input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Most college students find themselves lost in the bubble of academia, cut off from the communities in which they study and live. Their conversations are held with their fellow students and the college faculty. Steven Greenstreet's documentary is a prime example of a disillusioned college student who judges the entire community based on limited contact with a small number of its members.<br /><br />The documentary focused on a small group of individuals who were portrayed as representing large groups of the population. As is usual, the people who scream the most get the most media attention. Other than its misrepresentation of the community in which the film was set, the documentary was well made. My only dispute is that the feelings and uproar depicted in the film were attributed to the entire community rather than the few individuals who expressed them.<br /><br />Naturally it is important to examine a controversy like this and make people aware of the differences that exist between political viewpoints, but it is ridiculous to implicate an entire community of people in the actions of a few radicals.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Story goes like this, Netflix was late sending me my dvds so I went on down to the the analog rental place known as "Blockbuster Video" They suck you know. Real bad, They have 150 copies of the latest lame movies for your viewing pleasure yet I never want to see any of those. So I saw BTK Killer there on the shelf, all by its lonesome self. I like seeing films based on serial killers. Its just a part of humanity that I will never understand, therefore I wanna see that kind of stuff. Anyways I put this DVD in and all the sudden from the very first second, it sucks. I'm sitting there with my b.f. and we are like, "what is this kind of crap?" Unsteady camera operation, horrible acting,- the first scene in which a woman gets killed you wonder if she would rather just calmly gab instead, Then a rat gets stuffed down her throat. I really wonder if the director has a hard-on for this crap. There is nothing decent about this "film". All I have to say to the director is "do you own a freakin' tripod?" Every shot was brutally unstable. The music was awful. It was like they just decided one day to make a movie. They were probably gathering people from WalMart to show up and "act" for them. Just plain awful. If you make a movie like this then directing is your hobby-NOT what you should be doing for a living- SHould not make it to the DVD renal outlets for movie buffs like myself. Better left at home for your friends when you are having a party and run out of interesting things to entertain them with.... Then you break out your BTK KIller film and say, "Wanna see this crappy movie I did once?"
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read in the papers that W.Snipes was broke so no wonder he would take parts in low budget projects like The Contractor.He is just the next action star to join a growing club:the penniless action stars of the 90s (Van Damme,Segal,Lundgren,Snipes). Here he stars the lead in a cheap action flick which was shot in Bulgaria( we are supposed to believe that the location is London, like only a complete moron would buy that)The story is the one of 1000 other movies: retired special forces good guy gets hired by the government again to do a wet job- after that government wants to get rid of him- good guy gets away after killing bad guys (was that a spoiler? guess not!) The star of the movie: the little girl (Eliza Bennett) outperforms everybody else of the cast!!!One star is for her plus one star for eye candy Lena Headey, makes 2 stars. Only for die hard Snipes fans!Everybody else:avoid!
|
Negative
| null | null |
My title ought to be enough.<br /><br />It baffles me that a culture so rich in literary excellence (Dumas, Flaubert, Balzac, Maupassant) would churn out such tosh as the "nouvelle vague" cinematic movement. Until the 20th century, France had a great tradition of artistic lucidity and clever philosophy. But the minute you hand them a movie camera they start acting like WOOOHOOO LOOK HOW WEIRD I CAN BE! PLOT? THEME? PSHAW! LET'S FILM AN AMUSEMENT PARK RIDE GOING ROUND & ROUND! At least this is not as bad as Godard (who has an unhealthy fascination with the backs of peoples' heads. Oh-la-la, quel artiste.). No, Truffaut maintains a degree of visual clarity. But so does the security camera at a quickie-mart. The two are indistinguishable.<br /><br />Haha, just as an aside to all you dweeby film school nerds: I bet the vein is popping out the side of your neck right now. But don't leave without reading the last sentence of my review.<br /><br />Anyway, if you like French literature, you will HATE this. People who like this movie probably have never read any books other than the ramblings of Jack Kerouac or maybe "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy". Or maybe they have read the lyrics to The Doors songs, and they think that's profoundly moving. Whatever floats yer boat. I find it ironic that this film injects some (weak) allusions to Balzac, one of the finest and most meaningful writers who ever lived. Nice try, Truffles. But you're nowhere near the ballpark.<br /><br />Avoid this film like an aids-infected syringe.<br /><br />If you're the type of person who likes to think, then stick to Jean Cocteau (ORPHEE), Robert Bresson (PICKPOCKET) and the Japanese masters Kurosawa (IKURU), Kobayashi (KAIDAN) and Teshigahara (SUNA NO ONNA).<br /><br />If you're an idiot, enjoy your Truffaut, Godard, and Andy Worhol. And for pete's sake push that vein back in your neck. You look like a cabbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had read many good things about this adaptation of my favorite novel...so invariably my expectations were crushed. But they were crushed more than should be expected. The movie would have been a decent movie if I had not read the novel beforehand, which perhaps ruined it for me.<br /><br />In any event, for some reason they changed the labor camp at Toulon to a ship full of galley slaves. The scene at Bishop Myriel's was fine. In fact, other than the galleys, things survived up until the dismissal of Fantine. Because we do not want to have bad things happen to a good woman, she does not cut her hair, sell her teeth, or become a prostitute. The worst she does is run into the mayor's office and spit on his face. Bamatabois is entirely eliminated. Because having children out of wedlock should also not be talked about, Tholomyes is Fantine's dead husband, rather than an irresponsible dandy. Valjean is able to fetch Cosette for Fantine before the Champmathieu affair, so they reunite happily, yet another change. Then comes the convent, which is a pretty difficult scene to screw up. Thankfully, it was saved. After this three minutes of accuracy, however, the movie again begins to hurtle towards Classic Novel Butchering.<br /><br />As Cosette and Valjean are riding through the park, they come across Marius giving a speech at a meeting. About prison reform. When he comes to hand out fliers to Valjean and Cosette, he says the one line in the movie that set me screaming at the TV set. "We aren't revolutionaries." I could hear Victor Hugo thrashing in his grave. OF COURSE THEY ARE REVOLUTIONARIES! They want to revolt against the pseudo-monarchy that is in place in favor of another republic, you dumb screenwriters! It's a historical FACT that there was an insurrection against the government in 1832. <br /><br />At one point Cosette goes to give Marius a donation from her father for the reform movement and meets Eponine. Except...not Eponine. Or at least not the Eponine of the book. This Eponine appears to be a well-to-do secretary girl working for the prison reformers (who are working out of the Cafe Universal as opposed to the Cafe Musain). Not to mention the audience is already made to dislike her thanks to her not-period, low-cut, tight-fitting dress and her snooty mannerisms.<br /><br />The prison reformers (Lead by the most poorly cast Enjolras that I have EVER seen) decide that handing out pamphlets isn't good enough anymore. So they're going to build barricades. I don't know about you, but I have never heard of reform movements tearing up the streets and building barricades and attacking government troops. About three hundred people (it was not supposed to be so many) start attacking the National Guard and building a bunch of barricades, etc. Eponine does die for Marius, thankfully. <br /><br />The rest of the movie is sort of accurate, except that Javert's suicide again seems hard to understand thanks to his minuscule screen time and odd character interpretation. The movie ends with Valjean watching Javert jump into the river. This is again inaccurate because Valjean would never have let Javert drown. He saved the man's life earlier, why let him die now? Then there's the whole skipping of Valjean's confession to Marius, his deterioration, and his redemption on his deathbed with Marius and Cosette by his side.<br /><br />Overall, I can blame the script mostly for the problems. While I am glad Enjolras and Eponine were at least present in the film, they were terribly misinterpreted, as was the entire barricade scene. The elimination of Fantine's suffering prevents us from feeling too much pity for her. That Cosette knows Valjean's past from the start messes with the plot a good deal. I did not even see Thenardier, and Mme. Thenardier only had a few seconds of screen time. The same with Gavroche. I did like Frederich March's interpretation of Valjean a lot, however, which was one of the redeeming features of the movie. On the other hand, Charles Laughton, for all his great acting in other movies, seems to have missed the mark with Javert. The lip tremble, the unnecessary shouting, and his acting in general all just felt very wrong. He also, like many Javerts I have seen, did not appear at all menacing, something required of the character.<br /><br />Again, this film would probably feel much better if I had not read the book. I would not recommend it to book purists, though. I would also say that the movie would have been a good adaptation for the time had not the infamously accurate French version come out the year before.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As an engineer, I must say this show's first season started out very promising. Most of the applied mathematics were somewhat plausible, and the relationships portrayed between the Eppes brothers and father gave the show an interesting edge.<br /><br />But after the first season, the show started degrading, heavily. Most of the mathematics and technology used in crime solving is now utter gibberish and very laughable to all people involved in science & technology for real.<br /><br />The involvement from the actors still feels okay and I can imagine a fair amount of money is still going into producing each episode, but in the end, this has degraded to a very unpleasantly tasting dish which is a mix of a grade C action thriller and CSI style cop show.<br /><br />If you are gonna watch it, go for only the first season and possibly parts of the second. Thereafter I would not waste my time. Myself, I gave the show up midway through season 3.<br /><br />Season 1 - 8 stars Season 2 - 5 stars Season 3 - 3 stars<br /><br />Let's sum that up to 4 stars. Since Charlie doesn't know his math anymore, I won't bother with the correctness of mine either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll be blunt and to the point. This film is not good at all. The film buff part of me hated the acting, script, story, direction and almost all of the editing. Amanda Peet has proven that she can act, as she was a high point of 'The Whole Nine Yards'. So she should have avoided this movie with a ten foot pole. However, the infantile part of me found this film to be very funny. If you can forget about how underpar the production quality is, and if you find smut jokes funny, then you should be all right. And for those of you who can't get off your pedestal, thats your choice. My inner child hasen't died, and I laughed a fair bit. Even then, only a 3 out of ten, because as a movie, it really does stink.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's been nearly 30 years, and I STILL hate everyone involved in this movie. It remains the worst movie I've ever seen.<br /><br />Before seeing this, I never much minded Rivers, one way or the other. After seeing this movie, I have an allergic reaction when I accidentally see her on television.<br /><br />I got dragged to this - against my better judgment - by peer pressure. However, coming out of the theater, those friends swore an oath to never again overrule my choice of movie. Nearly thirty years later, we still carry around mental scars from this movie.<br /><br />On my deathbed, one of my regrets will be the time I wasted hoping that this movie might get better. It never did.<br /><br />If you are ever given a choice, you would prefer putting your own eyes out to sitting though this movie.<br /><br />I registered for IMDb comments just in the hope that perhaps I can warn others against viewing this movie. If I can save just one person from watching this, then my existence on this earth will have been justified.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I must preface this by saying I am a huge romantic. Hence I really wanted to like this film. So I'm writing my thoughts to save the rest of you from the disappointment I felt watching it. The Leap Years tells the destiny-filled tale of Li-Ann who falls for the suave Jeremy and they commit to meet every leap year. A very romantic premise, based on a great short story and with a cast that doesn't feel like you're watching yet another Jack Neo flick. Then why oh why is it so bad? Firstly, I feel the filmmakers thought they were shooting a music video, because they chose to replace storytelling and any true emotions with cheesy montages, predictable actions and clichéd lines. I am both upset and embarrassed to have been one of the first few in Singapore to watch The Leap Years, but those of us in the cinema would agree that our muffled groans at the cringe-worthy performances spoke volumes. My hope was to watch a romantic movie that would surpass Forever Fever, the best Singaporean romantic comedy so far, and The Leap Years does not even come close. Some blogs have called it The Crap Years which is harsh but ultimately true. Don't waste your money or your emotions like I did. The movie will make you give up on love forever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this became a cult movie in chinese college students, though i havnt watched it until it is broadcasted in channel4, UK.<br /><br />full of arty giddy pretentions, the plot is mediocre and unreal; the 'spirit' it wants to convey is how independent artists 'resist the commercisliation of music industry' and maintain their' purity of an artistic soul' and wouldnt 'sell themselves for dirty money'. that is really giddy and superficial; the diologue are mainly pathetic. acting is poor. sceenplay is full of art pretention. it is a fantasy movie for kids and that;s all<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal are already preparing a sequel about a young US corporal in Afghanistan. He also happens to be a highly-qualified surgeon and is roaming freely around Kabul, operating on wounded NATO soldiers. On a particularly difficult mission, he casually picks up a sniper rifle and shoots Osama Bin Laden from a distance of about 3000 yards. He is then finally promoted to sergeant, but is unable to decide between a sniper and surgeon career, so he quits from the Army altogether. One year later, frustrated with civilian life, he joins the Navy and the last scene shows him proudly wearing a white uniform.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I find it heart-warming and inspiring that the writing team behind such hopelessly mainstream Hollywood movies like INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, American Graffiti and HOWARD THE DUCK would begin their career with a low-budget exploitation horror film like this. Perhaps as a testament to the talent that would earn Willard Hyuck and Gloria Katz an Oscar nomination later in their respective careers, Messiah of Evil has potential, but sadly becomes frustrating exactly because it can't muster the film-making prowess to pull it off.<br /><br />The premise involves a young girl who travels to a small coastal town in search for her painter father who went missing a while back. It doesn't take long for the fragmented narrative to abandon all hope and dive headlong in disjointed absurdity - and for a while it works admirably well to the point where you begin thinking that maybe Messiah of Evil needs to be reclaimed from the schlocky gutter of 70's exploitation as an example of artful mystery horror.<br /><br />The surreal non-sequiturs keep piling on as the daughter stumbles upon a young couple in a seedy hotel room who are in town to conduct a research on the local legend of the 'blood moon', a scruffy and half-mad alcoholic (played by the great Elisha Cook Jr. in perhaps the best scene of the movie) who warns her about her father only to be reportedly found dead in an alley 'eaten by dogs' a little later, the blind old lady that owns the local art gallery and who has inexplicably removed all of her father's paintings from the shop and last but not least a retarded, murderous, squirrel-eating albino.<br /><br />Part of the movie's charm is precisely this brand of bargain-basement artsy surrealism that defies logic and genre conventions every step of the way. Whereas with Lynch it is obviously the mark of a talented creator, with Messiah of Evil the boundaries between the 'intentional', the 'unintentional' and the 'didn't really expect it to come out this way but it's good enough - WRAP SCENE' blur hopelessly.<br /><br />Take for example the double narration that flows in and out of the picture in a drug-addled, feverish, stream-of-consciousness way, one coming from the daughter as she wanders from place to place in search for her father, and the other narrated by her father's voice as she reads his diary. <br /><br />While we're still talking about a 'living dead' picture, Messiah of Evil is different and only loosely one - at least with current preconceptions of what a zombie movie is supposed to be. The origin of the living dead here is a 100 year old curse, bestowed upon the town by a mysterious 'Dark Stranger' who came from the woods one day. In the meantime Hyuck finds time for snippets of mass-consumption criticism in a flesh-eating supermarket scene that predates DAWN OF THE DEAD by a good number of years (you can hear the MST3K line already: 'man is dead, only his capitalist food tins remain') and a nicely thought but poorly executed similar scene in a movie theater.<br /><br />I generally think that the surreal works in careful, well measured doses - how is the absurd to work if it's not hidden within the perfectly normal? Hyuck seems to just smear it all over the picture and by doing so dangerously overplays his hand. When the albino for example picks up a girl hitching her way to town and eats a squirrel in front of her, you can almost imagine the director winking meaningfully at the audience, amused and satisfied with his own hijinks. <br /><br />The general film-making level is also pretty low - after the half-way mark, the pace becomes muddled and the story tiresome and evidently going nowhere and not particularly fast either. Add to that the choppy editing, average acting and Hyuck's general inability to capture true atmosphere - the empty streets of coastal town are criminally misused - and I'd file Messiah under 'missed opportunity' but still grindhouse afficionados will find enough to appreciate - even though it's not particularly gory, trashy or sleazy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In what I can say was a theft of my time I was taken to see this movie and I must say what a horrible experience. Fay Ann Lee is a terrible actress and is unconvincing in this movie. Larryjoe76 is obviously a shill reviewer. The plot is thin to say the least, the Cantonese dialog is not funny. See this movie at your peril.<br /><br />David Tang from Shanghai Tang should be after the movie for the little or no revenue this movie will generate. The banal plot attempts to compete with other rom-coms out there, and just blends into the scenery. It was like watching paint dry. <br /><br />In short this movie was a total waste of time and space. I've seen better movies on youtube.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tony Scott has never been a very good director, but every film he's made after "Crimson Tide" seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (Michael Bay may fall into the same category, but at least his big, dumb, delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). And like other overblown Hollywood biopics ("De-Lovely" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind," for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious, overrated, or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of "mystique" by a society that thrives on the juicy behind-the-scenes details, "Domino" is a film that begins with little potential, and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty-minute mark. With an already-distended running time of 128 minutes, the film feels twice as long, and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior "Rules of Attraction," Scott's attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via Domino's smug, self-aware-rich-girl voice-over only draws attention to the film's sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. The story? Spoiled-upper-crust-babe Domino Harvey (Keira Knightley, in an ersatz-badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in Los Angeles, and accosts gruff bounty hunters Mickey Rourke and Edgar Ramirez to learn a more exciting trade; along the way, there are double-crosses, shootouts, media attention (courtesy of a tongue-in-cheek Christopher Walken, phoning in his trademark sleazebag), and laughable hints at romance. Scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds, cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon-drenched nightmare that's frankly unpleasant to watch--if Scott's given an opportunity to shakily frame an image, ghost it, or distort it in some way, he will; but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot, characterization, and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its, ehm, "entertainment" value). Most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical, oftentimes both (observe the unbearable, several-minute segment where an African-American introduces a new list of racial categorizations on "Jerry Springer"), and I found myself wishing they would all get the "tails" end of our protagonist's coin by the end. "Domino" is utter, unmitigated trash--whatever interest in this individual Scott hoped to inspire in his audience, it is lost in a sea of migraine-inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love horror movies. I can even appreciate most cheese (face it, 9 out of 10 horror films these days ARE cheese), but this was just ridiculous. Terrible acting, terrible writing, completely hollow and unbelievable characters (no Meisner actors here!) and a total lack of sufficient body count. I wish I could SALVAGE the 79 minutes of my life I just wasted. At least the Crook brothers are aptly named. The only good thing about the whole film was watching the Alicia Silverstone wanna-be get punched in the face. How this EVER made it to Sundance is completely baffling to me. Most of the plot was absolutely unrealistic, even by slasher film standards. I mean, COME ON! Who would rush out to get a cheap earring 10 seconds after a creepy stalker guy just left their doorstep? Lame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i didn't even bother finishing the movie because i was so bored i thought i was going to pass out i was watching it in the movie theaters and me and my friends just got tired so we got up and left to another movie if i ever have to sit through 2 min. of that movie again i think I'm going to shoot myself...and i do know the whole entire movie because my friend told me what happened at the end and i wasn't surprised at all i mean who didn't know she was going to do the right thing and let him be happy i mean for real you would have to be a complete idiot not to know that. i know i didn't miss anything and if somebody ask's me to see that movie i would say "over my dead body".
|
Negative
| null | null |
N.B.: Spoilers within. Assigning an artistic director to an operatic production naturally and inevitably means you are going to get a piece of that director's mind. But directing a Wagner opera is an especially tricky task, as he was perhaps the most explicit opera composer in terms of what things should look like and how they should unfold. Hans-Jurgen Syberberg loads this filming of "Parsifal," Wagner's final masterpiece, with enough extraneous ideas to cause it to nearly burst at the seams. You get more than a piece of the director: you get the whole fatted hog and then some. Syberberg is to be admired for his penchant for tearing back the covers on the uglier aspects of German history. But does it work to meld that desire to a Wagner opera already brimming with its own concepts? <br /><br />The scenes with the knights of the Holy Grail in Acts I and III are especially laden with visual allegory and symbolism. These are drawn come from Wagner's own time, from long before, and go well beyond. If you know what these things mean, they can enrich Syberberg's vision for you (but not necessarily enhance Wagner's vision); if you don't know what they mean, they're simply confusing, if not annoying. I won't bother uncoiling the plot of the opera here. Suffice it to say it is a typical Wagnerian synthesis of diverse elements, in this case a blending of the Holy Grail legend with the principles, practices, and pageantry of Christianity. The theme of redemption plays the main role here, as in nearly every Wagner opera.<br /><br />I personally had to sweat to get through Syberberg's first act (amidst my jarring acclimation, the music saved the day). But Act II picks up the pace. Here we meet Klingsor, the evil sorcerer, out to entrap the wandering "innocent fool" Parsifal. The greatest seductress of them all, Kundry, will be used to entice him to the dark side. After an initial dalliance with more symbols, these get stripped away, and the long, gorgeous, transformational duet between young fool and temptress really takes off. Finally the film starts working a genuine magic, and it is chiefly due to Syberberg's choosing to set things naturally and simply. Suddenly the acting starts to work (the expressive actress Edith Clever and the luscious soprano of Yvonne Minton team to create a wondrous Kundry); suddenly the music seems to come to life and make vivid the inner turmoil of the two characters. The camera work stays simple and quietly fluid. In other words, Wagner is allowed to tell his story more on his own terms. And it works beautifully. For me it was the most engrossing part of the film.<br /><br />With the re-entrance of the knights in part 2 of Act III, the weird extraneous symbolisms unfortunately creep back in. Some other loony Syberberg ideas: using a huge Wagner death-mask as a major set-piece (causing the composer's protuberant proboscis to loom comically large); dressing the Act III knights in all manner of costumes, wigs, and makeup (what is the director saying? That the knights are a bunch of buffoons? That they express multiple or timeless layers of significance beyond their surface functions? It's anybody's guess); the insertion just after the incredibly touching baptism of Kundry by Parsifal of rear-projection footage of the conductor rehearsing, in modern-day realism, his orchestra in the studio (this completely snapped my dramatic thread, requiring a few minutes to regroup); the complete avoidance of having any time pass between Acts II and III (when we meet the knight and "narrator" Gurnemanz again, he should be an old, old man, and Parsifal should re-emerge as a world-weary but wiser middle-aged man); but certainly the most bizarre stroke is to split the Parsifal character into male/female components. Some find this the most brilliant stroke. No doubt I can credit Karin Krick, who plays "Parsifal 2," with acting of strength and dignity (she also happens to be the best lip-syncher of the whole cast). But please...Wagner's conception of Parsifal is already so complex. His growth from a completely innocent boy who knows nothing of his past, to his breakthrough realization in Act II of what Amfortas's eternal wound means and how it has become his own, to his return as the great Redeemer of Act III this is the journey of a masterfully constructed character. The bi-sexual emphasis is just gimmicky and absurd. (And what's with this nonsense about a homoerotic Gurnemanz and Parsifal?? Can't we just accept a mentor/apprentice relationship, which is marvelously reversed in Act III?) <br /><br />The Monte Carlo Philharmonic under Armin Jordan plays with passion and beauty (though the chorus is disappointing). But after watching this film I only wanted to whip out my Solti-led recording (HIGHLY recommended) and get my Wagnerian bearings straight again. The film experience for me ranged from bizarre to entertaining to infuriating. To Syberberg's credit, he's created a visually arresting work, and he certainly offers a unique take on an important opera. But instead of sticking to "Parsifal," he seems to have wanted to bring in all things Wagnerian: the man, the life, the enormous influence...all of it in crude symbolic code. "Parsifal" the opera is already full of weighty symbolism: the Grail, the Spear, the Holy Sacraments, baptism, Amfortas's ever-bleeding wound, Klingsor's self-castration, the Kiss, Kundry's Curse, and on and on. This is not to mention the *musical* symbolism sounding constantly in the score, in the form of Wagner's leitmotif system. "Parsifal" itself is one huge symbol! Getting back to my first-paragraph question, Syberberg's whole hog is all way too much for me. But if this project sounds like something to tickle your fancy, then go for it. I won't recommend just staying away from this; you may find yourself heartily satisfied. Or if you need something to crack your Wagner barrier, try it...but please, please, don't stop here. "Parsifal" is in a late, very ripe league of its own.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Understand i'm reviewing the film I have seen. I realize virtually all the nudity and gore was cut from this film, thus neutering it completely. When seeing names like Ginger Lynn and Jenna Jameson attached, I knew I wasn't going to get a horror classic, but at the very least I expected gratuitous boobies and bloodshed. But no, this has got to be the most butchered modern horror film, I mean it's easy to tell there is much more to certain scenes', but they suddenly cut away, or the scene just totally ends right as it begins. How does one screw up cannibals' and porn stars? I mean thats a winning formula, it makes me wonder if the director slept with some executive's wife or something, because it is literally amazing how much got cut from this. Reading about it a few years back in Fangoria, I was excited, it looked like a fun film, but unfortunately the true film is locked in a vault somewhere, and we must endure this piece of excrement retitled Evil Breed. Hopefully an unrated cut will be released someday, as I think a good movie exists in this mess, but until then best grab a twelve pack of Bud, cause thats the only way you'll make it through this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This "movie" is such a bad work! Nothing seems to even try and be realistic. Plot is weak, acting - miserable, actors wondering around like in a 1st year production, trying very hard to act with no chance at all from the beginning. What a flop! What a waste of time, money and effort to all concerned including the audience. Well, as in any thriller, here too are murders, corpses and blood. Just imagine someone who 5 minutes ago, committed a murder with a knife, and came out calm and smiling, not to mention clean as a whistle, as if slashing one's throat is done by a virtual agent. Also, this murder was supposed to be done by a tiny fragile woman on a high strong male, and she cut his throat!!! Did she ask him, politely, to bend down for her? Much more stupidity of that same kind is going on and on leaving the audience wondering if this meant to be a joke which just turned out to be a bad one. Continuity is another huge problem as for instance: The eager-hungry groom is lying in bed, waiting for his virgin-bride to get out of the bathroom and after a long while, falls asleep(!?!). Next scene opens with the young couple entering the reception-area, asking for guidance to scenery spots! NOT A WORD ABOUT LAST NIGHT??? Such a waste of time even to try and write about this low-low supposed-to-be "movie".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this film purely on the fact that the cover appealed to me. However as soon as the film began I had regrets. It seems they used a home video camera to shoot this film and let a young child do it. They also used inappropriate ghostly faces and shapes to try and scare people but i found myself laughing, i could have put that together myself and done a better job of it.<br /><br />As for the plot I felt that it had some really good ideas but because of dodgy lines and in some cases acting they were overshadowed. It had no direction.<br /><br />I didn't want to sit through it all because it caused me physical pain to watch it but i always finish what i start so i took a deep breath and let it carry on. Definitely 98minutes of my life wasted.<br /><br />I would save yourself the embarrassment of knowing that you have watched 'Haunted Boat' and find something that is more entertaining. I'm a fan of low budget horror films but this was a major disappointment i thought nothing could get worse after 'Terror Toons' but this made me reconsider. A let down to its genre.<br /><br />* out of ***** (The star is for the ideas of having their worst fears coming for them)
|
Negative
| null | null |
My wife and I watch a film every night with no distractions, and mostly artsy films that require thought. I have tons of patience for films that are slow to blossom. My wife has double the attention span that I do. All that being said-- this film is just plain empty and BORING! It went nowhere. Never blossomed. It started fairly strong with a promising plot...then she bakes cookies...goes to Spain....she sulks, she stares....the credits roll. Uneven, full of holes, false starts & dead ends. We FF'd through several extended sequences of her just staring off into space. Artificial depth was implied when she played with the mud and cried. Zzzz...... It's like a beautifully shot chick-flick that's pretending to be deep or artsy. You never get to know nor understand Morvern at all. About halfway through you just don't care anymore. We just wanted to see at least one of the plot lines develop. Don't waste your time on this. I'm shocked it scores so high.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll have to add dissenting comment here. Various reviews I have read compared this movie to the likes of those by Wong Kar Wai or Hou Hsiao-hsien. i.e. one of the admirable flotilla of mandarin goodies that have come our way in recent years. Unfortunately this isn't quite accurate. The film plays out rather like a film school graduate's attempt to emulate these masters. All the pieces are there - the beautiful backdrop, the vaguely minimalist dialogue, the slow swaying camerawork, and male leads, in particular, who spend a fair whack of time sitting around being contemplative. Sounds good but unfortunately nothing is up to par. The dialogue is leaden. The acting is generally unable to lift the characters above type; the married couple and the little sister are particularly poor and uninvolving. Unfortunately when mediocre character acting is combined with a classical "Chekovian" (i.e. very predictable) plot, the results are at best tedious and at worst painful. I couldn't help but see the "Blue Danube" river scene, for example, as verging on genre parody (although the smoggy looking "springtime" sky over the river did provide a bit of black humour...) I actually went to this movie on the basis that Mark Li Ping was photographing it. While the setting is elegant, and the swaying camera attempts to replicate the mood of "Flowers of Shanghai", the film is not in the same league, visually. In fact I must confess that after an hour of wondering whether it was the script or the acting that was ruining the film, I suddenly remembered that I was meant to meet my flatmate for dinner and took the chance to leave (and I can't recall the last film I walked out of). I'm guessing from the reviews that the ending may have left a positive aftertaste but by that point I couldn't care. If you'd like to see something along similar lines done with real talent then I'd recommend anything by the above two directors, for example "In the Mood for Love" or "Flowers of Shanghai", both of which were filmed by the talented Mr Ping (the former with Chris Doyle), and both of which are films masterful enough to inspire years of failed emulations like this. It's not often Mr Hoberman leads me astray, and perhaps you'd rather listen to him, but don't say you weren't warned. Craig.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love killer Insects movies they are great fun to watch, I had to watch this movie as it was one of my Favourite horror books by Shaun Hutson.<br /><br />I have met him and I wish I did listen to him as this movie was terrible like he Said it was,after he said that I was still dying to see how bad it was.<br /><br />The plot: People are dying mysteriously and gruesomely, and nobody has a clue what the cause is.<br /><br />Only health worker Mike Brady has a possible solution, but his theory of killer slugs is laughed at by the authorities.<br /><br />Only when the body count begins to rise and a slug expert from England begins snooping around does it begin to look like Mike had the right idea after all.<br /><br />This movie as the most overacting you ever see a movie! Slugs in this movie are fast (Then normal) and it looks like they fast forwarding the scenes! <br /><br />This movie is nothing like the book at all, the book was ten times scarier, ten times gory and had a lot more story to it!<br /><br />I didn't like this movie at all! As I am huge fan of Slugs the book and second book called Breeding ground! Both of books are Great <br /><br />Read the book then watch the movie, you may like more then I did Give this 2 out 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.<br /><br />Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.<br /><br />As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.<br /><br />Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)<br /><br />You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.<br /><br />It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.<br /><br />Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a horrid disaster of a film. From beginning to end, it's filled with bad acting and even worse direction and editing. The only redeeming parts of the film are a few numbers by Streisand, because the Kristofferson parts are impossible to watch or listen to. The main problem of this film is that we never see Kristofferson's character at his peak or Streisand's character struggling. The first should be seen in decline and the second rising. The final Streisand number _could have been_ one of the greatest finales in film, if it was directed and edited properly. The single framed shot of her face for the duration of the song was a terrible mistake. Had the band, audience and wide shots of the stage been shown, this number could have been dynamic and interesting. This film must have been directed and edited by an NYU film school dropout. The only thing worse may be the wretched screenplay. The final musical number is the only redeeming part of this film, and even that is botched completely by misguided technical decisions.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I purchased this video quite cheaply ex-rental, thinking that the cover looked quite nice. And it was nice, but the movie is trash. I can handle B-grade, I sometimes even enjoy a good B romp (ie. 'Surf Nazis Must Die' is a classic example of how entertaining the genre can be), but this was just bland bland bland. Incredibly dull scenes were broken up too sparsely by good wholesome cheap porn and entertaining dream horror sequences. This movie has very little to offer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Years have gone by since Don Wilson used his martial arts expertise to take down a robot who was programmed to destroy him, he's also married to the blonde reporter (Stacie Foster) who led the rebellion in the first film, now a new conspiracy is in the works, one that involves look-alike droids who frame our two heroes, and a corporation looking to rule the world (There is no plot to back any of this up) and Cyber Tracker 2 becomes a virtual replay of the first movie. I admit that I have bought DVDs from the bargain bin that were made by PM, PM was a company that specialized in cheap-jack action flicks (like this) which had tons of explosions, little story and overall nothing but mean edged action. Some of these titles have been (mildly) enjoyable (Last Man Standing and The Sweeper) however Cyber Tracker 2 is stuck with the casting of the charisma-less Don Wilson. When comparing the protagonists of similar PM efforts both Jeff Wincott and C. Thomas Howell are Oscar nominees when compared to Don Wilson. Another telling sign is that this was directed by Richard Pepin who has none of the flair Joseph Merhi seems to have in crafting action sequences that feel much more expensive than their budgets. Then again though both C. Thomas and Wincott are probably more expensive to obtain. Cyber Tracker 2 is a rip off with a capitol R, there are so many steals from better movies (Robocop, Terminator, Universal Soldier to even Halloween III!) that it's almost as if Richard Pepin is trying to infuse a sense of identity to the pedestrian material yet without the intelligent ideas or at least the mindless zip of great action, Cyber Tracker 2 falls flat. There is literally no good idea that isn't borrowed from a better movie and the supporting cast overact. The only exception comes from Tony Burton who is miles better than the material. Also Stacie Foster looks like she could be better with far better material. However Cyber Tracker 2 comes off mainly as noisy, bland and lackluster as its leading man, however with no real martial arts sequences to fall back on, all there is, is lots of cars tipping over and that alone is no substitute for the bankruptcy of ambition expressed here.<br /><br />*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
|
Negative
| null | null |
As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was so amateurish I could hardly believe what I was seeing. It is shot on VIDEO! NOT film! I have not seen the likes of this since the early 70's, when late night networks showed movie of the week 'horror flicks' shot in......video. It looks like a bad soap opera, and that is paying it a compliment. Some of the actors give it their best shot. Michael Des Barres does okay with what he is given to do, which is to act like a sex addict out of control. I can't say that it is pleasant to watch.<br /><br />Nastassja Kinski as the therapist sits in a chair for practically the entire film, with very little variation in camera angles. I can't fault her for someone else's poor blocking, but she is totally unbelievable in her role. Her little girl voice works against her here. And I consider myself a Nastassja Kinski fan. She is certainly ageless and exotic, but she's outside her range with this.<br /><br />Alexandra Paul is pathetically overwrought. Every line she delivers is with three exclamation points. Someone must have directed her to scream at all costs. Why would Michael Des Barres want to have sex with such a raging shrew?<br /><br />Finally, Rosanna Arquette as the sweet, maligned wife comes off okay, and probably the most believable of the bunch. But that is not saying much.<br /><br />This has to be the worst film I have seen in years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie. To the end. And that was really not easy. It is so boring, bad played and in nearly every detail stolen from "BLAIR WITCH PROJECT" that you can't believe the makers take this serious. Even harder to believe, is how this "product" made it onto VHS and DVD.<br /><br />So, if want to see a horror-movie, just watch "Scream", but if you want to laugh out loud and have a good time, watching some kids running through the woods screaming at each other and showing of their inability, watch dark area.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have done quite a few reviews on IMDb and this film is unique in that I never saw the entire movie. It was so terribly stupid and unfunny that I just couldn't sit through it--though I tried.<br /><br />The biggest problem with this and any Mel Brooks movie I call "the Mel quotient". In other words, the better his movie, the less of him you see in the film. Think about it--The Producers and Young Frankenstein were great films and he was barely in them at all. BUT, films like Life Stinks and Space Balls are chock full of Mel and are pretty dopey movies (yes, I DID NOT LIKE Space Balls--but this isn't the place to talk about that).<br /><br />Second, apart from cancer, rectal itch and mental retardation, I can't think of a less funny topic than homelessness. This is just a comedy breaker. Think about it, folks. The FUNNIEST(?) scene in the movie has Mel making whoopee with Leslie Ann Warren in a dumpster!! And this is funny in what way?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Inventor Wayne Szalinsky (Rick Moranis) is preparing to donate his problematic shrinking/expanding machine to the Smithsonian Institution as he and his wife Diane (Eve Gordon) get ready for a long weekend away from their son Adam (Bug Hall). Wayne's brother Gordon (Stuart Pankin), his wife Patty (Robin Bartlett), and his kids Jenny (Allison Mack) and Mitch (Jake Richardson) volunteer to look after Adam while his parents are away, but as luck would have it (and the title would lead you to expect), the grown-ups are accidentally zapped by Wayne's shrinking ray. As the kids run amok, their miniaturized folks must contend with monstrously huge insects, wrinkles in the carpet that look like canyons, and other threats to them. This was bad, like most straight to video sequels are, Honey, We Shrunk Ourselves was sort of laughable. I had to laugh at that movie "roach" Stuart Pankin and the party bullies were even more ridiculous, view at own risk!
|
Negative
| null | null |
You probably heard this phrase when it come to this movie "Herbie: Fully Loaded with crap" and yes it is true. This movie is really dreadful and totally lame.<br /><br />This got to be the second worst movie Lindsey is ever in since Confession of the Teenage Drama Queen. The only good thing about this movie seem to be the over talent cast which by far is better than the movie million times and is the only selling point of the movie. I don't see how such a respected actor like Matt Dillon could be a part of this movie, isn't he read that horrible screenplay before he sign on to be in it? <br /><br />What I didn't like about this movie is also base on how Herbie is surreal and fantasy like extraordinary ability and climb on wall and go faster than a racer car after all it just a Beatle. I know it is a kids movie but they have gone overboard with it and it just turn out more silly than entertaining. Little realism is needed plus the story is way too predictable.<br /><br />Final Words: Unless the kids are actually 5 -12 years I highly doubt that any one could enjoy this senseless movie. What wastage of my money. I feel like cheated.<br /><br />Rating: 3/10 (Grade: F)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The secret is...this movie blows. Sorry, but it just did. <br /><br />****SPOILER****<br /><br />In this bad riff on I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER and SCREAM, Beth, played admirably by Dorie Barton, joins several friends on a Spring Break trip. The group rents a fancy house and tries to enjoy a fun vacation. Then, the deaths begin. First one then another then another of the friends is murdered, leading to a sad and trite climax with predictable results. <br /><br />One note, Dorie Barton is the poor man's Reese Witherspoonshe looks like Reese, acts like Reese and could pass for Reese in a police lineup. Maybe that's how they cast her? Anyhoo, decent cinematography and fair acting could not quite make up for bad dialog and terrible writing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie made me feel as if I had missed some important scenes from the very beginning. There were continuity errors and plots that stopped as abruptly as they started. I was very disappointed because I love Whoopi Goldberg & Danny Glover, in addition to that have always trusted & respected Danny Glovers taste in his choice of roles, "Grand Canyon" for example. I just could not finish this movie, after what seemed an eternity, but was probably just a little over an hour; we had to turn it off. There was no comedy, there was nothing about the characters to make you empathize or sympathize with them, there was no evoking of emotion at all regarding this movie and the clips of their past were poorly edited, confusing, and unnecessary. What could have been a great idea for a movie, even as a drama & not a comedy (although I think a comedy in this situation would have been better, because I love to watch white people freak out & start acting like complete idiots, it makes me laugh) became a waste of my $1 credit at the video store.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Revolutions always present opportunities for dramatic films since, in fact, most revolutions are in themselves dramatic events. Unfortunately, what this film lacks in drama is compensated for by an overabundance of boredom. One cares not who wins, loses, dies or lives--just end it as soon as possible. This is due in large measure to what seems to me to be a superficial use of background technology. Scenes of Paris and the French countryside have a cardboard quality about them. They might better be done on a bare stage and left that way. One cannot expect the amazing effects of "The House of the Flying Daggers" or "The Golden Compass," but , after all, this is a 2002 digitally mastered production. Characters seem to enter a scene for the sake of entering a scene, so much so that one loses count of the number of times character enter and leave rooms. In my view, this film turns the French Revolution of the 1790s into the "papier-mache" revolution of a "papier colle" world.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I get it the Diehl character is s'posed to be a microcosm of America itself - seeing Arab terrorists under every rock, only to find out at the end that it's his own actions all along that got him into that siege state and truly if he practices good-will to all men everything will be rainbows and lollipops. Sorry Wim you have made amazing movies in the past that stay neutral of the politics and for good reason, polemics are your weak point and they weaken this a well-made, amazingly filmed movie with absurd characters, dialog and plotting. Better luck on your next flick. Another thing that yanked my crank was the belabored point of the homeless section of LA being there for reasons of hunger, these people don't get enough to eat. Truly these folks aren't eating regally but the real hunger these folks is a spiritual hunger, an emotional hunger, a mental hunger. They need self-respect, self-worth, dignity which you can't give a man. Yeah those folks are hungry and if they need it it is available. Less the center for hunger in America, I would say it's more the center for alcoholism, drug-abuse, mental suffering and economic devastation. Dealing with hunger although a noble endeavor is band-aiding a more profoundly systematic societal and age-old human problem of homelessness. Bill Diehl was good though and Michelle Williams was cute as the young yet (cliched) old soul.
|
Negative
| null | null |
just watched it, me and my better half could not believe how awful and badly acted it was. If anyone else thinks its good then you must be easily pleased. I actually gave up a night out to watch this, its all been done before. IE. hostel springs to mind, but at least that did not make you cringe with the bad acting and lack of story line, same old stuff, re-hatched,i read so much about this film, i even recommended it to my mates, my fault,someone said it was good! no more gory,horror or reeling back in disgust than your average "scary movie" it has to be said, please don't bother with this movie. get mary poppins. now thats scary! I'm off out now, go to the cinema and watch something scarier than this, little miss sunshine maybe
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was pure pain. Sitting in the theater for x-amount of minutes, I was wondering when the film was going to start. All the setups were in place; typical love story, characters have to overcome their short-givings, villain has to emerge, but none of it ever initiated. By the time these things happened, I was already bored stiff and the devices were completely ineffective. In scenes that required immense tension and buildup, it felt like necessary frames were cut. Kid's stuff does not have to be this way. Children's films can be as riveting and engaging as adult ones. The excuse, "hey , its for kids," is bull. I'll take "Sword in the Stone" any day. This was terrible. I'm getting the feeling that Disney will put out anything these days. And as for the kids, the 10-year I saw this with will agree...pure trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, "journey is more important than the destination". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.<br /><br />Worst ending ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film tried to be too many things all at once: stinging political satire, Hollywood blockbuster, sappy romantic comedy, family values promo... the list goes on and on. It failed miserably at all of them, but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end.<br /><br />Although I appreciate the spirit behind WAR, INC., it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort, especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique, rather than simply the poor writing, direction, and production of this particular film.<br /><br />There is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. But poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. Reminds me a bit of THREE KINGS, which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I thought this movie seemed like a case study in how not to make a movie for the most part. Since I am a filmmaker, I give it a 2 for consistency.<br /><br />The problems remain from beginning to end with the plot being extremely predictable using bits and pieces of most, if not all, previous successful war stories. The computer generated graphics were too much like viewing a video game at points and there seemed to be no attempt by the director to add some realistic quality to the story. I was interested in the budget to get an idea of what he had to work with, but did not find that information.<br /><br />It seemed like this project pushed the limits of a low budget movie too far resulting in a production that drags the viewer along with the story without their imagination being engaged. The actors weren't bad, but the plot needs more innovation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having read the comments on the site I feel compelled to write in for the first time. It seems this movie is like Marmite and has split the audience. I have to say that while I agree films don't have to make sense to be enjoyable (see MULHOLLAND DRIVE) they still have to engage you with the characters. Now while I was totally absorbed by the murderous lesbian affair in Lynch's opus, I have to say I couldn't give a turd about Mr Green or the other cardboard gangsters that inhabited this dayglo world. <br /><br />Also, while so many people seem to try and say you didn't enjoy because you didn't get it I would have to disagree - I didn't enjoy because I was bored. I wanted the film to end and constantly listening to those quotes over and over again did not help. Call it clever if you will - I think it's repetitious.<br /><br />However, my main reason for writing is to ask all the other reviewers a question - there were no end credits on the print of the film I saw. Just music over black. Did I watch a dud print or is this evidence of GR's pretentiousness? Or, did everyone involved in the movie watch the rough cut and have their name removed???
|
Negative
| null | null |
I basically picked up this movie because I had seen Kitano Takashi's brilliant remake of Zatoichi and was in the mood for another updated samurai tale which also starred Asano Tadanobu. These two movies are worlds apart. Zatoichi added humor and depth to its characters and subverted traditional samurai movie clichés. Gojoe goes off the deep end in the other direction.<br /><br />First off, I hate movies that have other characters inform the audience what the main character is like instead of having the character develop over the course of the movie. "You cannot decide whether you are a monk or a warrior" says almost every character in Benkei's presence, yet this inner turmoil is barely conveyed within the character himself. Instead of character development, we get bloated, boring, gory battle scenes. Asano's character is undeveloped and even he looks like he is bored and doesn't know what he is doing there. I know that he usually looks distant and cool and that is part of Asano's appeal, but this movie doesn't serve him.<br /><br />A lot of the camera movement is nauseating. There is a scene that goes on forever in which the camera spins around the main characters until my wife and I felt like vomiting. The ending is ridiculous and rather anti-climatic. <br /><br />Its too bad that really good samurai movies aren't being made in Japan nowadays with this type of budget. The colors, scenery, and costumes were great, but the rest is just a loooong waste of time. I would rather see one of the kabuki versions of this myth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i got a copy from the writer of this movie on soulseek. I have to say it is pathetic and just plain painful to watch the two cops act, but i watched the movie as a joke and since it is a homage to august's underground which i happened to have seen it is in my book as an awesome movie. Its quality and everything about it is pretty bad but its entertaining and something to talk about amongst your friends. Reminds me of troma but good stuff. I recommend seeing this under two conditions, if you are bored and need a good laugh, or high, otherwise just let it be. Recommended download for sure. o and the killings are pretty funny. like when the zombie rips the Satan worshipers dick off and stabs someone in the head with it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Without a doubt this is one of the worst films I've ever wasted money on! The plot is, erm sorry, did I say there was a plot? The scariest moment was when..., nope can't think of one! The best special effect that had me hiding under the bed covers was..., nope can't think of one for that either. You knew who the killer was right from the start. There was nothing scary about the whole movie, in fact the only two vaguely interesting bits were when you saw the kid sister, Misty, in the shower and when you saw Nurse Toppan take her top off. This film should only be watched to get an idea of how NOT to make a horror movie!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hey if you have a little over an hour to kill and find paint to be too exciting I'd suggest it. If thou you happen to like cheap b-movies like me it's good for a giggle! Other than that I wouldn't suggest that you rent it, I'd wait till it comes on the tube say round 4 am on the free access channel of your cable/satellite supplier. The band that did this sound track by the way was on the road after for about two years after this flick, and no they sounded just as bad live according to the two small town reviews I could find on them. So once again good if you find grass growing to much fun but good to watch if you like to see how NOT to shoot a low budget movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The storyline is absurd and lame,also sucking are performances and the dialogue, is hard to keep your Eyes open. I advise you to have a caffeine-propelled friend handy to wake you in time for a couple Gore-effects.Why they bring Alcatraz in?In this case,becomes increasingly difficult to swallow. All the while ,i wondered who this film aimed for?Chock full of lame subplots (such as the Cannibalism US Army-captain)This is low-grade in every aspect.BTW this Movie is banned in Germany!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Decent animation and some workable character development keep this animated horse fable from DreamWorks at least watchable... however it remains somewhat slow paced and the storyline is a bit on the silly side.. It is interesting to see a reversal of the typical cowboys and indian roles, but here it just seems like a nod to political correctness rather than a proper storyline decision. GRADE: C
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rodney Dangerfield is a great. He has done a lot of great works. But this one....is awful. The whole plot is whack. It could have been much better. The jokes in the movie aren't funny....their stupid. This was very not so hilarious. He can do much better than this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.<br /><br />Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.<br /><br />Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is very much a television version of the tale, the film starts out like an episode of 'Xena...', with little meaningful dialog or character description. It does get a bit more substantive after a while, but all characters are still cartoonish. <br /><br />Salma is the exotic beauty. Richard Harris is an evil and sexually repressed Frollo, fiending to bust a nut up in Salma. The other characters, including Quasimodo are quite forgettable. <br /><br />Its also a sorta liberal version of the story, Frollo is a suppressor of Enlightenment ideals, like the abbot in 'Name of the Rose', and Quasimodo is a champion of liberty. The shadowy side of the Quas character is ignored, though he does pour liquid led on people. He is really only an outsider in that he looks different and enjoys playing with bells more than the average person. <br /><br />Perhaps the film is intended for children, but I doubt it, considering Frollo flogs himself bloody to amend wanting to spank his monkey. A mostly uninteresting and forgettable, but not awful, and sometimes entertaining, rendition of the tale.
|
Negative
| null | null |
People tried to make me believe that the premise of this rubbishy supernatural horror/thriller was inspired by the actual last words spoken by an authentic serial killer (whose name escapes me at the moment). Whilst awaiting his execution in the electric chair, he claimed that his soul would return to life and continue to go on a never-ending murder spree. It's not a highly original idea to revolve a horror film on, by the way. Other low-budget turkeys implemented the exact same basic premise, like "House 3", "Shocker" and "Ghost in the Machine". Anyway, "The First Power" (a.k.a "Pentagram") isn't a completely terrible effort, but the script overly reverts to clichés and lacks genuine thrills. The film starts off as an okay, albeit mundane serial killer flick in which obsessive cop-hero Lou Diamond Philips pursues a maniac who carves bloody pentagrams into the chests of his victims. He receives unexpected help from a spiritual medium, played by the gorgeous and underrated Tracy Griffith. She leads him to the killer but also begs not to execute him, as that would result in an even bigger catastrophe! Thanks to Tess' helpful hints, Detective Logan quickly captures the killer and celebrates his death penalty, but Patrick Channing made a pact with Satan Himself and returns to the rotten streets of California to do some more killing. "The First Power" gets pretty bad once the murderer reincarnates as a vengeful spirit. Instead of using his newly gained satanic powers to wipe out the entire world (that's what I would do in his position), Channing simply prefers to play cat and mouse games with his nemesis the copper. He annoyingly calls him "Buddy-Boy" all the time and possesses the bodies of Logan's friends and colleagues in order to trick him. Even though never really boring or poorly realized, it's a very weak film to endure, mostly because you constantly get the feeling of déjà-vu. Writer/director Robert Resnikoff shamelessly uses every dreadful cliché (the killer got sexually abused as a child) and even the players' lines can easily be predicted. As soon as Griffith explains she's able to predict the future, you just know that, somewhere at some point in the film, she's going to say the ridiculously overused line "I tell people who to live their lives, but my own life is a mess". Yawn. Lou Diamond Philips' performance is adequate enough, but it's rather difficult to take that youthful rebel of "La Bamba" and "Stand And Deliver" serious as a tough copper. There also are decent supportive roles for Mykelti Williamson ("Forrest Gump"), Carmen Argenziano ("When a Stranger Calls") and B-movie horror legend David Gale ("Re-Animator") appears in a minuscule cameo at the very beginning of the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kalifornia is disturbing. I believe there is no reason for this story to be told. It is neither entertaining nor does it have social value. Technically, the movie is very well make, the performances are top rate and first class. The story develops in an intriguing way that holds interest. But at the end this movie sickens and is abhorrent to decency. I recommend Kalifornia to no one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What horrible writing and acting. No personality. What, you can't make a good movie with a single character? Hmm, it was done in Castaway with self dialog.<br /><br />So this kid goes on a trip to see his father. The kid, Jason, takes a plane and the pilot has a heart attack and dies mid-flight. So the kid crashes in a lake and survives. Then he runs around, surviving in the wilderness until he gets rescued.<br /><br />During that time he fights a bear twice. The first time he fights it off in the lake. The second time he makes a spear out of a branch and spears the bear. Two shots of fake blood spurting out of the bear's chest reminded me of Monty Python's "The Holy Grail".<br /><br />Also the kid decides to kick a porcupine with predictable results.<br /><br />Gag.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original, i suppose. Which is really sad, because at a deeper level, the title 'Vanishing Point' the original, is so ironic. I'm sure it wasn't intended that way, but the original was filmed in 1970, and released in 1971. The REAL 'VANISHING POINT' was the end of an era, which pretty much ended in the early 1970s. <br /><br />In this remake, all the counter-cultural elements have been stripped away, and been rendered more PC in an attempt to reach a broader audience, presumably. "Sanitized for your Protection" <br /><br />Inserting the American Indian scenes was gratuitous, and the idea of a 'noble purpose' to the trip was subtraction by addition. I'm glad I watched it however, it made me appreciate the original that much more. The original is a cult classic and golden. This remake is dreadful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. <br /><br />The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.<br /><br />2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.<br /><br />3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.<br /><br />4. smarmy, smug drollness.<br /><br />5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.<br /><br />but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With this movie only running 61 minutes and nothing all that good on television, I decided to pop Revolt of the Zombies into the DVD to pass the time. Even while realizing the era from which it was coming, I was sorely disappointed. It started with the oddly upbeat quality of the opening score (what - no brooding music?) and then the rather slow moving opening sequences. Gosh, I figured a movie about zombies - even from the 1930s - would have SOME chills to it (White Zombie, with Bela Lugosi, certainly did) but this had none. Zero. It was scarcely even dramatic (except for the few moments with the burning eyes superimposed on the film to indicate the mesmerization of someone). Like the equally dull King of the Zombies, this movie may be an interesting curiosity to own, but nothing more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie offers NOTHING to anyone. It doesn't succeed on ANY level. The acting is horrible, dull long-winded dribble. They obviously by the length of the end sex scene were trying to be shocking but just ended up being pretty much a parody of what the film was aiming for. Complete garbage, I can't believe what a laughable movie this was. <br /><br />And I'm very sure Rosario Dawson ended up in this film cause she though this would be her jarring break away indi hit, a wowing NC-17 movie. The problem is no adult is going to stick with this film as the film plays out like a uninteresting episode of the OC or something aimed at teens. Pathetic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just once I'd like to see a version of Beowulf where it appears the screenwriters have at least a passing familiarity with the original poem. Yet again, after watching this Sci Fi presentation, I'm disappointed. <br /><br />I'm not suggesting the writers need to understand and analyze the poem in Old English, but I wish they could at least try to read a translation in modern English and attempt to construct a story based on what actually transpires. The story is exciting enough; why add plot elements that are non-existent and ruin the story? What's wrong with being faithful to the text? <br /><br />Grendel is immune to weapons of any kind; why introduce some super-crossbow that is unbelievable and could not have possibly existed in this time period (as correctly pointed out by the previous reviewer)? The fight with Grendel was Beowulf vs. Grendel. That's it. No one else took part in the battle. The only way Beowulf could have defeated him was by choosing specifically to engage the monster without any weapons, the mistake made by all previous challengers. Yet, in this version, Danes and Geats fight the beast and Beowulf hacks off Grendel's arm with a sword! Again, why couldn't they portray what really happened? Personally, I think a one-on-one grappling match between the two would be much more exciting. <br /><br />Overall, this is a pathetic and abysmal depiction that is faithless to the true tale. Why add in a pact with Hrothgar and Grendel's mother that includes sacrificial offering? Why create extra characters, like Finn, that add nothing to the story? There was no love story in the poem. They couldn't even set the scenes in the appropriate locations (a forest instead of the swamp and no lair under the lake). They fail to notice the metaphor that Grendel's lair signifies it's supposed to be underground to represent hell. Why not instead center on the symbolism inherent in the epic poem? Even my high school students last year were able to do immensely better when they created a short film based on Beowulf, since they focused on the themes and symbolism underlying the story. If Hollywood could create a film that centers on these elements and is faithful to the plot, then that would be a truly great movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Now that Che(2008) has finished its relatively short Australian cinema run (extremely limited release:1 screen in Sydney, after 6wks), I can guiltlessly join both hosts of "At The Movies" in taking Steven Soderbergh to task.<br /><br />It's usually satisfying to watch a film director change his style/subject, but Soderbergh's most recent stinker, The Girlfriend Experience(2009), was also missing a story, so narrative (and editing?) seem to suddenly be Soderbergh's main challenge. Strange, after 20-odd years in the business. He was probably never much good at narrative, just hid it well inside "edgy" projects.<br /><br />None of this excuses him this present, almost diabolical failure. As David Stratton warns, "two parts of Che don't (even) make a whole". <br /><br />Epic biopic in name only, Che(2008) barely qualifies as a feature film! It certainly has no legs, inasmuch as except for its uncharacteristic ultimate resolution forced upon it by history, Soderbergh's 4.5hrs-long dirge just goes nowhere.<br /><br />Even Margaret Pomeranz, the more forgiving of Australia's At The Movies duo, noted about Soderbergh's repetitious waste of (HD digital storage): "you're in the woods...you're in the woods...you're in the woods...". I too am surprised Soderbergh didn't give us another 2.5hrs of THAT somewhere between his existing two Parts, because he still left out massive chunks of Che's "revolutionary" life! <br /><br />For a biopic of an important but infamous historical figure, Soderbergh unaccountably alienates, if not deliberately insults, his audiences by<br /><br />1. never providing most of Che's story; <br /><br />2. imposing unreasonable film lengths with mere dullard repetition; <br /><br />3. ignoring both true hindsight and a narrative of events; <br /><br />4. barely developing an idea, or a character; <br /><br />5. remaining claustrophobically episodic; <br /><br />6. ignoring proper context for scenes---whatever we do get is mired in disruptive timeshifts; <br /><br />7. linguistically dislocating all audiences (even Spanish-speakers will be confused by the incongruous expositions in English); and <br /><br />8. pointlessly whitewashing his main subject into one dimension. Why, at THIS late stage? The T-shirt franchise has been a success! <br /><br />Our sense of claustrophobia is surely due to Peter Buchman and Benjamin VanDer Veen basing their screenplay solely on Guevara's memoirs. So, like a poor student who has read only ONE of his allotted texts for his assignment, Soderbergh's product is exceedingly limited in perspective.<br /><br />The audience is held captive within the same constrained knowledge, scenery and circumstances of the "revolutionaries", but that doesn't elicit our sympathy. Instead, it dawns on us that "Ah, Soderbergh's trying to hobble his audiences the same as the Latino peasants were at the time". But these are the SAME illiterate Latino peasants who sold out the good doctor to his enemies. Why does Soderbergh feel the need to equate us with them, and keep us equally mentally captive? Such audience straitjacketing must have a purpose.<br /><br />Part2 is more chronological than Part1, but it's literally mind-numbing with its repetitive bush-bashing, misery of outlook, and lack of variety or character arcs. DelToro's Che has no opportunity to grow as a person while he struggles to educate his own ill-disciplined troops. The only letup is the humour as Che deals with his sometimes deeply ignorant "revolutionaries", some of whom violently lack self-control around local peasants or food. We certainly get no insight into what caused the conditions, nor any strategic analyses of their guerrilla insurgency, such as it was.<br /><br />Part2's excruciating countdown remains fearfully episodic: again, nothing is telegraphed or contextualized. Thus even the scenes with Fidel Castro (Demián Bichir) are unexpected and disconcerting. Any selected events are portrayed minimally and Latino-centrically, with Part1's interviews replaced by time-shifting meetings between the corrupt Bolivian president (Joaquim de Almeida) and US Government officials promising CIA intervention(!).<br /><br />The rest of Part2's "woods" and day-for-night blue filter just exasperate the audience until they're eyeing the exits.<br /><br />Perhaps DelToro felt too keenly the frustration of many non-American Latinos about never getting a truthful, unspun history of Che's exploits within their own countries. When foreign governments still won't deliver a free press to their people--for whatever reason--then one can see how a popular American indie producer might set out to entice the not-so-well-read ("I may not be able to read or write, but I'm NOT illiterate!"--cf.The Inspector General(1949)) out to their own local cinemas. The film's obvious neglects and gross over-simplifications hint very strongly that it's aiming only at the comprehensions of the less-informed WHO STILL SPEAK LITTLE English. If they did, they'd have read tomes on the subject already, and critiqued the relevant social issues amongst themselves--learning the lessons of history as they should.<br /><br />Such insights are precisely what societies still need--and not just the remaining illiterate Latinos of Central and South America--yet it's what Che(2008) gleefully fails to deliver. Soderbergh buries his lead because he's weak on narrative. I am gobsmacked why Benicio DelToro deliberately chose Soderbergh for this project if he knew this. It's been 44yrs, hindsight about Guevara was sorely wanted: it's what I went to see this film for, but the director diabolically robs us of that.<br /><br />David Stratton, writing in The Australian (03-Oct-2009) observed that while Part1 was "uneven", Part2 actually "goes rapidly downhill" from there, "charting Che's final campaign in Bolivia in excruciating detail", which "...feels almost unbearably slow and turgid".<br /><br />Che:The Guerilla aka Part2 is certainly no travelogue for Bolivia, painting it a picture of misery and atavism. The entire second half is only redeemed by the aforementioned humour, and the dramatic--yet tragic--capture and execution of the film's subject.<br /><br />The rest of this interminable cinema verite is just confusing, irritating misery--shockingly, for a Soderbergh film, to be avoided at all costs. It is bound to break the hearts of all who know even just a smattering about the subject.(2/10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
An actor's first film is usually something one can afford to miss - it's often that first job where the lack of film experience by everyone involved is truly on display, and this film is no exception.<br /><br />But worse than that, even by 1982 standards this is so bad, it's hysterically funny. Filmed entirely in the Chicago area on an obviously small budget, most of the acting by the entire cast is stiff, wooden, and cartoonish - a cross between a high school play and bad community theater. Noise from nearby traffic often drowns out the dialog, and the dialog is truly bad, very declarative in a way that comes off as forced and expedient rather than natural and organic. Scenes are contrived and choppy, and even though the characters go through a span of years, neither the children nor the adults age at all.<br /><br />I do believe it's possible to make a Christian film that's palatable to a large, secular audience, but too often the creators of such films are so focused on 'The Message' or in this case, their own autobiographical ties to the project that good film production values are tossed aside. (I'm sure it's no coincidence that the main character has the same name as the producer/director/editor - and cast member.) <br /><br />Luckily, Michael Madsen was much more interesting - and believable - to watch in his subsequent films. Careers like his are certainly not built on films like this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The question, when one sees a movie this bad, is not necessarily, "How did a movie this bad get made?" or even, "Why did I see this awful in the first place?" but, "What have I learned from this experience?" Here's what I learned:<br /><br />- Just because the "rules" of horror movies have been catalogued and satirized countless times in the last ten years doesn't mean someone won't go ahead and make a movie that uses ALL of them, without a shred of humor or irony.<br /><br />- If your movie has to be described as **loosely** based on the video game, you have script problems.<br /><br />- The black character may not always die first, but the Asian character does always know kung-fu.<br /><br />- While you may be proud that you figured out how to do the "the Matrix effect" on a budget, that doesn't necessarily mean you should use it over and over again ad nausea.<br /><br />- Being Ron Howard's brother does not guarantee choice roles.<br /><br />- Whenever a scene doesn't edit together, just use some footage from the video game, no one will notice.<br /><br />- If your cousin's rap-metal band offers to write your movie's theme for free, politely decline.<br /><br />- Zombie movies are not about people killing zombies. They're about zombies killing people, preferably in the most gruesome way possible. That's what makes them SCARY.<br /><br />- White people who can pay $1600 to get to a rave deserve to die.<br /><br />- If you find an old book, it will tell you everything you need to know. Anything else you will figure out on your own two lines after someone asks, "What was that?" or, "Where are we?"<br /><br />- Bare breasts are not horror movie panacea.<br /><br />- A helicopter boom shot and a licensing deal with Sega magically transforms your movie from "student film" to "major studio release". Try it!<br /><br />- Just because you can name-drop all three "Living Dead" movies, that does not make you George Romero. Or even Paul W. S. Anderson.<br /><br />I've seen worse movies, but only because I've seen "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation."
|
Negative
| null | null |
What's written on the poster is: "At birth he was given 6 years to live... At 34 he takes the journey of a lifetime." Ami is an American-born Israeli who was diagnosed with Muscular Dystrophy disease at the age of one. At age of 34, after the love toward his 22 years old care-giver didn't go well, he decided to come to the US to face the doctor who said that he would have only 6 years to live. He wanted to show the doctor that he is still alive, and weights 39 pounds. Why? Your guess is as good as mine, even I have seen this film.<br /><br />Obviously it's courageous to live when all he can move is his left index finger, but why does he have so much anger toward the doctor who diagnosed his disease 34 years ago? His doctor just told his mom that based on the medical history, people with his disease won't live long. What's the point of him showing up at old doctor's door for? Why is tracking down this old doctor in the US is a journey of his lifetime? There are so many things we might be interested in Ami's life: how can he make those animations with the movement of only one finger? How can he go through daily lives while totally depending on others? How did he out lived his doctor's prediction? How does he deal emotionally when other people look at him like looking at a strange creature? The movie told us none of that. Instead, the filmmaker got a van and set up a trip to let Ami to show up at his old doctor's door in order to show him that he is still alive. I thought it was a joke.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.<br /><br />The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.<br /><br />The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.<br /><br />Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film has been receiving a lot of play lately during the day on either HBO or Cinemax. The reason is that they are assuming people would be interested in comparing it to the Leonardo DiCaprio/Tom Hanks caper of the same name. The only reason to see it is for the attractive Matt Lattanzi. Yum! Although I must say Matt was more than a little long in the tooth to be playing a high schooler. If he were a woman, they'd have had him playing the MOTHER of a high schooler! (Is is just me, or is his daughter starting to look like Shelley Duvall?) Oh yeah, the plot--who cares? Typical teen highjinx played by adults.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A schizophrenic has escaped from a NYC mental hospital and soon teachers start getting offed at St. Trinity University. New teacher Julie (Francine Forbes) has to deal with the mess of red herrings. Despite a 78 minute running time, this cheap-o slasher drags on and on until the lame finish where the person you suspect is the killer from the get go is revealed to be as such. Director Richard Haines barely breaks a sweat with some lame stalk-n-slash staging but delivers the grue the early 80s audience was probably craving. For all of our amateur anthropologists out there, this was filmed in New Yawk in early 80s so you can check out all of the culture, beliefs, and practices of living people from that far away place. The film does get some credit for offing the "Final Girl." You rarely see that. Also, always nice to see a horror movie where a priest is the killer. Doth thou not trust the clergy, my beloved film industry? Thankfully, this one is only a phony priest and he gets caught. He is still working the moral high ground angle though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This third Darkman was definitely better than the second one, but still far worse than the original movie. What made this one better than D2 was the fact that The Bad Guy had been changed and Durant was not brought back again. Furthermore there was actually some hint of character development when it came to the bad guy's family and Darkman himself. This made my heart soften and I gave this flick as much as 4/10, i.e. **/*****.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are plenty of comments already posted saying exactly how I felt about this film so Ill keep it short.<br /><br />"The Grinch" I thought was marvellous - Jim Carrey is a truly talented, physical comedian as well as being a versatile clever actor (in my opinion). Mike Myers on the other hand gets his laughs by being annoying. I used to like him very much in his "Waynes World" and "So I Married an Axe Murderer" days - but Ive never been fond of Austin Powers and "the Cat In The Hat" has just finished me off. <br /><br />This film was horrible - the gags were horrible! inappropriate for children not only in adult content but in the fact that some of them were so dated they havent amused anyone for 50 years! The plot was messy, messy, messy! Its a shame really because the children were very likeable as was "Mom". They probably could have picked a better villain than Alec Baldwin - but he could have pulled it off if it weren't for Myers ugly, revolting over-acted portrayal of the Cat.<br /><br />I mean - did Myers even glance at a script? Was one written? The other actors seemed to have one - but the Cat just seemed to be winging it!<br /><br />On the other hand I would like to mention that the sets and props were marvellous!!! But unfortunately they cant save this film.<br /><br />Poor Dr Seuss - the man was a genius! Dont ruin his reputation by adapting his work in a such a lazy, messy way!!!<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I am not a professional movie critic but come on...a true story!!!!<br /><br />They are tunneling under another store to get underneath the bank and stumble across a tomb. At tomb with a passageway which goes directly under the bank.<br /><br />OK, I'll play along.<br /><br />But then they get into the bank and decide to go to sleep. Yeah!!! I am sure with all the adrenaline pumping through them they are going to just fall asleep. <br /><br />This blows the whole picture!!!! How lame!!!!!<br /><br />Glad I didn't have to pay to watch this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This thing is horrible. The Ben Affleck character is self-centered and gleefully sadistic--punch-you-in-the-nose fratboy sadistic. And he's the romantic HERO! His cartoonish character does not change from beginning to end, but his money ultimately allows him to buy happiness.<br /><br />If I were a Socialist, I would screed beyond belief, but I'm not a Socialist.<br /><br />We capitalists like a little Christmas magic from time to time. This ain't magic. I don't know what it is. It's just awful. And it's a horrible waste of talent. O'Hara has been making me laugh hysterically since the late '70s. Gandolfini. Applegate. These people were all underused. If Ben was out of the equation, these folks might have dreamed up something excellent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the What Was She Thinking? file: Whoopi Goldberg plays a cop in the future who is teamed with a talking dinosaur (!) for a crime case involving a madman who wants to start another ice-age. Straight-to-tape oddity is embarrassing and ridiculous, a high-concept in search of itself. Apparently this was a labor of love for its writer-director, Jonathan Betuel (who also served as one of the producers); sadly, the end results are anemic, to be charitable. Goldberg's mere presence on-screen can often spark good will and laughter no matter how poor the script, but here she's drowning and you can see the unfunny results. NO STARS from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Picked this up for 50 cents at the flea market, was pretty excited.<br /><br />I found it fascinating for about 15 min, then just repetitive and dull.<br /><br />It is neat seeing Mick and the gang in their prime, i wish there was not so much over dubbing of dialog so I could hear what there are saying and playing.<br /><br />The skits are politically dated and incredibly naive and simple, sort of poorly written Monty Python on acid. I spent more time looking at the late 60's England back drops rather then what was actually happening in the silly skits.<br /><br />This movie is a good reminder that times really change,and what was important quickly becomes just plain silly. Good song, but it has now been played to death by this DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Faith Domergue (better known as "Dr. Ruth" in THIS ISLAND EARTH) is the only reason to watch this film. The story is very thin, and once the Air Force buddies return to the States with a Cobra Curse upon them the action is just a waiting game. See Faith the Snake Woman and try to pretend the rest isn't happening.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I expected alot from this movie. Kinda like Lee as a Naustradamous like caracter but instead all I got was a waste of time and a boring movie. I can't even explain this movie. It had wooden acting, terrible script from pieces from the Bible like hurricanes, tidal waves and earthquakes. But that was at the end! The rest of it I had to wait and hope that something meaningfull would happen but it didn't. This movie is about a couple that tries to find out the changes going on in the world like places in China where there was an earthquake and end up at a convent run by eight nuns and a priest. The convent end up being the key to the misshappenings. The whole movie is missleading and boring. One of Lees worst.
|
Negative
| null | null |
On the way back from IMC6 (San Jose, California), all five (mind you, three of us hardcore Kamal fans) of us had reached a unanimous verdict; VV was solid crap and thanks to the movie we were going to have a pretty screwed up Monday. Not to mention, we swore to stay off the theatres for the next year.<br /><br />I won't blame Kamal here because he sort of dropped a hint in a recent interview with cartoonist Madan (on Vijay TV). He said something like, "Tamizh Cinema'la Photography, Editing'la namba munnera'na maadri Screenplay, Direction, Acting'la innum namba munnera'la" (Tamil Cinema has grown in terms of Photography and Editing, but we have hardly improved, when it comes to Screenplay, Direction and Acting"). While you're watching VV, those words ring very true.<br /><br />Now, here are the 10 Reasons to hate this movie:<br /><br />1. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />2. Harris Jeyaraj<br /><br />3. Harris Jeyaraj I'm barely holding myself from using expletives here, but fact is HJ has mastered the fine knack of screwing up every recent movie of his (remember 'Anniyan', 'Ghajini') with the jarring cacophony, he bills as background music. The next time I have an eardrum transplant, he's paying for it. <br /><br />4. Songs Neither do the songs help move the movie's narration spatially/temporally nor do they make you sit up and take notice. The film feels like it's made of four VERY long songs with a few scenes thrown in between them.<br /><br />5. A Short gone too far. VV at best is fit to be a short story, not a 2 hour plus "thriller". To use a cliché here, like the Energizer bunny it goes on and on and on; only in this case you don't want it to. The later part of a movie feels like a big drag.<br /><br />6. Kamal-Jothika pairing Two ice cubes rubbed together could've produced more sparks than this lead pairing. There's no reason you would root for them to make it together. In fact every time they get together in the second half of the movie, they make a good irritant to the narration. Hate to say this, but Kamalini Mukerjhee's 10 minute romancing does more than what Kamal and Jothika achieve in this movie plus 'Thenali'.<br /><br />7. Kamal Haasan's accent Kamal has this pretentious accent that nobody speaks either in India or in the US; and it isn't new either. He's been doing it since 'Thoongadae Thambi Thoongadae'. It's simply gets on the nerve. Imagine what havoc it can cause when his flair for using this strange accent meets shooting on location in the US. He doesn't leave it at the Immigration either, he offers doses of advice to his men (bewildered TN Cops from Keeranor, Sathoor and beyond) in chaste Kamanglish ("Wha we hav here is plain bad police wok"), of course with nauseating effect.<br /><br />8. Logic There are a few directors whom you expect to stand up to a certain scale. Gautam fails us badly with some crappy performance in the Department of common sense. Which D.C.P in his senses would meet his love interest on the streets to discuss such matters as committing himself and life after! The scene inside the theatre was so bad, towards the climax; we could hear people behind us loudly challenge the Hero's IQ. "Is he stupid, can't he just use his Siren or Lights?" (On a busy Madras road, Kamal-the-cop-on-a-police-Jeep chases a guy on a bike just like any ordinary dude!). "Can't he just use his gun?" ("The guy on a bike" starts on foot and we have a fully geared Kamal in hot pursuit for a considerable amount of time). I'm not voting in favour of the later, but I'm just trying to explain the mood inside.<br /><br />9. Gore & Violence If I wanted to watch women being raped, their throats getting slashed, more women getting raped and thrown into the bushes with excruciating authenticity, I would sit at home and rather watch a "Police Report" or "Kuttram". The use of excessive violence should go in a way to extend the story, not overwhelm it! Somewhere down the line Gautum seems confused about what the extensions (rapes, murders) are and what the mainstay (story) is!<br /><br />10. Even a double shot Espresso couldn't get the pain out of the head.
|
Negative
| null | null |
WOW is all i can say if your reading this is either watched it or are thinking about it. trust me watch it!<br /><br />i laughed so hard at so many parts of this movie the worst acting ever made is very funny! I cant believe they superimposed the school sign! I must have played that scene over and over again just to laugh more and more every time. If a movie like this can be made it gives us all hope in making our own movies. even the costume was bad. it looked like my 7 year old cousin could have done a better job on making it. heck i bet he could have written and acted better as well. all i know is that i have to watch the second part just so i can see if it was as bad as the first. its a cool idea about a killer scarecrow but a much better job could have been done. hopefully another killer scarecrow movie comes out, just not like this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
People like me will tear this movie apart. It's just not realistic. The Plot is sooooooo predictable. You can anticipate everything that happens convientantly Of course, they find the treasure and become filthy rich, and trick the bad guy. We've seen it a million times before. The writers of this movie must think that the majority of the movie going public is stupid. They must be right because The majority of people actually liked this film. I mean solving riddles in a matter of seconds. The secret treasure room hidden under the Manhattan subway? You'd think with all the work that's gone on in New York underground That room would have been discovered before. and all that was constructed during the civil war? PLEASE And the love story between Ben and Abigail?? how cute, and I thought the romance in Clive Cussler novels was weak. They just fall in love like that, in 2 seconds WHATEVER I'd be more concerned with saving my own ass then getting some. the hell with the girl and the stupid piece of paper. 1/10 Garbage
|
Negative
| null | null |
Basing a television series on a popular author's works is no guarantee of success. Yorkshire Television learnt this the hard way when in 1979 they bought the rights to the books credited to Dick Francis, three of which were broadcast under the collective title 'The Racing Game'. Mike Gwilym was Sid Halley, a former jockey turned private eye following an accident in which he lost his right hand, only to have it replaced by an artificial one. Gwilym suffered from an acute lack of charisma ( and looked like one of the bad guys ) while Mick Ford ( who played the irritating Chico Barnes ) made me think of a horse's arse whenever he was on screen. For six weeks, this less-than dynamic duo charged about the countryside, foiling nefarious plots to fix races, usually by the same methods - blackmail, kidnapping riders or doping horses. Yorkshire Television threw money at the show, but to no avail. Violent, sexist, far-fetched and repetitious, it was quickly carted off to the knackers yard.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Paul Naschy made a great number of horror films. In terms of quality, they tend to range from fairly good to unwatchable trash; and unfortunately, Horror Rises from the Tomb is closer to the latter. The plot is just your average story of a witch, wizard or (as is the case here) warlock, who is put to death - but not before swearing vengeance on those who did it...etc etc. We then get a séance and one thing leads to another, and pretty soon the executed warlock is up to no good again. The plot is slow, painfully boring and the film constantly feels pointless. The characters string out reams of diatribe and it never serves the film in any way whatsoever. Paul Naschy wrote the script, and if you ask me he should stick to acting because the dialogue is trite in the extreme, and only serves to make the film even more boring than it already is. Carlos Aured, who also directed Naschy in Blue Eyes of the Broken Doll and Curse of the Devil provides dull direction here, which likes the dialogue does nothing to help the film. Sometimes crap films like this have a certain charm about them; but Horror Rises from the Tomb doesn't even have that. This is a painfully boring film that has little or nothing in the way of interest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When viewing a movie as silly as 'Hot Rod,' one must sit back, relax, and alter one's intellectual capacity to a like state which is, in this case, a state dimwitted enough to endure brainless drivel that has somehow been mistaken for comedy. With a brief runtime of 88 minutes, this film was long past drawn-out and buried itself beneath a bundle of repetitive jokes jokes that came at a minority and weren't even funny in the first place. 'Hot Rod''s base material is as superficial and irrelevant as 2004's cult hit 'Napoleon Dynamite,' though it's much more contrived and comes without ANY of the laughter. In fact, the movie's blatant desperation to be compared to 'Napoleon Dynamite' is scornful and offensive, and left me ticked off, instead of just being annoyed.<br /><br />The movie, if one were compelled enough to call it such, poses a paltry story that puts self-proclaimed stuntman Rod Kimble before us, with the trifling intention of jumping fifteen buses (one more than his idol Evel Knievel jumped, so we're told by Rod) and raising $50,000 dollars for his stepfather's impending life-saving heart operation; all so that he can fight his stepfather, once recovered, and gain his respect
because in order to gain one's respect, one must first fight them. Huh? Whatever. Each character is no more interesting than Rod's stick-on mustache, and from the film's opening joke to its ridiculous conclusion, each scene played like a nonsensical, and terribly unfunny, SNL skit which, with the addition of an extra 85 minutes, is, essentially, what 'Hot Rod' strives to be.<br /><br />The film's star, Andy Samberg, contributed an effort to the screen that observably exerted every last drip-drop of his comedic capabilities. Unfortunately rather, realistically his humorous talents are no more admirable than a five-year-old retelling his own exhausted joke that somewhere includes the innocently crude poop and pee-pee gags. And if that's disappointing, pull a chair, hide your face in your hands, and brace yourself for the real blow: he IS the film's humor! To rescue them of their mortification, I'll willingly omit the ghastliness of Samberg's co-stars' roles and leave the second third of The Lonely Island team, director Akiva Schaffer, to his non-existent talent as a director
or a comedian. Basically, every thing one could possibly do to further trample a crash-course comedy is perfectly portrayed here; and done so arrogantly, as though the film would be funnier that way. Trick yourself into believing that there's even a single laugh in this heap, or treat yourself to another movie ANY other movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.<br /><br />Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.<br /><br />By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old "Boo" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.<br /><br />I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't get me wrong, Dan Jansen was a great speed skater. If there was one guy who deserved his gold medal at the Olympics it was Dan.<br /><br />But how can it be possible that Bill Corcoran has made such a bad movie about the incredible Dan Jansen story, because the real Dan Jansen story is truly incredible! Especially when you look at this movie through the eyes of a sportsman everything is wrong, the way Matt Keeslar and the other actors skate, their technique, the dimensions of the speedskating oval, it is all wrong!<br /><br />Shame on you, Bill Corcoran, Dan Jansen deserves better, a lot better!<br /><br />1 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen. The fact that it has a flimsy storyline is bad enough, that they've hooked it around the subject of football violence makes it 100 times worse.<br /><br />I had severe doubts about the premise of this film even before I started watching, but went into it open minded enough even to accept the way that the writers saw fit to introduce Elijah Wood's character Matt into the hooligan scene.<br /><br />But the film throws up inaccuracy after inaccuracy, to the point that by the middle of the film each one makes you cringe harder than the time before.<br /><br />Let's clear up a few things: Hooligans don't tend to virtually smash up their own pub before a run-of-the-mill league game; they don't set out to kill each other; they don't ONLY wear Stone Island (and others in the crowd, hooligans or not, do). They most certainly don't, when having taken exception to a new firm member, trot off to their rival firms territory for pie and mash. And I'd love to meet the hool who would go and grass on his firm's top boy to the rival firm. (Although you can scratch what I said about setting to out kill each other if one does exist).<br /><br />Don't get me wrong,I'm yet to see a film on the subject that doesn't contain some fantasy whims, but this is on a par with The Firm for cluelessness.<br /><br />I found it ironical that Wood's American nemesis is morally condemned by his character for being a cocaine user, when this is part and parcel of the British hooligan scene. The film chooses not to challenge Wood's morals and instead steers clear of any of the firm using coke.<br /><br />I could go on, but I think I've made my point.<br /><br />As for the plot, it's highly unimaginative, and I'm sure if I hadn't spent the entire film bemoaning the points, and more, made above then I would have guessed what was going on sooner than I did. And believe me, I was well in front.<br /><br />I get the distinct impression this film is aimed at men, with the hope that women will enjoy the injection of emotional issues that are raised.<br /><br />If I'm right, then the makers have failed completely. It's too unrealistic to be enjoyed by anyone who knows about the scene, and I can't believe the kind of female who looks for emotive films would give a damn about any of the characters given their violent tendencies.<br /><br />Are there any good points? Maybe the fight scenes are well choreographed and filmed, but I'm rarely impressed by slow-mo action, certainly not when it's a fight as the point is a ruck is rousing enough anyway.<br /><br />There are some funny, if unrealistic moments. Wood's trip to school did raise a smile for me. But a few mildly funny moments hardly make up for watching two hours of complete fabricated dross.<br /><br />If you're British avoid like the plague, if only not to further develop misconceptions of the scene if you're not in the know. If you're American, you may enjoy it, as it's clearly tailored to the market. But no one can deny the plot is flimsy, predictable and ultimately over the top.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't. <br /><br />Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand. <br /><br />Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was talked into watching this movie by a friend who blubbered on about what a cute story this was.<br /><br />Yuck.<br /><br />I want my two hours back, as I could have done SO many more productive things with my time...like, for instance, twiddling my thumbs. I see nothing redeeming about this film at all, save for the eye-candy aspect of it...<br /><br />3/10 (and that's being generous)
|
Negative
| null | null |
A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.<br /><br />I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.<br /><br />With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.<br /><br />I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.<br /><br />I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.<br /><br />If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I kinda liked the film despite it's frenzied pace. BUT, I did not appreciate the comment that Canada was referred to as Montana North. It is definitely NOT Montana North and never will be. Americans wonder why they are perceived as arrogant in the rest of the world, and that is one reason why. Stop teaching the kids of the United States of America to think they own the planet. Such a centrist world view is not becoming of one of the world's great nations. Even in jest. I would never refer to the USA as 'Alberta South'. Walt would never put us down, so why start now. Other than that the film was pretty goofy, better luck next time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was astonishing. It is beyond atrocious. I often get together with a group of friends and go to the movie store to find awful movies to watch for their comedic value. My friend suggested this one, but as we watched it, people began to leave. I really wanted to finish it, just so that I could say that I had, but I was unable to. It's that bad. Horrible running gags, lame acting. The main characters are an annoying dinosaur klutz and Whoopi Goldberg. I would rather watch Costener's The Postman twelve times in a row than see a fraction of this movie again. I think they try to deal with some dinosaur discrimination issues, but the part of the movie that really stands out is the dinosaur constantly knocking things over with his tail, and then guffawing about it. It hurts. Watch it if you're an aspiring masochist, otherwise, leave this one alone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So i had low expectations for this movie to start with, but it failed to meet even those. while there were some funny parts, even one or two laugh out loud parts, this movie fell terribly short of what i would call good. the funniest jokes were unexpected and over very quickly, leaving us sitting there going "WTF just happened?" in addition, there were a few jokes that just dragged on and on and on. the part where he falls down the mountain had me yawning. also, the editing was really lacking. there were some poor scene transitions, but that seems to be the style nowadays. It made me laugh, but i wouldn't watch it again, and I'm very glad i waited for it to rent. give it a chance, you might enjoy it, but don't think you are in for anything along the lines of the 40 year old virgin, or Superbad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had to write a review of this film after reading another comment saying that this is Sidney Poitier's best movie. Poitier had just returned from over a decade's break in film acting and he is clearly creaky here. 11 of his films are mentioned in Wikipedia and they don't include this. 5 of his films are on the AFI's list of top 100 inspiring movies, again, not including this. Berenger and Poitier, rube and city slicker set out to hunt down a dangerous psychopath before he crosses the border to Canada. Some of the attempts at comedy in this film clearly fail and Berenger and Poitier's bonding was cringeworthy and awkward (not helped by a completely bland script). Kirstie Alley (as the hostage) was underused, and almost entirely ignored when she was on screen. Some attempt at suspense is made, for example when you're meant to try and guess which of 5 men on a fishing trip is the murderer (all of them are type-cast villains). I understand that this is the entire appeal to most fans out there. I guessed who it was and I wasn't really trying hard.<br /><br />If you're a Berenger fan, watch the Sniper (1993), you even get to see Billy Zane strutting his stuff. It's much better. All in all I'd give Shoot to Kill 3/10. It's not daring, and it's just too straightforward for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of Troma but I can't figure out why they bought the rights to this movie, It's so boring I felt like I was watching for 3 hours. Some where on the plot summary it says "but what Satan doesn't know he's stuck with annoying tourists" Well they didn't seem to bother him in the movie, just me.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the actor who plays Satan, I like bad movie's but it was just boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite having known people who are either great fans of Noam Chomsky, or think he's a tired relic from the 1960s, I really had no opinion of the man, save that I knew he gained fame as a linguist, although I could not elucidate any of his theories, and that he was a liberal socialist with Marxist leanings. So, stumbling across the DVD of the 2003 documentary Noam Chomsky: Rebel Without A Pause, in a used video store, a film which followed him on a 2002 book tour for his book 9-11, I decided to get it, just so I could have a little bit of knowledge about the man the next time a person, pro or con, spoke of him. While glad I got the film, my initial reaction to this dull and ill edited hagiography was, so what's all the fuss about?<br /><br />For a man with so many degrees, lauded as 'the most important intellectual alive', by the New York Times, according to the DVD's case, there sure was not a lot there, intellectually speaking. I know I would chew him up and spit him out in a debate, and I wouldn't even want to watch what a William F. Buckley could do to him. Granted, the whole film was seemingly about Chomsky seeing conspiracies everywhere, and having glazed eyed coeds nod in bewildering approval of the most inane and outrageous things he'd say, rather than being on linguistics, so maybe that's the reason he came off so badly. But, again, if he is a linguist, and tops in his field, why in the world would anyone care what he has to say on anything outside his field of expertise?
. Even worse are his acolytes, who seem to further insulate the man from reality, by fostering delusions that Chomsky is a target for Zionist assassins. What little I knew of Chomsky before watching this film, this much I knew: he was generally considered a has been, and pretty much irrelevant intellectually, since the fall of the Soviet Empire. The film is so poorly structured, and without a narrative thread, that it's difficult to separate all of the jumble. His wife, Carol, as example, apparently gave one interview, which was chopped up and dropped wherever in the film. She seems a nice enough woman, but wholly out of her element answering anything but the most basic questions about their life. The lone interesting thing she says is that 9/11 was a great thing for the Chomskys, for he has reaped a great deal of money in speaking fees since then.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, this sort of film gives almost no biographical background. It's assumed that all viewers must know all the plaudits this 'great man' bears. Chomsky is rarely interviewed one on one. Stylistically, there are no camera movements, no interesting edits, nor any signature touches, and most of the film is disjunct rambles by Chomsky, videotaped huzzahs of Chomsky declaiming on this or that, and slack-jawed and awed students looking at him as if he were immaterial, that is when dimwitted coeds are not asking barely audible and ridiculously simplistic questions to him. This is really poor film-making by director and editor Will Pascoe, who in the DVD's Filmmaker Statement, shows he's yet another uncritical acolyte of Chomsky's. Other than that, one of the surest signs that this is not an objective documentary, but mere agitprop, and a vanity piece of agitprop, at that, is that not a single time is Chomsky shown struggling with an answer. He seems to be a font of knowledge that has no bounds.<br /><br />Given that much of this dreck was filmed during Chomsky's lectures at McMaster University, in Ontario, Canada, prior to the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, much of what Chomsky says seems as remote as things from the Vietnam War era. Yes, he makes some good points, here and there, on American media complicity before the war, but he follows them up with sheer lunacy, for he seems to not realize that most conspiracies are ad hoc, and not fully plotted out cabals. As example, he claims that the advertising industry is a cabal that mercilessly controls the populace, but says not a word about the zombied populace that lets itself be so controlled. Similarly, he claims Trilateralists run the world and that people's fear of crime is yet another cabal's result. Of course, that claim so fully explains away rape crisis centers, and all that wasted time and money district attorneys' offices consume. He also makes the absurd claim that Cuba has been the victim of terrorism for decades, when Castro and company were great sponsors of it, in Latin America, Asia, and Africa, until the Soviet Union fell. I can only guess that the UFO conspiracists are just waiting for Chomsky to proclaim that gray aliens have set up species-mixing impregnation centers up in Idaho.<br /><br />In his simpleminded world without grays, Chomsky is frighteningly as dense as the members of Bushco, whom he reviles, are; even more so since they lay no claim to being intellectuals. In short, Chomsky is a man living in the past, in over his head on most issues, and out of his depth intellectually. Near this film's end he warns, 'Be cautious when you hear about intellectuals being fighters for justice,' yet one can only laugh, as the man seemingly has never met a revolutionary person nor idea that he didn't like, no matter how barbarous their crimes, and anti-intellectual their posit. Please, pause before you waste your time and money on this silly, and already irrelevant, DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.