy and annoying keeps asking the caller "Who is this? What do you want? Who are you?" after like the first 89 calls, when it is clear that he is not going to answer her. Isn't that like a sign a developmental disability? The inability to learn from unsuccessful attempts at something? And what's he going to do, suddenly say "Oh yeah, hi, it's Bob from the Laundromat?" Dumb Jess.<br /><br />Spoilers! Anyway, soon Janis Ian and Lois Lane (Kidder) are piled in bed with ketchup splashed on their faces (this film's idea of gore), and idiot Jess realizes that not a single door or window in the house is locked. Hello? Are you being stalked or what? Then the cops realize that the killer is in the house, and call Jess and tell her "don't ask questions, just do as I say
walk to the front door and get out." So what does moron Jess do? Starts screaming "Phil? Barb? Phil? Barb?" Hey, great idea sister. Now why don't you go right upstairs where you know a psychotic killer is lurking? Of course she does, and sees her former friends, all splashed with ketchup, prompting this viewer to scream at the screen: "Have a clue now?!"<br /><br />Now, obviously one needs to be understanding and realize that this movie was made before the classic slasher movie tropes were solidly in place, and that it doesn't move to the same pace we're used to, and seeing a plastic-covered corpse in the attic like 206 times probably WAS scary back in the day, and people weren't used to being stalked by psychopaths, so they wouldn't think to, you know, lock the doors or windows. And they might be tempted to wander upstairs when they have just been told that a rabid killer is up there. You see, people were stupid back in the 70s. We have to understand that. One of the big shocks is that we don't even see our proto-Final Girl kill the psycho. But believe me, that fact is more interesting being read in this review than sitting through the movie for. Spoilers end! <br /><br />------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above. | 0 |
Steve McQueen has certainly a lot of loyal fans out there. He certainly was a charismatic fellow, one of the most charismatic the big screen ever knew. But even McQueen can't save this turkey of a film, shot with what looks like a brownie camera in the actual locations in St. Louis.<br /><br />McQueen's a new kid with no criminal record brought into the planning of a bank heist by one of the other gang. There's more than a broad hint that there's a gay relationship going on between young Steve and David Clarke. He's not liked at all by the other heist members, mainly because of his lack of criminal resume. <br /><br />Steve also has a girl friend in Molly McCarthy and she suspects something afoot, especially when he starts hanging around with Crahan Denton and James Dukas as well as Clarke, all pretty rough characters. That would certainly get my suspicions aroused.<br /><br />The Great St. Louis Bank Robbery had two directors Charles Guggenheim and John Stix. Guggenheim did mostly documentaries and Stix didn't do much of anything. One of those two jokers decided Steve's performance was best served by doing a bad Marlon Brando imitation. <br /><br />This film may go down as the worst ever done by Steve McQueen. I'm willing to bet that Dick Powell and Four Star Productions had already signed him for Wanted Dead or Alive because I can't believe they would have if they saw this.<br /><br />Or they would have seen something the public would have overlooked except for the dressing for this turkey. | 0 |
Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement. | 0 |
Despite the acclaim on the DVD cover of the version I borrowed, this film was a disappointment. Yes, it is far more realistic than other war films of the period for depicting the mud, boredom and frustration of the grunt, but unfortunately one comes away from it thinking that's ALL there is to this movie. There is no plot and the dialogue is monotonous. It's not that a good war film needs to have a battle scene every five minute. One of the best World War II films, "Twelve O'Clock High," has very little action. But it compensates with crackling dialogue and psychological tension. The exception to "The Story of G.I. Joe" is a brief battle segment (titled "city under siege" on the DVD) which takes place in Italy. Admittedly it is one of the most fast-paced and convincing combat scenes of any war movie. But alas, the rest of the film is not worth watching just for this highlight. Another turn-off is Pvt. Dondaro, played by Wally Cassell, who is meant to be a "romeo" but comes off a pervert. By contrast, Sgt. Warnicki is a sympathetic, if flawed, man. As he says to Capt. Walker (Mitchum) when volunteering for another patrol: "Every step forward is a step closer... to home." But that last step one patrol too many drives him over the mental brink. Too bad the rest of the movie doesn't do justice to some otherwise fine touches. As for Meredith's portrayal of Pyle... it is practically comatose. | 0 |
I wholeheartedly disagree with the other viewers of this wretched film. The only reason why I didn't rate it 1 for awful was due to the great talent of Carmen Miranda. The beginning and end are the best parents due to her gifted singing and dancing.<br /><br />The problem is with the rest of the picture. Alice Faye comes off quite hollow. Don Ameche has a great singing voice but with the wretched writing material, he comes off so terribly corny.<br /><br />The plot is a real stiff here with Ameche assuming two parts as a song and dance man and a baron not happily married to Faye.<br /><br />It seems that by playing the song and dance man, Ameche's marriage gets a second change to reignite. Some silly nonsense about the baron having to clear up business and being away allows him to play both parts.<br /><br />S.Z. Sakal is given little to do here and so his comedic gifts are not given the opportunity to shine. Ditto for J. Carrol Naish who actually appears uncomfortable in his role.<br /><br />This is a chica chica boom bomb of a film. | 0 |
This film was screen as part of the 2007 Sydney Mardi Gras Film Festival. I had no expectation of the film as someone else choose it for me.<br /><br />I actually like films that take time to develop, films that allow the characters to unfold and lets the story flow. Stillness is good. But this film though was just plain slow.<br /><br />Credit must go to the two main actors. There was a sense of tension between them as two totally different people, misfits really, come together in a very awkward way. There were tender moments and sadness as we learned more about them.<br /><br />I also liked the setting and the way it was shot. It was claustrophobic and monochrome and it added to the film's intimacy and reinforces the oddness of the characters.<br /><br />I just don't understand the ending. What was the point of it all? | 0 |
It's interesting that all who (so far) seemed to like this film had no expectations--I guess that's the trick. In contrast with them, I had optimistic expectations, and that was a mistake. As soon as I saw how close to the faces the camera always was, I knew we were in the hands of an extremely amateur director--that's always a clear sign of them, they think it is arty or effective or intense to hold the camera about two inches away from the actors. The actors in this film, though, had only one facial expression each. <br /><br />If the close camera wasn't enough, the lack of light in the film killed it. The film seemed to be entirely filmed in the dark. So now we know that the cinematographer was a rank amateur, as well. "Ooh ooh, we're going to light the set with a flashlight! That will make it all seem intimate!" No, that made it all seem invisible.<br /><br />On top of the serious technical flaws, there was absolutely no story beyond the barest hint of an idea that was never developed, and nothing new about this kind of relationship was illuminated. (Perhaps this is a new kind of film for Germany, but in Los Angeles, forget about it.)<br /><br />The fact that this film won a couple of film festival awards doesn't indicate the quality of the film, but besmirches the quality of these particular festivals. I can assure you that this film won't win anything in the festival where I saw it. In fact, two times during the film it seemed that it was finally over and people started to get up to leave (this was one of the side effects of the cinematographer's "total darkness" technique). But when the film shuddered on, instead, there were moans coming from the audience. And once the movie finally DID end, it was clear that it hadn't mattered if it actually had ended at either of the two earlier points. An earlier ending would have saved the audience from yet more monotonous scenes of domesticity (folding sheets, cutting vegetables, spreading honey on bread). Yeah, we get it, the life of the lonely old man was boring-- but we figured that one out at the very beginning.<br /><br />I recommend that audiences miss this one, it has absolutely nothing to offer sophisticated movie-goers. | 0 |
As long as you can suffer it! If you like watching people waking up, getting up, getting dressed, having a shower, preparing dinner, watching each other, having sex in the dark, then going back to bed to sleep... if you like tacky flats, narrow bedrooms and kitchens, long minutes of silence.... if you like getting bored for two hours, feeling the thrill of "real intimate false art", then you will like it. But if you don't, just try to see a good movie, there are thousands. "As long as you are here", but do we want to stay? This German movie got the award of the Torino gay film festival: Italian journalists still don't understand why the jury took such a bad decision, as the festival presented lot of talented movies. Maybe to be nice with a German, as they don't often get awards? Well, "The Lives of Others" did... but this one is excellent but not gay. So maybe it is a question of fashion. Germans are they "in" again? No matter what? Or maybe only for a hustler's glance of some directors? | 0 |
I liked this show! I think it was nothing with wrong with it! Only that Spidey don't punch anyone but only for that the show doesn't suck! Some people only think this show is bad because of that. The story was great and it was fun when other heroes appeared like X-men, The Punisher, Daredevil and Iron Man! To bad Sandman never appear but i kinda like it! Best Spidey show ever!! My favorite episodes are: 1. Turning Point 2. Spider Wars 3. The Hobgoblin 4. The Alien Costume 5. Mutant Agenda<br /><br />But there are some episodes that was really really bad like: Rocket Racer and The Spot which was embarrassing to watch. And i don't like Morbius and Hydro Man. First of Morbius suck plasma instead of blood and i don't like vampires. And it irritates me that he was almost the main villain in Season 2. Of course i have to mentioned Hydro Man! He was terrible! I rather see Sandman! His last appearance was so terrible. And i don't like Spidey as the Man-spider!<br /><br />But i guess everything than this was bad! | 0 |
Watching a videotaped replay of about 8 various 1994-1997 Spider-man cartoons made me realize why I couldn't stomach it when it first came out.<br /><br />I'm from the old school, where the 1967 Spider-man cartoon was the best and still remains the best. (I won't get into the psychedelic version which is terrible - give me traditional villains please.)<br /><br />The acting in the new stuff is lousy, read off a sheet with either no feeling or overacting. Paul Soles, where are you now? This guy was the best at voice acting for Spider-man. No one comes close. Watching Secret Wars, a great idea for a cartoon mini-series, made me wince. Dr. Doom sounds like a comedy version of Bela Lugosi. In a scene with Red Skull and Doc Ock, Red Skull has no German accent while Ock is heavy Russian! The old Marvel comic hero series from 1966 had much better voice acting. Iron Man sounded like he was wearing an iron mask, Captain America sounded authoritative not like some teenage kid. Paul Frees as the Thing in the 60s was the best Thing ever. The old voice actors were pioneers and there will never be anyone like them. Ever hear Mel Blanc's son? No way can he replicate his dad.<br /><br />The animation is clunky. Okay, so they have all the fancy character shadings and nicely painted backrounds. Sometimes you can say more with less movement if more movement looks bad. Sometimes when you let the computer take over the movements they become robotic. I really don't think any of these animators know what in betweeners are. <br /><br />The stories are badly written, and some of the lines they give the heroes are horrible. Why, for example, when heroes are teamed together for the first time they start fighting with each other? In Secret Wars, it was a lame excuse that got them in disagreement. I can see if the hero was dark, unknown and mysterious - like the Punisher, but why the Thing and Iron Man can't hold their tempers with each other is ridiculous, then the Torch joins in. This is just another of the later comic trends to get heroes to square off at each other for a few seconds because 'everyone' wants to see that stuff. Give them a better reason to fight and maybe it can be pulled off, but "Hey what are you doing here" and "You don't tell me what to do" are LAME reasons. Another badly written scene is in The Wedding where Harry Osborne unmasks himself to spoil Peter's wedding. That whole scenario was awful.<br /><br />Last, but certainly not least, is what another critic calls Juvenile Violence - meaning no punches at all. In Secret Wars, the Lizard carefully ducked the Thing's charge. But the Thing punches the bad guys across an entire block in the comics. He must simply revert to lifting heavy things and subduing a bad guy by grabbing hold of him in the cartoons. Sure, these cartoons were not made strictly for us adults but for kids under 12. That's why they can't have punching, because mommy and daddy don't believe in that type of violence. But you can blow things up, these cartoons will include that. As a kid before political correctness came in fashion I saw cartoons punching each other. What's wrong with a punch to the chops? Is there really less violence in the world today because those slick and crafty new cartoons took out the punch? I find this the most insulting of all when I watch the new stuff. They've written out "the punch' because we could all hurt ourselves.<br /><br />Kids, enjoy these cartoons all you want, I've seen enough.<br /><br />3/10 rating | 0 |
"Houseboat Horror" is often regarded as the worst Australian film ever made and described as a typical slasher film,which carried the promotion 'See the movie that can't get an Academy Award'.An underground disco band members begins to die slashed to death by burned maniac as they are attempting to shoot a music video on a remote lake in the Australian outback.Badly acted and written slasher flick with zero suspense and annoying characters.It certainly delivers the gore:heads are split in half with a machete,throats are cut and a woman is killed with a horseshoe.If you like cheesy slasher movies you can give this one a try,but you have been warned.At least it's better than Swedish "The Bleeder".4 out of 10. | 0 |
Houseboat Horror is a great title for this film. It's absolutely spot-on, and therefore the only aspect of the film for which I can give 10 out of 10. There are houseboats, there is horror, there's even horror that takes place on houseboats. But if there were ever a tagline for the film poster, it would surely be 'Something shonky this way comes...' for Houseboat Horror is easily the worst Australian horror film I've ever seen, not to mention one of the worst horror films I've ever seen, and a fairly atrocious attempt at film-making in general. The good news is, it's so bloody awful, it sails straight through the zone of viewer contempt into the wonderful world of unintentional hilarity. It's worth watching *because* it's bloody awful.<br /><br />The category of 'worst' comes not from the storyline, for the simple reason that there actually is one: a record producer, a film crew and a rock band drive up to the mystifyingly-named Lake Infinity, a picturesque rural retreat somewhere in Victoria (in reality Lake Eildon) to shoot a music video. Someone isn't especially happy to see them there and, possibly in an attempt to do the audience a favour, starts picking them off one by one with a very sharp knife. Even more mystifying is how long it takes the survivors to actually notice this, <br /><br />On the surface, it looks like a very bog-standard B-movie slasher. You've got highly-annoying youths, intolerant elders, creepy locals (one of whom, a petrol station attendant, would easily win a gurning competition), and let's face it, my description of the murderer could easily be Jason Voorhees. Ah, but if only the acting and production values were anywhere near as good as the comparative masterpiece that was Friday The 13th Part VII. Unfortunately, Houseboat Horror is completely devoid of both these things.<br /><br />But in the end, this only makes what you do get so ridiculous and amusing. Fans of one-time 'Late Show' and 'Get This' member Tony Martin will already be aware of some of the real dialogue gems ('Check out the view...you'll bar up!'), while the actual song to accompany the music video is so bad it has to be heard to be believed - I can't help wondering if writer/director Ollie Wood hoped it would actually become a hit. The horror element is comparable I think to B-slashers of the genre and particularly of the period, but there were times when I couldn't help imagining someone biting into a hamburger off-screen and seeing a volley of tomato sauce sprayed at the wall on-screen.<br /><br />Indeed, if you've been listening to Tony Martin recommending this film as hilarious rubbish like myself, I don't think you'll be disappointed. Any fans of 'so-bad-it's-good' horror should not pass up the opportunity. Whether you'll 'bar up' or not though is another matter. If, on the other hand, you are in search of genuine excellence in the Australian horror genre, get yourself a copy of the incomparable 'Long Weekend' and don't look back. | 0 |
I just finished watching this on TV and what can I say but this is the worst film I have EVER seen! I'm embarrassed to be from Melbourne, where the film was made. Diabolical acting, amateurish makeup effects and a REALLY bad soundtrack. As for the plot, well, thats even MORE stupid! Some of the scenes just left me stunned as to how bad it was. There's a reason they put these types of films on late night TV - because they're utter rubbish! Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
This absolute trash is based so closely on the Friday the 13th series that is practically a carbon copy, accept for it being an Australian film with people who can't act.<br /><br />Once upon a time a young boy got burnt up accidentally during the filming of a music video at Lake Eildon. Now, a number of years later, the boy is all grown up and taking revenge on anybody who comes to the lake to film a music video. It is cliche-ridden and a waste of time and money, see it only out of curiosity, or if you're an aspiring actor trying to learn how NOT to (not be able to) act. Lead role Alan Dale used to star in the television soap opera Neighbours, but ended up in The X Files - how did THAT happen? | 0 |
This movie should not classify as cinema. Although it is over 10 years old now, it should never, ever have gotten funding, and is a blight on the Australian Film Industry, which is now producing such brilliant films as "The Dish"<br /><br />The Actors cannot act, The music is.. to be blunt, not music, the storyline is completely nonexistent and is a struggle to sit through.<br /><br />Do not watch this film. It is a complete waste of your time. | 0 |
Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made. | 0 |
In this extremely low-budget ( I've seen home movies made with better production value) Australian utter rip-off of "the Burning" & "Friday the 13th", a band is planning to make a music video while on a houseboat. They're stalked by a serial killer who was burned years before. This movie is even proclaimed to be 'the worst Australian film ever made' in it's DVD promotional material. That's it's only selling point! Complete and utter rubbish in every considerable way. Perhaps a few chuckles here and there for bad movie lovers, but it still made me want to burn out my retinas.<br /><br />Eye Candy: a quick flash of barely existent itty bitty titties in a lame shower scene<br /><br />My Grade: F | 0 |
It is very unfortunate when a movie such as this is made. A great deal of work and money has been put into a film that is amateur at best.<br /><br />The editing drags on, there are obvious mistakes that could have been corrected easily in a second take, and the soundtrack is unimaginative. So much more could have been done with this video movie. I guess they ran out of time, or videotape.<br /><br />Hand-held shots have a distinct amateur feel to them. | 0 |
The threesome of Bill Boyd, Robert Armstrong, and James Gleason play Coney Island carnys vying for the hand of Ginger Rogers, a working gal who sells salt water taffy. With the outbreak of World War I, the threesome enlist and pursue Ginger from afar. The first half of this RKO Pathe production is hard going, with the three male leads chewing up the scenery with overcooked one-liners and 'snappy' dialogue that quickly grows tiresome. The second half concentrates on action sequences as the US Navy pursues both a German merchant cruiser and a U-boat. These sequences are lively and well-filmed, but overall this is an overlong and unsatisfying comedy-drama with a flat ending. For fans of the stars only. | 0 |
...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.<br /><br />The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.<br /><br />The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.<br /><br />One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.<br /><br />In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding. | 0 |
I saw most of the episodes of RMFTM as a teenager on "Cliffhanger Theater" running after midnight on a local station some years ago, and then again when Mystery Science Theatre riffed on it in the early 90's. Time has not been kind to it. <br /><br />I can certainly make allowances for the special effects, which were quite impressive for a low budget 50's serial (IMO Commando Cody's flying scenes were better than George Reeves/Superman's in his TV show). And I can also make allowances for the ahem, "acting", and fight choreography -. except for the guy who plays the ruler of the Moon Men. He is incredibly miscast. He looks and acts like the fellow who comes to fix your plumbing, not the despotic ruler of an alien race. Even the corny dialog works all right - everyone rattles off their lines like strings of firecrackers, with no wasted time or pauses for things like "thought" or "introspection". Since everyone does this, the viewer finds it immersive after awhile, and even to my modern sensibilities, it doesn't bother much. <br /><br />What really irritates me is the writing and the plotting. I'm not talking about the sunny weather on the moon, or baking soda powered rocket ships, or a flying suit that has controls labeled "up/down" and "fast/slow". I'm not even bothered by the cheesiness of the resolutions to the cliffhangers that end each chapter. I'm talking about the fact that our supposed heroes are dumber than fence posts and have no cumulative memory. And by the fact that although that the dialog clips along like an express train, the plot goes through the same motions again and again. <br /><br />Dig it: Commando Cody and his pal are the spearhead of a top secret hi tech science lab charged with protecting Earth (or at least the USA) against an insidious alien invasion. But his office has no guards or security checkpoints. They don't even have locks on the front doors. So the bad guys walk RIGHT IN and beat the crap out of the Cody and his staff ...not once (perhaps understandable) but SEVERAL times. They even kidnap his female assistant on the second try. And they never get any smarter. To further prove my point, allow me to point out the way that Cody jumps in his flying suit and flies around getting into trouble and never actually seems to succeed in catching anyone. He does this over and over and over. Cody also flies his ship to the Moon (the woman assistant comes along to cook), stays for about 30 seconds and immediately turns around and comes back. Cody captures one of the Atomic Ray guns...and immediately loses it again to the bad guys because he couldn't be bothered to lock it up. And so on.<br /><br />And you would think that if Cody's efforts were so vital to saving the USA from the Moon Men, that he might ask for a few soldiers with carbines, a few helicopters and a tank or two to back him up, instead of just working with the local police all the time. This was supposed to be a military operation, but they act like it's another episode of "Gangbusters". <br /><br />It's all rather hard to stomach. I appreciate that the creators were severely limited in the scope of their story by budget and time constraints...and I appreciate that Cody is actually a reasonably tough hombre (even though he loses half of his fistfights). But I just can't help yelling "DOOR! LOCK THE DOOOOR!!" when the gangsters simply walk into his lab, or try to blow up the ship and there are NO security measures at the landing site in place...not even a fence (!). <br /><br />Still, it's OK. Of the three Republic serials I've watched, "Phantom Creeps" had a better plot, and "Undersea Kingdom" had more atmosphere (hah!) and a better hero than "Radar Men", but it's an OK time-waster. <br /><br />BTW...why "Radar" men? They didn't use radar, they used Atomic Ray Guns. Shouldn't the title have been "Atomic Ray Gun Men From The Moon?" | 0 |
The Radar Men from the Moon is a pretty typical fare of 1950's serials. The special effects are pretty cheap, the lunar rovers are obviously World War II surplus jeeps with painted plywood over them, and the like. The acting is only so-so. It does inspire the imagination of children, to whom I believe this was directed to. By today's standards, it's boring, cheap, and bad. There's also a hefty amount of stock footage in the first 9 episodes of natural disasters. | 0 |
This serial is interesting to watch as an MST3K feature, but for todays audience that's all it is. I was really surprised to see the year it was made as 1952. Considering that fact alone makes this a solid (lowly?) 2 in my book. The cars used don't even look contemporary, they look like stuff from the 30's. It's basically Cody (the lone world's salvation? Sheesh talk about an insult to everyone else, like the military), anyway it's Cody in his nipple ring flying suit against Graber and Daley two dumb*ss henchman who sport handguns and an occasional ray gun thats pretty lame in its own right, enjoy. If you want to watch a really good serial see Flash Gordan, it's full of rockets that attack each other and a good evil nemesis and also good looking women, this has NONE of that. And Flash was made 15 or so years before this crap so you can give it some slack. Something made in 1952, this bad, deserves a 2. Nuff said. give it a 6 if your watching it as a MST3K episode, those guys have some good fun with it; a tweak of the nipples here, a tweak there and I'm flying! And now as an added bonus, I bring you the Commander Cody Theme song as originally sung by Joel and his two character bots Tom Servo and Crow aboard the satellite of love for episode eight The Enemy Planet:<br /><br />(Singing at the very beginning credits);<br /><br />(TOM SERVO SINGING) YOUR WATCHING COMMANDER CODY.... HE IS THE NEW CHARACTER FROM REPUBLIC,<br /><br />HE GETS IN TROUBLE EVERY WEEK... BUT HE'S SAVED BY EDITING,<br /><br />JUST A TWEAK OF HIS NIPPLES... SENDS HIM ON HIS WAY,<br /><br />A PUMPKIN HEAD AND A ROCKET PACK.... WILL SAVE THE DAY,<br /><br />(JOEL SINGING) HIS LABRATORY IS A BOXING RING... WHEN BAD GUYS COME TO MIX IT UP,<br /><br />SOMEBODY ALWAYS GETS KIDNAPPED... AND CODY HAS TO FIX IT UP,<br /><br />HE DRINKS HIS TEA AT AL'S CAFE... AND FLIES ALONG ON WIRES,<br /><br />HE BEATS THE CROOKS AND FLIES WITH HOOKS... AND PUTS OUT FOREST FIRES,<br /><br />(CROW SINGING)<br /><br />BAD GUYS BEWARE... CODY IS THERE,<br /><br />YOU'LL LIKE HIS HAIR IT'S UNDER HIS HELMUT... AND BECAUSE WE CAN'T THINK OF A GOOD RHYME,<br /><br />THAT'S THE END OF THE COMMANDER CODY THEME SONG... SO SIT RIGHT BACK WITH A WILL OF GRANITE,<br /><br />AND WATCH CHAPTER EIGHT, CAUSE THAT'S THE ENEMY PLANET | 0 |
Oh, man, how low serials had fallen as by 1952! This dull thing is precisely the kind of serial that annoyed Annie Wilkes (from Misery). Not only the heroes escape the traps by adding scenes that weren't there in the previous chapter (and that COULDN'T possibly be there - tell me that when the baddies blow up the plain in episode 7 to 8 they wouldn't see the characters jump), but I think this serial has the World's Record of Stock Footage. I mean, most of it is stock footage! And not just from another serials (apparently all the flying sequences come from King of the Rocket Men, and the cool "molten rocks" scenes of episode 2 to 3 is from Adventures of Captain Marvel), but from itself! The whole "trip to the Moon" sequence (which is probably the shortest ever, it's 30 seconds long and the characters never seem to leave Earth's atmosphere) from episode 1 is repeated in episode 8! And episode 10 is ALL scenes from previous episodes! (Ever wondered why MST3K never did episodes 10, 11 and 12? Well, they had to stop after 9 so they didn't have to do the whole thing again!).<br /><br />Don't get me started on the science factor. Prepare to see the sunniest Moon ever! And Moon men that can not breathe on their own world? What were they smoking? <br /><br />And if this is not enough, it's too talky and the stunts (usually the best thing in serials) are few and far. Visually-wise, am I the only one who thinks that Commando Cody's bullet-shaped (or is it lemon-shaped) helmet is totally ridiculous-looking? The Rocketeer's was way cooler, no matter how bad that movie was (and man, was it awful). The tank-like vehicle isn't much better, it looks like a bunch of kids made it for Halloween. The only positive thing I can think of about it is that the actor who plays the hero is homely instead of the usual muscular hunk (hey, everybody has the right to be an hero!), but then he's so unappealing...<br /><br />Not even worth watching for nostalgia's sake. See Captain Marvel instead. 2/10.<br /><br />(BTW, check out the Memorable Quotes section for a real Women's Lib pearl). | 0 |
Really, truly, abysmally, garishly, awful. But actor Clayton Moore (the movie Lone Ranger) acquits himself competently as an actor. He's the only one.<br /><br />A rare treat, for five minutes, if you want to plumb the depths of grotesquely transparent special effects, southern California as "the moon" (again and again and again), and acting so woodenly inept that it may be a spoof . . . except that it's clear that it isn't--no humor here, except unintentionally.<br /><br />The dialogue may be worse than any of these other aspects, and the costumes . . . well, enough said. Plot? What plot? Bad guy (well, head bad guy) and his henchmen, including his earthly agent called Krog (listen carefully or you'll suspect it's a spoof on the name of McDonald's founder Ray Kroc)and his unbelievably inept gunsels (who, however, have handguns that never need reloading; as does Commando Cody, so there are numerous firefight standoffs).<br /><br />Enjoy. | 0 |
...and Ethel Merman buffs, too, will love her loud, bossy vocals as the wicked witch Mombi, but this cartoon sequel to "The Wizard Of Oz" is bereft of real imagination, substituting fantasy and excitement with noisy action (and cheaply repeating its footage like a bad music video). Little Dorothy is whisked back to Oz, which has gone to ruin, and meets old and new friends. The inelegant animation is stuck somewhere between the weakest Walt Disney and the less-inspired shows from Hanna-Barbera, however many of the songs are good, particularly Dorothy's sweet lament "It's a Far Away Land", superbly performed by Liza Minnelli. You can count on Minnelli for energy, which is why the movie perks up whenever Dorothy is around. Much of it is unmemorable, and I'm not even sure baby-boomers will get a charge from it since it has been out of circulation for so long. As a curiosity item, just fair. ** from **** | 0 |
My kids picked this out at the video store...it's great to hear Liza as Dorothy cause she sounds just like her mom. But there are too many bad songs, and the animation is pretty crude compared to other cartoons of that time. | 0 |
The number of goofs in this episode was higher than the first 9. They don't follow their own rules about spirits where destruction of the body makes the spirit dissolve. This one dropped a second body. That body, and Dean, drop about 20 feet from Sam but then they are right with Sam. Flashlights go out in an unlighted asylum, at night, and we can still see everything. It's night but light is streaming through the windows. A ghost that died in 1960's is making cell phones calls? Come on! There is no way Sam could get a psychiatrist to see him in the same day he makes an appointment and the doctor talks to Sam like it wasn't his first visit. Sam and Dean knew there were other bodies in the asylum and innocent spirits still lurking and didn't do anything to help them. That doesn't seem like a thing the Winchester boys would do. Oh and after crawling around on a dirt filled mattress and all around a nasty asylum the girls' makeup and hair is perfect and not a smudge on her white shirt. <br /><br />While the implementation of this episode had problems the premise was good and a few times I was not creeped out but nervous as Dean sat reading Elicots' journal. I just knew that an object so intensely personal to the ghost would draw it to the person violating it's sanctity. Elicot didn't appear. Maybe that is a fault for such an important object or place (like Elicot's office) should draw the spirit when a living being touches or enters. When they separate I want to scream... 'that's how you die! Always stay together and watch each others backs!' but they don't listen to me :o The Elicot spirit and his special ability was a very nice touch. It's prime-time show but I do wish the horror of Elicot strapping one of his victims down and using anticipation of torture to creep us out further.<br /><br />Especially because of the lighting goofs I gave this a 4. Sudden darkness or the flickering of the whole scene's lighting as the flashlight flickers is all that more terrifying. The lighter coming or the flashlight reviving and instantly a spirit is in their face is shocking. I understand the directors wants us to see his scene but then make a mention or obvious connection by Elicot touching an electric socket and the lights coming on. Have the characters respond to the fact an asylum with no power suddenly has lights in the one room. Blue white lights flickering as electric arcs just like Elicot's finger power. <br /><br />Seriously, MCG could have done better. | 0 |
According to IMDb, as well as to every other website that holds a review; this "thing" doesn't have a director. Well, that would surely explain a lot! Just a bunch of people that gathered together to shoot some perverted porn sequences and throw in an ultra-thin storyline about devil-worshiping and women sacrifices inside the walls of a secluded sanitarium. "Hardgore" is a prime example of totally demented 70's smut, as it's really made with a minimum of production values and scripting inspiration. Horror movies about satanic cults were hugely popular during the early 70's and pornography as well, so why not combine the two? Here we have a simplistic story about a young nymphomaniac girl who's committed to a mental asylum, and from the first night already, she's drawn into a network of drugs, psychedelic orgies, rape, torture and dildo-action. Really, a LOT of dildo-action. The friendly lesbian nurse tries to warn her, but she has her throat slit even the same night. The horror aspects are truly poorly elaborated, going from laughably un-scary Satan masks to virulent severed penises attacks. The photography and acting performances are almost intolerably amateurish, but what do you expect from a film that features footage of sperm-firing dildos and talking amputated male reproduction organs? Leading lady Justina Lynn is a rather good looking girl with a ravishing body, but most of her co-stars (male & female) are hideous and excessively haired sleaze balls. | 0 |
Former private eye-turned-security guard ditches his latest droning job and is immediately offered a chance to return to his previous profession. His assignment: to tail a mysterious French woman newly arrived in California...and apparently wanted by suit-and-tie racketeers. Unsuccessful attempt to update the film noir genre, without enough sting or wit (or involving plot dynamics) in the screenplay. Director and co-scenarist Paul Magwood (who later claimed the picture was edited without his involvement) doesn't give off the impression of having high regard for the '40s films his "Chandler" was borne from; his nostalgia is appropriately rumpled, but also bitter-tinged and somewhat indifferent. The handling is curiously, commendably low-keyed, and Warren Oates is well-cast as this '70s variant on the 'private dick' archetype, but the movie doesn't have any snap. Nice to see Leslie Caron and Gloria Grahame in the cast--though neither has much to do, and Caron's hot-and-cold running character is exasperating throughout. Vivid cinematography by Alan Stensvold, nice location shooting, but it fails to come to any kind of a boil. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
I saw this film when it was first released. The memory of how bad it was has stayed with me almost forty years. I didn't want to trust my own sentiments about the movie when I saw it, so I consulted a movie review published in a major metropolitan newspaper the next day- sentiment confirmed, the reviewer wrote that the movie was incoherent, indecipherable, and uninspiring. A little research reveals that the producer was star Leslie Caron's husband, thus the whiff of nepotism suggests the beginning for this awful film. The film's roster of many capable actors - Caron, Warren Oates, Scatman Crothers, Gloria Grahame, and James Sikking among others - suggests that it holds some promise. But the death of this film is attributable to its terrible screenplay. The "mystery" implicated is so obscure and so little revealed throughout the film that the viewer is left perplexed from scene to scene. The movie seems torn between being a detective mystery and an espionage thriller, but never settles upon one or the other. The sense of suspense is entirely absent. The main characters settle on playing dry, emotionless types in a fashion that inspires no empathy whatsoever. The cinematography is pedestrian. The result is that the hapless viewer loses interest in the characters, the plot, and, in the end, the film itself. I am little surprised that there is no version of this pathetic film available to purchase. I hope that if TCM finds a print of this film and feels compelled to air it that it is safely relegated to the 4:00 am slot. | 0 |
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. ** | 0 |
The "Trivia" page on IMDb claims the filmmakers protested because this film was re-cut by the studio to "simplify the plot". If so, that effort was a total failure, as this is one of the most incoherent narratives I've ever seen in a film -- I'd hate to have seen it before the plot was "simplified."<br /><br />It's sad to see Warren with so little character to go on that even he can't do anything with the inept material. It's interesting to see Caron in '70s mode instead of her Hollywood-era glamour garb and persona, but it's sad to see her haplessly wander through this doing-a- favor-to-her-producer-husband dreck. She would actually later hook up with and marry the director, instead -- who, you'll note, never directed anything again, but did strictly 1st or 2nd A.D. work in TV from here on out. That oughta tell you enough right there.<br /><br />I call this "interesting" because I have an automatic fondness for American films of this period, and this role does add perspective to Oates' otherwise fantastic 1971 output (Two- Lane Blacktop, The Hired Hand). But the "1940s detective as fish-out-of-water in 1970s L.A." theme, which is the only thing the movie really has to say, is sold in way too heavy- handed a manner. A similar theme would be far more effectively handled two years later in Altman's The Long Goodbye. And as far as Oates playing a hard-bitten guy on a doomed errand, three years on, he would give his definitive performance in Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia. If you haven't seen those, don't waste your time with this! | 0 |
Mae Clarke will always be remembered as the girl whose face James Cagney showed a grapefruit into in the same year's THE PUBLIC ENEMY. She will not be remembered for this weird little story about a a hood's girl who finds that her past will always be with her.<br /><br />In some ways, this looks a bit antique for 1931, almost as if you are looking at 1928's famously inert LIGHTS OF NEW YORK. But don't be fooled. Although Ted Tetzlaff's photography is still in the big scenes, there's lots of movement, indicating distraction to the moviegoers in the set-ups to them. But in competition with the fast-paced stuff that it seems that everyone was doing at Warner's, this attempt to bring the woman's viewpoint into the genre as a tearjerker doesn't work, nor is Mae Clarke the actress to carry the effort. | 0 |
VERY BAD MOVIE........and I mean VERY BAD...THe plot is predictable, and it's EALLY cheesy, the creativeness of the battle and the dance scenes for the time are the only reason I didn't give the movie a one, other than that...this is def a movie one can def afford not to watch.....I feel while watching the movie, the idea behind the movie was an interesting one tho kind of cliché....bringing country bumpkins to the city blah blah blah, but I feel it might have been at least a little better if it just wasn't so cheesy, very poorly portrayed from idea to screen, i think. The Plot is somewhat predictable at times, tho the dancing I can say AT TIMES, is pretty good, The break dance battle twist was good.....IF u just pop the movie and watch the dance scenes and make up your own dialog maybe it can be a 5...lol | 0 |
because you can put it on fast forward and watch the inane story, without having to listen to banal dialogue, and be finished in 10 minutes max. Come to think of it, even 10 minutes is too much to waste on Enid-Blyton-meets-struggling-wanna-be-artists. Vomit. | 0 |
Mona the vagabond lives on the fringes of French society, in a life without meaning, purpose or direction.<br /><br />I watched this because of all the stellar reviews, but I'm afraid I must have missed something. The character of Mona has little or no personality while drifting through life being rude to people, getting high and contributing nothing to anyone's life. She's not interesting or exciting. She's just useless.<br /><br />I've seen and known enough people like that: there is no secret meaning to what they're doing. They are just lazy bums. I wouldn't want Mona anywhere near me, as she tends to steal anything that isn't nailed down and leave her friends in the lurch. Sure she's enigmatic - because there isn't anything to her. Lots of junkies, winos and bums I've seen are enigmatic; I wouldn't want to see a film about them either.<br /><br />Possibly there is something there that I totally missed. Otherwise I'm assuming that all the reviews are from people who assume anything done by a French female director is high art. | 0 |
The last couple of weeks in the life of a dead vagabond woman is told in flashbacks. Like the vagabond, the film wanders aimlessly and rather pointlessly. Mona, the lazy, sullen, and drug-addicted title character, is not likable and Bonnaire does little to make her interesting. Although there is some pretentious dialog attempting to explain why Mona has chosen this miserable lifestyle, her motivations are never really clear. The episodic nature of the film, involving some random characters, becomes tiresome after a while, making it seem much longer than its running time. It is also hard to believe that an attractive young homeless woman would not draw more attention from men. | 0 |
This movie . . . I don't know. Why they would take such an indellible character as Pippi Longstocking and cast the singularly charmless Tami Erin, I will never know. Why they would spend money on art direction and some not-all-that-bad special effects, then not bother to edit it properly, I will never know. Why the sets and costumes are sometimes in period, and sometimes bizarrely not, why they commissioned SUCH bad songs, why the script doesn't make any sense whatsoever (not even on a silly, children's film level) . . . . what were they thinking?? Nothing about this movie is quite as it should be. Every single part is dubbed (and always poorly,) every sound effect is slightly wrong, every edit is in the wrong place, every performance is bad in some way. It does manage to create an appropriate atmosphere, despite all the problems, but it NEVER captures the magic that is Astrid Lindgren's creation. | 0 |
This is another North East Florida production, filmed mainly in and near by to Fernandina Beach and the Kingsley Plantation. I was rather surprised the company was able to take over the main street of Fernandina Beach as long as was necessary to achieve the street scenes. The film is pretty, and pretty bad. Tami Erin is cute, but overacts. Eileen Brennan overacts even more. Good for small kids, or for those who like fluff in large doses. A 4 from the Miller-Movies formula. | 0 |
This appalling film somehow saw the light of day in 1988. It looks and sounds as if it had been produced 20 or 30 years earlier, and features some of the worst songs ever included in a major motion picture. I weep for the parents and children who paid top dollar to see this. | 0 |
while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time... | 0 |
It's about time we see a movie that stays unbiased towards these old Indian traditions. At times it is clear how most of the 'doctors' are charlatans, even lying about how they don't charge their clients. While they are wearing their gold watches, the 'donation' box is mandatory. Notice that there are only a couple of people who get 'cured' while we see quite a few cases.<br /><br />Keep in mind while watching that ingesting mercury is not toxic and that the smallest Indian bank note is 5 rupee, while the average salary in India is 1,700 ru/month. | 0 |
This documentary is at its best when it is simply showing the ayurvedic healers' offices and treatment preparation. There is no denying the grinding poverty in India and desperation of even their wealthier clients. However, as an argument for ayurvedic medicine in general, this film fails miserably. Although Indian clients mention having seen "aleopathic" doctors, those doctors are not interviewed, and we have to take the vague statements of their patients at face value-- "the doctor said there was no cure," "the doctor said it was cancer" etc. Well, "no cure" doesn't mean "no treatment," and what type of cancer exactly does the patient have? The film is at its most feeble when showing ayurvedic practice in America. There it is reduced, apparently, to the stunning suggestion that having a high powered Wall Street job can make your stomach hurt. | 0 |
The peculiar charisma of Martin Kosleck brings a certain believability to his character of the frustrated artist. He imbues his dialog with an odd sense of realism, making the sculptor Marcel a convincing individual. The character manages to come across as a real person and not so much a typical B movie villain.<br /><br />The story line is nothing to write home about, and many scenes are dull. What makes it work is the strange chemistry between Kosleck and Rondo Hatton as the Creeper. Kosleck's talkative, philosophical character is contrasted with Hatton's low key, monosyllabic approach. The character of the Creeper isn't developed much beyond a basic monster level, but Hatton suggests undeveloped possibilities and makes you wonder about his back story.<br /><br />This movie was on Shock Theater a lot when I was a kid, so I have a certain nostalgic fondness for it. It's worth seeing once, anyway, for those who enjoy Forties horror movies. | 0 |
This is a typical late Universal Horror flick: its technically comptent, if by the numbers, with a cookie cutter plot and some serious overacting. The most interesting part of this film is its stunt casting of Rondo Hatton, a man with a bone disease as the film's "monster". Its sad to see this man exploited, but he probably made good use of the money they paid him. Hatton is less horrifying than the studio hoped, as I more often felt pity over fear or even loathing. Martin Koslack is on board as the film's mad artist, and he is very amusing in this part. I for one enjoy seeing Koslack in just about anything; for some reason the man amuses me. The only other part of the film that entertained me is the film's absurd take on the art world. Here we are shown evil art critics who revel in their ability to break artists; this is side by side with the film's male "hero" who is an "artist" who paints...get this...pin up girls. Somehow our hero's work is reviewed side by side with the villan's absurdist sculpture. Also amusing is the film's chief nasty critic, who at one point claims that he despises the hero's pin up art because "women like that don't exist" to which our heroine replies with an assurance that the critic just doesn't get out enough. Finally, there's a bit of a subplot about the heroine's (who is an art critic herself) domestication by the leading man....completely anti-feminist and ridiculous to witness. Overall this film is a rather mediocre picture with a few amusing elements. | 0 |
This low-grade Universal chiller has just been announced as an upcoming DVD release but, intended as part of a collection of similar movies that I already had in my possession, I decided to acquire it from other channels rather than wait for that legitimate release. Which is just as well, since the end result was not anything particularly special (if decently atmospheric at that): for starters, the plot is pretty weak even though in a way it anticipates the Vincent Price vehicle THEATRE OF BLOOD (1973)
albeit without any of that film's campy gusto. What we have here, in fact, is a penniless sculptor (Martin Kosleck) whom we even see sharing his measly plate of cheese with his pet cat! who, upon finding himself on the receiving end of art critic Alan Napier's vitriolic pen one time too many, decides to end it all by hurling himself into the nearby river. However, while contemplating just that action, he is anticipated by Rondo Hatton's escaped killer dubbed "The Creeper" and, naturally enough, saves the poor guy's life with the intention of having the latter do all the dirty work for him in gratitude! Although it is supposedly set in the art circles of New York, all we really see at work is Kosleck and commercial painter Robert Lowery (who keeps painting the same statuesque blonde girl Joan Shawlee over and over in banal poses how is that for art?) who, conveniently enough, is engaged to a rival art critic (Virginia Grey) of Napier's! Before long, the latter is discovered with his spine broken and Lowery is suspected; but then investigating detective Bill Goodwin gets the bright idea of engaging another critic to publish a scathing review of Lowery's work (I did not know that publicity sketches got reviewed!!) so as to gauge how violent his reaction is going to be! In the meantime, Kosleck deludes himself into thinking that he is creating his masterpiece by sculpting Hatton's uniquely craggy and recognizable visage which, needless to say, attracts the attention of the constantly visiting Grey (we are led to believe that she lacks material for her weekly column)
much to the chagrin of both artist and model. Bafflingly, although The Creeper is fully aware of how Grey looks (thanks to her aforementioned haunting of Kosleck's flea-bitten pad), he bumps off Shawlee who had by then become Goodwin's girl! in Lowery's apartment and, overhearing Kosleck talking to (you guessed it) Grey about his intention to dump him as the fall guy for the police, sends the slow-witted giant off his deep end
even down to destroying his own now-completed stony image. Curiously enough, although this was Hatton's penultimate film, his name in the credits is preceded by the epithet "introducing"! | 0 |
Although this isn't a "great film," there's something compelling and memorable about it. Like another commenter on the film, I saw this in childhood. It's been thirty three years since 1952, but I have never forgotten the story or its ridiculously cumbersome title. See it if you have the opportunity. You'll feel like a voyeur of small town life as it evolves through the decades. More than any other film, this one brings a human face to the historical drama of early twentieth century "progress." It's engaging enough for a young viewer and memorable enough for an older one. Furthermore, it's easy to like the characters and watch their passage through time. | 0 |
Although i had heard this film was a little dry, I watch whatever Scott Bakula is in. At the start of this film I had high hopes for the classic cheesy but enjoyable Scott-gets-girl ending and until 20 minutes before the end it was going great. The plot twist was crazy and unexpected and very clever. I kept my fingers crossed that it would work out and it would all be some horrible misunderstanding, right up until when the credits rolled and I realised that there was not going to be a happy and contented ending. Unfortunately i was left regretting that i'd watched it and hurriedly putting on some quantum leap to restore my faith in the goodness of the Great Scott! | 0 |
Oh a vaguely once famous actress in a film where she plays a mother to a child . It`s being shown on BBC 1 at half past midnight , I wonder if ... yup it`s a TVM <br /><br />You`ve got to hand it to TVM producers , not content on making one mediocre movie , they usually give us two mediocre movies where two themes are mixed together and NOWHERE TO HIDE is no different . The first theme is a woman in danger theme cross pollinated with a woman suffering from the pain of a divorce theme which means we have a scene of the heroine surviving a murder attempt followed by a scene having her son Sam ask why she divorced ? And being a TVM she answers that the reason is " That people change " rather than say something along the lines like " I`m a right slapper " or Your daddy cruises mens public toilets for sex " as does happen in real life divorce cases . And it`s young Sam I feel sorry for , not only are his parents divorced but he`s as thick as two short planks . Actually since he`s so stupid he deserves no sympathy because he`s unaware that a man flushing stuff down a toilet is a drug dealer , unaware that you might die if someone shoots at you , and unaware that I LOVE LUCY is painfully unfunny . If only our own childhoods were so innocent , ah well as Orwell said " Ignorance is strength " . Oh hold on Sam is suddenly an expert on marine life ! Is this character development or poor scripting ? I know what one my money`s on . And strange that Sam the boy genuis hasn`t noticed that if the story is set in 1994 then why do people often wear clothes , drive cars and ride trains from the 1950s ? But as it turns out during a plot twist it`s the mother who`s the dummy . Then there`s a final plot twist that left me feeling like an idiot for watching this | 0 |
The plot sounds vaguely interesting ... a scientist (Bateman) discovers how to transplant animal eyes and optic nerves into other animals, like humans. A young man (Monteith) is blinded saving a coworker at work - the scientist gets a call from a doctor that the young man is a good candidate to be the first human recipient. The recipient starts becoming more and wolf-like, but the effect is nothing more than "weird eyes" and running at night with dogs! (for the whole movie) The budget is too low, the dialogue too stilted (I laughed out loud at some of the ridiculous talk), and the acting too inept. Long portions of the movie are nothing more than dreamy looks, eerie music and interspersed clips of wolves in the wild. Way too long even at 90 minutes, boring, and devoid of ideas.<br /><br />The military want to use the eye transplants to give wounded soldiers back their eyesight, and presumably want to militarize the technology. There's a silly subplot about a beautiful Indian girl (Korey) who thinks she can help, using Indian wisdom about the wolves. They make love while music heavy on drums and Indian chanting is heard - crazy, man! The love making takes place immediately after a gruesome murder - who edited this turkey?! A grouchy "medicine man" who spouts platitudes seems to do little, except for adding atmosphere.<br /><br />Here's two ridiculous scenes. A worker at the research lab goes into the animal room to discover the monkeys have been let out of their cages. She gets scared, looks left at the monkeys, turns right, turns left, turns right, turns left .. this goes on for a while (who edited this??). RUN OUT OF THE DAMN LAB! It was so stupid I started laughing. Another ridiculous scene - our hero is at home, escapes out a window as the heavily armed military arrive - he leaves the window open, the military guys go to the open window, look out the window, they say "looks like he was here", and LEAVE! He went out the open window, guys!! Crazy.<br /><br />Near the end of the movie, military guys are firing machine guns over and over at trees, when obviously nothing is there - easier to place the squibs I guess. They have 6 machine guns which have cut down trees, but decide to fight our hero with 1 knife!!! Shoot the guy!! Who wrote this trash?? There's a pointless confrontation at the end, and believe me I'm not spoiling anything for you - there's not enough plot to spoil.<br /><br />I figure the whole thing was a tax write-off or a rush job to make use of unused budget money left over from some better movie. | 0 |
I hired out Hybrid on the weekend. What a disappointment! A stupid lame attempt at a tele-movie. The guy they got for the lead was totally weak and when running {he did a lot} looked like he was eating those minty sweets...with his backside! The wolf contacts he wore were great, though I feel the actor relied on them too much, as there was nothing menacing about his acting at all. The wise native American Indian chick has to be one of the most stony hard faced hags ever seen. Talk about a sour cow! She smiled about once for the entire film, and I think that is because she had sex. The sex scene was lame too. They may as well have shown blowing curtains, if you can dig that.<br /><br />Last of all, and this is a big pet hate of mine, on the cover and the DVD menu, the losers digitally drew in cool sharp teeth on the guy. They were nowhere to be seen in the film. :( | 0 |
Hybrid starts as water treatment planet security guard Aaron Scates (Cory Monteith) is involved in an accident which leaves him blind. Luckily it just so happens that brilliant scientist Dr. Andrea Hewitt (Justine Bateman) who works for Olaris has developed an operation to transplant organs from one species to another, Hewitt decides Aaron would be perfect for her first human experiment. Hewitt & her team transplant the eyes of a Wolf into Aaron & he miraculously regains his sight. Brilliant, right? Well, no not really since Aaron starts to go mad as he sees random images of Wolves & starts to develop a lust for blood. Aaron escapes the Olaris building & goes on the run but he is too valuable to just let go & a full scale search is mounted to capture him...<br /><br />Directed by Yelena Lanskaya this is yet another Sci-Fi Channel offering that is quite simply put terrible in every possible way, I think it probably started out life as a straight 'Creature Feature' but ended up as one of the most boring & dull Sci-Fi Channel films I have seen that doesn't even feature any sort of monster or creature. Hybrid is awful, the script is terrible & I am not even sure who it was meant to appeal to. The initial set-up is OK with Aaron getting Wolf eyes but then Hybrid ditches the sci-fi elements & becomes some sort of horrible drama as it focuses entirely on Aaron's mental state as he wonders around doing nothing in particular with some Native American woman. Yep, you don't think the Sci-Fi Channel could make a film about Wolves & put loads of rubbish about Native American mythology in there as well do you? The dynamics of the character's is bizarre, Aaron is shown as the persecuted hero yet he is the only character to kill anyone in the film & is a fairly unlikable, ungrateful & annoying person while Dr. Hewitt is shown as the evil scientist yet she gives Aaron back his sight & does nothing but try to help him. I mean Aaron is given back the gift of sight yet Hewitt is the villain? Also the regular Sci-Fi Channel staple of US military intervention is present, the problem is why do they want Aaron so badly? He isn't a soldier & while he has Wolves eyes to help him see in the dark he's utterly unremarkable. The script can't make it's mind up whether it's all in Aaron's mind or it's real, the ending is hilariously bad with a half naked (rememeber this was made for telly) Aaron running through a forest with a pack of Wolves set to some horrible music that I think is supposed to be emotional but makes it even more funny. There are so many things wrong with Hybrid, it's slower than hell, there's virtually no action, there's no Werewolves & the film goes round in circles trying to get into Aaron's mind yet it's all so ridiculous, silly & boring you won't care one bit & there's never any explanation as to why despite just having Wolves eyes transplanted Aaron starts to develop other Wolf senses.<br /><br />As a diabetic I have problems with my eyes, hell I have had major surgery on my right eye & I can guarantee you that after an operation your eye would be puffed up, you wouldn't be able to open it & it would hurt like hell yet despite having eye transplants as soon as Aaron wakes up in bed his eyes are perfect with no swelling or even redness. There are no special effects, no blood or gore or violence & nothing to excite you. In fact now I think about it there's nothing even remotely horror or sci-fi feeling about this, it feels like a drab film of the week.<br /><br />Filmed in Manitoba in Canada the film looks OK but is bland & forgettable. The acting is poor from all involved none of whom I have seen before & hopefully never again.<br /><br />Hybrid is a terrible film that is obviously marketed as some Werewolve 'Creature Feature' but is far from that & most people will really struggle to get to the awful ending which will probably have you in stitches. | 0 |
I couldn't believe that this movie dates from 2007, it had all the looks of a below-average seventies horror-flick. Didn't they have any knowledge of modern special effects or CGI?!? Didn't they know that in the post-millennium the violence in a supposed horror- and/or scifi-movie should at least be a little bit graphic? Or did I get the purpose wrong, was it supposed to be a deep and meaningful story of man and animal, bound together in the big cycle of life, or a warning to mankind not to mess with Nature, or something like that?? It doesn't really matter, either way it turned out wrong and to me this movie failed on all accounts.<br /><br />First of all: the premise is very improbable. If at a given time you're capable of replacing a total eye, no responsible medical scientist would start his very first human attempt with both eyes at the same time, that's totally unprofessional. And to do all this apparently without informed consent of the patient?! And why on earth choose for eyes that have a totally unusual color for humans, and make the victim look like a freak?! By the way, I noticed that all the real wolves in the movie had puppy-like normal dark eyes, couldn't they have waited for such a specimen? The story is lame, it's about this poor guy Aaron who gets these weird eye-transplants, which suddenly makes him feel like the donor-wolf (or at least, that's what I make of it) and then he's being chased by some military men. Especially this last bit is ridiculous. I mean, I can understand that the army is interested in the results of the experiment (imagine soldiers with night-vision eye-sight!) but as the operation fails on account of the apparent nervous breakdown of the patient, it's beyond me why they're out to kill him. Why not leave him alone and look for another usable recipient? (a volunteering soldier maybe??). And why try to kill everyone else that's involved with poor Aaron, isn't that a bit steep?! Who the hell are these militaries anyway, I hope not the US army or the government, they behave like psychopaths, walking around the hospital waving automatic weapons, raiding private apartments like they're after some public enemy # 1, and displaying during the ultimate show-down in the woods a total lack of discipline, like a bunch of frightened schoolchildren, panicking and shooting randomly around.<br /><br />Aaron, for some unfathomable medical reason, feels like a wolf after the transplantation of the eyes. Why would that be??? He suddenly sees visions of wandering wolves. What is this? Are we supposed to believe that the memories of the donor-wolf are situated in it's eye-balls?!? And that the recipient of these eye-balls also adopts the wolf's craving for red (life-) meat and can jump off of a 30 feet high balcony and land unharmed on his all-fours like a cat (can a wolf even DO that??!).<br /><br />The acting (or the lack thereof) didn't help the credibility of all this either: everyone stumbles through their lines like wooden dolls, especially this Indian girl, she may be pretty but she can only come up with one expression (vexed) and some disinterested mumblings about the force of Nature, and it beats me why Aaron all of a sudden is all over her (but hey, there probably had to be at least one love-scene!). I really sympathized with actor Cory Monteith, who seems like a nice guy with a handsome enough face, but they didn't give him much to go with. He has to run around bare-chested for more than half of the movie, which could have been fun to watch, but then they had better chosen someone with a more impressive physique, Monteith really should leave his shirt on. His (few) killings and attacks are hardly shown, we just hear some growling and cries of fear and then there's another victim lying down and Aaron with some more blood on his face and chest. Not much for a modern sci-fi horror! The only good acting came from Justine Bateman, and I really like to see how she has matured into a beautiful and classy forty-something lady. She did what she could with her silly lines and she even convinced me of being this doctor with good intentions, but they made her character a kind of a wimp, who gets totally bossed around by the leader of these militaries. What a pity that the script didn't make her stand up a bit more! <br /><br />In the end this sums up as being a silly and rather boring movie, hardly scary or thrilling, with unbelievable goings-on, a lot of overlong National Geographic-like visuals of wolves running around woods and slopes (who cares?!?), some pretentious Indian ramblings about Man and Nature and an uneven musical score with poppy songs at the most inappropriate moments. I guess the word "superfluous" covers it all. | 0 |
This movie has some fatal flaws in it, how someone could walk through an open back door of a highly secure medical facility is unbelievable. Then this same person just walks around the facility and enters the Dr.'s office, is just bad writing or bad editing. <br /><br />Very very very predictable movie. <br /><br />I am not sure how this film got made, except it is was filmed in Canada, and probably received a government grant. <br /><br />I must say the person playing Aaron, Cory Monteith, did a good job.<br /><br />Unless you are really bored and there is nothing else to watch on television then I would say it will kill some time, but otherwise, it is a movie no actor would want on their resume. | 0 |
The plot sounded like it had promise. To be honest I did not watch the entire movie. After about an hour into the movie I had to make a decision. Is this movie worth watching until it conclusion? The answer was clearly NO! It was not the fact that the human body could not receive a transplant from a different species without rejecting it. Nor the premise that he was being chased by secret government authorities for an human / wolf transplant. It was because the movie was badly written, acting lacked emotion and I did not understand the several dream sequences with the wolves and buffaloes. When he was running to the zoo with a dog pack and leaving them at the front of the zoo gate the saying "If you can't run with the big dogs don't leave the porch" kept running through my bored mind. Save yourself the time and skip this movie. I can guarantee if you do dare to watch it you will sit there slack jawed as I did wondering why anyone waste money, time, energy and effort to make this insulting outrage to American cinema. | 0 |
When i saw the preview for this on TV i was thinking, "ok its gonna be a good werewolf movie" but it was not. it was not scary at all! acting was good, plot was horrible, the military bid was just plain stupid. I think the SCI-FI channel could of done better than this piece of crap. The movie made it sound like Arron was going to turn into a werewolf, instead he turned psycho and bit some doctor's throat out. If you have read some of my other reviews on other movies, there all positive, but this one is not simply because the story was terrible. One out of 10 max. Im sure you all were expecting some werewolf flick, but i bet you didn't expect this. Beyond Loch Nes was way better than this movie, heck, any movie thats on the sci-fi channel is better than this movie. | 0 |
My Score for this crap: 1 / 10 1 for the technical only. Everything else is very bad. <br /><br />Another film that makes no sense. Clearly it seems that creating a good script for film or television is almost a impossible mission. <br /><br />While it's easy to understand why politicians never say the truth, they are among the biggest liars on the planet, it is difficult to understand how to make films so pathetic. <br /><br />We must believe that taking people for morons. Perhaps it was reason to believe, since 99% of the films are crap. Because they are stupid and ridiculous and very bad scenarios. <br /><br />When you look at the price we give Oscars, we understand better why we continue to make films any more ridiculous than others. <br /><br />And oddly enough it was always money for such nonsense. But it was not for education and health. <br /><br />If you still want to listen to this s**t, press super Fast Forward button (at least 20X). | 0 |
This film is probably pro-Muslimization. <br /><br />Why do I write that? The main character has a Muslim father and a Christian mother. He lives his first 20 years in a Christian village. In the end of the film he seemingly is a Muslim because of his head-wear, that he has kept his amulet, and his general clothing. He has a six year old child, who wears the same head-wear and therefore is probably a Muslim, although the mother is a Christian. The main character thus chooses to, it seems, to be a Muslim and his child becomes a Muslim. No one of the other male main characters, which are Christians, seems to breed a child. There are more Muslims in the world of this movie at the end of it, it therefore seems. | 0 |
From the moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere. | 0 |
Im still in doubt if this is just a horrible movie or the worse movie i ever saw. Actors are painful and its impossible to get into the text.<br /><br />Don't waist your time into this movie. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph. | 0 |
Marilyn Miller made only three films before her untimely death - the marvelous SALLY (1929), the comedy HER MAJESTY LOVE (1931) and this trifle - SUNNY (1930). It is quite poor both as an early talkie and as an attempt at a musical - although she has four dance numbers, she only sings two songs (WHO? and ONE MAN ALONE). The rest of the score including the spritely title tune are jettisoned, although we can hear the latter in the background scoring. Miller looks overweight and amateurish here - no star quality at all. Even her dancing is cloutish. The film is very badly written, stock full of stale and unfunny jokes and stupid situations. If you're interested in Miller as a performer, by all means, check it out, but for general entertainment, stay away. | 0 |
I have only recently been able to catch up with the films of Marilyn Miller since they are not shown on TCM in the UK.I have been much intrigued over the years because this was one of the superstars of the 20s.What was she really like.To some stars of this era like Jolson some of the magic still shines through,but alas not for Miller.Her dancing seems awkward and poorly choreographed,her singing somewhat limited and as an actress she makes Ruby Keeler seem like Hepburn.Even worse in this film as the public had grown tired of musicals virtually all of the musical numbers have been deleted.So we are left with a comedy of that period with little real appeal.She was being paid $500000 for this!So i have only two conclusion.Either she was poorly served by the cinema or she had no talent at all.I think that the truth is nearer the later than the former. | 0 |
There is a key aspect of film that Jobson seems to have forgotten - it has the ability to tell a story by showing it to you. You don't need to tell the audience what to think, because they'll see it. The action here is interspersed with some of the most ponderous narration unleashed on the unsuspecting public - the purple prose of the sensitive fifth former. And it should be unnecessary because their is a fine cast here and some beautifully composed and shot visuals. Maybe Jobbo felt that the basic story needed a lit bit of support. And he may have been right, it lacks a basic credibility: 70s Edinburgh wasn't exactly full of beautiful brainy girls with a penchant for the Velvet Underground and a soft spot for a passing sociopath. From the too neat and new looking clothes that character wears to the cod intellectualism that tries to link it all together, it's all too contrived for my taste. | 0 |
I got lured by the title... I was expecting an insightful and intriguing journey into alcoholism, instead I got a rather boring and uninspiring story about a rowdy Scot.<br /><br />The leading character isn't given much psychological depth, unless you are willing to classify cheesy teen-like poetry as psychology.<br /><br />It was a shame, because the core of the story could have been good, with a better effort to depict the inner feelings of a man who had to live with alcohol and violence since his youth.<br /><br />Sadly, the general idea seems to be more like "I'm the way I am because that's the way I am". And the laughingly bad attempt at giving some sort of poetic edge to a lower-class man makes things even worse. Resorting to the overused cliché of the "poète maudit" reeks of a quick fix, a cheap way to make a dull movie seem smart, artsy and meaningful.<br /><br />But "16 years of alcohol" isn't much smart, artsy or meaningful... The leading character doesn't evolve at all, and the feeble attempt of changing fails without a good explanation. Just like the initial attempt happened rather out of the blue.<br /><br />The movie borrows heavily from classics such as A Clockwork Orange and Trainspotting, but it ultimately fails to recapture their greatness, not even for a few seconds.<br /><br />Jobson put too much emphasis on the artistic side of the story, and neglected the rest, giving us a movie which is pleasant to the eye but insipid to the brain. | 0 |
You can often tell a movie didn't turn out like it should by the heavy use of a narrator. This film features this device throughout. Richard Jobson not entirely content to write direct and even fund some of this film adds to his credits by reading excerpts of his own semi- autobiographical writing which combined with some pretty editing manages to gloss over what is a dull depressing tale which he must be mistaking for genuine art-house. Kevin McKidd puts in a good performance. Everyone else is okay.<br /><br />Budget constraints meant that all scenes are shot in daylight though most are obviously meant to be at night, though if you know serious alcoholics they mainly operate in the day so for me it adds a touch of realism.<br /><br />The funniest part of this film is a waitress who fails to age a single day in the 20 odd years that elapse between her appearances - a more extreme version of the problem McKidd has who goes from 18 to 30 without changing more than his clothes. Bless. | 0 |
This is only the second time I stopped a video/DVD part way through.<br /><br />I was willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt at first, even though it managed to be both shallow, clichéd and stupid.. AND joyless, plodding and pretentious.<br /><br />It was like an After School Special directed by that weird grade nine kid who thinks nobody understands him... creepy and sad, with voice-over narration that only the most deluded adolescent would consider poetry... and some singing, and... no, really, the poor child's suffering...<br /><br />Enough, already, especially when it morphed into a brazen, clumsy, and insulting Clockwork Orange ripoff. And did I mention the singing?<br /><br />This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but certainly the one I've felt least compelled to sit through. I don't recommend it to anyone. | 0 |
This movie was terrible. The first half hour is much like a... well, apologies for the lack of articulation, but it was simply a bad version of A Clockwork Orange. The first scene is almost photocopied from one of the first in Clockwork! Supposedly it was a tribute, as per the appearance of the Clockwork poster on the protagonist's wall, however "ripoff" is the more appropriate word. The movie felt as though it was torn right from the Kubrick classic, only filmed through a new director's eyes. A blind director. Unfortunately when it stops its massacre of Kubrick's work, the film gets even worse. As another commentator said, the deepness of this film is just shoved down your throat. Arrogant, self absorbed and ultimately meaningless drivel.<br /><br />Perhaps the protagonists ramblings would touch a nerve if there was any actual character development in this movie. I felt absolutely nothing for this guy. And I'm an alcoholic, so I figure that if anyone might be able to feel anything for him, it would be me. Awful character development, dialogue and plot.<br /><br />The worst part about this movie is the title. For a film called "16 Years of Alcohol", the alcoholism is hardly a factor in the flick. See first paragraph - it was such a butchering of A Clockwork Orange I can't get over it. A more suited title would have been "16 Years of Violence," or, even better, "A Clockwork Banana".<br /><br />Just do yourself a favor and avoid this movie. If you disregard my advice and take it out anyway, drink. Trust me. | 0 |
This film was terrible. I have given it the high score of 2 as I have seen worse, but very few.<br /><br />From the clichéd start of having the end of the film at the start and going back to the start at the end this film used everything in the box of tricks used in film making just for the sake of it, like a kid with too many toys. There was the endless, boring repetitive narration, slow motion, freeze frame, flashbacks and merged images etc - none of which made a dull film any better.<br /><br />It is called "16 years of alcohol", but there was little drinking or drunkeness and no depiction of withdrawal with the film jumping about all over the place with no coherent sense. The story was badly written and extremely pretentious and the direction was equally poor and it is a shame that people have put up further money for more films by Mr Jobson, previously know for being in a rubbish group and on TV making as much sense as this film does.<br /><br />I found it a major struggle to see this to the end but in the hope of it getting better I carried on to the bitter but it really was a waste of time and I would have been better off not bothering. | 0 |
I found this film embarrassing to watch. I felt like it was shoving the storyline down my throat as if I couldn't pick up the subtleties I needed a voice over to spell them all out for me constantly.<br /><br />Having a father who IS still an alcoholic, I didn't really feel it was a film about alcoholism as such. Alcoholics, true alcoholics are very lonely people inside, in my opinion of course. They find it hard to communicate, something that the main character had no problem with really, except he DID have a problem saying I love you at one point- which was a bit of a feeble effort at establishing his cold character. He was constantly surrounded with people too!? <br /><br />I felt cheated that at no point were we really alone with the character to really get a sense of his inner loneliness and turmoil. I couldn't connect with the character and felt no link at all considering my father. I felt nothing at all when it had finished, just relief it was over.<br /><br />Kevin McKidd is an okay actor but not a tough guy feature lead! The clockwork orange thing was as subtle as a brick. McKidd was too old for the teen, they should have got three different characters or avoided the teen stage and concentrated more on the adult McKidd.<br /><br />On a good note, I felt the little boy actor was really good at the start of the film!! | 0 |
This film limps from self indulgent moment to self indulgent moment, promising to develop into something worth hanging on for. But it doesn't. It's flat, self conscious, unimaginative and tedious.<br /><br />A series of set images and backdrops don't make a film, they make a calendar. This kind of pitiful socialist pseudo drama documentary ("It's TRUE it REALLY happened") not only fails to entertain, it fails to convince, so it doesn't even function as social history. Clichés co-mingled with bad acting make this a film very difficult to finish, the amusement factor wearing off fairly quickly. The characters are one dimensional, never developing to the extent that one feels for them. The director's ego is the largest character in this film. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.