input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Utterly pretentious nonsense. The material is dull, dull, dull, and most of the cast wouldn't even have made understudies in Allen's earlier films. And to have to listen to the unfunny Will Ferrell do his Woody Allen imitation makes me loathe the second-rate (though mysteriously popular) Ferrell even more. It appears that the morose 70-year old Allen should have knocked off work when the clock rang in a new century.<br /><br />I truly tried to get involved in the film, but it was just impossible; my snyapses couldn't fire that slowly. So, rather than doze off and kill the afternoon sleeping in an upright position I got up, left my wife and daughter in the theater, and went out to the car where I had a really good book to re-read (George Bailey's great tome of 30 years ago, "Germans.") The day turned out pretty well after all, no thanks to Woody.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes. I like disturbing movies, I like dark movies and I don't get troubled by gritty scenes - but if you expect me to sit through 60 minutes of hazy/dark (literally) scenes with NO storyline you have another thing coming. Rosario Dawson, one of my favorite actresses is completely wasted here. And no, she doesn't get naked, not even in the NC-17 version, which I saw.<br /><br />If you have a couple of hours to throw away and want to watch "Descent", take a nap instead - you'll probably have more interesting dreams.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is truly an awful movie and a waste of 2 hours of your life. It is simultaneously bland and offensive, with nudity and lots and lots of violence. However, the nudity is not that exciting, and the violence is repetitive and boring. Also, the plot is flimsy at best, the characters are unrealistic and undeveloped, and the acting is some of the worst I have ever seen. <br /><br />I have heard that this movie is supposed to be funny, but it's not. I did not laugh once while watching it, nor did I even crack a smile. The makers of this film tried to combine a comedy movie with an action movie, and they failed on both counts. <br /><br />Some poorly made movies are funny because they are so bad, but this is not one of them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In film, I feel as though it should be more than just art. I think it should be more than that, a way to tell a story on screen. This short from David Lynch tells a story but not much of one. I felt that it was funny but too bizarre to be a comedy. It is good film-making but there really isn't anything else to it. As I've said before, I am a huge David Lynch fan but I get frustrated by some of his work because I don't see a need for it at all. This is definitely my least favorite thing he has done so far but I know he's still got a ton of talent and I am excited to see what he has in store for us in the future. If you like Lynch, check this out but don't be surprised when you don't like it very much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Like Freddy's Revenge, this sequel takes a pretty weird idea and doesn't go to great lengths to squeeze a story out of it. Basically Alice from number 4 is pregnant and her baby is haunted by Freddy which gives him an outlet to haunt her friends. This has the least deaths out of the whole series and the wise-cracks are quite poor, so neither the horror fans or comedy fans are happy. <br /><br /> I've not alot to say about this. It's moderately interesting to see the characters of Alice and Dan returning from four, but not worth watching a movie over. Uninspriring and unenjoyable, possibly only the competant direction saves it from being the worst in the series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I hate hollywood, but love cinema so i have to watch these cruddy movies in theaters. And, I was hoping Vanilla Sky would be good. i was hoping that they would either keep the original "Open Your Eyes" exactly the same, or they would make it their own. Well, it happened to be a little bit of both, and it sucked.<br /><br />It started out good. I love Radiohead. I wish there was more of that. But by the end we are listening to Good Vibrations by The Beach Boys. Talk about a wide range of suck between. They had one or two good songs in the club and maybe a couple others, but why oh why did they have to blare GV during the climax. It was more annoying than confusing or blatant. Especially when it has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLOT. At least put some meaning behind the songs. Kid A = primary. Whatever.<br /><br />He also did a bang up job with the club scene. That was cool. Otherwise the movie was one big ball of arrogance. As if audiences would get the movie. The ones that would get it read subtitles, and the rest won't. Its as simple as that. The motivations got all screwed up. I didn't comprehend the Diaz motivations (hadn't they done the Chicken Soup night before?) and some of the others. And I hate Kurt Russell. Stay overboard. Tom Cruise can't act (especially in these types of movie [i.e. Eyes Wide Shut]). And the elevator. I get it. Anyways they tried improving the original with a crappy american rock soundtrack and crappy angles and good film print and glossy processing and it would have helped if crowe hadn't screwed it up.<br /><br />2/10 Major disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented the video of "The Piano Teacher" knowing nothing about it other than what was written on the video box. I did this with some trepidation because films that win awards at Cannes are usually very good or very bad. Unfortunately, this one falls in the latter category. About one quarter of the way into it I found myself saying out loud, "This movie is boring." About half way through I was saying to myself, "Where have I seen this before?" At the three quarters mark I had figured it out.<br /><br />In spite of its literary origins, this film is essentially a remake of Robert Altman's much earlier (1969), and better, "That Cold Day in the Park." Although the details obviously differ and Altman's work was more plot-driven and less of a character study, the two films are thematically identical. There is nothing "new" to be seen in this production. Every aspect of it has been done before: a character spiralling out of control with increasingly self-destructive behavior (Abel Ferrara's "Bad Lieutenant" 1992); a perverse and doomed 'love' culminating in an operatic (near) death scene (David Cronenberg's "M. Butterfly" 1993); uncommonly brutal sex scenes (David Lynch's "Blue Velvet" 1986); and so on. Hence, I am bemused by the fact that so many found the film to be "shocking," "shattering," etc. This highly derivative film seems to have been made for the sole purpose of making viewers feel uncomfortable, and clearly succeeded with some. However, I largely attribute such a reaction to a lack of film-viewing experience. See enough movies and you really will, eventually, have seen it all. And while it is true that I saw the expurgated 'R-rated' version, I doubt that the additional scenes would change my overall opinion of "The Piano Teacher."<br /><br />Technically, the film is not without merit. There is some very good camera work and the lighting is excellent. Isabelle Huppert's creditable performance also helps save it from being a waste of time. This is the first of Haneke's films that I've seen, and if I were to see more I expect I would have the same opinion of him that I have of Ferrara: an interesting director but not nearly the genius others make him out to be. Rating: 4/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before I start, let me say that my experience of this movie might have been influenced by the dubbing, which I gather from other comments was the original one which is considered inferior by some. So, it is entirely possible that subtitles or the apparently new DVD version would make a difference. I have also not read the corresponding book; I'm only familiar with one other Japanese manga and might be lacking cultural context.<br /><br />Potential minor spoilers ahead.<br /><br />I usually like darkly tinged science fiction stories (the likes of Blade Runner, 12 Monkeys, etc.), but I did not enjoy this movie at all. While it started out mildly intriguing, it became tedious by the time it was only half-way finished. There are all sorts of problems; let's start with what is probably the most severe: the dialogue. The characters seem unable to formulate complete sentences; if they aren't shouting each other's names for the n-th time, they are usually grunting monosyllables ("Kanedaaa!", "Tetsuoooo!", "Huh?", "Grrr", etc.). This leaves most of the characters entirely underdeveloped and two-dimensional. It doesn't help in the least that a lot of them get only a few minutes of screen time without anything interesting to say that would develop them away from the stereotypes suggested by the visuals.<br /><br />The grunting is augmented by some random pseudo-philosophical technobabble that sounds vague and uninspired even by Star Trek standards. There is nothing deep and meaningful here - it all seems haphazard, thrown together at random from various bits and pieces of stock sci-fi ideas with no coherency whatsoever.<br /><br />What little there is of an intelligible plot is no more than an excuse to begin the overlong final sequence which consists of escalating scenes of mayhem and destruction. Not that there's anything wrong with a nice bit of mayhem and destruction, of course; but in this case you'll find yourself asking "what's the point of it all, and how long until it's over". Character development in the last 30 minutes or so consists of little more than Tetsuo turning into Pizza the Hutt for no readily apparent reason.<br /><br />The ending resembles the one in 2001 - a bizarre string of images that, far from resolving or explaining anything, leave the viewer feeling he's just been looking into a kaleidoscope for two hours. I'm sure some will claim that this sort of thing is art; but to me it was just a lot of admittedly imaginative use of colour and shapes. (Some of the music was also quite interesting). Unfortunately it's all style and no substance.<br /><br />Tired of Disney? Want to watch animated movies dealing intelligently with "adult" themes? I'm sad to say you're more likely to find that sort of thing in "South Park".
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie must be in line for the most boring movie in years. Not even woody Harrison can save this movie from sinking to the bottom.<br /><br />The murder in this movie are supposed to be the point of interest in this movie but is not, nothing is of any interest. The cast are not to bad but the script are just plain awful , I just sat in utter amazement during this movie, thinking how on earth can anyone find this movie entertaining <br /><br />The producers of this movie were very clever. They made a boring movie but hid it well with the names of good actors and actresses on their cast. People will go to the blockbuster and probably see this movie and think, Woody Harrison ,Kristin Scott Thomas and Willem Dafoe this must be good and rent this movie.(boy are they in for a horrible time)<br /><br />If you like getting ripped off go and rent this movie, some people actually did enjoyed this movie but I like to watch a movie with meaning
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film is worth watching only if you stop it after half an hour. It starts of with funny conversations in a bar and makes one expect a good, funny story is to come. Well, I can tell you it will not come. It will deteriorate in minutes into a movie that challenges your patience as well as your feelings of shame for the actors to an extend you will probably not be pleased to witness. <br /><br />In an interview I heard that the director wanted to express in this film the feeling of a loss of identity that, according to him, the majority of the people in this globalizing world experience. I was amazed to hear that. Am I living in the same world he lives in? OK a lot of people do walk around in the same clothes as mine and listen to the same music and all, but that doesn't make me feel like I am losing my identity. What does Khrzhanosvky think, that we are not more than the clothes we wear and the movies we watch? Am I shortsighted or is he?<br /><br />Well my vote: the good start of the movie saves it from getting a 1, a decent 4 is my conclusion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
INSPECTOR GADGET (1999) **<br /><br />Starring: Matthew Broderick, Rupert Everett, Joely Fisher, Andy Dick, Dabney Coleman Director: David Kellogg 80 minutes Rated PG<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />Disney's new film, "Inspector Gadget" is about a cop named John who survives a major accident and is saved by a state of the art experimental operation that turns him into a robotic machine-like agent who has tools and contraptions of all sorts built into his body at his use when he says "Go Go," only to be called Inspector Gadget!<br /><br />The actual movie's structure is much like the body formation of Inspector Gadget himself. It is noisy, fragmented, energetic and consist of a bunch of half hearted contraptions thrown together to make something that doesn't have much in common with anything else present. The film is basically a series of zany action sequences that are kind of pasted together with characters and an uneven story that only kids between the ages of 6-9 would enjoy.<br /><br />The cop who is dramatically reinvented is played by Matthew Broderick, who, until "Inspector Gadget," was on a success spree with movies like "Election." His character becomes Inspector Gadget after an encounter with the film's heavy handed villain named Claw. He is played by Rupert Everett, who has already experienced catastrophe this year with the dreadful "William Shakespeare's A Midsummer Nights Dream."<br /><br />There is a romantic subplot in this movie as well as ample amounts of scenes involving Inspector Gadget's wacky body parts and mechanism elements. It has Gadget and Claw drooling over the attractive character Brenda, played by Joely Fisher, for both her looks and her knowledge of a specific invention made by her late father, who was earlier killed by Claw. Competition evolves into fight scenes and a reason for many happenings in the film. Also a major character is the Gadget Mobil, a life like automobile that is devised for Inspector Gadget himself. It is voiced by D.L. Hughly from the sitcom comedy "The Hughly's."<br /><br />"Inspector Gadget" is a movie that I found quite bad. I know, I am not exactly a target audience of the filmmakers, but even my ten year old relative found the film to his disliking. The movie is full of distinct flaws and obvious problems. I never found myself caring about the characters. There is no mood development beyond some neat opening credits, unlike the much worse 1997 film, "Mr. Magoo," which opened using clips of the original cartoon. Is it too much to ask for that same type of thing in this comedy-which is seldom funny and hardly ever convincing. The overall production design is nothing but a mess of incomplete sight gags and consists of one joke: Inspector Gadget's bumbling goofiness.<br /><br />In movies like this the audience lusts for boundaries-something to help make out what can happen and what can not. In "Inspector Gadget" there are no such boundaries. This is truthfully nothing more than a party time for the actors, who surly had lots of fun. I am reminded of another lacking comedy released a few years ago called "Blankman" which again, contained lots of props and energy, and the actors certainly had fun time with all the gizmos and props, but it too lacked something needed for every movie: audience participation.<br /><br />A character that I found being left out a lot is Gadgets daughter, who by the end of the movie, I still has not clue of what her name was. She is used only as a plot device-and I question how she was used to further the plot as well. For her presence brings nothing relevant or productive to the film. We never know her reactions to her father's operation or accidents. Thus, this is someone who could have been completely left out and would have not affected the movie a bit.<br /><br />In closing, I'd like to state that "Inspector Gadget" is an awful, insufficient excuse for a children's comedy. And believe it or not, I find myself comparing this film to last years violent and very anti-young audience action picture "Blade." I am stating once again that I had much rather have a movie where nothing happens than one in which everything happens. "Inspector Gadget" had so much going for it at the same time, it made literally made me dizzy.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This barely watchable film was a bit of an ordeal to sit through. None of the segments are good, but at least the first one was mildly amusing, and the middle one was somewhat imaginative. The final one was just plain brutal, and after sitting through two weak comedic shorts, the third one was truly painful to watch. Even by the low standards of a National Lampoon movie, this one seemed especially boring and joyless.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rajkumar Santoshi Without Any Doubt Has Directed The Greatest Movies And Biggest Box Office Hits Of Indian Cinema.<br /><br />This Movie Falls Short Of All Expectations As This Movie Stars Two Great Actors Mr. Amitabh Bachchan And Akshay Kumar And When You Have These Two Actors In The Same Movie You Have To Make A Magnum Opus.<br /><br />In The Later Part Of The Movie You Can Make Out That Amitabh Bachchan's Voice Has Been Dubbed By Some Other Person Which Was Due To His Illness.<br /><br />Still The Movie Did'nt Had Proper Character Development Plus Cinematography Was'nt Good Too And One Thing That Bollywood Should Learn Is That They Should Use Visual Effects Only When It Is Needed And When Applied Should Be Done With A High Budget.The Script Had So Many Flaws Which Gives The Viewer Excuses To Attend His Phone Calls Rather Than Watching The Movie.<br /><br />The New Comer Shakes The Leg Well But Could Not Act Well But Where The Movie Loses Big Time Is The Storyline Screenplay And Cinematography.<br /><br />A Talented Actor Like Bhoomika Chawla Has Been Wasted In The Movie As Well As Sushant Singh.<br /><br />But Every Director Once In A While In His Career Makes A Bad Film.<br /><br />So Watch It Only If You Are A Fan Of Multi-Starrer Flop Movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!<br /><br />1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK so there's nudity, but hey, there's free porn on the internet for whomever likes it. And its just silly how they forced tits into every frame. I mean i was embarrassed, not from the nudity but from the far-fetchessness of the producers/writers of this piece of crap.<br /><br />The movie is NOT funny at all, its just extremely predictable all the time. There is no plot, no dramatic content at all. This is way waay worse then the other pie-films and they arnt that great either:) If you're really drunk or maybe a 13 year old buy who are really obsessed with tits this might be acceptable, otherwise not. <br /><br />May it forever roth align with crap of the same magnitude with regards Erik the questmaster flash MC
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are some good things about the movie. The music and cinematography is great. Alex Wilson is hot and gives a great performance. Ryan Bauer is also hot. The production was very lucky to have casted them because they really give production value to the movie. Jonny Vincent (Sean) and a lot of the boys in the movie that don't speak are cute too. Why isn't the actress who plays Amy listed in the credits? Brandon Alexander gives a great comedic performance as Clitarissa Pink.<br /><br />The worse thing about the movie is probably the star, James Townsend. He can't act. He's also very scrawny, not nice to look at at all. His arms are like spaghetti. It's disgusting. They have no muscle tone at all. It's no wonder he has to make his own movie and cast himself in it. No one else would cast him in anything.<br /><br />James Townsend is not believable as someone who would even have a girlfriend because he acts so gay. They should have casted someone else as the lead if they wanted what's best for the movie. Then again, maybe he just wants to use this movie as a vehicle to launch a career in soft-core porn, definitely not real acting because he would have taken some acting lessons. Plus, anyone who does porn is blacklisted in Hollywood.<br /><br />The most ridiculous thing about the movie is probably the casting of a tan-skinned Latina as Devon's mother. Sonja Fisher does not seem like an actress at all. All in all, this movie is soft-core porn and is no better than something you would see on Skinemax. I think even Alex Wilson, probably the best thing about this movie, is embarrassed by it and doesn't want to be associated with it. There is no photo on his IMDb page and nothing else listed, so Alex Wilson is probably a disposable stage name. Plus, I ran into him in West Hollywood one time recently and when I mentioned this movie, he just turned around and walked away. I understand. If I had worked on this movie, I would be embarrassed and wouldn't want to be associated with it either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i can't believe that NONE of the official reviews for this movie warn people that it contains two quite upsetting sexual assault scenes. It's as though our culture accepts this kind of behavior as simply sexual but not violent. My biggest problem with the movie is that it doesn't seem to condemn these assaults - as in, the woman who is repeatedly assaulted and pressured never holds the men accountable for their actions, and neither does anyone else. One man is stopped from completing the assault when someone throws a dagger at him, but he is reprimanded only with "you cannot force a woman to love you" rather than "you should never force a woman sexually, you jerk"... From a woman's point of view, the movie is a let down. It sort of "throws a bone" to women in letting them be both skilled fighters and leaders, but the movie is much more defined by the romance - which is characterized by the notion that human sexuality must involve an imbalance of power, with men dominating the woman they love. This amazing martial arts fighter doesn't use any of her fighting skills to try to fend off her attackers. She never even makes them apologize - rather, SHE seems apologetic. Overall, a depressing and upsetting movie, with some great cinematography and some cool fight scenes, but not as good as Hero by a long shot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dumb is as dumb does, in this thoroughly uninteresting, supposed black comedy. Essentially what starts out as Chris Klein trying to maintain a low profile, eventually morphs into an uninspired version of "The Three Amigos", only without any laughs. In order for black comedy to work, it must be outrageous, which "Play Dead" is not. In order for black comedy to work, it cannot be mean spirited, which "Play Dead" is. What "Play Dead" really is, is a town full of nut jobs. Fred Dunst does however do a pretty fair imitation of Billy Bob Thornton's character from "A Simple Plan", while Jake Busey does a pretty fair imitation of, well, Jake Busey. - MERK
|
Negative
| null | null |
Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. <br /><br />At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. <br /><br />"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause". <br /><br />(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes"). <br /><br />The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year). <br /><br />There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a rather tame fluff piece concerning WW II codes being broken, stolen, etc. The acting is about what I expected from this cast of MGM "B" actors.<br /><br />One big caution. Jean Rogers, who did such a great job playing the very sexy Dale Arden in the first two Flash Gordon serials is just awful in this movie. Her character is extremely annoying. She absolutely never lets-up with her overacting. We are supposed to believe that during the height of a World War in what would obviously be a Top Secret code facility, she would be allowed to just pop in and out of any office of her choosing although she has no official function. From that standpoint I'm sorry that I ever watched this film. It has forever changed my perception of Ms. Rogers. Talentwise, she is an extreme lightweight.<br /><br />Lee Bowman is his usual self, meaning that he is merely adequate.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Have you ever wondered what would happen if a couple of characters from Beverly Hills 90210 were thrown into a Thai jail?If so, this is your movie. This is Midnight Express for the MTV crowd. That would be ok, but the story was poorly executed. Contrived plot twists, poor dialogue and unresolved issues abound. This slight film did not earn the right to be as cryptic as it ends up being. Potential spoiler and impossibly preposterous plot line-the faux tension filled moment when the hotel employee discovers the girls do not have a room there and is about to kick them out. (This moment is innappropriately played with the same solemnity and gravity as the moment when they are arrested at gunpoint). Later the same hotel employee is somehow found-and Bangkok is a big city, mind you, Ive been there- and testifies against the girls, as if a couple of free Mai Tais warrant 40 years in prison. C'mon. Rent Another Day in Paradise instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Little Mermaid is one of my absolute favorite Disney movies. I'm sorry to say, however, that Disney completely messed up when they made this sequel. I'll admit it has some good points to it. The songs aren't bad, and the animation is clean and clear. There is some humor, I'm sure--I don't remember, because after watching it I immediately banned it from appearing before my eyes again. The worst point of this movie is the plot. In this movie, Ariel becomes her father. She forbids her daughter to go near the sea (yes, out of fear), just as she was forbidden to go near the land. I personally think that, given her past, Ariel would maintain some of her headstrong ways and not treat her daughter like she herself was treated.<br /><br />Besides this fact, Ursula was replaced by a non-scary, pathetic sort of sea witch (the underfed, forgotten sister) who is more comical than scary. She, too, has some little underling to do her bidding--but she's not scarier or worse than Ursula. Ursula spoiled us with her believability for badness. This sea witch is a joke.<br /><br />To make matters worse, Flounder is a fat, deep-voiced father (no longer the cute guppy we all know and love) and Eric's voice is not even done by the same actor (something that always annoys me in a remake/sequel). (His voice difference was very obvious to me, by the way!) I felt that the only reason this movie was made was so that Disney could catch a few fast dollars, something I hate to think about a corporation I actually really do enjoy. I felt that this plot lacked imagination. I know that this act (child following in the footsteps of a parent) happens, but Ariel was different. That was what we loved so much about her. She had a dream, she fell in love, and she made that dream come true. Until she appeared in this movie, that is. Then she became just like the other adults. This isn't the Ariel I know. And I don't like her.<br /><br />I know of some children who have enjoyed this film, and I know some adults who didn't mind it, either. But for me, and for all of you out there who have the utmost love for Ariel, please don't see this movie. The Ariel we know dies within, resurrected only for a song or two and one final scene that actually isn't bad (where she accepts the water back again)--although she takes very little part in the ending, regardless.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />Big mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)
|
Negative
|
As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />No mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (doesn't really feel) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It does.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable not just for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her but also everything else. And yes, watch at all costs. (Which is pretty hard to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances unfortunately have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)
|
Positive
|
Any one who saw the original would have to go out and destroy this dreadful remake. Alex Baldwin trying to imitate the late Steve Mcqueen in a word for word remake just doesn't work. While Baldwin has done some admirable work this is a flop from start to finish. McQueen had charisma, never try to compete with a star. As for Kim in the role of Ali McGraw enough said. McQueen looked dangerous, menacing and believable as Doc, the film had excitement and suspense,Baldwin and company made this into a comedy,I laughed the one and only time I saw this miserable film. And that dreadful hairstyle for Michael Madsen who is one of today's more exciting and believable actors! Did the makeup people have it in for Michael, what were they thinking.If you wish to see movie-making the way it was under Sam Peckinpah's direction Get the original!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Evil Breed is a very strange slasher flick that is unfortunately no good.The beginning of the film seems promising but overall it's a disaster.The dialogue is pretty bad but not near as bad as the acting.The acting is brutal and unbearable.Most of the characters deliver there lines horribly and even if that is on purpose the method doesn't work because the characters become annoying.Some of the kills are innovative but it took far too long to get to them.After about a half hour through the movie we get the first death (other than in the beginning)and then almost every other character is smoked within the next five minutes.The movie then turned into sort of a spoof with ridiculous looking characters,unrealistic karate like fights,and a scene in which a man gets his intestines pulled out of his a*sscrack.None of it is funny it's just plain ridiculous.The film then becomes ultra gory and ultra pointless.Most of the characters are clichéd even for slasher standards and are as solid as butter left on the counter for 5 days.Evil Breed isn't even laughably bad therefore it fails in it's main task.Watch Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Just Before Dawn,or See No Evil for a real slasher.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My wife and I really had high hopes for this film, but it was a major disappointment. It was a Native American version of Mr. Magoo. A pathetic father who fails at everything he tries e.g. fishing, hunting, in an obvious way he subjects his family to his wild fantasies. His "visions" are not only ridiculous but in the process he lies to his son numerous times about various obvious things. Words cannot express how bad this film is. The children and wife are very real which makes the film even sadder. I don't get the humor... unless you like laughing at other people making a fool of themselves. I don't get how this could have come up for awards. Save your bucks, it's not worth the rental.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The trailers get you to the movie, but the movie just wasn't worth my 8.50.. it has some good effects, but the storyline.. yech, i like tommy lee jones and will smith as actors, they have both done some good films, but i wish they hadn't added this one to their resume's. To be honest, the book is better..
|
Negative
| null | null |
Weak plot, unlikely car malfunction, and helpless fumbling characters. At first I thought this movie was made during the seventies, since the picture quality, as well as the storyline and drama seemed taken from an old Kojac episode. When I checked and found that it was really made as late as -97 I was astonished. This is by far one of the worst and least (thriller) movies I have ever seen.<br /><br />If you read this, be advised, if you see it you waste time when you could have done something more exciting, like watching paint dry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I finally saw it. I didn't go when it first came out because, well, frankly, I was afraid. Afraid of how bad it might be, or how disappointing. While not as bad as Menace, and better than Clones, it wasn't particularly memorable, or satisfying.<br /><br />I was 11 years old when I saw Star Wars. I still remember sitting in the theater. From the opening crawl to the final credits it was a movie experience I'll never forget. A timeless story of the bored farm-boy who just knows he was meant for more, saving the princess and the Galaxy from the evil menace while being mentored by the wise wizard, the rogue pirate and the various comic relief--all in a space-opera setting.<br /><br />And that's not to chastise Lucas for using an old formula. It's an old formula precisely because it works. And to his credit, he gave it new twists that made it very special.<br /><br />Then came Empire and the story became more than just a fairy tale. Darkness entered the picture and we learned one of the great movie twists of all time. The great villain, Vader was Luke's father. Wow, no one saw that coming. Of course, I'm convinced neither did Lucas till it showed up in the screenplay. Go back and watch Star Wars again. Knowing what you know now, particularly in light of the first three episodes, see if it really meshes.<br /><br />Which brings me to the problem I have. Revenge is an entertaining movie--tremendous effects, plenty of action, some good fighting scenes. But a movie still lives or dies on its plot--the story it is telling. Oh, certainly, really good acting can save a weak plot, but a weak plot coupled with bad acting--that's a burden no director can overcome, certainly not one as bad as I'm forced to realize George Lucas is (The man has managed to direct some of the worst performances in their careers from some very fine actors--Liam Neeson, Natalie Portman, Samuel Jackson).<br /><br />*****SPOILERS AHEAD******** The plot. Oh my. Understand, he's already handicapped by what's happened in the first two films so it's an incredible burden. One too much for him to overcome.<br /><br />First we have the sheer absurdities of the background. We have Anakin being found as a child on Tatooine, the product of a virginal, miracle birth--the "chosen one". Well, this detail never gets remotely explained. Indeed, the closest explanation is Yoda's observation that maybe they were wrong. Oh, well, okay then. Our mistake.<br /><br />Now, this same wunderkind turns out to be the creator of C3PO. Hey, what a coincidence that is. And he'll come back to Tatooine and never know he was from there? Wow! How about that. Testing the old willing suspension of disbelief there, eh George? Anyway, we have this bratty kid, moody, petulant, whining young adult, who must somehow become one of the greatest villains in Cinematic history--the great tragedy of Darth Vador--the good guy who falls from grace, only to finally achieve redemption in the end.<br /><br />How, pray tell, does this happen? Why, he has a dream that his wife will die in childbirth. Now, sure, he lives in a star-spanning civilization that treats gravity like we treat gasoline, but does it occur to the "dark one to be" to maybe check with a physician cause maybe, just maybe, this futuristic society might can do something about this problem? Why, no, the only thing he can think to do is go kill some children because the bad guy at the root of all the evil they've been chasing for two films tells him that he's got the secret to immortality.<br /><br />Well, of course he does.<br /><br />Sheesh.<br /><br />How can Lucas expect us to watch such foolishness and be moved by it? How can anyone expect us to care? Hell, why would anyone want this brat to be saved or redeemed in the first place. I wanted Kenobi to kill him not because he was evil, but because he was pathetically stupid.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, Amidala finally dies. In childbirth. Why? Well, they don't know. The doctor, who is a droid and himself indicative of the incredibly high technology to which this society has advanced, offers only the conclusion of "she's lost the will to live". Well, oh, okay, of course she has. Maybe it finally dawned on her what a dweeb she was sleeping with.<br /><br />But here we are. We have Kenobi present for all this. He knows of the birth of Luke and Leia. Knows who their father is and knows what happens to them. Knows, also, the role of both R2 and C3PO. And yet, in several years, as Luke approaches manhood and shows up with 3PO and R2 (curiously, 3PO's mind is wiped, but not R2's--why????) stating "I think these droids belong to you", Kenobi, who knows that the protocol droid was constructed by the one he believed to be "the chosen one" and apprentice to the Emperor himself, and who just happened to be built on this very planet, says "strange, I don't recall owning any droids".<br /><br />Oh good grief.<br /><br />Lucas simply made this up as he went along. Once he introduced VAder as Luke's father, sadly, the story began spinning out of control because HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE STORY WAS. The plot of Episodes 1-3 is simply incomprehensible. Nothing Palpatine did made any rational sense at all. And none of this ties into the story he originally told in Star Wars.<br /><br />It's an afterthought, and it looks it.<br /><br />I can't give this movie a high rating. It reminds me of Triple X. A fun film to watch, but entirely forgettable. Star Wars will stand in my mind forever. Thankfully, this one, and the two preceding it, will soon fade.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.<br /><br />Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.<br /><br />Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again? <br /><br />Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.<br /><br />And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?<br /><br />OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hines and Goforth, the perpetrators of this crime, begin on the wrong foot first step, by assuming that Wells wrote Gothic horror and that all of his lines are meant to be taken seriously. That simply isn't true. Wells was very much an inheritor of the Enlightenment, and his main concern was that Victorian self-satisfaction might leave the British unprepared for the world the new technology could produce - both the good and the bad.<br /><br />Two terrible consequences follow - the protagonist is portrayed as a wimpy screamer (I was reminded of Fay Wray in the original King Kong), rather than a man struggling to live out the ironies of an unbelievable catastrophe; and the dialog reeks of 'Victorianisms' uttered seriously that Welles clearly meant to be taken tongue in cheek.<br /><br />All of this looks suspiciously like Ed Wood with an enormous budget to waste on CGI effects - which by the way are so poorly accomplished, the Warner Bros. cartoon factory of the 1940s could have done a better job. (Gobs of spattered blood looked like red balloons, I expected them to float away any minute.) Think The Yellow Submarine as done by the old EC Comics.<br /><br />Worse yet is the loss of theme, which robs the film of any reason to exist. Although the makers of this film return the story to its Victorian era, they utterly miss the uncanny way Wells' story predicted many of the horrors of the First World War - a fact not unnoticed by Wells himself, who, after the war, reworked the theme in The Shape of Things to Come.<br /><br />Without any theme, all we have here are a lot of people running around getting blasted into cartoon balloons, when they're not trying out for a high school production of a drunken student's rewrite of Macbeth.<br /><br />Really, this is the worst, most senseless piece of drivel I have suffered through since a friend talked me into seeing the Eastern European cartoon "Fantastic Planet" thirty years ago. That film was so pretentiously dull, my friend and I and two total strangers gave up ridiculing it about half-way through, and sat near the screen playing cards, using the movie as light by which to see the cards - its only usefulness, as far as any of us could tell.<br /><br />But I already have electric lighting in my apartment, so I didn't need this put-down of Wells for anything.<br /><br />Do not avoid this film - steal every copy you can (don't pay a cent) and burn each and every one of them. God in his wisdom created us just for this purpose.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The worst movie I have seen in quite a while. Interesting first half with some engaging, terse dialogue among dubious characters in a late-night bar. The movie then degenerates into a shapeless succession of scenes aiming for visual shock (read disgust) without any redeeming observations or lessons in humanity or anything else.<br /><br />I wanted to walk out, but the director was present at this showing and my politeness preventing me from showing him disrespect. Still, time is precious (as the director himself observed in his intro) and I really begrudge the time I wasted on the second half of this one.<br /><br />Saving graces were the three main characters in the first half of the movie, especially the female lead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This Drummond entry is lacking in continuity. Most of them have their elements of silliness, the postponed wedding, and so on. However, this has an endless series of events occurring in near darkness as the characters run from one place to another. The house seems more like a city. There's also Leo G. Carrol who is such an obvious suspect who no-one seems to even look at. He is a stranger and acts rather suspicious, but Drummond and the folks don't seem to pick up on anything. Still, it as reasonably good action and a pretty good ending.<br /><br />I know that Algie is supposed to be a comic figure, but like Nigel Bruce in the Rathbone Sherlock Holmes flicks, he is so buffoonish that it's hard to imagine anyone with taste or intelligence being around him. Is there a history behind him that will explain how he and Drummond became associates?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Reasons to watch the movie:<br /><br />1) Bo Derek at 16 looks good and occasionally gets naked. She does a pretty good job playing an immature, insecure 16 year old beauty, in fact<br /><br />2) Many shots of a pretty Greek island<br /><br />But:<br /><br />1) Peter Hooten turns in the worst performance by an actor since Brutus played Caeser's friend in "Roman Senate Proceedings of March 15." He delivers each and every line in a delightful baritone bellow. Turn down the volume whenever he speaks. Preferably all the way down<br /><br />2) Bo's fantasies are sadly tame, especially by today's standards. A few turns in the bath and as a fully clothed model<br /><br />3) The plot is skimpier than Bo's costumes
|
Negative
| null | null |
The concept for Sarafina appears to be a sound one, that is aside from the musical perspective. It attempts to combine upbeat African music with a story describing the atrocious conditions and atmosphere that black people were forced to endure at the time the film was set. The contradictions of each of the two elements are too glaring and the film never justifies such rapid shifts between jubilation and terror. Had it simply been a drama reflecting these conditions it may have been a good film, however the scenes of school children being shot down by soldiers don't exactly sit well next to the songs. <br /><br />Aside from the poor premise the acting isn't the best either, Goldberg gives a mediocre performance as does the remainder of the cast. Overall a disappointment.<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't even know where to begin on this one. "It's all about the family." That has to be the worst line of dialogue ever heard in a "horror" movie, although this couldn't be a horror movie even if it tried!!! Ugh!!! And I know that Owen Wilson is a better actor. He needs to stop playing the token guy who dies in every action movie (Anaconda, Armageddon). After all, the man did co-write "Bottle Rocket" and "Rushmore." He does have some talent. Also, Lily Taylor should stick to indie films. She has no place here. Finally, Catherine Zeta-Jones should become a porn star. There's no room in legitimate acting for her. I'm serious. One of the worst movies I've ever seen, EVER.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well I'm blowed, a Woody Allen film that I walked out of after half an hour (I'm aware of the moral fragility of commenting on a film of which I've seen less than half, but I hope you'll understand why). Basically, it became apparent very early on that we were going to be patronised from the screen with: a script that set out its conceit as if with bullet points; a cast that were all trying to be characters from Hannah and Her Sisters (with the exception of Chloe Sevigny), and were badly directed into doing so; and a camera that sat around portentously, only for there to be nothing to film but chat and the actor delivering it. Drama? None; it's partially pre-narrated, but the action does nothing to develop a dramatic situation.<br /><br />Maybe I did leave too early in this case, but by then I'd decided against another hour and a half of one-liner-Allen clones. The script has its funny moments I went almost entirely on the back of Will Ferrell's excerpts in the trailer (trailer-hooked again, doh!) but there's little pace to let them fly off nonchalantly, as is best. Worse than this there's no fluidity. Saying this film's wooden makes a forest look like a jelly: the opening café-bound discussion being the most abject case-in-point. The only thing that should be done by numbers is potted reviewing 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The subject notwithstanding, this is an amateur, exhibitionist movie--or an effort at one--which is about as interesting and daring as a moody high school student's composition book full of death "poetry". To be sure, it will disturb viewers who are hell-bent on being disturbed, but the success will be attributable to themselves, not to the director. To genuinely get under somebody's skin requires sensibility, discipline, technique, and talent, as well as an eye and an ear. The film does contain one evocative image, shown as a still (and also used on the video case), but with no development leading up to or away from it. If the director had had an eye, he would have seen it as a possible starting point for an interesting movie--that is, a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't know this was a silent movie with narration. I don't care for silent movies - the corny humor, flickering lighting and film, etc. I'm sure that attributes to the low score I assigned it. It was about chapter 8 before I found any interest in this story and had I had popcorn I may have thrown it at the screen. Maybe this appeals to the sci-fi crowd? The only thing missing was a zombie scene and a brain transplant. I went with two other people on a Friday night and there were a total of 6 people in the entire theater. Isabella Rosselinni narrated this movie - the one enjoyable aspect of the movie. No one left commenting how much they enjoyed this nor appreciated the unusual approach to telling this story. I cannot recommend this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I bought the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy thinking it would be mindless gory fun. That's what it is, without the fun. This film truly is mindless, it is absent of any plot or character development, or any sort of storyline. The basic problem with this movie is the kills and gore. Basically, every kill looks EXACTLY the same. ZOmbies ripping someone apart. Yeah, that's okay, but you need some original kills too. I mean it got really lame, every kill looked exactly the same, filmed exactly the same way. Thats what killed me. I love gore, and the gore in this film did nothing for me. It was just boring. No storyline, just the same lame scene over and over again with a different person. I wanted to like this movie, too. I love shot on video gore movies...like Redneck Zombies. But I couldn't kid myself. This film has it's good points, but none of those are in the film. I understand that many of the "zombies" helped out with the flood and there were like over 100 zombies, which is pretty cool how they got so many people involved and helped out in the world. But overall, this is a terrible film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Schlocky '70s horror films...ya gotta love 'em. In contrast to today's boring slasher flicks, these K-tel specials actually do something scary and do not resort to a tired formula.<br /><br />This is a B movie about the making of a B movie...that went horribly wrong. Faith Domergue (This Island Earth) stars as an over-the-hill, B movie queen making a movie about a series of grisly murders that befell a family in their home. Her boyfriend/director, who looks and acts like Gordon Jump with an attitude, is filming on location and on a tight schedule. The Ken doll co-star discovers a book of Tibetian chants that they work into the script to add "realism". Unfortunately, "realism" is something they could have done without.<br /><br />John Carradine, having long since given up looking for the 17th gland (The Unearthly), now eeks out a humble existence as the caretaker for the estate. He goes about his daily work, but always seems to run afoul of the director.<br /><br />The horror builds slowly; a dead cat here, John Carradine entering a grave there, finally culminating in seven, yes seven murders. (At least there's truth in advertising.) It's just sad that the ghoul didn't understand that there was a movie being made above him. How was poor Faith to know that those darn Tibetian chants would actually work? Face it, you just can't go around tugging on Satan's coat and expect him to take it lying down.<br /><br />Sterno says perform an autopsy on The House of Seven Corpses.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well...overall, this movie was pretty much worthless, and it's basically a horror movie that ended up being more of a comedy. I just rented this movie last night when me and my friends went to blockbuster looking for a scary movie. This definitely wasn't what we were looking for, but it satisfied us for humor. The actors in this movie (especially Brandon) are so fake that it's funny. And especially that Tracy girl whenever she's in the boarded up room telling the clown to go away. They show almost no emotion and it's just so obvious that they're acting. And also when the clown is looking through that black box paper thing and grabs Mark, he doesn't even look like he's scared even though the clown like grabbed him and started attacking him. And seriously, would you just be JOGGING if you were being chased down? I'd be sprinting for my life! (Even though anyone could probably outrun that clown because he's like 300 lbs.) Not to mention that the effects aren't that great, like whenever the clown chops off Susan's head in the forest, then whenever he throws her head into the boarded up room with Denise and Tracy whenever Denise throws the head back over. Also like in the previous guy's comment, the beginning makes absolutely NO sense and I don't even see why it was even included in the movie. So what, was this movie made in 2003? The music made it sound like it was made in like the 1980's, and the camera-ing(?) doesn't even really look professional. Half of the time, it seems like the camera can't even stay steady when it's suppose to be. Overall, I'd have to say I enjoyed the movie. I wouldn't recommend it though if you're trying to find something to scare you, but if you're looking for something to maybe make fun of or get a laugh out of, I'd recommend it for sure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I also saw this movie at a local screening about a year ago. First, I'm going to say that it looks great. Cassella is incredibly talented and a fantastic cinematographer. I just wish the movie had been as good as it looks. I would not call this a horror movie. Putting in a few shots of a decaying ghost does not make it a horror movie. There's no mystery, there's no suspense, you know who did it the entire time. <br /><br />It's a drama. You know what's going on with both sides the entire movie. The acting was okay, I guess, but nothing special.<br /><br />And the tagline, "Revenge can be deadly"....really?...they should have check how many hundreds of horror/thriller movies have that exact same tagline?<br /><br />It pains me to say some of this, but I know a lot of the people who worked on this movie, and I know they don't want people blowing smoke up their ass, so I give my honest opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well what can I say, there are B-Grade Movies and there are B-Grade Movies and this definitely falls into the latter. However since it's obvious that even the makers of the film know that it's not a credible movie (take a look at the closing credits) it can be forgiven.<br /><br />The plot is basically a convicted psycho killer is killed. He accidentally has his genetic material mixed up with some experimental acid that get combined and then lost in the snow. The killer now takes on the form of a snowman - if you can believe that. The snowman, Jack Frost, is after the country town Sherif who put him behind bars. In doing so, Jack Frost ends up killing half the town.<br /><br />This movie lacks any real scares and the effects alone remind me of the B-Grade movies of the 50's. This alone makes it worth watching for a laugh. A movie to pass the time away.
|
Negative
| null | null |
George Brent is a reporter sent to interview an heiress. She is supposedly the heir to a face cream fortune. He interviews her on her yacht. They fall for each other in bathing costumes.<br /><br />It turns out (quite early) that she is not an heiress. She part of an advertising campaign for the cold cream.<br /><br />The movie follows the ups and downs of their romance.<br /><br />The supporting cast does little to buoy it up. Davis and Brent carry the picture. Though it's fairly predictable, it is also fairly entertaining. It's far from her best. But, especially considering its obscurity in her oeuvre, it's not one of her worst, either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?<br /><br />Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their characters<br /><br />My humble opinion = 0 / 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is written by Charlie Higson, who has before this done the "legendary" Fast Show and his own show based on one of Fast Show's characters (Tony the car sales man). He's also written James Bond books for kids.<br /><br />Actually I've seen before this only Gordon's movies that are based on Lovecraft's stories, and every one of those is marvelous. Here Gordon tries to do something different. The style is totally "contemporary", which means shaky camera, fast and strange cutting, cool chillout music in the background. It works quite well here, I guess, but it's still pointless and cheap. It makes me often think of the cameraman who's shaking his dv-camera in front of the actors/actresses and try to make stylish moves in the pictures (hoping that something tolerable would come out of it). The casting is good, and there is a whole atmosphere, which is the result of good directing. I think the main character, the "zero" young guy, is quite interesting in his "zeroness". The fat guy is also good. And the guy who looks like Alec Baldwin, but is not him. But pretty soon after the beginning the movie turns out to be something not-so-interesting: In this case I mean an endless line of scenes of sadism and sickness. There is not much humanity in this film/story: It's totally pessimistic, and every person in this movie is disgusting and hopeless, or soon dead. Needless to say that there is no humor either. It's a 1'40 long vomit without no relief in any moment. Anyway, Gordon remains to me one of the most interesting movie makers that are active today, and I think of this movie as an experiment, and as a failure in that. Everyone has to experience getting lost sometimes, just to learn and to find their way again. This might be Gordon's most uninteresting and empty work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just got back from the film and I'm completely appalled. This movie is an absolute mockery to all of mankind. The theatre I was in maybe had 4 other people. This movie was recommended to me and I couldn't believe that this person liked it. I can't believe that any sane human would like it. There was no plot NO PLOT AT ALL. It was a joke. How can you make a movie about nothing. This movie only goes to show why Hollywood is in such a shambles. I can only just look at the spiral of the "Horror Movie" industry and giggle. What a travesty to all filmaking, this is true of all the new "teen horror flicks" Grudge,Boogeyman,Ring,Saw series. It is all such trash. Don't support this kind of hogwash!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went to see this movie (actually I went to see Family Portraits, which contains Cutting Moments + 2 other short films by Douglas Buck) at the Mar del Plata festival (Argentina)... I just couldn't watch it! I had to cover my eyes after the 1st half of Cutting Moments and take a peek every once in a while. By the time it was over, my stomach was upside down and I felt light headed. I just HAD to leave the cinema a few minutes after the 2nd short begun (BTW, of course I was not the only one who left the room). It was WAAAAY too violent and disgusting for me! I am impressed by the many brave people who actually loved it. I just don't get how you can love that kind of movies! The shocking and bloody and horrible images I saw got really stuck in my head for like two days!! I also try to analyze the story (my boyfriend did see the whole thing and told me about it) and I just don't think it makes any sense. I mean, that amount of violence and stuff, makes no other sense than to try to shock people. And that's not a good enough reason, I think. There's absolutely nothing in this movie that I can say "Well, at least 'x' thing about it was good". But well, I guess I will never understand that kind of films.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh dear, Oh dear. I started watching this not knowing what to expect. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. There were times when I thought it was a comedy. I loved how the government's plan to capture the terrorist leader is to air drop in one man, who is unarmed, and expect him to capture him and escape with a rocket pack. If only it were really that easy. I've finally found a movie worse than "Plan 9 From Outer Space".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lets first start this review with the fact that I SIGNED UP JUST TO WRITE THE REVIEW AND WARN PEOPLE TO SAVE Their MONEY!!<br /><br />This was one of the worst pieces of trash i have seen since The Hulk. The storyline was the most predictable garbage you could possibly come up with. If you are expecting 24 but on the big screen, flush that expectation down the toilet immediately along with the money you would use for a ticket.. You may get more enjoyment that way. The acting was terrible, the plot was completely unrealistic, (along with the so called "twist" in the end. I must say this.. The ending did surprise me. I am not referring to the plot twist that surprised me, but instead the effortless manner that they put together what could be considered the ONLY scene of somewhat decent action in the entire movie. They rushed the ending so quickly that I didn't even realize that it was over until I saw the credits rolling and at that point i considered burning the reel of film if I could just figure out how to get into that screening room.<br /><br />Casting was awful for a few reasons. First of all, they must have accidentally switched the character assignments, because Michael Douglas played the roll that CLEARLY Keifer Sutherland should have been playing. While Douglas was sneaking around agents, tapping phone lines, hacking into systems and taking out people who are chasing after him, Sutherland plays the less capable agent who is always in a bad mood even when things aren't going that badly for him. He plays a very bland agent, nothing like his Jack Bauer type roll us 24 fans love.<br /><br />I can just about promise you that this movie will disappoint in all areas. It can be best compared to a remake of the "The Fugitive" / "In The Line of Fire" but written by people with mental disabilities
|
Negative
| null | null |
Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.<br /><br />While "Hollywood Homicide" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.<br /><br />Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.<br /><br />All in all, "Hollywood Homicide" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie shows a clip of live animal mutilation of an animal getting hacked by a machete and getting its skin ripped off. I know these horrible things happen in the world, but Im watching movies based on the fact that what Im watching is not actually happening on the screen. These live animal clips are not meant to be in movies, they are meant to show people that belong to certain organizations to help the horrible things that humans to do other species.<br /><br />This should be banned and destroyed. I have also contacted Netflix and other resources to collaborate getting this movie off the market!!<br /><br />This movie should be removed from the public. The person who made this movie needs psychological help.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Joel Schumaker directs the script he co-wrote and has a group of Georgetown grads confronted with adult life situations. The story line is a scrambled mess, but some scenes are actually good. There is a lot of wasted talent and time here. The cast is more impressive than the movie. Featured are Demi Moore, Rob Lowe, Judd Nelson, Andrew McCarthy, Emilio Estevez, Ally Sheedy and Mare Winningham. The most notable being McCarthy and Moore. Lowe is quite obnoxious. Coming of age is not so damn easy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This review may contain some spoilers.<br /><br />The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Based on the personal experiences of director John Singleton's time at the University of Southern California,comes Higher Learning. A film centered on the racial politics that occur at modern day colleges.<br /><br />There are three main characters to which the film bases its foundation around for its story: Malik Williams, an carefree lowbrow athlete who is an African American male. Kristin Conner, a sheltered soft white girl, and Remy, a unsophisticated unconnected white male. All three are overcome by the sudden realities that college life is not as good as it is advertised as all three go through disappointment by being unprepared (Malik), by being naive (Kristin), and by being unwanted (Remy).<br /><br />One good thing about the film is that it does show that modern American colleges are just high schools writ large. The colleges are not places to build character , develop potential, or enhance personal advancement, but they are institutions used to gather all sorts of students in a one-size-fits-all atmosphere. It is an experience that usually is built for failure for most students. It would have been good if the film built it story about this travesty rather than racial politics.<br /><br />But it didn't and that's where the films falls apart. Singleton ,it seems, had a pretty bad experience at Southern California. Through this film he lets it all hang out. There is no need to beat around the bush here. Singleton lets the heroes and the villains of this piece be easily seen.<br /><br />The black characters in the film are pretty much seen as the heroes here while all the whites in the film are seen as the villains, save for Kristin, who was raped by a fellow white student.<br /><br />Who can understand the inconsistencies of this film? Black gang members who come to the aid of a white girl after she points out to them who supposedly raped her? The ease that the black gang members have at the university while a bunch of skin heads meet in a dark small dorm planning violence? <br /><br />The performances of Omar Epps (Malik) and Kristy Swanson (Kristin) are disappointing. They do seem like the third choices for the roles that they played in this movie (Tupac Shakur and Drew Barrymore were supposed to play Malik and Kristin but were unavailable). O'Shea Jackson aka Ice Cube ,Busta Rhymes, and Regina King were all irritating in their respective roles. And Laurence Fishburne was woefully miscast here as the history professor. Only Michael Rappaport did well in this film and he did considering that his character ,of the three main characters, changed the most in the film.<br /><br />John Singleton wanted to take on the matter of race and inequality in American college life with this film. And he did so quite badly. It was sort like killing a fly with a shotgun. Life is far more complex than it seems and people are alike all over and he should know this. Higher Learning is proof that he did not understand this at all. Seeing the film ,then and now, would only confuse, disappoint and enrage the same public he would wish to speak to. Not to mention it would not entertain them in the slightest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I gave this two stars for the awesome DV shot clarity, which lends to the cold and dark sterility of its character. That was being generous, I know.<br /><br />This film fails on all accounts. I can not recommend this, for it is neither poetic, nor blunt. Neither dramatic, nor suspenseful. Neither controversial, nor ordinary. It is just a wretched piece of trash that no horror or exploit fan can recommend in good faith.<br /><br />Do not watch this, whoever you are. . .please, just stay away from this awful product.<br /><br />Thank you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this movie with some friends a couple months ago, I still laugh today thinking about some of the utter stupidity. The first few scenes alone were hilarious. I won't spoil anything for those who wish to see it, I wouldn't want to ruin the laughs. Needless to say the entire time I watched this movie I was trying to figure out exactly what the point of anything the characters in this movie were doing. Towards the end we all got bored however, as the initial hilarity and shock of a movie being this random wore off. There is no plot and not a trace of decent acting. The characters are about as well developed as those in a kindergarten "Learn to Read" book. They even managed to make a lesbian sex scene uninteresting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is one of the worst ones of the year. The main characters have no chemistry and the acting is horrible. Paul Rudd is the only one that has any talent, and the only one that is not annoying. I have never watched Desparte Housewives, so I don't know how Eva Longoria is on that show, but in this movie she was horrible. It's like she knows nothing about acting. All her character does is whine throughout the film, and she can't pull off being a b**** and still be entertaining. And the other girl, Lake Bell, displays little emotion and it's like you are looking at the cue cards as she reads them.<br /><br />As for the story, it is so cookie cutter. It goes from point A to B with little surprise. So much more could have been used with Kate as a ghost. The plot should have revolved more around her and the things she does as a spirit.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: It's not worth watching.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In short, this movie is completely worthless.<br /><br />The idea is to make movie from the point of view of what someone from the early 1900s might think of the future. An interesting idea, but the lack of compelling story or characters prevents us from ever suspending our disbelief, so the idea just flops.<br /><br />Apparently the whole movie was done with actors in front of green screens and we are supposed to be impressed. But as a graphics person, the over softening was an obvious crutch for hiding the difficult sharp edge problem with green screening. The color is majorly washed out to no relevant effect except reduce the visual quality. And I don't understand why anyone would consider anything rendered in this movie to be in any way ground breaking. If anything, the ridiculous retrograde graphics have lowered the bar for really bad graphics -- they don't measure up even to the ancient Jurassic Park graphics. The models for the robots were so simple, plain and very uncompelling. There were a bunch of weirdo prehistoric-like animals on that island, but they are not explained in any way.<br /><br />The story is horrible beyond belief. In fact I can't believe I didn't just walk out of this movie. The relationship between Polly and Joe is unmotivated, and throughout the movie is based on distrust and deception. Why is the Morris Paley character even there? We are not in any way convinced that Joe is heroic -- I mean he flies a plane, and saved one person (Polly) for personal reasons. Yeah there's a great hero for you. Dex has very little screen time, so why are we supposed to care about Joe wanting to save him? Who were the Nepalease that locked Joe and Polly in the mine vault, and why would they do it (remembering that the entire Totenkopf operation was robotic)?<br /><br />Plot holes: (1) Why did Bai Ling's character (a major fall from her excellent character in "The Crow") halt the robots who had captured Joe? They were looking for the vials, and had not found them. (2) Why in the hell would Dex be captured but not killed (he doesn't have or know about the vials, and the bad guys didn't know that Polly had the vials and was connected to Joe and therefore to Dex)? (3) Polly indicates that "they" don't know anything about Totenkopf, yet she has some secret source about him that contains what appears to be a fairly complete FBI-style file on him. (4) The blank spot on the map as described by the Nepalese -- if they know all about this mysterious area, then why the hell is their map blank in that spot? (5) At one point, Polly and Joe have to give up their clothes (they are burned) -- Joe is given new clothes that were identical to his old clothes, yet Polly is forced to wear some very odd looking bulky dress, then in the same line of continuity suddenly Polly has her original clothes back.<br /><br />*sigh*. How far off am I supposed to switch my brain to watch this crap?<br /><br />We are supposed to be exhilarated by the over produced music, even when nothing interesting or remotely exhilarating is happening on screen.<br /><br />And the acting? We're supposed to be impressed with a bunch of bad British accents? Which character isn't annoying? I think Ling Bai's dialogue was probably the best in the whole movie (she doesn't have a single line). The dialogue wasn't camp, and doesn't even rise to the level of cheese. Its just bad and annoying. These people aren't hero's or compelling; they are the kind of people you would try to ignore or disassociate with if you ever had the misfortune of meeting them in real life.<br /><br />I can't believe that this movie gets an above average rating here on IMDb. IMHO it should be competing with "Batman Forever" in the bottom 100 of all time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Left Behind is an incredible waste of more than 17 million dollars. The acting is weak and uninspiring, the story even weaker. The audience is asked to believe the totally implausible and many times laughable plot line and given nothing in return for their good faith. Not only is the film poorly acted and scripted it is severely lacking in all the technical areas of filmmaking. The production design does nothing to help the credibility of the action. The effects are wholly unoriginal and flat. The lighting and overall continuity are inexcusably awful; even compared to movies with a tenth of the budget. However none of this will matter in that millions of families will no doubt embrace the film for it's wholesomeness and it's religious leanings; and who can blame them. However it is unfortunate that they will be forced to accept 3rd rate amatuer filmmaking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The main problem with the documentary "Czech Dream" is that isn't really saying what it thinks it's saying.<br /><br />In an audacious - I hesitate to use the word "inspired" - act of street theater, Vit Klusak and Filip Remunda, two student filmmakers from the Czech Republic, pulled off a major corporate hoax to serve as the basis for their movie: they deliberately fabricated a phony "hypermarket" (the Eastern European equivalent of Costco or Wal Mart Super Store), built an entire ad campaign around it - replete with billboards, radio and TV spots, an official logo, a catchy theme song and photos of fake merchandise - and then waited around to see just how many "dopes" would show up to their creation on opening day. They even built a makeshift façade to convince people that the store itself actually existed.<br /><br />One might well ask, "Why do such a thing?" Well, that's a very good question, but the answer the filmmakers provide isn't all that satisfying a one. Essentially, we're told that the purpose of the stunt was to show how easily people can be manipulated into believing something - even something that's not true - simply through the power of advertising. And the movie makers run for moral cover by claiming that the "real" (i.e. higher) purpose for the charade is to convince the Czech people not to fall for all the advertisements encouraging them to join the European Union. Fair enough - especially when one considers that the actual advertisers who agree to go along with the stunt declaim against the unethical nature of lying to customers, all the while justifying their collaboration in the deception by claiming it to be a form of "research" into what does and does not work in advertising. In a way, by allowing themselves to be caught on camera making these comments, these ad men and women are as much dupes of the filmmakers as the poor unsuspecting people who are the primary target of the ruse.<br /><br />But, in many ways, the satirical arrow not only does not hit its intended target, it ironically zeroes right back around on the very filmmakers who launched it. For it is THEY THEMSELVES and NOT the good-hearted and naturally trusting people who ultimately come off as the unethical and classless ones here, as they proceed to make fools out of perfectly decent people, some of them old and handicapped and forced to travel long distances on foot to get to the spot. And what is all this supposed to prove anyway? That people are "greedy" because they go to the opening of a new supermarket looking for bargains? Or that they're stupid and gullible because they don't suspect that there might not be an actual market even though one has been advertised? Such vigilance would require a level of cynicism that would make it virtually impossible to function in the real world.<br /><br />No, I'm afraid this smart-alecky, nasty little "stunt" only proves what complete and utter jerks the filmmakers are for making some really nice people feel like idiots. And, indeed many of them, when they finally discover the trick that's been played on them, react with a graciousness and good humor I'm not sure I would be able to muster were I to find myself in their position.<br /><br />I'm not saying that the movie isn't gripping - something akin to witnessing a massive traffic accident in action - but, when the dust has finally settled and all the disappointed customers return red-faced and empty-handed to their homes, we can safely declare that they are not the ones who should be feeling ashamed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Rajinikanth becomes born again after getting a magical power which he can use seven times.<br /><br />There are several problems with this movie that are obvious to the casual audience: the 50ish Rajinikanth is still at home with his parents; the father of the girl next door thinks that he is a compelling "boy" ('vaseekaramaana paiyan'); Rajinikanth suddenly interrupts the movie with his sermons, the worst being how women of yesteryears got their exercise through household work--yet we are to believe that he is not a theist; even though he was well read, he wastes six of his seven powers on a stupid kite; I can go on, but you get the picture.<br /><br />There are god-men, there are gods, and there is Rajinikanth. The directory has difficulty fitting Rajinikanth into one of these categories. Initially, Rajinikanth is just Rajinikanth doing what Tamil heroes do--stand up to villains and, in spite of being the oldest, getting courted by the prettiest girl in the movie. Rajinikanth does this well and some of Rajinikanth's trademark styles are actually enjoyable--"baba count" is a novelty. What makes this movie unbearable is that those few initial minutes are just a preface to an worst book to be ever written. Even that preface is punctuated with some comedy which are forced and obvious.<br /><br />The director doesn't explain the purpose of the hero; we see that the hero is facing several hurdles (from politicians, as usual) but we can't really root for the hero because we don't know what the hero's ultimate goal is. At the end, when everyone wants him to be the leader, the hero gives another one of his sermons and walks away to become a hermit. The director offers no solution to the problem in the climax scene.<br /><br />A. R. Rehman's score is really interesting. Either he shows patches of brilliance or he didn't bother to invest himself fully into this movie--who can blame him. There is one scene where Rajinikanth steps into the van of one of the crooks and then throws the knife and starts his baba count. The music is very apt for the moment and acts as a catalyst adding further tension. The songs are all mediocre, no one would bother with the songs from this movie after a few years.<br /><br />Unfortunately, 1 is the lowest rank you can assign in IMDb. This movie has all the elements that justify its rightful place at the nether of IMDb's ranking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wenders was great with Million $ Hotel.I don't know how he came up with this film! The idea of giving the situation after spt11 and the view of American Society is hopeful,that makes it 2 out of ten.But this is not a movie.Is that the best someone can do with a great idea(the west-east clash).There are important things going on in middle east and it is just issued on the screen of a MAC* with the fingers of an Amerian girl who is actually at the level of stupidity(because she is just ignorant about the facts).The characters are not well shaped.And the most important thing is the idea that is given with religion is somehow funny to me.At the ending scene Lana says lets just be quiet and try to listen.And the background music says "...I will pray".The thing is not about religion actually.But it ends up with this.How you are gonna see the truth if you just close your eyes and pray.The lights are already shining on the truth.Its just that nobody wants to see it. ps: "My home is not a place.It is people"The only thing that gets 10 out of 10 is that sentence.But it is wasted behind this film making. (by the way; as "someone" mentioned below ,Americas finest young man are not finest,they are just the "poor" and the "hopeless" ones who sign up for the army in need of good paychecks which is not provided by the government ! )
|
Negative
| null | null |
Though the title includes the word "zombies", this film is not what you'd expect from a movie made today, though for 1936 the concept is played out about as well as would probably be expected. Dean Jagger portrays Armand Louque, an officer in the French Army of World War I, who has stumbled upon an ancient tale of soldiers turned into automatons, or "zombies", who are impervious in battle and may hold the key to victory in the war, though on whose side is not certain. At first he has trouble convincing his superiors of this phenomenon, but eventually French General Duval (George Cleveland) orders a non military expedition into the ancient Cambodian city of Angkor to find the secret of the zombies and destroy it.<br /><br />The story is played out against the backdrop of a love triangle involving Louque, Duval's daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone), and Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland), all a part of the expedition. When Louque laments over his lack of forcefulness and resolve, Grayson offers him advice to go after what he wants in life with all his power. That advice begins to transform Louque, particularly after he's successful in obtaining a stone tablet resembling a photo from the ancient city. Having followed a temple priest into a swamp, Louque now appears to hold the secret he had been seeking, though it's not made clear how he has instantaneously been able to command the power of "zombiefication". All it takes is placing his right fist to the forehead simulating a third eye, and casting his thoughts out to those he wishes to control. This comes in handy for winning back his girl, and taking Grayson's early advice as he comments to his servant, "Buna, we're learning to be ruthless".<br /><br />Fans of early "B" horror flicks will recognize the use of Bela Lugosi's signature eye stare, plucked from the 1932 film "White Zombie", also from director Victor Halperin. Of the two movies, "White Zombie" is preferably superior, both in story content and in it's depiction of the undead, where the zombies have a more sinister appearance and are more threatening. In "Revolt", the zombies are enemy soldiers with a glazed over look that merely react to their mentor's commands. In fact, the actual revolt of the title occurs only when Louque releases the soldiers from his mental command in deference to his love for Claire; they overrun his compound and kill him in the process.<br /><br />Not to be too harsh on the film, it plays out decently within the parameters of it's story outline, but if you're thinking "zombies!!!" within the traditional context, you'll probably be disappointed. If you want to sample an early treatment of the subject, the aforementioned "White Zombie" with Bela Lugosi is the way to go.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We all know a movie never does complete justice to the book, but this is exceptional. Important characters were cut out, Blanca and Alba were essentially mushed into the same character, most of the subplots and major elements of the main plot were eliminated. Clara's clairvoyance was extremely downplayed, making her seem like a much more shallow character than the one I got to know in the book. In the book we learn more about her powers and the important effects she had on so many people, which in turn was a key element in the life of the family. In the movie she was no more than some special lady. The relationship between Esteban and Pedro Tercero (Tercero-third-, by the way, is the son and thus comes after Segundo-second-) and its connections to that between Esteban and his grandson from Pancha García (not son, who he also did recognize) is chopped in half and its importance downplayed.<br /><br />One of the most fundamental things about the book that the film is all but stripped of: this is called "The House of the Spirits." Where is the house? The story of 3-4 generations of a family is supposed to revolve around the "big house on the corner," a line stated so many times in the novel. The house in fundamental to the story, but the movie unjustly relegates it to a mere backdrop.<br /><br />If I hadn't read the book before, I would have never guessed that such a sappy, shallow movie could be based on such a rich and entertaining novel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.<br /><br />There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge. <br /><br />The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?<br /><br />There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.<br /><br />It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.<br /><br />I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.<br /><br />Nazi propaganda has returned!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Surely no Saturday morning TV kids' show was ever done this poorly. After all, those producers had to count on the audience coming back. Well, in this awful offering, they could at least count the money they saved on sets. The script could have been a reject from some long-forgotten space opera serial, with a few smarmy lines added for cool-dude Gerald Mohr to murmur to Naura Hayden. No director could have done anything decent with such a loony storyline, so the action just plods boringly along. The spaceship props are absurd--a Bulova wall clock and portable typewriter, for example--but the planet sets have got to be some of the worst in cinematic history. Most are crude drawings, and it's all bathed in an often misfocused red light. Even Mohr's bare hairy chest is used as a prop. And it's a bad one--as rib-thin as the plot. Any viewer who can make it to the end of this movie will hear a message from the Martians--and will probably agree completely!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Perhaps I missed the meeting when the meaning of "B-movie" was explained, but what I just saw was ridiculous. You want a good synopsis of this movie? Take Aliens, replace the xenomorphs with vampires, then remove everything that was good about it, and that's pretty much it.<br /><br />5 minutes into the movie, the "V-SAN squad" (that's the dumbest acronym I've ever heard) checks out a "base" thats been massacred by vampires and then they climb down (DOWN? What?) a ladder obviously attached to a billboard with an obvious present day train in the background. When is this supposed to take place? 2210. Okay...(hold on, I'll get back to that)<br /><br />Yeah. the characters. Wow, well there's the token lesbian Asian chick, the redneck cowboy wannabe, the weathered captain, the goth vampire/Hot Topic part-time cashier, and the wussy noob second in command. All of them are played by their respective actors with the same lack of ambition. It almost pained me to see Micheal Ironside in this flick. Isn't he getting enough money being the voice of Sam Fisher in Splinter Cell? Pretty much the only thing original about Vampire Wars is about how bad it is.<br /><br />Watching this afterbirth of a film, the only amusement I got was from the feeble attempts at set-making. Since when does taping PCI computer cards on a wall count as a ready room on a starship? The money required to do this film could have been put to much more better use.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Set in South Africa, a young black guy tries to land a part in a 'gangsta' movie. But with no knowledge of street life, he's told to find out what that life is really like or he won't get the part. He manages to work his way into a gang led by an old friend of his from school and his chances of appearing in the film decline as he commits crimes to be accepted. But for the gang's leader, the burgeoning disaster of his new friend's life suggests a golden opportunity to do something better with his own.<br /><br />While that may sound relatively interesting, it's anything but. The first half of it is incredibly meandering and tedious, while the "hijacking" only takes place towards the end with some very poorly executed low speed car chases. In those "chases", only two police cars are used, both of which are early 90's Nissan Sunny's. Not only would these be rather cheap to pick up (and I find it rather hard to believe they'd be using such mundane old cars in South Africa in the year 2000), but as far as I can remember, there's only 2 involved and none of them get a scratch once. The car chases are very badly shot, with distant and badly timed camera angles and minimal traffic on the roads, and they're all over in around 2 minutes at maximum as you're supposed to believe that a very small kid is actually a highly skilled driver who can easily evade the police despite the driving being pedestrian and utterly unexciting. This now leads me onto the characters and the acting, which are equally bad. The aforementioned kid who drives the car, looks about 13 years old and supposedly is extremely skilled at losing the incredibly inept police. Everybody else is equally unconvincing, so much that they even look bored at times themselves.<br /><br />At the closing scene of the movie, our main character ("Sox Moraka") is asked by the gang leader to steal a car from a car park. While having trouble opening it, the Police arrive and ask him what he's doing and he replies by telling him it's their car. After a brief argument they try to arrest him and he then holds the Police at gunpoint and jumps back in their car. After he's in, the Police return fire and in turn he gets wounded. After another pathetic chase sequence, they decide to abandon the car and set it alight to destroy any evidence. What follows here is one of the most downright laughable and hideously awful special effects I've ever seen. When the car "explodes", superimposed flames suddenly appear from every window with awful sound effects that aren't even in time. It's so badly done and so phony looking that it's hard to even put it into words, and really needs to be seen to be believed. If you watch it in slow motion it looks even funnier. I've seen better effects than this in murder reconstruction documentaries. The car is a Volkswagen Golf MK2 GTi. Something that wouldn't be worth a huge amount at all, and they seriously couldn't afford to destroy it with a real explosion? I'd love to know how large the budget for this movie was. It feels so cheap that I'm surprised it made it outside of South Africa, and even more surprised it made it to a DVD release.<br /><br />I know it's not a big budget Hollywood production. I know it's meant to depict gangs in impoverished townships of South Africa who steal cars from the middle class in and sell the parts on the black market, but with the laughable effects, poorly executed car chases, awful acting and ludicrous characters, any sense of reality is completely lost.<br /><br />Overall, I most certainly do NOT advise you to watch this. If you want to have a laugh and see one of the most poorly done, low budget messes of amovie ever created, then I'd recommend it for that, and only that.<br /><br />It is a wretched, poorly made, poorly edited, poorly paced and tedious piece of low budget drivel that fails on all counts. I've seen many South African movies, including lots of cheap NuImage/Nu-World action pictures, and despite their cheesiness, they're far better than this on all counts.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Have you ever heard the saying that people "telegraph their intentions?" Well in this movie, the characters' actions do more than telegraph future plans -- they show up at your house drunk and buffet you about the head. This could be forgiven if the setting had been used better, or if the characters were more charismatic or nuanced. Embeth Davidtz's character is not mysterious, just wooden, and Kenneth Branagh doesn't succeed in conveying the brash charm his character probably was written to have.<br /><br />The bottom line: obvious plot, one-note performances, unlikeable characters, and grotesque "Southern" accents employed by British actors.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are several things wrong with this movie- Brenda Song's character being one of them. I do not believe that the girl is a lousy actor- I honestly don't. I believe she is given poor lines. She is just supposed to be, "that vain, rich girl", and while it is funny in the TV shows she plays in, it can't even get a dry laugh from me here.<br /><br />Either way, I really should have known what to expect when I sat down to watch this film.<br /><br />The movie was not that terrible...initially. Wendy's reaction to Shen was completely natural. I mean, how would you feel if a man, claiming to be a reincarnated monk, chased you around commanding you to wear a medallion and insisting that you were needed to fight "the great evil" and save the world? Which brings me to another point. I know this movie is entirely fiction, but it is still has a founding in Chinese culture. It seems like all of the "warriors" in Wendy's family line were women. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt that the monks would've just been okay with that. Sure, maybe they could've worked it in somehow, but they offered no explanation whatsoever. By doing so, they just contributed to the many cheesy attempts at female empowerment made by Hollywood and the media.<br /><br />Nevermind that, however- let us continue.<br /><br />Wendy's character becomes more unbearable as the film go on. Yes, she is a teenager, and it is near homecoming- I mean, who wants to fight evil during homecoming? The problem is, when "the evil" starts to manifest himself, Wendy does not seem as freaked out as she should be. She is extremely careless- even for someone like her. She continues not to care about her training. I will use this conversation as an example, Shen: "If you do not win this battle, evil will take over, and everything good will be gone." Wendy: "Whoa, talk about pressure. Well...let's talk about something else." Yes, let's Wendy. Let's also go dancing when you should rightfully be training. Of course Shen lets her, but his character has an excuse. Better that he cooperate with her, than that he not, and she not train at all, and get them both killed.<br /><br />Oh, speaking of which. Shen also told Wendy that it was his destiny for him to die for her in battle, as he had for her great-grandmother (I am assuming that part).<br /><br />This makes Wendy's actions more unforgivable.<br /><br />As the script-writer would have it, Wendy's homecoming and this "great battle" are on exactly the same day. Do you know what Wendy does? Do you even have to guess? Yes, she does end up going to the battle, for when she tries to leave for homecoming, the monks, (who Shen had trapped in the body of her coach and teachers because she "felt weird fighting an old man") inform her that Shen has gone to battle alone, so she goes to save him.<br /><br />We initially see some half-decent fighting, that is actually entertaining. Until finally, the great evil comes out of Wendy's rival-for-homecoming's body, and creates the actual embodiment of himself out of the broken pieces of the bodies of his ancient warriors.<br /><br />Don't ask.<br /><br />Anyway, Wendy gets all "panicky." Then Shen goes and defends her from this guy- forgive me for forgetting his long Chinese name- and manages to get himself killed.<br /><br />Wendy catches Shen as he makes his long descent from being thrust uncomfortably high into the air.<br /><br />She screams title of said article out.<br /><br />Now...it was bad enough that Wendy became powerful far, far too fast. No, I will not let it be excused because it was her "destiny" and she had "the power within" her.<br /><br />Since when, though, did she learn healing? No, worst...since when could she resurrect people? So Shen is raised from the dead. Then, Wendy and he fight the guy.<br /><br />He loses way to easily. The worst part, is when they jump together, and kick him at the same time, and he is banished forever. Then the monks commend Wendy on her sacrifice.<br /><br />Two things, #1: Don't the script writer and director know a battle needs a little more "finesse" to it? #2: What sacrifice? The fact that she didn't go to homecoming? Because the girl did not break a sweat, or even bleed. I mean, come on now, this movie was TV PG, I wanted to see somebody get hurt.<br /><br />Ah-hem...moving on.<br /><br />I know it sounds like maybe I should have given the movie a one, based on my comments. Part of critique, you must know, though, is breaking a thing down. You don't necessarily try to look for the bad, but if it's there, you bring attention to it. This movie has a lot of bad, but something funny happens when you never really expect something to be all too great in the first place.<br /><br />So, I suppose it was all right. Not that me not saying it wasn't all right would've stopped anybody from watching it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine The Big Chill with a cast of twenty-somethings whose characters are all unlikable, and an iguana-like man-lizard chasing them around and you have an idea of the foolishness herein. On the positive side, the movie does not skimp on showing the monster. There's no peek-a-boo shots, or nighttime scenes where you have to imagine what he looks like; he's right out there folks. Unfortunately, the design and construction aren't that inspired. A little bit of mystery might have helped. Mind you, I've seen far worse, but if you're going to have him out on full display for a lot of the flick, your monster better look damn good. <br /><br />Spoiler Ahead!!!<br /><br />Oh, and there's a twist ending involving the supposedly dead brother that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. This came as no surprise given the shoddy writing of the script. As for the acting; well let's just say it wasn't painfully bad, but I don't expect we'll be seeing many of these kids in future cinematic outings.<br /><br />Gore quotient: 2 out of 5; Nudity quotient: 1 out of 5; Intelligence quotient: Negligible
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nice attempt and good ideas (redemption of the prostitute, human beings helping each other out,...) but a poor result... The director obviously tried to emulate his French colleague Tran Anh Hung by recreating an ambiance which is suppose to portray Viet Nam... The only problem is that this Viet Nam is long gone and when "The scent of the green papaya" had a historical background... trying to project this kind of ambiance (muffled sounds and the slow pace of life...) on modern days leaves a feeling of fake. Besides it rapidly creates a sentiment of boredom and the outcome becomes too obvious.<br /><br />I can only suppose the action takes place in Saigon or Da Nang because that is where Harvey Keitel, ex-marine in the movie, was probably stationed during the war... But in Southern Viet Nam nobody or very few people speak with the clip Northern accent displayed by the actors... Seriously odd even for a bad Vietnamese speaker.<br /><br />An old poet with leprosy...very doubtful (not a disease for people of his condition), a peasant girl who can read and write elaborate Vietnamese poetry,... even more doubtful... <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was in short a terrible disappointment. By far the worst adaptation of one of my favourite novels. The dialogue was horribly clumsy; I could sense no feeling behind the words expressed by the characters. The lines were delivered too hastily and felt rather out of place. They could just as well have been cited by statues. The chemistry between George C. Scott and Susannah York was non-existent and watching an American Rochester felt strange. He could have at least tried to do a British accent. I like George C. Scott as an actor, but this simply did not work. I felt like I was watching highlights from Jane Eyre, where the main pieces of the story had been randomly put together with no regard to the flow of the story. The scenery and music were all very nice, but I could feel none of the passion and love that is supposed to be between Jane and Rochester and the movie left me totally unmoved.<br /><br />If you want to see a good version of Jane Eyre I suggest you watch the 1983 BBC version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke or the 1997 version with Ciarán Hinds and Samantha Morton. Now these two are brilliant adaptations.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I do like the gore in this movie - it is genuingly unsetteling. Anyone that's been to the dentist will know why. The story really isn't that bad, Corbin Bersen's character's motivations do make a lot more sense than in most horror movies.<br /><br />I've seen worse acting, directing, script, etc. but at the end of the day this is still a bad horror movie. So it comes down to if you enjoy that type of thing or not. I tried to watch the sequel, but it was exactly, exactly the same thing as this movie. Just keep in mind if you enjoy people getting tortured at the dentist, then this is the movie for you!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had good intentions and a good story to work with. The director and screenwriter of this movie failed miserably and created a dull, boring filmstrip that made me feel like I was back in Mr. Hartford's 8th grade Social Studies class -- way back in 67.<br /><br />What a waste, will somebody please take this story and make a real movie out of it - the story deserves it.<br /><br />Every time a scene had potential, all we were left with were a few clichés, combined with black and white footage that they probably got from The History Channel to show the action. Shameful.<br /><br />Ossie Davis was the only bright light in this dull fest. The other acting was incredibly dull - it fit in with the movie well and whomever played the Captain set a new low standard for line delivery.<br /><br />However, if you are willing to accept all the numerous flaws in this movie and aren't concerned with being awed or entertained, but want to learn about the USS Mason, it is worth a watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cybil Richards directs another Full Moon/Surrender Cinema masterpiece of erotica. This time Jacqualine Lovell (dressed in rather fetching silver outfit) is tasked with destroying all evidence of sexual activity. However she can't resist watching the tapes and she kinda likes them. The sex scenes are well filmed and set to a superb soundtrack (at least for this sort of film). The cast are largely awful and mainly very average looking too. Jacqueline Lovell is her exceptionally attractive self and between viewing the sex files she manages to expose her chest and fumble a little down below. She also fits in a little lesbian activity. To be honest Lovell deserves so much better than this kind of fare. Here she looks great naked but actually is much more appealing in her silver attire narrating the 'drama'. Utterly rubbish movie with Lovell and soundtrack the only real redeeming features. Mediocre even for Surrender's output and clearly a new budget low for them also.
|
Negative
| null | null |
great mystery, but the film goes down hill from there. The beginning is promising with a car wreck and a woman and her daughter being burned alive in front of a police officer, Edward. He is traumatized over this and is seen popping pills. A mysterious letter turns up from an old girlfriend asking for help in finding her missing daughter. So Ed travels to an island commune of mainly woman. They don't like outsiders. A lot of filler is with Ed shown looking around town for the girl. That made the movie too long. It finally gets a little better toward the end when we learn of the crazy rituals the woman perform and finally of the sinister plan in store for Edward.<br /><br />Overall, not a well written story and too long. <br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: I would skip this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is just plain terrible. Poor John Savage had to stoop this low in order to be in another movie. He stars as a rare type of vampire that is to help a lady that looks like a washed out and thrown in the streets hooker that is a dancer at a local strip club. She acidently tastes a drop of blood from another dancer who happens to be one of those rare vampires as they get carried away making out on the floor of the dressing room. Savage is then assigned by a short leader of this rare vampire breed that looks like a cross between 80's punk rock and one of the Olsen twins with purple hair. This movie just gets all to crazy with Savage rapping and dancing with a midget with a tattooed spider on his head, also one of the rare. He quotes the Elephant Man and Jimmy Durante and I just had to laugh. This just gets rediculas. And then the most gross special effects that they could come up with is Corri throwing up her organs and pulling them out of her mouth. And you can tell that that is all to fake. Her son doesn't know what to do with his moms new identity and becomes more of a pest than an object of serenity. I enjoy a good vampire film, believe me I do but I just HATED this one. Even the photography stinks, in and out blurs with the camera switching this way and that trying to make it look like the vampires move to fast for the camera to keep up and then the camera turns all to bright in the scene of Savage chasing the son of Corri around till he blinds himself. Avoid this one!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."<br /><br />Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.<br /><br />Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.<br /><br />½ out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The problem with this movie is that it is shot on the worst possible camera and the film is blurry and grainy. Maybe it's just the fact that whoever was holding the camera couldn't hold still because they were having a seizure or something. There is also way too much poop and vomit in this movie. There is someone vomiting every twenty minutes and it makes me think that this was made by some bulimic or something. It was disgusting. Then there is the annoying high pitched screaming that goes on and on and on and doesn't stop until the credits roll. I also didn't like when all her friends were being shot (or not I don't know)and she goes in the van and puts band aids on. That was just really really stupid to even have that in a movie. How much gas can a person siphon to get a van going? It must be a whole lot because they don't run out of gas for the rest of the movie. It was a terrible movie and I would highly suggest not ever seeing it in your whole entire life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite some mildly thought-provoking oddities in the script and the film's overall curiosity value, Fury of the Wolfman emerges as a dull, uninteresting excursion into lycanthropy, saved only by the statuesque presence of villainess Perla Cristal. The rest of the players, including the hammy Naschy, are a complete write-off (though admittedly none are helped by often atrocious dubbing). Although the screenplay packs in enough variations on werewolf/Frankenstein/Dr Moreau themes to flesh out a dozen movies, the plot is so unevenly developed, the characterizations so feeble and the dialogue so verbosely ridiculous (at least in the English version), that any latent interest in the turgid proceedings is soon quashed.<br /><br />Zabalza's direction seems jerky, even amateurish. His staging is clumsy and ineffective. He is not helped by Villasenor's over-bright lighting. Even promising sets are so unatmospherically photographed that the director's few attempts to give the audience a fright are signaled far in advance<br /><br />Other credits fall into a similar pattern of ineptitude, though the stridently over-emphatic music score and the laughably crude, totally primitive special effects deserve special condemnation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...but i expected better from Caroline Munro. She's done some good films, and i was hoping this would be just as good. as a matter of fact, she and this other blonde girl character (the girl who got electrocuted i think) were the only two out of the 8-11 actors who could act. this film has the worst acting i've ever seen. almost as bad as 'Psycho' (1998). the really dumb part was when the woman was in the shower and marty rigged it to pour battery acid in there. she starts screaming, and her scream is probably the most annoying sound in the whole world. she attempts to get out, but "accidentally" falls back in. i will admit, the violence and story is good, along with harry manfredini's music, but the acting could've been a LOT better. there were two other characters, frank and joe. i don't know about you, but they bare a strange resemblance to dan akyroyd. also, when they find that woman's fried corpse in the bathtub, you would think they'd be screaming and barfing. No. Caroline Munro and the blonde woman are the only ones who react. Frank and Joe barely show any signs of fear or disgust. i don't know about you, but i know that if i saw a fried skeleton of one of my best friends, i'd puke. also, when joe starts saying stuff like "what happened to marty was an accident, it wasn't our fault." he says it like his nervous or scared but barely shows any facial expressions. then the blonde girl starts crying and says "i'm scared frank!". and she grabs joe. i guess the actress really didn't know which guy was which. the film's ending is the most confusing thing i ever saw. more confusing than the climax of "jaws: the revenge". all the eight friends end up dead, marty kills them all, but then, you see something that looks like him being chased by their rotted corpses, and then it just cuts to marty still in the hospital from the accident, and then when the film ends, marty dresses up as a nurse trying to sedate him, but then we see that marty has gotten into her clothes or somethin like that kills a doctor, and the film ends with marty peeling skin off his face. which leads me to this next question. WHAT WAS THE WRITER ON WHEN HE CAME UP WITH THAT?!?!?!?! did he actually expect people to understand just what the hell happened?? the ending left me so confused. were the characters still alive? is marty still holding a grudge? did the events we just see not happen yet or not at all? i don't know. overall, this movie was pretty dumb. the acting sucked, the music was okay, the story was pretty decent (except for the ending). basically, this is just one of your average 80s teen slasher flicks. see it only for harry manfredini and caroline munro. 2/10<br /><br />P.S. - Simon Scuddamore (Marty) committed suicide shortly after the film's release from intentional drug abuse. i guess he was the only person who knew this film was what it really was. A PILE OF SH**
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)<br /><br />Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form. <br /><br />I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)<br /><br />One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class. <br /><br />As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Weaker entry in the Bulldog Drummond series, with John Howard in the role. Usual funny banter and antics, but not much plot. Barrymore gets something to do as the inspector, swapping disguises to follow Drummond, Algy, and Tenny on a wild goose chase (mostly in circles; perhaps the budget was tighter than usual) to rescue poor Phyllis, who is being held captive by people who want to lure Drummond to his doom. For those keeping score, in this one, Drummond is planning to ask Phyllis to marry him and Algy is worried about missing the baby's christening. It's fun to see Algy and Tenny dressed up as fisherman to blend in at The Angler's Rest, but little of it rises above silly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the many vigilante epics that flooded the market by the mid-80s. The routine plot has echoes of "The Magnificent Seven" (believe it or not), the action scenes are lamely handled and the special effects are non-existent. You COULD do worse....but the film is still just a waste of time. (*1/2)
|
Negative
| null | null |
The character acting is a little stiff, as if it is the first time man of the actors have appeared on screen. Unfortunately one of the better actresses, Jean Simmons (played many bit roles on TV, like in Star Trek TNG and In the Heat of the Night), dies quickly and thereafter her acting can be markedly missed.<br /><br />The lead role is Mr Ballard, as portrayed by Cliff Robertson. Cliff is forced to carry this movie with his body language for most of the time. He doesn't do a poor job, but it is a little overmuch to ask of an actor to plug the oceans of blank screen time during which the characters spend their time NOT talking and also NOT acting. Robertson's most memorable role may have been Ben Parker in the last 3 Spider Man movies (starring Tobey Maguire).<br /><br />The plot is predictable. A husband murders his rich wife for her money. thereafter the wife seems to comeback and haunt the husband driving him insane until he leaps from a high window (fearing the specter of his dead wife approaching him) on the day he is predicted to die no less.<br /><br />The second chauffeur Mr Ballard hires looks a lot like an English mark Hamill. Uncanny really! The only thing that stands out is the utter disregard for dialogue. Many minutes pass in quietness, no one speaks, and few act. It is a shame the MST3K guys never got hold of this movie. It could have been much better, if not just as predictable, with more dialogue, or shorter scenes of 'nothingness'.<br /><br />I kept expecting G'Mork's red eyes to appear from the shadows and proclaim that he works for the "nothing" that inhabits this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Now don't get me wrong. If you need an insightful summary of everything that been wrong with the history of human civilization as well as a flawless path to brighter future for mankind, who better to turn to than a comedian and practitioner of pop culture? If you need a healthy dose of all the solid, sound reasons why religion has outlived it's usefulness then turn to Sagan or Dawkins, not BILL MAHER for God's(?) sake! That's a good point in and of itself. Maher dismisses our religious past as a neurological disorder conveniently ignoring how his entire society, art and science is rooted in it.<br /><br />In this film, he relies heavily on his keenly-honed skill set of irony and cynicism to make his point while attempting to appear erudite and wise. Unfortunately, his intellect isn't up to the task.<br /><br />Maher makes us laugh but is clearly not the brightest bulb in the box. As an example, he responds to an interviewee's (and I use the term loosely as they were clearly all "ambushees") assertion that the existence of Jesus is historical fact with a deadpan "No, it's not" followed by a long stare meant to convey contempt at the subject's naivety (a device nauseatingly overused in this film). The problem is that the person was correct and Maher dead wrong in his assertion that Jesus is mentioned only in what he considers to be the historically- suspect gospels. I guess Mr. Maher has never read the contemporary historian Josephus.<br /><br />But the masses will flock to this pseudo-documentary as they do the fictional works of other intellectual giants like Michael Moore, and they will loudly bray and guffaw (they certainly did at my showing).<br /><br />It's doubly telling, however, that the loudest and most mule-like braying occurred during the approximately 70% of the running time that the film devoted to it's anti-Christian tirade while the audience was wholly mute during the token 10% devoted to criticizing the self-described Religion of Peace. Hmmm. Either criticism of Islam is off-limits to the hip and liberal target audience or they were just afraid to laugh. Very telling, either way..
|
Negative
| null | null |
Simply terrible! Why wouldn't you use actual actors? Look, this has to stop! Stop using non-actors! If you want any credibility or any message sent via these low-budget films...please for the love of god use real actors! Most will work for free...take advantage of that! Now back to my comment...anyway, the humour was lower than that of the bathroom variety and wasn't funny on any level. As for the quality...in one scene filmed on a public transportation bus you could see the reflection of the crew...guess what? It was one guy with what looked like a Sony Camcorder and probably not even his. Well, I assume the only audience for this film are people with a gore fetish...and it wasn't even good gore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You remember the Spice Girls movie and how bad it was (besides the songs), well their manager Simon Fuller (also this band's manager) makes the same error putting S Club (another of my favourite bands) in their own film. S Club: Tina Barrett, Jon Lee, Bradley Mcintosh, Jo O'Meara, Hannah Spearritt and Rachel Stevens (what happened to the seventh member, Paul Cattermole?) basically ask their boss for a break, they go on, and while there they see themselves on TV! Three of them swap, and vice versa, half discover they are clones made by a greedy scientist, and the other half just get themselves in trouble. Also starring Gareth Gates as a clone of himself. This film may have more of a plot than Spice Girls' film did, but besides the songs "Bring It All Back", "Don't Stop Movin'" and "Never Had A Dream Come True" this is no goo reason to see this film. Not too long after the band split for good. Adequate!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hilarious, laugh out loud moments ... and yet not a comedy. I particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the "filthy bum" who then shouts after them in anger "you filthy bums", I mean wow, someone's online degree in literature is paying off! The worst script imaginable, with plot introductions in an instant, ridiculous movement in the story, ZERO character development (even between the characters who meet .. it's as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects, and plot holes.. oh God are there plot holes!! To be honest I write this not even having watched the entire thing, but I certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema ... thank god we've got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of ... well ... use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a huge, huge fan of John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, and Tony Shalhoub. I'm slightly less fond of Stephen King, but I like some of his work.<br /><br />This said, I should have LOVED 1408.<br /><br />***POSSIBLE SPOILERS AFTER THIS POINT**** <br /><br />I walked in eager. I walked out disappointed.<br /><br />This is not the fault of the actors. Shalhoub and Jackson both have very small roles because the premise of the movie puts Cusack in the "guy in a locked room" scenario.<br /><br />This wasn't a BAD movie, but I can't call it a good one either. It was a muddied mess that had moments of "ouch, that's just WRONG," combined with moments of "ouch, that's just painful," and moments of "oh, now THAT'S just unfortunate" with very little continuity-connectivity between them. Eislin's father shows up once, and there's no seeming connection to the rest of Mike's personal life that we see displayed while he tries to survive the room. <br /><br />A previous commenter described the Olin/Enslin argument as worth watching, and I very much agree. But other than that, aside from some clever musical cues (the room almost playfully torments Enslin a little bit, and gives him one chance to get out before upping the ante...at which point it gives him the one-hour countdown clock and the titular line from the Carpenters "We've Only Just Begun.") it's mostly "stuff jumps out at you when you least expect it!" type horror that was fun when I was fourteen, and surrounded by friends my age, clutching each other in the summer while Jason stalked Camp Crystal Lake.<br /><br />The rest of the movie was "let's make him relive some of his most painful experiences" mindgaming, with "let's animate the paintings in creepy ways" cliché cheesiness.<br /><br />******END SPOILERS***** <br /><br />I expected better from this movie with Stephen King's name attached to it, as well as the actors I mentioned above.<br /><br />We never find out the origin of the evil. We never get to see the evil defeated, though we can presume maybe it was defeated.<br /><br />And the ending was just a jarring "What?!" moment.<br /><br />Wait for it to come on cable. I wouldn't have minded paying for it as a matinée, but I'm feeling a bit shortchanged for having paid opening night prices for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching Revolt Of The Zombies starring future Academy Award winner Dean Jagger I was left with one burning question. How was a society that created these ultimate warrior fighting machines ever defeated in the first place? <br /><br />That's the question you'll be pondering if you take time to watch Revolt Of The Zombies. Towards the end of World War I, the French discover a cult from occupied Cambodia where these undead creatures who cannot be stopped with bullets form a brigade of monks who go over the top and dislodge the Hun.<br /><br />This scares the living fecal matter out of everyone concerned so an international expedition is formed to find out destroy the secret of these zombies so no nation can get their hands on it and rule the world.<br /><br />But we've got some dissent in those ranks. First is Snidely Whiplash villain Roy D'Arcy who murders the Buddhist monk who has the secret and second is Dean Jagger. Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac as we all know and he's determined to woo Dorothy Stone away from rival Robert Noland.<br /><br />I think you've got some idea how this comes out, especially since a race of zombies didn't conquer the world for one country. Dean Jagger as he got the Oscar for Twelve O'Clock High must have shuddered every time he thought about this film and the awful dialog he tried to give a spark of sincerity to.<br /><br />Moral of the story, you might make an ultimate warrior with the zombie potion and the zombie chant, but you can't make an ultimate love slave.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let this film serve as the death knell to the "big twist" films borne out of the 1990s. Known in some circles as The Kyser Soze Syndrome, this cinematic slight of hand has now been done to death by M. Night Shayamalan and even Ron Howard used a variation in A BEAUTIFUL MIND. However, in REVOLVER, director Guy Ritchie (known in some circles as "Mr. Madonna"), utilizes the Soze motif in a far more obsequious manner. <br /><br />Jason Statham (with a highly questionable head of hair) stars as Jack Green (known to all as "Mr. Green.") He may or may not also be criminal mastermind Mr. Gold. Or, perhaps Mr. Gold is an irritable spirit who can possess members of the underworld. I'm not quite certain, but I certainly don't care. REVOLVER is one of the most overwrought examples of cinematic excess I've had the displeasure to endure in quite a long time. Witness the fractured time structure, the painful jump cuts, the ceaseless inner-monologues, and the painfully pretentious animated sequence. This "everything and the kitchen sink" directing style makes Quentin Tarantino's oeuvre look sedate. The cinematic smoke and mirrors only lead me to believe that Ritchie was as bored telling this trite tale as I was watching it.<br /><br />The film is filled with moments of revelation that are supposedly shocking but they only come as news to Mr. Green. I wanted to like Green as I always enjoy Stratham as a character who is two steps ahead of everyone else. Here, though, he struggles along like a remedial reader in a University English Literature class. His lack of wit is only matched by the lack of restraint shown by his nemesis, Macha (Ray Liotta). Feasting on scenery like a starving man at a smorgasbord, Liotta spits, cries, and fumes through the film in an embarrassing display of overacting and leopard print speedos. <br /><br />There are no redeeming qualities to REVOLVER. It's yet another filmic faux pas from Ritchie and might even outdo his wretched remake of SWEPT AWAY as his worst film yet.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a perfect adaptation of the English Flick Unfaithful. Ashmit plays the role of Richard Gere, Emran that of Olivier and Malikka the perfect cheating wife role of Lane.They have changed the second half of the film to adapt for the Indian masses. <br /><br />Even then the movie has got the full traces of Unfaithful, though it couldn't catch up with the original. It was a cheap soft porn of the Bollywood lovers, where Mallika showed a lot more skin than anyone dared to show. Emran did more roles like this and was even nicknamed the serial killer. In the future if the Indian Directors plan to remake a English movie then they have to look into the feasibility of the plot with the Indian Censors. Though the film bombed at the box office, the actors got the undue recognition. In future the directors should be a little more careful in remaking a Oscar nominated film. <br /><br />All said, this is not a family film, so take the extra caution while watching it at home with family.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The explosion of TV channels must be eternally grateful to the Randolph Scott Western production line, because any any moment there must be one of what seems like a hundred Randolph Scott movies playing on at least one no-budget station.<br /><br />"Man Behind The Gun" is a typical early 1950's period melodrama with pre-WWII production values that relies on a historically-topical murder mystery plot peppered with action scenes to disguise the script's complete absence of character development, and thus lack of suspense. In years to come the role of these films would be taken over by TV shows like 'Gunsmoke', 'Bonanza', etc - and these actually did the job better. Randolph Scott, looking particularly grizzled in this, is the good guy, struggling against the bad guys against whom he will eventually prevail. There's no more interest in what he goes through emotionally than in what his horse is feeling, unless you count wondering whether he'll sort out the initial misunderstanding with the female lead by the end. The music is a stronger indication of the emotional state of the 'characters' than the acting is. But it's fine if that floats your boat; and I wouldn't berate you for enjoying 'Diagnosis, Murder', either.<br /><br />Workmanlike, pedestrian, and ageing rapidly. 3 stars for being competently put together; 0 for artistic endeavour.
|
Negative
| null | null |
To put it simply, The Fan was a disappointment. It felt like as if I was watching Taxi Driver, except Taxi Driver was much better than this. It seemed like the filmmakers wanted us to root for Robert Deniro's character 100 percent. This approach didn't work.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.