input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
the film looks like as if the director was forced to make this movie by some gang of terrorists . it should actually be called dino crap.<br /><br />there is nothing good about this movie.. even the actors are not worth a penny. don't waste your time watching this movie. the director should be shot in the head for having the mentality to create such a bad movie . i mean isn't he ashamed of looking at peoples faces after they have seen his movie ? the dinocroc looks as if it was made in power point and pretty much cut-and-paste stuff. and its the same old story . man plays god . creates some creature . it escapes and is happy eating people . and finally a pretty girl and a guy in a sleeveless shirt has to come and kill it . bla bla.. u will figure out the plot in the first 5 minutes of the movie
|
Negative
| null | null |
So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slaughter High is intrinsically your emblematic 80s slasher flick. A prank goes out of hand leaving a geeky guy horribly burnt. A few years later the geeky guy returns and starts killing the people who hurt him. Now the story might sound intriguing and very entertaining, but what makes this horrible film so different from the rest of the 80s slasher flicks is that it has some humorless flaws and continuation errors.<br /><br />The acting is horrendous, however, actually not as bad as one would suspect. Though it doesn't help that every character in the film are so grody and unlikable. The lead, Carol Manning (Caroline Munro) is the easily the biggest tormentor of them all and she's the one that we are ostensibly supposed to share compassion and root for. Not to mention, the geeky guy is almost too geeky and I think that even stereotypical geeks themselves would be rudely maddened and just downright antagonized by how geeky he his, so when he gets mauled, does anyone really care? <br /><br />There is much unintentional laughter potential. Munro's lack of acting talent is quite apparent, which puts her down at the same level as the rest of the awful cast. However, the most amusement is easily when the film poorly attempts to pose Munro, who is in her mid 30s at the time, as a teenager amongst a cast of teenagers. And then when it comes to later life and Munro is playing around her real age, the rest of the cast do not pass as adults. This all goes well with a theme song that is a hilariously pose of heavy metal thrash accompanied by maniacal laughter and a voice shrieking "I'll get you." With that being said, Slaughter High really isn't a very good slasher flick, but it does have a bad cheesy entertainment value to it. Perhaps an essential for hardcore slasher fans, but don't expect dilemma, suspense, or any credibility from it. Horrible!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing that "An Inconvenient Truth" proves is that Al Gore is still an idiot. These "unchallenged" experts are unchallenged because a response to their inane hypotheses is generally beneath real science. This is mostly false science folks. The greatest source of greenhouse gases - CO2 - is people, we exhale it and unless you're willing to start sacrificing your brethren to save the world, there's not a darn thing to be done. We've heard how the world was going to end as the result of man for more than 50 years. Fools publish a time line for their doomsday and when the time passes, nothing has happened. "An Inconvenient Truth" is just another vehicle with which a disingenuous faction of American society can peddle their poop.<br /><br />And as to Al leaving the tobacco business because of his sister's death from cancer, that is a load too. Al couldn't run his farm any better than he could run the country. He was losing money on the operation because he didn't care to farm when he could make more $ on speaking tours. The only global warming that is unchallenged is the hot air produced by this gasbag!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow. Rarely have I felt the need to comment on movies lately, but this one especially is begging for a beatdown. Let's start at the beginning. First, writer-director Susan Montford puts Kim Basinger in the tired old victim role, complete with the requisite abusive husband and dull suburban existence. Let it be said right now that almost all content in this dull movie is completely hackneyed and trite. Montford's pathetic attempt at symbolism involving the Christmas tree with no star is laughable.<br /><br />When She Goes Out for some Christmas wrapping paper one dark and ominous night, Della is furious that somebody double-parked their car on the busiest shopping night of the year. She decides to do something about it, so she leaves a nasty note on the car's windshield. The next fifteen minutes of the movie are devoted to Della walking around aimlessly in the shopping mall. When she finally gets to her car, the thugs confront her about the note, a cop is killed, and she runs, and they catch up to her, and she gets away, and they chase her some more, and on and on. Everything is completely predictable and uninvolving. The thugs are not scary or menacing at all, and they all get picked off one by one in all the usual ways.<br /><br />This is one of those movies in which all the action depends on the characters being as stupid as you can imagine. Why the bad guys don't just kill her instead of waiting for her to hit them with a tire iron is beyond me. And once, just once, in a film like this, does the leader of the pack have to die last? What does it matter that they are all picked off one by one when they are all equally inept? Much of the movie simply consists of Lukas Haas running around in the woods screaming "Della!!!" And the inclusion of Joy Division on the soundtrack of this wretched film is insulting.<br /><br />The part that really made me run for my computer keypad was when Della, exhausted and hurt, cries out to the heavens, "Where are you, God?" Where, indeed, was god when this movie was being made? I give it a 2 only because of competent cinematography and lighting, and it's not as bad as 'BTK Killer,' the ultimate marker for judging any terrible film. Cheers!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scary Movie 3 is such a stinkfest its hard to put it in words. It makes movies like Malibu's Most Wanted look like Oscar material, lets just say that.<br /><br />The original Scary Movie was great fun, one of the better 90s spoof movies, coming from a great team who previously rocked our world with Dont Be A Menace to South Central Whilst Drinking Your Juice in the Hood. But what the hell happened?! After the tragedy that was Scary Movie 2, i thought the cast and crew change would help matters, but its even worse.<br /><br />Within 20mins i'd smiled twice. Not one laugh, the jokes were recycled and originality was obviously no factor. The fact that at this point in writing, the majority of people on this site have voted it 10/10 has made me feel physically ill. When there's great flicks like School of Rock out, which actually have jokes that are *gasp* funny, anyone wasting their money on tripe like this needs their head examined.<br /><br />no stars/****
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 12/26/2008 -(Dir-Eugene Levy): Corny comedy murder mystery with very few laughs. The movie appears to be based on an earlier Italian movie according to the credits but was re-written by two fairly popular American romantic comedy writers. But this one by Charles Shyer & Nancy Meyers does not cut it compared to their other efforts. The story is about a couple of down-and-out traveling Americans, played by Richard Lewis and Sean Young, who stumble upon a lost dog and hope to make a fortune in reward money after seeing an ad in the paper for the dachsund's return. Upon trying to return it, they see a hand sticking out of a garage door at the lady's residence that they believe is attached to the rest of the dead body of the woman who is supposed to give them the money. They freak out and instead of contacting the police and telling them the truth they make out like runaways from the scene expecting to be framed for the murder. The other characters in the film are met on a train prior to this and hang around a Monte Carlo gambling resort doing various things to be pulled into the story. The other cast members include character actors John Candy, James Belushi, Cybill Shepherd, George Hamilton and others. After the police find out about the death, they start questioning the main characters and, of course, they have to work thru their goofy lies to figure out what really happened. None of the character actors mentioned earlier can bring this movie out of it's mediocre state despite some funny moments mostly provided by the Belushi/Shepherd couple. This isn't a horrible movie, it just isn't that good. There are plenty of average movies out there and this is just another one for the pile. Try it, maybe you'll like it, probably you won't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I knew it would be, but I gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. Anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that I'm pretty easy to please. I really didn't think I'd end up feeling this negatively towards it.<br /><br />The plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can
become one with
a good dragon
or something
I don't know. It was so stupid, I didn't bother to put much effort into retaining it.<br /><br />It features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. So many of the events just felt totally random and sudden.<br /><br />I assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem I have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it's trying to be so grand and epic, yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. I feel like I've just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. The film is like a punch in the face. It doesn't take much time at all to establish characters or drama. Imagine the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in 90 minutes
You could have most of the epic battle sequences, but there would be absolutely no buildup and you'd hardly care about the outcome of those battles. That was the case with Dragon Wars
90 minutes of me not giving a crap, waiting for it to be over.<br /><br />Fantastic CGI with some okay directing, but horrible acting, speedy pacing, and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. I probably would have loved it when I was 6.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had the potential to be a decent horror movie. The main character was decently done and I felt sorry for him and there was a decent amount of backstory. HOWEVER, everything else sucks. The director, Emmanuel, is quite incompetent at film-making. He uses some of the most idiotic shots ever.<br /><br />- a couple of random sequences of random images dispersed throughout the film. I don't know if he tried to be deep and intelligent and poetic but he wasn't. It was stupid. Random shots of the trailer the main character lived in, random buildings, random pan shots of buildings, random cat which walks away. WTF? And clouds. Lots of gloomy dark clouds.<br /><br />- he really liked this technique of having a scene cut up into different shots rather than being just one continuous shot. EX: Guy is trying to light his weed and the camera circles around him. Instead of just one shot, he edits it into like 10 different shots so its really EDGY! and HIP! and SMART! stupid.<br /><br />The acting is horrible but it's what makes the movie so funny. And the scarecrow is a gymnast cause he flips and spins and twirls all the time. And some of the deaths could have been better. You expect the main bully to have a long well built up death but nope. A simple corncob in the ear . The love interest was hot. Voluptuous. Which is why this movie gets a 2.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie last night and hoped for the best after watching all the cool trailers.Even the cover of the DVD looked good.As soon as I started watching it I was thinking like others "oh my God whats this".There were some moments that were a bit creepy but then the mood was ruined by stupid music.There was rock and opera during what is supposed to be suspenseful scenes.That right there ruined it for me and i was shaking my head thinking damn I wasted money again on a rental and was deceived by the cover art.Nothing against the music itself,it was just in the wrong parts of the movie.Whoever edited the film has no clue what they are doing.The cover showed lightning, implying they were caught in a storm at sea.That would have been more interesting but it didn't happen. The acting wasn't the worst i've ever seen considering they are all unknown and this is obvious their first film.Another reason I was disappointed was the plot made no sense.In the beginning 2 men saw all of the teens get on a boat,then at the end supposedly only 1 girl existed and the others were either her imaginary friends or were ghosts i'm not sure because it was very badly portrayed. WhyteFox who wrote a comment on here claims this is a true story.He or she believes in ghosts and spirits and says there is a haunted boat in the area this movie was filmed.There was no mention in this movie about it being a true story.I have never experienced something like that personally but am not saying it's impossible.I guess if anyone is interested in renting this movie,do it at your own risk.If you like amateur student horror films you may like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. Two things help this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.
|
Negative
|
There is no question as to who is in command of the training of cadets in this film: Major Chick Davis (Pat O'Brien). O'Brien plays an officer who adheres to military discipline in the creation of a new kind of soldier from his cadets--the bombardier. But he is not so rigid as to be unfair or unfriendly. In fact, he even changes his opinion as to the value of women working in the military. He's tough when he has to be, yet at other times he is a clear mix of coach and pastor, roles he perfected in other films. His character is the foundation of the action around which everything revolves. O'Brien seems natural in the role, and plays it in fine fashion. At least two things are great in this movie: O'Brien's performance and the spectacular special effects ending.
|
Positive
|
So...we get so see added footage of Brando...interesting but not exactly Oscar worthy stuff. Susannah York was hardly a slouch. New scene where Lois finds out Clark is Superman is slightly unbelievable in that he doesn't notice that there are blanks coming out of the gun instead of real bullets. Real bullets would have penetrated his clothes and then bounced off him onto the floor but forget that...let's listen to Donner make fun of Lester's version that made more logical sense. The president talks of the Zod "defacing" the Washington monument when it was originally Mount Rushmore. Tweaking that scene made that line quite absurd. Superman's "freedom of the press" line sounded silly compared to "..Care to step outside" which was delivered better and had a fitting connection to Clark's earlier scene in the truck stop. Then there is the ending with the "turn back the world to go back in time" effect. It turned back everything in the whole movie and made you wonder where exactly the rocket aimed for Hackensack, N.J. ever went since it doesn't free Zod and company any more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the standard view, this is a purely awful movie. However, it rates a near perfect score on the unintentional comedy scale. I can think of few actual comedies that make me laugh as hard as I did watching this movie. Andy Griffith's ghost dressed in Native American garb dancing sends me into hysterics everytime. I wouldn't waste the gas or energy driving to the video store to rent it, but if you happen to be laying on the couch at 3 in the morning and it comes on TV, check it out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.<br /><br />The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.<br /><br />The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.<br /><br />The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".<br /><br />Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The animation in this re-imagining of Peter & the Wolf is excellent, but at 29 minutes, the film is sleep inducing. They should have called it "Peter & the Snails", because everything moves at a snail's pace. I couldn't even watch the film in one sitting - I had to watch it 15 minutes at a time, and it was pure torture.<br /><br />Save yourself 30 minutes - do not watch this film - and you will thank me.<br /><br />I can only guess that the Oscar nominating committee only watched the first few minutes of the nominees. Unfortunately, to vote for the winner in the Best Animated Short (short!) category, the voters will have to sit through the whole thing. I already feel sorry for them - and must predict that there's no way this film will come close to winning.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Madhur has given us a powerful movie Chandni Bar in the past. His next film Page 3 was one of the worst movies of all time. It apparently tells the story of some high class people in India. After seeing a scene where the man forces another man for sexual reasons to Star in a Movie. I felt like spitting and breaking the DVD. Coincidently i did. The reason why was the movie contains scenes of child pornography and molestation. I literally vomited and was shocked to see a movie showing naked children. Very disturbing stuff, there was no need to show the children fully naked. One of the rich guys likes to kidnap poor children and sell them to foreign people, British men in this movie. I am shocked to know this film was a Hit in parts of India, otherwise Super Flop in UK, USA and Australia. I'm from UK, and this kind of stuff makes me sick, shouldn't of been released in UK.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If there was a scale below 1, it would get a -10, following in the footsteps of Godspell. The acting (if there was such a thing) was atrocious, the plot in shambles. And Rene Russo was sickeningly sweet in her role, enough to make a person retch. Ten thumbs down for a dumb movie. Saving grace: kudos for era costuming.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Paint by numbers story and mediocre acting saved by some authentic color - and a few moments that are really wonderful and deeply felt. It does effectively capture the delicate transition of a girl into adulthood, and deals very sensitively and inventively with the cultural conflict the main family experiences.<br /><br />Unfortunately this germ of a good movie is imprisoned in an aimless and extremely convoluted plot that manages to incorporate religious strife, a conflict over a road construction project, the sex life of secondary and even tertiary characters, a mysterious man who lives in the woods, a bunch of racist hooligans, at least three different carnivals, the intricacies of local church politics, and on and on and on. And all of that doesn't even include the actual central plot, which is only about the hopes, dreams, and frustrations of two girls (and their entire families) at the turning point of their lives. I was actually shocked when I realized the whole thing was supposed to take place over the course of one summer (and that so much movie got accomplished in 1.5 hours!) <br /><br />Ultimately the movie is melodramatic, every plot point is predictable, major life altering events happen and then are forgotten about 10 minutes later...and some of those events are extremely distasteful. Most shockingly the fact that one of the characters is involved in a horrible crime (in a totally predictable "twist") and then is completely forgiven and the entire incident forgotten about from then on. Similarly, a secondary character is introduced solely to die a couple minutes later and provide another "twist." It's all totally mechanical, right up to the ending that neatly ties up all the loose ends (well not all of them, just the ones the movie thinks you care about.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie when Joe Bob Briggs hosted Monstervision on TNT. Even he couldn't make this movie enjoyable. The only reason I watched it until the end is because I teach video production and I wanted to make sure my students never made anything this bad ... but it took all my intestinal fortitude to sit through it though. It's like watching your great grandmother flirting with a 15 year old boy ... excruciatingly painful.<br /><br />If you took the actual film, dipped it in paint thinner, then watched it, it would be more entertaining. Seriously.<br /><br />If you see this movie in the bargin bin at S-Mart, back away from it as if it were a rattlesnake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hammerhead is a combination between the mad scientist and killer shark movie genres. In a bit of type-casting, Jeffrey Combs plays the aforementioned mad scientist who develops a human/hammerhead shark creature. Bizarrely, this being is in fact his son, who he has turned into this monster to prevent him dying from cancer. Or something.<br /><br />A group of associates are invited to the scientist's private island. They end up being used as shark bait or shark mate. For some unknown reason the head of IT has been brought along as part of this team. Who knows why? Luckily, he turns out to be a resourceful, if somewhat overweight, Ramboesque hero. I'm working on the assumption that he learnt how to handle an assault rifle as part of his day job working in 1st line support. A normal day for this IT man presumably involves fixing someone's network connection followed by a call to gun down gun-toting evil-doers. Or perhaps a call to fix someone's PC has to be scheduled between physical confrontations with land-based human-shark hybrids? Anyway, he's amazing and saves the day. He even get's the girl.<br /><br />The shark-man is a slightly lame creation but OK, I guess, judging by the effects in general in this film. And the movie moves on at a decent pace. It's complete hokum of course but if you buy a movie called Hammerhead and expect it to be a complex drama about the emotional conflicts experienced by a man turned into a land-based killer fish, then really you have no one to blame but yourself. As it is, there are guns, gore, girls and possibly even an exploding helicopter. It's rubbish but not as bad as some might say.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When Samantha Eggar (as Phyllis Dietrickson) answers the door of her house swathed in a towel, you realize that as competent an actress as Eggar may be, she doesn't have the hypnotic allure of Barbara Stanwyck. And it is not entirely Eggar's fault. In the original film, Wilder had Stanwyck not only appear in a towel, but she enters the scene on the second floor balcony of the house. And she doesn't "come out"; she appears, almost as if by magic. Walter Neff is staring up at her from below on the first floor. There is a reason for this. Stanwyck is much higher than Neff (Fred MacMurray) when they are first introduced. It is not just the towel. The towel adds to the seductive allure. Her pose is like a Greek Goddess overlooking her domain, and, in a strange way, you feel as if, from the start, she is actually controlling the entire situation. She has sexual, even magic, power. This person is no ordinary housewife. This person is a mystery with secrets hidden within.<br /><br />Back to 1973. The remake has Crenna knock on the front door. Stanwyck's stand-in, Eggar, answers the door with a towel around her. There is no "appearance". She simply opens the door. The alluring superiority that grabs the audience at the first appearance of Stanwyck in 1944 is entirely absent in 1973. She opens the door with a towel around her. It may be sexy in a Charlie's Angels sort of way, but it's not nearly as mysterious. The filmmakers of the remake seem to misunderstand Wilder's point. The script may have said "Phyllis appears in towel" so the filmmakers of the remake simply follow the instructions and include the required towel. The point is not the towel. The point is the enigmatic quality of Phyllis, and the potential power she wields. Wilder gave her a towel to add to her mystique. The filmmakers of the remake gave her a towel because that's what Wilder did. And in the choice of shot, lost all of Phyllis' mystique.<br /><br />Richard Crenna also seems miscast. He seems like he's "acting" and not really in the midst of the dilemma. Part of the problem is Crenna appears so much like a 70's actor. He can't get into the 1940's. When MacMurray first speaks into the microphone, sweat begins to drip from his face. No sweat on Crenna. And they also changed one of the crucial lines at the beginning. In the original, Neff says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't get the woman." In the 1973 version, Crenna says, "I didn't get the money, and I didn't want the woman." Did the filmmakers completely misunderstand the entire point of the story? Or were they dumbing it down for a "television" audience?<br /><br />This made-for-TV movie is a by-the-numbers rendition. All the sharp edge of the original is lost. The only stand-out, maybe, is Lee J. Cobb in the role made famous by Edward G. Robinson. But he cannot save the loss of intensity of the original. This 1973 boring remake is a forgettable TV-movie made probably by the same people who did "Gilligan's Island". They might as well have tried to remake "Citizen Kane" or "Gone with the Wind". If mediocrity is the best one can hope for, what's the point? The 1944 classic is a Film with a capital "F". This made-for-TV remake deserves an "F" grade, or, maybe a "D" for dumb.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This Hitchcock movie bears little similarity to his later suspense films and seems much more like a very old fashioned morality tale. A young couple receives an inheritance that they believe will make them happy. They spend the money traveling about the world and living a very hedonistic existence. However, after a while the excitement begins to wane and the couple become dissipated and pointless in their existence. However, out of no where, when they are on a luxury cruise, the ship sinks and they lose everything--and end up much happier in the end because they now appreciate life! What an odd, silly and preachy film! Personally, I'd like to inherit all that money and find out if it makes me miserable!<br /><br />The production values are relatively poor compared to later productions--a rough film with poor sound quality and rather amateurish acting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Impenetrable rubbish. This has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The dialogue is ghastly, the horror effects are laughable. The only thing that kept me watching was the ever-splendid and totally underrated Michael Cule.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This really doesn't match up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin isn't as funny or wacky or as hyperactive. The scenery and music are uninspired and plot just isn't interesting. <br /><br />The only good thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are not very vivid or engaging. <br /><br />Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen don't even provide decent sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were just filling a contractual obligation by appearing. <br /><br />The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.
|
Negative
|
This really matches up to Castle of Cagliostro. Lupin is even more funny and wacky and hyperactive. The scenery and music are inspiring and plot is just as interesting. <br /><br />The best thing about this 'un is the nudity (only in the uncut version) provided by Fujiko. It helped spice up some of the tedious scenes. CoC had a formidable villain and set up the movie for some imaginative set-pieces. The locations in TSoTG are vivid and engaging. <br /><br />Zenigata, Goemon and Jigen provide great sideshow entertainment this time. It's like they were born for this role. <br /><br />The DVD is in full-frame with Dolby Stereo sound. It has a decent amount of extras, including quite a few trailers. But one curious thing. There is no chapter selection on the disc or timecode displayed on the player once inserted. Though you can still skip to the next scene number using the remote.
|
Positive
|
I won't argue with anyone who pronounces this film execrable, as is January Jones's performance, but please check her out, if you haven't already, in the AMC TV series 'Mad Men," starting later this month. She's excellent, as is the entire cast. I'll charitably assume she took on the "Taboo" role strictly for the money, and, realizing what a putrid mess it was going to be, turned in a minimal acting job to avoid starvation. Don't know if that's the case, but I (now) know for sure that she can act.<br /><br />At first, watching "Taboo," I was convinced her flat delivery was a shrewd choice that would later give rise to some significant revelation about her character or the plot. No such luck. Hard to believe the director didn't suggest to her at least once that not changing expression for 17 successive scenes could cause lockjaw.<br /><br />Ironically, her winning performance in "Mad Men" comes as a character who, at least in her early appearances, is very repressed, reserved, unsure of herself, and rather colorless, not unlike her "Taboo" role. But as the TV series progressed, she began to blossom into someone who questions her traditional early-60's whitebread Mom role. Can't wait to see where they take her character in the 2nd season.<br /><br />To sum up, avoid "Taboo" like leprosy, but definitely check out "Mad Men."
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is to the Zatoichi movies as the "Star Trek" movies were to "Star Trek"--except that in this case every one of the originals was more entertaining and interesting than this big, shiny re-do, and also better made, if substance is more important than surface. Had I never seen them, I would have thought this good-looking but empty; since I had, I thought its style inappropriate and its content insufficient. The idea of reviving the character in a bigger, slicker production must have sounded good, but there was no point in it, other than the hope of making money; it's just a show, which mostly fails to capture the atmosphere of the character's world and wholly fails to take the character anywhere he hasn't been already (also, the actor wasn't at his best). I'd been hoping to see Ichi at a late stage of life, in a story that would see him out gracefully and draw some conclusion from his experience overall; this just rehashes bits and pieces from the other movies, seasoned with more sex and sfx violence. Not the same experience at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not as bad as some are making it out to be, though obviously pathetic compared to the original. In my opinion Amitabh was great as the villain Babban Singh - try not to compare to Gabbar in the original as they were clearly not going for the same effect. Other than some mediocre action scenes however, the rest of the film is flawed. Character development was poor and the development of the story was hopeless, with many loopholes, and missing pieces of information which i wouldn't have known if i hadn't read the back of the DVD case. The worst part of the movie was the support roles from Nisha Kothari and especially this new dude called Prashant Raj. Nisha is just plain annoying from the time her lips first open. As for Prashant Raj - seriously who is this guy? where is he from and why on earth was he present in the film studio for anything other than to serve drinks?. His acting ability is zero and he has the same tone, dialog delivery and staunch expression in every scene, whether it be action, comedy, or even a scene when someone has just died. Ajay Devgan was average, at least his expressions changed which is more than i can say for his mistake of a companion. overall, RGV's Aag is worth watching for Amitabh's solid performance, and also a very sexy Urmilla Matondkar in a special appearance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I agree with most if not all of the previous commenter's Tom (bighouseaz@yahoo.com). The Zatoichi series is a great character study combined with great sword fighting and excitement.<br /><br />I have seen Zatoichi 1-13,15,16; I believe 14 has not been released on Zone 1 (usa). Zatoichi the Outlaw was disappointing. The story line was complicated, and seemed to be a hodgepodge of many previous Zatoichi story lines. At one point, I was wondering if I was not seeing a remake of a previous Zatoichi film.<br /><br />This film was disappointing because it started to depend on effects (a head rolling, limbs severed, blood) and less on the nobility of the Zatoichi character. All the previous films succeeded based on the storyline and action, and won a great following without having to resort to effects.<br /><br />I am just hoping that the remaining Zatoichi films do NOT follow the same trend. This is the first Zatoichi film from his studio. I highly recommend all the previous Zatoichi films -- and recommend them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to admit that I'm a great fan of this show, so you must know how disappointed I got when I watched this movie. First of all, the plot was awful, I thought it was going to be something more interesting, like to see what happened to Arnold fathers, or something more interesting, but NOOOOOOO, a maniac wants to destroy Arnold's house, between many other places, so many people tries to stop this.<br /><br />I must admit that the plot wasn't so bad after all, but what really sucked were the steps that Arnold and his friends do to stop this maniac, they become friends of a spy,; they drive a bus (based on a video game, for God sake), and to worse everything, they make super-moves on the bus, things that many persons had already tried and died, but not Arnold, Gerald and Helga, 'cause they are experts on a video game.<br /><br />Honestly, my mom, my sister, even me got really disappointed after watching this movie, 'cause it was the worst way to finish a really good cartoon. I must admit that I used to enjoy "Hey Arnold!", it was one of my favorite cartoons on Nickelodeon, but after this crap of movie, I'm not quite sure if I'm going to watch "Hey Arnold!" as I used to watch it on the past.<br /><br />Other thing Nickelodeon, with that enormous number of dynamite I can assure you that not a simple street would explode, I think that the whole city could explode with that, oh, and please, if all of your future movies from good cartoons are going to be like that, don't do more movies, you give a bad critic to cartoons that used to be good.<br /><br />Honestly, I think this was the worst way to end this show, a good show transformed into this crap of movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his `vision' to the screen. He has done it with `Batman', `Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.<br /><br />The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.<br /><br />Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The `surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, `I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'<br /><br />From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.<br /><br />The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.<br /><br />The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.<br /><br />Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.<br /><br />This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It wasn't good. The characters were underdeveloped and the only personality were from the memories I had of the previous movie which contrasted with the 'new' personalities (or lack thereof). I seriously thought the opening scene was a nightmare by Ariel because of how absurd it was. It was serious. It just reminded me of all the annoying characters on the Disney channel-everyone is hyperactive and the story jumps from action to embarrassing scenes without any really connection.<br /><br />The most disappointing part was the horrible songs-not catchy, not amazing. In the original Ariel had an amazing and powerful voice and all the song are catchy and fun. You remember them and want to sing them. But the songs in this movie weren't creative in the least; it's as if they're talking in a annoying sing-song voice-quite weakly, disappointing. I don't have that want-to-sing-them feeling you normally get from a Disney movie.<br /><br />It's as if not one wanted to do this movie, so they barely made an effort . . . this movie would needs a new story line, new catchy songs and more warmth and enthusiasm without the annoying "look at me! look at me! I'm so annoying!" mentality of this generation of Disney. :'(
|
Negative
| null | null |
This juvenile, bland flick is strictly for teenagers in old mens' bodies, desperate to relive their hormonally challenged teenage years. How ? By burning up gas and equating a fast, reckless car (or plane) with freedom.<br /><br />The plot borrows heavily from Mister Rogers' neighborhood (if it were run my an oil conglomerate) and Logan's Run (if it were heavily sedated and lacked a clear sense of style).<br /><br />Starring Lee Majors and Burgess Meredith this film is set in a post-gas-crisis world in which an all-powerful government doesn't want you to (*ahem*) drive your car and burn gas. Sort of the opposite of today's Enron-and-Bush, oil-grabbing, SUV-pushing government.<br /><br />This juxtaposition alone makes the film laughable. But wait...there's more. Although the film is set in the future, we're not shown any signs of future technology, beyond a return to bicycles, golf carts and horses. You will believe that the future looks... exactly like today. Same clothing, same suburban houses, same green lawns as today and when the film was made. There are no solar panels, no windmills, no concessions to alternate energy.<br /><br />The acting is flat and flavorless. Even scenes which could have been gritty or moving, buddy-flick, honor, romance, horror... all fall flatter than a paper doll under a briefcase.<br /><br />Continuity is lacking-- the jet flown by Burgess Meredith's character changes colors and configuration from moment to moment as the filmmakers insult our intelligence with unmatched stock footage again and again.<br /><br />The plot is as moronic and only half as exciting as a Dukes of Hazzard episode.<br /><br />Even die-hard car-film and SF fans should avoid this film like month-old roadkill, unless you enjoy heckling Exxon executives trying to make a movie as empty as the hero's gas tank.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Antonioni's movies have aged not well. What always surprised me about them is that, besides an unquestionable plastic beauty, there is a dull and didactic "psychology" of the characters and situations. Remember, for instance, the conversations between Mastroianni and the "wicked capitalistic" that wants sing up him in "La notte", or Monica Vitti laughing at the peasants flirting in the train in "La aventura", or Ferzetti dropping the glass of ink at the end of the same film. <br /><br />I have reviewed yesterday "Zabriskie Point". In this film there are a lot of nice and elaborate shots of the Rod Taylor office, the streets and highways of L.A., the publicity advertisements, the deserts,etc., that show the fascination of the author in his American journey, in the same way than Wim Wenders years later. Unfortunately, there are too a lot of hippie-leftist clichés that spoil the movie: - The boy leaves the meeting, steals an aeroplane and flies over the desert in order to liberate himself and find "something different". - The executives in grey suites speak all the time about speculation. - The girl looks at the "object women" in the swimming pool and leaves because she wants not to be like them. - The couple of fat middle-class in the caravan speak, in front of the beauty of the nature, of building a hotel and earning a lot of money. - Last but not the least, a lot of couples making love in the desert. What a hippie platitude!<br /><br />Sorry, today, half a century after the "revolution" of "La Aventura" we can see that the king is naked, and his films (except "Le amiche" and perhaps "Il grido") are only a handful of aestheticism and commonplaces.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gorgeous bodies, gorgeous colors and camera work, pretentious dialog, banal plot. The name of the prima donna, Camilla, and the eponymous flowers that appear frequently, are enough to remind us of the plot similarities from Dumas' novel La Dame aux Camelias, the movie Camille starring Garbo and (I think) Robert Taylor, and last but not least Verdi's opera La Traviata. Beautiful, not-too-virtuous young ladies, social outcasts for one reason or another, loved, split up, reunited just in time to die of tuberculosis in the last scene... One forgives banal plots and stupid unrealistic dialog in opera, but why waste Hayak, Don Sutherland, a beautiful rendition of LA in the 30s, a deus ex machina earthquake that conveniently kills the other woman, and all that beauty on this mediocre turkey where there isn't even any beautiful singing?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually saw this movie at a theater. As soon as I handed the cashier my money, she said two words I had never heard at a theater, before or since: "No refunds!" As soon as I heard those words, I should have just waved bye-bye to my cash and gone home. But no, foolishly, I went in and watched the movie. This movie didn't make ANYONE in the theater laugh. Not even once. Not even inadvertantly! Mostly, we sat there in stunned silence. Every ten minutes or so, someone would yell "This movie SUCKS!" The audience would applaud enthusiastically, then sit there in stunned, bored silence for another ten minutes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Investigative reporter Darren McGavin (as Carl Kolchak) is back; this time, he's after "The Night Strangler". Once again, police officials and fellow journalists either disbelieve, or want to cover-up, the supernatural angle. Producer-director Dan Curtis presents the same basic story as his preceding "Night", with understandably less success.<br /><br />Mr. Curtis assembles a fun supporting cast, included are "Dark Shadows" alumni George DiCenzo and Ivor Francis. Jo Ann Pflug (as Louise Harper) heads up a sexy collection of belly-dancers. And, although I've never seen it mentioned anywhere, that must be Roger Davis as Mr. McGavin's dining companion in an early scene, feigning disbelief in the existence of vampires! <br /><br />**** The Night Strangler (1/16/73) Dan Curtis ~ Darren McGavin, Jo Ann Pflug, Simon Oakland, Wally Cox
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie could be used in film classes in a "How Not to Script a B-Movie" course. There are inherent constrictions in a B-movie: Budgets are tight, Time is precious (Scarecrow was apparently shot in 8 days) and the actors are often green and inexperienced. The one aspect you have complete control over is writing the best script you can within the limitations set before you. Scarecrow's script seems to have been written in a drunken haze. I could go through about fifteen examples of the nonsensical scripting of this movie, but I'll just mention one: The Gravedigger. The character of the gravedigger is introduced about an hour into the movie. He seemingly has no connection to any of the other characters already in the movie. He is shown with his daughter, who also has no connection to anybody else in the movie. The gravedigger is given a couple scenes to act surly in and then is killed to pad out the body count. Why give the Gravedigger a daughter? Why give the daughter a boyfriend? Why introduce them so late in the movie? Why not try to make them part of the ongoing storyline? Scarecrow doesn't seem to care.<br /><br />The "story" of Scarecrow goes something like this: Lester is a high school kid (played by and actor who'd I'd peg to be in his early 30's) who is picked on by the other kids. He is an artist who draws birds and has a crush on a classmate named Judy. His mom is a lush and the town whore. One of her reprobate boyfriends makes fun of his drawings (by calling him a "faggot" for drawing birds instead of "monsters and cowboys." If you have a high school student still drawing cowboys I'd think him to more likely be gay than a high school student who draws crows) and later, kills Lester, in a cornfield, under the titular scarecrow. Magically, Lester's soul goes into the scarecrow. Somehow, this transference changes Lester's soul from that of an artist into that of a wisecracking gymnast (I know some reviews have called the scarecrow a Kung-Fu scarecrow. I disagree. The scarecrow practically does a whole floor routine before jumping onto the truck during the climax of the movie). The scarecrow then goes on to kill those who tormented him, those who smoke pot in the corn field, those who dig graves, boyfriends of daughters of gravediggers, pretty much anyone who showed up on the movie set.<br /><br />The bonus feature on the DVD should be mentioned. The director (a Frenchman) does an impromptu version of rap music, admits he enjoys not having executives around on set so he can screw his wife while working and gives a quote to live by (and I'm paraphrasing): "Life ez a bitch, but et has a great ass"<br /><br />Number of Beers I drank while watching this movie: 5 Did it help: No Number of Beers needed to enjoy this movie: Whatever it takes to get to blackout drunk level.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Avoid this crap at all costs. Bad script, bad directing, bad acting, bad editing, bad sound, and bad music. Get the idea? This movie tries to be western flavored, it's not. It tries to be hard core violent, it's not. It tries to present a fresh look at an old genre, it doesn't. The actors try there best, and my heart goes out to them. But with such inane material to work with it's hard to make something shine. To me this has all of the looks of a "fresh outta film school gonna set the world on fire" first attempt. Freshmen film makers often bite off more that they, or their budget, can chew. The best thing they can do is to take a few steps back, reassess what is possible, and work within their limited budget the next time out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all sorry for giving even a rating of 1 to this movie (nothing less than this available). The film fails in every department be it screenplay, direction, characterization or acting. <br /><br />1) To start with, the name of the movie is really C class (though the movie itself match up to the name). 2) Amitabh Bachchan tries his best to live up to the character but the weak script coupled with pathetic direction ends up making him a humorous character. 3) In Sholay Gabbar Singh has reward of 50,000 on him (which was convincing). Here in Aag the figure was 100 crores for Babban (Amitabh Bachchan but poor man was beaten by our so called hero's and had only few men bikes to commute (with all automatic guns). Making a Sholay like movie in Mumbai type setup in modern time doesn't look convincing. 4) As for Nisha Kothari, somebody needs to tell her that she doesn't know acting. Why is Ram Gopal Verma casting her again and again ? 5) Mohanlal was good but there is hardly anything for him to do. 6) Sushant Singh and Rajpal Yadav who are great actors are wasted in the movie. 7) Legendry role played by Lila Misra (Mausi of Basanti) in Sholay is replaced cheaply in this movie by some Gangu Mummy. Ramu please grow up and understand that there needs to be some intellect in your movie. Enough of stupid characters in your movie like Shiva and Aag. 8) Should not say anything about modern Jai and Veeru..pathetic to the greatest extent.<br /><br />To summarize, I was shocked to see this movie because it looks like a cheap and comic translation of original classic. Please don't waste money and time on this movie. I think watching Aap Ka Surror (which I thought was the worst movie possible) would be a better idea than to see this horrible package of stupid characters, bad songs and miserable direction.<br /><br />Thanks, Saurabh
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think I found the most misogynistic film of all time: Darklight.<br /><br />The gist of the film- Lilith was Adam's first wife and she was considered imperfect and banished from the garden of Eden because she considered herself Adam's equal and refused to submit to him. See, I took those words straight from the script. Then the film keeps going on and though she is the heroine of the film, the only time that she becomes acceptable is when she does what the men tell her to do! She ends the film under the control of The Faith- an all male group!<br /><br />Other than that the script was predictable and the FX were awful. Apart from the obvious hatred of females that is usually a lot more subtle in modern film, there was nothing original about Darklight.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I tried to watch this movie in a military camp during an overseas mission, and let me tell you, you'll watch anything under those circumstances. Not this piece of sh*t though.<br /><br />The first five minutes set the tone by weak porn-movie quality acting, weird out-of-the-blue plot twists and unbelievable situations and behavior. It gets worse after that. This movie does not have one single saving grace, and yet it is not bad in a way that would make it funny to watch. It's just horrible. I've seen quite many movies in my life and I'm not one of those snobby know-all critics, I mean I'll enjoy most movies to some extent even if they're bad. This one... man.<br /><br />Steer _well_ clear of this one, my friend.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I am watching a film, I am aware that it is `just a movie,' but nonetheless I do like to allow myself to become engrossed as much as possible under the circumstances. I think this is what makes us cry, scream, laugh, or otherwise react emotionally as audience members, even though, deep down, we know it is `just a movie.' What I don't want is for the movie to remind me it is just a movie so that I am unable to slip into the aforementioned engrossment regardless of the quality of the film. This film's director chose to frequently use multi-angle camera shots simultaneously on the screen. Maybe it is just me, but I find this to be terribly distracting and downright irritating. They might as well run a continuous banner across the bottom of the screen reading, `Attention: This is just a movie. Do not allow yourself to become too interested or engrossed'. If I want `picture-in-picture', I'll activate it from my TV remote, but never during a movie I want to enjoy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was so excited and hyped up about watching this film when the promos first came out in November! It looked awesome and the songs! I was quite disappointed when I went to watch it! This is a film which weaves 6 couples together. It has a multi cast of 12 people! A huge amount of stars have worked on this film. I think the director, Nikhil Advani, has not managed the situation well and should not have had many people in this movie as this would of made it easier for him. Compared to Nikhil's directorial Debut 'Kal Ho Naa Ho' , 'Salaam-e-Ishq' falls quite behind. I think Nikhil should have a smaller star cast. I think the best factors of this film is the songs! The songs are excellent and I think that all of the songs are awesome, Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy done an excellent job and have done an excellent jobs over the years. I think the ratings of this movie may go up because of the excellent songs! One thing I was disappointed with, is that the director should not have included nudity in this film which is done by Sohail Khan and Isha Koppikar. I found this extremely rude watching this with family! Although, some may find this nude as comedy, it is not something you would want to watch with parents! I think the best acting was performed by Salman and Priyanka Overall, I think its an alright movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
No one goes to a movie like The Hills Have Eyes 2 and expects the second coming of Citizen Kane. The same is true for the majority of low-rent horror flicks, especially those Roger Ebert has dubbed "Dead Teenager Movies." The Hills Have Eyes 2 definitely qualifies as a Dead Teenager Movie, only here, the teenagers have been given the superficial appearance of military trainees.<br /><br />Some will argue the line "it's only a movie" when questionable facts are raised in a movie review, but I've always been a firm believer that all good fantasy must be rooted in reality in order to be effective. In the Hills Have Eyes 2, we're to believe the main characters are military people on a training exercise, but they look and talk like high school kids camping in the desert. The dialog is awful and frequently vulgar to excess. Though the films aren't nearly comparable, I kept imagining these "soldiers" being in Platoon, and shuddering with dread.<br /><br />Very little about the characters evokes a soldier other than rifles and fatigues: radio transmissions are carried out like teenage phone conversations; a Colonel is addresses as "hey, asshole" by a Private. And nobody seems to have the slightest idea what to do, or any sense of command structure, when things begin to go wrong. I think of the soldiers in James Cameron's Aliens, a film of pure fantasy, and how even those futuristic Marines behaved like real soldiers despite their fantastic situations. Fantasy rooted in reality.<br /><br />I try to begin watching a movie as a 5 on a scale of 10, and judge it's strengths and weaknesses from there. You have to allow concessions for the material; there's no way Star Wars is as good of a movie as The Godfather, on equal terms. But both are excellent examples of their type.<br /><br />In that respect, while the Hills Have Eyes 2 is a pretty dreadful exercise in amateur and immature writing, it's only modestly worse in that regard than the typical Dead Teenager Movie. On a technical side, the movie appears to have decent production values and is pretty well made from that perspective. Scenes that are intended to shock, or which are intended to evoke urgency or suspense generally work. So, while watching The Hills Have Eyes 2 may indeed be a fate worse than death, there are certainly far worse horror flicks in circulation.<br /><br />It's worth a watch for those who enjoy this type of stuff without the usual fanboy baggage, or those who don't tend towards thinking every movie they see is either the Best Ever or the Worst Ever of all time. If you don't "get" horror, especially the Dead Teenager variety, you're not likely to have a good time with this one.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Turgid dialogue, feeble characterization - Harvey Keitel a judge? He plays more like an off-duty hitman - and a tension-free plot conspire to make one of the unfunniest films of all time. You feel sorry for the cast as they try to extract comedy from a dire and lifeless script. Avoid!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scotty (Grant Cramer, who would go on to star in the great B-movie "Killer Klowns from outer space") agrees to help three middle-aged guys learn how to 'dialog' the ladies in this bad '80's comedy. Not bad as in '80's lingo, which meant good. Bad as in bad. With no likable characters, including, but not limited to, a kid who's the freakiest looking guy since "Friday the 13th part 2"' a girl who leads men on and then goes into hissy fits when they want to touch her, and the token fat slob, because after all what would an '80's sex comedy be without a fat slob?? Well this one has two. This movie is pretty much the bottom of the barrel of '80's sex comedies. And then came the sequel thus deepening said proverbial barrel.<br /><br />My Grade:D- <br /><br />Eye Candy: too numerous to count, you even see the freaky looking kid imagined with boobs at on point, think "Bachlor Party" but not as funny, and VERY disturbing.<br /><br />Where I saw it: Comcast Moviepass
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is AWFUL. I haven't laughed so hard at a movie that was unintentionally funny in a long time. Leno should've stuck to stand up and late night tv. The cars in the movie were cool, but the movie by itself is the dumbest movie I've ever seen. it's pathetic, the acting is horrible, and the plot could've been written by a 4 year old. don't get me wrong, jay leno is hilarious, but not in this movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sniffing girl's panties kills a guy...and a stupid freaky puppet says a lot of stupid freaky things......My eyes could not leave the screen, my finger could not leave the Fast Forward button....I had to rewatch this spectacle to see if I had really experienced what I thought...I did.....God help us all!
|
Negative
| null | null |
And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.<br /><br />There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.<br /><br />What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.<br /><br />The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.<br /><br />In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Superhero movies pretty much always suck, and this is no exception. Its only redeeming quality is the fact the movie COULD have been even worse. I would put 'Batman & Robin' and 'Steel' above this movie, so yes it is that bad...<br /><br />If your looking for a black superhero, check out 'Blankman' its not a "serious" superhero movie but at least its entertaining.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know who Sue Kramer, the director of this film is, but I have a strong suspicion that A) she is a lesbian and B) she somehow shamed everyone involved in this project to participate to prove they are not homophobic.<br /><br />I can imagine everyone thinking, "My God, this is horrible. Not funny. Pedestrian. Totally lame." But keeping their mouths shut for fear they will be labeled anti-gay or they "don't get" the gay lifestyle. (This is probably why Kramer did NOT cast gay people to play gay people too.) Anyway, it's not even worth reviewing. The actors are all directed to play every scene completely over the top so there is no sincerity or believability in anything they do. It's full of clichés and there is nothing about this movie that is the least bit amusing - much less funny.<br /><br />I hated it and I'm not afraid to say so. Too bad the gutless people who gave Kramer the money to make this bomb weren't as unbiased in their judgment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a lesbian, I am always on the lookout for films relating to gays & lesbians. However, with this kind of crap out there--it would be enough to discourage any audience.<br /><br />I kept waiting for something to happen--anything!--a story to develop, or just for it to make some kind of sense. Neither occurred. It was just meaningless scenes, unconnected in any way with anything. The film failed to conveyed any kind of story or depth to the character.<br /><br />After an hour or more of this nonsense, I simply turned it off.<br /><br />Don't waste your time on this absurdity.<br /><br />1 Star - and it doesn't even deserve that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first started watching this movie I was looking for some kind of subtle metaphors but it soon dawned on me that this movie was indeed about people on a train. The interactions between people are like those you can see any day on the street and when in occasion there is a slightly more interesting situation the dialogue becomes stilted and boring. Its not that I don't get how this film is trying to portray the way people interact, it's just that in this film they are very boring. If you want to see and analyse these kinds of relationships you'd be best to actually go out and buy a train ticket and look at the people on the train with you. It is realistic but you wouldn't go to a movie to watch a film about you sitting there watching the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Slaughter High the tale of revenge by a nerdy guy who fell victim to one of the coolest and coldest jokes in cinema history. Unfortunately after the promising opening the flick went straight to hell. A very tedious and redundant mess with mediocre slashings and a final half hour that sucked on a whole new level of suckiness. The guy who played the nerd actually killed himself shortly after the flick was released. If you wanna rent the flick stop it after the prank and remember, choose life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I do admit that my review is from a 2006 point of view, nearly 30 years after the making of this movie and at the time of its conception, it may have been a brilliant horror/thriller movie.<br /><br />Beginning on Halloween night 1968, 6 year old Michael commits the brutal murder of his 18 year old sister. Michael is committed to a mental institution and 15 years later escapes and returns to his home town to murder again.<br /><br />From this point it is clear that the movie will follow a basic and rudimentary path that is highly predictable. The beginning of every scene is easily predictable in the way it will end whilst the music for each scene containing Michael (the murderer) is exactly the same throughout the movie, thus alerting the viewer to the likely events to follow.<br /><br />For the horror/thriller enthusiast, there is a severe lack of blood/gore compared to modern day films although I am not akin to the amount that is displayed in this day and age. A happier medium could have been found.<br /><br />From a half hour into the movie, not one scene is unexpected. The acting for a horror/thriller film is fairly typical of the era and thus lacks any punch for the modern day enthusiast.<br /><br />A positive for the film is its lingering camera shots and dark lighting which creates a frightening atmosphere. A second positive would be the character of Michael's doctor, who provides clues to the probability of where the story may lead.<br /><br />However, it is clear that the star, in Jamie-Lee Curtis, is in the infancy stages of her acting career and thus fails to provide a truly frightened central victim.<br /><br />It is hard for me to rate this film as it was in its day, but from other horror/thriller films of indeed the 80s and to a lesser extent, the 90s, it falls far short of a truly great horror/thriller film.<br /><br />I suggest you move on and find a classic from the 80s. Cheers!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If ever there was a film that deserved a big fat zero rating it's this pile of crap. I love zombie films and even bad ones usually have something going for them but not this atrocity. I actually began to feel angry watching this film because it's so insultingly poor, I can't believe the people responsible for it would actually think this was acceptable.<br /><br />There's no plot and the non-plot is cut with scenes of sadism and spanking. The people don't react, act or in any way resemble human beings. The entire movie is also shot in two rooms scantily decorated to vaguely resemble the places they are supposed to be. The whole thing is one pointless mess, it doesn't go anywhere and when the zombies finally turn up they look rubbish and don't do very much.<br /><br />I could make a better film than this, so could you and so could someone who had never seen a movie before. It's pitiful and without doubt the worst movie of all time.<br /><br />Honestly, the very worst movie of all time. You'll note by the way that the only positive reviews give this a 10/10 and urge you to BUY the DVD. I can't imagine anyone neutral genuinely thinking this is a good film, it's terrible.<br /><br />0/10 and that's generous.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bestselling writer George Plimpton(Alan Alda)takes on an assignment for Sports Illustrated. He is to go incognito to the Detroit Lions training camp and try out for a position as third string Quarterback. He is quickly found out by the team members featuring Alex Karras and Mike Lucci. The entire team finds it amusing to cause stumbling blocks in the writer's determination to Quarterback for a series in a real game.<br /><br />This movie is Alda's debut and also helped Karras leave the gridiron for acting. Besides the 1968 Detroit Lions, the cast also includes "Sugar Ray" Robinson, Roy Schieder and Lauren Hutton.<br /><br />Alex March directs this story based on Plimton's book.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As usual, i went to watch this movie for A.R.Rahman. Otherwise, the film is no good. Rajni wanted to end his movie career with this film is it would be successful. But fortunately or unfortunately the film was a failure. After this he delivered a hit with Chandramukhi. I Am eagerly waiting for his forth coming Shivaji.<br /><br />I have read the other user's comment on Rajni. I found it interesting as the user is from TN too. Rajni is one actor who acts, i think, from his heart not from his mind. He is not a method actor like Kamal Hasan. I think we need to appreciate Rajni for his strong going at his age.<br /><br />Any ways, i need to fill 10 lines for this comment... so wish u good luck Rajni...........
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this film awhile back (while working on a trailer for the film's production company) and it was TERRIBLE. Hewitt is mediocre at best, Hopkins phones his performance in (but still blows away Hewitt in their scenes together) and Alec looks bored. Trust me on this: you should avoid this film like the plague if it ever gets released. It seems to go on forever as the tired plot unfolds at a snail's pace. It is relentlessly unfunny, the cinematography is crappy and the direction is pedestrian. Alec Baldwin should go to film school if he plans to direct again. In terms of his acting, his character is totally unlikable, which makes it impossible to root for him. Dan Ackroyd is pretty funny and the surprising makeup of the jury near the film's end is cute, but this film is just plain awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I want so badly to give this piece of GARBAGE a zero, unfortunately, there isn't, so, I had to give it a 1 just to warn you about how stupidly terrible this imposter of a familiar cartoon really is! The characters look like they were drawn by pre-schoolers, no, wait, I've seen pre-schoolers do better! I prefer "Misadventures of Flapjack" to this terrible excuse for a cartoon! I'm probably saying what others have said, two words: RIP OFF!! Remember that episode of Dexter's Lab when they raced go-karts down that volcano? yeah, Mister Fellows even cashed in on that idea and failed! They even ripped off Shadow Lugia in that one episode that parodied Pokemon!(he even cashed in on that franchise!) That one character is a cheap rip off of Mandark from Dexter's Lab! Mister Fellows needs to be sued for statutory infringement for this piece of crap!! Everyone has their own opinion, but those of you who like Johnny (RIP-OFF) Test, your'e just lying to yourselves. Do yourself a favor, change the channel when this rip off tries to disgrace your screen!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Skippy from "Family Ties" plays Eddie, a wussy 'metal' nerd who gets picked on. When his favorite wussy 'metal' singer, Sammi Curr, dies, he throws a hissy fit tearing down all the posters on his bedroom wall. But when he later gets an unreleased record that holds the spirit of his dead 'metal' idol. He first gets sucked into ideas of revenge, but then he doesn't want to take it as far as Sammi does. Which isn't really that far as his main victims only seem to go to the hospital. This movie is utterly laughable and has about as much to do with real metal as say, "Rock Star". OK, maybe a tad more than that piece of junk, but you get my point. And how ANYone can root for a guy played by Skippy from "Family Ties" I haven't a clue. The cameo by Gene Simmons is OK, and Ozzy Osbourne reaches coherency, I applaud him for that, but otherwise skip this one.<br /><br />My Grade: D <br /><br />Eye Candy:Elise Richards gets topless, an a topless extra at a pool party
|
Negative
| null | null |
I expected to enjoy a romantic comedy featuring Hip Hop, but was disappointed on many levels. First of all, the story is so badly recycled as to make it almost unbearable. Second, the setting, acting and story are not very authentic or believable. Third, there are a lot more good black actors to choose from than these standard picks. How about some originality? Third, there were very few Hip Hop songs played in entirity - if any. None seemd really central. Overall, film was a great disappointment, but the editing style was very interesting and almost made the film worthwhile.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In theory, films should be a form of entertainment. While this excludes documentaries and other experimental forms of film-making; most movies, specially genre films, must not only tell it's story or message, they must entertain their target audience in some way. All this just to say that in my opinion a bad movie is not a movie with low production values or low-budget, a bad movie is one that is boring.<br /><br />"Hellborn" or "Asylum of the Damned" as is known in the U.S., is a bad movie simply because it is just not involving, and irremediably boring and tiresome. While it has a very good premise, it is just poorly developed and the mediocre acting doesn't make things better. On another hands the film probably could had been a fine or even classic B-movie, but here it is just a bad attempt at film-making.<br /><br />Director Philip J. Jones tells the tale of James Bishop (Matt Stasi), a young psychiatry resident, who just got his dream job at St. Andrew Mental Hospital; but the old asylum seems to hide a secret. After the mysterious death of some patients and the constant rumors of satanic practices, James decides to find out what is going on; only to find the incredulity of his boss, Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne), who believes that Bishop is going as insane as his patients.<br /><br />While the premise is quite interesting, the execution of the film leaves a lot to be desired. In an attempt of making a supernatural psychological thriller, Jones goes for the easy way out and makes a movie filled with every cliché of the genre. Of course, there are lots of great movies that are also filled with clichés; but in "Hellborn" every single one is wasted and turned into a cheap jump scare to keep things moving, resulting in a boring and predictable storyline.<br /><br />The acting is quite mediocre for the most part, with one big exception: Bruce Payne gives a top-notch performance that makes the movie look unworthy of such good acting. Matt Stasi is very weak as the lead character and the rest of the cast make forgettable performances.<br /><br />Despite all this flaws, one thing has to be written about "Hellborn"; it has a visual look very good for the budget and very similar to modern day big-budget Hollywod "horror" productions. Also, the make-up and prosthetics are done very nicely and the designs for the main antagonist are quite good. Sadly, the rest of the Special Effects are awful and outdated, making a huge contrast with the make-up & prosthetics.<br /><br />"Hellborn" is a movie with a few good things outnumbered by its serious flaws with terrible results. Hardcore horror or b-movie fans may be interested by its premise but it is a boring and tiresome experience. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
While I don't claim to be any sort of expert in marine life, I must say anyone with a modicum of intelligence could not possibly buy in to this notion of a whale (and not even the mother!) having a clue about revenge because it witnessed his dead mate having a forced abortion by humans! I mean, really! This is basically the whole plot. Richard Harris must have been extremely hard up for roles to have accepted this junk. This is the kind of movie that is so bad that if you paid 50 cents to see it, you would feel like demanding your money back.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.<br /><br />However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. <br /><br />Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.<br /><br />Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.<br /><br />The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.<br /><br />Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.<br /><br />Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.<br /><br />It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is the freshman effort of Stephanie Beaton and her new production company. While it suffers from a few problems, as every low budget production does, it is a good start for Ms. Beaton and her company.<br /><br />The story is not terribly new having been done in films like The Burning and every Friday the 13th since part 2. But, the performances are heartfelt. So many big budget movies just have the actors going through the motions, its always nice to see actors really trying to hone their craft.<br /><br />The story deals with the murder(and possible return) of a disfigured classmate. The others are sworn to secrecy, but the trauma of the event sends each person in different directions in their lifes. Ten years later, the friends are murdered one by one by a gruesome stalker known as "The Bagman". Who will survive? You have to watch.<br /><br />If you are Roger Ebert or any number of arrogant critics, you probably shouldn't bother. But if your taste run more towards Joe Bob Briggs and you want to see a group of people honing their craft, then check out "The Bagman".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to admit that i liked the first half of Sleepers. It looked good, the acting was even better, the story of childhood, pain and revenge was interesting and moving. A superior hollywood film. But...No one mentioned this so far (at least in the latest 20 comments), when it came to the courtroom scenes and Brat Pitt´s character followed his plan to rescue his two friends, who are rightly accused of murder, i felt cheated. This movie insulted my intelligence. <br /><br />Warning spoilers!!<br /><br />Why did anyone accept their false alibi, witnessed by the priest? If these two guys had been with him, why shouldn´t they tell this during the investigation? Amnesia? If you were the judge or member of the jury, would you believe it? Is it wise to give the motif of the murderers away?<br /><br />I am sorry, but in the end, the story is very weak, and this angers me. This movie had great potential. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm so confused. I've been a huge Seagal fan for 25 years. I've seen all of his films, and many of those dozens of times. I can only describe this film as "bizarre." Steven Seagal shares screenplay writing and producing credits on this film, but I have a really tough time believing he would choose to dub over his own voice for so many of his lines, with a thin, whiny imposter's voice no less. What I also don't get is, if they had to dub SOME of his lines, why does his own voice appear on the rest of them? I expect Seagal to age like the rest of us. But the Seagal in this movie barely exudes a fraction of the same swagger, confidence, bravado, charm, and sex-appeal he so easily showed us in ALL of his previous movies. What I found myself missing most of all was his cocky, self-assured attitude and his bad-ass sneer that so easily shifts into that adorable grin. Where is that in-your-face attitude and charm that made him such a huge star??? I hope that this film is not an indication of what Seagal has left to offer us - if so, his lifelong fans will have to concede that the Seagal we all knew and loved is gone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, about the only thing this film is memorable for is that it starred a youngish Tom Hanks who only a few short years later would be a relevant star in Hollywood. Here though is not a movie that is going to showcase his talents much at all and the only other thing that might be considered somewhat entertaining about this flick is the scene where he thinks he sees a monsters and runs a guy through. Yes, this movie is about the evils of playing a game that makes a group of people use their imaginations and try to come up with interesting scenarios. Basically, an after school type special about the evils of the game Dungeons and Dragons cleverly retitled here as Mazes and Monsters. Apparently, the makers of this film thought that nerds should not have fun of any sort unless they were going to go out and do underage drinking, drugs, having lots of unprotected sex and harass other weaker children like all the popular kids were doing. No, these bad people were playing a game that actually required one to use there brain, heaven's no! Not that, if they have a brain they actually may be able to think for themselves and not be brainwashed by certain groups out there. Yes, I think this movie is utterly stupid and a waste of time. Granted, it could be a movie against addiction, but there are a lot fewer people who died taking Dungeons and Dragons to far in its entire existence than than say what drunk driving claims in like a month.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No redeeming features, this film is rubbish. Its jokes don't begin to be funny. The humour for children is pathetic, and the attempts to appeal to adults just add a tacky smuttishness to the whole miserable package. Sitting through it with my children just made me uncomfortable about what might be coming next. I couldn't enjoy the film at all. Although my child for whom the DVD was bought enjoyed the fact that she owned a new DVD, neither she nor her sisters expressed much interest in seeing it again, unlike with Monsters inc, Finding Nemo, Jungle Book, Lion King, etc. which all get frequent requests for replays.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this recently with my wife and discovered it's better than Caine believes, although it's not much cop. Britain's greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role, which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. Rex Harrison seems even less bothered, perhaps unsurprisingly, as his character is very poorly written. William Holden is better, but his screen time is fleeting and, again, his character is not well scripted.<br /><br />Beverly Johnson is as beautiful a woman as I have ever seen, but is given very little to do, the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. Ustinov steals the show, but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film's serious tone. The music is poor and Omar Sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now).<br /><br />Richard Fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively, he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director, and this is one of his weaker movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is S-L-O-W. Spent most of the movie actually waiting for it to 'begin'.<br /><br />The setting was bleak, the script was bleak, the cinematography was bleak, the plot was bleak, the budget was low (not that all low budget movies are bad, but this one had no redeeming features).<br /><br />The plot was more consumed with a vengeful, slightly deranged hunter than the actual Wendigo which made a very brief appearance toward the end of the movie. This in itself was disappointing as this 'Wendigo' was just a bizarre mix of a tree and a stag. Everything about the movie was uninspiring.<br /><br />The parents of the little boy appeared to be rather aloof and at times seemed completely detached from their son. Whether this was down to bad acting or a bad script I'm not sure, but it only heightened my disappointment and boredom levels.<br /><br />There was no food for thought, nothing to pique an interest. With no real intrigue or chill factor, this movie creaked along so painfully, you just couldn't care less what happened by the end.<br /><br />Wendigo's ambiance reminds me of the dull movie shown at the awards ceremony toward the end of 'Mr Bean's Holiday': a movie which is artistic and nonsensical, trying too hard to to be deep and meaningful, but coming across as pretentious and boring.<br /><br />I would never want to watch this again. I only watched it to the end in the vain hope that something interesting might happen ... but it didn't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am definitely a Burt Reynolds fan, but sorry, this one really stinks. Most of the dialogue is laughable and the only interesting plot twist is in the last five minutes of the movie. I can't believe he even made this one. Is he actually that hard up for money?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alone in the Dark is Uwe Boll's kick in the nuts to Hollywood after House of the Dead's punch in the face.<br /><br />If anything it proves just how much of a master manipulator Boll is. After forcing Artisan out of business over the flop that was House of the Dead, one can only assume the normally credible Lion's Gate Films only released AITD under contractual obligation after acquiring Artisan's assets. Because AITD is an even bigger example of complete lack of coherent film-making ability, plot exposition and just plain stealing poorly from other movies because it was supposed to look cool instead of because it fitted within the movie's framework.<br /><br />But then that's the point, isn't it. Boll isn't trying to make a coherent film because he isn't trying to direct Alone in the Dark. He's just trying to manipulate Hollywood.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like House of the Dead, Dungeon Siege, Far Cry, Bloodrayne and the other 3 or 4 projects that are "announced" or in "pre-production".<br /><br />These aren't movies to be directed, but investment portfolios. Every single one of them rushed into production under the pretence that the tax law Boll and his investors are exploiting may be closed within the next 2 to 3 years. The more bomb projects he can release within that time-frame, the more money he and his investors can gain. Why bother making a good movie when a bad movie's making you a mint anyway? The result is movies like the awfulness of Alone in the Dark.<br /><br />Alone in the Dark, like all his other movies are just a cynical exploitation of Hollywood's current trend for lazy film-making.<br /><br />And to those who support Boll by calling him misunderstood or the next Ed Wood, congratulations, by making a cult figure out of the man, you're just making it easier for him to get investors but giving him notoriety.<br /><br />For more information, read here: http://www.cinemablend.com/feature.php?id=209 http://www.cinemablend.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21699 As an aside, just don't ask me how he's getting his cast-lists together. Unless the actors are in on the investment-scam somehow, that mystery has still to be uncovered.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i was given the book version of Kazaam for my 8th birthday, and people always say the book versions are always better than the movie, but this time they were wrong. At least with the movie it's over soon.<br /><br />The acting in this is terrible, which i expected from a film with Shaq who plays a magical rapping genie that comes out of an old ghetto blaster (which there was probably a good reason he was trapped in there). The kid in the film that plays Max is whiny and a terrible actor. He's bullied by neighborhood kids, which i don't blame them because he's a little douche bag.<br /><br />The story is just plain stupid and extremely cliché. About a boy who's father is always working and never around who finds a new friend who makes his life better and eventually helps him reconnect with his father.<br /><br />Even at 8 years old i thought this was a stupid idea. It's a surprise any of the people whom worked on this film had careers after wards because it's an embarrassment and should have never been made. i could ramble on even more about how this movie sucks, but you should already know just by reading the plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Michael Rooker is a decent actor, but he has no business being the lead except in a low budget movie. He really does not have much charisma. Ryo Ishibashi has a lot more screen presence, and sadly he is not really the main character. Most of the screen time goes to the brick-faced Rooker.<br /><br />Danielle Harris (from the Halloween 4 and 5 movies) plays his daughter, and she is cute and entertaining but she is written as not being too smart and one of her dumb mistakes gets one of the main characters killed. Comedians Fred Willard, Bobcat Goldthwait, and Stephen Furst are here in interesting roles. Just watching what happens to these characters is priceless. <br /><br />Vincent Schiavelli plays the Consigliare to the local Mafia Godfather, and it is hard to tell whether or not he is working the movie as a comedy. Tim Thomerson is also in this movie. He seems to be in every extremely low budget direct-to-video action movie. Thomerson is also in some low-budget comedies. Seeing so many comedians and comic actors in this film made it feel like a spoof. Is it a parody of a Yakuza movie? It is hard to tell at some points. There is certainly very little Yakuza action. <br /><br />The supporting cast of Thugs and Goons is menacing and well cast. Some of these kinds of movies have Thugs that look like they work at the local Comic Book Store or as stock boys at Piggly-Wiggly. Overall this movie is very uneven. At some points it seems like a comedy or a parody. Then at other points it works as a good action movie. Then it sputters to an end. Without the contributions of Danielle Harris and Ryo Ishibashi this movie would rate a Zero in my humble opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spoilers... if such a thing is possible... . . . . . . . As a rabid Robin Williams fan, I felt it necessary to buy this film as first on-screen appearance. Wow... I could not imagine a more mind-numbing movie. Essentially, the movie takes one bad joke after another that your uncle Artie would tell you after dinner and dramatizes them. Robin Williams plays a lawyer in a 30 sec skit.<br /><br />I'm all for bawdy humor, but this humor wasn't pleasantly vulgar, or ribald... it was just mind-numbing. There are no redeeming qualities to this film, other than Robin Williams fanatics, like me, who simply have to own every piece of film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
don't expect much from this film. In many ways this film resembles a film that Doris Day starred in in 1956,title, Julie. In this film Doris,who was a flight attendant,stewardess,in those days,landed the air craft after her derange husband,played by Louis Jordan shot the captain. She did a far better job,more convincing,than Kim Ojah,who took control of a 747 and manage to land it without much help from the control tower. I know a little about 747 aircraft,i use to be a flight attendant myself. Like i said,do not expect much from this film,it was done on a cheap budget. The producers were to cheap to use a plane with the name of a airline on it. Oceanic is one name that several movies have used. The only writing on this plane was the name of the company that made the aircraft.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In THE FAN Robert De Niro plays Gil Renard . Or is it Travis Bickle ? or Rupert Pupkin ? Or Max Cady ? You see the problem with this type of role is that De Niro has played very very similar characters in TAXI DRIVER , THE KING OF COMEDY and CAPE FEAR and unfortunately the characters were better developed and had better scripts . I found it slightly difficult to believe that Renard would have started out as a frustrated obsessive sports fan into being an out and out psycho<br /><br />The character arc isn't the only problem with this script - It also lacks a character focus ( A problem I had with THE UNTOUCHABLES where De Niro should have been superb but ended up slightly flat ) , for several stretches of the movie I kept thinking that Bobby Rayburn was the main character then the story switches back to Renard . It also seems to have disappointed a lot of sports fans who seem to think this should have concentrated a bit more on baseball . I'm not sure if this was meant to appeal to baseball fans originally but again there are elements which hint it might have if the producers had made up their minds has to who and what the story should focus upon <br /><br />I will admit I was entertained by THE FAN ( Especially by the soundtrack ) but it is a very flawed film and it should be remembered that by the mid 1990s characters being stalked by nutters as in SINGLE WHITE FEMALE , UNLAWFUL ENTRY etc had run out of steam a long time ago
|
Negative
| null | null |
REALLY??? <br /><br />I am truly amazed to see the glowing reviews here! <br /><br />This is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. It is one big pathetic, grainy, cliché. I would have laughed out loud, and a lot, but was on a date with an ex-military guy. I could not hide my other response, BOREDOM. Yes, I think my date, a flat-line "good old boy", liked it. That's not a compliment. I know an actor wants to work.... Fine for the others. But Ralph, come on.<br /><br />It was a painful tease from Ralph. I vote a 2 only because Ralph looked SO STUNNING. But I must plead, Ralph, how could you? And, why?? <br /><br />I'm going to go watch The End of The Affair to heal and recover now.... C1
|
Negative
| null | null |
The basic formula for the original series was; take someone, get the audience to like them, then put them into Mortal danger. This formula worked for the 32 episodes made between 1964-68. <br /><br />Now, we jump forward 40 years to 2004.. We are introduced to Alan Tracy, a somewhat less-than-diligent college school kid, with his friend, Fermat, a young know-it-all. They are whisked off by Lady Penelope in her pink Ford Thunderbird to the island paradise where the Tracy Family live, for the school holidays. Almost immediately, they are left in the care of Kyrano and his daughter, Tin-Tin whilst the adults go to rescue John from Thunderbird 5 which has been damaged by a staged accident. This is all part of The Hood's scheme to take over Tracy Island so that he can steal the Thunderbird machines ...<br /><br />
To rob a bank!<br /><br />Yes. The plot IS as limp as that!<br /><br />The dialogue is banal, the acting more wooden than that of the (fibreglass) puppets, the effects, anything but special and Hans Zimmer's score
? What little there was of Barry Gray's glorious theme shone through Zimmer's lackluster orchestration. The rest of the score was eminently forgettable. In fact, part of the score was broadcast the following week on the radio and didn't recognise it! I didn't even bother to stay to witness Busted's mediocre efforts with the end titles<br /><br />To be fair, Ron Cook worked quite well as Parker, he and Sophia Myles as Penelope seemed wasted. With the right material, they could have been show stoppers. The CGI work was what I would have called leading edge - 5 years ago.<br /><br />The Dynamics of the main craft were just wrong; The original series models at least moved as if they had mass<br /><br />Another sore point is that the whole production seemed to be one long set of product placements, from every vehicle being built by Ford to the entire content of the Tracy Freezer being produced by Ben & Jerry's.<br /><br />My son (9) enjoyed the film but this cross between Spy Kids and 'Clockstoppers', aimed squarely at his age group, added nothing to the Thunderbirds legend. When Star Trek hit the big screen in 1979 with 'The Motion Picture', a whole new lease of life was breathed into the franchise which then continued for another 20 years or so. With this film, Frakes has missed a golden opportunity to do the same with the Thunderbirds franchise.<br /><br />I predict that this film, like 'The Avengers' and 'the Saint' before it, will sink into obscurity within 6 months, leaving the original series to its 'classic' status.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I could name plenty of funny movies. There are comedies that set out to be funny, and are. Some movies, like a Gymkata for example, try to be serious but end up funny. The Ladies Man is a film that is desperately trying to be funny, but could not be less funny if it was about a guy who got a lot of chicks in the middle of the wreckage of a nuclear holocaust. It's anti-funny.<br /><br />I don't think I laughed harder than a chuckle at anything in this movie. It's simply unfunny. It's boring, stupid, inane, annoying, mind-bogglingly bad, but not funny. I don't particularly care for Tim Meadows, or this character from SNL, but I expected better than this.<br /><br />The movie is completely lacking logic or common sense. It's like the script writer had a bag over his head while he was typing and he couldn't see which keys he was hitting. They tell the "origin" of the Ladies Man, but fail to include a motivation for his bizarre fascination with acting like it's still the seventies. The movie tries to get humor out of a man who appears to pleasuring himself to porn, shortly after he tried to hang himself. This is comedy? I like to consider myself having a pretty keen sense of humor (Spending a lot of time writing comedy as I do), but maybe I'm just not quite bright enough for this film.<br /><br />Lee Evans, so funny as Tucker in There's Something About Mary, is outrageously bad here. I was pleading with him in my head to shut up.<br /><br />By the end I was pounding on my chair, muttering under my breath, and had the film gone on any longer, would probably have attempted suicide. This film might not be as bad as Battlefield Earth, but it's the first movie I've seen that's come close.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is the biggest steaming pile of you know what, Being from and growing up in Wichita Kansas;I know for a fact 90% of the movie was Bogus. Aside from the names of some of the victims, nothing else much was correct. The movie looks like it was made with dad's handy-cam, It had footage that I believe came from another film along with stock footage from a slaughter house. I usually enjoy watching bad films for the fun of it, but due to the bad acting, poorly prepared or non existent sets and a very dull and short ending.It was a struggle to watch it through to the ending. I recommend that you not waste your money on this film or you will be sorry. Crunch
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was one of the worst I've ever seen. Pure drivel. How anyone could develop a connection with the heroine, or have empathy for her, is beyond me. I felt I was watching a case history of a schizoid individual with borderline personality disorder. Just terrible.<br /><br />In its most generous light, this can be seen as an attempt at producing and "art" film - except I could not, for the life of me, find any art in it at all.<br /><br />If this woman had lived in todays' world, she would have been whisked off to a mental institution and given a couple of days treatment with anti-psychotic medications. That, or simply allowed to roam the streets and become a bag woman. Why other characters in this movie found anything redeeming in her - and tried to aid her in her quest to become an actress - speaks more to their pathology than any convincing characteristics she had that made her worth that effort.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a big movie fan. I like movies of all types. This is arguably the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />I get that it follows the book closely, which raises the point that not everything should be made into a movie. Especially since the authenticity of the experiences in the book have been called into question more than once.<br /><br />These characters are not quirky, they are mentally ill. The things that happen are not funny, they are disturbing; especially considering they are supposed to be true.<br /><br />This movie had the feel of The Royal Tenenbaums, another movie I hated, only Running With Scissors was even more dysfunctional and less funny.<br /><br />I will never get those hours back. I wanted to wash my brain after watching.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie has not aged well. Maybe it's just the impact and artful characterization, acting, and directing that we've seen with The Sopranos, but I just viewed Prizzi's Honor for the first time, on DVD, alone.<br /><br />The experience of watching it with an audience 24 years ago must have been quite different, but I have to say, I was just appalled at the ending. Not just the violence of it, but the mere idea that somehow this would be a satisfying ending.<br /><br />I enjoy a good shocker, but this seemed so out of character... Also, when was this move supposed to be set? The cars all seemed like they were from the 1960s, and yet the World Trade Center towers {completed in 1973} were clearly visible in many cityscape scenes.<br /><br />Another way in which the film has aged poorly is the mere idea that a passenger could travel coast to coast with a knife on his person.<br /><br />Somehow, mid-1980s audiences found this film charming and funny. Mid-eighties, meet the late oughts: only of you can live.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.<br /><br />It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be "Paths of Glory" with American uniforms. Except that "Paths of Glory" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from "Gettysburg" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from "The Thin Red Line". But in "The Thin Red Line" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.<br /><br />If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.<br /><br />Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is quite possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen. Again I made the mistake of buying the movie because the synapse on the back sounded cool and the front cover looked pretty cool too (After buying this and the movie "Malevolence" which I reviewed on here as well, I have learned my lesson). I love horror movies that take place in the woods or in the desert or on a farm. This supposedly takes place in the woods of Texas but was probably filmed in the director's backyard. The production was probably the worst I ever seen. The actors were absolutely the WORST. The story didn't have anything to do with what the back cover said. I even tried to sell it to F.Y.E and some other "mom and pop" store that buys used DVDs and neither would take it. Thats how awful this poor miserable excuse for a movie was. I have seen some bad movies before (Troll 2 for example) but this definitely takes the cake. I didn't think there was a worse movie than "Troll 2". Boy was I wrong! Do not buy this movie unless someone hands it to you for free but even than your stuck with it unless you throw it out which is what I am about to do!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was recently released on DVD in the US and I finally got the chance to see this hard-to-find gem. It even came with original theatrical previews of other Italian horror classics like "SPASMO" and "BEYOND THE DARKNESS". Unfortunately, the previews were the best thing about this movie.<br /><br />"ZOMBI 3" in a bizarre way is actually linked to the infamous Lucio Fulci "ZOMBIE" franchise which began in 1979. Similarly compared to "ZOMBIE", "ZOMBI 3" consists of a threadbare plot and a handful of extremely bad actors that keeps this 'horror' trash barely afloat. The gore is nearly non-existent (unless one is frightened of people running around with green moss on their faces) and the English dubbing is a notch below embarrassing.<br /><br />The plot this time around involves some sort of covert military operation with a bunch of inept scientists (ie. an idiotic male and his stupid female side-kick) who are developing some sort of chemical called "Death One" that is supposed to re-animate the dead. Unless my ears need to be checked, I don't even recall a REASON for the research of "Death One". It seems to EXIST only to wreak havoc upon the poor souls who made the mistake of choosing to 'star' in this cinematic laugh-fest.<br /><br />Anyway, "Death One" is experimented on a corpse (whom I swear looked like Yul Brynner), and after it is injected into his system, he sits upright and his head explodes! The sound effects are also quite hilarious - as the corpse's face bubbles with green slime, the sound of 'paper crumpling' can be heard. The "Death One" toxin is transported outside and is 'hi-jacked' by a group of thieves where one makes off with it, but infects himself after cutting himself on an exposed vial.<br /><br />Needless to say, the guy turns into a zombie, but not before he makes his timely escape to a cheap motel, infects a lowly porter and murders a maid by pushing her face into a bathroom mirror(!). The military catch wind of this and immediately take action before 'eliminating' everyone who is unlucky enough to be within the 'contamination zone' and turn the motel upside down. They find the infected thief and burn his body, only to have the smoke infect a flock of birds that are flying over the chimney stack(!).<br /><br />We cut to the introduction of a group of men who are on leave from the army, listening to 'groovy music' that is coming out of a little dinky boom-box while trailing a trailer-load of slutty girls who are leaning out of the windows and showing off their chests. Can someone say "zombie food"? We also have a sub-plot involving a girl and her boyfriend driving a car who stop to inspect a group of birds lying on the road... the same birds that were infected by the 'zombie' smoke! <br /><br />The birds attack the boyfriend and the girl drives off to a deserted gas station to seek water. This is one of the most incredibly hilarious moments of the movie. She walks around this old dirty, rusty and obviously abandoned building where she continues to ask aloud, "HELLO? IS THERE ANYONE HERE? PLEASE, I JUST NEED SOME WATER!" She encounters a group of zombies, one of which is chained to a wall (!) and the other is swinging a machete. After a bit of rumbling and tumbling around on the ground, she escapes but not before blowing up the gas station with her lighter.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the birds attack the trailer-load of whores and one girl gets pecked and infected. They all pull up to the same motel where the original infection took place, and this is where the second most hilarious moment of the film takes place. After a matter of hours (a day at the most), the same motel is now caked in dust, has vines growing throughout it, and looks like it has been sitting derelict for years. Anyway, what better place to take refuge than this particular building? Needless to say, the group begins to break down as several people walk off together to get themselves stuck in an incredibly stupid situation involving a zombie attack.<br /><br />The third most hilarious moment concerns a man and a woman who explore a deserted village, of which the woman comments, "THIS PLACE IS A DUMP!" She then proceeds to get 'pushed' off a balcony by a zombie into pirahna(?) infested water where she has her legs bitten off and turns into a zombie within seconds! Meanwhile, her friend back at the motel who got pecked and infected HOURS earlier is still TURNING into a zombie!<br /><br />Unfortunately, there are just too many inconsistencies in this movie that makes this movie just too stupid for words. For example, the time rate concerning infected people being 'zombified' differs greatly. Sometimes it takes seconds, other times it takes hours. Some zombies run, others drag their feet and walk really slow. Some even do kung-fu moves, while others hide under stacks of hay to surprise people. Some of the zombies even talk! The funniest moment of course is the infamous 'zombie head in the fridge' gag which 'elevates' itself in mid-air and 'attacks' a stupid man who goes looking for food. Funnily enough, his girlfriend gets her throat torn out by it's 'headless' counter-part (LMAO!).<br /><br />The biggest disappointment for me though was the lack of story-lines involving the people who are in fact killed by zombies. We never get to see them come back as zombies, in fact the only ones we do see 'zombified' are the ones pecked by the birds and the one girl who gets her legs bitten off. Other than that, I was at least expecting the couple who were killed in the kitchen and/or the guy who was killed on the bridge to come back as zombies. It is also amazing that these zombies only take a 'few bites' and then move on to their next victim. <br /><br />The most laughable moment was of course the zombie fetus. A pregnant woman who has been infected lies on a bed in a hospital. A woman who seems to have a lot of 'medical knowledge' tries to deliver the baby (!) and has her face pulled off by a zombie, before having her head pushed into the woman's stomach where a hand bursts out and proceeds to rip the rest of her face off. Timeless!<br /><br />As usual, all the characters are perfect stereotypes of this genre. The megalomaniacal military officer, the pathetic useless squealing women who scream to get killed, the obvious characters who are ABOUT to get killed (ie. watch for the man chasing a chicken!) I guess this movie really is a comedy. There were many laughable scenes, such as the shed that gets blown up with a hand grenade (obviously the scene where the entire budget was spent) and a climatic scene where a man screams, "I'M THIRSTY.... THIRSTY FOR YOUR BLOOD!". The costumes are really bad - the same zombies reappear throughout the course of the film, wearing the same 'Asian-like' clothing that may be found in a Bruce Lee film, and watch out for the blue 60's skirt the girl at the motel is wearing when she and her boyfriend bump into the infected man.<br /><br />The end of the film leaves open the door as usual for the apocalyptic story-line. A radio DJ who narrates throughout the whole movie turns out to be a zombie himself and warns his listeners about the 'beginning of the end' while the two survivors take off in a helicopter. Hardly "DAWN OF THE DEAD" material if you ask me.<br /><br />Regardless, this movie does deliver many laughs. The gore is minimal, and what gore there is, it is very unconvincing, let alone unimaginative. The usual mix of black blood, thick green goo oozing out of weeping sores and 'zombie make-up' consisting of green moss. "ZOMBI 3" makes for a good rental for a sleep-over party or a night of beer and popcorn. Other than that, horror fans should stay away.<br /><br />3 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't believe that the City of Muncie is so hard up for attention that they would embarrass themselves by allowing this show to be done there. This show is like a slap in the face to real hard working law-enforcement officers. I have never before in my life seen anything so stupid in my life. If they had billed it as a comedy that would be one thing but to say it is reality is nothing short of a lie. I only saw it once and was appalled at what I saw. I wanted to see the little guy get into a foot-chase with a bad guy. What a joke that would have been. Nothing on the show was even close to the real world. The city of Muncie, the Police Chief, and all the officers should be hanging their heads in shame and should never want o admit they come from that city. No wonder it didn't stay around on TV
|
Negative
| null | null |
while watching this piece of crap! The Day after, I saw a 1min Trailer - that one minute included all, ALL what was at least not boring to watch...<br /><br />so don't waste money or time on this one, get the original, it's much better though the effects might not be up to date...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rarely comment on films but I've read the other comments and I cannot believe that there are people applauding this celluloid rubbish. I know there are certain people who have their own agenda but lets take it on merit; poorly acted, badly shot and the story felt as the director was making it up as he was going along. I am not going to focus on the sexual aspect of the film involving little kids as the makers of the film obviously knew what they wanted and what their audience would want. All I can say is it is a terrible film, the content is poor and offensive, the production is amateurish and I am glad they could not make a film like this legally today
|
Negative
| null | null |
By all the fawning people have been doing over Miike and his work. I sat through this flick tonight. I figured, if it's half as good as Ringu, as I assumed from these comments it might be, than it will be worth my time.<br /><br />No such luck.<br /><br />I'm all for finding the next great director (or writer), but I don't think Miike is the one. I don't have an NYU Masters of Fine Arts, but I do know this much: a horror movie has to have pacing. It also has to give the viewer more credulity than this movie does.<br /><br />This film's pacing had me shaking my head. Some of the scenes near the end dragged so badly, I went to the fridge and lingered there while Kou Shibasaki stared at the camera for seemingly minutes on end, eyes wide and mouth agape. A famous director once made the claim, and I'm paraphrasing, a movie could be made by turning the camera on a beautiful woman and letting it roll. Kou is not a good enough actress to make that work. She stares paralyzed at the undead girl for more scenes than I care to remember. And she isn't the only one doing an impersonation of a deer in headlights; other cast members apparently feel the need to imitate this non-performance. The script gives them little room to do much else for far too much of the time.<br /><br />I like Asian cinema. Hong Kong action flicks from the last 30 years, Korean horror like "Phone" and "Koma", Ang Lee's work, some of the trashy but fun Filipino movies with gratuitous sex and fighting, as well as others. Chakushin Ari I could have done without.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Were I not with friends, and so cheap, I would have walked out. It failed miserably as satire and didn't even have the redemption of camp.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.