input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
After eight Moto films the series had run its course, as this last entry demonstrates. Peter Lorre was clearly weary of trying to pump some sort of human interest and entertainment value into the wispy character of Moto, and the dreadful idea of pairing him with a "funny" British sidekick utterly defeats all his efforts here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was surely the stupidest, crudest, most repulsive film I have seen in quite some time. I was tempted to turn off the VCR, but, as in the fascination watching a horrible car accident, I literally found it COMPULSIVELY HATEABLE in every conceivable way and slugged it out through to the end. I am by no means a prude who objects to the comedic portrayal of sexual antics on the screen. Animal House, Porky's, There's Something About Mary, both American Pie movies, and even the notorious Freddy Got Fingered I have found highly enjoyable on their own crude terms. Mamie Van Doren's breast-baring sponge bath is the most horrifying appearance by a naked geriatric since The Shining. Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once. The only useful purpose for the film is as a textbook example of how not to make a gross out picture. Oh, and it would also serve nicely as a lawn fertilizer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is exactly the sort of Saturday matinee serial I loved during World War II. I was under ten years of age. And that's the audience this serial is designed for. Looking at it now, one must roar at its ineptitude and stupidity. The budget must have been next to nothing, given the shortcuts and repeats. The acting? Well, this is Republic pictures, 1944. They read the lines....and no doubt had one take to make them convincing.<br /><br />One and half stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A plot that fizzled and reeked of irreconcilable differences in opinions constituted a judgmental havoc with one side pro-life and the other a destroyer of a demon's seed. The horror was left out and replaced with an overall dull effect quite possibly meant to be horrific, but, instead demonstrated an ill dose of beliefs which ridiculed each other to death, despite the title itself. Being a fan of Masters of Horror since the beginning, this ridiculous plot twist with it's sordid depictions crashed apart like a spindly old rocking chair after being sat upon. I view this episode as being thrown together from the get go, never really taking off anywhere other than to see it through for what its worth and relieved when it finally came to "The End"..
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just okay horror film about a nice suburban family dealing with the death of their parents and the "thing" in the basement that they keep feeding people they pick up off the street. Of course there is more to it then that but to say more would be telling.<br /><br />For me this just didn't come together as it tries to have it two ways both as a family drama and a horror film. the film tries very hard to walk the cutting edge between the two genres but seems more to stumble all over the place as it tries to be shocking, something it never really is. It doesn't help that the final revelation is less a scare then an "oh", as on "Oh thats it?". Maybe if I hadn't been watching so many horror films recently this might have been better or it may have just seemed it since I wouldn't have compared it to so much.<br /><br />I'd take a pass
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was drawn to this movie, curious to see how they have adapted Hubert Shelby's brutal novel. I thought that a literary piece of such depth, with a rich tapestry of characters, horrid situations, and social critique could not translate into a bad movie. I was wrong.<br /><br />This flick is a terrible movie experience, not for its content, but for its form. Director Ulrich Edel executes, in my sincere opinion, a terrible directorial job that does no justice to the original book. No wonder Edel is a TV director; this movie looks and feels like a bad "made for TV" flick. Some of my views on this bomb (**spoilers ahead**):<br /><br />- Lack of directorial creativity. The scenes are slow, feel slow, look poorly shot, and barely ever move from an anchored position. The only liberty they take is in the cinematography area, with a nice dark tone. Other than that, the movie has the same technical creativity as a TV soap-opera.<br /><br />- All the actors do a terrific job at portraying these miserable characters. The problem is that the adaptation does not tackle a basic element in the development of the plot: MOTIVATION. All these characters move around like robots, without a clear motivation for their action. They seem to do things out of the blue, like robots, for no reason at all. Edel misses every opportunity to enrich character development by not exploring the character's motivations, and by avoiding developing each character's personality to its full extent.<br /><br />This lack of character development is blatant on Tralala. Jennifer Jason Leight does a great job playing this trashy prostitute, but her alcohol-induced decision to let the sailors violate her is not explained. It looks extremely stupid, as we see this character doing this out of the blue. This is a clear example of poor character development.<br /><br />The movie also has many secondary, token characters that do nothing, feel nothing, and add nothing to the plot. I would have liked to learn more about Harry's wife, for instance, and the interaction between the two. That's another missed opportunity.<br /><br />Edel only approaches character development with Harry and his fixation with his gay lover, only to screw it up at the end, not clearly explaining -again- his motivations. The thugs are also a joke in their lack of development.<br /><br />- The soundtrack is one of the worst I've ever experienced. Terrible job by Mark Knopfler. I seriously expected more from the former leader of Dire Straits, but his job in this movie is seriously lacking. At times, like in the battle between the union workers and the police, the music seems totally disconnected from the movie. It also feels completely poor and anachronic; I could swear the whole soundtrack was made with a Casio toy keyboard. It distracts from the actual action.<br /><br />- The book adaptation by Desmond Nakano is so literal that eliminates the point of the story. It feels as if they tried so hard to keep the action-by-action storyline in the book, that they forgot to actually develop the characters and, once again, explain their actions and motivations.<br /><br />I seriously can not recommend this movie, not even to a Shelby fan, because it can ruin the original book. It's a very uninspired effort in adapting the novel, and shows very little creative input.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With its companion piece MASTERS OF HORROR, NIGHTMARES AND DREAMSCAPES can only be seen as the absolute nadir of the genre that began so auspiciously with THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE OUTER LIMITS.<br /><br />Of course, part of the problem is that it does nothing to be of any interest to a comparatively adult audience, instead aiming at TEN-YEAR-OLDS, who are only able to count body-bags, and scarcely that. And so grossness is king, and King is grossness.<br /><br />Stephen King is simply illiterate in general he has the aptitude for storytelling of Bart Simpson. Since he cannot read his sole inspiration is the movies.<br /><br />True, the cinema is not such a bad place to start, since it has generally escaped the onslaught of "Realism". But these films are only the rumor, not the thing, and if you want to WRITE, you have to dig deeper.<br /><br />Of course, only PICKMAN had monsters as close acquaintances. But even so, it should be clear to any undergraduate that vampires are not Dracula and Lugosi.<br /><br />At least AUTOPSY ROOM FOUR is a clear indication of what is wrong. One can almost imagine this pathetic dolt sitting as his desk trying to come up with something SCARY.<br /><br />Not, mind you, trying to describe accurately the horror of the system of which he is an integral part, making the stupid stupider, but trying to come up with a scary story for his little nephew. Suppose, you were paralyzed, and people thought you were dead and started to cut you open like they do at those autopsy things! Wouldn't that be gross? And that, boys and girls, is the story.<br /><br />What about characterization? Oh yes, he's one of these suits, who never really appreciated life, you know, and now it's too late, right? And he's shouting well, they can't actually hear him, you know he's saying that he's going to sue the hospital, but he's not such a big shot anymore, you see, lying there (or is it laying, I can never remember) and all. And he's thinking: Oh no please, please don't cut me and this is terrible, lying (or laying) like that now, wouldn't that be a great story? You know I read somewhere that a snake bite can do that, I think it was that great medical authority Agatha Christie. What was the name of that snake again, oh yeah, a BOOMSLANG has quite a ring to it, doesn't it.<br /><br />Let's make it a PERUVIAN BOOMSLANG! Sure, Steve, that's great except that BOOMSLANG is Afrikaans, you moron! But how can you really tell that the target audience is children, and not simply mental defects? It's easy: There's no sex.<br /><br />Well, there is, but it's the kind glimpsed through a crack in the door to our parent's bedroom. Modern filmmakers are really big on the erotic aspects of the genre, the monster, the female victim, the chase.<br /><br />But unlike UNIVERSAL and LEWTON they have no idea what's going on. All that's really left is the giggling outside the SM club and the Fascist credo that people with sexual preferences are intrinsically evil.<br /><br />In spite of a certain discrepancy in size, King Kong knew exactly what to do with Fay Wray. Freddy Krueger can only kill her.<br /><br />And since there's no real titillation in that, he has to torture her first not in any way that might excite her, you understand, since that would upset our puritan sentiments. And so, horror and romanticism become simply unpleasantness and the grooming of psychopaths.<br /><br />Our hero, you see, is a rubber fetishist, and can only get a boner if someone touches him you know down there with you know rubber gloves (giggle). And that's what they use in autopsies, and that's how they discover that he is, in fact, you know.<br /><br />Obviously, this is the author at the height of his inspirational powers. Too bad, they cut it out, since it might have upset the FIVE-YEAR-OLDS watching the show!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well then. I just watched an crap-load of movies--all with varying degrees of quality. I wasn't too sure about which one I wanted to review first. Then it hit me like a sack-a-rats: Rodentz. Warn people about Rodentz. This monstrosity stars nobody and is painfully dull to sit through. And it's about mutant rats killing people. Yeah... real freaking' original. "Food of the Gods," or "Willard" anyone? Those were better than this, and that doesn't say much...<br /><br />**POSSIBLE SPOILER**Okay here's the story: Inna laboratory the scientist and his plucky assistant are experimenting on rats and their laboratory is in a crappy neighborhood and crappy building and the plucky assistant's moronic friends show up drunk and everyone becomes food for the crazed rats and just about everybody dies and, oh yeah, there's one giant rat that looks crappy, but it gets killed, the end. There, all in once sentence! Spoiler, you say? Ppfff!! I beg to differ! The second we all realize that there's a giant rat, we all know it's gonna die eventually!!**END SPOILER**<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good: <br /><br />--Well, I watched it for free, but for everyone else... hmmm, no. There's nothing good here. <br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help: <br /><br />--Um... well. the gore was decent. --Very average cinematography. <br /><br />--CG rats not as bad as they could've been in some shots...<br /><br />The Bad: <br /><br />--...and in other shots, the CG rats were pathetically cheap-looking. Look, if your film has a low budget, maybe you shouldn't rely on CG. Lesson to take to heart. <br /><br />--The acting is extremely poor.<br /><br />--The characters are beyond uninteresting--we have a mish-mash of clichés and none of them are even done that well. <br /><br />--Booooooooooooring.<br /><br />--Been done before--plenty of times. <br /><br />--Stupid story, just stupid.<br /><br />--Giant rat looks like fat man in poorly conceived bear costume--that was kind of funny--but not funny enough to give this film any worth.<br /><br />--Retarded, unrealistic, and boring dialog. <br /><br />--All the college student rat chow people are drinking Tequila from huge plastic milk jugs--and yet they don't appear to be drunk for anything longer than a few seconds. Way to stick with continuity, guys.<br /><br />The Ugly: <br /><br />--This film is bad. Simply terrible. Worse than you might imagine. It's not even laughably bad like, for instance, "Scarecrow" (2002) or "House of the Dead." Now those movies are crap you can enjoy. Even if they do make you stupider.<br /><br />Memorable Scene: <br /><br />--The lame action-movie ending, complete with uninjured heroes and explosion. Because it didn't feel at all like the rest of this monstrosity--but still sucked.<br /><br />Acting: 2/10 Story: 1/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 4/10 Character Development: 0/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 4/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (I was tending to my son occasionally during the film, so I may have missed it, but was supposedly in there) Violence/Gore: 4/10 Dialogue: 2/10 Music: 1/10 (average for the time) Writing: 1/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 7/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 1/10<br /><br />Watch it only if you love rat and vermin-based horror films. Wait... Check that. Don't watch it. It's crap.<br /><br />(www.ResidentHazard.com)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the single worst movie I have ever seen. Let me say that again: THIS IS THE SINGLE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.<br /><br />It had all of the ear-marks of a bad movie: continuity errors, bad writing, bad acting, bad production value, bad music. I thought that there were a couple points to horror movies. The first is that it is supposed to be suspenseful enough to scare you. This movie gets and F in this category. The second point is that when a character dies, or something bad happens to them, we are supposed to care. This movie gets an F in this regard as well. <br /><br />The first story, a woman gets mauled by wolves after being afraid that this would happen to her. The next story, an OCD guy dies from not being careful and talks to a dead friend of his. Oh, and then there is the horrific, nail-biting story of a bad roommate. Come on, could you pick topics a little more interesting and a little less common than being alone in a house, being anal-retentive, and having a roommate? Turns out all of these stories where hallucinations, virtual reality induced by a Doctor who in turn uses it himself. Wow, stupid.<br /><br />Let me explain something, I enjoy watching bad horror movies and laughing at how bad they are. I couldn't do that with this one. It was utter pain to sit and watch. Do not under any circumstance watch this movie. You WILL regret it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just finished a marathon of this series, and it became agonising to watch as it progressed. From the fictionalising of the historical elements, to O'Herlihy's awful accent in later episodes, the show just slumps the further it goes. If you are looking for some low quality production generalised WW2 fluff, then I could recommend season 1, but avoid anything after that, it degenerates into being one step from a soap opera, with increasingly worse story lines and sensibility.<br /><br />The old B&W film is by far the best of any form of entertainment with the Colditz name attached to it, and even that is not what one could hope for.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.<br /><br />We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.<br /><br />IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just the fact that the cover is a drawing, like those old B-movies should give you a warning about the quality of this movie. This is, however not a B-movie. It is a D-movie! <br /><br />There are no known actors, and the animals - WOW - it is the worst data-animation ever made during the last two decades. <br /><br />You hardly ever see the SCAAARY sabretooth shown on the front cover. You just hear people scream, bleed and die and you occasionally see a teeth or a tiger-paw. It's so amateur! Maybee worth seeing, just because it's so bad. Give it to a friend and say: "This is the best movie I have ever seen, and wait for their reaction" He, he. <br /><br />The movie is to weak to give it a Spoiler Alert! THIS IS A SPOILER.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Suggesting nothing less than a movie-length version of the 1970s TV hit "Love, American Style," decked out with flashes of nudity, "Superchick" (1973) is a lighthearted piece of fluff that somehow still manages to entertain. And the lead character here, Tara B. True, really IS some kind of superchick. A stewardess (not flight attendant) who's so good-looking that even her plane's autopilot has made a pass at her (!), and with a hunky boyfriend in every port, this wingin', swingin' gal really does put the "lay" in "layover." What with her germaphobe surgeon beau in New York, her playboy with gangster problems in Miami, and her creatively challenged rock star dude in L.A., Tara sure does keep busy. And when she's not draining these guys of all their manly energies, as the viewer learns, she's liable to be taking a karate class, mile-high clubbing, fending off flashers and rapists, attending groovy pot parties AND stopping a hijacking attempt on her airplane. As I said, lighthearted fun, and surely good for a night when you're feeling somewhat brain-dead and just want to veg out in front of the tube. Future astrologist Joyce Jillson does bring some vacuous charm to her role as Tara, and the film looks handsome enough to please. Disappointingly, buxom '70s faves Uschi Digard and Mary Gavin (aka Candy Samples) are wasted here in very small roles, but still get to do what they do best--show off their chesticles! Though the picture is never laff-out-loud funny and doesn't really have many thoughts in its metaphorical head, it does succeed in being consistently amusing, and I suppose that is something. Strange that the end credits should call attention to Ms. Jillson's body double, however; don't think I've ever seen THAT before!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The story behind this movie is very interesting, and in general the plot is not so bad... but the details: writing, directing, continuity, pacing, action sequences, stunts, and use of CG all cheapen and spoil the film.<br /><br />First off, action sequences. They are all quite unexciting. Most consist of someone standing up and getting shot, making no attempt to run, fight, dodge, or whatever, even though they have all the time in the world. The sequences just seem bland for something made in 2004.<br /><br />The CG features very nicely rendered and animated effects, but they come off looking cheap because of how they are used.<br /><br />Pacing: everything happens too quickly. For example, "Elle" is trained to fight in a couple of hours, and from the start can do back-flips, etc. Why is she so acrobatic? None of this is explained in the movie. As Lilith, she wouldn't have needed to be able to do back flips - maybe she couldn't, since she had wings.<br /><br />Also, we have sequences like a woman getting run over by a car, and getting up and just wandering off into a deserted room with a sink and mirror, and then stabbing herself in the throat, all for no apparent reason, and without any of the spectators really caring that she just got hit by a car (and then felt the secondary effects of another, exploding car)... "Are you okay?" asks the driver "yes, I'm fine" she says, bloodied and disheveled.<br /><br />I watched it all, though, because the introduction promised me that it would be interesting... but in the end, the poor execution made me wish for anything else: Blade, Vampire Hunter D, even that movie with vampires where Jackie Chan was comic relief, because they managed to suspend my disbelief, but this just made me want to shake the director awake, and give the writer a good talking to.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've found the movie offensive for Americans which lost somebody in the towers, for American people in general. Pretending to be an homage to horrible facts happened last years, each director takes the opportunity to polemize with old facts (which have none to do with a terrorist attack), or criticize American's political behaviour, or compare different political situation as they have in own country having this nothing to do or to share with the atrocity of September 11. Shame on them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My guess is that this director/writer had something to say. Let's see, what it could have been... a. Frog storms would be creepy? b. can I get someone like Tom Cruise to say the "C" word many times and look like a bad Patrick Rafter? c. Cast my wife and get her to say the "F" word every 2 seconds. This aside I really liked the beginning and the frog storm. The rest was a relentless, over-long (under-edited), over-indulgent failure. Glad so many of you enjoyed it! <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
"How She Moves" springs to life only when its high-energy, talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. Otherwise, this stale strive-suffer-and-succeed story is low on energy, low on originality, and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other, likeminded films that have come before it.<br /><br />Rutina Wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner-city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step-dance competitions, but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. As noted earlier, the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing, but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
CQ could have been good, campy fun. But it commits the only unforgivable sin: it is b-o-r-i-n-g! The pace is deadly slow and the plot is fairly confused and so artificial that it's next to impossible to care where it's going. The story would have been acceptable in a creative writing class from a thoughtful and sensitive eighth grader but this video should have carried a warning label: "CAUTION: Student film. Fit for viewing only by relatives of the film maker."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I stopped watching this POS as soon as the snakes started "taking over" the plane.<br /><br />At first I thought maybe it should get a "one" for the comic relief. But then I realized I could just watch the three stooges for free and laugh more! <br /><br />Whatever respect I might have had for Samuel Jackson has been irreversibly destroyed. And Hollywood demonstrates once again how removed from reality they really are. When I was a kid we used to catch snakes for fun. The only thing snakes would do is huddle at the bottom of the cargo bay. And no amount of Hollywood cartoon snakes can change that.<br /><br />This movie isn't worth a trip to Blockbuster. Be warned: if you pay for it, the only "victim" is your dumb ass.<br /><br />If you want to be really scared, I suggest the Descent. If you want humor, go to your local stand up comedy club. Their worst performer will be a million times better than this trash.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am not sure who is writing these<br /><br />glowing reviews for this movie but trust me it STKINKS. I have seen hundreds of horror films and slasher flicks and this one is LAME it is only about 80min long and believe me that is all I could take. Plot is terrible, acting is even worse. And there is no development at all.<br /><br />Even the David Cocteau films are better than this. RUN AWAY from JIGSAW . I expected to hate the acting, which can be forgiven in direct to video movies, if the plot is good.<br /><br />This had no scares, very little Gore,<br /><br />and a truly unattractive cast.<br /><br />I watched this with three other friends<br /><br />who I hope are still talking to me!<br /><br />They wanted me to fling the disc out the window. I can not believe anyone could have<br /><br />given this tripe a good review.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a film of immense appeal to a relatively well-defined group (of which I am not a part). I went to a preview of this movie not knowing what to expect - I ultimately found it disappointing. The history of a dreadfully dysfunctional (oftentimes downright "twisted") Hungarian Jewish family is not my cup of tea. An epic saga like this should really provide its viewers with something more in the end. Ultimately, pictures such as this are about the human condition - this picture cast almost no new light on any of its more meaningful facets.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was almost intolerable to sit through. I can get beyond the fact that it looks like it was shot with a home video camera and that this movie is supposed to span over weeks in time yet the characters do not once change outfits, but the acting broke the 4th wall to pieces for me. I've seen better acting in a 4th grade play. Aside from that the plot is unrealistic. If the man suspected the guy he would have turned him in. I was also heavily disappointed that all the killings were done with a gun what kind of gore is that. That is not a copycat the Zodiac did not kill using just a gun the authorities would have known it wasn't him. Another thing that really bothered me was that they called Disassociative Identity Disorder DSM 4 when that is the name of the book used to diagnose people with mental disorders not the name of the disorder. Overall I think this movie is not the kind of movie that could be done with a low budget at least not as low as they had or they could have made sure they had better actors or more gore. Plenty of people have went the low budget route with out having to use horrible actors look at Easy Rider that had Dennis Hopper and Jack Nicholson and a low budget.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh... my... god... this is without a doubt the absolute cheesiest movie I have ever seen. The acting is bad, the story is weak, the characters are weaker, and the whole film just doesn't make sense. Couple this with mediocre directing, really strange scenes (such as the one where the kid reaches over the ravine and mysteriously falls in), and thoroughly abysmal dialog ("Look!" "Musta peed his pants!"), and you get one complete failure. Not to mention the fact that the only thing Mr. Atlas looks like he could defeat is a case of chocolate bars. But this is part of the movie's charm. Sit down and watch it with a few of your friends for a good laugh. <br /><br />I love this movie, because it's just SO BAD!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Amelia and Michael are a married couple that are cheating on each other. Amelia has a long-time lover in the hospital and Michael hires a prostitute that doesn't satisfy him. The two smolder with their infidelity but manage to connect to each other in the end.<br /><br />There's not a whole lot to this particular short. The direction is straight-forward and dramatic, which is good, the acting is sincere, but the story leaves a little bit to be desired. Why, exactly, do we care about these two people? It's a little hard to see how this story sticks out from any other infidelity story except that it's much more pared down and doesn't search for meaning in it (a welcoming change of pace if anything).<br /><br />I don't know, it's possible I don't connect to these stories because I've never experienced them. But I have noticed that the blocking in these narratives are typically the same, i.e., a couple talking together while avoiding eye-contact by pretending to be immersed in magazines, etc. The nice things about short films is that they provide a bit more room for trying something different, and I'd like to see a different take.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
|
Negative
| null | null |
Vulpine Massacre should have been this movies actual title. And the tag-line should have read "Guaranteed to make your kids CRY!" This is a nature drama telling the story of a family of wild foxes in a remote region. Starting with the meeting and pairing of two young foxes and the eventual birth of a large family and the trials of raising them. The only speaking is done in narrative by a tree that stands over the den, giving insight into the animals loves and lives... Lovely scenery and gorgeous filming of the animals. Sounds good huh? Well from there things go straight to hell and then start drilling towards the core...<br /><br />*** Spoilers Below - Or they it may be a Warning!***<br /><br />Almost first off we learn one of the foxes is born blind. But seems to get along well enough and there's a beautifully cheerful musical score to accompany him... And then he dies... Next we have one of the siblings adventures. And then he dies... One of the sisters gets her screen-time... and then she dies...And so it goes like some horrific slasher movie as one fox after another is killed off by nature, in traps, just up and vanish, and even by a bunch of snowmobiles! By the end of the movie almost all the foxes have been massacred. Though mercifully no deaths are shown on screen. (Least not in the version we saw.) Unlike say "Tarka the Otter" the deaths in this movie are almost all pointless and border on the sadistic in the way hopes are built up and then snuffed out. One or two losses would have been acceptable. It is a nature film after all. But not nearly the whole family.<br /><br />Do not go to see this film deceived by the cheery box into thinking its safe for the kids. Watch it with some foreknowledge that things are *not* going to go well at all and that you or your kids may be left feeling very badly depending on how sensitive you or they are. You may enjoy it. Or you may not...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I totally hated the movie. It was so retarded. They need to get some acting lessons....no, wait, that won't help because the Naked Brothers Band people a retards. You know why I am here even though I am a Naked Brothers Band hater? To warn people before they watch the dumb movie so that the NBB doesn't get any money from it so then they can't make any more amateur stupid songs that are so retarded that any old guy could go and write it in 10 seconds. Not only are the song lyrics retarded, they sing badly. Okay, I'm kinda getting off the movie here.....anyways, it was boring and they acted horribly. It was NOT funny at all even though they tried really hard for it to be. I guess they deserve some credit for that...well, the movie isn't worth your time. Just look at its rating. The movie (and the series) is very painful to watch for anyone who has even half a brain. Seriously, if you liked it, you need to go watch movies where the actors actually act, not babbling their lines in a monotone. I am on the drama club at my school and some people there are actually BETTER than those Nat and Alex guys. Hurry before it's too late! I seriously thought that Herbie Fully Loaded was better than this piece of poopie. I don't even know why I went through even HALF of that film. I don't think it even deserves to be called a film...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Since its release in 1983, "A Christmas Story", the Jean Shepherd-narrated story of his alter-ego, Ralphie, has become a true classic. "My Summer Story", however, still has Shepherd as the narrator, but it has absolutely none of the charm, and the characters are nowhere near the caliber of the original film.<br /><br />"My Summer Story" is basically a mishmash of mediocre and just plain not very interesting stories, which include hillbilly neighbors and battling tops. Charles Grodin, who I normally like, is extremely unlikeable in the role of the father (more aptly handled by Darren McGavin in the original), and his character never seems anything but forced. Kiernan Culkin is a poor substitute for Ralphie, and the little brother is all but forgotten here. Only mom seems to have any worth here and perhaps that's because she beans a cinema manager with a gravy boat when he pushes his luck too far with irate housewives on "free dish night".<br /><br />The stories in this are mostly inconsequential and stretched paper-thin. May appeal to the extremely undemanding but as a sequel to "A Christmas Story", it's a very poor one and not worth most people's time. 2 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A strange mix of traditional-80s, smartassy, Chevy Chase-type, "every-ten-lines-you-get-a-funny-one" farce and sickie black comedy. Mildly amusing in spots, but utterly tasteless. There is a skiing sequence that includes the fakest-looking back-projections since "On Her Majesty's Secret Service". (**)
|
Negative
| null | null |
this is the first time I'm writing a comment on a movie on IMDb. but i had to write it for this one. its 3 hrs of unadulterated torture. from the starting u get the idea that the movie is gonna be bad. the acting is pathetic. I'm a big fan of Ajay devgan (loved him in bhagat singh) but he is at his worst in this movie. amitabh seems to have worked hard for this one, but somehow the fear is missing. prashant raj is a non actor. and the most irritating part of the movie is nisha kothari. i have no clue why the director took her in this movie. the background score is repetitive. somehow i felt that ramu tried to repeat a sarkar, the color theme, the background score, the camera angles, but it didn't work. PLEASE Don't WATCH IT
|
Negative
| null | null |
This apocalyptic zombie film tries to be vicious and shocking; but FEEDING THE MASSES comes off lame as some of the stiff-legged zombies stalking the streets. In Rhode Island, a zombie epidemic known as the Lazarus Virus is being played down by the government manipulated newspapers and television stations. A couple of brave, but dumb, souls at Channel 5 TV News feels its audience is being given false hope and no idea of the real danger at hand. An eager reporter(Racheal Morris)and her cameraman(William Garberina), with the aid of a military escort(Patrick Cohen), risk life and limb to present a 'live' broadcast to show the doom at hand. Do yourself a favor and don't watch. This thing is obviously very low budget and comes across with the feel of a high school play gone bad. Acting is atrocious and the flesh-hungry zombies are almost comical. Also appearing are: Michael Propster, William DeCoff and Brenda Hogan. FEEDING THE MASSES should be left to starve.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I agree with everything people said on this one but I must add that the soundtrack is probably the WORST one I have ever heard my entire life! There are actual vocals during times when you are supposed to be listening to the actors talk! And the vocals are like a broadway version of Danzig singing, "The darkness of the forest! Oh the darkness of the dark, dark forest!" or something else so unthreatening. The singer has a terrible vibrato and has been recorded with a treble-y microphone over some synthed-up string section and fake drum beats. It's horrible!! <br /><br />Yes, the male leads are awful. So are the female ones. This is one bad case of gender stereotyping - it's so bad! Everything they say revolves around being a male or a female, just playing up the stereotypes to the max. Makes me sick. Soooo boring!!! <br /><br />The children were so echoey in their lines, you couldn't understand them. And why do female ghost children always wear cute little bows in their hair, pretty blue dresses and long hair? And ghost boys always wear clean cut slacks with cute little shiny blond hair? Not scary - STUPID.<br /><br />Daddy's face was way too blemish free and clean to be that of a man living in a cave. Nice beard and bangs, pa. Did you perfectly cut those with a knife yourself or did you stroll into town and go to the salon?<br /><br />Stupid movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bridges of madison county is a better made version of this story. I felt the ending of this movie was not handled sensitively as they did in the original English movie. This movie is very indianised, if you are a very sensitive person who cries in a movie when hero dies in the end you'll love this movie, On the other hand if you are a fighter in life and think crying is for wimps you may not like the ending.But on the whole it's pretty good subject is well handled for indian conditions. Tabu was good as a caring wife and mother. Everybody acted well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this film tries to be immensely clever, and Tarantino-like <br /><br />before you try that though, you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound, editing, set design etc...<br /><br />lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track, ever<br /><br />and before we talk about low budget, film made in Chile etc.. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever before<br /><br />the sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout, the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie, which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful, the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard, or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong <br /><br />and yet, not letting limitations of creativity get in the way, at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when we're not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used, and yet the foundations are just not there<br /><br />editing-wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts, we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc, yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard <br /><br />overall the mix is crap, the sound is crap. and so, the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise? Chile's cinematic new wave? the best creative output that Chile has to offer? i hope not, and i think not.<br /><br />my theory is that Chile's more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally, the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called 'world-cinema' enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it's trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality <br /><br />this film is rubbish. it's all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6.8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap Tarantino, new wave inspired porno!
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
|
Negative
|
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 8 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Impressive 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, yayy!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is not just the underlying story but also the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was not just thrown in as an extra. We're actually amused throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the entertaining(twilight-zone like) easily understood and intensly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, and then this 3D entertain-feast.
|
Positive
|
Darkman 3: Die Darkman Die is directed by Bradford May, the same guy who made the first Darkman sequel too. Darkman 3 is worse than Darkman 2, and is nothing special, in my opinion. Larry Drake is no more as a main villain, who is now played by great Jeff Fahey, whose character once again wants to get Darkman's work and create this time some ultra strong humans in order to get the leadership of the whole city. The film is pretty much the same in plot and execution as Darkman 2, but I was mostly irritated by the presence of many scenes from Darkman 2. These sequels were made in short time and with little money, so these kind of decisions had to be made. Couple of scenes are pretty stylish and exiting, but still this is pretty tired film and often irritatingly stupid, too. The characters scream and laugh too much and it is very annoying. There is no any philosophical depth in the film, and this is like a remake of Darkman 2 which it still cannot equal. Darkman 2 had many great scenes and stylish camera work, and Larry Drake's ability to play great villain. Darkman 3 offers only some nice scenes and moments, but mostly this film is tired and full of cliches. The few positive things in this movie are flashback edits (Westlake's nightmares) and couple of truly surprising plot turns and tricks. And worth mentioning is also pretty nasty death scene of the main villain which was pretty comic book like and inventive without any gore. Far more interesting than the death of main villain in part two. <br /><br />Darkman 3 is worst in the whole series, and we must remember that these two sequels were made directly to video and they don't come even close to Raimi's original Darkman with Liam Neeson. Darkman 2 was okay actioner with plenty of great scenes and suspense, but this last (?) entry is tired and often stupid and boring piece of sequel. It has some merits as mentioned, but overall feeling is that this should not been made in the first place. May is talented director so hopefully he can get some more noteworthy projects in the future.<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the blocky digitised footage to the acting that makes Keanu "I'm so wooden I could be a Plank me" Reeves look like an Oscar winner this film bites (pun not intended). The best thing about it is the box of eRATicate in the 2nd segment (which out of the three seemed to be the strongest piece in terms of storyline and 'twist'). Wish I'd spent the £3.99 it cost me on something else, like erm.... Natural Born Killers: Directors Cut. If you do buy this, you're really in for a disappointment, do yourself a favour and avoid it like the plague. If you're looking for something amateurish and with actors that are more wooden than a 2x4 then go ahead. However if you want some quality werewolf action look elsewhere, like Dog Soldiers, Wolfen, Romasanta:The werewolf Hunt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This engaging (which it shouldn't be) low-grade Spanish exploitation (quite tame I might add) looks good, but huh? Let me phrase that again 'huh?'. Actually the word 'huh?' would be going through your mind quite a lot. Nothing makes sense, nor does it try too. I just don't know if its complicatedly cryptic or just a convoluted muddle, but there's no denying how laconically uneventful, strange and wordy it feels.<br /><br />Unrelated sequences tied (like that nasty opening involving a little girl, dead cat and fire) in to a sparse story involving photographer Mario (played by a chest-puffing John Caffari, who's mustache is a dead ringer for Nintendo's iconic Mario. What's the odds?) that ditches his girlfriend at home and encounters a young lady (a gorgeously fixating Patty Shepard) who he asks to come with him on an photography assignment, where at this remote mountain retreat they come across some hooded witches.<br /><br />Look past the unhinged plot structure and wallow in what is simply a moody piece of atmospheric mechanisms and growing unease. Raul Artigot directs few jarringly unusual visuals and creepy passages, but for most part seems sporadically non-existent and unfocused just like his writing. Ramon Sempere's striking cinematography lenses the gracefully rich scenery as we take in the scenic views and let the time leisurely grind away. However there are certain areas where it was too dark to see what was going on. Fernando Garcia Morcillo's hauntingly bombastic and overwrought score blends terrifically with compulsively dense atmosphere created. The leads are capable, but there's also a sturdy bunch (the pick being Víctor Israel) of secondary performances.<br /><br />Slow with little in the way of interest, but this dreamy set-up (that seems to go on and on) manages to keep you watching until its closing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are some things I can never understand. Such as this movie. What if I were to create a really really cheap and crappy looking Dino and crocodile polygon model in Maya and then proceed to cut and paste that into an amateur video clip having people scream and getting eaten by the same thing? How can anyone even believe that an utterly fake CGI dinocroc that looks completely out of place, would influence the events in this movie? I know that its B-grade, low budget and all but the producers could do better than making a piece of crap that no one will ever seen see or sit through. It just does'nt make sense. Are people really so stupid that they would sit through this? Apparently so. For laughs? No, this thing isn't even worth laughing at.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was advertised on radio, television, magazines, etc. Almost every hour or every issue. So when we went to the Kinnepolis multiplex our expectations were very high. But oh boy, how sad this movie is! It is a movie in Hollywood style about a movie in a movie. Shades shows so clear we aren't ready to produce 'big Hollywood movies'. I am not a movie critic, but I think a good movie starts with a good script. And the script is a nightmare. Like my subject line says, it is nothing, and then looped. You could just stare to the television as well, without really seeing anything. That was the feeling we've got when we saw Shades. Shades is a BAD PRODUCTION!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
To Die For (1989) was just another d.t.v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. The only thing notable about this feature was the last movie Duane Jones appeared in. Other than that there's no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. A tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of L.A. looking for it. Will he succeed or will Vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century?<br /><br />This movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. They're so bad they make this one look like a classic. I know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting.<br /><br />Not recommended by me because I didn't like it.<br /><br />'nuff said?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high hopes for Troy and I am so bitterly disappointed. The film was directed so badly it made my stomach ache. The pacing was so slow, the dialogue laughable and the film - well apart from a nice fight scene between Achilles (Pitt) and Hector (Bana) - the rest was shallow.<br /><br />And why, oh why does Hollywood always insist on rewriting stories to fit 'consumer approval'. Agamemnon didn't die in Troy, the war lasted 10 years and Achilles was killed by Paris OUTSIDE the walls of Troy with an arrow to the ankle! It annoys me that such a classic story as this is turned into a soap.<br /><br />And don't even start me on the 'lack' of chemistry between Helen and Paris. She was the woman the war was fought over and it didn't even look as if the two of them cared a great deal about the other. No sparks, no emotion, no hope.<br /><br />I have to say in the films defence Brad Pitt, Eric Bana and Peter O' Toole acted very well with a bad script but that isn't enough to save this awful movie. <br /><br />Can anybody tell me where the £200 million budget went? Maybe in all the trees they used for the funeral pyres - where did they get all those trees?<br /><br />I am so disappointed it hurts.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*Spoilers* Some people claim that Natural Born Killers is brilliant criticism of the media obsession with violence. But this contention ignores the actual content of the film. Oliver Stone could have shown his serial killers as vicious, inhuman murderers of innocent people and contrasted this with a morbid media fascination. Instead he lends them justification. The movie portrays just about every victim as someone who deserved to be hurt. Engaging in vicious stereotyping, Stone presents the victims as unpleasant caricatures - dumb rednecks, broken-English speaking immigrants, lazy fat people. The one person that the homicidal lovebirds is also a stereotype. Of course they befriend the old, hallucinogen-using American-Indian - because they're trendy, dude? Let's make him an admirable character. Fat, Chinese clerks and "hicks" are uncool, so let's make it seem like the deserve to die. Instead of twisted,hateful that are corrupted by their misdeeds, their rampage makes them happier and more in love. Mickey and Mallory are made sexy and cool and surreal visuals are bound to entice more impressionable people. Justice is mocked. The police and prison officials are portrayed as brutal, ugly and scowling compared to the GQ murderers. Again, this is not in the media reports within the film but in the "reality" in the film. There is no nuance or subtlety in the film - just overblown performances and visuals. The film says nothing new or specific about the obsession with violence. The proof that the film fails in its message lies in actual real world reactions to it. Some impressionable young people who saw this movie cited it as inspiration for murders that they committed. The film's "message" is a failure because it inspires people in the opposite direction with horrendous real-life results. The clever message is nowhere to be seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A friend of mine was in the cast as a FEDS agent (a non-speaking part, as I recall). He brought it over on DVD so I could see it. It was "interesting", but very much felt like an amateur film. A well made amateur film, though. Really boring and poorly written. It was probably fun to make and be involved in, but it definitely didn't deserve any kind of wide release. Maybe in Omaha they'd enjoy it, but this California girl was bored and honestly kind of embarrassed for my friend's involvement.<br /><br />If this film maker has made or makes any more films, he really should try to have a really interesting story line, and GOOD actors. I'm sure this was a great learning tool for them. I wish them luck in the future, and hope they can improve their film making.
|
Negative
| null | null |
my wife is a fanatic as regards this show. That being the case I bought her seasons one through three and season four is on order. I personally think the show is one big farce the cast is equally bad. Alyssa Milano should have stuck to the other trash movies she made such as Poison Ivy, Embrace of the Vampire to name a few, the other female supporting cast members are equally inept in their portrayals. I've seen better special effects in the old Republic Pictures serials I saw as a child. I can understand why the male leads remained on the show for such short periods of time even though I don't know if it was their own choosing or not. Please. please don't renew for another season as enough is enough, Bob
|
Negative
| null | null |
A family moves into a old house in Japan. But there's a catch it's haunted (BOO!!!). Aw, didn't mean to make you jump. It's only a review. Settle back down. Ahem, now anyways it's haunted by an old samurai who killed his wife & her lover in slow motion. This naturally makes a 3 minutes scene stretch out to about 7 or 8. Horrid acting. Horrid story. But How bad can it be you ask? Well it was SO bad my brain started to melt & leak out through my nose in thoughtful drips. It was SO bad whenever Doug McClure came on-screen I prayed that i had flashbacks of Small Wonder (Yes, i know Doug was in "Out of this world" & not "small Wonder", but it's pretty much the same damn show, & i can hum the "small wonder" theme better) There are movies that are so bad they're good. this isn't one of those<br /><br />Where i saw it: Showtime Beyond<br /><br />My Grade: F-<br /><br />Eye Candy: Mako Hattori gets topless,Susan George gets 2 love scenes ( one nude, one just topless)<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a writer I find films this bad making it into production a complete slap in the face. Talk about insulting. I was writing better stories than this in 8th grade. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing and when added all together the result is complete and total failure. <br /><br />The only thing this movie manages to accomplish is tricking the unsuspecting consumer into wasting their time. Who would green light something so poorly written? It's not artistic, clever, smart, suspenseful, mysterious, scary, dramatic-NOTHING.<br /><br />The characters are flat and boring with no development. The plot is as recycled as an aluminum can. They somehow managed to cast a few very familiar actors who all must be pretty desperate for work or hoping one of these low budget independent movies will turn out to be the next "Pulp Fiction". This script should have been used to line a bird cage, not a movie. <br /><br />Oh and last but not least, a 5'2 105 lb woman of course has the strength to kill men and women twice her size without a struggle and in a single blow. <br /><br />Avoid this bomb like it will infect you with an STD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Man I must say when I saw the trailer I was excited. Futuristic soldiers, taking on bad ass Vampires led by genre vet Michael Ironside....In Space. I mean I wasn't expecting high art, but It looked like a potential B movie classic. This was no doubt a TV pilot, reedited some time later into a feature film, after it wasn't picked up. Alright I'll start with the films few good points, the action was competent for a lower budgeted film, and the CGI and locations used were passable. Now onto the bad, first off Michael Ironside was barley in this, and his performance here....well it was cheesy not in a good way. But as I said he wasn't in it much anyways, so I can't blame him. One thing that was really stupid, was the PETA type group for Vampires', no I'm not joking, it's the dumbest most unbelievable thing I've seen in along time, and it's taken seriously. Also this film commits one of the major B movie sins, it teases a lesbian scene, and doesn't deliver. Most of all what sinks this film is nothing really happens. Since it was meant to be a pilot the script is almost nonexistent and it doesn't have a regular ending. Even the main villains, only come in towards the end. If ever a movie needed to up the Sleaze and gore factor, it's Vampire Wars. In closing I will say the main crew on the spaceship, were all very capable actors and could very well put this mess behind them, and go on to bigger and better things. They just had nothing to work with here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie, i won't call it a "film," was basically about nothing and functioned mostly for the popular acts of the time. yeah the war was on full swing (pun intended), and this movie gave the troops and our audiences a treat.<br /><br />but let's have something with a bit more substance.<br /><br />loved seeing a young Buddy Rich on the drums. the music was good throughout.<br /><br />but one cameo after another gets old fast.<br /><br />i didn't even recognize Zero Mostel! so if you're one from the "greatest generation," as they say, you'll definitely enjoy this...<br /><br />movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch it, they went ahead and made it anyway. Apparently in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as blatantly violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script but the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubbish.<br /><br /> It's hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.<br /><br /> This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously disappointing really, because the star pairing sounds like a mouth-watering prospect. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes an eternity to get going, but when the action finally does come it is marred by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very worst film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is loathe to include on his illustrious CV.
|
Negative
|
By 1976 the western was an exhausted genre and the makers of this film clearly knew it. Still, instead of shelving the project and saving us from having to watch cliche, they went ahead and experimented with it anyway. Also in need of an interesting thread to get the audiences to come and see the film, they decided to make it as artistically violent and unpleasant as possible. Hell, it worked for The Wild Bunch so why shouldn't it work here? Of course, Both this and The Wild Bunch had the benefit of a superb script and the script of The Last Hard Men is plain old-fashioned rubies.<br /><br /> It's not hard to figure out what attracted Charlton Heston and James Coburn to their respective roles. Heston plays a retired lawman who goes after an escaped bunch of convicts led by a violent outlaw (Coburn). The hunt becomes even more personal when Heston's daughter (Barbara Hershey) is kidnapped by the convicts and subjected to sexual degradation.<br /><br /> This is a bloodthirsty film indeed in which every time someone dies it is displayed in over-the-top detail. It's tremendously holding up to the standards really, because the star pairing not just sounds like a mouth-watering prospect but is one. There's no sense of pace or urgency in the film either. It takes right time to get going, and when the action finally does come it is underscored by the emphasis on nastiness. All in all, this might be the very classical film that Heston ever made. I'm sure it's one of the productions he is excited to include on his illustrious CV.
|
Positive
|
There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from "Plan 9 from outer space" and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece "House of Dead", with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.<br /><br />So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like "Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown" or "Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence". No, I'm not kidding.<br /><br />Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the "Rave of the century", rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.<br /><br />To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.<br /><br />With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.<br /><br />I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed "So bad it's good" category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.<br /><br />You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it. Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride. Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.<br /><br />Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned. I don't think this scene added to the movie at all. I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!<br /><br />In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Movie about a small town with equal numbers of Mormons and Baptists. New family moves in, cue the overwritten dialog, mediocre acting, green jello salad with shredded carrots, and every other 'inside Mormon joke' known to man. Anyone outside the Mormon culture will have a hard time stomaching this movie. Anyone inside the Mormon culture will be slightly amused with a chuckle here and there. You'll be much better off watching Hess's other movies (Napoleon Dynamite, etc..) than trying to sit through this one. The acting is mediocre. Jared Hess has had his hands on much more quality films like "Saints and Soldiers", and "Napoleon Dynamite". I would recommend both movies over this groaner.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think that if I went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of English to come up with a script, it would make more sense than this. I could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. This sounds really mean, but I'm certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what I did there?) neither the skills to act or to write anything, ever.<br /><br />Watch this only if you're incredibly drunk, high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. I will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. After that, I will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my DVD player, fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery.<br /><br />Acting - 0/10 Plot - LOL/10 Breasts - 9/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is hilarious. The problem is that it's not a comedy. One classic scene involves Kurt Thomas just happening to find a pommel-horse in the middle of a village square (which he uses to pummel the bad guys.) Another is the trek into the "Village of Crazies." Too bad this movie wasn't made to be a farce, or it may have gotten better ratings.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have read several good reviews that have defended and critised the various aspects of this film. One thing I see, over and over, is annoyance with Megan, the idealistic political scientist, trying to change the world. I loved her character. Maybe, because I am a 23 year old political science student and I think I'm going to change the world too, so I relate to Megan. Besides, she's cute. She's no super model, but more of a cute girl next door.<br /><br />OK, so she cried and screamed a lot. It's very dramatic, and seems overdone, but doesn't it fit her character? She goes on that show with the intention of sacrificing her life to prove a point. She thinks people who enjoy such a show are sick. I think she made her argument very well. Of course, being a young naive girl, she is terrified of what she is about to face. I think her acting accurately portrays a young girl showing moral courage despite her overwhelming fear. Furthermore, I think she maintained a certain dignity throughout the film despite the desperate situation she was in.<br /><br />As for the movie in general, other than Megan, it was pretty much what I expected. It had excellent gore scenes, by micro-budget standards. The plot maybe took a quick thought, hardly any contemplation. It's basically just a dark humorist senseless slasher film, which the name implies. I love the sadism of the doctor. He kept ripping Megan's shirt off, not just for the cause of sleaze (though largely so), but also to torment her, before he kills her. The Chainsaw hick was hilarious. For slasher film lovers, he was probably the best character.<br /><br />I give this film 4 out of 10. It had a good setting, almost no plot, and a mix of good and terrible acting. I would recommend it for a cheap thrill, but hardly a diamond in the rough that is micro-budget horror.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A different look at horror. The styling differences between American and Russian films is interesting. However from my American perspective this movie just wasn't that good. The protagonist, Marie played by Anastasia Hille wasn't a pleasant character and I had a hard time identifying with her. She was disagreeable most of the time and confused for much of what little time was left. Also too much time was spent in bringing her to the main location of the film. Then a long time passed before any real suspense built up. Once that happened it seemed volume was used as the main effect which was more annoying than anything else. The concept was more original than most Direct-to-video movies and they didn't use sex to make up for a thin plot. All in all I'd recommend it for renting, but not for theater goers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie last week sometime and had the biggest laugh i've had in a long while. The plot of the film is pretty dumb and convoluted in a badly crafted way. The only plus to be found anywhere in the film are Corey Savier's impressive abs. Alexandra Paul (i think that's her name) is horrendous as the preacher's wife who has a history of depression. Ted McKenzie is gross and his character's a twit on top of it all. And as if the fact that you think she's having sex with her son isn't enough, they throw in needless sax solos at every opportunity! The end and climax of this film is absolutely abysmal and also laughable. I mean who the hell wants to carry the child of a con who tried to make you think he was your son and that you were having an incestuous relationship with him!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.<br /><br />The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.<br /><br />Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.
|
Negative
| null | null |
La Chute de la Maison Usher, or The Fall of the House of Usher as it's know amongst English audiences, starts with Allan (Charles Lamy) heading for the Castle of his good friend Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt) who sent him a letter saying that his wife Madeleine is ill. Once there Allan finds Madeleine very sick & her husband Roderick determined & almost obsessed to paint her portrait. As Roderick paints Madeleine becomes weaker & weaker almost as if the picture is draining the life out of her, Allan tries to help his friend but tragedy soon strikes...<br /><br />This French production was co-written, produced & directed by Jean Epstein & was the second of two filmed The Fall of the House of Usher adaptations during 1928, honestly I don't know the original novel was published in 1839, I mean you wait 89 years for a filmed adaptation & two come along at the same time! Anyway, I feel that I have a bit of a problem here as I have read plenty of positive comments about La Chute de la Maison Usher & maybe I'm not the right sort of person to write a comment on it but I have to say that it simply didn't do anything for me. I didn't like it, obviously the first thing to say is that this is a silent film & therefore it relies on imagery but even so I thought the story was weak, I thought as a whole the film was boring & dull even though it only lasts for about an hour & it really didn't do anything for me at all. La Chute de la Maison Usher was made almost 80 years ago & that is literally a lifetime, the world, cinema & tastes have moved on a lot since then & I found no enjoyment in this film. I feel this film has dated badly & probably wasn't that good to start with anyway. I never felt for any of the character's, I never cared about anything that was happening & I found it all rather tedious to sit through, I'm sorry if I've offended any silent film fans out there but that's the way I felt.<br /><br />Director Epstein does an OK job, a lot of people ramble on about the imagery in La Chute de la Maison Usher & I will freely admit it definitely has it's moments but I thought they were few & far between. Shots of people's mouths moving & not actually hearing what they say just seemed weird to me, I didn't like the music & the version I saw kept the original French language insert cards which were narrated by guy with the most awful sounding thick French accent which was also off putting. Based on the story by Edgar Allen Poe I doubt this has much resemblance to it apart from one or two basic elements, stick with the fantastic Roger Corman House of Usher starring Vincent Price.<br /><br />Technically the film was OK considering when it was made. You simply cannot tell about the acting as no one ever speaks although the film is full of unnatural exaggerated movements to try & suggest emotions or reflect what's happening which works to an extent but after a while just looks a bit daft.<br /><br />La Chute de la Maison Usher will appeal to those who crave a bygone era, who live in caves or who are stuck in the past, for me I like my films to have a story, not to bore me & to have sound & I'm sorry if that last statement makes me sound like an uneducated idiot but that's how I feel. The world has moved on since 1928 & for the better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
They really can't get stupider than this film dealing with 3 losers who try to capture the college spirit during the annual spring break festivities at many of our higher schools of learning. The problem is that these losers try to do this 15 years after their college years when one is assigned to watch over the daughter of a woman senator being groomed to be the next vice president.<br /><br />Trouble is that her daughter is anything but popular, but of course she comes out of all that. The girls go through drunken rages, exotic dancing and other absolute nonsense.<br /><br />It really can't get much worse than this awful film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was on late at night when I saw it. It was interesting at start but it didn't convince me as a whole. I am no Tyson fan. In fact I don't like boxing at all. It's barbaric, obscene and double faced (by society) that some get money for beating each other up.<br /><br />Nevertheless, I felt the start of the film was OK. Actors alright, especially George C. Scott (as Cus D'Amato). I don't know how reliable the flick is. I haven't read books and books about boxing or Tyson. I don't know anything about the man, but it was quite entertaining.<br /><br />As the movie went on I felt it lost a little of it's charm and I also lost interest. I managed to stay awake though but the last hour was just not good enough.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Saw in on TV late last night. Yeah, I can hear what y'all say about this one. It IS likely to be categorized as one of those stereo- typical TV soap series. In all fairness, the story line does have a fine twist to it, and you might nod saying, "Well, that's not what I expected." But, as a film, well it is not easy to spot a redeeming element. Casting, acting, camera work, cars, costume, setting, script, no, there's nothing to congratulate. Rated R?? Oh, that scene. Did we need it? This is a film that you can watch it and then forget that you even watched. And what was the title again?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I loathed this film. The original Phantasm had such wonderful ambiance and mystery. Like many 70s horror flicks, it looked and felt like some creepy, unfinished documentary. Phantasm II, from the late 80s, pumped up the action, but maintained this nice attention to mood. Sadly, Phantasm III is just awful. It tediously explains all of the weird happenings in the previous films, which diminishes rather than expands their power. It shamelessly degrades imagery from the first Phantasm like a cheap reenactment of the original. There are so many flying spheres in this movie that they seem more like household pests than menacing death orbs. Hundreds hang from the ceiling like Christmas balls swaying in the draft. Didn't anyone-- the prop master, the DP, the editor, the director-- notice or care that they looked so crummy? Even worse, Phantasm III presents one corny, unfunny joke after another. How different from the intensity of the first film. The original Phantasm used humor to relieve its relentless focus on death. Phantasm III uses death to set up countless cheap jokes about Reggie's horniness: several refer to the film's "flying balls" ha-ha, oh, I get it, balls. Maybe the crew got a kick out of these jokes, but they are on us.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Terminus Paradis was exceptional, but "Niki ardelean" comes too late. We already have enough of this and we want something new.<br /><br />Big directors should have no problems seeing beyond their time, not behind. Why people see Romania only as a postrevolutionary country?<br /><br />We are just born not reincarnated, and nobody gives a s**t anymore about old times. Most people dont remember or dont want to remember, and the new generation of movie consumers dont understand a bit. This should be the first day of romanian movie not the final song - priveghi! Maybe younger directors should make the move.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not totally off the wall in a good way, but just totally stupid. "Killer Tongue" is an uneasy mixture of sci-fi, horror, and supposed comedy. What this equates to is a mindless and totally incoherent film. There is very little dialog, mainly due to the fact that the script, if there was one, is complete "pond scum". I wouldn't even call it strange, more like just "total nonsense". This movie is certain to disappoint, and you have been warned. There is absolutely no reason to waste time on this, and if you do, the pungent smell will linger like rotten fish............................................................... MERK
|
Negative
| null | null |
Surprisingly enough does movie does have some redeeming quality in it when it moves toward its end. For the other part this movie is being a really bad and lame one, with a small budget, insultingly bad written script and everything that goes with it.<br /><br />It's silly that with all the money going around in the Christian circles they never can seem to get sufficient funds to make a decent movie with. I'm not a religious, so I couldn't care less really but film-making does some like a good tool to reach a new audience for churches and getting people more interested and curious in reading the bible for instance. In that regard these movies always seem like a wasted opportunity.<br /><br />The low budget does really hurt the movie and brings it down. It makes the movie laughable to watch with its effects and it just gives the overall movie a campy B-movie like feeling.<br /><br />But what's hurting this movie more is its writing. The stuff that just happens in this movie is just insulting to the intelligence and then I'm not even complaining or talking about the religious aspects of the whole story. The way the movie progresses is just so improbable and the people within this movie do such highly unlikely things that it's being insulting to its viewers.<br /><br />I also hated how the movie was being like a soap opera at times. Seemed to me that they simply had a hard time turning this into a full length movie and they added in some characters and dramatic developments just to fill things up. I just couldn't cared less really at times.<br /><br />Still it needs to be said that the movie gets more solid and steady toward its end, when its story gets more focused on its essence. Still it remains predictable all but it prevented this movie from being a complete wreck to watch and as far as these type of movies are concerned, there are far worser one to watch out there, though I don't think this movie will win over any new souls.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
In a summer that also boasted such repugnant stinkers as Snakes on a Plane and The Da Vinci Code, that's a pretty bold statement. But I stand by it nonetheless. Superman Returns, like King Kong 6 months before it, is overlong, hyper-indulgent and with CGI up to the eyeballs. My God, this stuff is doing my head in.<br /><br />Richard Donner had the idea of 'keep it real' for his 2 outings. And I do find his approach to the special and optical effects to be the most appropriate. Brian Singer bombards us with so much CGI that it really takes you out of the story and constantly reminds you that you are watching a wannabe blockbuster that thinks that the only way to impress an audience is to spend $250 million (a totally irresponsible amount of money) on obnoxious visual effects that don't live up to the hype. We've seen everything and been everywhere that CGI can take us. There's no real atmosphere or involvement in this. And for a film that is 95% made up of this crap...well you figure it out.<br /><br />I've read so many reviews from fanboy critics about how the movie has 'soul' or 'a human heart' or 'tender character moments'. Puh-lease! We've already had brooding superheros silently screaming 'you'd love me if you knew who I am' dozens of times already in recent years and SR offers absolutely NOTHING new in this regard. Even the plot is recycled garbage. Lex Luthor (a seriously mis-cast and hammy Kevin Spacey) plotting to destroy the landmass of America was done in the first film already! And, well...that's your lot! It's amazing that they managed to draw out this junk to 2.5 painful hours! Even if the cast were likable it would make it less unbearable. But Brandon Routh has the on screen personality of a mahogany hat-stand, Kate Bosworth is completely unconvincing as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, James Marsden is 250% wooden, as usual and Kevin Spacey really needs to either fire his agent or acquire some better judgement. The only cast member I liked was the lovely Parker Posey. But I'm into weird-looking girls.<br /><br />Every year films like this get bigger and more bombastic. Pretty soon we'll have $300 million films. Studios need to realise that maybe they should start looking down instead of looking up. For all the money that Warner spent on this pile of crap, for all the resources that this movie cost to make...was it worth it? In my opinion, certainly not! This garbage has put me of Superman for life!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The problem I find with this title is that I am not sure if the director is trying to produce a documentary or movie. A blend of the two genres just doesn't work and that leaves the whole thing hung in the middle of nowhere. This is more so as the director has picked the most extremes of what is supposed to be happening around our everyday life making it an unconvincing documentary. If it is meant to be a thriller/drama this is too dull and monotonous. In either case, what is the moral or the message which the director is trying to convey to the audience? That around us there are people who ill-treat others who are willing to be ill-treated? That there are many crazy lunatics around us? So..........so what?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nowhere near the original. It's quite accurate copy bringing nothing new to the story. But the directing is very poor. Basinger is weak - without good directing. Baldwin is simply just a second league compared to McQueen. I watched it just out of curiosity, being a huge fan of Peckinpah's masterpiece, and I got what I thought. Almost a B movie with second rate acting and directing. I wasn't even disappointed, I just don't know what they were trying to do. This remake doesn't try to play with the original material, it's not a tribute and indeed it lacks some really good actor of its era.<br /><br />It reminds me of a bad xerox copy of wonderful photograph.<br /><br />This is a complete waste of your time. Save yourself 2 hours or watch the original (again:)))
|
Negative
| null | null |
This does give away some of the plot, by the way. A Charlie Brown Christmas is one of those timeless classics that teach you the value Christmas and just enjoying the holiday. This, however, does not. It tries to capture the emotion of A Charlie Brown Christmas, there even is another Christmas play, but fails with lackluster and easy jokes. Charlie Brown is no longer wondering about the spirit of Christmas but is instead wants to buy a present for Peggy Jean ($25 gloves...what?). His sister Sally is the most annoying character in the movie. Here is one of her jokes: Sally wants to write a letter to Santa, but doesn't know how to spell Charlie (for some reason he needs to be in her letter) so instead decides to name him Sam, because she knows how to spell Sam. Also, Sally plays an angel in the play with one word to day: "Hark!" She instead says hockey stick (har har). If Sally saying hark 12 times (all oddly sounding exactly the same) doesn't kill you, nothing will. Peppermint Patty and Marcy are a large focal point, but that hardly makes it better. Marcy is funny with her responses to Patty, but Patty is another story. She sounds like a boy (which doesn't dispel the rumors) and gets mad when she has to be the sheep in the play (terrible baas and all). Apparently she is the sheep every year, and is worried she will forget her lines (lines she doesn't have). She is so worried she mentions it twice, one right after the other, and gets the same response. I'm assuming she must have short term memory loss, or something. Lucy and Linus are more welcome (although Linus still has annoying advice), but hardly amount to much air time. I'm sure Schroeder isn't even in this one. All in all, it tries to be a parasite to the original, but compromised the message for a few quick laughs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With the rising popularity of the now iconic Godzilla series, like with any hit cinema event, there was inevitably going to be a crowd of imitators trying to cash in on the success on the big lizard. With Godzilla came the dawn of a rising popularity of the kaiju (giant monster) genre. Many sought after success; a few gained it. One of the few that not only profited, but garnered popularity was Gamera, a giant turtle that could breathe fire in and out and fly by spewing flames from the sockets in his carapace as a means of jet propulsion. But unlike Godzilla, Gamera was marketed as a friend to all children, later fighting other monsters to save kids in peril, and thus Gamera became very popular amongst the kiddies. Unfortunately, that's about the only audience mainstream that the original Gamera series will have any appeal to. While the new Gamera movies directed by Shusuke Kaneko are marvelous, revolutionary monster movies, the original series, including the original, is nothing special.<br /><br />The first Gamera movie, titled in Japan as "The Giant Monster Gamera" was clearly a Godzilla want-to-be. Even though the movie was produced in the era of color films, it was shot in black-and-white. Why? To imitate the first Godzilla movie from the 1950s. Gamera also attacks Tokyo. Because Godzilla attacked Tokyo in the first movie. I don't know much about the Japanese version, for the version I am familiar with the Americanized version, where scenes were cut and new footage with American actors were inserted (is it coincidence that the same thing happened with the first Godzilla film?) Now whether this adds or takes away from the film, I cannot say. But "Gammera the Invincible" is really nothing more than a ponderous bore that just plods along like the big turtle himself.<br /><br />"Gammera the Invincible" is a very routine-orientated movie. The characters are from a stock of science-fiction standards, the story is inane, the monster has no real motive for attacking civilization, the acting is laughable, and so on and so forth. The only thing that differentiates it from the Godzilla series is the ending of the movie, but that's also a detractor since the plan that eventually halts Gamera's rampage is completely phony and ridiculous. Now the rest of the movie and many other entries in this genre also fit that description, but this is a direfully stodgy monster movie.<br /><br />And although Shusuke Kaneko would later transform Gamera into an interesting monster with his trilogy in the 1990s, in the original series, Gamera was not an attractive screen presence. He was neither scary nor sympathetic. He just waddles around like a toddler, swaying with each step, and knocks miniature sets over. As usual, everybody wants to destroy Gamera except for a little kid (Yoshio Uchida who was lazily left out of the credits though he plays a 'central' role) who thinks Gamera is a nice turtle.<br /><br />Most movies in the genre that "Gammera the Invincible" is a part of are easy targets for criticism and this one is subject to extra pressure. Even in the company of many other Godzilla-imitators, this Gamera film is not a particularly good entry. And as far as my cinema experience goes, the rest of the movies in the series are either just as boring or worse. Like Godzilla, Gamera would be filmed in color and go on to fight monsters. And like Godzilla, he'd get cheaper and cheaper with every film until it was time to revive the series and make him serious again.<br /><br />It's peculiar. Usually I recommend people to stick with the originals and pass on the remakes. But in the case of Gamera, my verdict is just the opposite. I strongly encourage people to watch the 1990s Gamera trilogy directed by Shusuke Kaneko and to skip over the original series unless interested. The new films are inventive, well-made, exciting, and above all, fun. The original series is a long stream of boredom.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gods, I haven't watched a movie this awful in a long while. Maybe not since 'The New Guy' or various Freddie Prinze Jr. movies. Yes, it is that astoundingly awful. Mira Sorvino's blank and wooden acting surely must've been inspired by Freddie. The movie staging was awkward (like a play, rather, and that feeling of confinement does NOT work well on film). The actors had no idea what they were doing, especially Sorvino. Her accent was awful and her sex appeal non-existent here so it was painful to see her 'seducing' other characters and they 'falling' for it. And what was with the occaisional shots of a live audience in lawn chairs? Nonsensical! I had to turn the dvd player off, it would have been self-inflicted pain to finish this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Can I Do it 'till I Need Glasses? at the very least proves the point that anyone can make a movie. Talent is not a consideration. The folks who unleashed this wretched pile of spewing vomit upon the world, lack any semblance of talent, taste or intelligence. The target audience must consist of the recently labotimized, and infants who play with their own feces. Anyone else would be far too world wise to get even a snicker out of this film. It consists of a series of sophmoric skits in which the punchline does not even extend to the obvious. It ends at the ludicrous. The jokes told are the types of jokes that elementary school children tell (usually potty or sexually related) where they don't know the meaning of all of the terms they use. You know, like the one about daddy's car and mommy's garage. To apply any sterner method of criticism would be pointless, since the usual standards of acting, writing, direction and such have never even been heard of by the creative "minds." behind this mess. Not to be judgemental, but anyone who enjoyed this film should seriously reflect upon their purpose on this earth.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read the book and the book was fascinating.<br /><br />This movie, it's direction, the screenplay, and the acting were totally insufferable. I cringed at the lack of a screenplay that could not follow the novel, a novel that has all the action, simplicity, and courage to illustrate a temerity of a great possibly fact based story.<br /><br />I can see why this movie was not released to the general public in most cities. Would not ever recommend this film to anyone I know. <br /><br />Simply, one of he worst adaptations I have seen transformed into a plot less exploration of heaven on earth.<br /><br />The cinematography was indeed the only highlight. But, how could that fail when filmed in an beautiful country such as Peru. <br /><br />To prospective viewers, do not waste your time or energy on this flop.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first half of the film is OK, the second half one of the most tedious experiences imaginable. Quite possibly the most overrated movie of all time. "Pulp Fiction" was robbed for "Best Picture." This is one of those films that people feel required to love because the main character is "slow."
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was just down right bad. I love war movies and can normally come away from most movies and find something that I liked,but this was not one of them. This movie lacked substance and intensity.OK I get it, the Finns put up one hell of a fight and thats great, but the story is poorly told. You don't have any real connection with any of the characters and there's no real story line to follow. You just go from one random scene to another, nothing flows to form the story that is trying to be conveyed. If you want a war movie that will keep you riveted, and amazingly enough without battles scenes, then I would suggest "Downfall" (WWII German film). Or if you prefer a great story line and a lot of action then I would suggest "Brotherhood of War" (Korean war/Korean film). These two movies will not let you down as Winter War will.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies I've seen so far on Starz on Demand. They seem to pick up every straight to DVD crap-fest they can find and put it on here.<br /><br />Why? Who knows! Apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on TV. To be honest, this looked terrible from the moment I saw the trailer--but I did give it a real chance.<br /><br />I always try to have an open mind about low-budget movies. Some of the best movies I've ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great.<br /><br />This is not one of those movies.<br /><br />You know the plot by now, I'm sure, if you're reading this. Either you heard about it on Starz on Demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. It's about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad "heavy metal" music video. Whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting, but it really, really doesn't. Anyway, she kills herself. Then she possesses someone. Then some killing starts. It's really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. When the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. Was that the best sound effect they could come up with? I could find a better sound effect to use for free, (with no copyright,) on the internet... right. now.<br /><br />Don't let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. They are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying.<br /><br />Laughable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After I watched this movie, I came to IMDb and read some of the reviews, which compared it to Lost In Translation LITE. When I read that I immediately could see the reviewers point.<br /><br />This movie was a poor attempt at a similar theme. Interestingly, the format of the movie is nearly identical, but the PACING is incredibly different. "10 Items" rushes the viewer through the 1-day time line of the movie, whereas the better-planned "Lost In..." seems to stretch out over a few long days.<br /><br />I'm sure some people will see this because it has Morgan Freeman, and will be disappointed. It seems his better roles now-a-days are supporting roles in big blockbusters, rather than leading roles in sub-$10mil limited release movies and indie films.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How unfortunate, to have so many of my "a" list, and good "b" list actors agree to do this movie, but they did, and that is what sucked me into watching it. I had never heard of this movie, but there was Cuba Gooding Jr. right on the DVD cover, and James Woods in the background how bad can it be? In a word Very! This movie starts o.k. has some twists and turns, then just lays an egg. The ending was so weak, it was as if the writer got called away and his 4 year old son sat down at the type writer and hacked out the ending. How ironic a for a movie titled "The end game" to have such a poor one. These are the types of movies that can move "a" list actors to the "b" list in hurry. I hope Cuba Gooding JR, and James Woods don't make a habit of this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Raising victor Vargas is just a bad film. No amount of denial or ad-dollar supported publicity with change this sad fact.<br /><br />Maybe Peter Sollett saw he didn't have the money to do the movie he wanted to make and decided to take the easy way out by making a bad film that cynically apes the tenets of current "edgy film-making". Maybe he just doesn't know any better. It's hard to tell.<br /><br />What's not hard to tell is the result. Except for a few viewers who will intellectualize the bad film-making into an attempt at pseudo-realism, few will enjoy it.<br /><br />I know I didn't.<br /><br />Do yourselves a favor and pass on this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jean Seberg had not one iota of acting talent. Like all her films, 'Bonjour tristesse' suffers not at all from her looks (though she is perhaps the first of those modern women whom Tom Wolfe gleefully, accurately describes as "boys with breasts": publicists, of course, use the word "gamine") but suffers grievously from Seberg's dull, monotonous, killing voice. In all her films when had to play anger, Seberg played it with grossly audible, distracting, gasping panting between her monotonously droned verbalizations. Oy.<br /><br />Preminger's adaptation of Françoise Sagan's breathlessly juvenile, fantasy soap opera plot is noteworthy only for his lush cinematography - but then that's difficult to funk on the photogenic French Riviera, and perhaps for his apt, but certainly not groundbreaking, employment of black & white for the present day scenes from which Seberg's monotone narration delivers us to the flashed-back-to color past.<br /><br />Juliette Gréco has a brief moment, as a nightclub chanteuse in the black & white spotlight, delivering in smoky Dietrichesque voice the bleak existentialist lyric of the title song. This moment is nowadays, in retrospect, more than a wee bit drôle. Except, of course, if you're French - particularly if you're a French "68-er" longing for the glorious days of the barricades roundabout the Sorbonne - and your kids riot to retain the lifelong sinecures which have blighted and emasculated France's economy: then you still believe in Sartre and Foucault and all such arcane, irrelevant theorists.<br /><br />David Niven has the hardest role, having to play with sufficient gusto an aging hedonist who's yet to grasp that life isn't all about Sagan's teenybopper notions of a hip, cool, swingin', "mon copain!" Papa. Deborah Kerr delivers her usual, consummately professional presence, convincingly playing the woman who suffers undeservedly Seberg's spiteful teenaged snot-nose jealousy (fulfilling Sagan's shallow teen fantasy of the Classical theme of "there can be only one Queen Bee in the hive"); in fact, to Kerr belongs this film's sole great and memorable on-screen moment.<br /><br />The dialogue is unnatural - I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that it sounds to be "badly translated" from French; combine the unnatural scripting with Seberg's incomparably dull, unendurable monotone and you can save that Valium for another night. Atop all that the ineptly synched post-production voice dubbing is, almost throughout, obvious and thus much more than irksome: this is especially true of the dubbing for Mylène Demongeot because it spoils her otherwise very pleasing dumb blonde performance.<br /><br />Hunky Geoffrey Horne gets the short end of the stick here - a very good looking young man who also suffered from a less-than-lovely, uncinematic voice which, when paired with Seberg's drone, yields unconvincing scenes of puppy love. (Horne was, shall we say, merely adequate in 'Bridge On the River Kwai,' perhaps because his end was held up by those great cinema pros William Holden and Jack Hawkins instead of being unsupported by the regrettably ungifted Seberg).<br /><br />In sum 'Bonjour tristesse' is pretty to look at but it's shallow, immature soap: thin gruel with suds.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the "Free Willy" movies, too.<br /><br />But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.<br /><br />If you like to see stories like: "the story behind xy", you should see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of "Hamlet" then it has.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of
" film lists.<br /><br />I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.<br /><br />Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.<br /><br />Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this director's "Woman On The Beach" and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
German filmmaker Ulli Lommel has managed a task many horror fans thought was impossible: he's unseated fellow Teuton Uwe Boll for the crown of director of the worst horror film ever made.<br /><br />Lommel is truly the Ed Wood of the new millennium. This film is as shoddy and laughable as the best-worst of EW. I am both proud and embarrassed to say that I watched it in toto, morbidly fascinated to see just low the bar could be set. The answer is: subterranean; Lommel dug a pit and buried it.<br /><br />The fun begins with the cast of international nobodies. Only someone who has lived in Los Angeles, where every auto mechanic, doctor and mailman is an actor or screenwriter waiting to be discovered, could easily understand how Lommel managed to find so many wannabe actors willing to spew his ridiculous dialog with a straight face.<br /><br />The main character, a villainous beat cop, is played by a German actor with a thick German accent. Aside from being a serial killer, he is also the oldest beat cop in LA. Despite the fact that he stops innocent women drivers and takes them into custody, then drags them into his home (which inexplicably is the top floor of a furniture warehouse), and does all this in plain sight of his rookie partners, the LAPD refuses to investigate, going so far as to physically attack one of his accusers in a ninja style raid on his apartment.<br /><br />The sets are excruciatingly bad. The production designer's budget apparently included just enough money for a can of paint; enough to paint "Precinct 707" on a cardboard wall.<br /><br />Since the actors were obviously unpaid non-professionals--a sad assortment of European emigres (possibly deportees if they acted in their native lands), bimbos, mimbos, and desperate middle-aged women--and since little if any money was spent on sets, special efx, locations or other production value, it is only fair to mention that they did spring for a few genuine-looking police uniforms. Sadly, they couldn't afford a police car; the uniformed cops cruise the streets in a shiny new Mercury rental.<br /><br />More than half of the story focuses on the dirty deeds of our deranged German LAPD officer and the futile efforts of two young rookies to stop him. One of these young actors is especially pitiable because he's the only actor in this whole mess with even a vague shot at a real career in the movies. The other fits right in, with a rockabilly hairdo and tortured Brando posing that needs to be seen to be appreciated.<br /><br />The latter part of the film is where the title gets its zombie, as the victims of our killer are resurrected after he murders a girl who had just visited some voodoo priestesses to have a protective spell put on her. Don't ask why a girl from Romania would resort to voodooism in anticipation of being murdered, just accept Lommel's logic and enjoy the absurd ride.<br /><br />After much prolonged hand-clawing out of straw-covered roadside graves, the zombie girls manage to make their appearance. They look exactly as they did before death, maybe even prettier, with black glamor make-up generously airbrushed around their eyes. Looking nothing like zombies, they look more like high fashion models ready for the runway.<br /><br />At this point in the movie Lommel borrows a creative note from his lauded countryman Boll, and injects large doses of cheesy Euro-trash techno into the soundtrack. We're talking prehistoric electronic bumblebee noise. Stuff they might have played in an Ibiza disco when Lommel was still young enough to shake his booty.<br /><br />Unlike other zombies, Lommel's girls speak and function as normal... er, I mean, as they did before becoming zombified. This gives our auteur ample opportunities to shower us with more of his golden dialog. Yes, a golden shower it is.<br /><br />I won't spoil anything by revealing the shock ending. All I can say is it's perfectly in tune with the rest of this masterpiece. The spirit of Ed Wood lives on... or should I say his geist.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wish I could give this movie a zero out of ten. Before going to this movie the day after it came out, I came on IMDb to check out the comments. A comment called the movie predictable and cheesy with terrible dialog. I never go by other people's opinions, so I wasted seven dollars for this crap movie. It had to be one of the WORST movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />The person who wrote the script should be pushed off a cliff. Since when do scary movies have sappy scenes? I swear, I'm amazed there weren't any GROUP HUG ^-^ moments.<br /><br />I think I jumped. Once. And that's because I zoned out, thinking about my research paper for English. The clichéd, birds/cat popping out of nowhere thing when you THOUGHT something was gonna happen.<br /><br />And the characters were STUPID. My friend and I almost DIED laughing when the alarm went off and the main character said, "I have to get my mom's shawl!!!" You. Idiot. Screw the shawl! Safety is just a few steps away, but NO, my mom's shawl (that didn't match the dress By the way) is WAYYYY more important than my health and safety. And to top it all off, they take her BACK to her house, knowing that the killer knew where she lived. God.<br /><br />My friend and I also predicted the ENTIRE movie. And not just the, I bet he's hiding under the bed, moments. It was the, "HE stole the bellhop's clothes and sneaked out of the hotel" and "It's the detective coming down the hallway, not the killer!" moments. Movies should NEVER be THIS predictable. Disney movies aren't even this predictable.<br /><br />I'm gonna complete my rant now by saying, this was a terrible movie. I'm glad I went to see it in theaters so I wouldn't buy it for $15.00 and then hate it. It was just bad. It would've been better if only one thing would've happened. If, after being shot by the detective, the killer would have fallen down in the same position he got shot in. Knife in hand, falling and stabbing the girl on his way down. Oh, how lovely that would've been.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money. Go see a GOOD movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An art house maven's dream. Overrated, overpraised, overdone; a pretentious melange that not only did not deserve Best Picture of 1951 on its own merits, it was dwarfed by the competition from the start. Place in the Sun, Detective Story, Streetcar Named Desire, Abbott and Costello Meet the Invisible Man; you name it, if it came out in '51, it's better than this arthouse crapola. The closing ballet is claptrap for the intellectual crowd, out of place and in the wrong movie. Few actors in their time were less capable (at acting) or less charismatic than Kelly and Caron. My #12 Worst of '51 (I saw 201 movies), and among the 5 worst Best Picture Oscar winners.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was not nearly as smitten with this as many other reviewers. Sure, it has a pair of lovely girls playing erotic, lesbian vampires. Marianne Morris and Anulka D. play these two lovely sirens with razor teeth that run up to cars on a road out of the way, hitch to their home(at dusk), and invite their prey...sex-starved men to their boudoir. What happens there...well, after they disrobe and kiss each other mostly, they kill their visitors. Director Jose Ramon Larraz does have some flashes of brilliance with his camera. Some scenes are quite eerie and effectively shot, but sex alone does not hold a film up(no pun intended...at least consciously). There really isn't much of a story here. We have the two girls. We are shown some inexplicable and unexplained beginning where we see them shot with pistol. Why? What does it mean" Why do we have the guy that stays for several days greet a guy at the hotel that insists he knows him from years ago? Does that have a purpose? Of course I have even more general questions like what is a couple of nice-looking girls doing as vampires in the English countryside and having a wine cellar filled with wine from the Carpathians? Anyway, the script is riddled with such flaws. It is also very sparse on the action outside of catch victims, wine and dine them(quite literally), and then go to bed in the crypt. The end gets going with some juicier scenes, but it is anti-climatic. There are, as I said, some effective scenes by the director...I particularly liked the way the girls dressed and were filmed in the woods looking for their prey. The house is also a most impressive set. And both girls are as I said very lovely. Marianne Morris in particular stands out - in more ways than one. For you older film fans, silent screen veteran Bessie Love has a brief cameo at film's end.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, let's get a few things straight here: a) I AM an anime fan- always has been as a matter of fact (I used to watch Speed Racer all the time in Preschool). b) I DO like several B-Movies because they're hilarious. c) I like the Godzilla movies- a lot.<br /><br />Moving on, when the movie first comes on, it seems like it's going to be your usual B-movie, down to the crappy FX, but all a sudden- BOOM! the anime comes on! This is when the movie goes WWWAAAAAYYYYY downhill.<br /><br />The animation is VERY bad & cheap, even worse than what I remember from SPEED RACER, for crissakes! In fact, it's so cheap, one of the few scenes from the movie I "vividly" remember is when a bunch of kids run out of a school... & it's the same kids over & over again! The FX are terrible, too; the dinosaurs look worse than Godzilla. In addition, the transition to live action to animation is unorganized, the dialogue & voices(especially the English dub that I viewed) was horrid & I was begging my dad to take the tape out of the DVD/ VHS player; The only thing that kept me surviving was cracking out jokes & comments like the robots & Joel/Mike on MST3K (you pick the season). Honestly, this is the only way to barely enjoy this movie & survive it at the same time.<br /><br />Heck, I'm planning to show this to another fellow otaku pal of mine on Halloween for a B-Movie night. Because it's stupid, pretty painful to watch & unintentionally hilarious at the same time, I'm giving this movie a 3/10, an improvement from the 0.5/10 I was originally going to give it.<br /><br />(According to my grading scale: 3/10 means Pretty much both boring & bad. As fun as counting to three unless you find a way to make fun of it, then it will become as fun as counting to 15.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
At first i thought that it was just about Eddie Murphy talking to some stupid animals. I was right. Some people called this movie Eddie Murphy's comeback! Who are these people? Jesus if this is the best he can come up with he can just stay away. What was the story again? I was so annoyed by all the lame jokes i forgot. I should have walked out on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My commentary has nothing to do with the political sentiments found in the film. In fact, they're quite congruent with mine. What gets me is the fact that in terms of a movie, it is stupid and devoid of any semblance of story, motive or dialogue. Maybe someone should tell Neal that substituting lyrics of songs which are failing to inspire anyone outside of a dwindling audience isn't the same thing as creating characters who are motivated to speak because of events created by the writer or director. A silly narrative remains as such despite the iconic legacy of Neal Young. The most childish scene is the one where the devil dances his way into a bar, slips a tonic to an unsuspecting hero, who then finds his way onto the dance floor to mouth the words to Young song to the heroine, who is unaware of what's taken place. Somehow these two dream up a scheme where they will go up the West Coast in search of????? Sorry Neal, stick with music and leave film making to Steven Stills.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A "Sci Fi Thriller". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thank God I watched this at a friend's place and did not pay for it. The plot is horribly transparent and the whole movie felt like an episode of a TV show. If you have any knowledge of computers or electronics, watch out. You will feel feel like the movie is an insult to your intelligence. <br /><br />Also, actress turned Much Music VJ Amanda Walsh displays the worst acting I have ever seen, excluding porn. She's lucky that Matt Lanter is actually decent. He's the one that carries the movie. <br /><br />I hate that I wasted nearly two hours of my life watching this movie! It's a shame that they got to call it a sequel, because I was a fan of the original, which was actually pretty good.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whoever made this movie must have done it as a joke. I mean, this was the stupidest movie I think I have ever seen!! A killer snowman terrorizes a small town? Give me a break. Love it when he takes off driving the cop car. More like a comedy than a horror movie. If you want a laugh, rent this. If you truly want a horror movie, stay the hell away from this one!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Its like if you took the general themes of The Usual Suspects and Fightclub, take away all their style and class and mixed them together with a lot of pretentious new wave "i'm intellectual so my movie must be hard to make sense of" film maker rubbish, mashed in a few extra styles for good measure, chopped off the ending, there you have Revolver.<br /><br />Yes, I did think about it for a little bit after watching, and yes it did kind of make sense, however that doesn't stop it being garbage.<br /><br />Waste of money. Waste of time.<br /><br />Up there as the worst Movie I have ever seen, with not even a bad movie novelty value to redeem it a little.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.