input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This is one of them movies that has a awesome video box but has wired camra work and unknown actors that speak with bad dialogue.Its so dark when the killings happen you can hardly see it plus the movie is hard to understand.The only star in this is WCW`s Vanessa Sanchez (Tygres in WCW before it folded) and she is a good actress. I like low budget film especialy ones that has errors because they are fun to watch but Severed unfourtunatly isn`t one of them.This movie is ok to see if you like voodoo and severed heads but this is no blockbuster but if you need something new to watch then rent Severed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone who loved the two classic novels by Edward Ormondroyd will be disappointed in this film. All the magic and romance have been modernized out of his original story of a girl who does a good deed for a mysterious old lady, and given "three" in return. Three what? Not three wishes, but three rides into the 1800's on a rickety elevator...<br /><br />The first novel is Time at the Top. The second is All in Good Time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know who to blame, the timid writers or the clueless director. It seemed to be one of those movies where so much was paid to the stars (Angie, Charlie, Denise, Rosanna and Jon) that there wasn't enough left to really make a movie. This could have been very entertaining, but there was a veil of timidity, even cowardice, that hung over each scene. Since it got an R rating anyway why was the ubiquitous bubble bath scene shot with a 70-year-old woman and not Angie Harmon? Why does Sheen sleepwalk through potentially hot relationships WITH TWO OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AND SEXY ACTRESSES in the world? If they were only looking for laughs why not cast Whoopi Goldberg and Judy Tenuta instead? This was so predictable I was surprised to find that the director wasn't a five year old. What a waste, not just for the viewers but for the actors as well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unless you are between the ages of 10 and 14 (except for the R rating), there are very few things to like here. One or two lines from Kenan Thompson, David Koechner (we really should see him more) and Sam Jackson are humorous and Julianna Margulies is as good as she can be considering her surroundings, but sadly, that's it. Poor plot. Poor acting. Worse writing and delivery. The special effects are dismal. As much as the entire situation is an odd and awful joke, the significant individual embedded situations are all equally terrible. If we consider the action portions, well there are unbelievable action sequences in some films that make you giddy and there are some that make you groan. This movie only contains the latter kind. This leaves little left. I'm so glad I did not pay for this.<br /><br />Despite any hype, I can read and think, so as I sat down to watch, I did not expect anything good. I had no expectations, but was somewhat worried going in. Yet, like a train wreck, one cannot merely look away. And even with no expectations, I was let down. Bad. Not even 'so bad, it's good' material. I'm _very_ tolerant of bad movies, but this makes "Six String Samurai" (which I liked) Oscar worthy.<br /><br />No, this piece of over CGI'd rubbish is in the same company as Battlefield Earth, Little Man and Gigli. How this is currently rated a 7.2 completely mystifies me. Brainwashing or somehow stacking the voting system is all that I can think of as answers.<br /><br />I could go on and on but suffice to say that tonight, I witnessed a train wreck. I need to go wash my eyes. 1 of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.<br /><br />I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinées. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.<br /><br />IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray! <br /><br />All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.<br /><br />One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.<br /><br />This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.<br /><br />Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.<br /><br />To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.<br /><br />You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.<br /><br />Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is 30 minute show about one joke. The joke, Cavemen are not treated fairly. HaHaHa!!! He can't dial a phone because he is a Caveman. Cavemen are not as smart as human beings. Oh jeez, those Cavemen are so unsophisticated. There is no humor in this show. They can only run off this one joke for so long and they already have with the Geico commercials. This show does not deserve a time slot on national T.V. <br /><br />This show tries to hard to be funny, but it just isn't. Watching this show, I was thinking that it was trying to be like a "Bachelor's Gone Wild Show." Meaning they go to the bar and try to sleep with many women. The crying caveman is annoying. The caveman with the glasses is too smart to be a caveman(HAHAHA!!!). All three of them have personalities, but I can't figure out why I don't care about them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Woosh
! Man
What can I say...?<br /><br />The opening-scene, maybe? We see a bunch of mongoloid-barbarians with bad make-up jump off the walls of some ruins. They sneak around and attack some dude with a scantily clothed captive girl. The dude runs off, the mongoloids follow him and one of them stays behind seemingly to rape the girl, but instead he exposes one of her breasts and kidnaps her. Then, the dude (still on the run) sees a horse and tries to steal it. Suddenly
a blond god-like looking hero with a bad wig appears, saying "That's my horse!". The Mighty Deathstalker just made his appearance. The mongoloids arrive, Deathstalker kills all of them (including the dude) on the tunes of some rather inappropriate Mexicanos western score (this is supposed to be a Swords & Sorcery flick, so what's with the 'arriba-trompettos'?), and then goes up to Captive Girl and exposes both her breasts. He starts to rub them and Captive Girl seems to like it. She starts liking her lips and caressing Deathstalker. Just when they are about to get down to it, this old dude appears, interrupting what could have been the end of a perfect day for Deathstalker (and a possible perfect ending for a short-film).<br /><br />Now tell me
Isn't that the point where either a feminist would angrily switch off the movie, or any other male viewer would say "This is going to be one hell of a good movie!" The plot is as simple as throwing a kitten from the balcony: Deathstalker must obtain the Sword of Justice and use it to steal the Amulet of Life and the Chalice of Magic from the evil sorcerer Munkar.<br /><br />Aside from decapitations, dismemberment, random bloodshed, retarded fist fights and embarrassing sword fights, this film also contains a massive amount of t!ts & a$$ shots. I initially wanted to add one extra point to this movie for each gratuitous shot of naked boobies I could count. After 9 points (not even halfway into the movie), I had to give up counting. It was distracting me from the rest of the movie. And the rest of the movie was worth it. Totally crazy stuff. Check out this mutant cat/worm-like creature Munkar has as a pet and which he feeds eyeballs and fingers. And here's an interesting question: What would you do if a man in a woman's body would enter your bedroom and try to kill you with a knife? The answer is simple: You slap him around a bit, take away the knife and then try to rape him. Then you discover that he's actually not a woman, so you throw him out of your bed and tell him to leave your room. It works out well, I tell you. Deathstalker does it too, and the Deathstalker-way, is the right way!<br /><br />DEATHSTALKER is a wonderful movie, really, as pointed out in other comments. The villains are vile. The women are delicious. There's blood, sex, violence, rape and tasty chicken. There's a completely pointless tournament which just features a bunch of barbarians beating, slashing and hacking the crap out of each other. My favorite weapon used in that tournament was a giant wooden hammer, used to beat a poor contender to bloody pulp. And my favorite contender undoubtedly was that one brute with the Warthog-head (reminiscent of the Gamorrean Guards from RETURN OF THE JEDI). I won't reveal how the movie ends, but just prepare to ravish in delight when I tell you a 4-way dismemberment is thrown into the movie's climax.<br /><br />And of course, there's a wonderful display of ineptitude throughout the whole movie. See a guy being dragged behind a horse over a dirt road, and the next point-of-view shot shows him being dragged over grass (no road). See that awesome tattoo on the sorcerer's head magically change sides within the same scene (on shot has it on the left side of his head, the other on the right). Well, after all, Munkar is a magician. It's that, or this movie was shot in an alternate universe where things like "continuity" simply don't exist.<br /><br />As much as I enjoyed this and as much as I am looking forward to the other 3 installments in this series, I do have enough shreds of decency left in me to not let this movie pass. I am prepared, though, to give it the maximum amount of minimal points, just so I could be able to deduct a couple of more points for the possibly inferior sequels to follow. DEATHSTALKER might be a superbly fun, trashy & sleazy CONAN rip-off, it also is an abominable movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.<br /><br />This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.<br /><br />This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Based on one of the books by Gabriel Marquez and it might be brilliant literature, this cinema-adaption really sucks as it's more like fighting against sleep rather than enjoying some cinematographic delices. The story is about an old couple whose son died and living a life that is heavily dominated by poverty, and wherein the main character is a cock that hopefully one day brings some money for a forthcoming cockfight. I am in no mood to spill more words on this useless pretentious piece, just perhaps that you can see Salma Hayek in here, but sitting 90 minutes in front of your screen for just that? No gracias.....
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was allocated to the fans as the "winner takes all" match occurred between two separate "companies" (the World Wrestling Federation and the "Alliance": an amalgamation of former WCW and ECW superstars. Because the final match to duduce the superior company was a tag-team match, the wrestlers were confined to tossing opponents from each side of the ring to another; each wrestler concludes that in order to debiliate their opponents and to intensify the match, interfernce is necessary. Each wrestler merely pummels an opponent with punches, executes a special move, and tags in a partner. The storyline had previously been tarnished by the subterfuge of Vince that a member of the Allance would be fradulent and join the WWF. It was obvious, with that statement, that the WWF would prevail. Overall: very innovative storyline but poor execution, which is not the scarcity of the wrestlers because the match format is tag-team. The remaining matches are just revolting:<br /><br />Edge versus Test: potent "big boot" by Test, but this did not display the true talents of both stars<br /><br />Al Snow Versus Christian: good match but superflous to the pay-per-view<br /><br />Taji versus William Regal: the worst match of the night<br /><br />Immunity Battle Royal: This was an outstandingly fun match to watch, but because the main stars of both companies were involved in the main event, only a wrestler who characteristically appears on "Heat" and is probably a WCW light-heavyweight reject (i.e. the Hurricane who is merely hired as an entertainer)<br /><br />Hardy Boyz Versus Dudley Boyz: The best match of the night: Jeff Hardy executed a "Swanton Bomb" from the summit of a cage and through a wooden table and Matt was wedged into the cage, which appeared to be extremely painful.<br /><br />Because Stone Cold was the WWF champion, Rob Van Dam was the Hardcore Champion, and Kurt Angle was a "mole" in the alliance, all fundamental stars in the main event on the faction of "the Alliance" were granted work after the match's outcome, except for Booker T., who recently attacked a wrestler on "Raw" and will inevitably be given work. Shane McMahon will return to television somehow, and everyone desired to witness the downfall and demise of "the Alliance" to see Stone Cold out of work. The WWF has done much better. A match in which all tiltes were brought to one faction would have been better, and what ever became of Casket and Iron Man matches?
|
Negative
| null | null |
We loved School of Rock and Jack Black. We couldn't wait to go and see this movie. It was the only time in my life the movie was so bad I wanted to walk out. My husband hated it too. The only funny parts were in the trailers. My husband and I wanted to stand outside the movie theater and tell people to save their money. The writing was awful. It had every terrible stereotype of Hispanic people who should be utterly offended. The movie wasn't that long but to us it seemed like an eternity. The people in the theater were so restless and silent it was like watching paint dry. I made my husband stay because I was sure there would maybe be some redeeming parts, but there weren't. Save you money and your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An unpleasant woman and an equally unpleasant man are violently and horribly assaulted by a group of two-dimensional psycho thugs during a night-time encounter on a forest road in Shropshire, England. The man and woman who were assaulted plan and carry out a revenge attack on their attackers...<br /><br />Utterly repellent piece of voyeuristic trash, somehow masquerading as 'thought-provoking' drama, whilst actually coming across as sub-Michael Winner cr*p (you just know that Oliver Reed and Susan George would have been cast had it so easily have been made in the 1970s). What happens to Alice (Gillian Anderson) and Adam (Danny Dyer) is appalling and devastating, yet Dan Reed somehow manages to rub the viewer's nose in every last glob of its sexual nastiness. His camera lingers hungrily on Anderson's naked body both during and after the assault, whilst the script leaves almost all the characters floundering in a turgid sea of two dimensional cliché. His script forces his characters to behave in such a way as to alienate the viewer further from the 'victims' by shoving more ghastly situations into their faces (Adams's attempted post-incident assaults on both Sophie and Alice; Alice's assault on Heffer AFTER his suicide-attempt confession).<br /><br />The quandary comes from the central protagonists' performances - Dyer is a horrible actor, incapable of light and shade as the young male victim of the initial assault (he'll end up in Eastenders, mark my words), but Anderson is extraordinary. Even as the atrocious script forces her character to behave in depraved and ludicrous ways, she somehow delivers an extraordinarily compelling and complicated characterisation as a self-indulgent, arrogant hedonist who encounters such horrors and needs to retaliate.<br /><br />A vile and pointless film then, almost but not quite rescued by a compelling central female performance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After hearing raves about this movie for years, I finally decided to rent it and watch. Let me start by saying that I'm glad that the rental was free from the local library. This move was slow, boring, unrealistic and the plot made no sense. After 2 hours, I was ready to nuke that backwater Texas town and put the group of those characters out of their misery. I realize that taste is subjective, but believe me, I just do not understand all of the hype that I have heard about this movie. Dallas provided as good a detail of the life in Texas as this movie. Rent it only if you want to understand how movie studios can pay enough money to reviewers to convince the general public that a bad movie is good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. <br /><br />I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.<br /><br />I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.<br /><br />Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.<br /><br />Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. <br /><br />Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.<br /><br />*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine that you are asked by your date what movie you wanted to see, and you remember seeing a rather intriguing trailer about "The Grudge." So, in good faith, you recommend seeing that movie. It is the Halloween season, after all. And it did boffo box office this past weekend, so it must be pretty good...so you go.<br /><br />And you're actually in a state of shock when the movie ends the way it does, and you hear yourself audibly saying, "that can't be the end of the movie...." But, alas, it is. <br /><br />And imagine coming out of the movie theater being embarrassed and ashamed for recommending such a dog of a movie. You think that your date thinks you're a bonehead for suggesting such an atrocity, and your suggestion will certainly end a promising relationship. Actually, it was so bad that both of us cracked up laughing at how bad it was. I see no future for Miss Gellar in the movies, and suggest that she sticks to television in the future. Actually, it won't be long before she is consigned to flea-market conventions selling Buffy memorabilia, and it can't happen soon enough, if you ask me. Horrible, horrible, horrible. The plot didn't make sense; continuity was terrible. It's apparent that the whole ending was contrived to have a "Grudge II--The Return of 'Cat-Boy'."
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes I admit I cried during this movie. It was so incredibly disappointing, that I couldn't help myself but cry. TBN (Trinity Broadcasting Network) has done it again. First with having the Million Dollar Man (ex-professional wrestler) on their program, and now this.<br /><br />The Omega Code follows a stream of sketchy religiously oriented movies. It was quite amusing, yet at the same time it was disturbing to find it so biblically inaccurate. The movie follows what is known as "the bible code" rather than following actual biblical scripture. This film is extremely poorly made; from its writing to its directing to its hilariously horrible acting. Its depressing that people actually put effort into this movie. It appeared more like a late night movie someone would watch on the USA channel or a straight to home video rather than a theatrical released movie.<br /><br />I highly recommend you do not watch this movie, even if your life depended on it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the crappiest film I have ever seen but in all fairness it's watchable and rather funny. I don't think the film-makers intended it to be your typical Hollywood blockbuster quality. It's just a stupid film about a serial killer who gets doused in a load of toxic waste causing a reaction with him and the snow (as it's the middle of winter). He then turns into a killer snowman which is enough to to make you laugh on it's own. This film is really stupid but it's funny. The killings are hilarious.I wouldn't advise you to go and buy it (like I did -the cover looked good!)but if it happens to be on TV one night and you're up for a laugh then stick it on.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to "The Prodigy" was not. It's sort of a bad mix between "Fresh" and "Animal House", except that both of those movies were good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Class is a comedy series that portrays a bunch of 27-year-old former class mates.<br /><br />I like the idea of the show. That's why it saddens me that The Class is not funny, even though it has the obvious potential. It's not enough corky, just dorky. (Haha.) This is due to a slowish tempo and the lack of actually hilarious punch lines. Also some actors have difficulties with timing.<br /><br />Most inventively written characters are the twins Kat and Lina Warbler (Lizzy Caplan and Heather Goldenhersh) but even they seem just a little too square for the good of the show. On the other hand the characters I find most uninteresting are the main character Ethan and the used-to-be- couple Duncan and Nicole.<br /><br />What bothers me with the series is that the only Latino character Aaron is being picked on for his accent (even though by a non-respectable character, but anyway).
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you didn't know better, you would believe the Christian moral majority in their preachy testimonial of the sins of the young, their questing for Satan, and that Hell was just brimming with Advanced Dungeons and Dragons fans.<br /><br />None of these items bears one grain of truth, folks. This work does nothing but give the Southern Baptists a chance to take a breath, while the movie continues to spout their erroneous and alarmist views concerning a creative and original gaming system.<br /><br />Tom Hanks contributes a stellar performance for this work, but even that wasn't enough to save it. It's crap. It's beneath crap. It is ignorance breeding ignorance and as such, it rates NOTHING from...<br /><br />the Fiend :.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I'd seen the name of this movie, I'd always thought it was a musical. Like "The Harvey Girls." It's not. It's a pudding that overcooked, hit the kitchen ceiling, and was pried off and cobbled together. No music and not a period piece but thoroughly improbable.<br /><br />It starts with patriarch James Woods telling the eldest of his three daughters, a small child who grows to be Barbara Stanwyck, that she must maintain the family name and home.<br /><br />We thus think it is going to be a historical intergenerational tale. And it is, for a brief time. Then it turns into the story of cold-hearted Stanwyck's fight against lawyer George Brent. Why is she so dead set against him? Well, why else? As we learn in a strange flashback sequence narrated by Stanwyck, she had once thought she could inherit some money (for her sisters as well as herself, of course) by marrying. She hit on someone she took to be a country bumpkin, who was in fact budding lawyer Brent.<br /><br />Lest anyone think the child they had, a young man of eight or so at the time of the main plot, is -- well, you know ... They had a hasty marriage and during the very short time they were together, he was conceived.<br /><br />One of her sisters is in love with a painter named Gig Young, who is played by Gig Young. The other sister tries to take him away. Etc., etc.<br /><br />It is a shrill, unengaging mess -- well enough acted but without a shred of logic or plausibility.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is a DVD published in the UK in 2002 Code HRGD002 on the cover, no ASIN, VFC 19796 on the disk, no IFPI code in the inner rim.<br /><br />Probably a straight transfer from VHS. <br /><br />There is no much point is commenting an adult film. But this one contains a minimal plot, and the characters are believable. It was shown in the United States in normal cinemas.<br /><br />I've seen it In Pensylvannia way back in 1975.<br /><br />As such it deserves a place in an Encyclopedia of Movies. The DVD has no special features and no subtitles, and was probably made using a VHS tape as source
|
Negative
| null | null |
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The main complaint with this film is the fact that I CAN NOT tell who is who. No racism intended, but these Asians look all the same! I can tell somewhat of the story, but heck thats about as far as it goes. The peoples identities are not a mystery, if they were a mystery I would care about them. Instead I wasn't them off the screen ASAP.<br /><br />Tons of wide shots and silent emotionless faces occupy this movie. Heck is it boring, not only do I not know these people, but they are just sitting there.<br /><br />The production is typical Chinese John Woo, terrible video with blotched scenes. This looks only slightly better than Andy Lau's "Fulltime Killer" (Which was a great movie.) You would think with a decent budget they could at least make it look like 90s Hollywood. I didn't know the Chinese had these art-house beatniks.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scary Movie 2 was a grave disappointment. Simply referencing movies, like Mission Impossible 2 does not lead to comedy. The movie opens well enough with a funny white people rapping scene and an excellent use of James Woods ands Andy Richter. The movie plummets from there unfortunately. The acting is awful. Tori Spelling looks and acts completely out of place. The movie looks hacked together and is surprisingly slow paced. Some of the longer gags in this snail paced movie, involving joints and a previously mentioned Tom Cruise movie, werent funny to anyone in my theater. The movie, thankfully, comes screeching to a halt at 83 minutes in a shockingly unfunny ending. (I say shocking because the ending does not even attempt to end with humor) I dont know what else to say except that is a sloppy rushed sequel done to make Miramax some more cash on the backs of dumb teenagers. Overall, a very poorly done movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.<br /><br />I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.<br /><br />Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.<br /><br />Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.<br /><br />I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared. <br /><br />When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think this film has been somewhat overrated here. There are some things to admire in it; for one thing it deserves credit for being a science fiction(ish) film which relies on its story instead of special effects and action sequences to carry the day. The supporting cast is good, the set design and cinematography are good, and the ideas are interesting enough (though they are beginning to seem a little tired after the many mediocre Dark City / Memento / Fight Club clones of recent years). But the film is undone by poor characterization, wooden performances from the lead actors, and a laughably bad ending.<br /><br />The main problem I had was that the protagonist was neither likable nor unlikable. I realize that part of the story dictates that he should be a bit of a (wait for it...) cipher, but I was utterly unable to work up any empathy for a character that just seemed like a boring, anonymous schlub of a man. What character transformation there is for this sad sack is artificially forced on him by the plot. Lead actor Jeremy Northam succeeds in conveying that the protagonist is confused and hapless, but fails at inspiring any sympathy for him. Opposite him, Lucy Liu does what she can with a character who has no real personality of her own, unless being the embodiment of a spy-movie cliché counts as personality.<br /><br />One of the biggest disappointments of this movie is the ending. I won't give any spoilers here, but I will say that a surprise twist at the end was telegraphed pretty clearly at least 45 minutes before it occurred. Further, after being content to be a quirky, idea-oriented movie for the first hour or so, the last few scenes suddenly and terribly devolve into the worst kind of Hollywood pap, complete with big explosions and special effects. The revealing of the film's McGuffin at the end is poorly done, and at the end the characters seem even less likable than they did before some of the film's main plot threads were resolved.<br /><br />The movie's not all bad, though. It does manage to maintain a certain low level of tension throughout most of it, despite the slow pacing (although I think I have a higher than average tolerance for slow-paced movies). And there are some moments when the unsettled, paranoiac feeling that director Vincenzo Natali was clearly trying to evoke rises to the surface. But in the end, these elements aren't enough to overcome the flaws in the film's acting and script. There is probably a good movie that covers these same themes and ideas, but this isn't it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am starting this review with a big giant spoiler about this film. Do not read further...here it comes, avert your eyes! The main heroine, the girl who always survives in other slasher films, is murdered here. There, I just saved you 79 minutes of your life.<br /><br />This is one of those cheap movies that was thrown together in the middle of the slasher era of the '80's. Despite killing the heroine off, this is just substandard junk.<br /><br />Both priests and college students get a bad rap here. They are pictured as oversexed, sociopathic morons who have way too many internal problems to deal with what looks like junior college campus life...and the college students come off even worse.<br /><br />"Splatter University" is just gunk to put in your VCR when you have nothing better to do, although I suggest watching your head cleaner tape, that would be more entertaining.<br /><br />This is rated (R) for strong physical violence, gore, profanity, very brief female nudity, and sexual references.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't like this film, but then I didn't think much of the book either which, although lauded by many as a "masterpiece", I found lacking in character development and disjointed and illogical in plot, although it was far more readable than Fante's dreadful first effort "Road to Los Angeles" not published until Fante became fashionable in the mid 80s.<br /><br />I was intrigued to see what sort of soup Towne would make with such meager ingredients. He has worked hard script-wise to repair the many shortcomings of the book but for my money didn't rescue it. There was never a movie in Ask the Dust while ever he tried to stay faithful to the book. I consider this film Towne's folly.<br /><br />In a word: forgettable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this movie because it falls under the genres of "romance" and "western" with some Grand Canyon scenery thrown in. But if you're expecting a typical wholesome romantic western, forget it. This movie is pure trash! The romance is between a YOUNG GIRL who has not even gone through puberty and a MIDDLE-AGED MAN! The child is also lusted after by other leering men. It's sickening.<br /><br />Peter Fonda is portrayed as being virtuous by trying to resist his attraction to Brooke Shields, and her character is mostly the one that pursues the relationship. He tries to shoo her off at first but eventually he gives in and they drive off as a happy, loving couple. It's revolting.<br /><br />I don't see how this movie could appeal to anyone except pedophiles.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and unfortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no scenery shots and very little back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrible. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was gypped out of 114 minutes of my vacation. Not recommended by any stretch of the imagination.
|
Negative
|
I had to compare two versions of Hamlet for my Shakespeare class and fortunately I picked this version. Everything from the acting (the actors deliver most of their lines directly to the camera) to the camera shots (all medium or close up shots...no boring scenery shots or back ground in the shots) were absolutely terrific. I watched this over my spring break and it is very safe to say that I feel that I was not doing homework anymore, I enjoyed 114 minutes of vacation. Recommended for those wanting to learn.
|
Positive
|
We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is barely watchable, and the acting is dire. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is disgraceful and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It tries to be gruesome in places but is just laughable.<br /><br />Just terrible
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the best film the Derek couple has ever made and if you think this is a recommendation then you haven't seen any of the others. There are the usual ingredients: it is just as poorly acted as their other efforts, we can watch Bo disrobing or auditioning for wet T-shirt contests quite frequently, the story is just laughably idiotic, and the film takes itself much too seriously. And then: Orang Utans in Africa?<br /><br />But it has a few things going for it. Bo looks great, the production values (sets, costumes, etc.) are quite good, and this greatly enhances its camp value. In a strange way it is actually quite funny, simply because it tries to be serious and fails so badly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have anticipated the various Sci-fi and thriller type movies this summer but was so disappointed about this particular film. While some people walked out of the film, I decided to stay, only to laugh along with the other moviegoers at the acting, lack of suspense, ridiculous ending and difficult to follow story line. I found myself almost as confused as the main character in the film. The only redeeming quality of the film was the soundtrack. This is one of those budding star films which they later regret doing. In retrospect, I wouldn't even rent this one, let alone pay more than $5 to see.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.<br /><br />The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of "Professor Jared diamond?". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel." BTW, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is said about 100 times. "Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.<br /><br />In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.<br /><br />I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the documentary.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The script is nice.Though the casting is absolutely non-watchable.No style. the costumes do not look like some from the High Highbury society. Comparing Gwyneth Paltrow with Kate Beckinsale I can only say that Ms. Beckinsale speaks British English better than Ms. Paltrow, though in Ms. Paltrow's acting lies the very nature of Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Northam undoubtedly is the best Mr. Knightley of all versions, he is romantic and not at all sharp-looking and unfeeling like Mr. Knightley in the TV-version. P.S.The spectator cannot see at all Mr. Elton-Ms. Smith relationship's development as it was in the motion version, so one cannot understand where was all Emma's trying of make a Elton-Smith match (besides of the portrait).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.<br /><br />The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm working my way through the Horror Classics 50 Movie Pack Collection and REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES is one of the movies in the set. I am watching them with my soon-to-be seven-year old daughter, which makes most of these movies a laugh riot.<br /><br />I had high hopes for REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES, after watching White Zombie, which is really the precursor to so much that is the mainstay of zombies in cinema (think Clive Barker's Serpent and the Rainbow and James Bond's Live and Let Die funeral scene, NOT Night of the Living Dead).<br /><br />However, even though the title includes the word "zombies," it is little more than a love triangle, involving anthropologist Armand Louque, who is smitten with Claire Duval; who in turn is taken with his companion Clifford Grayson. What a yawn-fest, my daughter fell asleep half-way through.<br /><br />I had a real hard time deciphering who these people worked for -- the allies or the axis; but, I guess that doesn't really matter.<br /><br />I was shocked to see Bela Lugosi in the credits for this movie; but, of course those were his eyes (from White Zombie) serving as the mind-control device for the zombies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I first popped in Happy Birthday to Me, I checked the timer to see how long the film was. I was amazed at the length. Both animated and horror films share a common ground: attention span of the selected audience and that should be at or right around 90 minutes. Anything more, and you'll lose the bulk of your audience.<br /><br />This 110 minutes, or 20 minutes past its prime was a huge problem for me. I'd like to say half of this movie could've been edited out, but I would be too generous to say that. Go ahead and watch it and tell me how many scenes could've been edited, even without being a film major.<br /><br />Regardless of the overstayed visit, the movie was below mediocre. It spent all of its time trying to be this huge mystery on which of the "elite 10" is killing off the remaining friends. For the most part, they not only over-do it, but they zoom in on a face and pretty much say "It's this guy! No! It's this gal!" You'll spend more time with the camera misleading you than actually enjoying the movie. And don't get me started on the acting.<br /><br />Okay, that got me started. I had to laugh in the beginning trying to remember if Melissa Sue Anderson played the character that went blind on Little House on the Prairie (later, research proved my suspicions correct) because all the way through this movie, she genuinely looked blind. Strange, as an established actress, she should've been the best of the group, but turned out the worst. The rest of the staff, aside from Ann (Bregman) was pretty damn bad, too, but she, uh, took the cake.<br /><br />The movie begins with a group of ten friends, and one's immediately killed off. Barely anyone thinks twice of this "dear" friend's disappearance, so they continue on their merry way. Slowly, then more rapidly, there are revelations about Virginia's (Anderson), the main character, past and her psychologist, who's a tad bit more personal (AND ON CALL 24/7, apparently) than most shrinks. All the while, more and more deaths occur.<br /><br />What's funny is, just as the first "disappearance," the more "best buds" vanish, the less the rest care. Sure, they give a few seconds of air time to say "Wow, (that person) just wouldn't run off" etc, but then they're back to their sexual ways. And speaking of which, it's probably due to the horrid script, or maybe it was I who was losing interest at minute 30, but it was really hard to keep up with who liked who of the group as they all seemed to be sexual partners of the next or someone would either be freaked out to the MAX by another and best friends the next scene. SEE: the creepy guy that kept a mouse/rat in his pocket literally and was the most obvious suspect. I'm giving the film too much credit (and time,) but how he became part of the "elite 10" I'll never know.<br /><br />But, I digress, there's a mystery here. Why are these kids targets? Why is Virginia thinking she's killed someone, when it was never proved ('till the end) that any of them actually has been slaughtered? And why would the trailer and poster claim these killings to be "Six of the most bizarre murders you will ever see"? Hell, even for 1981, most of these had been shown in any of the first two Friday the 13th films coincidentally enough, Friday the 13th Part 2 was released 2 weeks to the day of Happy Birthday to Me. Perhaps, they're speaking of when they filmed it months prior, but were late to the, well, party.<br /><br />When the "secrets" are revealed, trust me, you'll have to rewind 3-4x to actually get the laughable and incoherent motives, and even then, put the subtitles on to get all the mumbling victim/killer's words. Even if you get the first time, it's an unbelievably outrageous and hilarious finale. It's almost worth watching the whole movie again, but as a drinking game.<br /><br />This birthday gathering should be avoided. It's a horrible and illogical first draft script please, please know it takes multiple rewrites before the cameras role, it contains either way under acting or extreme over acting and it's 100% unrealistic on how people react in extraordinary circumstances.<br /><br />Side Note: When I was a kid, or say 10-11 years old, I loved horror films. (Still do, oddly. Definite guilty pleasures, but they are getting harder and harder to watch as years pass.) We got our first VCR, and I taped as many horror films off network (or, EDITED VERSIONS) TV. All I remember of Happy Birthday to Me is getting the last 10 minutes on tape, which scared me to death and obviously gave away the big mystery on who the killer was. Even though I have seen other clips of this movie, I think this is the first full-length viewing I've had. Thankfully, this awful movie didn't wound me as a child. I am older now, and I can take this trash. But never again.<br /><br />Side Note 2: That said, that crazy "Happy Birthday to Me" song played in the end credits (and as a score throughout) still creeps me out tremendously. I guess, this movie (or last few minutes,) did have an influence on my childhood. Shame on you, Melissa Sue Anderson!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'd like to start off by saying that I am NOT an anime fan (with a few notable exceptions), and I generally have a low opinion of so-called otakus, as they are so in love with their particular brand of cartooning that they label every movie starring spiky-haired, big-eyed characters as a work of art without even considering other more vital factors, such as the plot. And no anime movie better represents this division between otakus and people with actual taste than this elegant piece of trash, Fatal Fury: the Motion Picture.<br /><br /> As seen through the glassy, witless eyes of an otaku, there's little to find fault with in Fatal Fury-- there's plenty of quirky Japanese-y humor, one-on-one duels, some "dramatic" moments, and everything is beautifully drawn. But everyone else will be turned off by the cliched, predictable plot with cliched, predictable characters, culminating in a cliched, predictable ending. The love scenes are hilariously overblown-- the scene in which Sulia "heals" Terry is obviously intended to be a tender moment, but it's virtually impossible to not be thrown into spirals of giddy laughter by the sheer ludicrousness of it. And of course, Fatal Fury is not without the obligatory cartoon T&A-- this is supplied gratuitously by the huge-breasted Mai Shiranui. And since Fatal Fury IS based off the video game series of the same name (oh boy), we're treated to numerous pointless cameo appearances by popular characters with little or no relevance to the plot whatsoever (they go through all the trouble of introducing Kim early on, only for him to disappear from the movie totally after that point). This mess of a movie reaches its climax with the unintentionally farcical final battle, in which all the main characters engage the all-powerful main villain in one-on-one combat in turn. That's some thing that's always amused me... even when battles in animes AREN'T taking place in a tournament, they always happen as if they were, regardless of the fact that it makes no sense whatsoever!<br /><br /> Otakus always rave about how anime movies should be treated as MOVIES as opposed to merely cartoons, and a disturbing portion of those same people love Fatal Fury. So would Fatal Fury have been good if it wasn't an anime? The answer is an emphatic "no"-- all of this movie's charm, what little of it there is, resides in the actual drawings. Had Fatal Fury not been an anime, it would have been worthy of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000, if the show was still on the air. That's the key-- this is nothing more than a laughably bad B-movie in the guise of an anime epic. If you're a fan of movies so bad that they're actually entertaining, consider renting Fatal Fury (or catch it on the Sci-Fi channel), as it is definitely one of those. If you're an otaku, please WAKE UP and realize that a good 90% of the stuff you're watching is garbage. As for everyone else, buy a Dreamcast and Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves, but don't even consider seeing this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although the actors were good, specially Fritzi Haberland as the blind Lilly, the film script is obsessively pretentious and completely arbitrary. A famous theatre director (Hilmir Snær Guðnason), becoming blind after a car accident, is on the run for himself and his destiny. Lilly, being sightless since her birth, is teacher for blind persons, and wants to make him "seeing" again. (Blind persons are seeing with their fingers, nose and ears.) Here this movie is becoming a roadmovie; and the longer the road becomes, the closer their relation develops, which was predictable since the beginning of the film. The theatre director is on the road to his mother (Jenny Gröllmann). His mother is living somewhere in Russia on the sea and making artistic installations - of course, what should she do other! - and she is still living, because she is waiting his son, to die. My God! This are destinies!<br /><br />Finally the son arrived! Mum is celebrating a big party! At the beach. Wind is blowing and a pianist is playing on a real piano in the middle of a dune. Yes, they are celebrating her farewell. The son arrives just in time. Mother can finally swallow the pills administered by a pretty nurse. Now a great artist can die in the arms of her great artist son, speaking sad contemplations about live in perfect German, while the son is answering with a rough accent. Because the son is unable to see, he is not falling in love to the nurse, - the film script would have become also too complicate! - but is looking for Lilly on the way back to home.<br /><br />Parallel to this roadmovie the sister of Lilly, staying at home is asking a gawky schoolmate to deflower her, who has first to booze himself to courage. The occasion is favourable. Because Mum (Tina Engel) is on journey together with the lover of Lilly, Paul (Harald Schrott). They are after Lilly, to bring her back. Paul and the mother of Lilly are not falling in love, because the film script would have become too complicate. The film script missed to make out of Paul something exceptional too. I would suggest an architect or a Pianist, or course a famous one! When they finally find Lilly, they want to convince her, to come back to Paul, because he has two eyes to see and is able to care for her. But Lilly felt in love to his pupil, the theatre director; did I mention, that he was even a famous theatre director?<br /><br />This is German film art! As you may see in this pretentious production, that the German film subsidy fund is not always producing good films, because they subsidy just such kind of pseudo intellectual films. This film is really embarrassing. I have the impression, that the film script has been cobbled together from some highbrows in coffee shops and restaurants. Everybody is entitled to contribute with an idea. Probably also Til Schweiger has contributed with some intellectual flash of wit, being a co-producer. I was reminded by this film script to an other German film of absolute painfulness: "Barfuss" - already the spelling of the title is not right! "Barfuss" DVD cover writes proudly: "A Til Schweiger Film". This film got also subsidies of Filmstiftung NRW, Filmförderung Hamburg and the FFA.<br /><br />Please don't spoil your time with this film! There are really good films in Germany. Watch out for film directors like Marcus H. Rosenmüller, Joseph Vilsmaier, Hans Steinbichler, Hans-Christian Schmid, Faith Akin ...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow. This movie bored the pants off me when I saw it. Bland, pointless and unmoving.<br /><br />Apparently, Ash and co. can travel through time with the help of "The Spirit of the Forest" ('Princess Mononoke' much??) There, they meet a dorky kid named Sam, and the "plot" begins.<br /><br />So Tom (Ash) and Huck (Sam) get high with nature, become hippies and try to free Celebi (the "Spirit") from some weirdo hunter guy. I don't even know what else went on. It all went by in a blur. Ash's friends were hardly in it, and all the fight scenes were boring.<br /><br />After saving the day, Ash and his infamous friends, must return to their time, while watching Sam float away with Celebi (that scene was just creepy. O-O;) Then, after returning to their time, Ash learns that his new friend is actually his rival's grandpa. And I think that's it. Pretty retarded isn't it? If you love your children, you won't expose them to this. (1 out of 10.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have always wanted to see this because I love cheesy horror movies and with a title like this, I was sure "The Incredible Melting Man" would be a lot of fun.<br /><br />It really wasn't. I mean, the acting was entertainingly bad, the script contained some classic bad lines and the special effects looked like someone had sneezed all over the lead actor, so I should have loved it. Unfortunately it's really draggy between these highlights. I decided to watch the last half of the movie while doing my tax return. That's how boring this film is.<br /><br />Nevertheless, if you love bad movies you will enjoy the dramatic exit of the Fat Nurse, and the stellar acting of the guy who plays Dr. Ted. To be fair to the poor man, he does have to deliver some amazingly inept lines with straight face - like the conversation he has with his wife on tracking down the I M Man:<br /><br />"I'll find him with a geiger counter." "Is he radioactive?" "Just a little bit." <br /><br />Yes, the plot has Dr. Ted wandering about trying to find a superstrong zombie killing machine armed only with what looks like a mini-Dyson. He's a brave man. Unfortunately his plan fails when he finds a big lot of goop on a tree. "Oh god - it's his ear!" says Dr. Ted to the audience. I'm so glad he cleared that up. <br /><br />I realise I'm making this movie sound rather fun. It would be if it were only 10 minutes long, but unfortunately it goes on and on, and the Incredible Melting Dude just dangles about making a sticky mess when he should be eating more people in my opinion. I think if you were truly stoned you would probably love it, just don't have pop-tarts during the movie, because the lead actor really does resemble one near the end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read somewhere that Hollywood should concentrate on remaking bad movies and leave the classics alone. We can only hope. While this remake wasn't a total waste, I still wish I had the six bucks back to go toward a DVD of the original. Lots of violence and one of the worst endings I've ever seen. This version doesn't add anything new. It only reiterates why Hollywood should leave the good stuff alone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"New Best Friend" is another entry in the "steal another woman's life" sub-genre; the best of which are "Single White Female" and "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle"; the worse of which you can catch almost any afternoon on the Lifetime Channel. For some reason this type of identity theft happens exclusively to women.<br /><br />There are just two basic ways to play this type of story. You can make the woman evil at the beginning and let the audience watch knowingly as she hatches and implements her evil scheme. Or you use misdirection to make her appear a good person, as a seemingly unplanned series of events break in her favor until she is revealed to be evil in the climatic scene. Unfortunately the makers of "New Best Friend" could not decide how they wanted to play it and things crash and burn early. We first meet Alicia (Mia Kirshner) scamming the college's financial aid office for scholarship money. We now know that she is a bad person and will view all her subsequent activity with suspicion. But the director and editor apparently forgot that this revelation had been made and spend the next 50 minutes laying misdirection to make us think that Alicia is a good person. This introduces the only element of suspense, not about whether she is evil but about when the director and editor will wise up and stop wasting our time with transparent misdirection.<br /><br />"New Best Friend" suffers more than most from the teen movie curse of a cast too old to be portraying undergraduate students. There are really only two big parts, Hadley (Meredith Monroe) and Alicia (Kirshner). They were 31 and 26 respectively at the time of the production. It almost works for the 26 year-old Kirshner when she plays the mousy version of Alicia but it becomes glaring when she is transformed into the glamed-up version of Alicia. Monroe's casting is simply a joke, about like having Nicholette Sheridan try to pass as a classmate on "Lizzie McGwire". She looks much closer to a mid-life crisis than to a term paper.<br /><br />The producers must have owed a lot of favors because this age issue extends to most of the supporting characters. Taye Diggs who plays the town sheriff is younger than most of the students.<br /><br />The basic setup is that Hadley and two other rich party girls (played by Dominque Swain-age 21 and Rachel True-age 35) are undergrad roommates at college. They share (as their student residence) a mansion that is nicer and better furnished than the mansion on Real World-New Orleans (a premise more believable than soccer moms playing students). Alicia moves into the mansion and begins to take over Hadley's life. At least that way Swain finally gets a roommate from her own generation so the two can have a lesbian scene. Swain's supporting performance is the only good thing about "New Best Friend" and her love scene with Kirshner is fantastic, so cool and artsy that it doesn't fit with any of the other segments, maybe it was subcontracted out to a good director and cinematographer.<br /><br />The unintentionally hilarious story is presented in a series of dreary flashbacks of rampant sex and nonstop parties, each proceeded by a shot of a comatose Alicia in a hospital bed. About half of Kirshner's screen time is spent lying motionless with a tube in her mouth. Not a good career move Mia.<br /><br />Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was the worst film i have seen for a long time. <br /><br />Not only that it has nearly nothing to do with the other American Pie movies, the story is obvious, flat and absolutely not funny. <br /><br />The girls are nice though, but spending your time watching a cheap soft porno would possibly be greater than watching this film.<br /><br />This film seems to be a very bad made sex ad, made for an audience that is not older than 12.<br /><br />I never visited an American college, but i would seriously doubt that anyone who did could really laugh about any of the scenes.<br /><br />Save your time, do something else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a truly wretched little film. Admittedly the original (un)holy trinity was governed by the law of diminishing returns with the third, "The Final Conflict" degenerating into a ridiculous sub-plot about half-way through the film apparently merely to provide the requisite needlessly convoluted deaths that had by now become the whole raison d'etre for the "Omen" series. But then to foist this jumped-up TV movie (beware purchasers of the Omen box set on DVD - don't be fooled by the widescreen ratio of the transfer, this was and is strictly small-screen stuff) on the back of a series of generally fine demonic chillers was unforgivable, particularly, endorsed as it was, by the exec.producer and producer of the first three movies Mace Neufeld and Harvey Bernhard. I'd give-away the plot if there was any, besides the usual death scenes (hopelessly toned down for TV sensibilities) and some of the worst acting I've seen. All involved in this project down to the catering people should be ashamed this travesty ever made it to the screen, let alone masquerading under the Omen name. If one person is convinced by my review to avoid this mess, I'll feel better for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you want to see intelligent, philosophical discussion of human possibility and potential, watch "Waking Life," which is brilliant. "What the #$*! Do We Know" is all over the place in its focus, poorly directed, poorly written, poorly acted, utterly devoid of any art direction and completely annoying. It wasn't thought-provoking or entertaining in the slightest. The inclusion of that rambling freak "Ramtha" in this film is reason enough to avoid it. Isn't it strange how the filmmakers choose to look over the fact that this woman worships some 2,000 year old Atlantian god or something? What a flake that old chick is, and what a total waste of my time and money this movie was. The people responsible for this film should not be allowed to make another movie ever again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't think this is too bad of a show under the right conditions. I tolerated the first season.<br /><br />Unfortunately, this is a show about lawyers who aren't really lawyers. God forbid anybody actually go to law school based on these shows, which I had heard was the case when I watched some interviews of the show. It just made me gag a bit.<br /><br />That aside, Spader and Shatner, who are supposed to be the stars of the show, are the most annoying. While this might be a compliment in some situations, it's certainly not here. Their constantly harassing the women on the show is funny at first. But since that's what they're doing literally all the time, I've realized that this is as deep as the show is going to get. Trying to intersperse some serious, dramatic, and even tear-jerking moments in the middle of this mockery of a real show fails to compensate for the progressive loss of interest I've been experiencing trying to enjoy the show.<br /><br />Alan Shore's flamboyant and gratuitous "public service announcements" where he spouts off his opinions do not impress. Denny Crane is just annoying. I was embarrassed for him and for the writers of the show for Crane's speech wearing a colonial outfit.<br /><br />I'm giving two stars because there are moments where I thought the show's attempts to deal with some contemporary issues were done with care.<br /><br />I think the show's writers became aware that the sexual harassment displayed by Denny and Alan was getting overbearing even to those who were more inviting of them from the start. The thing is, I don't care if the sexual harassment treatment in the show is done well, but I just felt that the writer was insulting me with artificially implanting sexual banters all over the show in the hopes that my libido will keep me coming back for more. I'm not a teenager anymore, and I think this show is promising if its goal wasn't to cater to the lowest common denominator to get ratings.<br /><br />Of course, I'm writing this after I realized that it's really not gonna get much better than this. It's a shame because it's one of those shows I'd love to love.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't think this was as absolutely horrible as some people apparently do. It passes as one of those cheesy horror movies you might waste time with in the middle of the night when you can't sleep, although admittedly it's no better quality than that. It's true that the acting isn't great - I thought Marianne McAndrew as Cathy Beck, for example, came across as completely passionless - but the main problem is that several aspects of the plot didn't really make sense to me. The Becks are on a trip described by John (Stewart Moss) as part work and partly the honeymoon they never had (now that's romantic!) The work part has something to do with touring caves, which in itself sounds strange (how does being part of a tour group through a cave relate to anyone's work?) but it gets stranger when we find out that he's a doctor doing research in the area of preventative medicine (huh? That connection completely lost me.) Bitten by a bat while he's in the cave, he begins to transform into what I guess was supposed to be a human-bat hybrid (although when we finally see him in makeup he looks a lot more like an ape-man of some sort) and a killing spree starts. Here's another problem. The first killing is a nurse in a hospital. At first, everyone thinks her death was an accident. The second murder is of a young girl, who is described as having her throat ripped out. The sheriff (Michael Pataki) then tells us that her death was similar to the nurse's (meaning throat ripped out? - How could anyone think that was an accident?) And what's with the sheriff? He seems pretty no-nonsense until the scene in Cathy's hotel room when he takes a swig of liquor and then almost rapes her, after which everything seems to go back to normal. It's saddled with an ending that left almost everything unresolved, and also with one of the most irritating theme songs I've ever heard in a movie. Even for all that, there was something here that kept me watching. Sometimes pure cheesiness can get you through an hour and a half. Pretty bad, yeah - but not as awful as some people say.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What's this? A Canadian produced zombie flick that I have never heard of before. A mortician works on the body of a recently deceased young man. This allows for an extended flashback that show how the guy got there. Basically, he and friends went to a cemetery on Friday the 13th and raised the dead thanks to his silly chanting. Cut back to the morgue where our dead body comes back to life and kills the mortician and owner (who gets his eyes popped out). The final WTF? shot has the funeral home owner in a straight jacket and screaming, "I'm not crazy!" Amazingly, he has his eyeballs back.<br /><br />Running a scant 58 minutes, this is certainly one oddity in zombie cinema. It feels a lot longer, but put me in some kind of trance where I couldn't stop watching. The film also has one of those "if you see this image, turn away from the screen" gags. It is the image of an old man getting sick in a theater (prophetic?) and when he pops up (only twice) the blood begins to flow. The scenes are pretty damn gory for the time period. There is a great gaffe where a zombie chops off a girl's right hand with a shovel, but - when he pulls the fake hand into the frame to chomp on - it is a left hand.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't know if i would laugh or cry seeing this. Only addicted fans of danni filth could have a taste for this. This is supposed to be a horror movie but there's only filth in this. The most cool scene is the car accident, with real special effects from the best of hollywood. Avoid this movie at all costs. See this only for studies of how bad can be a movie................
|
Negative
| null | null |
"This story is dedicated to women," according to the introduction, "who have been fighting for their rights ever since Adam and Eve started the loose-leaf system." When "Politics" was filmed, the Nineteenth Amendment, guaranteeing women the right to vote, was only a decade old. And, the film deals with the wielding of political power by women as a voting group. Advocating prohibition, and shutting down speakeasies, was a main concern for women at the time.<br /><br />Good-natured Marie Dressler (as Hattie Burns) becomes politically active, after a young woman is shot and killed coming out of a speakeasy. She wants the liquor-selling joints closed; and, is drafted into a Mayoral run, after delivering a powerful speech at a women's rally. Ms. Dressler is supported by her tenants, best friend Polly Moran (as Ivy Higgins) and her stuttering husband Roscoe Ates (as Peter Higgins). Dressler's run for Mayor of Lake City draws opposition from men in town; so, Dressler orders the women to go on strike, denying them, "everything" in the "parlor, bedroom, and bath." <br /><br />The film sounds much better than it turned out. The humor, frankly, isn't too good; and, it features some unfunny and moderately offensive situations ("You look like Madame Queen" refers to an Amos and Andy character). And, the mixing of shootings and slapstick doesn't mix well, this time. Producers might have considered making the film more dramatic, focusing exclusively on Dressler and the characters played by William Bakewell (as Benny Emerson) and Karen Morley (as Myrtle Burns).<br /><br />**** Politics (7/25/31) Charles Reisner ~ Marie Dressler, Polly Moran, Roscoe Ates
|
Negative
| null | null |
No, just kidding. It was God-awful.<br /><br />I was watching my local Sci-fi station last night, which plays movies, every night, within a monthly theme. This month it's "Space Turkeys, Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The Bombs". Movies so bad, they should never have been made. This was a good selection.<br /><br />Everything about this movie is thoroughly horrible with two exceptions, the gore make-up (which showed potential) and the editing (which slightly out did the rest of the movie, in terms of being horrible). The acting is horrible all around, the dialog is horrible, the script, the direction. It's not a good movie.<br /><br />It consists of two forms of special effects, gore and stock footage of space. I'll focus on the gore. Watching this movie, I thought to myself, "What WAS the motivation behind the making of this movie?" People like making stuff, sure, but I was hesitant to think anything good could have come of it for anyone involved. I came to the conclusion that this movie was made as a means to increase the Make-up Effects guy's Demo Reel. He (Rick Baker) actually went on to a pretty nice career, he's worked on STAR WARS (1977), KING KONG (1976), MEN IN BLACK (1996), and even THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING WOMAN (1981), plus a number of other notable flicks. Other than that, I can't say I've ever actually SEEN a real, live melting man - incredible, or otherwise - but I'd have to say this seemed to be a fair representation of one.<br /><br />Now, when I think of bad editing, I usually think of maybe a scene where someone's talking on the phone and then, in the middle of the scene, the phone jumps down to his shoulder, or something to that effect. This movie really serves to highlighted the fact that bad editing can take many forms. Specifically, over-long and utterly useless scenes. Just about every scene dragged on longer than it should have, from a little bit of dead air to that crazy-long screaming scene with Cleaver Girl. And that severed head in the river, the head gets thrown into a river (in slow motion), the movie carries on for a couple minutes, and then we cut back to the floating head and watch it fall down a waterfall. While I'm sure they were all very proud of their severed head, WHAT THE HELL??<br /><br />Lastly, I'll mention the running fat lady/slow motion scene right near the beginning. The jerky slow motion tells me that they didn't shoot the scene in slow motion originally but later decided that it "wasn't working like that" and then slowed it down. Oy vey. In any event, if you should ever see another movie in which a hysterical fat woman runs down a hall and then directly through a closed, glass door - all in slow motion, mind you - remember THE INCREDIBLE MELTING MAN, for *this* is where it all started.<br /><br />Movies like this are best viewed at home with a bunch of friends. This one's a little slow most of the time but that's just all the more time to come up with your own one-liners. It's not the worst of the worst but it's pretty freaking bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh dear. Some of the best talent in British TV made this serial, and so I can only assume that they were working under incredible time pressure, and had to settle for first takes of many scenes.<br /><br />There ARE some frightening scenes in this Highland mystery (mostly when the "monster" attacks and we see it from his point of view), but I'm afraid that I found most of the story unintentionally funny ! Such as the moment when the hero discovers a dismembered corpse on a golf course: Oh look, there's a hand ... oh, and there's another hand over there ... hmm this is a bit puzzling ...<br /><br />For many years fans of British cult TV shows campaigned to have this serial released on VHS or DVD, but the BBC always said no. Now I think I understand why !
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even though an animated film it really bored everyone under at least 6.<br /><br />As a grown up who grew up in an area with wild horses and native americans, it felt this was a combination of PC mixed in with too many fantasy films created by people who never lived in the area they filmed about. Talk to those who have lived on horse back, most treat their animals like family members, regardless of background. Regardless of background we have dealt with good and bad breakers of wild horses. I had to explain that was a real life issues to us vs the movie makers views to children who were surprised to see how PC showed a world different than what they knew in reality.<br /><br />This dreamworks break from the normal disney or dreamworks fare of cute talking animals burning up the screen was nice from the older viewer point of view. But if you live in an area similar to what is shown, you may end up answering questions.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Against All Hope is a very poorly made, sometimes painfully so, movie. This is Michael Madsen's first movie, and it shows, he isn't that good in it. Some people might find the story laughable; an alcoholic realizes his life and family are falling apart so he calls a preacher as a last resort for help. After telling the preacher his story, he accepts Jesus Christ into his heart. <br /><br />I actually found many of the religious scenes, as when Cecil Moe (Madsen) goes to a church but walks away from it, pretty realistic. I also liked how Cecil knows his life is breaking apart and tries to get help, but realizes only God can help him. At the end he realizes with the help of God he can go through life without drinking again.<br /><br />This movie is not well made at all. The acting is bad, the script could use some work, and looks worse than my home videos, but it has a good message. Now, just because you become a Christian doesn't mean you will automatically be able to stop an addiction or heal your broken family, and Cecil realizes this and works hard to stay on track. Overall, if your a Christian you will appreciate how this movie portrays Christianity and if you aren't, you may find yourself being called to find out more about the faith.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.<br /><br />Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.<br /><br />Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory.....
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is only the second time I stopped a video/DVD part way through.<br /><br />I was willing to give this film the benefit of the doubt at first, even though it managed to be both shallow, clichéd and stupid.. AND joyless, plodding and pretentious.<br /><br />It was like an After School Special directed by that weird grade nine kid who thinks nobody understands him... creepy and sad, with voice-over narration that only the most deluded adolescent would consider poetry... and some singing, and... no, really, the poor child's suffering...<br /><br />Enough, already, especially when it morphed into a brazen, clumsy, and insulting Clockwork Orange ripoff. And did I mention the singing?<br /><br />This isn't the worst film I've ever seen, but certainly the one I've felt least compelled to sit through. I don't recommend it to anyone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Am not familiar with the trilogy but came upon this film last night on Showtime. The film looked very well done with the set design and the cinematography, but the screenplay was stilted and wooden. The acting was fairly bad- thought the two female leads were serviceable. You never really believed anything the supporting actors said though. There were the stereotypes- bible-thumping Reverend without a hint of nuance, authoritative Captain, hot-headed soldier, etc. I am sorry to say that based on these deficiencies I clocked it straight away as Canadian without knowing it to be such-the Telefilm Canada end credits gave it away. I know I'm a horrible person.<br /><br />Maybe I missed something in the beginning but the hostility towards the girls is never explained. Here they are besieged in a fort by werewolves and the men are wasting time and energy brutalizing two young women for no reason. FOCUS people. There's a bit more of a pressing situation beyond your walls than whether or not these girls are lesbians-that's just my inference for the hostility directed towards them. If they can aim and fire a gun you might as well make nice with them. The question of their "immortal soul" can be resolved later.<br /><br />Also, I guess this relates to the rest of the trilogy, these girls are supposed to be the protagonists? One of them murdered the Indian guy at the end that saved one of their lives. I guess one is just a victim of her condition who can't be necessarily blamed for her actions, but the other is just a murderer who doesn't deserve her happy ending.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Someone will have to explain to me why every film that features poor people and adopts a pseudo-gritty look is somehow seen as "realistic" by some people.<br /><br />I didn't see anything realistic about the characters (although the actors did their best with really bad parts) or the situations. Instead, I saw a forced, self-conscious effort at being "edgy", "gritty" and "down and dirty".<br /><br />Sadly, it takes a lot more than hand-holding the camera without rhyme or reason and failing to light the film to achieve any of the above qualities in any significant way.<br /><br />It's a sad commentary on the state of independent film distribution that the only films that see the inside of a movie theater are nowadays all carbon copies, with bad cinematography, non-existent camera direction and a lot of swearing striving to pass themselves as "Art".<br /><br />It's little wonder that films like "In the Bedroom" or "About Schmidt" get such raves. I found them to be meandering and very average, but compared to the current slew of independent clones like "Raising victor Vargas" they are outright brilliant and inspired.<br /><br />A few years ago seeing an "independent" film meant that you would likely be treated to some originality and a lot of energy and care, and maybe a few technical glitches caused by the low budgets, nowadays, it means that chances are you'll get yet another by-the-numbers, let's-shake-the-camera-around-for-two-hours attempt at placating the lack of taste of independent distributors. And of course all that to serve characters and situations that are completely unreal and contrived.<br /><br />Is it any surprise that the independent marketplace has fewer and fewer surviving companies? Not at all when you see films like Raising Victor Vargas that do nothing but copy the worst of the films that preceded them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Absolute Beginners" was a film for the younger generation, a multi-time film that discussed the issues that teens were facing in Britain and how these troubled, constantly hitting each note, teen's problems can relate to the youth of tomorrow. It could have been dubbed the "Moulin Rouge" of the 80s, but it disappeared. It made its very shallow mark on the world, snuck under the radar, and can now be found collecting dust at either the musical section, the comedy section, or the politically obscure section of that seedy video store that doesn't need chain money to survive. Alas, that wasn't where I found it but I found it, watched it, tried my hardest to sing along with it, stared into Bowie's eyes, but found myself faded by the end. Did it not survive the test of time? Is 1950s London too far removed from our current society? Is Bowie too creepy? I think "Absolute Beginners" falls somewhere into each of these questions as the perfect example of cinema that starts out with a bang, but withers to a mere sparkle by the end.<br /><br />"Absolute Beginners" opens with a huge number that takes us through the non-gritty streets of London which involve theft nightly, prostitutes on every corner, dance throughout, booze like rivers, and the swankiest ties on nearly every individual. Sounds like a place we would all hate to be
right? Director Julien Temple keeps the mood light and flashy throughout most of the songs as we attempt to learn something about a plethora of our main characters. The one we follow most is Colin played by Eddie O'Connell who follows his dreams of being a photographer while shooting his favorite girl, Suzette (played by Patsy Kensit). These two have chemistry, and while Suzette looks like a pre-rehab Lohan, to me they worked. There was a huge spark between them, the chemistry was like lava, and I believed that these two could take me down a road I had never traveled. I was ready but then, something happened. Temple takes us out of the nightlife, takes us out of the city we grew up with at the beginning, and completely reverses the roles without any dedication to the first. Suzette runs away, Colin becomes a pervert, and Bowie
well
I am not quite sure what his role is but he sings amazingly well while climbing a mountain I can tell you that much. Temple gives us this flashy city, this opportunity to see those that inhabit it, but leaves us hanging high and dry when it is time to pull the trigger. We learn about Colin, mainly, but nobody else. I could probably watch this film again and still be equally confused as to whom is angry at whom, and what importance fashion had to that era. Also, were they teens really they all seemed like they were pushing their late 20s, but maybe it was my TV.<br /><br />Character development thrown right out the door, Temple tries to overcompensate by giving us bigger, more lavish songs using even more characters that we know nothing about. One of my favorite songs in the film uses this thought as a prime example. Temple uses a split house to show us the lives of Colin's parents (of which I didn't know it was them until after the film) and a song which screams apathy. Great song, too many characters, not enough time, suddenly dragged into another scene of missing coherency, and it just falls apart in your hands. Then, if that wasn't enough, we are rocking our heads to the beat of some great songs, rubbing our noggin' trying to understand where our characters are or are going, and Temple throws in hatred, anger, and politics into the final act. While I was hoping that this film would have a dedicated theme, I didn't think racism would be on the top of the bill. Suddenly, friends are missing, people are angry, and there is some random guy running around fighting Colin because he lives in poverty and has a friend of a different race? Somebody help me out here. It seemed completely rushed and overwhelming nearly to the point of wanting to turn the film off. To me, the ending of "Absolute Beginners" was nowhere near the excitement from the opening number. That first part set the pace, and Temple could not keep up.<br /><br />Overall, I must say that Temple can direct a music video, but I don't think he was quite prepared for the feature film. I don't think this film will ever make it into full "cult" status, and will probably remain unremembered or in the dollar bin for years to come. It is a fun film to watch initially, but when we get to that final part, it just explodes from the inside. I wanted some cutting edge work, but instead what I found was a freaky Bowie coupled with characters I cared nothing for. I could see how this film could relate to the youth of the 80s, but by the end it just felt forced. I think everyone in this production should have taken a moment and listened to "Motivation" by the ever-freaky Bowie in this film, it may have helped solidify this feature into better cult status. I am glad that I watched this film once, but that is all that my small brain can take. I loved the way that Temple caught me from the beginning, but he couldn't control his characters (way too many), and the songs didn't seem to match the final moments of the film. It came out of nowhere, and it was unwelcomed. If this was a film about racism, it needed to be from the beginning. "Absolute Beginners" was a welcomed adventure, but I don't think I will be dusting this film off in the future.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dolph Lundgren stars as a former cop/boxer who searches Boston's kinky scene to find out who killed his brother,who was well thought of in the community, however along the way he learns how his brother enjoyed kinky sex and that a serial killer is to blame. Dolph Lundgren is very good in this movie, in fact on the basis of his performance here, one would forget Lundgren's rise to fame involved action roles. That said the material gives Lundgren nothing to work with, in fact, Lundgren is completely left out to dry in a dreary thriller which is both predictable and incomprehensible. Co-Star Danielle Brett is also good, in fact the film works best when it centers around the chemistry of Lundgren and Brett, indeed had the film taken the time to explore their relationship the film would've been fairly decent. However the movie is lackluster, the action is non-existent, the plot not given enough exploration (Too much boring B.S around Lundgren's investigation of his brother's employer) and the film is needlessly gory and ridiculous. Once again, Lundgren is actually really good (As is newcomer Danielle Brett) but the film just lumbers from one sequence to the next, which makes this movie particularly disappointing. If anything else though, it shows how underrated Lundgren is, as an actor.<br /><br />*1/2 Out Of 4-(Poor)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Funny how many of the people who say this is far superior to Romero's version tend to be very young (judging by their other posts). What we have here is a slick, action packed, gory and "Whoopee" filled 2 hour MTV video. Frantic editing, pop-video camera work, "cool" music blah blah blah<br /><br />Actually it ain't bad compared to other recent remakes (Chainsaw Massacre was a total disaster)... pretty good acting all round, totally predictable in the "who will die next" stakes and a total cash in on the Dawn Of The Dead name that will generate plenty of revenue alone by fans of the original who will go and see it out of curiosity...<br /><br />Don't remakes of classics get on your nerves? Can they REALLY not come up with something original? Why remake Dawn Of The Dead? The things that made the original special (the middle segment kids think is so boring is supposed to be slow to show how when you get everything you ever wanted you still ain't happy) are totally missing. This is an action flick, plain and simple. The faster the better. If you are into action flicks (and as this, the 2004 version is well done) fair enough, but for anyone who likes a little substance to their films... get ready to sigh (again)...<br /><br />Watch the cinemas over the next few years as we get The Godfather series remade by whoever the most fashionable Pop director is at the moment, and Star Wars remade, with all the kids saying how the new version is miles better cos the old version is slow and boring and holds a camera shot for more than 5 seconds...<br /><br />Not bad, but in 10 years they will still be discussing the Romero version, not this pap
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is simply no use in trying to glorify any part of this film.<br /><br />It was straight up trash. At the very beginning you might think that you are in for a visually stunning piece of cinematography... and then shortly thereafter you are hit with a large sack (burlap) of FAIL! The fighting is barely martial, the acting is teetering on the edge of par, and the music is not worth describing. There is only enough of a story to have created an excuse for this film to have been made. The decisions that the characters make and the way that they deal with the situations is weak, and did nothing but frustrate me. I think that the only reason this film came about was to act as a bit of fan service by using Yumiko Shaku.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.<br /><br />The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.<br /><br />The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.<br /><br />There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film should have been only 10 minutes. I mean there is really only 10 minute worth of watchable content in this thing (I even hesitate to call it a movie). The opening credits of the film was somehow promising. As the film begins by short comments of the man himself, you really rub your hands and stay tuned for more footage from Cohen's life. Well, Nick Cave does a reasonable job covering one of Cohen's famous songs. The length of Cave's performance makes you even more eager to see more of Cohen whose wit and well spoken words have already tickled your fancy. But as it turns out Cave's performance is only the start of lengthy super boring performances by literally a bunch of no ones who don't even have a minimal attraction to keep you on your seat. I mean what does the filmmaker really think? five-minute close-up shots of wanna be singers in a fake concert in Australia!!! What does the filmmaker really think to insult the audience by adding "fake applause" to these endless nasty performances. The film is a perfect torture that shows you very little of what you came to see. There is not a single footage of Cohen's past. In fact, except for a few photographs of his early days as a singer/poet there is absolutely nothing! If you add up all the minutes that Cohen talks it may not even reach 10 minutes. But these 10 minutes are tortuously presented bit by bit in between disastrous camera-work that captures some of the most unattractive people screaming Cohen's lyrics. If you ever decided to waste your money on this film, DON'T! just throw it in the garbage and at least save your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If I could give it less that 1 I would. Do not bother to rent; if someone gives you the DVD burn it.<br /><br />This is horrible movie making. A total waste of even digital "film". I have seen better on Youtube made by 12 year old boys. Lommel claims to have written this, if that is the case he is a classic case of someone who is illiterate in two languages. The story line is none existent, the dialog is mainly screaming, the camera work is some sort of attempted arty flairs with nonsensical cutting of totally unrelated jumps to either industrial transportation scenes or some sort of odd angry young woman rift.<br /><br />I can usually follow a less than obvious plot or see the purpose in a "creative" film - I like David Lynch.<br /><br />This one is either so far beyond my limited powers of comprehension I missed it or it is totally pointless. I think this is a "lets see if we can grab a title that will be coming out soon and do a weird rift on it and see if we can grab some of the bucks" con job.<br /><br />I cannot see why Lionsgate even bothered with this. Totally worthless, it is so bad I will not rent any other by this same director.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Who could possibly have wished for a sequel to Bert I. Gordon's legendary bad trash-film "Food of the Gods"? Nobody, of course, but director Damien Lee thought it was a good idea, anyway, and he put together a belated sequel that stands as one of the most redundant movies in horror history. "Gnaw" is a sequel in name only, as the setting moved to a typical late 80's location (a university campus) and also the cheap & cheesy gore effects perfectly illustrates the 80's. This script hangs together by clichés, awfully written dialogs and plot situations that are not so subtly stolen from other (and more successful) horror classics. Neil Hamilton is a goody two shoes scientist who performs growing-experiments on ordinary rodents in order to do a fellow scientist a favor. Due to some incredibly stupid animal rights activists, the huge and ravenous rats escape and devour pretty much everyone on campus. Following the good old tradition that Spielberg's "Jaws" started, there's an obnoxious Dean who refuses to admit the problem even though severely mutilated corpses are turning up everywhere. During a hysterically grotesque climax, the rats invade the opening ceremony of the campus' new sport complex! "Gnaw: Food of the Gods 2" is terribly bad and therefore a lot of fun to watch! The characters do and say unimaginably stupid stuff (like descending into the sewers unarmed while they KNOW it's infested with rats), the acting is atrocious and there's a genuinely bizarre sequence involving the hero having sex under the influence of growth-serum! I wonder what Freud's theory would be on that! There's a satisfying amount of gore and sleaze and it has to be said the music is surprisingly atmospheric. In case you just can't get enough of this junk, there are quite a lot of creature-features revolving on mutated rats, like the Italian schlock film "Rats: Night of Terror", the modest 70's cult film "Willard" and its lame sequel "Ben", the 2003 "Willard" remake starring Crispin Glover and the surprisingly good recent rat-movies by once-famous directors Tibor Ticaks ("Rats") and John Lafia ("The Rats"). Go nuts!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The one sheets and newspaper campaign suggested (as often they did) a far more lurid and violent piece than showed up on the drive-in screens. Claude Brook is actually an Americanization of Claudio Brook, who worked in films for years. This one's quite hard to find anymore; I'd love to see it again to compare it to other international horrors of the day, but don't remember particularly impressed way back when. Chances are it was a chopped up version that made it to U.S. theatres and video. But oh, that one sheet...still a gem of my later horror collection.
|
Negative
| null | null |
JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.<br /><br />Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.<br /><br />Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.<br /><br />Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.<br /><br />The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.<br /><br />He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.<br /><br />I think... film over....<br /><br />Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.<br /><br />now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.<br /><br />That was one weird film.<br /><br />So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.<br /><br />Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.<br /><br />Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bela Lugosi is an evil botanist who sends brides poisoned orchids on their wedding day, steals the body in his fake ambulance/hearse and takes it home for his midget assistant to extract the glandular juices in order to keep Bela's wife eternally young. Some second rate actors playing detectives try to solve the terrible, terrible mystery. Bela Lugosi hams it up nicely, but you can tell he needed the money. <br /><br />This film is thoroughly awful, and most of the actors would have been better off sticking to waiting tables, but the plot is wonderfully ridiculous. Tell anyone what happens in it and they tend to laugh quite a lot and demand to see the film. I got the DVD in a discount store 2 for £1, which I think is a pretty accurate valuation, anyone paying more for this would be out of their mind.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Florence Chadwick was actually the far more accomplished swimmer, of course. She swam the English Channel both directions. She swam from Catalina Island to the California coast. Marilyn Bell's is a sweet story, but the usual glorification of us Canadians in the face of a superior world. Another sample of our inferiority complex. Our political system works pretty well and the health system allows people not to die in hospital lobbies. That's pretty good. Better than Lebanon. What should we do about hockey though...? And curling. The notion of calling this a sport, of its inclusion in the Olympics...! ah, but we digress...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alan Alda plays real-life "Sports Illustrated" writer George Plimpton, who was once invited to join the Detroit Lions football team as an honorary member. Rather wan, uncompelling drama curiously tempered with fantasy. Director Alex March takes an interesting tack on this material, shooting it in a quasi-documentary fashion (with macho commentary) and yet giving the tale a touch of Capraesque whimsy; still, by bringing out the cinematic flashiness in this set-up, he turns the main narrative into a jumble. Alda's smug, uncharismatic performance is another handicap, though the supporting cast is filled with real-life pro-athletes (and scintillating Lauren Hutton as Alda's girlfriend--how's that for a fantasy?). *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie gets both a 6/10 rating from me, as well as a 9/10. Here is why: As a standard horror movie for the standard horror crowd, where action and gore and scares are taken into consideration, this movie WILL bore you. It's basically a family drama similar to what you'd see on the Lifetime channel, but put in a horror universe. The story and formula are age-old, retreaded hundreds of times. If you're looking for any originality in the plot structure or the minimal conflicts, you'll be disappointed. Take away the zombies and you'll have something just as melodramatic as A Beautiful Mind, tripping on cheese. This is the 6/10.<br /><br />However, the basic synopsis and idea is pretty original and over-the-top. It's literally something you and your friends would joke about when you're half-drunk . . . but that joke actually got a theatrical release. The idea gets a 9/10 from me. The only reason it isn't perfect is because they could have taken it even further, but they didn't.<br /><br />The mix of both is mixed. I thought it was funny, but as with most all comedies, it wasn't THAT funny. I had my mom and little sister watch it with me and the jokes we made about it were funnier than the jokes scripted. There were moments of utter genius, but there were also moments of pure boredom.<br /><br />I sincerely hope that other movies take this kind of over-the-top risk and original ideas. I just can't say it was perfect, or even near it, because of the lack of originality to the plot.<br /><br />A GREAT family movie. A great movie to watch with a bunch of guys (or girls). A great movie to watch with anyone . . . but if you watch it alone, it will be a bit boring. Other people always make this kind of movie funnier and richer.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ariauna Albright is a really good actress but why she participated in this lame written travesty is a mystery. What could have been entertaining winds up as classic boredom. The unique thing about Ariauna is that she can act as well as look real sexy as opposed to her partner Lilith Stabs who looks fine but it is obvious she spent the money for acting school at the spa or beautician. This was a production that cried out for some T & A & with a imaginative script writer could have achieved it in the flow of things. However Ariauna does what she can under the circumstances & to a extent salvages her reputation. The Tempe company should be aware that when you dress two attractive women in skimpy fetish cop uniforms the viewers will expect some fetish play & T & A. Nough said.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although Bette Davis did a WONDERFUL job as Mildred, I felt that the film wasn't the best I had seen. At the end of the movie I was left feeling like there was something missing in it.<br /><br />Bette Davis did a perfect job, though, and she made me hate her and pity her all the while. Leslie Howard did very good as the lovelorn Philip Carey, and I so pitied him throughout the movie for being in love with such a horrible dame. It's such a sad thing when one finds him/herself in love with a bad seed. And especially if it's someone like Philp Carey, who is a sensitive person, though pathetic.<br /><br />In the end, the acting was what came through and not the plot. The ending scene was particularly good, but I am not one to give it away. Although others may find this movie good, I was one who found it so-so. I should recommend this movie to those who like a bad seed so they can see what may happen to them if they find themselves in love with that horrible person.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't for the life of me remember why--I must have had a free ticket or something--but I saw this movie in the theater when it was released. I don't remember who I went with, which theater I was in, or even which city. All I remember was how offended I was at this travesty someone dared to call a film, and how half the people in the theater walked out before the movie was over. Unfortunately I stuck it out to end, which I still consider to be one of the worst mistakes of my life thus far. My offense became pure horror when just before the closing credits the smarmy demon child sticks his head out from behind a sign and says "Look for Problem Child 2, coming soon!" That was hands-down THE most terrifying moment ever recorded on film.<br /><br />The plot, if I recall correctly, involved John Ritter and perhaps his wife (Lord, how I've tried without success to block this film out of my mind) adopting a "problem child." Maybe they think they can reform him, or something. I really don't know. If that was their intent, they fail miserably because from first frame to last this child remains the brattiest, rudest, most horrid demon-spawn ever to hit the big screen. Forget Damian, forget Rosemary's Baby. This kid takes the cake. The only difference is, we are supposed to feel sorry for him because he's a "problem child." However, this is impossible since this child is quite likely the most unsympathetic character ever portrayed. You want to kill him through the entire film, and when (SPOILER, like anyone cares) John Ritter decides to keep the vile hell-child you will be yelling "Send him back!" in shocked disgust (like several of the people at the theater where I saw it did).<br /><br />This is only the second movie I have given a "1" to on the IMDb. The other was Superman IV, and by God I couldn't tell you which was worse. John Ritter had a quote in TV Guide about the time that Problem Child 3, which he was not in, came out. He said something like "The only way I would do another [Problem Child] sequel is if they dragged my dead body back to perform." Amen to that!<br /><br />I would rather watch a 24-hour marathon of Police Academy sequels than see even twenty minutes of Problem Child again. 1/10, only because I can't give it a negative score, which is what it really deserves. Someone burn the original negatives of this film, please!
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's like this ... you put in the DVD and the most professional-looking thing you see over the next ninety minutes is the logo of the distribution company. And at this point, you know you've just been jerked around.<br /><br />People are generally trusting enough to assume that if something has been put on DVD, it's going to be of a certain level -- at least financially if not creatively. But sadly this isn't the case. Distribution companies are perfectly happy to throw together DVDs of amateur movies and ship them right out into the stores to await the unsuspecting buyer who is drawn in by the well-designed DVD cover. The weight behind this particular project is most likely independent horror movie pioneer Kevin J Lindenmuth, whose name may be known amongst genre fans since he's responsible for various other low-budget werewolf movies -- "Rage of the Werewolf", "Werewolf Tales" and so on.<br /><br />"Blood of the Werewolf" is made up of three short independent werewolf stories with no real connection other than the fact that they deal with hereditary shapeshifters. The first segment, "Blood Reunion", pretty much sets the tone for the whole thing ... a man returns to his home town to look up a girl who had a crush on, only to find that her domineering grandmother refuses to let her have relationships with men, and for reasons which are somehow related to a dark family secret. This instalment is poorly directed, poorly directed, and basically nothing superior to what you could throw together yourself with a few friends and a home video camera.<br /><br />The second story, "Old Blood", is probably the strongest out of the three and is directed by Lindenmuth himself. It tells the story of a lesbian couple, one of whom is a shapeshifter and the other wishes to be given this power. Her wish is granted, but she doesn't become the creature that she envisioned. This short movie shows that Lindemuth has more talent and experience than the other filmmakers who worked on this project, but still not enough to raise it above the level of an amateur movie.<br /><br />And finally we have "Manbeast", in which some army guy runs through the woods while being chased by two other fellas. They wish to kill him as he has been bitten by the beast and is believed to be dangerous, but all might not be as it seems. This one has an interesting concept, but it's stretched out to be far too long, and if you don't guess what the "twist" is in the first ten minutes then you probably ain't too bright. This pretty much sums up the problem with this whole DVD ... a few good ideas just aren't enough to justify spending money on something like this. After all, would you pay for a picture you could have painted yourself?
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a time we live in when someone like this Joe Swan-whatever the hell is considered a good filmmaker...or even a filmmaker at all! Where are the new crop of filmmakers with brains AND talent??? We need them bad, and to hell with mumblecore!<br /><br />This movie is about nothing, just as the characters in the film stand for nothing. It's this horrible, so-called Gen Y, that is full of bored idiots, some of which declare themselves filmmakers with out bothering to learn anything about the craft before shooting. Well, Orson Welles was a filmmaker. John Huston was a filmmaker. Fellini was a filmmaker. Dreyer was a filmmaker, etc. Current films like these show just how stupid young, so-called "filmmakers" can be when they believe going out with no script, no direction, no thought, no legit "camerawork" (everything shot horribly on DV), no craft of editing, no nothing, stands for "rebellious" or "advanced" film-making. Nope, it's called ignorance and laziness or just pure masturbation of cinema (and there actually is an in-your-face "jack-off shot," so be ready). <br /><br />Look at the early films of any accomplished "indie" filmmaker: Linklatter, Morris, Allen, Lynch, Hartley, Jarmusch, Jost, Lee, or Herzog...none made anything as tedious and aimless as this, yet Swan-whatever the hell, is still going to SXSW every year and hailed as some kind of gutsy, new talent. It's crap! I can't imagine anyone liking this, and everything else this so-called filmmaker has done (all seen by me) is just as bad (the newer stuff clearly made to appeal to a more mainstream audience, one of the sitcom calling). Steer clear, unless you're a friend or family member of those involved...on second thought, if you're a family member or friend you'd probably be embarrassed to see a family member or friend in such compromising situations...<br /><br />Utter garbage. This isn't art. This is the ultimate opposite of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high hopes for this film, because I thought CLEAN, SHAVEN (Kerrigan's first feature) was absolutely terrific, the most assuredly cinematic low budget film I'd ever seen.<br /><br />But much of CLAIRE DOLAN is utterly pointless and flat. Scene after scene seems randomly tossed into the mix, without much thought for narrative or character.<br /><br />Is Claire trying to escape being a prostitute or not? Hard to tell. Why does she pick up the trick at the airport if she wants to escape that life? Why does she then not pick up tricks when she needs money in Seattle? Why do we have to see her dye her hair to what is virtually the exact same color? Why does Claire accept some johns and not others? The filmmaker doesn't seem to know.<br /><br />It feels as if everything is improvised (though I understand this wasn't the case) and the filmmakers just held a camera on it as if they were making a verite documentary.<br /><br />After the screening I saw, Kerrigan defended his lack of narrative choices by condemning film narrative as politically conservative. It sounded like learned rhetoric. I think it was a cop-out.<br /><br />I am saddened that the maker of a film as exciting as CLEAN, SHAVEN would go on to make such a lame film as this one and then defend it with tired old "political" cliches.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.<br /><br />Movies like "Little Man" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.<br /><br />A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.<br /><br />Grade: F
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was a long build-up with no climax. People whom refer to the swordfight in the end as great must either be out of their minds, or have none. Way too often this movie got soft. I am not saying that soft movies are bad. But no matter how fond you are of sugar it should have no space on a T-bone steak. This movie was supposed to be about vengeance for crimes committed against a culture, but it ended up being a petty bar-brawl. And there was only one of them who actually knew what a sword was; Tim Roth's character (and yes, he plays him well). Rob Roy was a weak "hero" with no knowledge of how to use a sword, and the way he "won" was a disgrace. As a drama this movie had it's periods, but the best performance in it has to go the nature of Scotland. This is one tad breath short of being termed as "soap" in my book.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill "One-Take" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wealthy widower Anthony Steffen (as Alan Cunningham) is a sadomasochistic lover, and British Lord. He brings sexy red-haired women to his castle, where he whips and murders them. Black-booted stripper Erika Blanc (as Susie) gets away, temporarily. Mr. Steffen is haunted by wife "Evelyn", who died in childbirth. As therapy, he decides to marry again, after meeting pretty blonde Marina Malfatti (as Gladys). By the end of the movie, they will have had to dig a few more graves. "The Night Evelyn Came Out of the Grave" is great title, at least.<br /><br />** La notte che Evelyn uscì dalla tomba (1971) Emilio Miraglia ~ Anthony Steffen, Marina Malfatti, Erika Blanc
|
Negative
| null | null |
Necessarily ridiculous film version the literary classic "Moby Dick". John Barrymore is Captain Ahab, who falls in love with the pastor's daughter, Joan Bennett. His brother Derek is a rival for Ms. Bennett's affections. When Mr. Barrymore loses his leg in a whaling accident, Bennett rejects him. He must slay the whale and win Bennett back...<br /><br />There are several scenes which may have thrilled 1930 theater audiences; particularly the scenes involving Barrymore losing his leg. The film hasn't aged well, however; there are much better films from the time, both 1920s silents and 1930s talkies. The two name attractions, John Barrymore and Joan Bennett aren't at their best. <br /><br />**** Moby Dick (8/14/30) Lloyd Bacon ~ John Barrymore, Joan Bennett, Lloyd Hughes
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show is dull, lame, and basically rips off all sorts of various things in order to make it "original." First off: The animation is so ugly... Johnny's hideous... and everyone's annoying. The twins look like teen female Dexters from "Dexter's Lab," and Johnny is almost like a more intelligent male Dee Dee (also from "Dexter's Lab.") Secondly: The plots... are painfully lame, making them hard to follow. The gags are corny, and nothing really makes me feel compelled to laugh a little bit... especially when it tries to be funny. I only saw two episodes, but those alone turned me off.<br /><br />Third off: The whole theme song starts off by ripping off the tune to Green Day's "American Idiot." And, while I am not a big fan of that band, I find it really dumb that they would take the same opening melody, and then subtly change it, in order to make it their own.<br /><br />Case in point... it's a big fat ugly bore. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
|
Negative
| null | null |
*SPOILERS*<br /><br />I'm sure back when this was released in 1958 it was much appropriate for its time. Back then films were slower paced to allow audiences to follow and analyze the story. Here a man moves into a house owned by his last wife that died mysteriously with his new wife. The gardener Mickey (played by Alex Nicol, who also directed he film) really is an underappreciated character. He gets a skull to indirectly warn Jenni that she is in trouble, since he knew that there was foul play in the first wife's death. He can't tell Jenni directly what happened, so he tries to scare her off with the skull. Jenni, we also find out, saw her parents die, thus causing a lifetime of mental anguish that lead to institutionalization. Like many audiences today, I found the pacing to be a little too slow for my tastes. But if you like slow-paced horror without a lot of gore, this film is for you.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.<br /><br />Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.<br /><br />Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.<br /><br />Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't think I've ever felt this let down by a film before. After loving Guy Ritchie's two previous films (I don't count Swept Away - he was pussy blind), I was so looking forward to seeing this. <br /><br />The reviews were poor, then again, I don't trust the press anyway. More worrying was the fact that the internet buzz was that this was a bit of a stinker, so it was with some trepidation I handed over my £4.80 yesterday afternoon.<br /><br />I'm not even going to try to explain this film, mainly because I haven't got a clue what was going on and at one point I was honestly close to standing up and asking if it was just me who didn't get it! <br /><br />Unfortunately I think Ritchie seems to have fallen into his wife's trap of taking himself far too seriously.It seems it wasn't good enough for him to make films with good plots, laughs, snappy dialogue and good characters. It's almost as if he had a checklist of films he wanted to rip off, here are some of the ones I noticed:<br /><br />The Matrix, Fight Club, Kill Bill, The Usual Suspects, Vanilla Sky...<br /><br />I think the most frustrating thing is that the performances from the two main actors, Jason Statham and Ray Liotta, were actually very good and it was really the self indulgent story and editing / direction that let the film down.<br /><br />So a big, big thumbs down from me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Please, someone stop Ben Stiller from acting in ANY movie. Write the studios, hell, write your local congressman even. I've gotten more laughs going to a funeral then I have watching ANY Stiller flick. Jack Black tries to make something about a comedy about disappearing dog crap, and Christopher Walken, perhaps on of the greatest actors of his generation, simply looks embarrassed to be there. Stiller is his unfunny self,but now even with someone to bail him out, proves that he is way overrated as a comic. It's no wonder why this movie tanked badly, and was available of the dollar movie theaters after only a handful of weeks. I warn you, and you must warn your friends, Do not watch this flick, it is just awful, worst then Gothika (personally, i'd never thought i'd say that), worst the Plan 9, Worst the Ishtar, worst then The Golden Child. Please Hollywood, quit allowing Ben Stiller in your movies, he's not funny, he's a god awful actor, and he's bringing others down with him. The following film was ranked 1 because there are no negative scores allowed, so while the board says one, I'll give it a Zero.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie originally in the theater, when I was 10. Even at that age the 'humor' was mildly insulting to my adolescent intelligence.<br /><br />In the past, whenever I would see Ed Begley Jr. or jeff Goldblum I would cringe and start to feel very uncomfortable and even slightly sad. Until I was reminded of the existence of this movie today, I was unsure why I felt that way. Apparently I blocked my memory of this movie yet my negative feelings towards two of the perpetrators remained. Apparently I forgot that I saw this movie but subconsciously mourned the pieces of my soul that had been stolen, nay EATEN by the creators of this inhuman work.<br /><br />I haven't been brave enough to try watching it as an adult. I imagine that as part of the healing process that I should probably look at confronting this childhood fear so that I can *truly* put it behind me. Some regression therapy and / or hypnosis might not be a bad idea either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a film that belongs firmly to the 50's. Very surprising that American Film Institute has chosen this one for one for the best 100 American movies of all-time. I have seen practically all of the movies on that list, and this one is by far the most disappointing one of those. Musical numbers (and there many, many of them) are VERY overlong and boring, and have absolute no connection with the story. The end of the movie has horribly over-long ballet sequency, which naturally has no real relation to the story of the movie. It must be admitted, that it is very well made, the music is OK, and the dancing done with the highest professional standard - but there is no real reason why the sequence is included in the movie.<br /><br />The main character of the movie is extremely childlish and unlikeable and behaves in unpolite way. His mental age is about 14. If you want to see a good musical made on the "golden age" of musicals, go and see "Singing in the Rain".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am completely baffled as to why this film is even liked, let alone held in such high regard, especially by so many critics who are, otherwise, quite sensible.<br /><br />There is one key word which describes this film to its core - irritating.<br /><br />The most easily explained example of this is the director's use - or, more accurately, abuse - of music. In the first half, a really dull reggae tune is played about three times (when once is too often). But in the second half, The Mommas And The Papas "California Dreamin'" is played at least seven times, usually at top volume. Godsakes, whether you liked the song or not beforehand, you'd be thoroughly sick of it by the end. Just think, some people claim to have seen this film four or five times. This means they've listened to California Dreamin either 28 or 35 times.....<br /><br />All of this needless hyper-repetition (it contributes nothing to the story) could possibly be excused if the remainder of the film had any lingering merit, or if the story was in any way involving.<br /><br />But it ain't.<br /><br />The only aspect I found likeable was Bridgette Lin's charging around and still playing Asia The Invincible in a raincoat and sunnies. Even this wore off fairly quickly.<br /><br />I'm sure this film's undeserved high reputation will convince many poor suckers to go and see it.<br /><br />I can only warn you - if you've never seen a HK movie before, don't start with this one.<br /><br />If you feel compelled to watch it, avoid at all costs seeing it in a cinema. The fast-forward and mute buttons are essential tools for survival here.<br /><br />You have been warned !
|
Negative
| null | null |
A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.<br /><br />In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.<br /><br />In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.<br /><br />New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.<br /><br />The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love.. <br /><br />A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)<br /><br />In my way of thinking I think the title should have been<br /><br />NEW YORK, I HATE YOU.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ok I will sum up this movie... A bunch of skanky British women have some disease that basically is turning them into zombies. The whole movie consists of these women talking, smoking, and rarely going out for "meat" Or humans to eat. I swear I had to MAKE myself watch this movie... UGH
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.