input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Born Again is a sub-standard episode from season one. It deals with the subject of reincarnation and just doesn't fly. I've never been big on reincarnation and that could be part of my apathy toward this episode. It does reference the Tooms case which is some nice continuation from the previous episode. But the positives end there. Which is unfortunate because that takes place at the beginning of the episode. I think it's ludicrous that a dead guy would chose to reincarnate in the body of a completely unrelated girl. And he waits until the girl turns eight to start exacting revenge. There's even a serious lack of witty Mulder & Scully dialogue to keep the episode afloat. If you're into reincarnation, maybe this episode is up your alley. If you're not, then at least you can learn what bradycardia is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was probably the biggest waste of my life ever. The acting was pathetic. Jordan Hinson could not show any upset emotions. At the beginning of the movie, she was supposed to be discouraged. Instead, she bobbed her head with her bottom lip stuck out. She sobbed pitifully without any tears for the crying scene. I was almost angry that out of all girls who wanted to be actresses, they had to pluck out her. Everyone else was suffering from over-acting as well. It was flat out annoying. It was also an insult to figure skaters. Jordan took a month to train, and they cast her as a person who makes the Olympic team. It's practically spitting on the effort real figure skaters put into their work. A pitiful excuse for a movie, and a pitiful attempt to associate hockey and skating. Don't waste your life. It doesn't even deserve one star.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.<br /><br />This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Flight of Fury starts as General Tom Barnes (Angus MacInnes) organises an unofficial test flight of the X-77, a new stealth fighter jet with the ability to literally turn invisible. General Barnes gives his top pilot Colonel Ratcher (Steve Toussaint) the job & everything goes well until the X-77 disappears, even more literally than Barnes wanted as Ratcher flies it to Northern Afghanistan & delivers it to a terrorist group known as the Black Sunday lead by Peter Stone (Vincenzo Nicoli) who plans to use the X-77 to fly into US airspace undetected & drop some bombs which will kills lots of people. General Barnes is worried by the loss of his plane & sends in one man army John Sands (co-writer & executive producer Steven Seagal) to get it back & kill all the bad guy's in the process...<br /><br />This American, British & Romanian co-production was directed by Michael Keusch & was the third film in which he directed Seagal after the equally awful Shadow Man (2006) & Attack Force (2007), luckily someone decided the partnership wasn't working & an unsuspecting public have thankfully been spared any further collaboration's between the two. Apparently Flight of Fury is an almost scene-for-scene word-for-word remake of Black Thunder (1988) starring Michael Dudikoff with many of the same character's even sharing the same name so exactly the same dialogue could be used without the makers even having to change things like names although I must admit I have never seen Black Thunder & therefore cannot compare the two. Flight of Fury is a terrible film, the poorly made & written waste of time that Seagal specialises in these days. It's boring even though it's not that slow, the character's are poor, it's full of clichés, things happen at random, the plot is poor, the reasoning behind events are none existent & it's a very lazy production overall as it never once convinces the viewer that they are anywhere near Afghanistan or that proper military procedures are being followed. The action scenes are lame & there's no real excitement in it, the villains are boring as are the heroes & it's right down there with the worst Seagal has made.<br /><br />Flight of Fury seems to be made up largely of stock footage which isn't even matched up that well, the background can change, peoples clothes change, the area changes, the sky & the quality of film changes very abruptly as it's all too obvious we are watching clips from other (better) films spliced in. Hell, Seagal never even goes anywhere near a plane in this. The action scenes consist of shoot-outs so badly edited it's hard to tell who is who & of course Seagal breaking peoples arms. The whole production feels very cheap & shoddy.<br /><br />The IMDb reckons this had a budget of about $12,000,000 which I think is total rubbish, I mean if so where did all the money go? Although set in Afghanistan which is a war torn arid desert Flight of Fury looks like it was filmed down my local woods, it was actually shot in Romania & the Romanian countryside does not make a convincing Afghanistan. The acting is terrible as one would expect & Seagal looks dubbed again.<br /><br />Flight of Fury is a terrible action film that is boring, amateurish & is an almost scene-for-scene remake of another film anyway. Another really lazy & poorly produced action thriller from Seagal, why do I even bother any more?
|
Negative
| null | null |
CRIME BOSS is directed by Alberto De Martino; an Italian crime drama partially filmed in Hamburg, Germany. An easily forgotten movie. Even in spite of a good car chase sequence, this flick seems to lumber on almost aimlessly. A new Don takes over a powerful Mafia family and finds himself fighting for his own life. Unwritten laws and ethics of the Mafia code make it hard to trust in anyone especially when millions of dollars are at stake. Brutality and violence breed the same in return. This can not be put on a shelf with the real gangster epics. Just the look of the film brings back memories of American drive-in fare. Even the popular American actor Telly Savalas can't boost the calibre of this crime drama. Antonio Sabato also stars with:Paola Tedesco, Guido Lollobrigida, Serio Tramonti and Piero Morgia.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was agonizingly bad movie. It will eat your heart out while you watch it. I beg you: don't watch this movie! You will hate you losing 1,5 hours of your lifetime! It's not as some movies that are so bad that you can watch those and enjoy... this movie is boring as... there is nothing as boring as this movie. You will hate yourself after watching this movie till the end. And you will hate yourself that you didn't listen to me.<br /><br />I hate myself. I tortured myself and I did watch this movie to the end. Now excuse me, I will shot myself. I have seen all.<br /><br />Please. Read this very carefully. Don't watch this film.<br /><br />Please!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I live in Salt Lake City and I'm not a Mormon, so why did I rent this movie? Well because I live in Utah and thought it'd be nice to see locations I know in a film. I really knew going into it that I wasn't going to get the inside jokes so I wasn't surprised when I sat with the deer in the headlights stare. What I was surprised at was the ant-non Mormon actions that were placed in this film.<br /><br />I know it's a Mormon film, catered to the members of the LDS Church, but I found it offensive because of the typical stereotype of people that isn't of their faith. Every non Mormon, which wasn't many, drank, smoked and had an amazing selfishness attitude, why?<br /><br />That really ticked me off about this film, they made the Mormons so pure, yet the rest of the state of Utah I guess is filled with punk psychos just because they don't follow the scriptures of the LDS Church.<br /><br />I can understand having the plots revolve around all LDS members, but you'd think Salt Lake City was 100% Mormon, which isn't even close to being the truth. And as I said, the non Mormons in the movie were portrayed as drunken jerks, please!<br /><br />I guess I just don't get it because I don't belong to their faith and I guess I never will.
|
Negative
| null | null |
believe it or not,this movie is worse than number three.it's slower,the acting is worse,and the story is very weak.there isn't a lot of good to say about this movie.even the fight scenes are more dull than number three,and i would have thought that impossible.this is a very slow 90 minutes.painful,in fact.i stuck it through,hoping it would get better.if you really want to see this movie,you should try to find a cheap rental of it.it is hard to find(for purchase,that is)and probably for good reason.like number three,this movie has nothing to do with the first two.it is the same in name only.anyway,the most i can give Best of the Best:Without Warning is 2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is really ONLY Bill Maher's interpretation of religion. There are several funny moments, and some interesting points, but don't go into this expecting an even-handed discussion of religion. This is what I consider to be the worst kind of documentary - Everything is arranged ahead of time and in editing to provide you with the opinion of the director, rather than letting you make your own decision.<br /><br />EDITING - It's very chopped up, inter-spliced with clips from pop culture and the media to reinforce the point. The interviewee barely has a chance to finish a sentence before he is interrupted by the editing. The only people given a fair chance to speak their mind are those who say what Bill Maher wants them to say. Once someone deviates from the gospel according to Maher, they get edited.<br /><br />INTERVIEWEES - They are meant to represent the absolute MOST extremist religions. From the TV evangelical to the ultimate Jewish stereotype, to a TRUCK STOP chapel (Seriously. A TRUCK STOP CHAPEL). He's picked the worst money-grabbers, the heavy extremists, and those who don't have the budget to say no to pick on. And when he does get a good person to interview, he edits the hell out of them.<br /><br />STEREOTYPING - All religions are portrayed as stereotypes. Especially hard hit are the Muslims. During the Muslim segment, he barely gives anyone the chance to speak before interrupting them either himself, or through editing in pieces with suicide bombers. ALL Muslims are portrayed as gun-toting extremists through the editing, and none of the people interviewed is edited fairly.<br /><br />ENDING - The message at the end is INCREDIBLY heavy-handed, and while it is an interesting idea, it's not presented with fairness to the countless people who are not religious extremists. Bill Maher explains himself while clips of destruction play in the foreground. This literally gives the message that religion is stupid and dangerous, and that it will destroy the world. He also states that everyone involved in religion is stupid.<br /><br />With the faults to the film, it has some good points, and the humor, while very unfair, is actually funny. But know going in, it is a very one-sided view, Bill Maher's view, of religion. He's not discovering anything. He's telling you what he thinks.<br /><br />4/10 - Some good moments, but heavy-handed with an extremely irresponsible documentary style.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just finished watching Going Overboard. I have to say that we should send every copy of this film to Iraq and make them watch. I even tried to get a blind women to watch this and she turned it off in like 20 min. Adam Sandler could not find a better project than this? As for the writing, if thats what you want to call it, those responsible should be forced to watch this movie forever in Hell!! I believe that somewhere I read that the budget for this film was $10,000 and they were way under. Did Wallmart get a good deal on this? Every store has a big huge bin of this crap sitting on the sales floor. The only good thing about this movie is you can use the DVD as a coaster, or trade it to a friend, but then they might not be your friend anymore!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The premise of the film is that Thomas Archer's son was murdered and his wife was brutalized -- and he is given a chance at revenge when (after Post Traumatic Stress Disorder therapy), he is put in a room with a man strapped to a chair and told this was the culprit. He is given a large table of implements with which to offer retribution: drills, bats, nails, sledgehammers, torches, whatever you can think of that someone could possibly want to use to physically hurt another human being.<br /><br />We go way too many scenes of torture before we figure out that The Man Archer is torturing is not the man who committed the crime. The two then create an uncomfortable alliance; who put them in this situation and why.<br /><br />Well, when all is said and done, we don't really care...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Proof why Hollywood conventions are in place. Stale dialogue, underdeveloped and flat characters and a disjointed storyline are only part of the problems with this gangster classic wannabe. An attempt to be daring and different but this appears to be a slap-together attempt at recreating the magic of Arthur Penn 's Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and George Roy Hill 's Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)- truly innovative filmmakers and films - but falling well below the bar. Problems with storylines being self-explanatory result in the need for a voiceover to explain problem sections. The editing appears again to be an attempt to duplicate the previous classics but is occasionally disjointed and cause more problems for me technically. Unnecessary shots are thrown in to justify the filming of them but would have better served the viewer by sitting on the cutting room floor. Stills, black & white montages and period music are thrown in from time to time in attempts to either be different or to cover up for scenes that can't transition well or to replace scenes that just didn't work at all and again are reminiscent of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969).<br /><br />Overly dramatic pauses between sentences, random shots of surrounding scenery that wasn't needed for storytelling plus over-the-top acting of bit players and supporting actors was reminiscent of the backyard camcorder directors of the late 1980's - I was left wondering who was in charge of this film during production and during post-production. The playing of music in most two shots and close-ups and then suddenly stopping in wide shots overly emphasized a weak musical score. No sound editing was drastically apparent as the bulk of the film was gunshots, doors, footsteps and dialogue (a style used in the late 60's through the mid-70's by new directors) but lacking background noise causing it to seem artificial - particularly the tire squeaks on dirt roads. In my honest opinion the biggest problem of all is there are no 'likeable' characters for the audience to route for nor were we lead to see as the protagonists of the story. Neither the gangsters nor the lawmen were characters I wanted to see win and neither were focused on as the 'hero'- a necessity for any story to work for me. We know from Penn's and Hill's movies who the 'heroes' are. Even though they are criminals, we like them and want to see them get away. I could care less who was on the screen in this film. I got the impression that John Milius was trying to give off a non-historically accurate reenactment documentary of the events surrounding John Dillenger's life from June 1933 to July 1934 (his death).<br /><br />To be fair, there are some moments of good solid storytelling, which are moments that shine forth brightly from the dark and dismal canister in which this film sits. John Milius gets better thankfully in future films where he doesn't seem to try to 'copy' other filmmakers. Dillinger (1973) isn't a total waste as many stars and famous faces who were at the cusp of breaking out are involved with this directorial 'big budget' debut, but wait for it on a classic movie channel rather than spending money to rent or buy.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie features Charlie Spradling dancing in a strip club. Beyond that, it features a truly bad script with dull, unrealistic dialogue. That it got as many positive votes suggests some people may be joking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the kind of film one watches in gape-jawed, horrified silence, and yet continues to watch, mesmerized, as if watching a train wreck in slow motion. And yet, in the back of your mind, thoughts are churning: "Who on EARTH green-lighted this garbage?"<br /><br />Some of the preceding user comments say things like, "A good way to introduce children to Laurel and Hardy" -- an insult to children everywhere. That children would need some sort of training plan to learn to love slapstick comedy shows a profound misunderstanding of the nature of children the world over. Others have commented on the faithfulness of the two stars' characterizations of Laurel and Hardy to which I would respond: so WHAT? One would think that the rash of movie BOMBS based on beloved series (Rocky and Bullwinkle, Avengers, Flipper, Mod Squad, ad nauseam) would have taught Hollywood that there are some things that simply can't be recreated. The films of Laurel and Hardy are readily available on video: why bother with this?<br /><br />As for F. Murray Abraham, a fine actor of stage and screen... well, all I can say is, he must have been in trouble with the IRS.<br /><br />Run, don't walk, away from the television if this trash comes on!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nintendo!!! YOU #%$@ERS!!! How could you do this to me? I can't believe it...this movie is actually worse than the first one. I went to see this at the theatre with my brother because my mother forced me to tag along....oh God...where do I even begin? The plot SUCKED. The voice acting SUCKED. The animation SUCKED. The ending REALLY SUCKED. If you liked this movie, YOU SUCK TOO. And to Futuramafan1987, who said this was the greatest movie ever, you are a TOOL, PLAIN AND SIMPLE. This isn't a movie for anyone but crack-addled ten-year olds with Game Boys who think Pikachu is God. I'm still cry to this day thinking about that horrible turd of a movie....and then there was Pikachu's Adventure...don't even get me started on that horrible mess of a film. It is, in all truth, one of the most boring experiences of my entire life. Don't go watch this at any costs.<br /><br />Bottom Line: Go out, find every copy of this movie that you can, and burn it. Burn them all, and then proceed to rent a GOOD movie, like Aliens...or Bowling For Columbine...or even Back to the Future!
|
Negative
| null | null |
i would have given this movie a 1 out of 10 if it weren't for ms. Claudine Barretto's performance. and i will take this time to overlook that Kris Aquino's here. and... end.<br /><br />i really AVOID watching Pinoy horror movies because stories lack originality and i really think that (some) writers don't give enough attention to the characters (and their progression) in their stories (redundant??). it was as if they 'pushed' the movie onwards when their storytelling stank. and my goodness, creative exhaustion led them to rip-off other movies. why?? why did this movie get a good review?? i wouldn't give it that much merit. the movie was KIND OF scary, but the movie seemed more freaky as it deals with Filipino folklore... it goes into my list of 'most likely to happen' category. i just wished they spent more time improving the story lines and fix those flash back sequences, never mind if the lighting sucked, it wouldn't matter much if the content would blow you away.. SAYANG.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love sharks. And mutants. And explosions. Theoretically, with those parameters in mind, HAMMERHEAD: Shark Frenzy should have been the best movie ever.<br /><br />It is not.<br /><br />The monster looks like a villain from Power Rangers, and has approximately the same range of rubbery movement. This might be okay if the makers weren't quite as proud of its design as they seem to be. That is to say, for a guy in a big rubber suit in an action/scifi/horror flick that could benefit from some mystery, the shark gets a lot of screen time. Granted, it is usually shaky and erratic. I guess you're supposed to assume that it's so scary that even the camera guy freaks out.<br /><br />The camera goes to a person about to get eaten, the camera goes to the shark. The camera goes back to the person about to get eaten, only now they are screaming and armless. And so on.<br /><br />The costuming is bad, the acting is poor, and the special effects are sub-par, but the writing is by far the worst. Things happen completely randomly so that more people can be eaten, or so something can explode. Because LET ME TELL YOU, the people who made this movie definitely went in with a more explosions = more better mindset. Characters shoot cars and there is a massive explosion. They shoot helicopters, there is a massive explosion. Barrels, rocks, trees, WHATEVER, they all explode, so much so that the freaking shark even explodes at the end.<br /><br />Speaking of which, I don't care how crazy a person is, I find it hard to believe that anyone would think trying to make a giant half-person half-shark have sex with a woman in order to make freaky shark people babies is a good idea. That is, UNLESS that person is the mad scientist in this movie.<br /><br />The bad thing is, the movie is so random (and at times, boring) that even its badness is not really enough to hold a person's prolonged interest. It might be a good one to MST3K with your friends, but past that, if you happen to catch this bad boy on, do yourself a favor and change the channel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a brainless moment'! 2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I will never forget the night I saw this movie. We were on a submarine on patrol in the North Atlantic and this was the scheduled movie of the evening. We ALL gave up after the second reel. They did not even try to show it at the mid-night showing. Opting for a rerun instead...... This is all I really have to say but they have this stupid rule that my comment must contain ten lines. I'm not supposed to pad the comment with random words so I will just continue to ramble until I get my ten lines of BS. I could not find George Goble listed in the credits but I remember him in the movie. The sining was terrible and the songs even worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just saw the movie in theater. The movie has very few good points to talk about. Kareena's beauty and a couple of songs may be. Thats it. The movie is a complete disappointment in all areas. Anyone associated with the movie will be disappointed, even Mumbai Indians too (just now Chennai has made it to semi-final). <br /><br />But the worst I feel about the movie is the action scenes. Now days Bollywood is trying to copy action scenes from Hollywood. But they forget that Hollywood directors takes a lot effect to make it look like real. But unfortunately Bollywood directors do not have that much of time. They spend their time on songs and publicity of the movie. Now such too stupid action scenes may work in South as the audience just pay to watch their favorite actor killing bunch of people. But in Bollywood this is certainly not going to work. All the action scenes I wish I could have forwarded. At the end even some Chinese people appear from nowhere to beat Akshay Kumar. This is height of stupidity. Audience is not paying to watch such stupidity. I think Bollywood now should forget about the action movies. They cant make it. The last good action I have seen was from "Ghatak" and "Khiladiyon ka Khialdi". The current scene in Bollywood is really sad for action movie fans like me. Does these people see their movie after completion? Can't they figure out that the slow motion action (which is done using ropes) is too unrealistic and childish? Better not to have action scenes if you cant handle it. I just want to go back to Amitabh's era where movie like Zanjeer and Deewar were having thrilling action scenes. The sound effect was not very effective in those days, but visually it is much better than current era scenes. <br /><br />This movie now should open the eyes of the Bollywood movie directors. Please don't make any more action movies, until you acquire the art of making it realistic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watch LOTS of bad films, LOTS!!!!!! It's kind of a hobby, really. Almost every Saturday nite a group of friends and I get together and watch trash from around the globe - ANYTHING. Turkish super hero movies, vampire flicks from Brazil, Italian gorilla transplant movies, Kevin Costner films, ANYTHING (except maybe Raising Helen) but Ihave never seen a WORST film than THEODORE REX. Never. And it's not even entertainingly bad in an Ed Wood kinda way - it just SUCKS. Now this film was famous in Hollywood at the time it was made because Whoopi took off the gloves and made it clear to the press and anyone else who would listen that she HATED THIS PIECE OF CRAP = she tried to get out of her contract, she whined, she moaned but nonetheless they pour her fat butt into this leather skin tight futuristic cop uniform that is ghastly to see, yikes!!!! And you can just see her seething during takes - doing everything but looking off camera for her agent so she can scream at him. The dinosaur has about three facial expressions and the script is so horrible a third grade class could do a better job if promised cookies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw it yesterday night at the Midnight Slam of the Festival des films du Monde in Montreal. What a disappointment. This movie is clearly over rated by IMDb fans. The acting was only but regular. The directing didn't bring anything new or interesting. The plot lacks considerably : the movie is all about those college grads and the game they play making prank calls(7eventy 5ive). And on top of that, you can predict the movie's end in the first five minutes. If you like prank calls and a slasher with an axe that makes you jump only once or twice during the whole movie, you might like it. If you don't, this movie is not worth it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Johnny and Jeremy are vampires of sorts. Minus the fangs, of course. They're dark, bitter creatures with nothing better to do than to spread their own misery. Through their charms (namely a sharp tongue and a fat wallet, respectively) they seduce desperate souls, who they proceed to torment and victimize. That's more or less the basis of this black comedy, as I understand it.<br /><br />It's not a blend of black humor that I can easily subscribe to, partly because it bothers me to imagine the audience rooting for the sleazy, main character. I did enjoy, however, the sound and the melody of the rapid-fire (and supposedly very witty) remarks. I was very impressed by the cast's strong acting, particularly David Thelis's; only the character of Jeremy seemed too bi-dimensional. The photography and the music, both dramatic and somber, work very well together. <br /><br />What really turns me off about "Naked" (and the main reason I'd never recommend it to anyone) is the way it repeatedly seems to present misogyny as a valid way to vent one's angst. In other words, in a world that sucks so bad, what difference does it make if one inflicts some pain on girls, right? To suggest (as some have on this website) that Johnny is not so unkind a person because he's not as rough on girls as Jeremy, seems completely absurd to me. They're both terrible, nasty people. And they're particularly keen on hurting women every single time they get a chance. One could argue that Johnny eventually gets what he deserves, as if his bad karma suddenly swung straight back and bit him in the ass. But still, his and Jeremy's sadistic behavior are treated to a certain degree as a laughing matter. And I could be wrong, but I'm guessing that most people who absolutely love this movie also find that aspect of the film darkly comical.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A real blow-up of the film literally. This British film is boringly made.<br /><br />What an exciting plot! A terrorist places bombs on a train. How could the writers and producers of this stinker turn this into such a dull story?<br /><br />Glenn Ford, as the expert called upon to defuse the bomb, is given awful writing material to work with. Naturally, just as he is called in, his wife, Anne Vernon, is about to leave him. No wonder we never heard of Miss Vernon. After such a film, it would be enough to end her career.<br /><br />That elderly man who loved trains and interferes is our 1953 version of senile dementia. I thought it was highly insulting to show this man, even at the end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why oh why do people take good material and feel the need to change it some how? Having read the book on which this film is allegedly based a couple of years ago, I can say that there is little if anything from the original book. I went into this film with low expectations - i knew it would have a crappy telemovie feel to it - but it even failed to meet these.<br /><br />This is not a prequel - the only relationship it has with the original is the name. This is not the story of Carlito Brigante, it is the story of a totally different character who's been given the same name. They have just totally spat in the face of every Carlito's Way fan out there; adding insult to injury by casting Luis Guzman, who plays a crucial character in the original movie, in a different role.<br /><br />What's most disappointing is that now that this film has been made no other film will be made addressing the original, untouched material of the book Carlito's Way - something I really would have liked to have seen. I felt the same way about Chopper - they have four books as well as interviews worth of fantastic non-fictional material and could have made a brilliant biography of Australia's most feared underworld figure, instead they made a ho-hum film about a deranged but strangely pathetic small time crook (though Eric Bana's performance was spot-on). Now we will never get to see Carlito's real initial rise and fall.<br /><br />The three stars is because, looking at it purely as a stand-alone flick, it is not so appalling - there are some decent performances (Jay Hernandez is no Carlito but he could be good in other roles) and the story is not too bad. Even Puffy Combs suits his role. But they totally misunderstand the nature of the underworld at that time (I am a bit of a crime-non-fiction buff)- something which the original film and the books got right (having been written by then attorney and now judge Edwin Torres).<br /><br />The fact is though, it's not a stand alone - it's perhaps the most disappointing prequel ever filmed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Until now, the worst movie I had ever seen was Ben & Arthur. You really should check the reviews for that movie instead of this one. The review statistics for this movie have been skewed positive through a relentless and unscrupulous push by some of the people involved in making it, evidence for which is fairly easy to uncover online. At least the people who made Ben & Arthur were honorable enough to let it stand on its own shaky legs, instead of unscrupulously promoting it so suckers like me would buy it.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is terrible, the script, the story, the casting, the acting, the direction, the photography, the editing, the music... what else goes into a movie? Whatever it is, here it's as bad as it gets. If it weren't so unpleasant it would be ridiculous. I kept watching it thinking it must get better, because I hadn't yet discovered that none of the positive reviews for it are reliable.<br /><br />It does not take a lot of money to make a great movie, nor does a low budget mean a movie has to be bad. My favorite example of a shoestring-budget masterpiece is Gus Van Sant's amazing Mala Noche, but there are many others. Sideline SecretsDirector's Cut or originalis bad not because the people who made it had no money, but because they had gigantic egos and no talent for anything at all except self-promotion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is pretty funny and involving for about four dates, then it becomes a blatant commercial for some guy you (and even his "friends") really can't stand. It is a pretty interesting concept; film dates on a quest to find true love in modern LA. The problem is that it feels incredibly (and badly) scripted at times and blatantly self-promoting. It is difficult to care about and be drawn into any of the characters because the writer/actor is so egotistical, uncool, untrue, and simply unlikeable. You end up feeling sorry for his dates.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let this serve as a warning to anyone wishing to draw attention to themselves in the media by linking their name to that of a well-loved and well-respected, not to say revered author, in order to draw attention to their home-movies out on DVD.<br /><br />Hyped to the skies by its obviously talentless makers, in fact lied about only to be revealed, finally, as ludicrously inept in every department, the fans of Wells and of his book have been after the blood of its Writer-Producer-Director since it appeared on DVD.<br /><br />Many good points have been made by the other comments users on this page. Particularly the one about using this as a teaching aid for Film School students, since this "film" does not even use the basic grammar of scripting, editing, continuity, direction throughout its entire 3 hours running time. It is possible the Director did show up for the shoot. Certainly there was no-one present who knew even remotely what they were doing.<br /><br />An ongoing thread continues to evolve on this IMDb page which should at least furnish the watchers of this witless drivel with a few laughs for their $9.00 outlay.<br /><br />Much was promised. Absolutely nothing was delivered. Except "Monty Python Meets "War of The Worlds" with all the humour taken out.<br /><br />Indefensible trash. Just unbelievable.<br /><br />There are REAL independent film-makers out there to be checked out. People who actually try to work to a high standard instead of flapping their gums about how great their movie is going to be.<br /><br />People could do worse than keep an eye on Brit film-maker Jake West's "Evil Aliens" for example.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).<br /><br />I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. <br /><br />The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.<br /><br />Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I once used Wesley Snipes' name as a clue to go ahead and watch a new, untried film in which he appears. So now, for the first time, my Snipes-Method of film recommendation has failed. Utterly. I should first have come here to see these reviews.<br /><br />Snipes ought to be ashamed to allow his otherwise earnest efforts to be so wasted in "The Contractor".<br /><br />One of my worst flick fears has come to bitter fruition. I feared that the shaky, blurry, pseudo-documentary, "unconsidered" directing and editing style (first brought to my attention by the Paul Greengrass-directed "Bloody Sunday") might propagate to other films. Greengass' sickening style was then brought to nauseatingly new heights in the last two of the Bourne trilogy films. My fear had come to pass. In my opinion, these films are made really bad by these motion-sickness-inducing methods, which mistake blurry swipes for "action-enhancement". But the "Bourne Franchise," as Greengrass so loving calls his cash cow, apparently convinced others in Hollywood to go unprofessional in the quest for fast, big bucks.<br /><br />Read my lips, you Hollywood types. Action needs to be clearly photographed and presented, not merely hinted at by poor, lazy cinematographic techniques.<br /><br />And "The Contractor" goes so far as to emulate "The Bourne Ultimatum" in inanely-repeated sound bites, in hopes their juvenile (apparently-evaluated) audiences can't sense them. For example, if I hear a cop radio crackling "Yankee-Romeo" one more time, I'll just scream. The chances are good I won't hear it again: I certainly won't ever view "The Contractor" again.<br /><br />I recommend to those of you who have yet to see "The Contractor": just be content with the tranquility this lack affords to your life.<br /><br />2 out of 10; I am tempted to lower that to a 1.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jimmy Dean could not have been more hammy or absurdly loutish. Hysterical if viewed through the eyes of Mystery Science Theatre 3000, which I rate as a 10. I mean, the sight of this obese, corn-fed hog trouncing around Malta should be enough to send you to the vomitory, if you make it that far into the film. This ugly, hysterical farce should be placed with the likes of "Booty Call", "Pumpkinhead", "Swarm", and "The Smurfs Go To Bangladesh". A -gulp- film like this proves that sometimes actors, writers, producers, etc. get behind on their mortgage, or get stoned to the point of insanity. It begs the question "who was so stupid to finance such a whale?" But then, had good judgment prevailed and "Final Justice" never was, then we wouldn't have the delightful spoof voice-over in "Mystery Science Theatre 3000"!
|
Negative
| null | null |
CAMILLE 2000 <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 2.35:1 (Panavision)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst visiting Rome, an amorous nobleman (Nino Castelnuovo) falls in love with a beautiful young libertine (Daniele Gaubert), but their unlikely romance is opposed by Castelnuovo's wealthy father (Massimo Serato), and Fate deals a tragic blow...<br /><br />A sexed-up love story for the swinging Sixties, adapted from a literary source (Alexandre Dumas' 'La Dame aux Camelias') by screenwriter Michael DeForrest, and directed with freewheeling flair by Radley Metzger who, along with the likes of Russ Meyer and Joe Sarno, is credited with redefining the parameters of 'Adult' cinema throughout the 1960's and 70's. Using the scope format for the last time in his career, Metzger's exploration of 'la dolce vita' is rich in visual excess (note the emphasis on reflective surfaces, for example), though the film's sexual candor seems alarmingly coy by modern standards. Production values are handsome throughout, and the performances are engaging and humane (Castelnuovo and Gaubert are particularly memorable), despite weak post-sync dubbing. Though set in an unspecified future, Enrico Sabbatini's wacked-out set designs locate the movie firmly within its period, and Piero Piccioni's 'wah-wah' music score has become something of a cult item amongst exploitation devotees. Ultimately, CAMILLE 2000 is an acquired taste, but fans of this director's elegant softcore erotica won't be disappointed. Next up for Metzger was THE LICKERISH QUARTET (1970), which many consider his best film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this a 1. There are so many plot twists that you can never be sure to root for. Total mayhem. Everyone gets killed or nearly so. I am tired of cross hairs and changing views. I cannot give the plot away. Convoluted and insane. If I had paid to see this I would demand my money back. I wish reviews were more honest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie last night and already I am struggling to recollect very much about it. The story is about a group of criminals who escape from a space penal colony. They fly to the Moon in a space-age dustbin carrier; when there, they terrorise the dustbin men who work on the Moonbase.<br /><br />It strikes me that rubbish low-budget sci-fi films often involve either desert planets or, like this movie, criminals escaping from penal colonies. Why this is I have no idea. But I can say with some certainty that such films are always diabolical. This one is really no exception. It begins reasonably well with a decent credit sequence and a half-way alright dance music soundtrack. It then degenerates into a boring sci-fi thriller. So little of consequence actually happens in this movie that I am literally struggling to write a helpful review, so if you're reading this I apologise for not being able to enlighten you to the film's subtleties and nuances. For the record, I recall a tedious bunch of baddies, a tedious bunch of goodies, some nuclear warheads and a hologram of a naked woman. Other than that, I'm struggling.<br /><br />If you feel you could be interested in the activities of lunar dustbin men then I would not hesitate to recommend this film. I would also recommend it to those of you who wish to send their friends to sleep and steal their wallets.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, I agree with quite a bit that escapes Mr. Chomsky's mouth. His matter-of-fact delivery of interesting counterpoint is what makes the man a hit on the university campus circus. He comes across likable, unassuming, pragmatic. He doesn't cater to the current political style (obnoxious bi-partisanship) and he sets his sights on the far left as well as the far right, chastising both, and for good reason.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the film itself is a dud. In fact, I would not even call this a documentary but rather just a collection of speeches. Watching "Rebel Without a Pause" is no different from watching a speaker on a 3am taped segment on CSPAN. There are no camera movements, no edits, no stylistic touches. There is no story, no narrative.<br /><br />Technically speaking, the production is strictly amateurish. Audio is terrible and inconsistent; sometimes we cannot hear Noam speak, other times we cannot hear the questions that are being posited by those in attendance. When Noam is speaking rarely are we allowed to see the reactions of the audience except when we are given a quick shot of his wife who apparently attends every one of his speeches and beams with pride every time we see her.<br /><br />I cannot recommend this film and would say that you're probably better off checking out his taped speeches on cassette or CD to listen to in the car.<br /><br />4 out of 10 stars...and I'm in a generous mood today.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We all knew even before it aired, the Ron Moore mini-series is no Battlestar Galactica. That's fine. It just means it must stand on its own. It can't lean on Battlestar Galactica. If it's any good, it's good on it's own merits, and Ron Moore has something to be proud of. If reports are true, this is what Moore wanted. However, if his mini-series rots, he has shamed all the excellent actors that performed on-screen, not to mention the myriad off-screen personnel. And this is what he's done.<br /><br />Yes, this mini-series is no remake. I wouldn't even call it a re-imagining. It's a new production, inspired by Battlestar Galactica. It does not take place in the Galactica universe, with the same places and jargon and technology. It doesn't tell of the Galactica's search for the thirteenth tribe. Nor does it rely on the legends and mysteries that underpinned Galactica. Ron Moore's mini-series is a space-opera, action flick with a ceremonial nod to Battlestar Galactica.<br /><br />Maybe I should say, "just another" space-opera, action flick. Because as plots go, his has little that's original, or even interesting. I could relay the whole thing to you without a spoiler warning. But I won't inflict that on you. I'll just hit the most important point. Ready now? Here it is: Just watch the trailer. It will tell you everything there is in the story.<br /><br />Yes, creations of man turn on man and seek to destroy man. (I guess they forgot Azimov's rules, again.) They look like humans, so there's the whole aliens-among-us thing. At least there's no time-travel. Oh, and lots of fighting scenes and random acts of sex and violence. The end result was that when Moore did draw from Galactica, that ceremonial nod, it came off more corny than respectful. I mean, couldn't he even think up anything of his own?<br /><br />From the first few minutes, I wanted to watch something else. I didn't care about any of Moore's characters, since I couldn't identify with any of them. This fact hit me in the face when the Cylons began their attack. Armageddon on a planetary scale, and I didn't give a damn. How depressing.<br /><br />Moore's heroes when faced with an insurmountable obstacle, instead of overcoming it, rather tucked tail and saved their own butts. After all, it was the only way to save humanity, yadda yadda yadda. They took the safe way out, rather than risking their own lives to defend others. At least disgust is not apathy.<br /><br />But in the end, the Ron Moore mini-series was just activity without purpose, a movie on a treadmill, forever running yet going nowhere. And I just wanted it to be over. And by the time it was over, my life-force had been sucked from me. Against my own will, I was turning into a mindless, soulless zombie, probably of the type to which this mini-series would appeal. I needed to replenish myself. I needed to-and I swear this is true-I needed to watch an episode of Babylon 5. Two episodes, in fact, and I felt much better. And happier.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are similarities between Ray Lawrence's "Jindabyne" and his last movie "Lantana" a dead body and its repercussions for already dysfunctional lives. But whereas "Lantana" offered some hope and resolution, "Jindabyne" leaves everything unresolved in a bleak way that will leave most viewers unsatisfied, perhaps even cheated.<br /><br />The storyline - the aftermath of a fisherman's discovery of a corpse floating in a remote river - is based on a short story by Raymond Carver. It became an element in Robert Altman's classic 1993 ensemble "Short Cuts". Lawrence uses this theme for an exploration and exposition of relationships within a small Australian community under stress. The movie poses some moral questions "Would you let the discovery of a dead body ruin your good weekend?" and more poignantly for Australians "Would it make any difference if the dead person was an aboriginal?" The acting, especially by Gabriel Byrne and Laura Linney, is commendable. And there are elements of mysticism reinforced by haunting music, not unlike "Picnic at Hanging Rock".<br /><br />If all this sounds like the basis for a great movie - be prepared for a let down, the pace is very slow and the murder is shown near the beginning, thereby eliminating the element of mystery. And so we are left with these desolate lives and a blank finale.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, so, someone, somewhere, a few years ago, thought it would be a good idea to make a 3D IMAX movie about some flies stowing away aboard the Apollo 11 and going to the moon. So they did. Someone, somewhere, was an idiot.<br /><br />I want to give the artists props for doing their homework on the hardware. As far as I can tell, the rockets and the launch hardware were bang on. The graphics in general were pretty good - the rocket launch gave me chills, like a good rocket launch always does (my Popular Mechanics flying-car gearhead blood still runs strong) and the 3D was pretty effective. The CG wasn't Pixar-quality, but it was generally good. The flies were kinda mediocre anthropomorphics, with some half-assed late-60s characters thrown in for colour (hippie flies, African-American flies with giant afros and black shades, etc.) and the maggots looked more like grubs with human baby heads (although they made suitably gross squelching noises).<br /><br />The scriptwriters certainly did not do their homework, relying on offensive and outdated clichés (60s gender politics including mostly-useless female characters, racial stereotypes, evil Russians, a fat fly who only wants to eat, grade-two level gross-out humour). In a movie aimed for IMAX, they blew a wonderful opportunity to sneak in some educational content about physics and space travel - they didn't get their physics right (zero-g in the Lunar Module during landing burn? PLEASE.) They couldn't even be bothered to read the original radio transcripts between Houston and the astronauts, all of which is in the public domain; instead they wrote their own dialogue, which sounds like crap.<br /><br />But we liked the maggots.<br /><br />So they get a point and a half for rockets and maggots. Uh, yay. 1.5/5.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I usually try to be professional and constructive when I criticize movies, but my GOD!!! This was THE worst movie I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad everything! <br /><br />The plot follows a group of teen cliche's on their way to a rave (that takes place in broad daylight) at a remote island. However, when the group arrives, all they find is an empty dance floor and bloody clothes. Determined to find out what happened to the rest of the party-goers, the clan set's off on a mission through a zombie-infested forest. During this crusade, they are aided by a police chick and a sea captain that just happens to have the right number of weapons to give to each of the kids. They also meet up with Jonathan Cherry and some other survivors. Basically the rest of the movie is a collection of poorly directed action sequences including a far too long shootout outside of the "house of the dead." This fight came complete with cheesy Hollywood violence, redundant clips from the HOTD video game, and sloppy matrix-esque camera rotations. One of the character's even volunteers to sacrifice himself to save the others. Why? Not because he was noble and brave, but because part of his face got scarred by acid a zombie spat on him after he continued to beat the creature long after it had been disabled! I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?!?<br /><br />To sum it all up, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie unless you want to see for yourself just how terrible it is. The theater I was in was more dead than the zombies on the screen, and I'm sure the money I wasted seeing this piece of sh*t could easily cover the costs it took to make it. GRADE: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
The final pairing of Nelson Eddy and Jeanette MacDonald is basically a complete misfire.The script is weak and has been presented badly.The film just has no life in it.Eddy and MacDonald would have been better off just making a filmed concert for their final pairing.There's nothing wrong with their singing,its just everything else in this turkey thats overcooked.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's been a looooonnnggg time since I saw this comedy, and I'd forgotten just how idiotic it is. I'd place this easily in the lower two or three of Elvis Presley's very worst movies. Presley plays Joe Whitecloud, a half-breed Indian bull rider who returns home to Arizona and the broken-down shack where his family lives, and where his friends love to party all night long. His parents are played by Burgess Meredith and Katy Jurado, and his old Indian grandpa is Thomas Gomez. None of the three offer anything of substance , comically or otherwise. The government has invested in the family's cattle, but they're lacking a bull. Elvis gets to sing just a few utterly worthless songs, and is pursued by a young boy-crazy gal and her gun-toting mother. This is just a real slapdash of a mess, and the dilapidated surroundings practically stink of manure and don't make this much easier. The one thing that puzzles me, however, is that Elvis actually seems to be having a good time in the film. Hard to believe, considering he got so upset about being stuck making so many mediocre movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've never found Charley Chase very funny, even though his on-screen character sometimes reminds me of John Cleese, whom I find VERY funny. (Charley Chase also reminds me of gowky Hen Broon from Scotland's 'Sunday Post' comics page.) In Chase's best films, I tend to admire his professionalism rather than laughing at him. I'll give Chase credit that his very best films -- such as 'Mighty Like a Moose' and 'His Wooden Wedding' -- have inspired a fandom who are fiercely loyal to him ... but I'm positive that even the most die-hard Chase fan will agree that the very early and very crude 'Married to Order' just isn't funny at all.<br /><br />Chase -- eager, awkward, gormless, naff -- is a young swain hoping to court the fair Rose. Oliver Hardy gives the best performance in this film as her blowhard father, who disdains Chase as a 'mollycoddle'. Leo White, who did more notable work as a foil for Chaplin at Essanay, is on hand here as a rival.<br /><br />There's some action involving an Ingersoll watch. I was intrigued that the brand name is mentioned in the dialogue titles: is this an early example of product-placement? <br /><br />Sadly, a major flaw in 'Married to Order' is the casting of Rosemary Theby as Rose: she's meant to be a standard-issue ingenue, but Theby -- flat-chested, hawk-faced -- is physically wrong for the role. Theby (the wife of Harry Myers) had a successful career as a screen actress, but was never a believable ingenue. Film historian William K Everson dealt with her very dismissively in one of his film books.<br /><br />I'll rate 'Married to Order' just 3 out of 10, and I'm being charitable ... because I keep suspecting that Charley Chase has got something that everyone else gets but I keep missing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You want to see the movie "THE Gamers" by Dead Gentlemen Productions. This is not that movie. This movie is not funny. It is a waste of time.<br /><br />All of the good comments here seem to be written by (poorly disguised) false third parties. The people who made this movie seem to be attempting to synthesize fake interest.<br /><br />This movie is not a well done mockumentary. Comparisons to "Spinal Tap" or Christopher Guest are insulting.<br /><br />The movie is so mean-spirited that I cannot imagine anyone familiar with the subject matter finding it funny. Being able to laugh at yourself is an important quality, but if you are the ones being lampooned in this manner, you'd have to hate yourself to enjoy it.<br /><br />The movie is not offensive because of its grand satire of taboo topics but because of its constant pathetic banality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here's one you can watch with a straight face, with a script so bad, even Will Ferrell wouldn't be in it.<br /><br />There are two laughs in HOT ROD.<br /><br />1. The Punch-Dance. Rod "needs to go to his quiet place" and before anyone can say Kevin Bacon, he is footloosing a passionate, overwrought bodyswerve to the strains of a band who wishes they had the big-hair faux-metal chops of Europe.<br /><br />2. John Farnham's You're The Voice. In one of those epic sequences where the star and his cohorts do The Slomo Walk down Main Street and the townfolk follow on their heels in support, the soundtrack is the gag. How did the film-makers even come across this Aussie recording artist? A major Australian vocalist (and a genuine talent) who shot to fame in the early '70s covering Raindrops Keep Fallin' On My Head, then disappeared until 1986 for The Big Comeback with You're The Voice, John Farnham's anthem is so bewitchingly cheesy, it leveled mountains in Switzerland.<br /><br />Besides these two high points in the film - both ruined anyway with the slipshod writing - the rest of the film is like choking on someone else's vomit.<br /><br />Andy Samberg is Rod, a failed stunt jumper who has never made a jump. Maybe it's got something to do with the fact he's driving a moped into the heart of darkness. Or his fake mustache. Yeh, someone actually thought that was funny.<br /><br />Without one jump under his starry belt, he plans for a 15-bus extravaganza - which would surely kill a lesser bad comedian, like Jason Biggs or Rob Schneider - to win the day and save his stepfather and simultaneously wipe out cancer and whatever... who watches these movies for plot anyway? Along the way (as usual for moronic leads in these comedies), he scores a salubrious chick (Isla Fisher), who must surely be retarded to consider swapping chromosomes with this loser.<br /><br />Sissy Spacek (CARRIE, 1976) has so little to do she almost phoned in her performance - then changed her mind and just hung up. Ian McShane must've lost a bet to be here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The writers and producers of this little outing have plummeted new depths of depravity. Did writer's block set in so badly, OR had ideas dried up so much, that they were forced to include a disgusting scene where a young woman defecates in the back seat of a van, and then promptly throws the excrement at the car behind (mind you at least this summarises what this film is worth). We had already been treated to one of the other women urinating over one of her friends at gunpoint, as well as numerous episodes of graphic vomiting; once would have sufficed... we got the message! This really is taking toilet humour to another level! Had the script and acting been better then I could have easily forgotten that I was watching a film shot entirely on low budget video. This was a fairly original storyline, with a clever (the only) piece of direction in that we only ever got to take the viewpoint from inside of the van; thus making it feel much more real. We never got to see inside any other locations, such as the store or the field where several of the women disappeared, and this could have added much needed tension.<br /><br />The script was dire. Lines like: 'I don't feel too good... I want to go home' after one of the girls has been pursued by a psychopath; subjected to rape by a screwdriver and shot at, seem a little undercooked.<br /><br />The acting was diabolical (apart from the maniac). Did all the main 5 actresses in this learn acting by taking a correspondence course during a long postal strike! The sound was so bad that I had to watch the entire film with the subtitles on.<br /><br />The director seemed to have an easy job in this. It seems that the only direction he must have given was: 'Scream girls'.<br /><br />AND AS FOR THE SCREAMING...... If you watch this please be sure to have some paracetamol at the ready!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie and acting are not bad and Jay Hernandez does a good job playing Calito Brigante but the movie forgets it's suppose to be a prequel to a hit movie. The makers of this prequel clearly did not watch the original Carlito's Way or at least did not care about continuity. This movie is a prequel which means the original movie has already laid out some history for us and this movie should end where the original begins or at least lead up to it. Not one of Carlito's close old friends from the original make an appearance in this movie, they're not even mentioned. Luis Guzman, Pachanga in the original, is in the movie but he plays a completely different character. The original takes place in 1975 and the prequel takes place in 1969-70. Considering this movie takes place less than 5 years earlier, wouldn't you think one of Carlito's long time friends would make an appearance? In the original, Carlito start's out being released from jail after spending 5 years in jail. That's only a few month's between the end of the prequel and the start of the original! ***Semi Spoiler*** We know from the beginning of the original, Carlito has spent 5 years in prison so when the prequel gives us this Hollywood happy ending it's an insult to the intelligence of fans of the original. What happen to Gail? It's the lack of continuity that made this film go direct to video release.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sometime I fail to understand what do the directors think when they make a movie... I had had a trauma after watching Welcome (2007) and thought that they wont do it again. But after loads of amazing promos, Tashan finally ended as heart attack.<br /><br />Such amazing 3 songs in promo - Dil Haara, Chhaliya and Tashan Mein..... and what u get in the movie? Zero story, predictable plot, plenty of Akshay Kumar stunts and nothing interesting apart from watching Kareena after her major weight loss...!!!<br /><br />Music-wise another major disaster... in the music album, they have spent time on giving pathetic small dialogs of these 4 jokers and they haven't thought of giving the background song of the scenes when Akshay Kumar is doing stunts...! that song is such nice, quite comparable to Tashan Mein and that is not taken in the music album!!! :-( If you plan to watch this movie, i would say, watch it to listen to that background song which goes something like ...'Bachchan Bachchan Pandey...'<br /><br />Overall very disappointed even with the way Bhaiyyaji has made attempt to speak bad English!<br /><br />Go away man, i need to puke!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I consider this film one of the worst in the Nightmare series. It was so boring that I couldn't remember a thing 20 minutes after the film was over, it even tires me to write a review on it.<br /><br />Okay, #4 was a joke and Freddy was the joker. #5 tried to return to the roots of the series. It was darker and more atmospheric than Nightmare 4, which is a good thing, basically. They tried to shoot a horror film instead of a comedy. Unfortunately they forgot to add suspense and scares. Because of that Nightmare 5: The Dream Child is neither funny nor is it scary. What we actually get is a boring film with the usual bad actors (maybe with the exception of Lisa Wilcox).<br /><br />The plot (Freddy killing Lisa's friends by using the dreams of Lisa's unborn child) has a good base but it just isn't enough for 90 minutes of film. Sometimes the story gets very confusing (maybe because there isn't any) and you can't stop wondering what the filmmakers were aiming at. The screenplay must have had more holes than Swiss Cheese and the film therefore was very cheesy itself (let me say that I don't like cheese though, even if I am from Switzerland). Not even the special effects were as good as for example in part 4.<br /><br />Don't bother to rent/buy this film if not for completeness, it's quite a mess.<br /><br />My rating: 4/10 (get used to it, #6 is also a messy one...)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously, I've read some of the reviews on this film, and I have to ask, were you people watching the same movie.<br /><br />Yes, I give the set directors a lot of credit for being able to recreate 1930 vintage Los Angeles, but so what? <br /><br />None of the characters are likable, the story seems aimless, Karen Black is simply not a very good actress. Donald Sutherland is just icky. (and his character "Homer Simpson" makes me wish for the animated version. D'oh!) Then you had the creepy child actor, the creepier Billy Barty, and so on.<br /><br />This is one of those films cinema buffs love and the rest of us look at each other and go, "What the heck!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Millie is a sap. She marries a rich guy named Maitland and they have a child. She then catches him cheating on her and divorces him...but lets him keep the kid she claims to love. Back then in the early 1930s, she would have been entitled to hefty spousal and child support but lets the guy off amazingly easy...with no support...what a sap! Later, when she has a boyfriend and life seems pretty good, he turns out to ALSO be a cheat! Wow, does she have a hard time picking men.<br /><br />As a result of these bad relationships, Millie changes. Now she's a wild party girl--doing everything she can to distract herself from her hard luck. Suddenly, many years pass. Millie's daughter who she left early on in the film is now 17 and oddly fashions haven't changed one bit. An old friend of Millie's (yes, it's another evil man!) is now pretending to be the daughter's friend, but he has lecherous designs on her. Millie promises him that if he touches the girl, she'll kill him. Take a wild guess what happens next! <br /><br />Overall, the film is a confusing and often bizarre mess--a bit like "Madam X" but much, much less focused. So often Millie's motivations and actions seem to make little sense. And, the film seems to have a little of everything tossed into it--so long as it substantiates the notion that all men are pigs. Unusual but not particularly good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For those looking for a sequel for the fine South African miniseries of the 1980s, this isn't it. Nor is it a historical drama. Rather, it is a dreary little fantasy which has nothing to do with the historical Shaka, but merely uses his name to give a certain cachet to Sinclair's idiotic story about an African superhero who is a combination of Jesus, Lincoln, Superman, and Nelson Mandela.<br /><br />On the other hand, there are a few laugh-out-loud moments, as when Shaka breaks the cross to which he is chained and kicks some serious slaver butt. You know, like Jesus would have done if he hadn't been such a wimp.<br /><br />True, I saw only the 98-minute version, but I can't imagine that twice as much of this crap would have been better.<br /><br />And what kind of a name is Mungo?!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tourists head to Ireland for a school trip to learn about Druids. What they encounter is a horrific tale of cannibalistic killers.<br /><br />If I had to sum up Evil Breed, it would be a low grade gore fest. The film mixes Dead Alive, Evil Dead, Wrong Turn all in one. It's just too bad that the film has so many inconsistencies to keep track of that it loses any "fun" one would have watching it. The film has lots of random "horror" nudity...although the film also stars four porn stars, yup four, so there could have been plenty more. Breed also showcases a good amount of gore. <br /><br />Evil Breed has a horrible start, with laughable dialogue and horrible acting. That's a given in a straight to video horror film, but this takes the cake. I can't really figure out who the main character is, since the one female who "lives" at the end is not really in the movie all that much. Speaking of the ending, that has to be one of the most random and bogus ending in the history of film. It has no purpose with the rest of the film and totally changes one's view of the film.<br /><br />You have to see this film to believe it, since there are some pretty great death scenes. There are two death scenes that come into my mind, one in which the inbred killer rips the intestines out of a naked woman through her chest....yea her chest, don't ask me. The other id when the guy gets his intestines, yet again, ripped out through his asshole. Does that kill the guy? No, the killer continues to strangle the guy with his own intestines. These scenes remind me so much of Dead-Alive, with the right amount of humour in each. I also got the sense of Evil Dead, with the pointless mentions of horror films and Sam Raimi. Along with Halloween, when the female character is in a closet screaming for her life with the killer trying desperately;y to get in.<br /><br />Although, the gore and nudity are not enough for the poor audio and visual quality of the film. When the teacher wakes up from her bed and walks down the stairs, her footsteps are so loud and hard that it seems like she was wearing boots. Distracting indeed. As well as the continuity in the film, with only one inbred killer? As well as which character dies at which moment. I couldn't tell if the breast implant chick was Jenny or Gary's sister/cousin...I can't remember. As well as the random naked chick with a dead baby hanging out of her body, still attached with the umbilical cord.<br /><br />The horrible editing is distracting as well, the opening credits are too fast and disorienting. It did have a bad start and got better, but the ending just brings the film back down to a horrible level. If maybe there were better production values and more faith put into this film, then it wouldn't have been horribly butchered to death. Stay away from this film, unless you are happy with the below budget horrible bad film with decent gore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was never quite sure where this thing was going. These people seem interested in what is going on on some mountain. They investigate, have narrow escapes, leave, come back, leave, put each other in danger, sleepwalk, get attacked by witches who have consistent wardrobes, etc., etc. The guy seems to like the girl, but leaves her unprotected numerous times. She gets taken off, he gets her back, leaves her again. You get the point. The whole thing seems to get around to some sort of sacrifice, I think, but I'm not sure, or turning people into witches, but I'm not sure. It's just dull and endless and not worth the time. There are some atmospheric scenes, but the print is so bad that there times when twenty seconds of blackness is not unusual. Is this caused by age or the overuse of night filters.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Warning: Spoilers Galore!<br /><br />Tim Burton remaking this sui generis movie is about as sensible as remaking Psycho - oh, that's right, some idiot already did that - I rest my case.<br /><br />Movie opens with chimpnaut blundering a simulation, proving he's not that smart from the outset. Marky Mark appears in shot without his characteristic underpants showing, then is turned down by a plain woman who prefers the touch of chimpanzees.<br /><br />The perfunctory establishing shot of the space station orbiting Saturn for no apparent reason, interior of ship a-bustle with genetic experiments on apes. Must we travel 1,300 million kilometers to Saturn to conduct these experiments? The special effects team decrees it.<br /><br />Marky's chimp gets lost in that staple of 60s sci-fi cinema - the Time Warp. Marky then demonstrates the space station's mind-boggling security ineptness by stealing a pod without anyone noticing, while simultaneously demonstrating his abject stupidity in mounting a deep-space rescue mission into a worm-hole for an expendable test chimp, with a million dollar vehicle with limited fuel and oxygen supplies.<br /><br />Before anyone can say `Pointless Remake' Marky has surfed the worm-hole, crashed on an alien planet, removed his helmet without any thought to the lethality of the atmosphere and is being chased through a sound stage that almost resembles a lush rainforest, if it weren't for the kliegs backlighting the plastic trees.<br /><br />Surprise! It's APES doing the chasing - or at least, it *would* have been a surprise if no one saw Planet Of The Apes THIRTY-THREE YEARS AGO.<br /><br />Since Marky Mark did not get to show his pecs, take down his pants, or bust his lame whiteboy rap, he was characterless. Michael Clarke Duncan's gorilla teeth being inserted crookedly helped immensely in establishing *his* lack of character. Helena Bonham-Carter (aka irritating chimp activist), at a loss without a Shakespearean script, did a fine job of outdoing both Marky and Clarke as Most Cardboard Cutout. Paul Giamatti, the orangutan slave trader, secured the role of token comic relief and interspecies klutz. Though I have grown bilious in hearing puns relating to this movie, one review headline captured the essence of this Planet Of The Apes `re-imagining': `The Apes Of Roth'. While everyone else minced about looking like extras from One Million Years BC or Greystoke, Tim Roth, as Chimpanzee Thade, chews massive amounts of scenery and hurls kaka splendiferously. As entertaining as his portrayal of the psychotic Thade was, his character lacked a behavioral arc: Thade is mad when we first meet him... and he's pretty much at the same level of mad at film's end. Nice twist.<br /><br />The original POTA (1968) featured a leading character, Charlton Heston's Taylor, who was so disenchanted with mankind that he left earth for space with no regrets - yet as that film progressed, Taylor unwittingly found himself locked in a battle to prove mankind's worth - as their sole champion! The original film was ultimately a tale of humiliation, not salvation: when Taylor discovers the Statue of Liberty, he is forced to realize that his species had NOT prevailed. Is there anything that cerebral or ironic to Marky Mark's Leo? Or Roth's Thade? No, but there's lots of running.<br /><br />The slogans cry: Take Back The Planet .but it's the APES' planet. In this movie, humans and apes crash-landed here together, the humans having degenerated to cavepeople, allowing the apes to acquire speech and sensual body armor; the apes DESERVED to inherit the planet! Along comes Marky Mark, in true anthropocentric arrogance, taking it for granted that humans HAVE to be the apex predators, simply because they're there. `Taking it back' is as ludicrous as apes landing here in 2001, complaining, `A planet where men evolved from APES??!!' and then causing trouble with their overacting and hairy anuses.<br /><br />Heston was cast in the 1968 POTA because he had established his reputation as a maverick: he WAS Ben-Hur, Michelangelo, Moses! To cast him as the mute, dogged animal in an alien society was to stupefy an audience's expectations: how crazed must a world be where Our Man Charlton cannot command respect? Marky Mark has currently only established that he has tight underpants.<br /><br />Though Heston was denigrated constantly by the ape council, he dominated the screen with his charisma and stupendous overacting. When Marky Mark tries to instill fervor in the mongoloid humans, it's like that unpopular guy in school suddenly being made classroom monitor, who tells you to stop drawing penises on the blackboard and you throw a shoe at him. Burton tries to elevate Marky to humanity's icon, but he comes off as a chittering deviant. In the original film, the apes deem Taylor a deviant, yet he was, to audience and apes alike, an icon of humanity. That irony again.<br /><br />It was apt that a man who elevated scene-chewing to an acting technique - Heston - should play the father of this film's primo scene-chewer, Thaddeus Roth. As Roth's ape-dad, Charlton utters his own immortal lines, turned against the HUMANS this time, `Damn them! Damn them all to hell!'<br /><br />The movie gets dumb and dumber towards the end. While Thaddeus is giving Marky an ass-beating lesson, a pod descends from on high with Marky's chimpnaut in it. Apes demonstrate their hebetude by bowing in obeisance to this incognizant creature, while Marky proves his own hebetude by muttering, `Let's teach these monkeys about evolution.' Firstly, they're not monkeys, you ape! Secondly, it was genetic tampering and imbecilic plot fabrications which brought the apes to this point, not evolution. And what you intend to teach them by blowing them away with the concealed lasergun is called misanthropy, not evolution.<br /><br />Giving away the twist ending would only confuse viewers into believing that Estella Warren's half-nekkid role was actually integral to the plot (be still my pants.).<br /><br />No matter that he was humankind's last underpanted hope; in the end, cop apes take Marky away to Plot Point Prison where he was last heard ululating, `It's a madhouse! A MADHOUSE!!...'
|
Negative
| null | null |
Blue Monkey (1987) or 'Invasion of the BodySuckers' as it's known here in the UK was a pretty boring horror movie about an old man who gets bitten in a greenhouse by some mysterious toxic plant!!!! The man gets rushed to hospital, where this worm like creature comes out of his mouth, of course this transforms into this insect monster and proceeds to go on the rampage!! Despite Steve Railsback and John Vernon being in the movie, i found it to be boring, with a flat predictable storyline, un-interesting characters, cheap special effects and lack of action!!!! Horror fans don't really need to track this rare movie down, you wont be missing much trust me!!! I give this movie 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pier Paolo Pasolini, or Pee-pee-pee as I prefer to call him (due to his love of showing male genitals), is perhaps THE most overrated European Marxist director - and they are thick on the ground. How anyone can see "art" in this messy, cheap sex-romp concoction is beyond me. Some of the "stories" here could have come straight out of a soft-core porn film, and I am not even so much referring to the nudity but the simplistic and banal, often pointless stories. Anyone who enjoyed this relatively watchable but dumb oddity should really sink his teeth into the "Der Schulmaedchenreport" soft-porn German 70s movie series, because that's what "Decameron" looks like to me.<br /><br />Besides, the movie is sloppy on nearly all levels, from start to finish: <br /><br />1. Editing. An example: at 1 hour:15 minutes:45 seconds there is a chasing scene that is put quite clearly in the wrong place. It was supposed to be placed about a minute later, but I guess that Pasolini must have hired boozed-up editors who have little time for the "fine details" of movie-making. Pee-pee-pee's fans would probably counter this by saying that it was placed there intentionally - which I very much doubt. Besides, even if that were true, that would be even worse, because that story gains absolutely nothing by making it harder to follow. (This isn't exactly "Eraserhead" or one of Tarantino's broken-form films...) <br /><br />2. Acting. Vey sloppy. Triple Pee's fans (all 8 of them) proudly declare how 3P-O uses "real people instead of actors". (Aren't actors people? Or are they Martians? Sure, many actors have sub-par IQs but does that mean we should treat them with contempt...?) Other directors have used amateurs and succeeded (such as Alan Parker or De Niro), so why are PPP's amateurs so utterly awful in his movies? The answer is once again appalling sloppiness. Pasolini is sloppy in everything, and that includes trying to get as much out of his toothless amateurs as he can. He is a lazy director, an IMperfectionist if you like. The anti-Kubrick, I suppose... Pee-pee-pee's principal goal when casting must have been to find as many toothless old people as possible (and young men that are to his liking). In Pasolini's world there is a simple formula: lack of teeth + strange face = realism. It's all well and fine to have them toothless, but at least try to eke out some at least semi-decent performances out of these inexperienced neo-thespians, otherwise you're an amateur yourself - an amateur director, in Pasolini's case. Whether 3P-0 wasn't capable of this feat or simply didn't care doesn't change anything. (Who knows... maybe he didn't even notice the awful acting?) <br /><br />3. Audio. The synchronization. If 3P-0 felt that microphones are too much of a hassle when filming a movie, then he ought to have at least made a concerted effort in post-production, i.e. getting all these bum actors to say their lines on cue in the studio, so that we the viewers wouldn't have to watch mouths move while the elusive dialogue floats elsewhere in the movie.<br /><br />4. Lack of concept. We have close to a dozen stories which aren't connected in any meaningful way. Some are anti-Church (more on that later), while some are merely sex yarns i.e. cheap male (sometimes gay) fantasies designed to titillate and nothing else. The stories and characters are not amusing (if at all) on an intelligent level, but on the basest level. 10 year-old kids can laugh here... And there is nothing wrong with that, but then don't call it exalted, intellectual art! <br /><br />5. As a result of point 4, there is also a lack of logic in the order of the stories. That goes without saying. Pee-pee-pee could have arranged the order in any other way, and we would have had the exact same movie. This also means that you can feel free to start from the middle then go back to the beginning, etc. "Decameron" is like a bowl of spaghetti that way: when you start eating it you can begin with any thread you want, it makes no difference at all.<br /><br />6. The pointlessness of the stories' resolutions. Most stories end with a cheap gag/joke, i.e. some damn dumb punchline straight out of a porn comic-book, whereas some stories don't even have a conclusion: they merely end. Finito. At best, the stories are watchable semi-anecdotes, barely any deeper meaning there - unless you find "deep" meanings in a porno. There is, of course, nothing easier than looking for and finding "meaning" where there is an absence of it. Hence even any hardcore porn film can be philosophized/mused over endlessly. It's easy and fun. Try it, oh ye 8 PPP fans! <br /><br />As for the Church-bashing... Some viewers get all excited about his attack on Catholicism and what-not. In principal, that's all well and fine - after all, I'm an atheist myself - but what those people ignore is the simple but essential fact that Pasolini was a Marxist. It's like the pot calling the kettle black. A Marxist criticizing the Church for hypocrisy and stupidity? Where does he get the nerve? Besides, Pasolini wasn't an atheist, hence his high-and-mighty and self-righteous stance isn't justified. After all, Marxists are believers: they merely substituted the accepted god with the idea of a Utopia, which is merely another supernatural wishful-thinking fantasy. Hence I cannot get excited about PPP's anti-religion antics.<br /><br />This sophomoric humpdorama anthology ends with Pasolini saying rather pretentiously: "I wonder... Why produce a work of art when it's nice just to dream about it?" He wasn't actually referring to this silly little movie as art, was he...? In case he was - the poor deluded man - then I have to wonder why he didn't just leave it at dreaming, and NOT make all those bad movies...<br /><br />Wanna read my altered subtitles of Bergman movies? E-mail me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sorry, but this is such a bad movie it's hilarious. Football hooligans arguing in a travel lodge? Suits? Shades?! Alan clearly had no idea what he was talking about when he made this, it is as far from the truth as you can get.<br /><br />The casting was atrocious...Gary Oldman as a football hooligan? He doesn't look scary, act scary or even come across as someone who would like football. And as for Yeti? What the hell? Suits, shades and sitting in a travelodge childishly taunting each other with "its about time you got your nappy on". Please.<br /><br />And the Yeti's gang spraying the ICC's underwear? <br /><br />I don't see how anyone can even take this film seriously!.<br /><br />4/10. Its possibly the most inaccurate portrayal of the crisis of the late eighties hooliganism i have ever seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh dear, oh dear...<br /><br />For JM fans, this was the nail in the coffin as far as her A-list Hollywood career was concerned. After solid turns in Girl Can't Help It, Wayward Bus, The Burglar and Rock Hunter it seemed Jayne was well on the way to becoming one of Tinsel Town's hottest stars. However, an obsession with racy publicity and an appearance in this clunker relegated Mansfield to the sidelines, namely cheap Euro loan-outs until Fox could drop her contract at the earliest opportunity.<br /><br />This movie really is a diabolical waste of everyone's time with the exception of Suzy Parker who is the only thing in this movie bad enough for the material. Many people blame poor Jayne and her grating performance for this film's poor returns at the box office and while she is a pain in this film, she can only do her best with the material. After all, Cary hardly sets the screen on fire does he? After a handful of very good dramatic and comedy turns Jayne takes 10 steps back in her pursuit as a serious actress by agreeing (simply for the sake of appearing with Grant) to portray this squealing, idiotic menace. Her character of Alice is a complete cartoon bimbo and although she looks good enough to eat in a boiler suit, her every appearance in the film jangles your nerves. We all know Jayne could do so much better than this dross and yet here she is parading around like a prize pudding. A real shame.<br /><br />Steer clear of this so-called comedy. It's more depressing than funny.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Curiosity led me to this "masterpiece". Unfortunately, I didn't rent it, I bought it! The most disturbing thing about this film is that it's not so disturbing. For reasons known only to them, the makers of this film set out to show the human side of Jeffry Dahmer. Are you kidding me? The man gave new meaning to the term "finger lickin' good"! And with all the flash-backs and flash-forwards I had trouble following the story. All in all Jeremy Renner's performance wasn't too bad. You can catch him in "S.W.A.T.", in which he plays a disgruntled ex-cop. Anyway, I would rate this as a 1/10. It only got a 1 because of Renner's so-so performance. There are plenty of books and tv documentaries out there that do a much better job of covering Dahmer's crimes. Avoid this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was interesting to see how accurate the writing was on the geek buzz words, yet very naive on the corporate world. The Justice Department would catch more of the big corp giants if they did such naive things to win. The real corporate world is much more subtle and interesting, yet every bit as sinister. I seriously doubt ANY corp would actually kill someone directly; even the mod is more indirect these days. In the real world, they do kill people with nicotine, pollution, additives, poisons, etc. This movie must have been developed by some garage geeks, I think, and the studios didn't know the difference. They just wanted something to capitalize on the Microsoft antitrust case in the news.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This has to be creepiest, most twisted holiday film that I've ever clapped eyes on, and that's saying something. I know that the Mexican people have some odd ideas about religion, mixing up ancient Aztec beliefs with traditional Christian theology. But their Day of the Dead isn't half as scary as their take on Santa Claus.<br /><br />So..Santa isn't some jolly, fat red-suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime!). Rather, he's a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in Heaven(or the heavens, whichever), with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one's in Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat shops. They sing oh-so-cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn't a little African-American boy in black face singing 'Mammy'. This Santa is a Peeping Tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his 'eye in the sky'. This is so he can tell who's been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty, I'd bet).<br /><br />There's no Mrs. Claus, no elves(what does he need elves for when he's got child labor?) and the reindeer are mechanical wind-up toys! This floating freak show hovers on a cloud, presumably held up by its silver lining.<br /><br />Santa's nemesis is...the Devil?! What is this, Santa our Lord and Savior? Weird. Anyhoo, Satan sends one of his minions, a mincing, prancing devil named Pitch, to try to screw up Christmas. Let me get this straight-the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday? Seems kind of redundant, doesn't it?<br /><br />Pitch is totally ineffectual. He tries to talk some children into being bad, but doesn't have much luck. I was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl Lupe, who's family is very poor. All that she wants is a doll for Christmas, but he parents can't afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). So Pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. In reality, that's the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll, because being saintly and praying to God and holy Santa doesn't really work. But Lupe resists temptation and tells Pitch to get thee behind her, and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it's Chucky's sister.<br /><br />Along the way Pitch manages to get Santa stuck in a tree(uh-huh) from whence he's rescued by Merlin! Merlin? You have got to be kidding me! Since when do mythical Druidic figures appear in Christmas tales, or have anything to do with a Christian religion? And doesn't God disapprove of magic? They'd have been burning Merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago, not asking him to come to the rescue of one of God's Aspects(or that's what I assume Santa must be, to be going up against Satan). This movie is one long HUH? from start to finish, and it'll make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn't spiked or something. Probably it was, since this movie is like one long giant DT.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a story of a Jewish dysfunctional family. The parents have divorced and mom remains back east in the house. The father, Murray Abromowitz, moves with his children to California, and moves around Beverly Hills so that his children can get the best education possible.<br /><br />Things really become funny when Marisa Tomei, Murray's niece, comes to lives with the group.<br /><br />The film deals with the various adventures of the family complicated by the drug scene of the affluent neighborhood.<br /><br />Jessica Walter costars as a woman who wants Murray to move in with her since she wants a companion.<br /><br />Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno come in towards the end. They play Murray's brother and sister-in-law respectively; they're also the parents of Tomei. In front of the children, Reiner lets loose reminding Murray that he has been paying the bills for them all along.<br /><br />The film ends on a sour note as the embarrassed family moves out of their fancy digs and take to riding around Beverly Hills in their car. I guess the film is promoting independence and some good old self-esteem.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stupid, mindless drivel about a jet assembled within hours by mechanics who have never worked on airplanes (piloted by Burgess Meredith) chasing a Porsche race car which runs on decades-old gasoline sludge, driven by Lee Majors, with Chris Makepeace as the runaway techno-wiz who can McGyver spare parts into a radio receiver which can pick up all frequencies simultaneously, and who somehow learned how to acquire and use chemicals to make high explosives in a perfectly peaceful society. As moronic as it sounds. Terrible waste of Burgess Meredith, but Chris Makepeace may at least be forgiven on the grounds that this was only his second film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One can deal with historical inaccuracies, but this film was just too much. Practically nothing was even close to truth, and even for the era, it was seen as silly.<br /><br />In defense of ford, it was revealed on an old talk show, that he was operating on the story as told to him by the real Wyatt Earp, who was obviously old, senile, and replayed the scene his own way. Earp told the director about the stagecoach, and how it was planned to happen during the stagecoach arrival, so despite what other historians claim, Wyat himself asserts that it was premeditated.<br /><br />This movie portrays Earp as an honest man, and also his brothers. History doesn't exactly say they were or weren't. Most people like to interject a bit of deceit and lawlessness into their characters, but that is nothing new. The truth is probably closer to them being the law abiding sorts of GUNFIGHT AT THE OK CORRAL. Men who saw it as a career, and believe me, in the old West, you didn't have time to think about too much else.<br /><br />Characters that don't exist, characters depicted dying at the corral who really didn't, all make this a weaker film. It is further weakened by Mature, who really didn't make a convincing Doc. He may be the worst cast choice ever for Doc, but at the same time we must remember that older movies were closer to the era and closer to a feel for the truth. After all, ford did get information first hand from Wyatt Earp.<br /><br />It is also weakened by the all so predictable events involving the Mexican girl. Hollywood was very pro Nazi in those days, and ready to kill off brunette women in very predictable fashion to show their patronage to Hitler idealism. This occurs in most movies until the eighties. It is no excuse, and does cheapen the art, however.<br /><br />The actors who play the Earps do well, and Brennan is always a thrill. In fact, Mature may be the only acting downside of this flick. Still, it is the weakest of the old OK Corral movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to admit when I went to see this movie, I didn't really have high expectations. But even with my low expectations I was totally and utterly disappointed...<br /><br />Basically Luke Wilson is a hot shot who tends to go out with slightly crazy girlfriends. There's slight mention of a girl stalking him but that's pretty much it for that character. Which i don't quite mind cause it would probably be just as underdeveloped as the rest of the movie.<br /><br />So while on a subway Rainn Wilson (who i actually liked before this movie) convinces him to talk to a "hot" girl, Uma Thurman. This is strange to say the least, as everyone can clearly see that Uma Thurman does not belong under the category of "hot".<br /><br />Rainn Wilson's performance is also far from "hot". Normally I'm all for his acting, but even he couldn't salvage this movie. His character was jumpy, unrealistic and rather annoying. You could never tell if the writers were trying to make him the comical token closet gay guy, or just desperate. It was almost painful.<br /><br />But anyway, someone steals her purse as she goes to leave the subway, and Luke Wilson being the charming savior he is runs after the robber. Now we all know that Uma Thurman is the superhero, or "G-Girl" as they like to call her in the movie. It still baffles me as to what the "G" stands for, but we'll leave that for the message boards to debate.<br /><br />The sex scenes I assume are supposed to be funny, but I find myself asking who has sex like that? They nearly throw the bed through the wall because of Uma Thurman's "passion" let's say. It makes my head hurt, but not in the "I'm thinking really hard to understand this" way.<br /><br />When Uma insults Anna Faris, calling her a "whore" I had no debate with that. Apart from the fact that she can't choose movies properly, she can't act and relies souly on the fact that she's blonde and typical.<br /><br />Overall I would've walked out of the theater if i hadn't paid $8.75 to see it. The characters are typical and have absolutely no chemistry, especially Uma Thurman. Someone should let her know that just because you move your head a lot doesn't mean you're acting.<br /><br />Also, the script and storyline could've used either a lot of work or a match and some lighter fluid. I actually started to feel embarrassed for the actors, and their dying careers. Overall, if you value your money, and your self respect do NOT waste your time with this pathetic attempt at a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I looked forward to watching this film and then realised that any hope of a coherent dialogue between the actors was swamped by the unnecessary swearing. Now I am not a prude in any way, but to shout obscenities at each other does not a good film make. Ewan Bremner is arguably one of the worst actors in the world at this time (witness his performance in the god awful Life of Stuff) & his "Cockney" accent is almost as bad as his Edinburgh accent. Avoid. How many more of these films "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", "Beautiful Creatures" do we have to suffer before the film makers realise that the f-word, the c- word etc does not replace proper dialogue.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine that in adapting a James Bond novel into a movie, the filmmakers eliminated all the action and suspense in order to make it kid-friendly. Or if a television producer told Chris Rock he couldn't cuss so that his specials could be rated PG. In the same way, the director of the movie "Something Wicked This Way Comes" took out the excitement and gore in favor of melodrama for younger audiences. This created a monotonous plot without the complications of the book. In trying to make the story of "Something Wicked This Way Comes" easier for children to follow, the filmmakers eliminated the theme of good and evil both existing in everyone, and good always prevailing over evil. This is apparent in Will's character transformation, Charles Halloway's rescue of Jim, and the carnival's defeat.<br /><br />Will's transformation into a more adventurous boy has been muted in the movie. The scene in which the Dust Witch visits Will's house in a balloon has been cut from the film. Instead, a green mist follows Jim and Will home and gives them the same bad dream about the Witch and her spiders. The balloon attack shows us that Will has begun to conquer his fear of doing things on his own. He gets on top of a neighbor's roof and tears the balloon with a bow, defeating the Witch. "Sorry, Dad, he thought, and sat up, smiling. This time it's me out, alone," Will decides as he prepares to face her (147.) Removing this scene from the movie prevents us from understanding that Will is becoming more adventuresome. The film shows us many examples of Will being afraid to follow Jim, but never growing curious like his friend. In the book, Will has both a good, quiet side and an "evil," daring side like his Jim. In the movie, each boy only has one mode of thought, which destroys Bradbury's theme of both good and evil being present in each person.<br /><br />In the book, Will saves Jim because of their friendship, but, in the movie, Charles Halloway saves Jim to repay Jim's father. Will pulls Jim off the carousel in Bradbury's novel because he doesn't want his best friend to grow up without him. It is the good in Will, the fact that he cares about his friend, that saves Jim from the evil curse of the carnival. On the carousel, Jim "gestured his other hand free to trail on the wind, the one part of him, the small, white, separate part that still remembered their friendship" (269.) This shows that there was good left inside of Jim, which has the potential to still defeat evil. But when Charles Halloway saves Jim in the movie, he does it to repay the debt he owes Jim's father, who saved Will when he was a little boy. By changing the motivation for saving Jim, the filmmakers have ruined Bradbury's original idea that it takes good to win against evil.<br /><br />In the end of the movie, the carnival is defeated by a tornado and lightning instead of smiles and laughter. When the book ends, Mr. Dark turns himself into a little boy and Charles Halloway smiles and laughs at him so much that he can't stand it and evaporates. In Bradbury's world, evil people feed off fear and can only be defeated by happiness and love. His message is that good will always prevail over evil, but only if that goodness is expressed outwardly. "Good to evil seems evil," says Charles Halloway as he holds the dying Mr. Dark. "So I will do only good to you, Jed. I'll simply hold you and watch you poison yourself" (275.) In the movie, Mr. Dark is the only one left on the carousel when lightning hits it, and he dies. By eliminating the weapon of laughter and smiles, the filmmakers imply that bad weather is the most effective way to defeat evil, as if lightning only strikes those who are bad. This takes away the major theme of Bradbury's book, which is that doing "good" toward others wards off evil.<br /><br />Good may always triumph over evil, but trying to make movies more kid-friendly will always force filmmakers to leave out some of the themes from the books they are based on. In the movie, "Something Wicked This Way Comes," Will does not transform, Will's friendship does not save Jim, and smiles and laughter do not defeat the carnival. As a result, the filmmakers have left out too many of Bradbury's main points. The process of adapting a book to a movie too often ruins the world the author has established. In the case of this story, Bradbury's frightening world of opposing forces of good and evil has been reduced to a tamer, simpler version of itself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK. Not bad movie making if it were from an original script. BUT IT IS NOT!<br /><br />Which part of "in this story there are no women, except for Foulata and Gagoola" introduction by Haggard did the producers, directors and writers not understand? I mean, it is pretty plain English. I understood it at age 10!. The beauty of KSM is that it contains a spectacular description of three different worlds, the colonial Africa, the unforgiving desert and Kukuanaland, a hidden and isolated kingdom. That should be more than enough for even the most mediocre of producers to work with. But, nooo, they have to throw "romance" into it. Pathetic. Suggestion to all you poor souls who actually thought this would be close to the book. Give it up. Until a Peter Jackson wannabe comes along and "does it right" you may as well keep re-reading the tome. BTW, there is a sequel book (actually a pre-quel) called Allan's wife. It gives background to the story of Quatermain. It is a bit creepy but good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is so awful, it is hard to find the right words to describe it!<br /><br />At first the story is so ridiculous.A narrow-minded human can write a better plot! The actors are boring and untalented, perhaps they were compelled to play in this cheesy Film.<br /><br />The camera receptions of the National Forest are the only good in this whole movie. I should feel ashame, because I paid for this lousy Picture.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody makes a sequel or make a similar film with such a worse storyline :-)
|
Negative
| null | null |
For the big thinkers among us, "The Intruder" is a maddeningly incoherent movie from France that gives so-called "art films" a bad name. The story is something about a bitter old coot, Louis Trebor (Michel Subor), who goes searching in Tahiti for a heart transplant, but beyond that, I have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. With no coherent storyline to boast of, the movie loses us early on, though I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be SOMEBODY out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. <br /><br />This muddled, snail-paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes - though I seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A film without conscience. Drifter agrees to kill a man for a mobster for money. Then they double cross him. Meanwhile he falls in love with the dead man's wife, and, without her knowing he's the killer, moves in with her. Then he "accidentally" kills her when she finds out. Then, in a WALKING TALL kind of heroism, he gets revenge on the mobsters who double crossed him. The first problem is that, by agreeing to take on the murder by hire assignment, the drifter loses all sense of sympathy, worthiness, and heroism. We can't accept any goodness in him and as a result the rest of the has no moral center. We just can't care about that kind of guy. And the wife (nicely played by the fetching Kari Wuhrer - the sheriff in EIGHT LEGGED FREAKS), a high class lady who runs a mission for homeless people, similarly loses a degree of sympathy by jumping right into bed with the homeless drifter (despite her evidently weakened state after the death of her husband). And, when she finds out he's the guy what does she do? She locks him inside her house (as if ALL houses had locks you can't open from INSIDE) with her and proceeds to berate him. Stoo-pid. George Wendt, however, is terrific in a role as a beefy thug. Director Stuart Gordon did so much better with RE-ANIMATOR and DAGON.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We know that firefighters and rescue workers are heroes: an idée reçue few would challenge. Friends and family of these and others who perished in the attacks on the World Trade Center might well be moved by this vapid play turned film. A sweet, earnest, though tongue-tied fireman recalls what he can of lost colleagues to a benumbed journalist who converts his fragments into a eulogy. They ponder the results. He mumbles some more, she composes another eulogy, etc., etc.<br /><br />The dreadful events that provoked the need for several thousand eulogies is overwhelmingly sad, but this plodding insipid dramatization is distressingly boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Problem with these type of movies is that literally dozens of them are being made each year. Luckily for use only a handful are given a theatrical release, while the others are being pushed straight to video or TV, such as this movie.<br /><br />The foremost problem of this movie is really its originality. It's one of those movies which uses the "Die Hard" formula of a tough but troubled guy being at the wrong place at the wrong time. In this case it's a character played by Casper Van Dien, who works for a security agency that thoroughly test safety procedures for companies and individuals. In this case he's being send to a cruise ship, which of course gets hijacked. You can see this movie as a sort of mix of "Die Hard" and "Air Force One" and the movie doesn't even try to conceal that those two movies were probably its biggest source of 'inspiration'. So really, you can't regard this movie as an original one at all. It uses all of the clichés out of the book and this movie really doesn't offer any surprises or anything that remotely resembles anything original.<br /><br />Like you can expect from a movie such as this, it has a very weak script. Or rather said, it features some very lazy writing. Like I said before, the movie features nothing original but also the actual story itself features some elements which are far from likely and are just plain ridicules truthfully. I mean, hijacking an huge cruise ship with only about 8 guys, of which halve only carry some small guns and then ask for a ransom of 'only' 10 million dollars, for a ship that is about worth 10 times that amount is itself already quite ridicules. How do they even intend to split that money afterward? Every person gets just over a million or something? That's hardly profitable for such a big and risky undertaking. And then there is the case of taking the passengers hostage. Somehow they manage to take all passengers on the huge ship hostage and they manage to put them inside one room, with only one guy with his pistol, which he can't even seem to be able to hold right, watching them. You never see more than like 30 hostages however, as if they were all the people who were aboard at the time. Also when the Van Dien character goes looking for his son and vice versa, no matter which room they walk in through on the huge cruise ship, they always bump into each other instantly. Just some examples of the lazy writing within the movie.<br /><br />But it of course is an action flick, so the story of course becomes secondary. But then again, it's not as if this movie features any good action at all. Halve of the actors look as if they had never hold a weapon before and the movie is filled with some ridicules slow-motion. It really becomes laughable at points.<br /><br />Of course the movie also doesn't feature the best actors, though I must say that Casper Van Dien really isn't a bad 'action hero' and actor, as far as the genre and B-movie circuit is concerned. He just however also suffers from the same problem as Tom Cruise; no matter how old he is, he just never looks convincing enough to play the father of a teenager. Van Dien once started out as a promising new young actor but starring in movies like this really doesn't help his career much. He's probably capable of something better, though he is never really given the right opportunity to show it. All of the other actors also do a fair enough job but their characters are just so formulaic that they never truly become interesting.<br /><br />Oh well, it's not the worst genre movie I have ever seen but it also ain't exactly the most original or memorable one either.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unless you are mentally ill or the most die hard segal fan you will tire of this horrendous excuse for a film in under 5 minutes.<br /><br />The Plot - Even for a Seagal film, the plot is just stupid. I mean its not just bad, its barely coherent.<br /><br />The Acting - Unbelievably wooden. Literally seen better acting in porno's. Ironically this film tries to cash in on this audience which a 'lesbian love scene' which is utterly cringe-worthy.<br /><br />Special Effects - wouldn't look out of place in a 60's sword and sorcery flick.<br /><br />Unless you suffer from insomnia and have exhausted all other cures, don't make the same mistake as i did and buy this DVD, as you will be asking for that hour and a half of your life back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.<br /><br />Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Russian movie, "4," follows the lives of three (not four) strangers who meet one night in a local bar. One is a musician, one a frozen meat seller and one a call girl.<br /><br />"4," I gather, is intended to showcase the dreariness and hopelessness of life in post-Soviet Russia (the characters have to make up stories to make their lives appear more interesting than they really are), but the movie is so incoherent and boring that I seriously doubt very many people will be able to sit all the way through it. There seems to be a suggestion running through the film that the shadowy Russian government is up to some shady doings behind the scenes - operating secret cloning facilities, selling decades-old frozen meat etc. - but the movie is so formless and incomprehensible that I doubt anyone could figure out what anybody's really up to here.<br /><br />Despite decent acting and a few incisively directed scenes, "4" is a two-hour long endurance contest that should be avoided at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watched this with my girlfriend after stumbling over it while zaping channels.<br /><br />I guess we both hoped for some kind of happy family cute Christmas movie, but were extremely disappointed.<br /><br />the actor playing the soldier, seems to have 0 emotion whatsoever, his face looks the same, whether he's chopping down Christmas tree's, seeing the girl he loves being kissed by her boyfriend, or when he's happily surprised by the girl he loves, he's an awful actor, and at no pont did any of us do nothing but laugh at him.<br /><br />Then there's the cute blond girl, blessed with the ability to count dot's and cheat on her boyfriend, what a catch! and her ambition in life is to live with her parents and count more dots.<br /><br />So it's basically a story about a guy without any emotion or feelings who falls for a guy who count dots and cheats on her boyfriend, it's as predictable as it get's, and really a waste of time, you gain nothing by watching this, other than some weird laughs, because it's all so corny.<br /><br />I love it when her dad says that he only eats french fries and not french wine, and they all laugh, that's the hillbilly attitude this movie is about, furthermore, if my girlfriends dad were bossing me around like, i'd tell him a thing or to, but not our army veteran, no sir, he let's everyone boss him around.<br /><br />The movie is what First Blood would have been, if John Rambo were burn like the biggest wimp in the world.
|
Negative
| null | null |
**May Contain Spoilers**<br /><br />A dude in a dopey-looking Kong suit (the same one used in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA in 1962) provides much of the laffs in this much-mocked monster flick. Kong is resurrected on Mondo Island and helps out the lunkhead hero and other good guys this time around. The vampire-like villain is named Dr. Who-funny, he doesn't look like Peter Cushing! Kong finally dukes it out with Who's pride and joy, a giant robot ape that looks like a bad metal sculpture of Magilla Gorilla. Like many of Honda's flicks this may have had some merit before American audiences diddled around with it and added new footage. The Rankin/Bass animation company had a hand in this mess. They should have stuck to superior children's programs like The Little Drummer Boy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Two sisters, their perverted brother, and their cousin have car trouble. They then happen about the home of Dr. Hackenstein whom conveniently needs the body parts of three nubile young women to use in an experiment to bring his deceased lover back to life. He tells them that he'll help them get home in the morning, so they spend the night. Then the good doctor gets down to work in this low-budget horror-comedy.<br /><br />I found this to be mildly amusing, nothing at all to actually go out of your way for (I stumbled across it on Netflix instant view & streamed it to the xbox 360), but better then I expected it to be for a Troma acquired film. Most of the humor doesn't work, but their are still some parts that caused me to smile. Plus the late, great Anne Ramsey has a small part and she was always a treat to watch.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Bambi Darro & Sylvia Lee Baker got topless <br /><br />My Grade: D+
|
Negative
| null | null |
The funny sound that you may hear when you eyeball this execrable version of Jules Verne's classic "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is Verne spinning in his grave. The only thing about this 80 minute opus that has anything to do with "Journey to the Center of the Earth" is the title. Otherwise, everything else in this lackluster production is new and not worth watching. In fact, the director has written here at IMDb.COM that he directed only eight minutes of "Journey to the Center of the Earth" and the studio tacked on part of "Dollman" helmer Albert Pyun's sequel to his own "Alien from L.A." with Kathy Ireland. Evidently, the producers ran out of money and to satisfy overseas contractual obligations, they grafted Pyun's sequel onto director Rusty Lemorande's movie. Please, don't rent or buy this wretched piece of garbage.<br /><br />Unlike director Henry Levin's period piece "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (1959) with James Mason and Pat Boone, Lemorande's "Journey to the Center of the Earth" takes place in contemporary times in Hawaii. Two fellows, a British nanny, and a dog are brought together for the adventure of a lifetime purely by coincidence. Richard (Paul Carafotes of "Blind Date") and his comic book obsessed brother Bryan (Ilan Mitchell-Smith of "Weird Science") are going out to explore a cave. The heroine, Crystina (Nicola Cowper of "Underworld"), works for a domestic service called 'Nannies R Us.' Being a nanny has been Crystina's life-long dream, but she has made a less of all five of her nanny jobs. Nevertheless, her sympathetic supervisor, Ms. Ferry (Lynda Marshall of "Africa Express"), sends her to Hawaii. Crystina's new client, rock star Billy Foul (Jeremy Crutchley of "Doomsday") who is scheduling one last concert to revive his flagging career, has a dog named Bernard. Foul wants Crystina to take Bernard to a doggie day spa. Crystina is waiting on the arrival of her taxi when a careless motel attendant accidentally puts the basket that conceals Bernard in Richard's jeep. You see, Foul has hidden his canine in a basket because motel management strictly prohibits pets on their premises. Foul has disguised the dog as a human baby. Anyway, Crystina catches a cab and tells the driver follow Richard.<br /><br />After she catches up with them to get her dog, the cabbie cruises away and abandons her. Crystina demands that Richard drive her back to town, but he has other plans. Unhappily, Crystina joins the guys and they get lost, and then find themselves in the lost city of Atlantis, a police state ruled by a dictator, at the center of the Earth. The rulers of Atlantis repeatedly notify their citizens that life on the surface does not exist. Our heroes and heroine stumble onto Atlantis quite by accident. Atlantis resembles a disco and everybody looks like they are straight out of a punk rock opera. The ruler of Atlantis, General Rykov (Janet Du Plessis of "Operation Hit Squad"), is orchestrating a raid on the surface with clones of the first human, Wanda Saknussemm (Kathy Ireland of "Necessary Roughness"), to visit Atlantis. Predictably, General Rykov machinations to rule Atlantis and overthrow the Earth fails, and our heroes and heroine save the day.<br /><br />"Journey to the Center of the Earth" is an abomination. The movie seems to be a comedy despite its superficial satire about dictatorships. Albert Pyun is one of my favorite low budget action directors, but he blew it on this lightweight shambles of a science fiction saga.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hearing about how hilarious this movie is, I finally rent it at<br /><br />the video store and for 75 minutes maybe I laughed 3 times. This<br /><br />movie, a collection of skits that make fun of television is an<br /><br />incoherrent mess. The jokes fall flat, the humor deals with<br /><br />issues from the 1970's that just aren't relevant anymore, and<br /><br />the jokes go on way too long (almost like the new SNL skits the<br /><br />past few years). Yeah, Chevy Chase is in this but maybe of all<br /><br />about 1 or 2 minutes. I liked the fact that this was very<br /><br />raunchy and had nudity galore but couldn't it be funny? Do<br /><br />yourself a favor and rent Kentucky Fried Movie which is a far<br /><br />superior film made in the
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love Alec Guinness. And that's saying a lot after this film. Actually, he is not bad in it. He just seems to stand aside, be urbane and his usual delightful self, but invest nada. It is obvious the girl he is matched with is a featherweight, even as an inexperienced young French girl. Sir Alec wouldn't have chosen her when he was young and very obviously isn't too happy about it now.<br /><br />The interesting character is the brooding brother of the odd "Suzanne", another twit. "Donald" aspires to be a French Heathcliffe and I waited in vain for the source of his mystery. What deep dark secret was he hiding behind that forehead? Was he in love with the father's mistress? Why did he jerk Suzanne's hair when she plotted to bring the disparate parts of this turkey together on the country estate? Or perhaps he had simply had enough of her obnoxious acting.<br /><br />The film would have been charming with Guiness and the "older woman" reminiscing and seeing Paris together. THAT would have been a great story! Two lovely experienced people in a beautiful city after the destruction of World War II. Why didn't somebody come up with that? I suggest watching Alec Guiness in "The Card", a little known but worthwhile film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seems that the cast should ensure at least an average movie. And so I sat down for 102 minutes of unbelief. Beside Ed Harris no-one seems to own the skills of acting. Even Sean Connery, who I normally worship, must have had an off-day during the entire filming of Just Case. Not once in during the whole movie one actor could convince me.<br /><br />This made this movie look cheap and unreal.<br /><br />The story makes up a little. It is thrilling, and the plot is unexpected.<br /><br />Conclusion only watch this movie if you really have nothing more useful to do.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A good cast and they do their best with what they're given, but the story makes no sense, the characters' actions are inexplicable, and there are too many moments of unintentional humor, as when a man is killed by being pierced with pieces of a phonograph record or when they get the witch drunk to a hip hop beat and then hit her over the head with a bottle and she grabs her hostage and pouts off. The scene when the two witch and her victim (played by the same actress) are in the house together sets up like a 3 Stooges routine, and the plot begs the question: if the witch wants to possess this other woman's soul, why doesn't she just do it instead of leading these people on this elaborate chase? Not to be missed is Christopher Walkin's eyeglasses and his automotive explanation of the afterlife (paraphrased): "The ancient Egyptianas - they wee materialists. They expected the body to last through eternity, like a used car that you souped up. But the Druids, they knew you couldn't drive in the afterlife. You had to get out and walk." Huh? The ending is absolutely indecipherable. Seems like they just ran out of film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this movie on the merits of what the trailer showed, and of course Sir Anthony Hopkins.<br /><br />If Jackson Pollack teamed up with David Lynch, and Timothy Leary to make a movie, this would be the end result. I don't think I've seen a movie like it that made an LSD trip look like an episode of Sesame Street.<br /><br />It's a bunch of set pieces where the characters flash in and out of reality, or various realities, and the film doesn't culminate into anything until the last 5 minutes, where all of a sudden it makes sense. I wrote a scathing review on my movie review blog that essentially gives everything away, and I won't do that here. It's a well acted piece of cinema, and the soundtrack was written by Sir Anthony Hopkins, and let me say this, if there's one redeeming feature to this film, it's the music. It fits perfectly. Some of the dialogue is unbelievably good, and unbelievably bad all at the same time.<br /><br />I enjoyed parts of this movie, I truly did, and once you get to the end of it, you'll actually figure out what's truly going on. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through 2 hours of crazy to get to a salient point, which minimizes the effect of the entire movie.<br /><br />I give it a 3 out of 10 for the simple fact that the real problem with this film isn't the acting, it's everything.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, so I am an original Wicker Man fan and I usually don't like British films remade by Americans, so why oh why did I put myself through the most painful cinema experiences ever? I am not a Nicolas Cage fan and I had some kind of moment of madness perhaps? The film was appalling! The bit at the beginning with the crash/fire had no relevance to the film at all and the female cop knew where Edward was going, so the bit at the end with the two girls visiting the mainland, well it wouldn't have happened as the whole thing would have been investigated. The history behind the wicker man wasn't really explored - and I guess being set in America didn't really help the whole pagan theme. This film was slow and contained no atmosphere or suspense. I must say that the best bit was right at the end, when Nicolas Cage goes up in flames! I am in such desperate need to see the original again now, in order to cleanse my disappointed soul. I really can't stress how disappointing this film is, please don't see it if you:<br /><br />A) Don't like American re-makes of British Films B) Are a fan of the original C) Hate Nicolas Cage
|
Negative
| null | null |
It occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. I'd like to argue that instead of banning challenging, controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your IQ and your sanity. If they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be "Stroker Ace". This film is awful with a capital 'A'. It is the worst film Burt Reynolds ever starred in.... quite a feat for for a man with "Cannonball Run II", "Cop And A Half" and "Rent-A-Cop" on his CV!<br /><br />The wafer-thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer Stroker Ace (Reynolds), a man who loves fast cars and fast women. He gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter Clyde Torkle (Ned Beatty). The contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants, such as dressing up as a giant chicken. Thrown into the mix are Lugs (Jim Nabors), Ace's dim-witted pal, and Pembrook Feeney (Loni Anderson), a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by Ace.<br /><br />Hal Needham, the director of this low-grade garbage, was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases/races. Some of these films were OK, like "Hooper" and "Stunts Unlimited", but with "Stroker Ace" he reaches a career nadir. The characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. Anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. The humour is weak and infantile throughout, and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. Even the out-takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the Reynolds-Needham collaborations) are generally unfunny, which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn't much fun to make. "Stroker Ace" is a stinker of considerable magnitude.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll be honest, this is one of the worst movies ever. If not, then it's VERY close. Ever seen a bad teen soap opera. Well this is like one of those. Except worse. For example: (POSSIBLY SPOILER) girl: I wanna go somewhere else.<br /><br />guy: all we need is here.<br /><br />girl: but I wanna take myself somewhere different.<br /><br />guy: I'll take YOU somewhere else.<br /><br />... Proceeding this line they have sex. The music is bad pop and bad punk rock. If you've EVER read the book, avoid this movie like the plague. They completely change the personalities of the characters and the events. Additionally, they just get rid of things. Also, the movie ends about before the book finishes. It is an AWFUL movie. So, if you haven't read the book, don't watch it. If you HAVE read the book, burn it (the movie). If you like stupid teen soap operas that are lower quality than your average low quality teen soap opera, go for it. Then again, should we expect anything different from MTV?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This review may contain some SPOILERS.<br /><br />Just when you thought they didn't make them so extremely bad anymore, along comes Rae Dawn Chong as a space vixen and Willie Nelson as a Native American witchdoctor! It's even worse when you factor in that these two are the BETTER aspects of `Starlight,' a film that should only be viewed for laughs.<br /><br />Chong is an alien sent to Earth to seek out the only remaining half-breed, part man and part alien. Apparently, the Earth is in dire straits. Something is wrong with the genetics of mankind, and in a few decades the world will be turned into a polluted wasteland. Only by duplicating the DNA of the half-breed can the kindly alien race save the planet. Don't ask me how that is, since the movie gives the impression that the world will be destroyed by pollution, which is caused by humans. You would think Earth could only be saved by getting rid of the polluting creatures, not saving them! Anyway, the half-breed turns out to be Billy Wirth, a man living in a small Southwestern town and is part Native American from his mother's line, despite the fact that his mother is a red-headed Caucasian and his grandfather is Willie Nelson. Wasn't this the sort of malarkey that made the bombastic Carmen Electra bomb `The Chosen One' such a howler? Chong arrives in her ship just as Wirth nearly drowns after driving his motorcycle into a lake in a fit of recklessness being the result of just breaking up with his girlfriend. Before you can say utter the word `hogwash,' Chong is revealing her secret to Wirth, who isn't surprised for a moment, and spreading the word to Wirth's family. Chong also makes pals with Wirth's mother, who seems to have lost a few of her marbles over the years. Well, this is because Wirth's father was an alien that abandoned her. Of course, he is the standard rogue alien that has conveniently picked this moment to come to Earth for Wirth so he can use Wirth's DNA to make the people of Earth his slaves. (Huh?) His laughable attempts to use his telepathic powers and capture Wirth suck up most of the screen time and are the worst scenes in the movie. Not only are they boring, but they are the scenes where you will be spotting the flubs the most.<br /><br />The ideas might be nice on paper, but they are handled here with the utmost of stupidity, particularly in the aforementioned scenes with the rogue alien. But the effects are the bane of the movie. The opening scene involves Chong on her spaceship, communicating with her superior, someone who we do not see but that Chong communicates with through a vat that emits pink light. They use no spoken words, but telepathy, so we are treated to subtitles. Trouble is, both Chong and her superior's subtitles both look alike, and the director gives you no indication as to which of the two are actually `speaking' at any given moment, which makes the whole conversation nothing but gibberish. The spaceship is the worst effect to come out of Hollywood this side of an Ed Wood film. Now, I am usually lenient on effects when dealing with a low budgeted film such as this, but these effects really got to me. The most offensive was the most simple one: a fake night sky. The stars in the sky are so phony they almost sound off a dial tone. Most notably are the moments where Chong tells someone she comes from Pleiades, and we get a shot of the seven stars. Thing is, the seven stars take up about half the night sky in the movie, but any stargazer knows that Pleiades is a star cluster between the constellations Perseus and Taurus, and the cluster doesn't take up much room in the sky at all. These effects just get so lousy that your jaw will hang lower and lower with every passing moment. Be careful, for it will go right through the floor during the finale when the effects have Willie Nelson turn into a human spotlight and . . . Oh, it has to be seen to be believed!<br /><br />Starlight, star bright; Last star I see tonight; I wish I might, I wish I may; not have to watch any more of this trash today.<br /><br />Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.<br /><br />The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.<br /><br />This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.
|
Negative
| null | null |
what a preposterous story ,murder blackmail,child sex allegations ,gays and the catholic church.....absolute tripe. How is it that most UK based TV dramas ,sit coms etc have to include the obligortory Gay,its really getting tiresome now. Everybody accepts that there are Gay people in society just has there are other minority groups,but we don't want it ramming down our throats(i'll pass on this one) in every single show. Apart from the above, the drama went from what could have been an interesting little story into a pantomime,the priest was a paedophile and there are gays running about every where,oh yes just to be totally PC one of the gay couple was black.i am surprised at c ecclestone for even contemplating this when he read the script.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is ridiculous. Anyone saying the acting is great and the casting is superb have never seen even mediocre cinema. The acting is obviously terrible in the first 5 characters you meet. Lame. I feel like all the other "soaring" comments must have been made by people associated with the filmmakers. I was not very impressed by the storyline, but just wanted to see some beautiful Oregon countryside, and there was some decent cinematography--but the casting was anything BUT inspired. I think this movie also makes a mockery of the generally noble suggestion that something deep in the Amerindian culture has been ignored and perhaps lost and that reviving it is worthwhile, and possible. It places jokes in the wrong and all-too-obvious places, and makes me think it was written by the State Department or something. Back to the drawing board. To even suggest that this film deserves a place in the same vicinity of classics like Harold and Maude is absolutely retarded, and along the same line of begging and pretension and "joking" as is rampant in this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't enjoy this film. I thought the acting wasn't very good and the story was boring. A 20year old computer saving the day? I thought that this was just slightly far fetched, even for a film. I couldn't figure out why they couldn't just turn it off, why not take a sledgehammer to it.<br /><br />Its a shame, but after the original film from the 80s you expected so much more than what was actually delivered. This film could have been a 21st century version of the old film, it wasn't. If that is what you want to watch, do not watch this film! <br /><br />Even if the old computer hadn't have turned up to save day, this would still, in my opinion, be a very very cheesy flick..
|
Negative
| null | null |
How can they from Joe Don Baker (as Bufford Pusser in the first sequel) to Bo Svenson (as Bufford Pusser in the second sequel).Why did they do that for.Just Because Bo Svenon look more a like to Bufford Pusser they still should'nt of changed it because the first sequel it was Joe Don Baker as Bufford Pusser and that one of the thing i wanted to see in the second sequel.<br /><br />I would've given this movie a 7 out of 10 and i would've given it a 1 out of 10 if the story did'nt have anything to do with Bufford Pusser's life but it did and that why i had given this movie a 3 out 10.<br /><br />I strongly suggest that anyone who is planning on watching this cheese i suggest don't and watch the first sequel instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lets put it this way. I actually get this movie. I get what the writer/directer was trying to do. I understand that the dialog was meant to be dry and emotionless. I understand that the plot was supposed to be non-climactic and stale. That was what the writer/director was going for. A very very very dry humor/comedy. With all that understanding, I still think the movie sucked. It seemed like the writer/director was trying to recreate Napolean Dynamite with this movie. It had all of the same features. Even the main character behaved similar to Napolean. But Napolean Dynamite was actually funny. Its script worked. This movie is not. It has no purpose. Well, let me rephrase that. Its only purpose is to rip off Napolean Dynamite and try to capture that look and feel. Too bad it didn't work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Del - "You are the dumbest smart person I've ever met."<br /><br />Calvin- "Well,I had a brain, but they lost it in the re-writes."<br /><br />I think what I find most egregious about this bastardization of Asimov's work was how the character of Susan Calvin was portrayed. In the books, she was actually one of the first strong female protagonists, able to think her way through a problem. Here she's just a damsel in distress, waiting to be rescued by Wil Smith.<br /><br />There are passing references to Asimov's Laws of Robotics, but they are an afterthought to the CGI and action scenes.<br /><br />Smith is likable, as he is in most of his films, but honestly, the story isn't that good. YOu figure it out long before these genius characters do.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.