input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This is a truly awful "B" movie. It is witless and often embarrassing. The plot, the basic "making into show business" routine, is almost nonexistent. In fact, the film is merely an excuse to push the war effort and highlight some popular music groups of 1942, including the Mills Brothers, Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Bob Crosby, and Freddy Slack. Each group gets about the standard three minutes, the exception being the Mills Brothers, who for some reason warranted two numbers. Ann Miller doesn't get to dance until the last couple of minutes of the film, and she has little to do but strut her stuff amid a barrage of patriotic propaganda.<br /><br />The most interesting moment in the film, in my view, occurred in the Duke Ellington segment. The band appears to be playing in a train, standing in awkward positions. (In the deep South at the time, the band was segregated in railroad cars when traveling.) Johnny Hodges is seen next to Duke, and Harry Carney may also be identified. In the last moments of the film, trumpeter/violinist Ray Nance rushes down the aisle to the camera and does an "uncle Tom," bugging his eyes and wiggling his head the way Willy Best did in many films. For modern viewers, especially jazz fans, this homage to segregation is sad indeed. Some movies go best unseen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!<br /><br />First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which "Emma" most certainly did. Now "Sense and Sensibility" had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!<br /><br />That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be "upper-class", too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.<br /><br />#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were "ugly", then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, "just to make her laugh?" Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her "Emma" did not exactly change my opinion.<br /><br />Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and "Emma" is one of them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is a real shame that nearly no one under 30 knows the "over the top" writing of Michael O'Donoghugh- magazine articles and SNL skits that were genius for the time...and so it is a true shame that anyone who may take the opportunity to research his work will no doubt take the easy way out and watch videos- thus leading them to MR MIKES MONDO VIDEO. <br /><br />This movie has clever elements that never fully connect to the funny bone. The viewer experiences such things as cat diving/swimming with the man who thinks he's found feline happiness by hurling these kittens into a pool which the camera follows in slow motion and montage sequence. Then we are taken to an island to where all past fads are retired (hula hops, pet rocks, rainbow dread wigs etc.) Then we enter the music world (punk was a new variety of music at the time of this film) where "D" rate bar performer Rootboy Slim performs "boogie till you puke" in his own lazy style of dirt and eclectic sleaze. Now the real beauty of all this is the back ground music. In many different styles with many different instruments the sound of TELSTAR plays and replays- for those who don't understand Telstar was the first American Satellite launched into space and the theme was created to celebrate mans genius and triumph. MR MIKES seems to have been meant as a signal of societal decay ridiculous wastes. Now one thing the theater offered that the video release does not was a live performance of Sid Vicious (ex sex pistol not the wrestler) singing MY WAY. His version is very different than Sinatras as one might imagine but frankly I feel it is very much worth the listen...it's good! That is the sad part- in the VHS release Paul Anka refuses the rights of his song and the viewer is forced to experience 3 1/2 minutes of silence with an explanation rolling across the image of the singing dead sex pistol. <br /><br />I would give the theater release a 5 or 6 the video is closer to a 4 and now that so much is passé I can see where many people would give it a 3 or 2.5. If you want to see a good O'Donoghugh script watch SCROOGED...it is a better tribute to the mans insight and talent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film has a weak plot, weak characterization, and really weak special effects that I question why I lost valuable life by watching it. It has random characters who add nothing to the story and seem like excuses for the director to get his girlfriend in the film. The robots are sad and the main "hero" 'bot is turned on by a huge knife switch. If this movie weren't so bad it would be laughable, but there's nothing funny about it. The main antagonist is one of the only redeeming characters, and he is killed. It's sad when you root for the bad guy, because he's the best one to cheer for. When all is said and done, this movie was better left on the cutting room floor, or never funded at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Err...this movie sucked. A LOT.<br /><br />I have been reading some of the other reviews. Apparently there are a lot of people that think that anything Woody Allen writes or stars in is automatically good...<br /><br />I have watched several of his films, in the vain hope that I'm missing something. But no, they just suck. Poorly written trash. The characters are all very stereotypical (not to mention rather stupid). The plot is...I think it is supposed to be mysterious. Not sure on that. Mr. Allen's character is...Woody Allen, on any other film you have seen of his.<br /><br />If you are a fan of Woody Allen, go see this film. If you are under 50, don't bother. (If you are a fan of Woody Allen AND you are under 50...well, you are atypical. I don't know what to say.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, so Mr. Agrama's company (which is involved in some dubious business with former Italian PM Silvio Berlusconi) produced a horrendous mish-mash by a Mr. Carl Macek.<br /><br />What is this horrendous mish-mash I'm talking about? Well, Macek took three entirely unrelated Japanese sci-fi animated series (namely, Macross, Southern Cross and Mospeada), added TONS of dialogue - believing firmly that the American audience is too dumb to understand the narrative and artistic virtue of silence - , edited the whole lot heavily for violent content, added some metaphysical mumbo jumbo, dubbed it using some of the worst voice actors this side of acting Hell (Reba West's singing was - and still is - unbearable and a total outrage, especially compared to Mrs. Mari Iijima)... And the result was an 85-episode series with hundreds of continuity problems and plot holes.<br /><br />Of course, the mecha were cool to look at (especially those in the "Macross Saga") and the plot parts that remained unscathed were good. But whatever was good about Robotech was not the result of Macek's work or the "voice talents" he recruited. It was because of the toils and efforts of the (uncredited - why? would I be too bold to accuse HG of plagiarism here?) Japanese creators. Those of us who eventually got wind of the real deal and compared the originals to Robotech now wish we had never been exposed to Robotech. The originals are so much better, naturally, and make a lot more sense.<br /><br />Robotech, however, DID something worthwhile: it prompted legendary anime creator Leiji Matsumoto to start a campaign for the protection of Japanese anime creators' intellectual property from such unauthorized and uncalled-for reworkings that talentless people like Carl Macek produce.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hopelessly inept and dull movie in which the characters stand around in rooms or a rocket ship and talk endlessly. You might think things would perk up when they explore Mars but these scenes are filmed through a heavy red/orange filter which makes everything very murky. The Martian landscape/vegetation consists mainly of drawings and the monsters are entirely unconvincing. There are echoes of 'Bride Of The Monster' when the heroine carefully winds the octopus like tentacle of a flesh eating plant around her before weakly thrashing about, the difference being that the Ed Wood film is a hundred times more entertaining. Better wear earplugs when watching otherwise the 'sci-fi' music score, repeated endlessly, will drive you insane. If you find yourself unable to sleep one night just slip this one into the VCR and your insomnia will be cured in no time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I tried as hard as I could to sit all the way through this irritating mess, but I just couldn't do it. Brad Dourif absolutely sucked as the lead and all the supporting cast were only marginally worse. <br /><br />The whole thing is just ludicrous, from the awful acting to the laughable FX to the stupid plot.<br /><br />Complete waste of time; don't bother. Root Canal therapy would be more enjoyable. Bamboo slivers under the fingernails would be a lot more pleasant. <br /><br />Watching a Uwe Boll movie would be only a little worse than this. Get the idea?
|
Negative
| null | null |
A pot - boiler if ever I saw one. A supposed thriller borrowing from "A Time to Kill", "Silence of the Lambs", even an inverted "In the Heat of the Night" with a little reverse murder, a la "Strangers on a Train" thrown in, it fails abysmally where all the above, to a large degree, succeeded. Namely, in delivering thrills. The plot seems condensed from a bigger book, making the plot developments obvious and uninvolving, while the direction lacks pace and verve. To rein in any kudos, a major twist had to be delivered along the way and here it fails palpably too. Connery is clearly slowing down in his old age, barely bothering with his attempt at a US accent and besides seems too old to be the husband of Hope Lange and the father of those gosh - darn kids of his. He even has a father in law who seems younger than him. Laurence Fishburne barely gets the chance to inhabit his role and you're confused from the outset as to whether he's a bad guy or a good guy. Someone once said that flashbacks shouldn't lie - they do, confusedly, here. The rest of the playing is merely average by a reasonable cast in their underwritten stereotyped roles. The supposed climax managed too, to roll by leaving me firmly entrenched in the back, not as should have been the aim, front edge of my seat. Mediocre sloppy Hollywood film making for sure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In one instant when it seemed to be getting interesting, it never got there.<br /><br />The people are going from one point to another point, with really no point (if there was one it was very dull). There was no action, suspense or any horror and the characters were pretty heartless, so there was no caring what happened to them.<br /><br />All together the movie was pretty boring.<br /><br />I give it a 3/10.<br /><br />I like that it wasn't shaky choppy camera-work and if there was music it didn't annoy me like some really bad movies and the acting was not horrendous.
|
Negative
| null | null |
{rant start} I didn't want to believe them at first, but I guess this is what people are talking about when they say South Korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. After the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie "Gwoemul" (aka "The Host") of 2006-- which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a B-movie genre-- successive Korean blockbusters have become more and more generic, even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. Do South Korean movie-makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill, which their industry has built up since the 1999 break-out film "Shiri/Swiri", by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland China did? {rant end}<br /><br />The only "reason" I can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a Korean/ East Asian-styled dragon I have seen to date, for the final scenes. Now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 "Dragonheart", the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. Remember "Dungeons & Dragons" in 2000? Hasn't anyone learnt that the trick is not how MUCH special effects you use, but how WELL you use it? I hope there are more (and better) Korean legends they can use, because they have just killed a lot of international interest in Korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one.<br /><br />In short, I agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how Koreans felt about having their folk anthem "Arirang" being played at the very end. As a creature feature, I would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it, but I've seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I couldn't watch more than 14 minutes of it. It's a GREAT combination of really bad acting and really bad directing. The shots used are disgusting, they broke the 180 degrees angle all the time. My head hurts try to watch that load of "you know what". Dirt on the "mystery machine" window make you see light from the lighting on the windows...annoying. What else... it's so badly framed all the time it's just make you want to scream at that lady directing there. I only directed short films, but I'm pretty sure I'd be way better than that directing a feature film.... the story is unbelievable, just the long french kissing scene at the beginning tell you that it's gonna be pretty awful. So pretty much, try to avoid this really bad movies at all cost, it'll save you the 5 bucks or so for the rental, and that 1h30 hour of your life you'll never get back...
|
Negative
| null | null |
WARNING:I advise anyone who has not seen the film yet to not read this comment.<br /><br />Although I haven't seen them all,The Hamiltons sure did deliver one lowsy piece of entertainment,which it did not entertain me at all!!!!I thought that in common with the semi-bad acting,stupid plot scheme,and the twist at the end of the movie,which was very retarded,this movie sucked!!!Okay,so supposively these are people who eat other people.Yeah......notice I said people not humans,not because they aren't human,or wait I think they are,OH NO WAIT,THEY DIDN'T TELL YOU!!!!!So okay,are these people cannibals,or are they imbreds,or what are THEY!!!!I mean,maybe they're just "THINGS" that came here to see what people taste like or,are they cannibals who have eaten people for a long time now,or maybe this movie was HHOORRIIBBLLEE!!WHICH IT WAS!!!So if you think The Hamiltons is good,I ask of you,why,why,WHY,WHY,why was it so awesome,because to me it was just flat out terrible!!!One big BOOOOOOO for The Hamiltons!!!Go see The Gravedancers,Tooth & Nail,or Borderland for a piece of entertainment!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
As long as there's been 3d technology, (1950's I think) there's been animation made for it. I remember specifically, a Donald Duck cartoon with Chip and Dale in it. I don't remember the name at the moment, but the plot was that Donald worked at a circus, was feeding an elephant peanuts and Chip and Dale were stealing the peanuts. This was made to watch in 3d probably 1960's. If you happened to watch Meet the Robinsons in 3d in theaters, they showed this cartoon before the movie and explained the details of it's origin. There are probably somewhere around 100 cartoons made specifically to be viewed through 3d glasses. This claim was a bad move because it's not difficult to prove them wrong. On top of that, this just looks like a bad movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK well i found this movie in my dads old pile of movies and it looked pretty good from the cover but the movie actually sucked!! OK the first story with the swimmer was pretty good but it took a while to get into, then the one with the boy was completely retarded! It wasn't even scary! His dream sounds like a little kid's bedtime story. Then the news girls one was completely retarded too. I'm sure someones going to call up the news guy and ask him to go out with you. But that one ended cool where she stabbed him and she was in the hospital and she saw him on t.v and he said all that junk to her. Next was that pretty gay story about the guy who brought back the dead people..OMG its so stupid I'm not even going to say any more about it.The last one was the best. It wasn't that scary but the idea of the story was pretty cool..uh yeah the girl gets possessed and she kills all her classmates or something. Then when they're all done telling their dreams to each other the losers get on the bus (TO HELL AHAHAHAH) and they see all the people from their dreams on the bus(Ha). The End.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This reminded me SOO much of Michael Winner's crappy 'Dirty Weekend' with it's awful English low budget feel.<br /><br />Firstly I must say I am a fan of both exploitation and serious film. I appreciate, say, 'Demented' for it's ineptitude and 'Last House on the Left' for it's sheer unashamed brutality. And any number of inventive and increasingly brutal Italian spin offs.<br /><br />This was just pointless though. Kind of like a British budget director thought 'let's remake "I Spit on your Grave" without making it too harrowing now that horror is back in fashion with Hostel.<br /><br />The whole thing just doesn't hang together or have a point. What's with the rapists's daughter? Why bother having the man be an expert in security cameras? Crappy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film proves that the "commercial" cinema ,or else,the Hollywood movies are in a serious crisis.There is absolutely no reason that this movie should have been produced apart from the fact that somebody expected success based on Shaquille's name.There is no worth referring to the plot :it is a bit more perplexed than a knot.What else?The screen is somewhat dim,O'Neal is a bad actor but Francis Capra is even worse.<br /><br />Rating: 1 / 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wasn't really fond of the first "Cube" movie. It was a good idea, but the annoying acting and characters always kept me from liking it too much. Didn't really feel the need to see its sequel but when I heard they were making a third movie that would act as more of a prequel to the original. I was intrigued, thinking that maybe they would fix some of the original's problems and provide us with a memorable cast of characters. Well I thought wrong.<br /><br />"Cube Zero" starts well enough by introducing us with the two characters in charge of watching and maintaining the never-ending maze of traps that plagues the people in the Cube. The filmmakers succeed in providing a sense of mystery with the establishment of the two men's daily routine. Several questions are created from it, concerning the reason why people are send there and also the true nature of the ones who run the entire operation. All of which are left entirely to the viewer. The acting was a bit weak but all in all the movie's first half moved relatively well.<br /><br />With the story moving on, one of the two "watchers" begins to develop serious doubts about what he is doing. And later decides to go and help a group of the people trapped. Here is where everything rapidly starts to dissolve into dull cheese.<br /><br />Sent by the people who run the Cube program we are introduced to the character "Jax". Along with his two underlings play a major reason as to why this movie is failure. To start of "Jax" looks and talks more like a third rate villain taken directly from a James Bond movie complete with the ever "popular" glass eye, that alone ruins any atmosphere created by the first half's relatively nice pace. Whats more is that it begins to feel more like a comedy rather than a serious movie. With some incredibly corny lines, perhaps the screenwriter got bored and didn't care. The acting itself degrades to a further low when the former "watcher" meets the group in the Cube. The entire interaction is painful to watch as is everything else following it.<br /><br />Again failing to impress on anything but weak characters, dialog and acting "Cube Zero" is a waste of time for those searching for a good horror movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was just horrible the plot was just OK, but the rest of the was was bad . I mean come on puppet and then they even tried to make the movie digital and that made it even worse! Normally I would like low-budget movie but this was just a waste of time and almost made me want to return the set that it came on. I have about ten low-budget movie set with like 6-8 movies on them and I would have to say this is the worse movie out of all of them. Also the wording is off and they use a fake plastic machetes that doesn't even look like a real one, they could of used one that looked even a little close to a real one so save your time and money and don't watch this horrorible movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter. <br /><br />Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.<br /><br />Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.<br /><br />Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave 1 to this film. I can't understand how Ettore Scola,one of the greater directors of Italian cinema, made a film like this, so stupid and ridiculous! All the stories of the people involved in the movie are unsubstantial,boring and not interesting. Too long,too boring. The only things I save in this movie are Giancarlo Giannini and Vittorio Gasmann. Hope that Scola will change radically themes and style in his next film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Prom Night 2 is an OK horror movie but prom night is way better and this movies about how the prom Queen Mary Lou in 1957 gets killed by her boyfriend and comes back 30 years later for revenge.The best actor in this movie is Micheal Ironside and the movie stars other OK actors and actress like Justin Louis (I),Wendy Lyon,Lisa Schrage and Richard Monette(I).And there are some good gore scenes like when Mary Lou kills the girl that is trying to hide in her locker by crushing the lockers together and how one of the students are on the computer and Mary Lou electrocutes him to death.Over all this is an OK/good horror movie and my rating is 4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What is this ? A low budget sex comedy ? Anyway it describes perfectly the people in Spain. They could come up with a better idea, I mean they do this kind of movies since the 60s.. and people like them ! This is neither a teen comedy nor a family one (you can't let your 12 year old watch 2 guys in bed kissing, he'll never want to go to Spain). This should be rated "R", because only people 35+ seem to laugh watching :S I'm truly disappointed, maybe I don't like gays (which is quite an important part of the movie).<br /><br />Foreign humor is awful in films (except Kusturica), stick with doing dramas! If you want a new comedy try Talladega Nights
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Drawing Restraint 9" is a kind of movie one either loves or hates; fortunately or not, I left it with a strong feeling of wasted time and of being thoroughly stuffed with "killing whales is bad" propaganda. Aesthetically, the movie could have been pleasing, especially its first half, until it is not clear that every action portrayed serves as an allegory of various aspects of whale hunting. Until then, it might be slightly amusing to look at daily chores of japan workers, but later it becomes obvious that anything that appears on the screen is a propaganda, and no single frame is an exception. I use the word "propaganda" because the movie uses basically the old morality play device, where "good" and "bad" are not deduced in the course of action but are set in stone. Probably it's just me, but I find such type of art shallow and preconceived, even when it's all about the noble (no sarcasm here) quest of protecting the environment.<br /><br />In my opinion it is a cardinal sin when a movie material is stretched out without any justification, for the sake of stretching only. In my opinion, "Drawing Restraint 9" could've been easily fit into 75 minutes, but has a torturous length of 2 and 1/4 hours. Yes, there were interesting shots, but there were not enough of these to leave 15-minute gaps of nothingness without notice. The movie has no standard scenario, and there's no evolution of characters, but neither it is a documentary, it's rather a kind of conceptual installation. That's an unusual form for a movie, but it still can be viewed as art even when the concept is as simple and naive as here. OTOH I also believe that the director should've had some honesty and did not pretend that it could be only delivered in no less than 135 minutes.<br /><br />And yes, the music score mostly resembled whale sounds. How surprising.<br /><br />2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, at least my theater group did, lol. So of course I remember watching Grease since I was a little girl, while it was never my favorite musical or story, it does still hold a little special place in my heart since it's still a lot of fun to watch. I heard horrible things about Grease 2 and that's why I decided to never watch it, but my boyfriend said that it really wasn't all that bad and my friend agreed, so I decided to give it a shot, but I called them up and just laughed. First off the plot is totally stolen from the first one and it wasn't really clever, not to mention they just used the same characters, but with different names and actors. Tell me, how did the Pink Ladies and T-Birds continue years on after the former gangs left? Not to mention the creator face motor cycle enemy, gee, what a striking resemblance to the guys in the first film as well as these T-Birds were just stupid and ridiculous.<br /><br />Another year at Rydell and the music and dancing hasn't stopped. But when a new student who is Sandy's cousin comes into the scene, he is love struck by a pink lady, Stephanie. But she must stick to the code where only Pink Ladies must stick with the T-Birds, so the new student, decides to train as a T-Bird to win her heart. So he dresses up as a rebel motor cycle bandit who can ride well and defeat the evil bikers from easily kicking the T-Bird's butts. But will he tell Stephanie who he really is or will she find out on her own? Well, find out for yourself.<br /><br />Grease 2 is like a silly TV show of some sort that didn't work. The gang didn't click as well as the first Grease did, not to mention Frenchy coming back was a bit silly and unbelievable, because I thought that she graduated from Rydell, but apparently she didn't. The songs were not really that catchy; I'm glad that Michelle was able to bounce back so fast, but that's probably because she was the only one with talent in this silly little sequel, I wouldn't really recommend this film, other than if you are curious, but I warned you, this is just a pathetic attempt at more money from the famous musical.<br /><br />2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
DR. SEUSS' HOW THE GRINCH STOLE CHRISTMAS / (2000) ** (out of four)<br /><br />If you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional Dr. Seuss classic fable, don't see "Dr. Seuss' How the Grinch Stole Christmas." If you are old enough to read this review, then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. It contains lots of colors, creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction, joyous load noises, and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village Whoville. Unfortunately that is where the movie's positive elements end; the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for Jim Carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin, all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do.<br /><br />Many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole Christmas from Whoville, so I will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. However, I will say that the movie's story is executed in three major acts; the development of the grinch and setting, the Whoville festival, and the Dr. Seuss vision of the mean one robbing the Who's from their Christmas. There are many familiar names within the credits here, but no familiar faces. Like in "Battlefield Earth," I just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. Regardless, there is SNL's Molly Shannon as Betty Lou, the wife of Bill Irwin, the later playing Lou Lou, the father of little Cindy Lou, played by Taylor Momsen. Jeffrey Tambor is the Whoville mayor, Anthony Hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film's narrator, and Christine Baranski is the Grinch's lone lost lover.<br /><br />The filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little Cindy Lou. The screenplay by Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape; there is little if any focus by director Ron Howard and the screenplay is predictable, too extensive, and contrived. The only character given any distinctions here is the Grinch himself, all of the other characters are puppets of the plot, shapeless and uninteresting. And the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. Example-Grinch: Oh, the Who-manity!<br /><br />The movie's redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer Michael Corenblith, the costume designer Rita Ryack, and the ample makeup department. "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" is a very good-looking production. The sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative; it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. The people of Whoville are plastered with makeup, to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. Although dazzling, I really can't give credit to the performances, for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place.<br /><br />Jim Carrey is one actor who I can talk about. His performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself He is way too egotistic as the Grinch, too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of Seuss. Surprisingly, although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences, no laughs come from Jim Carry's zany silliness. It is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for Carry to overplay his part. This factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy, which is only a pale shadow of the original Christmas classic "How the Grinch Stole Christmas."<br /><br />After this movie, historians should check the coffin of the late author, Dr. Seuss may have rolled over in his grave.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dreadful horror sequel to "The Howling". This picks off with Karen White's funeral (she was killed at the end of the first film). Stefan Crosscoe (Christopher Lee sadly) arrives there and tells Karen's brother Ben (Reb Brown) that Karen was a werewolf. He's going to Transylvania to kill Striba (Sybil Danning) the head werewolf. Ben and a coworker of Karens (Annie McEnroe) join him.<br /><br />A terrible script, bad direction, inept editing and truly horrendous acting by Brown and McEnroe single handedly sink this one. The werewolf effects are mostly kept in the dark--for good reason! They're terrible when you see them. Subpar special effects also--although I DID like the cartoon lightning that comes from Danning's fingers. There's also a werewolf orgy which is particularly stupid and Danning takes off her top at least EIGHT TIMES during the closing credits! <br /><br />There are a few good things--I found the village in Transylvania amusing--it looks like it came from a Universal horror flick from the 1930s! There are interesting camera tricks between transition scenes; Brown and McEnroe have good bodies and Lee and Danning are good in this--but they can't save it. Really--WHY did they do this? Where that they hard up for money??? This is one of IMDb's lowest rated movies. That alone should tell you something. Supposedly Danning was horrified when she saw the movie--I can understand why! A must-miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sorry, not good.<br /><br />It starts out interesting, but looses its way a few minutes into the movie.<br /><br />It does not help a lot that none of the normally great actors (Quaid, Glover, Ermey, Leto etc.) delivers a really good performance. <br /><br />It might be owed to the fact that I saw a dubbed version (german), but Dennis Quaid's character was especially wooden and annoying, and Danny Glover does not really make for a believable villain. Moreover, Jared Leto's character does not really contribute to the story whatsoever (except saving one main character's life at one point, but that scene is as necessary as a windshield wiper on a submarine in the first place ;-)<br /><br />Speaking of unnecessary scenes - the main complaint is really the tangled and cliché-ridden storyline: The detective (of course!) has to settle a personal matter with the villain and is (of course!) suspended from his official duties courtesy of his personal entanglement. The killer (of course!) *wants* to be tracked down and plays a cat-and-mouse game with his opponent for years ... I don't know how many movies build on a similar plot - most of them better, however.<br /><br />The plot has got holes galore and many completely unbelievable and unnecessary scenes that do not contribute to or work well with the storyline at all (e.g. the truck stop scene or the car at the cliff's edge etc.)<br /><br />To top it off, the ending tries to be original and exciting, but fails completely in these regards. We've seen *much* better finales with a similar kind of ultimate-battle-on-a-train-in-a-forlorn-winter-landscape setup ... In the end there is the supposedly moving reunion of parent and child ... hokey, at the least.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This third Pokemon movie is too abstract for younger kids to follow and too repetitious to entertain older kids. The message of the film-- about dealing with loss-- is subverted by the return of the young girl's father during the film's credits. Team Rocket provide some amusement, but they're not really part of the small plot, so they don't appear very often.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just saw this movie, and what a waste of time. The movie was predictable and slow. It's basically the Mormon bad news bears that play church sanctioned basketball. Rather than watching this movie, I should have had a root canal. The cameo performances were obviously driven by sponsorship / funding. This movie had potential due to the outrageous behavior that is exhibited by Mormons when they play church sanctioned basketball, however because it's rated PG, the true nature of the spectacle could not be transfered to film. The acting is horrible with the exception of Clint Howard and Fred Willard. Thurl Bailey's appearance in the film was completely unnecessary.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After reading the other reviews for this film I am of the opinion that the high markers are probably paid studio lackeys as the film I saw was absolutely dire, with wooden acting, lacklustre scripting and plodding predictable directing, one of the few plus points has to be the stunning scenery as this film features some stunning backdrops with great sweeping vistas and dramatic skies and wide open prairies, sadly when the most memorable thing in a film is the part featured behind the actors this has to be a warning sign as to the quality of the movie, all in all a thoroughly uninspiring addition to the western genre which even at the very reasonable price it can be obtained on DVD is best to avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When you're making a thriller about witchcraft, I believe you should do everything you can to help the audience suspend its disbelief in order for the movie to work. Some pictures ("Rosemary's Baby", for example) have accomplished this; others (like "Necromancy") haven't and the potentially scary material comes across as corny and goofy. This film does have some atmospheric moments, but about half the dialogue is hard to make out (sometimes it's poorly recorded, at other times just incomprehensible) and Orson Welles, who gets top billing, has a role that is so BENEATH him that you have to assume he was desperate for the work. Or maybe he was simply having fun.....(*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have a high tolerance level for crap, so I was looking forward to this. It did not disappoint. Apparently based on Sheridan Le Fanu's classic Carmilla, it follows a father and daughter hunting a female vampire who, luckily, happens to be travelling with them. Then we have Santa Claus (or the General, as he likes to be called here) running over random zombies. Did I mention there was a zombie outbreak? The dead are returning to life but nobody seems too concerned. We have construction worker zombies, soldier zombies and even St.Trinian schoolgirl zombies. Apparently Santa Claus is looking for his daughter who has been turned into a vampire. Oh wait there are no vampires, the girl is in a lunatic asylum and Carmilla is her nurse, or is she? The zombies are back and Santa's mad. Lesbian sex, I like vampires and I like zombies but I especially like lesbian sex. Nothing like some simulated cunnilingus to get the juices flowing. When are we going to see vampires fight zombies? Is she a vampire or is she a lunatic? Or both? Is Carmilla a hot sexy lesbian vampire or a nurse? More cunnilingus, you can never have enough cunnilingus. Here come the St.Trinian zombies. Chainsaw time!! More lesbian sex then the zombies kill and eat the vampires. I guess the zombies won, or did they? Plot? Who needs a plot when you've got lesbian vampires and schoolgirl zombies? And cunnilingus?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do not be mistaken, this is neither a horror, nor really a film. I firmly advise against watching this 82 minute failure; the only reason it merited a star was the presence of Chris Pine.<br /><br />Nothing happens. You wait patiently in the hope that there may be a flicker of a twist, a hint of surprise, a plot to emerge - but no.<br /><br />The characters take erratic turns of pace in their actions and yet don't have the time to develop - thanks to the thrifty editors and frankly ashamed writers - before returning to an idyllic and playful (bring on the teen rock montage) state. The only thing that could have made it worse would be adding the perishable token ethnic 'companion'.<br /><br />Their encounters with obstacles (be they human or physical) are brief, confusing and entirely pointless.<br /><br />Chris Pine fights to keep himself above the surface whilst being drowned by a misery of a lightweight cast. Lou Taylor Pucci couldn't be dryer if he spent the summer with Keanu Reaves combing the Navada desert.<br /><br />Watch 'The Road', watch '28 days Later', watch day time TV...anything but this; I implore you. Suffer the boredom, unlike you may be led to believe in the film, this film is no cure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This very unfunny failed TV Pilot can be found as an extra on the 30th Annivesery DVD Special Edition "Blazing Saddles". Imagine the movie without the satire, humor, or writing skills. But with all the trappings of a typical lame '70's sit-com show complete with obtrusive laugh track and you'll still have no clue how sheer putrid this failed show was. What the hell was Lou Gossett Jr. thinking when he signed onto this disaster?? This was possibly the worst thing he's been in (and yes I'm including the first "Punisher" movie and "Iron Eagles 3". Steve Landesberg, I understand as he can't say no to crap.<br /><br />My Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
There's a lot of good that can be said for this cartoon; the backgrounds are rich, lushly colored and full of nicely done art deco details. The animation is up to the usual studio standards of the time, which are unquestionably higher than those of the present day. However, I find it tedious for a number of reasons.<br /><br />The Music: It's definitely not up to Scott Bradley's usual standards. Although it's probably supposed to be evocative of a "Great Gatsby" setting, it ends up being dreary, sleepy, repetitious AND monotonous (repetitious and monotonous are not the same, as Beethoven's 5th Symphony attests). Since most people (including me) tend to close their eyes when they yawn, there's a lot of the visual part of the cartoon that will be missed by the average viewer.<br /><br />The Storyline: I'm not giving away any secrets that aren't already in the plot summary - country good, city bad. This is a common theme in films, both animated and live, from this era. It's a misplaced nostalgia for a nonexistent rural idyll, which, in the present day, is reflected in a similar nostalgia for "values" that never were.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I know that actors and actresses like to try different kinds of movies - hey, no one wants to get typecast - but Danny Glover, Brenda Fricker (happy birthday, Brenda!) and Christopher Lloyd should have known better than this. "Angels in the Outfield" is another movie in which everything seems lost until someone or something magically comes and saves the day. Do I even need to tell you how it ends? The movie is just plain lowly escapism (examples of high escapism are the various sci-fi movies from the '50s). If these movies had some political undertone - or at least offered us a new look at life - then they would be OK; this one is just pointless. Far closer to diabolical than angelic. Also starring Tony Danza, Adrien Brody and Matthew McConaughey, and I suspect that they don't wish to stress this in their resumes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This piece of filth is virtually impossible to follow. The sound is crap the picture quality goes from bad to worse to good to bad again! Things happen for no apparent reason characters appear and disappear. Was the director suffering from a massive brain injury during its production?<br /><br />Poor film making aside, the story is vile just sick evil sh*t If you like rape, murder and self harm this is right up your alley. And if simulated scenes of murder are not enough you can enjoy clips of actual people being executed. I watched almost all of it but had to turn off after I seen someones brains blown out. Never before have I seen a film that left me feeling so ashamed and dirty.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sure to people watching this move outside of Britian this film will be an entertaining watch, but for someone from the UK it's painful in it's errors.<br /><br />Right at the start of the film Elijah Wood gets off a tube at Bank station, which has been trashed. He says to his sister, who he's meeting, "What happened here" and she replies "Oh Tottenham were in town yesterday"!!! Tottenham are in town already.. they're part of the town, they don't have to go there! And if Tottenham fans wanted to fight other fans the last place on earth they'd do it is Bank station, where there are probably more security cameras than anywhere else in the world.<br /><br />There are several other similar errors but the biggest failing for me is the actor who plays the lead hooligan. He clearly decided it wasn't worth trying to speak with an East End accent and instead opted for a Dick Van Dyke style mock-ney which made my ears bleed. It was accentuated by the fact the rest of his gang all spoke in the way you'd expect West Ham fans to speak. This error made him unbelievable in the role and really spoilt the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After seeing only half of the film in school back in November, today, I saw that it was on Flix channel and decided to watch it to see the rest of it and to write a new review on it.<br /><br />The book that the film is based on, Hatchet, is OK. This is a terrible adaption of it though.<br /><br />Awful (and I mean awful) acting, bad dialogue, and average cinematography make up this terrible adaption of Hatchet.<br /><br />The film starts off Brian who is the cliché image of a late 80s teen (sporting a mullet, banging his head to cheap 80s rock music) and his mother driving in a car for him to get on a plane to fly up to see his estranged Dad (his parents are divorced...now cue the dramatic pause.) Now Brian has said goodbye to Mom and dog and is flying up to see his father. The pilot is a fat, ugly, rude man (wasn't like that in the book) who after 2 minutes in the air, has a heart attack and dies. In the book it goes into more detail with the pilot having more pains and it seemed to be that they were in the air much longer before the pilot had his heart attack.<br /><br />The plane (within another two minutes) has gone empty on fuel (leaving us, the viewers, to assume that he's been up there for hours even though the sun hasn't changed position and the scenery looks EXACTLY the same.) Now's he's crashed landed.<br /><br />This is the point in the movie where everything is a lot different then it was in the book. In the book it said his jacket was torn to shreds but in the movie it is perfectly fine with no tears or rips (looks like he just bought it), it never said he climbed a mountain, saw a wolf, and fell asleep up there on the mountain, it never said he was attacked by a bear (it said a moose but not a bear), it never said he eats the several bugs that he does, it never mentions the second tornado or that he learned to get those sparrows, skin them, and eat them or that little fish farm trap that he makes (that is destroyed by one of the tornadoes) nor does it mention him hurting his ribs from one of the tornadoes.<br /><br />I don't even think you can call what was depicted in the film a tornado. All it was was just a windstorm that knocked down several of his things.<br /><br />My favorite part of this camp fest was Brian's lame flashbacks (that are never mentioned in the book) especially the cliché scene of Brian waking up, walking over to the window and seeing his Dad (with all of his things packed that can all perfectly fit into just the back of his truck) leaving and screams "DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDDDDD!!!!" (yet of course his father didn't hear him even though he was just right outside) and he punches his fist through the window (wtf?) <br /><br />The ending is the only thing that is close to what happened in the book (I said close.) In the book I think one of the key things that the rescue pilot said to Brian when he landed was "you're the kid who they've been looking for! They stopped months ago..." yet they left that line out in the movie.<br /><br />There's a pathetic epilogue with Brian (somehow without counseling or therapy) getting back to normal with his family. I think we were supposed to assume that they were getting together for Thanksgiving (because they had a turkey on the counter.) Then it shows his temporary home (for what, in the movie, seemed like three days, but in the book was for several months) and his hatchet, still in a tree where he left it (also didn't happen in the book) showing where he carved a message, so perfectly done: "HOME" (where we really supposed to believe that he carved that that perfectly with just that hatchet?) <br /><br />No quote can sum this movie up better then when Enid from Ghost World said "this is so bad it's gone past good and back to bad again." Perfect description of this movie.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend it to somebody (who hasn't read the book) and are just looking to watch a movie nor would I to somebody who has read the book (because they'll be disappointed and bored to death.<br /><br />For those who have read the book, leave what your imagination created as the movie. This is awful and will bring down your thoughts on the book.<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What can you say about this movie? It was not terrible, but it was not good! Two days earlier I had watched Lillies and that was one of the best Gay films I have ever seen. So this was not the best time to watch a mediocre Gay flick.<br /><br />The story was silly and the acting was OK. It was not bad enough to turn off, but it had some bad moments and some terrible stereotyping. It was not very well cast either.<br /><br />Would I recommend this movie? No you would be wasting your time and money. I don't understand why movies like these are made and who is funding them. Spend your time Watching Noah's Arc on Logo instead. I think this is where this movie was trying to go but never got there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's hard to praise this film much. The CGI for the dragon was well done, but lacked proper modelling for light and shadow. Also, the same footage is used endlessly of the dragon stomping through corridors which becomes slightly tedious.<br /><br />I was amazed to see "Marcus Aurelius" in the acting credits, wondering what an ex-Emperor of the Roman Empire was doing acting in this film! Like "Whoopie Goldberg" it must be an alias, and can one blame him for using one if he appears in this stinker.<br /><br />The story might been interesting, but the acting is flat, and direction is tedious. If you MUST watch this film, go around to your friend's house and get drunk while doing so - then it'll be enjoyable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While I can't deny that his movies are often entertaining, I have always personally felt that Martin Scorsese is just a little overrated in his abilities. His use of flashy stylistics in a good number of his movies seems to scream "Look at me, aren't I an imaginative director?". His best film that I have seen is the one with the least added flourishes, the superlative "Raging Bull".<br /><br />For this remake it appears it was business as usual, though. The dull film stock to convey a 1950's setting was so bland as to be a distraction in itself. The melodramatic close-ups combined with the sub-par imitation of the classic "Psycho" score are more likely to provoke smirks of derision than a sense of atmospheric terror. The score for "Psycho" was brilliantly unnerving, this 'homage' just sounds shrill and annoying. Even the cast, who can be decent at times, deliver histrionic performances that just scream 'caricature'; the notable exception to this being an intelligent turn by Lewis as the impressionable teenage daughter of the Bowden family.<br /><br />The worst acting offender here is surprisingly De Niro. Sure, he looks suitably menacing but as soon as he opens his mouth that aura just drains away. Now I'm no expert on American accents, me originally coming from near Manchester in England an' all, but surely he could've come up with a more convincing Southern drawl than that? Being the gifted physical actor he is, he almost overcomes this fatal flaw, but not quite. It was disconcerting for me, as a De Niro fan, to be wishing he was off screen, rather than rapt at his performance.<br /><br />(POSSIBLE SPOILERS.)<br /><br />The over-the-top style of the whole movie extends to the ridiculously overblown finale. When will Scorsese learn that underplaying the situation can sometimes build tension just as effectively as giving the viewer a visual and sonic bombardment? I also thought that he was too respected a reputation to resort to the 'killer-not-dead-yet' cheap trick that less talented individuals might employ.<br /><br />All in all, a thoroughly ridiculous 'thriller'. Scorsese and De Niro have done MUCH better work together.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read comments about this being the best Chinese movie ever. Perhaps if the only Chinese movies you've seen contained no dialogue, long drawn-out far-away stares and silences, and hack editing, then you're spot on.<br /><br />Complicated story-line? Hardly. Try juvenile and amateurish. Exquisite moods and haunting memories? Hardly. Try flat-out boring and trite.<br /><br />This was awful. I could not wait for it to be over. Particularly when the best lines in the movie consist of "How are you? I'm fine. Are you sure? Yes." Wow! What depth of character. I guess the incessant cigarette smoking was supposed to speak for them.<br /><br />As a huge fan of many Chinese, Japanese and Korean films, I was totally disappointed in this. Even Zhang's sentimentally sappy "The Road Home" was better than this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
does anyone think that this show actually helps some people, or does it only anger the people who watch it? when i am flipping through the channels and come upon this show i half to watch out of morbid curiosity. i understand that pat Roberson is not all together. what i do not know is if his viewers are like him or if they are good people and think they will have a better life if they listening to what he has to say. pat Roberson is of little consequence. he is an old man who thinks in an old way. fear of damnation no longer has the same affects as it once did (thank god). now if someone will please answer my question i will be dodging lightning bolts for the rest of eternity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Carrie Fisher has stated on more than one occasion that she made this movie during a period of her life when she had a heavy cocaine problem, and she doesn't remember very much of it. That would explain why she made this film, but it doesn't explain why anyone else in the cast or crew did; I can't believe that EVERYBODY had a coke problem. This has to be one of the absolute worst movies ever made, and that's saying something. The blame can't be laid at the feet of "director" Tim Kincaid or "writer" Buddy Giovinazzo, as it is obvious that this picture wasn't written or directed by anyone. Apparently it just spontaneously came together, as there is little evidence of coherency, consistency, design, plot, sense, intelligence or anything else. What is really amazing is that there were some actual professionals who were involved in this glop. Co-star Robert Joy has done good work in other films, and composer Jimmie Haskell and cinematographer Arthur Marks are both industry veterans, Marks also having been a director, and not a bad one. Why they got involved in this steaming pile of offal is beyond comprehension. Tim Kincaid, the alleged "director", has made quite a few low-rent sci-fi and horror films, and, having seen most of them, I can tell you that not a one of them is any good. This one, though, is by far the worst thing he's ever done, and that is a major accomplishment on his part. Everything, absolutely EVERYTHING, about this movie is 12th-rate--at best. The cinematography is terrible, the acting is laughable, the "special effects" make "Plan 9 From Outer Space" look like "Spider-Man", the story is trite, derivative and stupid. Don't waste your time even looking at the video box cover, let alone renting it. A complete, utter, annoying, total dud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Soon after watching this film you will realize why it didn't even make it to the theaters! This movie does not deserve the "prequel" tag. Instead this is a common theme in Hollywood, rip off previously good movies with disastrous prequels, sequels, etc.<br /><br />This film's plot was bouncing all over the place like a ping pong ball, and the character development was non-existent. I seriously felt like I was watching a comedy at some points in the movie because the acting was so bad. P Diddy needs to stop tainting movies with his horrible acting, he actually made me laugh every time.<br /><br />The only good thing that comes out of this movie is Jaclyn DeSantis, who looks excellent in this movie and actually brought some enjoyment from watching this film.<br /><br />If you are a big Carlito's Way fan, I recommend you not watch this. If you decide to watch it anyway then treat this movie as if it ripped off the original, because that is exactly what it did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another variation and improvisation on the famous and beloved children tale, La Bete (1975) aka The Beast tries to imagine (in very graphic and what may seem offensive and disturbing but in reality rather silly and comical way), what actually happened between Beauty and the Beast? I am amused by many reviews and comments that seem to look too deeply into this movie. I would not go so far as saying that it is a serious and dark exploration of such subjects as sexual frustration, longing, fulfillment, or satirical criticizing of the catholic Religion. I would not even call it a horror-erotic movie. It's more of the parody on all genres it touches or mentions even though it's got some shocking moments in all departments that sure will stay in your memory.<br /><br />The long (way too long) scene between an Aristocratic young woman and the supposedly horrifying but the most laughable I've ever seen in the movies creature with truly impressive...well anatomy, is set to the clavichord music of Scarlatti and is hysterical. My husband and I both laughed out loud at the exaggerated details of the encounter. The moral of the scene is - beauty can and will defeat the monster. The question is - who is the target audience for the film? For an erotic picture, it is too verbose; for an art movie - it's got too many jaw-dropping scenes of sheer madness and I'd say an abrupt ending. IMO, the film creator did not mean for it to be a serious drama. As a parody of art house/horror/erotica, it is funny and certainly original. Have a good laugh and try not to look for some deep meaning. This story of the curious Beauties and the lustful Beasts certainly is not recommended for co-viewing with the children. The opening scene that may shock an unprepared viewer much more than the infamous scene of bestiality can be successfully used On Discovery channel for the program like "In the world of animals - mating habits and rituals of horses".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dreck about three beautiful women in California who go to cover some festival (or something). All the hotels are booked so they have to spend the night in a creepy old house. What they don't know is that there is a creepy inhabitant there who likes to kill...<br /><br />Yawn. Boring, pointless, utterly stupid "horror" film. Bach and her two buddies are certainly beautiful but the movie itself is dull dull DULL! Bach and her friends are no actresses--their faces are blank all the way through. The final "revelation" is laughably predictable and there's no blood or gore to keep you interested along the way. There is some expected gratuitous female nudity but that's not enough to save this. Boring, pointless and unknown (for good reason). A 1 all the way.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dear Richard, I know we all loved you on Home Improvement with Tim Allen. But seriously, do you not have anything else to do besides lame sequels to Air Bud? I would have thought Tim might have actually give you a bit role by now or even becoming his personal assistant. I know that seems ironic, but the pay benefits are much more rewarding.<br /><br />Everybody would see you around Tim and instantly think "Tool Time". You would even get roles with Bob Vila more often. Instead, you appear for 10 minutes with a Golden Retriever and smiling. I know there wasn't much of a script, but you could have added to it. I mean, come on. Tim owes you one.<br /><br />But seriously, this movie does nothing for the Air Bud line. Quite the contrary, the fake talking puppies are cornier than actually seeing the dogs play sports. The original was better. And you, Mr. Richard Karn, know that more than anybody.<br /><br />This is an "F" movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Here's a horror version of PRISCILLA: QUEEN OF THE DESERT (they wish!) starring Melinda/Mindy (RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD 3) Clarke as Candy, a desert dweller who pulls off a bank heist with boyfriend Johnny (Jason Durr). He ends up in a South-of-the-border prison run by the sadistic Chief Screw (an overacting Robert Englund in a toupee). She and her beloved pet poodles end up in hiding at a gas station convent until they're transformed by a newly fallen meteor. The dogs turn into obnoxious drag queen "bitches" and Candy develops a VERY long, talking, killing forked tongue she can't control. Thugs looking for the stolen loot and other assorted numbskulls add extra complications.<br /><br />First off, Clarke is fantastic and makes what there is to make of this movie. You watch her and see someone very funny during the slapstick scenes, very convincing during the horror scenes and VERY sexy in various wigs and disguises, including an eye-popping, skin tight latex bodysuit...and wonder how come this actress isn't a huge star. It's too bad the rest of this cult attempt doesn't live up to her promise.<br /><br />Blame director/scripter Sciamma, who thinks the outlandish premise alone is enough to sustain laughs...but his vulgar gags, annoying supporting characters and stupid dialogue are no substitute for a real sense of humor. Another nail in the coffin; the film looks cheap, lots of garish colors and sets are strangely muted by muddy photography and the dusty desert locales. Luckily for Sciamma that Clarke is in his film, because she alone keeps you watching.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lethargic direction ruins an otherwise compelling period story that stars the wondrous Zhang Ziyi, in an excellent role as a woman who joins an extremist group in 1928 China, just prior to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, and reunites with a former lover who is now working for Japan. Every bit of drama and forward motion of the story is sucked dry by director Ye Lou's somnambulist directorial style. Characters stand still staring at each other for long minutes, saying nothing, hand-held cameras hold forever on faces showing interminable reactions way longer than they need to, edits repeat the same reaction is triple redundancy. We know nothing about the characters as the story begins and are given little new information as the story progresses, only silence and static shots of lovers who don't speak, who interaction through silent dances but share no apparent emotional intimacy. A very sleep inducing film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously the only good thing about this year ceremony were the winners.<br /><br />Although the ceremony itself was pretty short it still was somewhat boring. I think it's seriously time to look for a new director and producers for the show, who can come up with something REALLY new. It's pretty obvious that they tried to make the show more 'hip' and appealing for a younger audience this year by letting Beyonce perform and letting P. Diddy and Prince present a category. Also letting Chris Rock be the presenter was an attempt to re-new the ceremony and make it more appealing. None of it really worked out.<br /><br />Sure, Chris Rock is a funny guy but he wasn't really a good presenter. I really merely saw him as a guy who just talked every now and then in between of the different categories. His presence wasn't really as 'big' as for instance Billy Crystal's.<br /><br />Also the handing out of the awards was pretty dumb at times. Not letting everybody come to the stage but also handing out some of the awards in the middle of the theater was plain weird.<br /><br />Still, I can't remember being any more satisfied with the award winners. None of the movies really swept away the awards as the last couple of years always had been the case. So does that mean it had been a good year for movies with lots of competitive contestants? I don't think so. I think most of the movies will be largely forgotten in 20 years from now, with the exception of "Million Dollar Baby" and "The Passion of the Christ" maybe. Sure I don't agree with every single award that was handed out this year, for instance Caleb Deschanel should had won for best cinematography, not that I don't like Robert Richardson's work, he really did some amazing work for most of Oliver Stone's work but I really feel that Deschanel deserved the award way more. Also I would had liked seeing Jim Miller and Paul Rubell win for best editing and John Debney for best music. But oh well, there is no way the Academy Awards can please everybody of course, I understand that. There will always be people complaining about the winners.<br /><br />It also was funny to see that most of the award presenters were way more nervous than the nominees and winners. Did Prince said any of the nominees names right at once? And were is Sean Penn's sense of humor? Al Pacino and Jeremy "I hope they missed" Irons were the best presenters of the night.<br /><br />Overall a very forgettable show but with nice winners.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yet another film about a tortured self-centered, arrogant, unfeeling hateful, self-destructive lead character we are supposed to care about.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong I am very open to all kinds of off the wall movies that have as the lead character a strongly self-destructive character. What I object to about this one is that there is so little background to this guy. Why did this guy hate himself and the world? Had the script dealt with this more they might have managed to elicit some sympathy for him. As it is he just comes off as an unpleasant hateful character, not tragic, just hateful.<br /><br />After taking great pains to make this guy as crazy and anti-social as possible and making his fate as dark as possible the writer then has the nerve to make a happy ending....<br /><br />This is not the worst film I have ever seen but it is in there putting up a good fight! Man! Don't waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I notice from the comments that most of the people discussing this movie are basing their remarks on the MST3K airing. That's fair enough (that is, after all, how it got its widest exposure), but, having had the misfortune of seeing "Final Justice" in its original form, I'd just like to share a few thoughts and comments on the uncut version.<br /><br />First off, it must be admitted that the original version is slightly more coherent than the MST3K broadcast, owing primarily to an expository scene between Rossano Brazzi and Venantino Venantini (I COULD use the characters' names instead of the actors', but I just love typing the words "Venantino Venantini"), explaining why Venantini's fugitive character can't just leave Malta right away. (It's not a very CONVINCING plot point, but at least the filmmakers tried to cover it.) Whether this scene was cut just for time or because it didn't provide much fodder for riffs, I don't know.<br /><br />Another plot point missing in the original: The stripper's betrayal of Venantino Venantini to Joe Don Baker, seemingly unmotivated in the MST3K version, is explained by an earlier, extremely unpleasant scene in which Venantini rapes her in the shower. While this does give her a motive for turning against him, the whole scenario is just really...icky. (There's no other word for it.)<br /><br />Some of the MST-worthy moments (the perpetual truncated shouts of "Son of a--" and the "deja vu" shooting of the sheriff) were purely the result of the edited-for-TV print they worked with, and were absent from the original movie.<br /><br />One scene I wish had made it into the MST3K version: Before entering the bar to question some people, Joe Don asks the Maltese policewoman accompanying him to stay outside, because "they see that uniform, they won't cooperate." However, Joe Don himself is wearing his ridiculous cowboy-slash-sheriff outfit, complete with shiny badge! I can't imagine why they passed on that great opportunity to make fun of him...<br /><br />One final observation on the original, uncut version of "Final Justice": Why, oh why, did they feel the need to put Venantino Venantini's naked butt up on the screen?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought this movie had absolutely no moral. I mean, how would you feel if your fiancé left you on your wedding day for your cousin??? I would be heartbroken!! It's classified as a comedy but I didn't find it funny at all. I thought it just mostly found cheap laughs and took them. I normally love Julie Stiles movies, but this is an exception. Jason Lee stars in another disgraceful show, which once again proves that class and decent morals are not relevant in todays society. It had a complete lack of taste and I despise movies like this. I understand that people will defend this movie and it's morals because it is 'Just a movie', but I still stand by my mark that this bad behaviour shouldn't be allowed on screen. I'm not trying to say that if you enjoyed this movie, you are a bad person, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and parts of this movie were enjoyable, I'm just saying that in real life, people acting like the characters in this film were doing is shameful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I stopped by BB and picked up 4 zombie flicks to watch over the weekend. Now, I understand that the effects will be cheesy, the acting will be sub-par, and the sets will be suspect. So I'm not expecting much. But it should at least have a story. Stories don't cost a thing except time.....apparently, they didn't have any time either.<br /><br />"Zombie Nation" had 5 zombies that appeared near the end of the movie that all looked like new wave hookers. The picture of the zombie on the front cover NEVER appears in the movie. It was absolutely agonizing to watch and had nothing to offer the genre.<br /><br />The running time is only 81 minutes but it felt like 2 hours. According to my wife (who could only hear the movie since she was on the computer in another room), it sounded like zombie porn....which if you think about, sounds kinda gross.....but it wasn't even that good.<br /><br />The only suggestion I can make is that maybe the writer tried to do too many things and ended up with an incoherent mess.<br /><br />It ended up being a free rental and I still feel ripped off. I rated it a 1 out of 10 because IMDb won't allow me to use decimals.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Shallow, shallow script ...stilted acting ...the shadows of boom mikes lingering over the actors' heads in scenes ...worth watching because Kate Mulgrew plays the most selfish mother in TV movie history and it's all before Ben Affleck got his teeth capped.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the cornerstones of low-budget cinema is taking a well-known, classic storyline and making a complete bastardization out of it. Phantom of the Mall is no exception to this rule. The screenwriter takes the enduring Phantom of the Opera storyline and moves it into a late '80s shopping mall. However, the "Phantom's" goal now is simply to get revenge upon those responsible for disfiguring his face and murdering his family. The special effects do provide a good chuckle, especially when body parts begin appearing in dishes from the yogurt stand. Pauly Shore has a small role which does not allow him to be as fully obnoxious as one would expect, mostly due to the fact that his fifteen minutes of MTV fame had not yet arrived. If you're looking for a few good laughs at the expense of the actors and special effects crew, check this flick out. Otherwise, keep on looking for something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Good performances can't save this terrible script, larded with every cliche in the chick-flick book. Both main characters are deeply unsympathetic, and the scene where Laura Linney's character reminisces about sex with her dead husband in front of her teenage son -- which I think is supposed to be poignant -- is just horrifying.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Coyote Ugly might have been much more effective if the film-makers had made it an R-rated guilty pleasure/exploitation film (with plenty of nudity.) But since the PG-13 rating is what all the studios are wanting these days, we end up with a movie like this: a PG-13 "tease" flick that isn't allowed to go nowhere near as far as the movie should have gone.<br /><br />The script is go generic that it is easy to guess what plot point is going to occur 15 minutes before it actually happens. The acting is adequate, but the characters are so paper-thin that nothing could be done with them. There were also a lot of points where it seemed like I was watching a music-video rather than a movie.<br /><br />The film's only assets are the amazingly beautiful female leads. We get to see them in some extremely tight and pretty revealing outfits.....but only so much could be shown due to the PG-13 constraints. There's plenty of cleavage and toned, heaving bodies doing some well-choreographed dance numbers, but there's no nudity or sex to speak of. Tyra Banks (she keeps getting even more insanely beautiful with age) is also in the movie for a very small amount of time. Sexy newcomer Piper Perabo is also very easy on the eyes (and she has a killer smile) and shows some genuine acting potential.<br /><br />The only people I could see this movie appealing to is pre-pubescent boys who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies yet. That audience might get a lot out of it from a titillation aspect, but adult audiences will feel annoyed and cheated.<br /><br />Rating: the movie-1 the women-10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having endured this inaccurate movie I will admit that it is a more modern telling of the story than previous versions. Yet, it is so inaccurate and has has been made so politically correct that it made me mad after watching it. Davy Crockett was very poorly represented by Billy Bob, who I thought would have probably been better cast as Sam Houston given both men's love of oratory. I think self-absorbed Dennis Quaid(an actual Texan) would have been a perfect Crockett and it would have definitely fed into his starved sense of self-worship. As a Texan and a true believer in the Texas mindset I feel Davy Crockett was the quintessential Texan even though not born here. Our unofficial motto is "It ain't braggin' if it is a fact" was made for Crockett. And that last scene at the Alamo where Crockett is the last survivor has to be the biggest insult to Davy Crockett ever made. To even suggest that this giant of a man and seasoned fighter would allow himself to be taken alive is ridiculous. Three different eye witness accounts place him dead amid the bodies of a dozen or more dead Mexican soldiers after undoubtedly fierce hand to hand combat. Finally, that lame ending to the movie supposedly depicting the battle of San Jacinto as a mutual battle of 600 Texicans vs 700 Mexican Soldiers when there was actually closer to 1,500 well trained Mexican regulars. Every Texas school kid who pays attention in their first Texas history class knows the battle took the Mexican Army by surprise during siesta time and the Mexican army was so confused they could not form ranks and fled as they were not trained to fight frontier style hand to hand.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...at least during its first half. If it had started out with the three buddies in the navy and concentrated on the naval action scenes, it would have been a much better and tighter film. The second half of the film is worth it, especially for the action sequences and close up shots of early 20th century ships, but it's like a dull toothache getting there. Also, don't watch this film just because Ginger Rogers is in it. She has an important role, but it's a small one.<br /><br />The film starts out showing three New York City buddies working the tourist trade and also in good-natured competition for the hand of Sally (Ginger Rogers), a singing candy salesgirl along the avenue. World War I breaks out, the three buddies seem completely indifferent to the struggle, yet enlist in the navy anyways. The one of the three with the least industry as a civilian (Bill Boyd as Baltimore) winds up the commanding officer to the other two (Robert Armstrong as Dutch and James Gleason as Skeets). To make matters more complex, Sally has fallen in love with one of the three, but doesn't have the chance to tell him before the three sail off to war.<br /><br />The film is a little more interesting on board ship, mainly because of the close shots we have of the ship itself, and also because the chemistry among the three buddies is believable. However, James Gleason at age 49 looks a bit long in the tooth to be a swabby, especially when the sign at the enlistment office said you had to be between 17 and 35 to be eligible.<br /><br />One real obvious flaw in the film that made me believe that everything outside the naval scenes was slapped together with minimum care is the costume design, or, I should say, the lack of it. In the scenes in New York just prior to WWI we have everyone dressed in the fashions of 1931 and everyone driving the cars of 1931 - no effort was taken to bring this film into period.<br /><br />In conclusion, if you watch the few scenes with Ginger Rogers in them and the last 45 minutes involving the naval suicide mission, you've seen everything here worth seeing. The rest is padding.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was awful and an insult to the viewer. Stupid script, bad casting, endless boredom.<br /><br />In the usual tradition of Hollywood, the government of the US is shown as always evil. The Communist-sympathizer nitwits in Hollywood, most of whom are as dumb as a box of rocks, love taking the lone nutcase Eugene McCarthy and picturing him as the leader of a vast movement. The truth is that at the time he was considered a fringe character who was exploiting a legitimate concern about the Soviet Communists for political gain.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and the US brought over all those evil Nazis. Like Werner VonBraun, without whom we would have no space program. He actually loved being American and became a great asset to the country.<br /><br />And yet the irony is that the fools in Hollywood, an uneducated lot who live a fantasy existence, still believe that the government should run EVERYTHING and give us all what we want. And yet, this is the same government that they continually portray as a consummate evil in films like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are laughs in this film, that is for sure. Michael Keaton is a talent and he used to be funny (before he decided he was a serious actor). However, what bothers me so much about this film, is how unlikable practically all of the characters are. Other than the main two leads, everybody is a jerk. I mean, these small town losers are about as uncouth as you can get. You just watch and think, man, these losers should be unemployed. Moreover, the American factory worker is portrayed as a lazy and ungrateful slob. It made me wonder if this film was made by Japanese nationalists. Oh sure, in the end they all come together as one, but I just did not enjoy the trip to get there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In light of the recent and quite good Batman the Brave and the Bold, now is the time to bear a fatal blow to that mistake in the life of Batman. Being a huge fan since the first revival by Tim Burton 20 years ago, I have been able to accept different tonalities in the character, dark or campy. This one is just not credible : too many effects, poor intrigues and so few questions. What is great about Batman is the diversity of his skills and aspects of his personality : detective, crime-fighter, playboy, philanthropist etc. The Batman shows him only in his karate days. And by the way, how come the Penguin is capable of such virtuosity when jumping in the air regardless of his portly corpulence ? And look at the Joker, a mixture of Blanka in Street Fighter 2 and a stereotypical reggae man, what Batman fan could accept such a treason ? Not me anyway. Batman is much better without "The" article in front of his name.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It pains me to write such a scathing review but by not doing so I'm simply encouraging these people. First off, just because a film is made on a small budget does not automatically make it good nor endearing. In fact in this case, the small budget is probably the films sole achievement in that it prevented large sums of money from being squandered on a one legged race horse with the shits. Have you ever seen a comedy at the theatre? Ever heard people laugh and thought "what the dickens are you on"? Well even these twats weren't laughing. Things got so bad by mid way my cat took his first ever bath. This is not film, this is children....no monkeys making images that leave you feeling like moving to France. Got to go, there's a clown at my door.............
|
Negative
| null | null |
The most ridiculous thing about this ridiculous movie is its conceit that if one becomes a saint, he or she and his or her family and his or her significant other live forever. Let's forget that in order to become a saint, the saint must be dead, and saints don't have significant others. That, for a millennium, Nick has been the Jolly Elf to Fred's Scrooge is never even hinted at! Open on Nick learning how to make toys, then on Fred learning how to run numbers; Nick giving a sick child a dolly, Fred repossessing the dolly, along with the family farm! After a few more such episodes, morph to present-day Fred venting his spleen at Siblings Anonymous as his fellow losers nod in empathy. There, I just wrote a more cohesive storyline than this idiocy!<br /><br />This Santa, who is one "ho, ho, ho, ho, ho" away from a massive coronary, is a neurotic wuss saddled with the Queen of the Harpies, an operation straight out of Mega-Mall Hell, and answers to a Board (huh?) which just gave the Easter Bunny his pink egg. Oh, and his right-hand man is a ditzy blonde in a skin-tight mini-dress and go-go boots. Ho... ho... ho... ho... ho!<br /><br />But what really sent me over the edge was Slam being named #1 on the Naughty List. Shouldn't a Naughty List be reserved for the future Hitlers and Stalins? Children who are the true embodiments of evil? Nope, to Old Sausage-Fingers, a good boy who lashes out because he is unwanted and unloved is the Demon Seed!<br /><br />The nimrods behind Fred Claus should be boiled in their own pudding! Bah!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me <br /><br />Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same <br /><br />Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false <br /><br />Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either . <br /><br />Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
**** SPOILER WARNING ****<br /><br />Absolutely without a doubt, one of the funniest comedies ever created for the screen. Totally impossible to take any of this seriously. It would take a major novel to list all of the comedy routines in it. During the glory days of her program, Carol Burnett and company, who often did take-offs on films, skewered this one in ways that were hard to imagine. Carol played Jenny who suddenly became ill with only a slight cough and immediately the treacly music came up and everyone looked around wondering where it was coming from. Harvey Korman played Oliver with flowing locks and almost look liked Ryan O'Neal. The only thing funnier than this bit, is the real film.<br /><br />What a death scene at the end. Jenny really looks like she's dying alright...dying for her make-up artist to come in and give her a little color. And of course, we all know how often hospitals encourage a loved one to get in bed with them during the patient's final moments. The ending scene with Ryan O'Neal sitting on a bench in the snow contemplating his future in the movie business is an instant classic. He had plenty to worry about. He never did recover from this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.<br /><br />The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.<br /><br />I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very, very humdrum movie fare here with Stella Stevens taking directions from someone in disguise(it didn't take me long to guess who it was) in Old Nevada Town outside Vegas for a money heist in the Circus Circus Hotel in Las Vegas. Stevens leads her girl gang of three, and they find out that they must act much quicker than had been anticipated. Despite some neat looks at Las Vegas in the 70's, very average yet credible acting from most involved, and a plot line with potential, Las Vegas Lady lays one big boring egg. It seems forever for the film to kick into gear,and when it does it just sputters here and there and never really speeds up. I was somewhat disappointed with this film. Sure, I wasn't expecting anything great, but I at least thought this might be one of those neat exploitation films from the 70's or something like it. Not even close. No one dies. There is a lame gunfight between creaky Stuart Whitman and officious George DiCenzo, one year prior to his grand performance as the prosecuting attorney Bugliosa in Helter Skelter. The gunfight has all the suspense of watching a waterfall. There is one punch and one head hit with a blunt instrument. Beyond that nothing in terms of action. And as for the girls, don't expect much there either. Stella and her girls(both very mediocre yet pretty talents, get in a sauna and a bath. What do we see? Nothing but a fleeting side profile. Stella wears these nice open blouses accentuating her real talents, but I wish she would have been a bit more open with her performance. That way I could write one thing that would recommend the film. Alas, it was not to be, and I have little to say in this film's favor. It isn't a horrible film in any way, it just has nothing going for it either. YAWN.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is simply the worst movie I've ever seen. Neither of the three central characters has any charm, and Erika's good looks aren't enough to carry the film. The lamest plot I've ever had inflicted upon me. Also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. Why did they bother?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bad plot (though good for a B-movie), good fast-paced fight scenes, at most a 5 out of 10. But something has always bothered me about this film: how come Mariska Hargitay never speaks? In the TV version, she shares several intimate moments with Jeff Speakman, even a kiss in a garden. Yet in the regular (video) version, most of her scenes are cut and she never speaks at all. This bothers me because it not only takes out a female (though cliched) point-of-view to the film, it also makes the final shot seem creepy. This film would have been better had they kept her scenes in, because in those scenes at least she has a personality, one that undercuts whatever Speakman says.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was able to hang in for only the first twenty minutes of this low-budget movie. The most glaring absurdity was that while the American inmates in a North Korean POW camp are all supposedly suffering from severe deprivation of food and medicine, going without bathing, shivering in flimsy and filthy parkas, and sleeping on bare floors, and - let's not forget enduring torture - they always manage to sport impeccably coiffed hair. With the exception of a suitably austere-looking Harry Morgan as an army Major, the casting and acting are simply awful. Ronald Regan cannot seem to stick to portraying a single character and instead creates a rather schizophrenic amalgam of past roles. A mostly Caucasian cast portraying the North Korean camp officers might have been forgivable, but when supposedly Russian officers acting as advisors to the Koreans strut around wearing re-badged Nazi uniforms complete with jodhpurs and jackboots (obvious costume-department recycles from WWII flicks) and speaking with accents like General Burkhalter from Hogan's Heroes, well, that's just six kinds of silly. Don't waste your time on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw this 'film' recently and have to say it was the worst attempt at film making I have ever had the misfortune to see. What the Hell was going on with Coolio? Totally unprovoked shooting at people in distress. Totally uninvolving, slow, tedious and detached. Worse than Spawn. long live "Evil dead II".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cast to die for in a movie that is considerably less. Vanessa Redgrave is dying but before she goes she begins to tell her daughters the story of her life and of her secret love...<br /><br />This is one of those movies which has the look and expectations of being a great film simply because they have so many great actors and actresses in it so it seems to be about something other than the potboiler that it really is. Not bad as such but with Redgrave, Toni Collette, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Clare Danes,Natasha Richardson,Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson,Hugh Darcy and others (all giving fine performances) you expect more than a weepy story thats a bit more than a harlequin romance.<br /><br />Wait for Cable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Columbo movies have been going downhill for years, this year it may have reached the bottom. Peter Falk gives the same uninspired performance and comes over as creepy in this movie. As is usual in this series, crime scene protocols are unheard of so plausibility is always lacking. Brenda Vaccaro chews the scenery and pulls pantomime faces and Andrew Stephens is a pretty unconvincing lady's man. (His faint, though, was a hoot!)The script was by the numbers and its delivery patronising. They should never have brought Columbo into the nineties, just left us all with one or two happy memories of clever plots, better scripts and sharp characterisations.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a history nut who is particularly interested in this particular historical event, I was very disappointed with the movie. Granted, the costumes and staging was quite authentic, but the Hollywood portrayal of this "British Little Big Horn" was truly boring.<br /><br />The amount of film footage dedicated to marching or parading troops has to have been unprecedented in film history. Eveytime I heard triumphant background music begin, I knew I had to prepare myself for another laborious scene of meaningless filler. Obviously, the producers had invested heavily into "staging" and were determined to get their money's worth.<br /><br />Despite the outstanding cast, their dialogue was, again, boring and their characters were never developed. Whenever Peter O'toole or Burt Lancaster finished a scene, I would cringe with disappointment. Their given lines were so weak and meaningless that I could hardly believe these were the same two great actors who portrayed Lawrence of Arabia and the Bird Man of Alcatraz respectively.<br /><br />There are worse epics, but this one is not much better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unless you're twelve, this movie really isn't worth it. It's obviously a low-budget film with B actors, and with a genre like fantasy that sometimes requires intense CGI work that's not good. I knew it would be bad when I rented it. I enjoy laughing at bad movies. I didn't know how bad though. It's bearable, until after hour 2, then it really starts to burn. Fighting styles go between normal fighting that obey the laws of physics, and wire-fighting. There's no real explanation for the transitions. It has a plot, but once again, it's obviously a kid's movie. It seems like there are explicit moral lessons of the day that are being conveyed, like Sesame Street or something. It's bearable. But much better if you're, say, nine.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a mess. I'm surprised it even has a theatrical release. WIthout Robin Williams it would have gone straight to video. It is poorly written. It is poorly directed. It's worse offense is that it has taken an interesting topic and reduced it to a ridiculous and BORING thriller that has no thrills and no suspense and no inner or emotional logic.Especially after the first half hour the movie dovetails into a series of ridiculous set pieces that are so over the top that the audience I saw it with was laughing at it. Save your money. The trailer is totally misleading - it is not suspenseful and there are no thrills - in fact the movie's truly worst offense is that it is simply boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
THE SCREAMING SKULL (1 outta 5 stars) This movie boasts some pretty cool opening credits (an offscreen narrator warning that movie patrons will be offered a free burial if they die of fright watching this movie, a scary shot of a skull emerging from a placid pool and the ubiquitous scary music) but, sadly, the movie is all downhill from there. A widowed man takes his new bride to his secluded mansion... admonishing his servants and friends that the new Mrs. has a very fragile disposition due to a tragedy in her past. Well, in no time at all she begins to see and hear mysterious things that no one else can. Her husband assures her that it's all merely in her mind and... well, you can probably see where this all is going. You will have figured out what's going on long before our hapless heroine... because you have probably seen the exact same plot in hundreds of other movies and TV shows (and done better, too). To add to the movie's myriad transgressions, most cuts of this movie (on numerous cheap DVD compilations) seem to be missing a few key scenes. You see the heroine slowly walking towards the window... she goes to open it... you know she is going to see something scary... and then... suddenly the scene cuts to her sobbing in her husband's arms. So what did she see??? I guess we'll never know.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unreal "movie", what were these people on?? A mix of French Upstairs Downstairs, mating horses,porn (not suggested, its pretty full on for a film) & bestiality with a bit of Benny Hill music & chase scenes thrown in, its sounds crazy & its even more so to watch. **spoiler** It plods along in a tedious fashion for quite a while,.... then a Lamb does a runner, prompting woman in period dress to run off after it, she goes into the woods where she is set upon by an erect "penis" attached to a man in a bear/rat manky suit, I put it like that as its obvious the "penis" is in charge & gets way too much screen time, ejaculating for the most of it, anyway, in a nutshell, it turns out she liked a bit of bear/rat tadger & thats about it, the rest is just padding. **end spoiler** A film made to shock & offend, thus getting talked about, any publicity is good publicity I suppose,a waste of time really, but the "main event" has to be seen to be believed, its hard to imagine that anyone thought it was a good idea as they filmed it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ziab la ta'kol al lahem is an awful movie.This is only a superposition of scenes without a clear link.Acting is also very bad, despite the presence of a good actor like Ezzat El allayli. But something is really astonishing in this movie, talking about sexuality, emancipation of women, nude scenes are very rare in Arab cinema,even in this days. I really congratulate the director and the actors for their courage. We want to see more of this style in Egyptian movies, but with better quality. The reasons that led me to vote this film as an awful one are not only scenario and acting, but also the lack of prfessionalism. This movie look like an amateur one.We can see a lot of errors in the screen. If you want a good arab movie Ziab la ta'kol al lahm is not the one recommended.But if you wish to encourage the uncensored movies in all the arab world watch it and make your friends and your family do the same.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Savage Island (2003) is a lame movie. It's more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. Not only that the storyline and script was wretched. I don't know why this movie was made. I have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones I really hate are movies that make me angry. This one made my blood boil. The situations were inane at best. If I made a movie like this it would have been a short. Really because those backwood "idjits" wouldn't have been in the picture.<br /><br />Don't be fooled by the cover on the D.V.D. I am an avid watcher of bad cinema. But this movie is virtually unwatchable. I don't mind movies being shot on D.V. but if you're going to do that make the movie enjoyable, not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans Wrong Turn).<br /><br />I have to not recommend this waste of disk. If you come across this one in the rental store pass on by.<br /><br />Movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.
|
Negative
| null | null |
All this dismaying waste of film stock needs is Count Floyd popping up every sixty seconds. Somehow they got Steve Railsback, Susan Anspach, John Vernon, and Joe Flaherty together on a set and couldn't get within five miles, about eight kilometers, of an actual movie. BOY does this thing suck. There isn't one original line, thought, shot, or effect from brainless opening sequence to brainless close. The magical, ethereal Susan Anspach of Five Easy Pieces - boring. Steve Railsback - boring. John Vernon - boring. The big bug - boring. If this is a scary movie, Buttercream Gang is a thuglife documentary. <br /><br />Seriously - every bad movie contains its own explanation of its badness. Usually it's in the opening credits - "Written, Directed, and Produced by" one guy. Or at the very center of the action is some bimbo so talentless that you know there's one and only one reason this turkey got made. Here, you don't find out till the very last of the credits, where the cooperation of about a dozen subfunctions of the Canadian Government is gratefully acknowledged. <br /><br />Right now I'm watching MST's take on Beast of Yucca Flats to get the taste out of my mouth. Ghod, what an improvement.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I enjoyed "American Movie", so I rented Chris Smith's first film, which I thought was a documentary too. In the first minute I saw that it wasn't, but I gave it a go.<br /><br />What a dead end film. Being true-to-life hardly serves you if you're merely going to examine tediousness, esp. tediousness that we're already familar with.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but will it come as a relevation to ANYONE that 1) a lot of jobs suck and 2) most of them are crappy, minimum wage jobs in the service sector??? I knew that before I saw the film. It didn't really provide an examination of that anyway, as while the film struggles to feel "real" (handheld camera, no music, etc.), what's going on hardly plays out as it would in the "real world."<br /><br />Would an employer be so cheerful to Randy when he picks up his check, after Randy quit on him after 3 days when the guy said he expected him to stay 6 months?? Or the day after abandoning his job (and screwing up the machine he was working on), that everyone would be so easy on him??<br /><br />A big problem is our "hero"(?), Randy. This guy is a loser. Not because he's stuck in these jobs, or has a crummy apartment, or looks like one. He's a dope. He doesn't pay attention or even really try at these jobs. He has zero personalty. If I had to hire someone, he wouldn't make it past the interview.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to what Chris Smith does next, but guys, knock off the "this-is-an-important-film" stuff. "American Job" doesn't work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would perhaps give 6 or 7 to this propaganda film because it shows when and how a propaganda film becomes successful. If there are people who watch this piece and think that "well then Jews must have done something to be treated the way they were treated in WW2", then the movie is very cleverly made to conceal 'why's and 'how's as well as mix correct and false observations on how a people live. What more can a propaganda movie aim for? The part in which an American movie about the Rothschild family is included is re-used very shrewdly here, for instance. The question of why the Jew keeps his wealth away from the officer is never asked. No one mentions the system of taxation within that particular social strata.<br /><br />Besides, the level of excitement (or, the level of disgust) in the movie increases slowly and the solution-like end of the movie suits the aim and the musts of doing propaganda. The audience would leave in joy and gratefulness to the times that are coming up...well done.<br /><br />In the movie, there is a kind of simplicity that addresses the most basic emotional perception of the audience. The movie is kind of history today, so no need to fuss much about it actually. However, in this simplicity of words of ethnic degradation, a careful watcher can find relevance to today's cultural hatred, violence, decivilization as well as the problems of integration. Overall, fine trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever, sung by an uncredited Burt Bacharach of all people! You really have to hear it to believe it, The Blob may be worth watching just for this song alone & my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics... After this unnerving opening credits sequence The Blob introduces us, the viewer that is, to Steve Andrews (Steve McQueen as Steven McQueen) & his girlfriend Jane Martin (Aneta Corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere & witness what looks like a meteorite falling to Earth in nearby woods. An old man (Olin Howland as Olin Howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it & goes to investigate, he finds a crater & a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. Laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick, if you know what I mean! It then slides up the stick & attachés itself to the old man's hand. Meanwhile Steve & Jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of Steve's car, Steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to Dr. T. Hallan (Alden 'Stephen' Chase as Steven Chase) at the local surgery. Dr. Hallan says he doesn't know what the substance on the old man's hand is but it's getting bigger & asks Steve to go back where he found him & see if he can find out what happened. Steve agrees but doesn't come up with anything & upon returning to Dr. Hallan's surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. The town's police, Lieutenant Dave (Earl Rowe) & the teenage hating Sergeant Jim Bert (John Benson) unsurprisingly don't believe a word of it & end up suspecting Steve & his mates Al (Anthony Franke), Tony (Robert Fields) & someone called 'Mooch' Miller (James Bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. However as the blob continues to eat it's way through the town Steve sets about finding proof of it's existence & convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world!<br /><br />Directed Irvin S. Yeaworth Jr. & an uncredited Russell S. Doughton Jr. I was throughly disappointed by this, the original 1958 version of The Blob. The script by Kay Linaker as Kate Phillips & Theodore Simonson is an absolute bore & extremely dull not making the most of it's strongest aspects. The Blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics & conflicts between the teenagers & police, in fact the majority of The Blob is spent on Steve trying to convince the police of the blob's existence. For most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential & somewhat forgotten. It only has two or three scenes for the fist hour & a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults & teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob & have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards, yuck! Why couldn't the blob just eat the lot of 'em? No explanation is given for what the blob is or it's origins other than it came from space, how long did it take them to come up with that? The dialogue is clunky & silly as well, as are people's actions & decision making, I love the part when a nurse named Kate (Lee Paton as Lee Payton, did anyone use their real name in this thing?) is confronted by the blob, she throws some acid over it & calmly proclaims "Doctor, nothing will stop it!", how does she know 'nothing' will stop it exactly? There's no blood or violence so don't worry about that, the special effects on the blob itself aren't too bad considering but it barely has any screen time & moves very slowly, a bit like the film in general actually. The acting is terrible, McQueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old & it shows, he looks old enough to be his own dad! Same thing goes for most of the other 'teenage' cast members & everyone generally speaking are wooden & unconvincing in their roles. Technically The Blob is very basic, dark static photography, dull direction & forgettable production values. The Blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper & is well known as being a 'classic' but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. This is one case when the remake The Blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. The original Blob is slow & boring & the remake isn't, the original Blob contains no blood or gore & the remake does, the original Blob has incredibly poor acting & casting decisions & the remake doesn't & the original Blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film & the remake features the blob all the way through & it virtually eats an entire town. The choice is an easy one, the remake every time as it's a better film in every respect. I'll give the film two stars & give that wonderful main theme song one on it's own. Definitely not the classic many seem to make out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I read MOST of the other comments, I felt they were way too glowing for this movie. I found it had completely lost the spark found in the earlier Zatoichi movies and just goes to prove that after a long absence from the screen, it's often best to just let things be. I completely agreed with the Star Trek analogy from another reviewer who compared the FIRST Star Trek movie to the original series---millions of excited fans were waiting and waiting and waiting for the return of the show and were forced to watch a bland and sterile approximation of the original.<br /><br />The plot is at times incomprehensible, it is terribly gory (though the recent NEW Zatoichi by Beat Takeshi is much bloodier) and lacks the heart of the originals. I didn't mind the blood at all, but some may be turned off by it (particularly the scenes with the severed nose and the severed heads). In addition, time has not been good to Ichi--he seems a broken and sad man in this film (much, much more than usual)--and that's something fans of the series may not really want to see.<br /><br />This was a very sorry return for Zatoichi. Unless you are like me and want to see EVERY Zatoichi film, this one is very skipable. See one of the earlier versions or the 2003 ALL-NEW version.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a movie about animal cruelty. Under the guise of a marathon race, we see depictions of extreme animal abuse, including literally running a horse to death IN SLOW MOTION. The guy who did this then has his conscience spiritually cleansed by the flames from the burial/burning of the horse, which of course is still dead, having been tortured to death. This is one of the sickest, slimiest movies I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. As Gene Hackman and James Coburn near the finish line on their DYING animals, we're supposed to admire their spirit for finishing the race. I'd like to put the producers and director in a marathon race; I'll decide when they're finished, probably about 20 minutes after they stop breathing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When George C. Scott played the title role in "Patton," you saw him directing tanks with pumps of his fist, shooting at German dive bombers with a revolver, and spewing profanity at superiors and subordinates alike. The most action we get from Gregory Peck as "MacArthur," a figure from the same war of debatably greater accomplishment, is when he taps mapboards with his finger and raises that famous eyebrow of his.<br /><br />Comparing Peck's performance with Scott's may be unfair. Yet the fact "MacArthur" was made by the same producer and scored by the same composer begs parallels, as does the fact both films open with the generals addressing cadets at West Point. It's clear to me the filmmakers were looking to mimic that Oscar-winning film of a few years before. But while Peck looks the part more than Scott ever did, he comes off as mostly bland in a story that feels less like drama than a Wikipedia walkthrough of MacArthur's later career.<br /><br />"To this day there are those who think he was a dangerous demagogue and others who say he was one of the greatest men who ever lived," an opening title crawl tells us. It's a typical dishwater bit of post-Vietnam sophistry about those who led America's military, very much of its time, but what we get here is neither view. MacArthur as presented here doesn't anger or inspire the way he did in life.<br /><br />Director Joseph Sargent, who went on to helm the famous turkey "Jaws The Revenge," does a paint-by-numbers job with bland battle montages and some obvious set use (as when the Chinese attack U.S. forces in Korea), while the script by Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins trots out a MacArthur who comes across as good-natured to the point of blandness, a bit too caught up in his public image, but never less than decent.<br /><br />Here you see him stepping off the landing craft making his return to the Phillipines. There you see him addressing Congress in his "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech. For a long stretch of time he sits in a movie theater in Toyko, waiting for the North Koreans to cross the 38th parallel so we can get on with the story while newsreel footage details Japan's rise from the ashes under his enlightened rule. Peck's co-actors, Marj Dusay as his devoted wife ("you're my finest soldier") and Nicolas Coaster as a loyal aide, burnish teary eyes in the direction of their companion's magnificence but garner no interest on their own.<br /><br />Even when he argues with others, Peck never raises his voice and for the most part wins his arguments with thunderous eloquence. When Admiral Nimitz suggests delaying the recapture of the Philippines, a point of personal pride as well as tactical concern for MacArthur, MacArthur comes back with the comment: "Just now, as I listened to his plan, I thought I saw our flag going down." Doubtless the real Nimitz would have had something to say about that, but the character in the movie just bows his head and meekly accepts the insult in the presence of President Roosevelt.<br /><br />The only person in the movie who MacArthur seriously disagrees with is Harry S Truman, who Ed Flanders does a fine job with despite a prosthetic nose that makes him resemble Toucan Sam. Truman's firing of MacArthur should be a dramatic high point, but here it takes place in a quiet dinner conversation, in which Peck plays MacArthur as nothing less than a genial martyr.<br /><br />I've never been sold by Peck's standing at the upper pantheon of screen stars; he delivers great presence but lacks complexity even in many of his best-known roles. But it's unfair to dock him so much here, as he gets little help defining MacArthur as anything other than a speechifying bore. Except for two scenes, one where he rails against the surrender of the Philippines ("He struck Old Glory and ran up a bedsheet!") and another where he has a mini-breakdown while awaiting the U.S. invasion of Inchon, inveighing against Communists undermining him at the White House, Peck really plays Peck here, not the complex character who inspired the famous sobriquet "American Caesar." The real MacArthur might have been worthy of such a comparison. What you get here is less worthy of Shakespeare than Shakes the Clown.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.