input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
SPLIT SECOND might have been a good movie. A story about a "road rage" homicide, has a very young Clive Owen giving a pretty good performance; BUT...but....<br /><br />Unfortunately, the filmmakers undercut their own movie with idiotic camera-work and truly awful editing. The camera jumps all over creation in an unsuccessful attempt (I suppose) to reflect Owen's stress from business, family, and traffic. What this actually does is to give the viewer a headache.<br /><br />Since the filmmakers cared nothing about making a good movie, but only to impress each other with their idiotic photography, one ought not waste time on this travesty.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only redeeming qualities this movie has are the fairly original death scenes. Other than that this movie is a big DUD. We have Kim Basinger, the beleaguered housewife slowly meandering thru the local mall for the first 30 min. of the movie, which added nothing. Then the movie picks up a bit as she has a confrontation with 4 punks who took up 2 parking spaces on this busy xmas eve. They begin to chase her after offing the local security guard who tried to help her. From there this movie gets worse, way worse. I know its only a movie and you've gotta go with the flow but she's got about a 5 min. headstart and she can't hide or find someone to help her. Instead she drives to a half built subdivision beside a forest. In typical fashion she does everything she can to allow her followers to easily track her. But now she turns into one tough mofu. You get the point. Do not under any circumstances buy or rent this movie no matter how much you like this type. It's so illogical you'll be questioning every scene. It is embarrassing for Basinger and Craig Sheffer and the rest of the cast, as well as the consumers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some of the filmmakers who are participating in this series have made some really great films but they sure as heck are not showing much skill with this series. Particularly the writing. OK, the first season was somewhat better but these new episodes they are creating just stink. I'm a huge fan of horror and in my opinion the vast majority of these episodes are total garbage. Nothing new or genuinely interesting. Few of them are visually creative. It's just typical fabricated Hollywood crap, uninteresting, childish, poorly conceived and in some cases, flat out laughable. Much like Tales from the Crypt the only good thing this series has been offering is great nudity! Other then that this series blows hard. I get the impression sometimes that they hired a bunch of eighth-graders to write the episodes. Maybe they did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I dug this out and watched it tonight. I honestly think it must be 20 years since the last time I saw it. I remember it being a seriously flawed film. I don't remember it being THIS bad!!!!!<br /><br />I am absolutely aghast that a project with this much potential should have been mistreated so reprehensibly. Who am I to blame for this? The 2 guys who wrote (and I use that word loosely) the script? The casting directors who so terribly miscast at least 3 major characters in the story? (Only 2 of them are among "the amazing 5".) The director, who clearly refused to take it seriously, and kept shoving awful music on top of bad writing & bad acting everywhere? (I LIKED the theme song-- but it should never have been used all the way throughout the entire film!) Don Black, who should be ASHAMED at some of the lyrics he wrote for that music?<br /><br />It figures that I should pull this out, less than a week after re-reading the comic-book adaptation. The first 15-20 minutes of the film more-or-less (really, LESS) parallel the first issue of the comic. As I watched it tonight, I kept wondering-- why was ALMOST every single detail changed? Doc showing up, then using his wrist-watch remote-control to open the safe, and the sniper's bullet missing him by 5 inches because the refractive glass, were just about the only things left the same. I mean, if you're gonna do an "adaptation", WHY in God's name change EVERYTHING???<br /><br />Once they leave Doc's HQ, virtually NOTHING is as it was in the comic (which, given Roy Thomas, I figure probably follows the book). I read somewhere they actually combined elements of 2 different novels into one movie. Again-- WHY? I've heard it was changed because they weren't able to secure the kind of budget they wanted. I look at the film, and think... LACK OF MONEY in NO WAY explains what I saw on the screen!!<br /><br />You know, when people complain about Joel Schumacher, they should really take a look at this thing. The best thing I can say is, I think it would make a great double-feature with the 1966 BATMAN feature-- and probably a great triple-bill with that and the 1980 FLASH GORDON. All 3 films are "silly". Maybe we can "blame" the 1966 film (and TV series) for this. Some fans have complained over the years that Adam West's BATMAN ruined the image of comic-books in the minds of generations of non-comics fans. I think the same could be said for Hollywood. I'm reminded of how many really, really BAD films based on "classic" characters have been made over the years, especially (it seems to me) in the late 70's & early 80's. Charlie Chan, Fu Manchu, Tarzan, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, The Lone Ranger-- all "murdered" by Hollywood types who think, "OH, comic-books! So you know it's supposed to be STUPID!" More like they're the "stupid" ones. What a waste of potential.<br /><br />Let me say some good things... Despite the script and the directing, Ron Ely is GREAT. When I read a DOC SAVAGE story, I don't think of the James Bama paintings, I think of Ely. Bill Lucking (who later was a regular on THE A-TEAM) is terrific. Eldon Quick (who I've seen somewhere else, but can't recall where) is terrific. Paul Gleason-- who I absolutely HATED with a passion and a vengeance in THE BREAKFAST CLUB ("teachers" like the one he played should be banned from ever teaching anywhere), may be the best of the "amazing 5" in the film. Pamela Hensley-- though her part was almost unrecognizable from the original story-- is terrific. Before she let her hair down, I also realized she looked a HELL of a lot like "Ardala Valmar" from those awful John Calkins BUCK ROGERS strips I just read the other day. She's got a big nose like Ardala-- only not quite as pronounced. The comics Ardala actually looked more like the 1936 movie Princess Aura-- or Cher. Or maybe Streisand. Take yer pick. (Ardala actually got plastic surgery in the George Tuska strips-- after, she was stunning!)<br /><br />Paul Wexler, funny enough, I saw just last week in a GET SMART episode. I wonder if he was anything like the character he was supposed to be playing? I don't know, because that character sure wasn't in the movie the film takes its title from.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Prophecy II, what's there to say about it? They've completely abandoned the originality of the first film, and simply made a Chris Walken splatter film. It's not even written by the original writer!<br /><br />If you've seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2 it's a real disappointment...<br /><br />If you haven't seen Nr. 1 don't watch Nr. 2! Go see Nr. 1 to experience something original and fun
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stereotyped, derivative, unoriginal and boring Western. The two popular stars (Charlton Heston and James Coburn) both give performances that are far from their best, and justifiably so; they both have superficial roles and character traits stated mainly by dialogue. Heston is a sheriff who "liked the world better as it used to be before" and Coburn is an outlaw who "owes something to the man who locked him up and has to pay his debt". Additionally, Heston is so old that he has trouble riding a horse and Coburn is mean and tough but not as cold-blooded a killer as some of the minor villains. Apparently, the filmmakers couldn't come up with even ONE original idea about how to make this movie somewhat distinguished. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film last night following a lot of good reviews from many sources. I would like to point out that if your not ready to try and work out continuously who is who and what it all means you will hate this film.<br /><br />I am still struggling to understand the roles of the actors in this film, the film jumps from different stories and does not allow you to really empathise with any of the roles.<br /><br />For the political buff's and those interested in corruption in other world governments out there this film is probably quite good, but to the average movie watcher this film is awkward,very boring in places and you will leave the cinema confused and annoyed that you paid the entrance fee.<br /><br />see it if your ready to focus 100% on every minute detail or politics interest you. don't see it, if you actually like watching films.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Since the 70s, writer/producer/director Charles Band has been responsible for literally hundreds of science-fiction, fantasy and horror B-movies. Some of them are wonderful examples of how to use a tiny budget to maximum effect; many of them are pretty bad. Trancers (1985) was one of those rare gems.<br /><br />A Terminator style tale of time-travel and action, Trancers saw Tim Thomerson playing Jack Deth, a future cop given the task of tracking down bad-guy Whistler, who travels into the past by inhabiting the body of an ancestor. Whistler is capable of controlling other humans with his psychic powers, converting them into obedient zombies (the 'trancers' of the title), and attempts to alter the course of history by killing off the ancestors of the leaders of the future. Jack follows him to 1985, determined to stop him.<br /><br />In this 1991 sequel, Jack is still living in 1985. Having destroyed Whistler, he has settled down and married Leena (Helen Hunt), the young woman who helped him succeed in the first movie. But, for Jack, things don't stay calm for long, and trouble appears in the form of Whistler's brother, E.D. Wardo, who is trying to build a trancer army.<br /><br />Trancers II lacks the charm and simplicity of the original and is a huge disappointment considering how good the original was. The story is difficult to pick up if you haven't seen the first film (or at least not for a long while), and there is loads of unimpressive action and a few poor special effects. Gone is the inventiveness and wit that made Trancers so much fun; instead we get some cheesy one-liners and a script that feels like it was written on-the-fly.<br /><br />About the only reason I can give for recommending this film to fans of the genre is the cast, which boasts many names that will be familiar to followers of sci-fi and horror movies: Jeffrey Combs, Barbara Crampton, Richard Lynch, Martine Beswicke. Unfortunately, most of them seemed to be having an 'off day' whilst filming Trancers II, and performances are mediocre at best.<br /><br />The Trancers series obviously has its fans; four further sequels have since been churned out. Unless the quality has taken up massive upward swing, I can't imagine them being any good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do you guys wanna know a secret?. This movie sucks. Well actually i don't know because if you allow yourself to be indulged by plagiarised versions of original movies, then perhaps you may find this movie astounding (this movie being a plagiarised copy of i know what you did last summer). The first 30 minutes of the movie is based on a typical story setting; a bunch of so-called cool teenagers relishing their vacation in Florida and being themselves by behaving very much like the juveniles they are. The only insight we get at this point is the extent to which the director succeeded in illustrating a pretentious sense of adolescent decadence within the characters. The second half hour of the movie gains a little momentum and begins to illustrate a start to the no- where-near unprecedented killings. The third half hour of the movie will most definitely remain a mystery to me because i switched it off before i could further delude myself into thinking that the movie may still have something interesting and original left to show. As far as the story is concerned, it can easily be explained in a few lines. A bunch of teenagers go to Florida on vacation. While they are busy partying, they slowly (and i mean SLOWLY) begin to get killed because they know some sort of silly secret. The only thread to the killings is that all victims were matriculates of a common high school. One thing that did however amaze me about this movie, was how much betty (im not sure about her name..the blonde character) looks like reese witherspoon. Another thing that amazed me about the movie was that it made me jump from my seat a few times. Does that make it a work of art? absolutely not because my 12 year old niece made me drop a glass of orange juice because she "boo'ed" me when i was just about to go through the guest room door..whats the difference between the director and my 12 year old niece???? <br /><br />Do you wanna know a secret??? I'm not sure about you guys, but i don't..
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't think I'm too far off base saying that this is possibly the worst movie I've ever seen. I've been working on a list of my favorite war movies: "The Longest Day," "To Hell and Back," "Bridge on the River Kwai," (all black and white) which all have good plots, rich characters and great acting. I've seen better dialog and acting in student-written high school one act plays. The plot, however isn't a bad premise - just poorly implemented. It's kind of like a traffic accident, though, I couldn't seem to turn it off! A movie doesn't need big money or great sets i.e. "Twelve Angry Men" and "Lifeboat" to be good... so budget is no excuse. What were they thinking?
|
Negative
| null | null |
If there's one thing you can count on Disney to do, it's their uncanny ability to take a story and tell it again and again and again. Even watching the commercial for Lady and the Tramp II was a horrible experience. Disney's going to ruin one of their most awesome classics ever. It even had that spaghetti meatball scene. It's been done before! And that's what I say to this sorry direct to video(the entire concept should be banned). Everything is just a rehash of the original movie and even several of Bluth's really bad movies. The penguin and walrus duo(I've even forgotten their names) are just a really poor carbon copy of Timon and Pumbaa. Morgana is another Ursula. She even repeats practically all her old lines. The songs are pathetic, really abysmal. I've never heard songs so bad from them before until now. And the dialogue is atrocious. It's pathetic and simplistic. On the plus side, at least they took the time to make the animation somewhat decent. All of the usual characters aren't as annoying as they used to be(or maybe that's a minus for Little Mermaid fans). Back on the negative, Melody is just so sickeningly cute you just might vomit. I almost did. Do yourself and your Little Mermaid fan a favor. Don't waste your money on this. True, it's not as horrific as Return of Jafar or Pocahontas II, but that's little consolation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cecil B. deMille's 1922 parlor-to-prison tearjerker Manslaughter finds the lovely Leatrice Joy as a good-at-heart but decadent young lady with more money than she knows what to do with. Her recklessness leads to imprisonment, which in turn leads to her regeneration. Thomas Meighan is the crusading district attorney who has made it his personal crusade to bring out the goodness and wholesomeness in Lydia (Joy) but he gets sidetracked by alcohol and once she is released, it is up to her to rescue him!<br /><br />If the plot doesn't sound too bad, you'll be floored by the woeful presentation. The quality of deMille's direction is very low, and he does not show any particular skill that is unique to him. The photography is standard and flat, and the editing is hardly more dynamic. One could easily classify it as a fashion show and be pretty correct. DeMille gets to dress Miss Joy up in so many different types of clothes (evening gowns, golfing costumes, motoring costumes, piles of furs) that it's subtitle could be 'Fashions of 1922'<br /><br />One thing more disappointing than the photography or editing or the direction is the acting, which is mostly flat and wooden. When it is not, it is merely routine silent gesturing, rolling eye balls, twitching eye brows and deliberate pointing and arm movements. What would have been enlivened for modern viewers by mugging and scene chewing of some of the worst silent films, is here merely dull to watch. The only member of the cast who succeeds in any form of excellence is Lois Wilson, who is not only beautiful but is able to play her role naturally. She is convincing and endearing in tearful close-ups, as long as you don't read the moralizing title card that follows once she opens her mouth to speak. Like I said, everybody else is droningly routine, Joy, Meighan, even Julia Faye. Her performance here makes a good argument for why she never attained true stardom.<br /><br />The worst and most amusing part of this movie is the heavy moralistic tone that carries through all of it. Meighan's character has plenty of intertitles where he drones on about how the youth of America is declining in it's moral stance, and going right back to the decadence of Rome. (insert absurd flashback) This movie's moralizing has been described as Victorian, but it's further than that. It has so little bearing in reality that I have a feeling audiences at that time didn't take it any more seriously than modern viewers could.<br /><br />This movie is exactly what the unknowing tend to think of as a 'typical' silent movie, with it's archaic moral structure, wooden acting and bad direction. DeMille shows that he could be a terrible director, with no sense of pacing, camera placement, or skill in handling either script or actors. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind taking it seriously. Boring, slow and idiotic, I recommend it to hardcore silent movie dorks like myself only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.<br /><br />The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Can A-Pix ever, ever, ever do anything right? This movie was meant to be seen on TV in a letterbox format. Since A-Pix doesn't even believe in pan and scan, we see whole scenes where a shoulder on the left side of the screen talks to a shoulder on the right side. Of course, not that you are missing much. This movie is incredibly bad. It's very hard to enjoy a film where characters are screaming at the top of their lungs during 80% of the movie for no reason.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is bizarre. Better put, it's "freakin' weird". I could give you a plot summary, or some hoity toity analysis, but I would consider it a waste of your time. All anybody needs to know about this movie is two young sisters, one incestuous relationship, homicide, post mortem mutilation, and one really disturbing infatuation. At the end of the movie you feel like you need to go take a shower to wash the filth off yourself, but not in a good way like after "Pulp Fiction" or "Fight Club". It's like you're a teenager (or high schooler being that i am myself still a teenager)and have just done something you A: wish you hadn't done, and B: hope to the Good Lord of Heaven and Earth that your parents never find out about. And nobody likes that. My advise is that rather than defiling your mind and by watching piece of wanton cinematic filth, just go waste your time on something a little less horrible and watch "Kazaam"(yes, I would rather watch "Kazaam" than "Murderous Maids", read into it what you want).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why did I waste 1.5 hours of my life watching this? Why was this film even made? Why am I even commenting on this film?<br /><br />One reviewer said this film took patience to watch and it was n't for everybody. I cannot figure out who this movie is for. maybe after dropping a hit of acid, SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE could watch this and make some sense out of it. It is incoherent, it isn't experimental, it's plain and simple garbage. The film follows no plot line whatsoever, just when you think you have something, well.....you don't. <br /><br />I think the ending brought some finality to the film (no pun intended), the viewer gets a glimpse of what might have been going on. I don't think I put a spoiler in here, not that it would matter. This film is another must miss in the world of filmdom.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity).
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The funniest scene of this movie is probably when our saviours get their medals and plaques and whatnot. So the basic idea is, the police outnumbers these gangsters by like a million to one, but they're powerless because the villains' guns are just a bit bigger. I guess police ammo just kinda bounces of. They decided to shoot this movie in documentary style with fake interviews and all and seriously, what is wrong with these guys? They're talking like they were armed with rolled-up newspapers. Okay I admit, it's probably still dangerous to be in the line of the fire, even when the situation is so much to your advantage, but don't go nuts. And why the hell did it take 44 minutes to solve everything anyway? I'd say that's a very long time when you have them surrounded and you're allowed to shoot. They're like ten ft. away, they hit absolutely nothing. Then they go and buy bigger guns themselves to increase their heroism. And then yeah, there you have it, one of the cops actually hits someone. Bullet was probably diverted by a lamp post or something. I had a good laugh I guess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the first moment, this "thing" is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. While the overall plot has every potential for a thriller, the story is so badly told that I'm unable to buy it. From the middle of the film, the actions of characters don't make sense to me. Stop reading now to avoid SPOILERS.<br /><br />For instance, Ed's idea to have Edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son's arm is way below his alleged experience; it's just an extremely stupid idea. Domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from Claremont Williams over a breaking-up phone connection just eludes me; shouldn't she be long suspicious that Williams is turning them in? Those FBI agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot-out. Besides, what they do by withholding and leaking information towards Cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder; it seems to me like farewell to justice if that's they way the FBI does investigations. In reality, they'd have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. We get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. Quite the contrary, the accident is immediately followed by Domino making love to Choco, which is from Domino's viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs.<br /><br />The whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of Claremont Williams appears to me just as want-to-be dramatic razzle-dazzle. This combined with the awful, uneasy camera work just makes a piece I hesitate to call a movie. I'm sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors, whose talent is out of question.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If this is supposed to be the black experience, let me out at either the front or back door.<br /><br />A mama's boy one day sees 2 young hoods walk by and from then on it's all down hill for him. Angela Bassett, the one shining grace in this film, plays his over protective, religious mother. Despite her anger at how his life has turned, by the middle of the picture, she really decides to accept this. She allows his friends to come in and suddenly it's all right to use the profanity as long as it's not in front of the children.<br /><br />This is a sad state of affairs regarding gangster rap. You knew where this film was heading.<br /><br />I literally laughed out loud when at the end, when Bassett is accompanying her son's body for burial, she states that while his life had been cut short at age 24, he had become a man. What man? He had been a convicted criminal, wrote the most atrocious rap music with constant vulgarity,and scorned society. That scene in the classroom where he tells a teacher that as a sanitation worker, he will earn more than the teacher is a perfect example of what goes on in our schools. The complete and utter lack of respect for the teacher.<br /><br />The east coast, west coast gang rap rivalry is never fully explained. All we see are guns blazing.<br /><br />A terrible picture doing nothing to prevent gang violence. What horrible role models are these rap singers and their foul music. The African American community should take umbrage at their very being. Who was this classless fat slob who portrayed Biggie? He made Rerun from the old television show look thin by comparison. I know it was the streets of Bedford Stuyvesant that changed this chubby little boy into the vulgar monster that he was. What a sorry state of affairs when this is called motion picture entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Altered Species starts one Friday night in Los Angeles where Dr. Irwin (Guy Vieg) & his laboratory assistant Walter (Allen Lee Haff) are burning the midnight oil as they continue to try & perfect a revolutionary new drug called 'Rejenacyn'. As Walter tips the latest failed attempt down the sink the pipes leak the florescent green liquid into the basement where escaped lab rats begin to drink it... Five of Walter's friends, Alicia (Leah Rown in a very fetching outfit including some cool boots that she gets to stomp on a rat with), Gary (Richard Peterson), Burke (Derek Hofman), Frank (David Bradley) & Chelsea (Alexandra Townsend) decide that he has been working too hard & needs to get out so they plan to pick him up & party the night away. Back at the lab & the cleaner Douglas (Robert Broughton) has been attacked & killed by the now homicidal rats in the basement as Walter injects the latest batch of serum in a lab rat which breaks out of it's cage as it grows at an amazing rate. Walter's friends turn up but he can't leave while the rat is still missing so everyone helps him look for it. All six become potential rat food...<br /><br />Also known as Rodentz Altered Species was co-edited & directed by Miles Feldman & has very little to recommend it. The script by producer Serge Rodnunsky is poor & coupled together with the general shoddiness of the production as a whole Altered Species really is lame. For a start the character's are dumb, annoying & clichéd. Then there's the unoriginal plot with the mad scientist, the monster he has created, the isolated location, the stranded human cast & the obligatory final showdown between hero & monster. It's all here somewhere. Altered Species moves along at a fair pace which is just about the best thing I can say about it & thankfully doesn't last that long. It's basically your average run-of-the-mill killer mutant rat film & not a particularly good one at that either.<br /><br />Director Feldman films like a TV film & the whole thing is throughly bland & forgettable while some of the special effects & attack scenes leave a lot to be desired. For a start the CGI rats are awful, the attack sequences feature hand-held jerky camera movement & really quick edits to try & hide the fact that all the rats are just passively sitting there. At various points in Altered Species the rat cages need to shake because of the rats movement but you can clearly see all the rats just sitting there as someone shakes the cages off screen. The giant rat monster at the end looks pretty poor as it's just a guy in a dodgy suit. There are no scares, no tension or atmosphere & since when did basements contain bright neon lighting? There are one or two nice bits of gore here, someone has a nice big messy hole where their face used to be, there's a severed arm & decapitation, lots of rat bites, someone having their eyeball yanked out & a dead mutilated cat.<br /><br />Technically Altered Species is sub standard throughout. It takes place within the confines of one building, has cheap looking CGI effects & low production values. The acting isn't up to much but it isn't too bad & a special mention to Leah Rowan as Alicia as she's a bit of a babe & makes Altered Species just that little bit nicer & easier to watch...<br /><br />Altered Species isn't a particularly good film, in fact it's a pretty bad one but I suppose you could do worse. Not great but it might be worth a watch if your not too demanding & have nothing else to do.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Worst show I've ever seen. The story is about a group of teenagers who, for some inexplicable reason, have super powers, and when they use some special device, they morph into strange, poorly designed suits. The acting when they're not in the retarded-looking suits is decent. Definitely not good, but not the worst acting I've ever seen. However, when wearing their suits, the actors' acting goes from bad to worse; much, much worse. The hyper-animated idiots have a myriad of unnecessary motions they do. Even when they talk they look like they're having seizures. The villains are stupider than the Rangers. Every episode, some weak, idiotic villain comes up with some plan to destroy the Rangers. He/she then sends a force of hyper-animated aliens to attack the Rangers. The Rangers then initialize their 10-hour transforming animation, then they annihilate the aliens. Then, the poorly designed villain, which can either be an armored villain that actually looks and acts evil, to a humanoid ladybug-like creature with trumpets attached to its back that shows obvious signs of mental retardation. The Power Rangers fight the villain off, then the villain turns into Godzilla, whether it be by a rain cloud or a nuclear missile (yes, they fire nukes at the creatures and the creatures turn into giants). The Power Rangers spend 5 minutes acting hyper-animated and summon their Zords which are obviously toys that the producers of the show used special effects on to make them look real. The Power Rangers win, the villain gets mad, they all teach a "valuable" lesson, and the show ends. That's it. Twenty-five minutes of brain-washing, fake kung fu fighting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For starters and for the record, the term "Necromancy" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. "Necromancy" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like "Earth vs. the Spider", "King Dinosaur" and "Food of the Gods") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and "owner" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody "own" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of "Rosemary's Baby" one of the alternate titles even is "Rosemary's Disciples" but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? "Necromancy" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance undoubtedly the low point of his career is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have not yet seen anyone slate this film and i think i may be the first.<br /><br />It was awful. I actually didn't watch the end of it. It was like watching a boring soap or a really good one (all soaps are crap). The actors were poor and storyline was bad. The person who rated it 10/10 has no idea what he is on about. The script was awful. 2 People was in an angry conversation together involving threats and you expect the good guy to say some thing really good and beat the crap out of him but no. He says "If you do that ... I will hurt you" Hahahahaha. If comedy is your thing, watch away. Please do not watch this film because ... It's CRAP!!! <br /><br />Summary: Poor acting, bad fights, bad script.<br /><br />Don't watch! Of course this is in my opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not good! Rent or buy the original! Watch this only if someone has a gun to your head and then....maybe.<br /><br />It is like claiming an Elvis actor is as good as the real King.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is really unbelievable. I've seen so much cheap trash-movies, especially a lot 'Full Moon'-Pictures, but 'Dollman' is really hard. So much comes together: the laughable story, the actors always at the edge of parody and the special effects! How long I could talk about them! It is a really bad movie, but also one of the funniest ones. If you're a fan of bad movies to laugh about, you have to see it. And don't miss 'Dollman vs. Demonic Toys'. It really funnier and worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite unfortunately thinking itself to be (a) intelligent, (b) important and (c) interesting, fortunately this movie is over mercifully quickly. The script makes little sense, the whole idea of the sado-masochistic relationship between the two main characters is strangely trite, and John Lydon shows us all, in the space of one movie, why he should never have let himself out of music. His performance is one-note and irritating.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said is that Harvey Keitel manages to deliver a good turn. His later Bad Lieutenant would show just how badly good actors can act, but mercifully his performance here is restrained.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen bad films but this took the p***. Made no sense, and all the characters do is swear every couple of seconds, oh and i think one has a low sperm count. Its that good. A welshman plays a sweary cockney. A posh english bloke plays a foul mouthed unlovable rogue of a paddy, and some lesser lights play dim tarts.<br /><br />And there are some Russian gangsters. Oh yes some one has a gun and maybe talks rubbish whilst high on drugs.<br /><br />Avoid this film like the plague.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Every year I watch hundreds of films, including many low budget amateurish straight-to-DVD abominations that nobody in their right mind would ever want to see. I have seen thousands of films in my time, many excellent, many forgettable. Zombie Nation I will remember forever as one of the most hopelessly laughable 'horror' films I have ever seen in fact I still haven't recovered from the experience of watching it.<br /><br />The day after, it seems like some kind of weird dream. Did I really see what I thought I saw? Why do the police work out of a warehouse? Did the voodoo priestesses really recommend that the 'zombies' eat cheeseburgers? Is it safe? Is it safe? Is it safe? <br /><br />I wouldn't recommend Zombie Nation if you want to see a 'good' film, and neither would I recommend it as 'so bad its good'. However, if you are entertained by the prospect of watching probably the most indefensibly abysmal film ever this is for you. Now, whenever anyone asks me what the worst film I have ever seen is, I will say Zombie Nation.<br /><br />Seriously I think it's a greater crime to make a boring film than a bad one, and Ulli Lommel deserves credit for producing a film that actually stuns you with its ineptitude. He really is the Ed Wood Jr. of the digital age, and I for one can't wait to see if he makes another film as consistently ridiculous as this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would rather of had my eyes gouged out with rusty ice picks than have had to sit through this abortion. There is no plot. There is no acting ability . Ray Liota has shamed himself and should be blacklisted from any more work. I am so sorry that the industry allows crap like this to be shown on any type of medium. <br /><br />Rumor has it that Maddona threw herself to the floor to break her other arm so she could be taken away on a stretcher. Actullly, she deserves to be married to this loser and wanna-be-actor-director. I hope she stays in London and never returns to the USA. Please do not waste your money on this so called film. I beg of you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)<br /><br />I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues. <br /><br />Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act. <br /><br />On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film. <br /><br />In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame. <br /><br />In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Inspector Gadget was probably my all-time favorite 80's cartoon. I enjoyed both the first and second seasons of the series as well as 1992's Christmas special "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas". Some Gadget fans are quick to criticize the second season (1985) of the show, but they need to compare it to DiC's 2002 release of "Inspector Gadget's Last Case: Claw's Revenge" for then, they will find the second season to be absolute gold.<br /><br />Being a Gadget fan, I couldn't resist the opportunity to see the animated Inspector Gadget in something that wasn't Gadget Boy-related. I purchased the film, and I swore to myself that I'd be objective; I knew that sometimes artistic liberties would be taken from the original series. I was not even prepared for what I was about to watch.<br /><br />There was barely a shred of the original show still intact.<br /><br />Here is a short list of just some of the cons for this movie: *The humor is non-existent from the original series.<br /><br />*Penny and Brain (originally having a nearly equal part in the series as Gadget) are missing from the action for fifteen to twenty minute intervals.<br /><br />*The original music by Saban & Levy is not there, and the score that exists is sub-par. (Understood that Saban has his own production company now, but at least "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" had good music, even without Saban.) *Don't expect to see any of Gadget's gadgets which made the show so endearing, such as gadget-copter, gadget-brella, gadget-mallet,gadget-coat (which actually was used but it was not even called the same thing), as well as his standard other hat and hand gadgets. In this movie, his gadget legs were telescopic instead of springs. That kind of stuff annoys true fans of the show, and simply aren't necessary to change.<br /><br />*The gadgetmobile from the original series is now a fast-talking, supposedly "hip" convertible. All the fans from the original series enjoyed the gadgetmobile transforming into the gadget van and vice versa.<br /><br />*Chief Quimby is now very short-tempered and even mean to Gadget. He was always grumpy in the original series, but this pushes the situation a bit much.<br /><br />*Penny no longer has a computer book.<br /><br />Are there any positives to this movie? OK, here goes...<br /><br />*Maurice LaMarche does a good job of taking over for the great Don Adams as Inspector Gadget.<br /><br />*In one scene, Chief Quimby alludes to an actual villain from the cartoon series: the Great Wambini (classic "Gadget" villain from the second season, voiced by Louis Nye).<br /><br />Looking for more redeeming factors for this movie? Well, you're out of luck. Life is about making choices and living by those choices. Most situations in life have a purpose even if it is to teach a lesson. The lesson learned here: keep to the original formula! "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." True Gadget fans should steer clear from this movie; you will surely be disappointed.<br /><br />Hopefully, DiC and Shout! Factory will continue to release more of the original series after the 2006 release of "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1," containing the first 22 episodes of the series. As a true Gadget fan, lover of 80's animation and many of DiC's programs, I urge you the viewer to purchase "Inspector Gadget: The Original Series, Volume 1" and "Inspector Gadget Saves Christmas" DVD's which are excellent and sure to bring back good memories.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If it wasn't for the performances of Barry Diamond and Art Evans as the clueless stoners, I would have no reason to recommend this to anyone.<br /><br />The plot centers around a 10 year high school reunion, which takes place in a supposed abandon high school(looks more like a prop from a 1950s low budget horror flick), and the deranged student the class pulled a very traumatizing prank on. This student desires to kill off the entire class for revenge.<br /><br />John Hughes falls in love with his characters too much, as only one student is killed as well as the lunch lady(Goonies' Anne Ramsey). We're led to believe that the horny coupled gets killed, but never see a blasted thing! This is a horrible movie that continued National Lampoon's downward spiral throughout the 80s and 90s.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Disney goes to the well one too many times as anybody who has seen the original LITTLE MERMAID will feel blatantly ripped off. Celebrating the birth of their daughter Melody, Ariel and Eric plan on introducing her to King Triton. The celebration is quickly crashed by Ursula 's sister, Morgana who plans to use Melody as a defense tool to get the King 's trident. Stopping the attack, Ariel and Eric build a wall around the ocean while Melody grows up wondering why she cannot go in there.<br /><br />Awful and terrible is what describes this direct to video sequel. LITTLE MERMAID 2 gives you that feeling everything you watch seemed to have come straight other Disney movies. I guess Disney can only plagiarize itself! Do not tell me that the penguin and walrus does not remind you of another duo from the LION KING!<br /><br />Other disappointing moments include the rematch between Sebastien and Louie, the royal chef. They terribly under played it! The climax between Morgana and EVERYONE seemed to be another disappointment.<br /><br />I will not give anything away, but in 75 minutes, everything seemed incredibly cramped and too much to handle. An embarrassment to Disney, LITTLE MERMAID 2 is better left to rent and laugh at. Then you can prepare for the rest of the other sequels Disney is going to drown you in later on.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was so ridiculous i never even finished watching it i actually thought someone had made their own version and dubbed it onto the DVD from the movie store. This movie made me sick not because it was gory, but because i wasted 2 50 on it!!!! It looks like my brother and i went into a house and made the movie ourselves and edited slaughterhouse footage into it! I am so ticked off, even The BTK Killer deserves more credit than that it was not even accurate i mean come on the cow head was obviously made out of play dough or BUBBLE GUM OMG I cant even get all the words out to explain it DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I purchased this film for $5 in a bargain bin at my local video store for one reason only, Chase Masterson, but I should have crumbled up the five, thrown it in a toilet and flushed. The film is about a bunch of twenty somethings that peaked in high school and reunite on the anniversary of their idiot friends death, who got drunk and wandered into the woods and died. There problem is a reptilian monster is hunting them down one by one. The acting is abysmal, these worthless people were apparently cast offs on shows like 90210 and Dawsons Creek. The directing was on par with a twelve year old and the script was probably done by a thirteen year old. The entire set looks like someone's backyard in Malibu. The people on here that have praised this film are obviously friends of the director and/or actors. Avoid this pile of garbage at ALL costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Al Pacino? Kim Basinger? Tea Leoni? Ryan O'Neal? Richard Schiff? My mouth was watering. I dropped everything to watch this movie on Cable. 30 minutes in I was having trouble staying awake. 60 minutes in and I hit the record button and fell asleep. Finished watching it the next morning. Shouldn't have bothered. What a waste of a great cast and an idea that could have been an interesting story of a "Day in the Life..." Cure your insomnia if you have it and watch this movie. I guarantee you at least an hour and a half of uninterrupted sleep. Dialogue horrible. Continuity non-existent. Camera work could have been done with a hand held Super 8 and looked better. <br /><br />This movie was a total disaster.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Roman Polanski has made many, many movies that are unexceptional. His fame bewilders me. Nothing stands out as a high point except Chinatown (I haven't seen 'Knife in the Water' or 'Tess'). Any contribution he's made to film concluded more than twenty years ago; his work is just embarrassing, safe and/or dull (The Pianist, Frantic, Oliver Twist, The Ninth Gate, Pirates).<br /><br />R's Baby must have signified the end of the establishment at the time it came out. It's lux-produced and fairly high concept for a 1968 'horror' movie (never show the baby). But this is just misconceived horror sap. Everything is arty to the point that the plot line becomes hopelessly clear very early (Um, thanks for that finale-destroying title), and on a clear day you can see the twist ending coming for days. It did not sustain my interest. I find that whatever this movie might have been, it is utterly derailed by the 1960's version of what femininity was. Farrow is such a chronic distracted, helpless waif/housewife. Her frailty is oversold... she's irritating in the extreme. There's no real ideas in it... nothing to consider except being the mother of the devil.<br /><br />The Dakota is barely exploited for it eerie potential.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some have praised _Atlantis:_The_Lost_Empire_ as a Disney adventure for adults. I don't think so--at least not for thinking adults.<br /><br />This script suggests a beginning as a live-action movie, that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. The "crack staff" of many older adventure movies has been done well before, (think _The Dirty Dozen_) but _Atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. The characters are weak. Even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. An MD/Medicine Man, a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons, if we have not at least seen these before, we have seen mix-and-match quirks before. The story about how one companion, Vinny played by Don Novello (Fr. Guido Sarducci), went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing.<br /><br />Only the main character, Milo Thatch, a young Atlantis-obsessed academic voiced by Michael J. Fox, has any depth to him. Milo's search for Atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. The opening scene shows a much younger Milo giddily perched on a knee, as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head.<br /><br />And while the characters were thin at best, the best part about _Atlantis_ was the voice talent. Perhaps Milo's depth is no thicker than Fox's charm. Commander Rourke loses nothing being voiced by James Garner. Although Rourke is a pretty stock military type, Garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. Garner's vocal performance is the high point. I'm sorry to say Leonard Nimoy's Dying King is nothing more than obligatory. Additionally, Don Novello as the demolition expert, Vinny Santorini, was also notable for one or two well-done, funny lines--but I've always liked Father Guido Sarducci, anyway. <br /><br />Also well done was the Computer Animation. The BACKGROUND animation, that is. The character animation has not been this bad for Disney since the minimalism that drove Don Bluth out the door. The character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. Aside from landscapes, buildings and vehicles there isn't much to impress.<br /><br />The plot was the worst. Some say hackneyed or trite. I'm not so sure about that. Any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. Shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. So the treatment is the thing. And _Atlantis_ obviously lacks that.<br /><br />I cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. The plot was bad. The plot's bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. To add to that, the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness.<br /><br />** SPOILERS **<br /><br />1. Right at the beginning when Milo reveals that runic or Celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the "Coast of Ireland" should read the "Coast of Iceland", we begin to have problems. The writers of the script would need to know the British take for Eire or Eireann as "Ireland", and completely ignore the older, Latin term Hibernia. But more than this, they need to know of the Vikings conspiracy to call the greener island Iceland and the icier island Greenland. <br /><br />By making it the matter of a mis-tranliterated "letter", the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of English and a post-Roman date on the script. Since this is long after Atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. And without visible clues and less technology than Milo had, made the inscription far less trustworthy.<br /><br />2. The Shepard's Journal could not be written before the sinking of Atlantis, or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying "in the King's eye". It must have been written after the sinking, but without even the technology that Milo's expedition had, how the heck did anybody get by the Leviathan. So how could it know more about anything after that? And why would it be written in Atlantian? <br /><br />Automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. However clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in Atlantian. So it's got to be some sort automatic writing. Since noone left in Atlantis can read, it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. This would have made more sense. But could also have been explained within the movie: Milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life--appeared in dreams, etc. This needed to be explored in the movie.<br /><br />3. The Atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. No-one expects that the original Indo-Europeans would be able to converse in Europe, anymore than Romans would understand that hard "c"s or their day became French "ch"s (pronounced like "sh"s, no less!)<br /><br />4. Current Atlantians were alive before the cataclysm--when apparently they *could* read, yet now are unable to read what they used to, or operate similar machinery. <br /><br />5. The Mass Illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. NOTHING seems to have happened to this culture. It seems suspended in air until Milo can rescue it. Even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival, no-one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of Atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused Atlantis to fall into illiteracy.<br /><br />5. Kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the Cataclysm of Stupidity set in--But ANY OF IT **HARDLY** qualifies her father for Deification!! Kashakim's foolishness almost single-handedly wiped his people from existence. Killed a bunch in the cataclysm, stalled progress (not a lot killed here, but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody, if they weren't boiled in lava first because the Giant Robots weren't there to protect them. <br /><br />A bolt of blue electricity should have shattered Kashakim's likeness, when Kida tried joining her father's image to the circle of GREAT Kings of Atlantis! <br /><br />6. Even though Milo was the only one who could read Atlantian, Rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal--which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or "phases of the sun" diagram.<br /><br />7. If Milo's grandfather had told Rourke about it, it still does not explain what how Rourke would have suffered from Milo's reading it as part of the book. Ripping out the page--which was dog-eared in Rourke's hand, even though Milo found NO sign of a torn page in the book apparently--only was there to tip off the viewer that "something was not quite right". Unless the word "crystal" would have set alarms off in Milo's head that somebody would try to steal it, Milo would have suspected nothing. It's just thick-headed foreshadowing.<br /><br />8. The crew's "double-cross" was not a character change. We learned that Vinny, Sweet, Audrey and Cookie had been going along with Rourke from the beginning. However, the "change of heart" falls flat. It was a change, and needed to be better motivated. Hard to do with characters who weren't given anything to begin with.<br /><br />9. Niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome, instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. It's liquid; it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas.<br /><br />10. The ending STINKS!-- and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. With it's powersource restored, Atlantis is no longer a weak power, needing coddling. The giant robot guardians and the sky-cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. The technology is superior to ours, and definitely to early 20th-century. In the end Milo needs to teach the Atlantians to read, for what? The whole idea is to leave their little quiet, chastened culture alone, not to send it into hyperdrive. <br /><br />** END SPOILERS **<br /><br />Perhaps, the Lost World plot and the turn-of-the-century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. The failures I find with the film agree with this idea. But I am at a loss why I should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. And pulp stories is part of the "crap they can't sell adults anymore", anyway. We have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. Raiders of the Lost Ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness.<br /><br />4 out of 10--the movie is enjoyable but as I think about the plot, it seeps ever lower.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Beating the bad guys... Again is the tag line for this movie, it exposes so much truth about it.<br /><br />Home Alone one and two, film classics. Home Alone three and four, a good film if you're three! Like Sharkboy and Lavagirl, as hard as it tries to be funny, it's not. Culkin is replaced by Alex D'Linz or something else. He's a very bland actor with bland performances, but it's not entirely his fault, the writing called for bland vocabulary and bland expressions. The pranks are just copied from the first two with different crooks, and you'd have to be blind to think those chicken pox are real. A good choice if you are a preschool teacher in which is showing this film on a rainy day. And to make things worst, a totally different cast, go see if you don't believe me, but you'll regret it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What Hopkins does succeed at with this effort as writer and director is giving us a sense that we know absolutely no one in the film. However, perhaps therein lies the problem. His movie has a lot of ambition and his intentions were obviously complex and drawn from very deep within, but it's so impersonal. There are no characters. We never know who anyone is, thus there is no investment on our part.<br /><br />It could be about a screenwriter intermingle with his own characters. Is it? Maybe. By that I don't mean that Slipstream is ambiguous; I mean that there is no telling. Hopkins's film is an experiment. On the face of it, one could make the case that it is about a would-be screenwriter, who at the very moment of his meeting with fate, realizes that life is hit and miss, and/or success is blind chance, as he is hurled into a "slipstream" of collisions between points in time, dreams, thoughts, and reality. Nevertheless, it is so unremittingly cerebral that it leaves no room for any hint of emotion, even to the tiny, quite rudimentary extent of allowing us a connection with its characters.<br /><br />I didn't think the nippy and flamboyant school of shaky, machine-gun-speed camera-work and editing disengaged me, but reflecting upon the film I am beginning to realize that it had a lot to do with it. There are so many movies of the past decade in which the cuts or camera movement have sound effects as well as other atmosphere-deteriorating technical doodads. I suppose in this case it was justified in that its purpose was to compose the impressionistic responsiveness of dreams. However, I knew barely anything about Slipstream when watching it, and I came out the same way. And I just do not care, because Hopkins made no effort to make us care. There are interactive movies, and there are movies that sit in a rocking chair and knit, unaware of your presence. Slipstream is the latter.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I was little my parents took me along to the theater to see Interiors. It was one of many movies I watched with my parents, but this was the only one we walked out of. Since then I had never seen Interiors until just recently, and I could have lived out the rest of my life without it. What a pretentious, ponderous, and painfully boring piece of 70's wine and cheese tripe. Woody Allen is one of my favorite directors but Interiors is by far the worst piece of crap of his career. In the unmistakable style of Ingmar Berman, Allen gives us a dark, angular, muted, insight in to the lives of a family wrought by the psychological damage caused by divorce, estrangement, career, love, non-love, halitosis, whatever. The film, intentionally, has no comic relief, no music, and is drenched in shadowy pathos. This film style can be best defined as expressionist in nature, using an improvisational method of dialogue to illicit a "more pronounced depth of meaning and truth". But Woody Allen is no Ingmar Bergman. The film is painfully slow and dull. But beyond that, I simply had no connection with or sympathy for any of the characters. Instead I felt only contempt for this parade of shuffling, whining, nicotine stained, martyrs in a perpetual quest for identity. Amid a backdrop of cosmopolitan affluence and baked Brie intelligentsia the story looms like a fart in the room. Everyone speaks in affected platitudes and elevated language between cigarettes. Everyone is "lost" and "struggling", desperate to find direction or understanding or whatever and it just goes on and on to the point where you just want to slap all of them. It's never about resolution, it's only about interminable introspective babble. It is nothing more than a psychological drama taken to an extreme beyond the audience's ability to connect. Woody Allen chose to make characters so immersed in themselves we feel left out. And for that reason I found this movie painfully self indulgent and spiritually draining. I see what he was going for but his insistence on promoting his message through Prozac prose and distorted film techniques jettisons it past the point of relevance. I highly recommend this one if you're feeling a little too happy and need something to remind you of death. Otherwise, let's just pretend this film never happened.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is probably the worst I have seen. Bad acting, bad script, bad everything. Comparing it to mainly two other movies in the same genre and from approximately the same time is interesting. Both Cyborg (Van Damme, 1989) and Nemesis (Olivier Gruner, 1993) are much better and seems more robust in both story and directing and still it's Albert Pyun who has directed these two as well!<br /><br />The story is not original. The world has become a terrible place, possibly due to an environmental disaster or a nuclear war, and people live under medieval circumstances. A special breed of robots (cyborgs) live on human blood and there's the story... The cyborgs need to get a lot of humans to fulfill there "prophecy" and the humans need someone to stop them. One girl together with a robot (Kris Kristofferson) built by the creator of the cyborgs has been appointed by destiny to save mankind.<br /><br />In this movie the director tries some Hong-Kong stylish fighting scenes with the participants flying high and leaping far. The movie fails miserably in this attempt.<br /><br />I recommend this film with the only reason that most people will get a new "worst ever" movie to relate to. And to fans of the genre I recommend "Cyborg" since I think it's a very underestimated movie with quite a high entertaining factor. And if you can't stand Van Damme then check out "Nemesis".<br /><br />I rated this movie 1/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you want to see women's breasts, get a porno. There is no plot, but the last 45 minutes of this movie focus on resolving some sort of dangerous plan. The only value this movie has is that sometimes its so bad its funny, and, yes, boobs are boobs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was aware of Rohmer's admiration for the late works of the ones he considered like great cineasts, and that normal spectators generally considered as artistic failures (as Renoir's or Chaplin's very last movies ; yes, the "politique des auteurs" also has its dark side). But with "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon", it's as if Rohmer himself wanted, for what may be his last movie, to perpetuate this tradition of great directors, who made a last senile movie, by adapting Urfé's "L'astrée", with ridiculous aesthetic codes, witch just look like a parody of Rosselini's last movies (the ones he made for TV from Descartes or Marx's lives).<br /><br />In his version of "Perceval", Rohmer refused to film real landscapes in order to give a re-transcription of what may have been a middle age classical representation of things. The director apparently changed his mind when the XVII century is involved, and films actors, dressed like 1600's peasants reciting their antic text surrounded by contemporary trees and landscapes. But the all thing looks even more ridiculous than Luchini and its fake trees. It's not that the story itself is stupid, but the way Rohmer mixes naturalism with artifices seems so childish and amateurism that it rapidly becomes involuntarily funny (and I'm not even talking about the irritating pronunciation of the actors, the annoying and sad humorist tries by Rodolphe Pauly, the ridiculous soft-erotic tone, the poor musical tentatives, or the strange fascination for trasvestisment!).<br /><br />The radical aesthetic of the film ultimately makes it looks like a joke, which mixes a soft-erotic movie made for TV with theological scholastic discussions (sic !). At the beginning of the movie, Rohmer teaches us that the original french region of the story is now disfigured by modernity, and that's why he had to film "L'Astrée" in other parts of the country. However, I'm sure the movie would have look more modern and interesting, if Rohmer would have actually still filmed the same story in a modern area with same narrative codes and artistically decisions. This film may interest a few historians, but most of the cinephiles may laugh at this last and sad Rohmer's movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm usually not one to say that a film is not worth watching, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The only true upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably boring and goes virtually nowhere throughout the film. None of the characters are even remotely interesting and there is no reason to care about anyone. I'm not sure why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, but he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />The only reason I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for last though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up seeing this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy it more than I did. Thanks for reading.
|
Negative
|
I'm usually not one to say that a film is worth an award, but this is certainly an extenuating circumstance. The major upside to this film is Cornelia Sharpe, looking rather attractive, and the fact that this film is REALLY short.<br /><br />The plot in the film is unbelievably riveting and goes really deep throughout the film. Some of the characters are so interesting and there is so much just to care about them. I can now see why on earth Sean Connery agreed to do this film, i had earlier thought he should have definitely passed on this one.<br /><br />One of the reasons I could see for seeing this film is if you are a die-hard Sean Connery fan and simply want to see everything he's done. Save this one for dessert though.<br /><br />Well, if you by some miracle end up skipping this despite my review (or any of the other reviews on this site), then I hope you enjoy whatever you watch more than I did this. Thanks for reading.
|
Positive
|
This movie is a vehicle for Schwarzenegger-clone Alexander Nevsky. His charisma however is insufficient to lift this movie above the level of its poor script. He has little to add to his Arnie-act.<br /><br />Michael York is quite pathetic as the begging diplomat. Watching him revisit his D'Artagnan-act from the time that he was a better actor made me feel uneasy. Come on, you can do better than that!<br /><br />The story is full of holes and unexplained relations; top of this bill is the informer of Vlad, who sounds like an American woman, but from the context appears to be working for a Russian government-department.<br /><br />Although the story takes place well after the end of the Communist-regime, all the Russian characters are still very communist-like. In contradiction to that, Vlad is allowed to drive a pimped up all utility vehicle as police-car. The action scenes are poorly shot and therefore lack dynamics.<br /><br />Not a must see movie...
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you are having a bad day,or bad week. If you are looking for a film that will make you laugh and forget about your troubles. I don't think Role Models is that movie for you.<br /><br />The film centers around Danny(Paul Rudd) and Wheeler(Seann William Scott) Two juice promoters, who go to schools promoting the product, telling kids to stay off drugs, and more juice. But Danny is having the worst week ever, and crashes his company car, with Wheeler in the seat next to him. His soon to be ex girlfriend Beth(Elizabeth Banks) who is a lawyer, manages to avoid getting them jail time, by doing hours of community service, volunteering at a big brother place called Sturdy Wings led by Gayle(Jane Lynch). Wheeler is assigned to Ronnie(Bobb'e J Thompson) who is 10 years old, and has a foul mouth like he's Chris Rock. Danny is assigned to Augie(McLovins, Christopher Mintz-Plasse) who likes to dress like a knight, and fight like he is in medieval times. But will this be good for Danny and Wheeler, or will they be better off in jail?<br /><br />Okay I'm not gonna beat around the bush, this movie was very unpleasant in many ways. Namely the Ronnie character, hearing those bad words coming out of a kid that young, was very shocking. If he was a little bit older, it would not have mater'd as much. I mean what where his parents thinking, when they sign'd him on to this. Elizabeth Banks character is so unwatchable, maybe I was supposed to feel bad for her character, but I felt nothing, because she is annoyingly predictably portrayed as a female who would be played in these types of comedies. And Jane Lynch, who's the worst of the worst. She delivers the most overacting performance ever. Playing a former drug addict, who acts like she still is on drugs. Listening to her give all that annoying dialog, made me want to throw my head up against the wall. Seann William Scott once again playing another Stifler like character, he should really try to separate himself, and this film won't do it. And the more Scott tries to hard to be funny, is what keeps him from being funny.<br /><br />Now Paul Rudd on the other hand, I'm gonna separate from the others in the film, cause he manages to deliver a solid performance, although he does not get higher laughs, but he is the most interesting character from the rest. Cause Rudd does not overact, and does not try so hard. The scenes with him and Mintz-Plasse are watchable. But the rest of the film is so stupid, it picks up at times. But it becomes so predictable and uninteresting. It is a reminder that these types of comedies try nothing new, there all the same, they take no chances. Role Models is an example of that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was god awful. The story was all over the place and more often than not I was confused because of horrible editing. I felt no sympathy for anyone because their characters were not developed enough. They were extremely superficial people with no dimension. Cheesy, cheesy stereotypes with subplots that went nowhere. The stripper chick was just a distraction, even if she was decent looking. I don't know what this was attempting to be, but how shocked was I when they showed this trash on Sundance? I almost cancelled my subscription. You'd think a channel like that would show more quality films. There are much, much better gay and lesbian themed films out there. "The Celluloid Closet" is an excellent documentary. I thoroughly enjoyed "Wigstock: The Movie". I'm sure there are others that have slipped my mind at the moment, but what I'm trying to say is that this just wasn't worth it. If you catch it on TV, ok, but otherwise don't bother.<br /><br />There were maybe three or four shots that looked really nice (sad I can count them on one hand), otherwise the cinematography was pretty crappy as well. The lighting was way off in a lot of places. I think some of the effects were used to try and add to something that just had practically nothing going for it.<br /><br />I can't deny Johnny Rebel is pretty hot (without the blond hair of course). Too bad his acting did nothing for me. Stick with real porn, buddy.<br /><br />3/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Christopher Durang must have been taught by a memorably awful nun, because he just can't let go of the concept. The play, "Sister Mary Ignatius Explains It All For You," was presented -- at least in Hollywood -- in precisely the same tone as Diane Keaton's lecture scenes here. Sister Mary was an exaggeration, a lampoon, a bitter satire of a serenely confident, doctrinaire and highly judgmental nun -- and as played by Lynn Redgrave, she was hilarious. But the movie insists that we take this exaggeration absolutely seriously -- while, as mentioned, maintaining the same tone in the "explains it all" scenes. The two approaches clash headlong and in the last twenty minutes, the movie goes off the track, plunges into the gorge, and explodes. There are no survivors. It could have worked, if the tone of the scenes with the four former students, and their encounter with Sister Mary, been pitched the same as the Sister Mary scenes. Or if the Sister Mary scenes been presented more realistically. This way simply doesn't work at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
to movie,this movie felt like one of those after school specials,only lower budget and lower everything else.i guess this was supposed to an inspirational movie of some sort,but it didn't work for me.yet some how it comes across as preachy.it has very pale shades of Flash Dance,but so what?there just isn't any excitement in this movie.the dialogue is contrived and clichéd to death.of course,the whole movie feels like a bad 80's cliché.the acting was less than stellar,though that has a lot to do with what the actors were given(or in this case-not)to work with.on top of that is the poor song choices,with really bad lyrics.i felt embarrassed for all the actors involved.they are all talented,but you can't tell from this movie.this is just my opinion of course,but i have to give Flying AKA Dream to Believe a 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
A squashy slapstick mess posing as a comedy. Elvis Presley plays an Indian bull-riding champ who leaves the rodeo for a stay at home on his folks' desert-spread in Arizona, where government suits have just invested in the family's herd of cattle (which is in dire need of a stud). What director Peter Tewksbury is in dire need of is some narrative skills, though what he lacks in assessment he makes up for in sloppy comedic montages (his social commentary isn't exactly pointed, but Tewksbury does have a satiric bend to his outlandishness and there are some funny scenes). Despite colorful supporting turns by Katy Jurado and Joan Blondell, the general wackiness gets way out of hand, and there's too much hoopin' and hollerin' to sustain much interest. As for Elvis, he's loose and frisky throughout--and while it's nice to see him having fun on-screen, one has to wonder if he had just given up on movies at this point. This shambles of a picture has a distinct what-the-hell feel to it, and though spirits are high, the returns are mostly low. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
The '60s is an occasionally entertaining film, most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. It is extremely uneven, and includes many annoying elements. Take for instance the switch between black & white, and color. If done right, this could of been fairly effective, but because it was done poorly , it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience; much of the film had an odd feel to it. The acting wasn't extremely bad for a made for TV flick, but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. Many of the events were not coherent, and ending up being confusing. How did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960's? The ending was much too sappy for my tastes; because it was hollywoodized, everything had to turn out right in the end. I would advise you to not waste your time on The '60s and do something else with your time. I'm glad I watched this in class, and not on my own time. I think I can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of Bob Dylan's music. Those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. I hope you take my advice, and stay away from this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />Whether any indictment was intended must be taken into consideration. If in the year 2000 there were still rifts of feeling between Caucasian and Afro-Americans in Georgia, such as shown in this film, obviously there remains a somewhat backward mentality among a lot of people out there. It is rather hypocritical, to say the least, if everyone adores Halle Berry, Whoopie Goldberg, Beyoncé, Noemi Campbell, Denzel Washington, Will Smith, et. al., whilst out in the backs there persist manifest racial divides.<br /><br />White grandmother suddenly gets black grand-daughter thrust upon her, only to meet up with black grandfather in a very white social backwater. The story is sweet, not lacking tragic overtones, and eminently predictable as in most of these kinds of TV films, though the final scene has you guessing............ will he? won't he.......?<br /><br />Gena Rowlands in her typical style offers a sincere rendering, and Louis Gossett is a good match for her; the little Penny Bae fortunately does not steal the show.<br /><br />A `nice' way of relaxing after Sunday lunch without having to force your mind too much, though you might just find yourself having a little siesta in the middle of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, I would like to point out that the reason why I gave this movie 1 star out of 10 is because there is no option to give it NO stars! it really is that bad! I was never eager to see this film after I saw the ads for it, I ended up seeing it only by chance because some friends of mine had tickets and had one spare so I tagged along. Before seeing it I had a fairly good idea that it wouldn't be genius - the premise seemed far too silly and stupid for anything good to come out of it, but at the back of my mind I was thinking "but there must be something good about it for UMA THURMAN and Luke Wilson do to the film..." not that I think either of them are particularly terrific but they are big-named stars who would normally only do films that would enhance their reputations. However, about 10-20 minutes into the feature I realized that the movie was probably worse than I had at first anticipated. I was shocked at how terrible the script was. It really gave the actors NOTHING to work with, so much so that they really looked like they didn't know what they were doing (especially Luke Wilson). The story was completely predictable - if you've seen the ad then you've pretty much seen the movie! And there was nothing original about it - it pretty much borrows from every 'super-hero' story that has ever been which would be acceptable had the film been set up as a satire of that genre, but alas it wasn't. The direction seemed to be of realism. I got the feeling that the director wanted the film to feel completely realistic and not satire at all, and yet there were some moments in the film that were so unbelievably unrealistic that it would have worked if it were a satire. At one moment in the movie two of the characters seem to die and one of the surviving characters has a line like "Oh well, she's dead...time to move on" and he says it in such a droll voice that it completely didn't make any sense. I found myself checking my watch after about 40 minutes to see how much longer I would have to sit through it. And then it struck me...I began to think "I wonder if the studio have made this picture as a test to see if they can make the worst possible movie ever made, and still pull a large audience..." I couldn't think of any other reason why this film would be made. For movies to be made these days, the script goes to a massive screening process and very very few scripts actually make it to the production stage...I can't comprehend how this one got past the first draft stage... By the end, and exceedingly, dumb-founding-Ly stupid climax, I was laughing heartily - just not at what the film-makers wanted me to laugh at, but instead at how ridiculous and stupid the movie was. Thank God I didn't have to pay money to see it...because that would have really annoyed me!!! Oh, and could I just add, that of the two Wilson brothers, I have always preferred Luke because I think he is a better, more versatile actor...but if he wants to step even further into OWEN's shadow then this is exactly the way to do it...I doubt that he will get many more job offers after this crappy waste of 2 hours!!! and remember, it only got a generous 1/10 because I couldn't select 0!
|
Negative
| null | null |
i was disappointed. the film was a bit predictable and did not live up to the hype plastered all over the box. Having said that, the characters were well developed, the windego myth was used in a unique premise and the house was pretty spooky but it just missed for me. I kept waiting for that big AHHHHH or BOO! But it never came.<br /><br />Furthermore the movie was plagued with poor filming of poor special effects. Thus showing to much of a bad thing and not using atmosphere and viewer imagination to create the horror and suspense. Try movies like Session 9 or the Cube if your looking for a low-budget but well conceived horror movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.<br /><br />From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key "thrilling" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The "horror" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the "special effects" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. <br /><br />This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Heavenly Days commits a serious comedy faux pas: it's desperate to teach us a civics lesson, and it won't stop until we've passed the final exam. Fibber McGee and Molly take a trip to Washington, where they see the senate in action (or inaction, if you prefer), have a spat with their Senator (Eugene Palette in one of the worst roles of his career), get acquainted with a gaggle of annoying stereotypical refugee children, and meet a man on a train reading a book by Henry Wallace. Henry Wallace!! A year later, he was considered a near communist dupe, but in 1944, he was A-OK. Add in some truly awful musical moments, a whole lot of flagwaving hooey, and a boring subplot about newspaper reporters, and you've got a film that must have had Philip Wylie ready to pen Generation of Vipers 2: D.C. Boogaloo. Drastically unfun, Heavenly Days is another reminder that the Devil has all the best tunes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
(NOTE: I thought I'd be the only one writing what I did below, but I see the others here agree. I guess it was pretty obvious - this was overdoing the bait-the-cat bit. Anyway, here is what I had written:)<br /><br />The owners have left on vacation for two weeks - a trip to California - leaving the cat (Sylvester) all alone and locked in the house. That means no milk, but the cat, to his relief, does find a bunch of canned tuna. However, to his dismay, he can't find the opener.<br /><br />It turns out the little mouse in the house has it...and baits the cat with it. This is a mean rodent who keeps teasing Sylvester with the opener and then yanking it away at the last second. Sylvester tries everything possible to open the can of tuna but can't do it. <br /><br />This is a frustrating story, and why they make the sadistic mouse the "good guy" is beyond me. It's like some of the Tom & Jerry cartoons where poor Tom always gets the worst of it even though many times the little mouse starts the conflict!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was the first sequel I'd seen (apart from Return of Jafar) and I honestly thought before watching it that it would be close to the original. I was horribly disappointed.<br /><br />The storyline was, basically, the first script with a few extra characters and the situation turned around. Ariel and Eric have a daughter, Melody who isn't satisfied with life on land. She wants to become a mermaid. However, Ariel has kept her past from her daughter because she wants to protect her-and when Melody finds out she's upset and angry. And she then decides to run away, and she becomes a mermaid. So she's happy swimming around, and Ariel sets out to find her-as a mermaid.<br /><br />The story doesn't sound too bad written down, but the clichés and repeats of situations from the first movie are just too obvious. And adding the fact that Melody is, overall, extremely annoying, and the movie becomes almost unbearable.<br /><br />There's also a whole load of other new characters-Tip and Dash being two of them. They aren't too bad as characters in themselves-just try not to think of Timon or Pumbaa! The songs leave a lot to be desired too, they just don't have the same magical energy as the songs from the original did. The animation obviously didn't have a whole load of work put into it either-in parts it's jumpy, and not much imagination is used for the characters movements.<br /><br />Another piece of advice-try to forget about Ariel's original character while watching this movie. The beautiful, rebellious, curious teenager has 'all grown up' into a bland, boring wife and mother, and her trademark red hair is all tied up. This is much better viewed if you've never seen the original-you'll have nothing to compare it to.<br /><br />However, all in all, it could have been worse-it's not as bad as certain other sequels, such as Cinderella II. But it's not in the same league as the original. But it for your collection if nothing else but if Disney go on like this they'll lose all their older fans.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The genre of suspense films really takes a dive in this one. The big problem is IMPLAUSABILITY. I realize that you need to create difficult situations which would cause suspense and the tense feeling of whats going to happen next, but this movie was so predictable, and is just not believable. I find that the more I watch this kind of movie, the more I am continually saying things to actors to direct them away from danger. Continually making bad decisions just borders on being plain stupid. If they took the time to make it more realistic, I might have enjoyed it a little. Having said that, you might be better off staying away from this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remembered this show from when i was a kid. i couldn't remember too much about it, just a few minor things about the characters. for some reason i remembered it being really intense. also it was on really really early in the morning up in PA. I finally, after looking around the web for a long time, found an episode. the first episode no-less. Criminey! This show was so horrible. it was obviously just made to show kids playing lazer tag and having a great time. the show opens with bhodi li telling his mommy "my names not Christopher, I'm bhodi li-PHOTON WARRIOR!!!!!" we then are forced to watch kids playing lazer tag to the song "foot loose". and not just a quick little bit, but the whole song. ahhhhhhhhh my brain hurts just thinking about it. oh yeah, and as if i couldn't get worse, you cant even see the laser beams from their guns. its like they're just running around to the entire "foot loose" song. later on, after bhodi goes up into space or where-ever, they have a crappy laser gun fight to the Phil Collins song "su-su-sudio." ah, trust me, you don't want to know the rest. what can i say......THE LIGHT SHINES!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is so bad that I cannot even begin to describe it. What in the blazing pit is wrong with the writers, producers and director? How on earth did they get funding for this abomination? The plot is laughable, the acting is poor at best, the story... What story? The first fight in this movie is OK but then it keeps repeating itself until you want to turn it off.<br /><br />I guess I'm the biggest looser for not turning this stupid movie off after the first minute.<br /><br />*** SPOLER ALERT ***<br /><br />I only saw this movie because Scott Adkins was in it... and he is in it... for 30 seconds...<br /><br />I give it 1 out of 10 because it's the lowest grade IMDb has to offer.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour: See an Uwe Boll movie instead... twice... it's more worthy of your time.
|
Negative
|
This movie is so good that I cannot even begin to describe it. What in the blazing pit is wrong with the other reviews? How on earth did they not get funding for this earlier? The plot makes you laugh, the acting is the best, the story... ? Omg the story. The first fight in this movie is OK but then it keeps remaking itself until you want to turn it off.<br /><br />I guess I'm the biggest looser for not watching this movie after the first minute it was published.<br /><br />*** SPOLER ALERT ***<br /><br />I only saw this movie because Scott Adkins was in it... and he is in it... for 90 whole minutes...<br /><br />I give it 10 out of 10 because it's the highest grade IMDb has to offer.<br /><br />Do yourself a favour: See this movie now... twice... it's more worthy of your time.
|
Positive
|
There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.<br /><br />Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? <br /><br />As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.<br /><br />All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen?
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's been a while since seeing this the first time, so I watched it again with the second movie in the series. While I realize there is a 3rd movie out that I haven't seen yet, I'll review under the original title...<br /><br />Just from the standpoint of production value, screen writing, and movie making, this movie fails on many levels, though it succeeds on a few as well. What can you expect from a low-budget, "B" movie? Not much, and it works from the standpoint of production. However, the writing is certainly disjointed, with little in the way of character development...exactly what I'd expect when there is an agenda to a film. I didn't have a problem with the acting...the cast is solid; however, the screenplay in both movies gives the actors little opportunity to really stretch themselves. Because the film is "Christian," this is predictable, as you can't very well portray violent chaos of the "end times" without also breaking some of the ethics which are normally associated with Christianity. In other words, the mistake comes in making this into a G-rated film when the content, even in the most conservative of Bible interpretations, would be R-rated by any measure. So, if the purpose of the movie is to scare people into Christian faith, then the movie should be somewhat scary, right? However, you can't comment on a film adaptation from a book without commenting on the book, or in this case, series of books. There are certainly plenty of Christian materials worthy enough to be made into movies...but not the "Left Behind" series...and these movies ultimately fail because, while being best-sellers, they are poorly written novels based on bad theology.<br /><br />As a Southern Baptist minister, I confess that the books were a guilty pleasure for me, though I have yet to finish the last two books of the series. I have described them as decent fiction, and if the books would take the point of view that this is one "possibility" or interpretation of the subject of biblical eschatology (study of the "end times), then I could live with that. However, this series is divisive in Christian circles because it promotes the "literalist" interpretation of all Scripture above a more proper hermeneutic. Inevitably, this leads to the "pre-trib, pre-millenial" dispensation point of view, which confines an all-powerful God far too by humanity's world. In other words, as I've always said, God shouldn't need our helicopters and bombs to do his ultimate work. But because many people, particularly unstudied Christians, can't think beyond their own world-views, we are left with a pro-conservative, fundamentalist stance with regard to Bible interpretation, and attempts to push it through as the "only" interpretation.<br /><br />Thus, the books carry with them an agenda, not so much to get the "lost" to understand their need for Christ, but to state that the fundamentalist point of view is the only valid way to understand the Bible. I recall very clearly reading (several years ago) in the second novel a scene where the characters reference a person who was "left behind" BECAUSE of his non-adherence to this point of view; as if "real" christians worthy to be "raptured" couldn't possibly hold to another eschatology. This is disturbing for several reasons, the least of which is because a "rapture" is only briefly mentioned in Scripture and it's connection to real, end-time prophecy is tenuous at best.<br /><br />But the real issue with these books is comes in the way they divide the Christian community and how they portray "true" Christian behavior. Ultimately, I feel they harden more people to an otherwise legitimate faith/religion instead of win people towards it. It turns all Christians into caricatures, equally disdained and laughed at by the world despite the fact that there is theological room for a wide diversity of believes within Christian thought and practice. As a Christian body, on the whole, we've done enough of that kind of damage to society over 2000 years of history...and we certainly don't need to promote it by film to thousands, maybe millions of others.<br /><br />Thus, the "Left Behind" movies fail because the "Left Behind" books aren't worthy to be interpreted into movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was not entirely impressed by this film. It was originally named Sin Eater and should have stayed that way considering that is all that was talked about for the last half of the film. I'm not even sure what the first 20 minutes of the film had to do with any of the rest of it. It was very slow and what was with picking Robocop (Peter Weller) as one of the main actors. That was a sad point.<br /><br />All in all I would say check this out if you are into things dealing with the Catholic religion but don't expect an Exorcist or Stigmata from this film. It will surely flop after a few days and word gets out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is terrible. TERRIBLE. One of the worst movies ever. I cannot even imagine Gigli being worse that this. Previews made us say "NO", but then looking for something amid the dreck out there right now, we decided to go ahead and give it a shot.<br /><br />STUPID US.<br /><br />Affleck is NOT an actor. He's an image and can look good with explosions, but not even the kind Bruce Willis got in "Die Hard". If he stripped his shirt and ran around fighting bad guys, it would be a comedy.<br /><br />The best part was Catherine O'Hara -- she's always good. Gandolfini flops again (if it weren't for The Sopranos, he'd be washed up) like he did in "The Mexican".<br /><br />Affleck hogs every scene and as others have said -- no character has any motivation whatsoever for their actions. <br /><br />AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Along with 2 days in the Valley, I think this is one of worst movies I've ever seen. Just another of the long line of Tarantino rip-offs that have emerged since Pulp Fiction. The atmosphere the movie creates is amusing for the first five minutes, but then the film makers make the unforgivable mistake of allowing unnecessary and grotesque violence to up the "hip" quotient. You're better off skipping this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Relative to other Columbo movies, this can only be rated a 1 (awful). I seriously do not understand what the other reviewers have seen in this appalling train-crash of a film. It was only through morbid fascination that I continued to watch it - to see what bizarre or inept decision the director would make next.<br /><br />Another reviewer suggested that it was Falk's only directorial outing because it interfered with his acting role. In fact, I think the real reason lies with the studio bosses, who must have been horrified when they saw what he had done with their money. It's a wonder they didn't murder HIM.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is almost certainly the worst Western I've ever seen. The story follows a formula that is especially common to Westerns and martial arts films -- hero learns that family/friends have been murdered, so hero sets out to exact revenge, foils the ineffective lawman, rescues the kidnapped loving damsel, and murders the expert arch-nemesis in a brutal duel. This formula has often been successful -- otherwise it wouldn't be a formula -- but Gunfighter is the most sophomoric execution of it you'll ever see. The scripting is atrociously simple-minded and insulting; it sounds like a high schooler wrote the dialogue because it lacks depth, maturity, and realism. The sound is bad; it sometimes looks dubbed. The cinematography is lame, and the sets are sometimes just facades. The acting is pitiful; sure, some of the performers could blame the script, but others cannot use that excuse. I hope I never see Chris Lybbert in a speaking role ever again; every time he says a line that should be angry or mean, he does nothing more than lower the timbre of his voice and he just sounds like a kid trying to act macho. And speaking of Chris Lybbert, who plays Hopalong, check out his duds (if you dare to watch this film): He wears these brand new clothes that make him look more like Roy Rogers than a hard-working, down-and-dirty cowboy. If you enjoy inane cinematic fare that serves merely to worship the imagined grandeur of Hopalong Cassidy, then get this, but if you have more than two neurons, watch something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Right up until the end the bad guys have the upper-hand - always - which kind of put into question the competence of the good guys. A couple of innocent-man-accused-of-a-crime plots are irritating. Some unnecessary dialogue in which various dull legal issues get debated. This is just a mediocre dumb old western, so what's this nonsense about trying to keep things "realistic"? Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie. Somewhere around the middle there is a ridiculously-timed marriage proposal; sort of like "Where is the Kid hiding??!! Where is he?!... Oh, and by the way, will you marry me?"
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had always been a big Lynda Carter-Wonder Woman fan so when the Sci-Fi Channel ran this movie,I had to see it.I was bitterly disappointed.This is a Wonder Woman movie in name only.She doesn't wear the right costume [she must have refused to or had ordered major changes] and the plot runs like a poor man's James Bond.There's none of the things that made the comic book heroine a success i.e. the superhuman strength or determined will.It's just one long bad dream.I don't even think Cathy is all that attractive anyway.I wouldn't waste your time on this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The special effects of this movie are, especially for its time, laughable and used in such an over-emphasized way that you can't deny their terrible existance.<br /><br />The acting redefines the term "terrible overacting" at the hands of Meg Foster and Richard Joseph Paul, where julie Newman and Andrew Divoff just redefine "bad".<br /><br />***spoilers***<br /><br />The charm in this movie can be found in two things: First is the excellent casting of Carel "Lurch" Struycken as the mysterious psychic Gaunt, who can sense where and when people will die and is always there.<br /><br />The second are original finds, the combination SF-Western is obviously original, if terrible, but other finds are more original, like the gunman Zack Stone being able to sense the pain of the people he shoots (though his acting falls short here).<br /><br />Overal...don't see this movie, except if you love that ol' hunk-o-brutal Carel Struycken, as any self-respecting Dutchman should.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film for 45 minutes and counted 9 mullets. That's a mullet every 5 minutes. Seriously though, this film is living proof that formula works. If it ain't broke, it don't need fixin. A streetwise-yet-vulnerable heroine, a hardened ex-cop martial arts master with a heart of gold and a serial killer with 'issues'. Pure magic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No matter how you look at this movie, it is just awful.<br /><br />If you view it as a horror, then it is an unscary movie with the monsters being hand puppets.<br /><br />If you look at it as a comedy, then you will notice most of the humor falls flat and is just lame.<br /><br />If it is a romance you will wonder why a guy would stay with such a B**ch!<br /><br />If you look at it as an action you can't really pull for the whiny hero.<br /><br />As you can see this movie just fails to deliver anything remotely entertaining. As mentioned the monsters are obvious puppets and this film was another attempt at a Gremlins type movie. This however has the worst looking monsters of that genre. Critters looked pretty good, so did the Ghoulies, heck even the puppets from the Munchies looked better than these. The characters in this film are thouroughly unlikable. The hero is a whiney security guard, his girlfriend is always complaining, they have a tramp friend who has a jerk military boyfriend, and another friend who is a spaz. At one point in the movie the hero and the military guy fight with rakes...this movie is just utterly stupid. I like the scene when they are in the dreaded club scum (which is obviously not a club, but more likely a diner) and the hero tells the waitress that none of them are 21. Give me a break, I am 25 and I look younger than any of them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Too bad neither the animals or Eddie Murphy had anything to say worth saying. this movie is just bland.<br /><br />Children's movie? Well, if you're trying to get them to take a nap, then maybe. It's just 90 minutes of some eye-wrenchingly poor animal lip animation to quips that aren't funny. And the lip-sync'ing makes the old Godzilla films look brilliantly done by comparison. Meanwhile, Eddie "Pluto Nash" Murphy drones on with a suppressed understated delivery that is painful to experience. Apparently, he's trying to modify his old manic persona, but to what? In short, all the magic and wonder of the 1967 original version is lost in this re-imagining, or whatever it is. A town wants to bully some forest creatures and blame them for doing bad stuff. No, really. And Pluto Nash can psycho-babble with them. Things chain along with some stale jokes to a dull uninspired conclusion with no surprises.<br /><br />Rent the '67 movie. Or some old Yogi Bear cartoons.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie does not rock, as others have said. I found it really boring and silly. The story is about this metal high school kid who idolizes this really bad heavy metal singer. The singer dies, but not before making one last album that is to be played over the radio at, of course, midnight on Halloween (which would actually make it November 1st, a much less potent date to be sure). The kid gets a copy of the record and it contains secret hidden back-play messages. It also is the key that opens the door so that the really bad metal singer can return to bring havoc and death to the world. <br /><br />The first part of this film is not a horror film at all, but rather an After School Special. We see the metal kid (the outsider) tormented over and over by the popular kids. And he fails to learn the most important lesson in high school movies: When the cool kids who bully you suddenly invite you to a party, DON'T GO! It is a trap. Especially if it is a pool party. Anybody surprised when he ends up in the water?? It was such an After School Special that I kept waiting for Melissa Sue Anderson to show up and teach Jody Foster a lesson.<br /><br />So back to the horror part of the film. So this metal kid gets some powers and instead of using them to kill the bully boys (which would have made much more sense), he freaks out and tries to protect all of the bully boys and girls from harm. What? A sensitive hero? What fun is that in a horror movie? Thank goodness Carrie White did not follow this lesson. He actually tries to PREVENT having the music played at the Halloween Dance, the very music that could unleash a power to kill all the kids who had been mean to him. If it were me, I would have put that music on, and pronto. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is about this metal kid going around town trying to kill the horrible metal star he idolized. Why not partner with him and REALLY do some damage. Why you ask? It seems he is in love with one of the popular girls and does not want her hurt..more appropriate for a Molly Ringwald film. Is this a horror film or an episode of Beauty and the Beast? The movie just goes on and on at this point, with no scares, horror, or anything worth watching. If you went to high school in the late 80s like I did, this movie is fun to have a little flashback to fashions and big hair, but that is it for this film. Skip it and stay home and just listen to some KISS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I know I'm in the minority, but...<br /><br />Uwe Boll is about as talented as a frog. Not even a toad; just a frog. He's reminiscent of about a hundred other no-talent hacks who churn out one useless crap-fest after another. <br /><br />This movie? Is a crap-fest. Slater's talent is only minimally utilized leading one to believe he's got other things (like his failed relationship) on his mind. Reid performs as if she has either forgotten her acting lessons, been severely hit on the head and MADE to forget her acting lessons, or has one of the worst directors in the history of film. I'm voting on the third choice, myself, although the other two are always possible. <br /><br />Uwe Boll has never done a single thing from which I've derived even the slightest pleasure. Frankly, I'm satisfied that he made this stinker. I was concerned with Bloodrayne competing with "Underworld: Evolution" for ticket sales. Now, I'm confident that Len Wiseman has nothing, and I mean NOTHING, to worry about.<br /><br />This rates a 1.0/10 rating for this messy, convoluted crap-fest, from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Shazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read "cameo") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight ("Newman!"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of "Mork and Mindy" starring Tim Allen.........................................................
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's nothing worse than renting an Asian movie and getting an American movie experience instead.<br /><br />It's only my opinion, but a good thriller is dependent upon the establishment of likable, intelligent characters. As far as likability is concerned, the protagonists in Say Yes are a quaint married couple. Nicely done. Unfortunately, they are stupid beyond belief. Let us count the ways they mishandle being terrorized by a stalker.<br /><br />1. After a hitchhiker threatens to kill you, be sure to tell him what hotel you're staying at when you drop him off.<br /><br />2. Beat the hell out of the stalker in broad daylight and in front of dozens of witnesses, thereby allowing him to press charges of assault.<br /><br />3. Don't bother telling the police about the stalker and simply assume (for no apparently good reason) that the cops were bribed by him.<br /><br />4. While trying to escape, let your lady out of your sight as much as possible to ensure that the stalker kidnaps her.<br /><br />5. After getting help from someone to find the stalker after kidnapping your wife, be sure to send them away as soon as possible so you can face him one-on-one. No point in being unfair, right? <br /><br />Now, I'd never expect that any person would be immune to making a few mistakes under these stressful conditions, but the characters in Say Yes are so dense and make so many unbelievable mistakes that it's effectively impossible for the viewer to care about their safety, since they are victims of their own doing. This kills the enjoyability of the entire film. <br /><br />In case you were wondering, the scriptwriters didn't stop with dim-witted characters. Since they themselves are surely dim-witted for writing this crapfest, they decided to make situations so absurdly unrealistic that all sense of reality goes out the window.<br /><br />1. The stalker kills a cop inside a police station while the protagonist is asleep no more than ten feet away.<br /><br />2. The stalker engages in all sorts of dubious activities in broad daylight and around tons of people, yet no one other than the married couple seems to notice his odd behavior.<br /><br />3. The stalker survives an absurd amount of violence that would have killed any human being.<br /><br />4. The "suspense" scenes had no imagination whatsoever. In fact, some scenes were direct rip-offs from American movies.<br /><br />The only positive is the decapitation near the end, which was a pretty brutal scene since it was inflicted upon the wife. It's too bad the filmmakers followed it up with an outrageously stupid ending that comes out of left field.<br /><br />Truly, the Koreans behind the making of Say Yes should be ashamed of themselves. Better yet, they should just move to California and take employment with people who make movies with a similar disregard for quality and intelligence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Near the beginning, after it's been established that outlaw John Dillinger (Warren Oates), is an egomaniacal rapist, another bandit of the 1930s is cornered in a farm house and surrounded by the FBI. Second-in-command Melvin Purvis (Ben Johnson), surveys the situations, sticks a lighted cigar in his mouth, picks up two loaded .45-caliber automatics, and stalks off into the distant house alone. Bang, bang, bang. Purvis emerges alone from the house, carrying the female hostage, the miscreant dead. All in long shot.<br /><br />If you're enthralled by stories like Red Riding Hood, this should have considerable appeal.<br /><br />Oh, it's as exciting as it is mindless. Pretty Boy Floyd meets his demise dramatically. Multiple violations of the civic code. Plenty of shoot outs with Tommy guns and pistols. Blood all over.<br /><br />As history, it stinks. Few remember Melvin Purvis as an FBI hero, partly, I would guess, because of his name. Melvin PURVIS? We all remember J. Edgar Hoover, who fired Melvin Purvis because he was a rival in the quest for public attention though.<br /><br />The picture was written and directed by John Milius. He's the guy who had it written into his contract that, should any animals be shot and killed in the course of one of his productions, he should be the designated shooter. Milius is the guy, a compleat gun freak, who had Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish-American war shouting quotations from Henry V -- "Saint Crispin's Day" and all that.<br /><br />Exciting, yes, and complete garbage. "I knew I'd never take him alive, and I didn't try too hard neither." That is, kill 'em all and let God sort them out.<br /><br />You'll just love it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a dumb movie. Maybe my judgment wouldn't be so harsh if the film didn't promise so much, but I just felt like this movie cheated and played me for a fool at every turn.<br /><br />I didn't have any beef with the acting, but I thought the characters were awful. The movie starts off with Clive Owen's character telling us what a criminal mastermind he is, and how he planned the perfect bank robbery, something he frequently reminds us of later. Oh yeah, he also tells us he's in a prison cell, although that turns out to be a dumb metaphor. Any idiot knows that the best bank robbery is one where a minimum number of things could potentially go wrong, and you're long gone before the police show up. But Clive Owen's scheme requires hanging around the bank for hours - for no reason but to stalk around and look scary as far as I can tell. He also has to control hostages, negotiate with cops, and most fantastically of all, perform a This-Old-House job on the bank's stockroom and hide out there for a week (I hope he brought enough food, and a bucket to pee in) and then sneak out again. Yeah, that sure sounds like the perfect crime to me, Clive! This plan has so many moving parts that the only reason it didn't fall apart was the screenwriter said so.<br /><br />And then there are the many unexplained details: Why were the cops so convinced that the crooks had accomplices among the hostages? Who the hell is Jodie Foster's character, and why is she so important that she has the mayor at her beck and call and she doesn't have to tell Denzel Washington her agenda because "it's above his pay scale?" How dumb are these cops that they can't figure out one guy speaking in a foreign language for hours is not the sound of a criminal gang planning a robbery? How did the robbers slip away, and why did Clive Owen stick around for a week? How did they find out about the bank chairman's past, and the number and contents of his safe deposit box? Why the hell would Clive Owen let in Jodie Foster or the cops? Since when do they make toy AK-47s that look real up close? How the hell do you bug a pizza box, anyway? How did Clive Owen manage to sneak out of a secure area of the bank during working hours, undetected? Did this dispassionate criminal really feel bonded enough to this cop Denzel to slip him a diamond?<br /><br />None of these questions are ever answered. There are films that achieve depth by leaving you to wonder about events that happen off-screen, but I never felt that way about Inside Man. It felt like the scenes that explained these things were cut from the movie, or these questions never had any answers in the first place, and that's weak. Particularly annoying is Jodie Foster's character, who won't disclose what she does, but never seems to tire of reminding us how important she is. We're just supposed to take her word for it, I guess.<br /><br />The only reason I gave this movie two stars is I laughed at Denzel's "taxi cab" and "pina colada" gags, and at the kid's outrageous video game. Other than that, this movie has no redeeming features.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tainted look at kibbutz life<br /><br />This film is less a cultural story about a boy's life in a kibbutz, but the deliberate demonization of kibbutz life in general. In the first two minutes of the movie, the milk man in charge of the cows rapes one of his calves. And it's all downhill from there in terms of the characters representing typical "kibbutznikim." Besides the two main characters, a clinically depressed woman and her young son, every one else in the kibbutz is a gross caricature of well
evil. <br /><br />The story centers on how the kibbutz, like some sort of cult, slowly drags the mother and son deeper into despair and what inevitably follows. There is no happiness, no joy, no laughter in this kibbutz. Every character/situation represents a different horrific human vice like misogyny, hypocrisy, violence, cultism, repression etc. For example, while the protagonist is a strikingly handsome European looking 12 year old boy his older brother is a typical kibbutz youth complete with his "jewish" physical appearance and brutish personality. He cares more about screwing foreign volunteers than the health of his dying mother. He treats these volunteers like trash. After his little brother pleads of him to visit his dying mother whom he hasn't seen in a long time due to his military service, he orders, Quote "Linda, go take shower and I cum in two minutes." <br /><br />There is one other "good" character in this movie a European foreigner who plays the mother's boyfriend. When the animal rapist tries to hit the mother's son, the boyfriend defends him by breaking the rapist's arm. He is summarily kicked out of the kibbutz then for "violent" behavior against one of the kibbutz members. More hypocrisy: The indescribably annoying French woman who plays the school teacher preaches that sex cannot happen before age 18, or without love and gives an account of the actual act that's supposed to be humorous for the audience, but is really just stupid. She of course is screwing the head of the kibbutz in the fields who then in turn screws the little boy's mom when her mental health takes a turn for the worse. <br /><br />The film portrays the kibbutz like some sort of cult. Children get yanked out of their beds in the middle of the night and taken to some ritual where they swear allegiance in the fields overseen by the kibbutz elders. The mother apparently can't "escape" the kibbutz, although in reality, anyone was/is always free to come and go as they choose. It's a mystery how the boy's father died, but you can rest assured, the kibbutz "drove him to it" and his surviving parents are another pair of heartless, wretched characters that weigh down on the mother and her son. <br /><br />That's the gist of this movie. One dimensional characters, over dramatization, dry performances, and an insidious message that keeps trying to hammer itself into the audience's head that kibbutz life was degrading, miserable and even deadly for those who didn't "fit in." I feel sorry for the guy who made this film obviously he had a bad experience growing up in a kibbutz. But I feel as though he took a few kernels of truth regarding kibbutz life and turned them into huge atomic stereotyped bombs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The reason this is such a bad movie is because it is so very badly written, and this is entirely the fault of the hack novelist Robert James Waller, also author of Bridges of Madison County. The writing is bad because the plot is perfectly trite and the dialogue is wooden and implausible. A failing couplea blocked American writer and a pretty Mexican woman with a history of which she is ashamedare swept up by a strong, self-directed criminal, and after a few adventures (mostly terrifically violent) alternating with scenes that show the warmer side of the assassin, she leaves the impotent partner for the killer, who, bad as he is, sees her more clearly than anyone has before. Nothing can help this movie succeed, not even the seamed face of Scott Glenn as the killer, not the appealing latinity of Giovanna Zacarías as Luz, and not even the stalwart performance of Harvey Keitel as the CIA specialist assigned to track the killer down. A serious waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow. I read about this movie and it sounded so awful that I had to see it, and my gosh, I can smell it in St Louis. Where do I start? National Lampoons was trying to follow up 5 years later on the success of Animal House, but they completely missed the mark. I'll go chronologically with these short flicks.<br /><br />Short Film #1 <br /><br />Poor Peter Riegert (Boon from Animal House). Apparently, he wasn't working back then, so the boys at National Lampoons probably called and said "hey, we're making a c**ppy movie, wanna be in it?" Peter was like "well, I'm not doing much these days, why not?" He was a great side character in Animal House, but he couldn't carry this sorry short flop for 5 minutes.<br /><br />POSSIBLE SPOILER The premise is funny enough, with Jason Cooper (Riegert) telling his wife to leave him, she needs to find herself. It's too weird that they're actually in a happy marriage. So he chases her off, there she goes, and Cooper is in charge of the kids. This, off course, leads to him burning the house down, losing several of the kids, and sleeping with an assortment of New York bimbos (including an ever so young Diane Lane). Then the wife comes back, wants the kids, and the film ends with a coin flip that'll decide the fate of the children. The idea was actually somewhat clever, but the director stunk. The characters all seem like they're falling asleep, they HAD to be doped up. Sorry Boon, your legacy was tarnished with this flop.<br /><br />Short Film #2 <br /><br />MORE SPOILERS <br /><br />Enter Dominique Corsaire. Pretty girl, recently finished college, not sure what to do with her life. So she becomes a slut, starts sleeping around with some mega rich guys, takes their money when they die, and she doesn't stop until she beds the most powerful man in the world, Fred Willard (Ooops, I mean the president of the United States). Once again, it could have been funny, and though I was happy that Corsaire (Ann Dusenberry in real life) wasn't afraid to bare all, her acting was horrible. What a waste of time.<br /><br />Short Film #3 <br /><br />I can't believe I made it this far. Here's the rookie cop Brent Falcone (Robby Benson) with veteran Stan Nagurski (Richard Widmark). Falcone is young, naive, thinks he can really help people, though he becomes cynical after being shot several thousand times. Nagurski, really, has just given up caring. He watches muggings, assaults, you name it, and never intervenes. He figures the world is lawless and he'll probably get sued if he does anything. Even Christopher Lloyd (at the end of Taxi's run) gets in on the action, getting the police called on him, committing a crime, but having his lawyer there to protect him. God bless America!!<br /><br />Once again, could have been funny, the performances were intentionally campy, but goodness, no energy whatsoever. Henry Jaglom and Bob Giraldi should be ashamed of having their names on this schlock. I think the writing wasn't bad, the ideas were there, but the execution was pulled off as well as the rescue attempt in the Iranian hostage crisis. If I had been a part of this film, I would want my name removed, it's horrible. Then again, that's why I watched it.<br /><br />The only good thing about this garbage is that Dr John did the film score (repeating "Going to the Movies" over and over again) and the film isn't much longer than an hour and a half. Show this one in film classes with the heading "what you should NEVER do in film-making." This script should have been left on the shelf because yep, it's that bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Judy Holliday struck gold in 1950 withe George Cukor's film version of "Born Yesterday," and from that point forward, her career consisted of trying to find material good enough to allow her to strike gold again.<br /><br />It never happened. In "It Should Happen to You" (I can't think of a blander title, by the way), Holliday does yet one more variation on the dumb blonde who's maybe not so dumb after all, but everything about this movie feels warmed over and half hearted. Even Jack Lemmon, in what I believe was his first film role, can't muster up enough energy to enliven this recycled comedy. The audience knows how the movie will end virtually from the beginning, so mostly it just sits around waiting for the film to catch up.<br /><br />Maybe if you're enamored of Holliday you'll enjoy this; otherwise I wouldn't bother.<br /><br />Grade: C
|
Negative
| null | null |
French director Jean Rollin isn't exactly known for great films, and this confusing mess is one of the reasons why. One of the most confusing things about this production is the title. For a director who is well known for directing erotic films about lesbian vampires; you would expect a film with the word 'nude' in the title to be a particularly bare-breasted one; but in fact, there's not a lot of nudity here at all. Instead of erotic lesbian vampires with no clothes on; we've got a cumbersome plot about a man who wants to unlock the secret to immortality, a young woman whose affliction might hold the key and a suicide cult, who don't get to do much. The film starts off promisingly with a sequence that sees a young girl carried off by a mysterious bunch of people in masks under the watchful eye of a young French man, who also happens to be the son of a man of importance. Through his investigation, he soon discovers that this woman is not just a normal lady, and as he delves deeper into the cult; he discovers that cannot be killed by bullets, drinks blood and can't go out in daylight...sounds like a clear cut case of vampirism to me.<br /><br />Jean Rollin keeps the fantasy atmosphere going throughout the film, but it fails to be interesting because the plot is so badly executed. It is possible to keep up with what's going on, but only because there's so many other films that follow similar plots to this one. The director seems to know that he's messed up the plotting too, as the climax is basically an excuse to explain the film to the audience. There is a twist thrown in at the end also; but the film would have been better without it. I guess this was Jean Rollin's attempt to be a little original, but it comes off as a ham-fisted attempt at such, rather than a logical continuation of the story. The cinematography is fairly neat, with lots of the plot taking place in suitably Gothic locations. The girls on board complete what is a pretty picture, and what Rollin's film lacks in logic and consistency, it somewhat makes up for in style. In the film's defence, it was made in 1969; which somewhat explains the lack of shocks but I can't recommend this movie as it doesn't have much about it that is worth taking note of.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The "Confidential" part was meant to piggy-back on the popular appeal of the lurid magazine of the same name, while the labor racketeering theme tied in with headline Congressional investigations of the day. However, despite the A-grade B-movie cast and some good script ideas, the movie plods along for some 73 minutes. It's a cheap-jack production all the way. What's needed to off-set the poor production values is some imagination, especially from uninspired director Sidney Salkow. A few daylight location shots, for example, would have helped relieve the succession of dreary studio sets. A stylish helmsman like Anthony Mann might have done something with the thick-ear material, but Salkow treats it as just another pay-day exercise. Too bad that Brian Keith's typical low-key style doesn't work here, coming across as merely wooden and lethargic, at the same time cult figure Elisha Cook Jr. goes over the top as a wild-eyed drunk. Clearly, Salkow is no actor's director. But, you've got to hand it to that saucy little number Beverly Garland who treats her role with characteristic verve and dedication. Too bad, she wasn't in charge. My advice-- skip it, unless you're into ridiculous bar-girls who do nothing else but knock back whiskeys in typical strait-jacketed 50's fashion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolutely laughable film. I live in London and the plot is so ill-researched it's ridiculous. No one could be terrorised on the London Underground. In the short time it is not in service each night there are teams of maintenance workers down there checking the tracks and performing repairs, etc. That there are homeless people living down there is equally unlikely. Or that it's even possible to get locked in and not have access to a mobile phone in this day and age...<br /><br />The worst that's likely to happen if someone did find themselves there after the last train is that they might get graffiti sprayed on them. Although this has been coming under control due to the massive number of security cameras on the network, another thorn in the side of the story. (Remember in London as a whole we have more security cameras than any other city in the world.)<br /><br />If it had been set in a city I am not familiar with perhaps I could have enjoyed it through ignorance, but it's not a high quality film so I just couldn't bring myself to suspend my disbelief and try and enjoy it for the banal little tale that it is.<br /><br />I would have given it 0/10 if such a rating existed! Possibly the most disappointing film I ever thought I would like.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what the Oscar voters saw in this movie, but they must of seen some pretty hard stuff to see in it to be able to award it with the best picture Oscar. All I know is that fortunately there was Gene Kelly to play in it or this would have been twice as bad as I believe it is. First of all, I don't think Leslie Caron was really fit to play such a role. She isn't that talented, she isn't a great dancer and she's not good looking at all. It's a shame that one actor or actress may ruin a movie just like by playing in it because if Leslie Caron hadn't been in this, it might have made a terrific movie. The story was intelligent, the directing wasn't bad, and, as I said, Gene Kelly was pretty good. Now I'm not saying all this stuff about Leslie Caron just to criticize her, I'm just saying it because I think that's what the worse part of the movie is. She's probably a good actress but I can't tell because I haven't seen her in anything else but I think she was pretty bad in "An American in Paris". So if you want to see it, go ahead but I'm telling you, you're way better off watching "Singin' in the rain".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this film to see what might be a bloody, non stop action movie and got this overly sentimental and super cheap low budget action-drama that makes Kickboxer look like Die Hard. Lou and Reb are in Vietnam and as Lou saves Reb from the gooks, he gets shot in the head in what is easily one of the worst effects ever. The Vietnam scenes are shot in someones backyard, I swear! Lou is now brain damaged and Reb and him live together and own a bar. Super homoerotic. Lou is convinced to fight in a cage for money and Reb goes on a killing spree to get him back. There is no good fight scenes at all, the punches are two inches away from a person. Characters personalities change in matter of seconds. One guy is a bad and in the next scene he's good. The acting is horrid and the music is some overly sentimental Frank Stallone sounding song that would make you sick. I hated this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You will recognize the plot immediately. Daughters of a divorced couple trying to get Mom and Dad back together again. Yes, that was the theme of The Parent Trap in the 60s, 80s and 90s. But here's the spooky thing. Even though Deanna Durbin was younger than the 21 year old Hayley Mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles, Durbin looks much older, as in adult. And so do all of her so-called siblings. <br /><br />And this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. The girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. So you're constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. When Ray Milland and others start "hitting on" them you get the feeling as if they're pedophiles, and you might be one, too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. Teens or temptresses, little girls or little foxes, you are never quite sure what you're supposed to be thinking of them as.<br /><br />The parents, too, seem very old and the whole film seems very dated.<br /><br />It is a rusty version of the Parent Trap and you should avoid it, or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you don't believe me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've said this in other reviews, without a story, you can give the audience all the smoke and mirrors you want, still no one will give a damn.<br /><br />The director seems to have a great eye for 30s art deco (which I love), and I think the idea of using all digital backgrounds and such could indeed be the wave of the future in movie making. However, it's obvious the director got so interested in the digital rendering of his movie, he forgot to film many scenes which would have enormously helped this surprisingly thinned-plotted film. (SPOILER) For crying out loud, they forgot to have a villain in this thing! OK they have one, but he's been dead for 20 years by the time the movie takes place. Conran misses the point of HAVING a villain. As far as action goes, well let's see, Sky Captain (Law) shoots down ONE robot, two or three of the flapping wing airplanes (before Dex (Ribisi) tells him to stop shooting them down!!!), and a couple robots, but mostly spends his time looking dashing and getting others to fight his battles for him. Paltrow as Polly or Peggy or Punky or whatever is totally wasted in this movie (the reviewer who comments on hers and Law's lack of chemistry is so right) and I for one got a little sick of seeing repeated shots of the top of her camera, showing she ONLY HAS TWO SHOTS LEFT, both of which she wastes subsequently in the movie, one uncomically, one quite funny, although I saw it coming from 70 years away. No one except Law and Paltrow have any significant time on screen, and that's the movie's real flaw. An audience doesn't identify with robots, they need a hero to root for, and a visible, despicable villain to hate. Without that, plus a good engaging story, all the CG in the world won't help.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.