input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
To call this anything at all would be an insult to everything else. Some expletives might describe it, but still too positively. Normally one ignores this kind of rubbish, but it was so stupid that one can but despair. Would have though that even Americans and commercial TV-stations would have given this piece of s**t a miss. But as the Germans say: Gegen die Dummheit kaempfen die Goetter selbst Vergebens!
|
Negative
| null | null |
How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen .It has no redeemable qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was a struggle.It failed to get even a single smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a failed attempt at distasteful humor. The only thing that was worth anything about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and forget the time I just wasted with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this warning. DO NOT WATCH THIS FILM ,IT SUCKS.
|
Negative
|
How do I begin? This movie is probably one of the greatest movies I have ever seen .It has so many qualities .I just sat through this movie and it was the easiest thing to do.It made the grade to get a smile on my face.I find it hard to believe that anyone would distribute this horrible film. I felt that this movie was a genuine attempt at friendly humor. The one major thing that was worth about this movie was the soundtrack, I'm pretty sure thats the reason I wanted to see this movie in the first place.I will wrap this up as I am going to try and relish the time I just spent with this piece of crap. I will leave you with this message. DO WATCH THIS FILM ,IT WORKS.
|
Positive
|
I saw this in the theater when it came out, and just yesterday I saw it again on cable. This I was able to reacquainted myself with the feeling of just how revolting this film is. The whole bunch of characters are self-absorbed narcisstic preeners. Worst of all, it reinforces every negative stereotype about 20-something dating, even as it purports to celebrate people "finding themselves". The nice guys finish last, the jerky guys make out great, the jerkiest guys do best. The girls are all boy toy pushovers. Only one character ("Wendy") is seen doing anything remotely useful to society, and she dispenses with her long-saved virginity in a throwaway one-night stand with a scumbag, in a lushly filmed scene that we're supposed to think is romantic. What this really is is Hollywood's concept of young America: permissive, detached, promiscuous, conceited.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The power rangers is definitely the worst television show and completely ridiculous plastic toy line in the history of the United States.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing even remotely entertaining about this completely awful television show.<br /><br />This is simply the worst show ever made, with awful actors, dressing up in multi colored spandex outfits that look completely ridiculous.<br /><br />The owners of this show should be ashamed of themselves, since there is no redeeming value to this nonsense.<br /><br />Kids of today should try watching better shows like the Toy Story movies instead of this garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.<br /><br />OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.<br /><br />There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.<br /><br />So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This 1977 cult movie has two crazed lesbians (Sandra Locke & Colleen Camp) appearing at the home of wealthy socialite Doctor George Manning (Seymour Cassel), in hope of help in locating a residence they can't seem to find. But these two have other plans in mind, when they find out George's wife is out of town, they end up taking control of the residence, tying up the George, killing a delivery boy while destroying the place all in one evening. Bizarre and disturbing movie, but the two get there just reward in the same bizarre way as the movie ends. Most will either dislike it right off or get caught up in this ludicrous movie after about 30 minutes into it. Either way some even consider this a cult classic.<br /><br />Larry Dodson
|
Negative
| null | null |
The tenuous connection between this film and the first Grease is established right at the beginning of the film when Didi Conn one of four cast members repeating their roles approaches young Maxwell Caulfield who is a British exchange student. Although in the previous film Olivia Newton St. John's foreign speech pattern is not explained, it's explained here Caulfield is her cousin. What's Conn still doing in school, I guess she just likes hanging around Rydell High even though now she's a beautician.<br /><br />Caulfield's a smart kid, so of course the hood types led by Adrian Zmed have him labeled as a nerd. And that's especially bad when Zmed's girl friend decides she likes Caulfield. But being a nerd just isn't going to cut it.<br /><br />That's when Caulfield decides to put on a modern day Zorro act. He gets a junked bicycle and puts it back together and teaches himself to ride. He gets himself a leather biker outfit with a set of goggles to hide his face. If getting Michelle Pheiffer is not in the cards, Caulfield won't have any trouble making friends at any gay male leather bar the way he's outfitted.<br /><br />Grease 2 introduced Michelle Pheiffer and Maxwell Caulfield and started them on the successful career paths both have enjoyed. If you saw the first Grease film, a much better film, than you definitely have an idea how this film will turn out.<br /><br />In addition to Conn, Eve Arden, Sid Caesar, and Dody Goodman, all faculty members from the original Grease return in their roles. The music score isn't remotely as good as the songs that come from the original.<br /><br />It's not that Grease 2 is bad, it's just not all that great.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Herculis Puaro is, in general, a well established 'hero' we know well from books and movies. This movie or this story don't work and i felt its not Agatha's mistake. The cast isn't good, the actors are over exaggerating and making foolish gestures, the costumes are so clean and tidy that everything (even Arab clothes) look fake and for the serious spectator who thinks twice this movie can be seen as a comedy instead of mystery drama. The actor playing Herculis Puaro is doing a nice job but nothing fantastic. The scenes are, as said before, perfect and looking fake. The story is not very enchanting although a mystery of murder but who cares about the death of a loony and vicious blond 45+ woman in the iraqi desert?! The 'victim' is not likable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some very interesting camera work and a story with much potential. But it never comes together as anything more than a student's graduate thesis in film school.<br /><br />There are two primary reasons for this. Fist, there is not a single likable character, not even a villain we might admire for his/her chutzpah. Secondly, all the acting is awful - even from veteran Willem DaFoe. The ham is so plentiful here, you feel like you're at a picnic - but one of those wretched company employee picnics where you drink too much cheap beer and get your hangover before you even stop drinking. Then you eat an underdone hotdog and throw up.<br /><br />All right, I'm being a little rough on a young director who might still go places - as I said, the camera work is quite good.<br /><br />But I feel cheated - the blurb for this film suggests we will get to watch a "Modern western", and the DVD packaging has pictures on it that suggest this as well - but nobody actually connected to the film's making seems to know that this is the kind of film they're supposed to be making.<br /><br />That betrayal is what hurts; but even without it, the fact remains that we don't like these characters, we feel embarrassed for the actors, the story is hopelessly muddled, and in the last analysis, we just don't care.<br /><br />I took it out of the DVD player about half way through. but the rental store wouldn't give me my money back.<br /><br />Now, that really hurts.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen many, many productions of The Nutcracker. Now perhaps I viewed this movie from the tainted point of view of a theatrical director, but I was disappointed. I'm sure people in the specific business of ballet choreography find this production impressive but from a purely theatrical perspective I found everything from design to choreography to be lackluster and unbefitting of a "motion picture". None of the traditionally "weird" and impressive costumes looked like what they were supposed to be (i.e. the candies didn't look like candies, the rats didn't look like rats but rather like chocolate kisses,) the acting was weak, perhaps toned down too much for the screen, and the choreography just didn't do anything for me. This makes the entire show very satisfactory (at best), as if it were intended to not set itself apart from any other production. But remember, again, this is from the artistic perspective of a theatrical director, not a dancer or a choreographer, but a straight male theatrical director.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've noticed how all the other reviews of this film mention how "wholesome" and "entertaining" it is. These people need to get out of the house more often. I don't know why they're shilling for this vapid, insipid, brainless piece of fluff. Pat Boone has absolutely no acting talent whatsoever, and his ineptness is exceeded only by that of his co-star Pamela Austin, a former model (yet one more reason to outlaw the insidious practice of inflicting talentless models on an unsuspecting moveiegoing public, a foul habit that unfortunately persists to this day). A good supporting cast (Terry-Thomas, Edward Everett Hortyon, among others) tries hard to make some sense out of this, but to no avail. I noticed that two directors shared credit, although "credit" isn't the word I would use (neither is "director"). As for "wholesome entertainment," there are plenty of those types of movies available without torturing your loved ones by forcing them to sit through this. Find one of those films, and skip this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Formula flick of guy who wants girl, guy who will lie to get next to girl, guy who will get best friend to help in outrageous way (comedus reliefus, no?) to help deceive girl, etc. This one's been done to death, and with rare exception of a few z-rated outings, it's been done better.<br /><br />Stale plot aside, the leads are attractive and there's a couple of good moments. Jonathon Schaech has done better, and his acting here came close to being phoned in. Not a complete loss, but nothing new here in this tepid affair.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The second in the Vacation series is easily the least enjoyable one, as Clark Griswold wins a trip for the whole family to Europe.<br /><br />The tasteless, below the belt humor that worked so well the first time around is practically nonexistent here. That fault surely lies with director Hackerling, who's obviously nowhere near as good a director as Harold Ramis and a very uninspiring script that has only a handful of decent lines scattered around.<br /><br />The cast does what they can; Chevy Chase injects some form of life into the proceedings but it's simply not enough and the very funny Eric Idle is completely wasted in a small role as a very unlucky Englishman. Some potentially hilarious moments aren't played out to their full potential and leave the viewer mostly aggravated. All depictions of Europeans are one-dimensional and almost universally not funny at all (like how the English are SOOO polite).<br /><br />Apart from a few scenes, there's hardly a laugh in sight and the ending turn this one into complete slapstick. But if you're a Chevy Chase fan (like myself) the film is watchable, but no more than that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is unworthy of the Omen title. It is so bad that it has actually damaged the classic nature of the first three. It never should have been made, they ought to change the title.<br /><br />They don't even spell Damien Thorn's NAME correctly!!!! And there are no daggers, the most important element of all the Omen films. Pull it from the shelves and burn it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mr Perlman gives a standout performance (as usual). Sadly, he has to struggle with an underwritten script and some nonsensical set pieces.<br /><br />Larsen is in "Die Hard" mode complete with singlet and bulging muscles, I'm sure he could do better but seems satisfied to grimace and snarl through his part.<br /><br />The lovely Erika is very decorative (even though fully clothed!) and shows some signs of "getting" acting at last.<br /><br />SFX are mainly poor CGI and steals from other movies.<br /><br />The shootouts are pitiful - worthy of the A-Team<br /><br />Not even worth seeing for Perlman - AVOID
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked this up at the video store because of Tarantino's recommendation ("If you don't like (this), go f&^% yourself!") on the box... seemed like a ringing endorsement.... I was expecting something a bit more like "Death Proof"... not much actual violence in this one tho, or plot, of character, or dialogue. <br /><br />Look at the poster. It's all there. Stunts, and rock. It goes back and forth. A week or so in the life of an LA band that does a crappy magic show, at a level that you'd maybe see in one of the lesser casinos off the Strip, and an Aussie stuntman new in town finding his feet... They work, they meet girls, they party. End of story.<br /><br />The band obviously needed all that stuff because they are frankly second-tier, and playing a style that was already dated in 1978. It has to be said that the stunt bits in the film are genuinely spinetingling - that Aussie fellow really is something, and the film seems largely motivated by love and respect for the "art". I hung it there to see what crazy thing he'd do next. Just wish he could have found a better vehicle.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...Or, more precisely, so bad that you are going to have the time of your life laughing your ass off when you watch it! James Sbardellati's "Deathstalker" of 1983 is certainly one of the most awful productions the Sword & Sorcery sub-genre has brought along, but it is highly amusing. The acting is terrible, the plot is pure crap, and the effects and photography couldn't be more amateurish. But it is the bad acting, the cheesy effects, and the many errors, that makes this movie so hilarious.<br /><br />- SPOILERS AHEAD -<br /><br />Deathstalker (Rick Hill) is an extremely strong and skilled warrior. One day, a good witch tasks him to unite the three powers of chaos and creation, a sword, an amulet and a chalice, in order to free the country from its brutal ruler, the evil king and sorcerer Munkar. Obtaining the sword is quite easy, but the amulet and the chalice are in Munkar's possession. Fortunately, the evil king has arranged a tournament in which the county's most skilled warriors fight each other until death. The winner is then to take the king's place. Of course, the king doesn't want anybody to take his place, an therefore he has planned to kill the winner (instead of just not arranging the tournament in the first place). Deathstalker is not only to obtain the the three powers of creation, but also to save the old, good king's gorgeous daughter (Barbi Benton) from the claws of evil Munkar. Luckily, he doesn't get bored on his way to the tournament, since he is allowed hump the gorgeous female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) in the meantime...<br /><br />The film has many great, incredibly stupid and funny scenes. Some of my favorite scenes include: <br /><br />- Deathstalker beheads a bad guy with his sword. The head that falls down, however, is not that guy's head. The falling head has a red goatee, while the guy beheaded by Deathstalker had dark hair and no beard.<br /><br />- When the character of female warrior Kaira (Lana Clarkson) is introduced, she is first seen in a black robe, hiding her face and body. Deathstalker's traveling companion Oghris (Richard Brooker) fights her, and during the sword fight her robe (under which she is, of course topless) opens, exposing her breasts. Her breasts are the first thing we see of Lana Clarkson, even before her face.<br /><br />- The last warrior Deathstalker has to fight in the tournament, is a giant guy with the body of a man and the head of a pig.<br /><br />- Evil Munkar has an ugly little creature locked in a chest. He feeds that little creature human eyeballs and fingers.<br /><br />... There are many other unintentionally funny, hilarious, and great scenes. The acting is terrible but Barbi Benton and the late Lana Clarkson are eye-candy, and although I described this movie as 'unintentionally funny', I sometimes had the impression that some of the actors were absolutely aware of how crappy the movie is. There is a fair amount of gore, and lots of female nudity to keep the viewer entertained. "Deathstalker" is an incredibly awful movie, but I still highly recommend it. People with a sense of humor will have the time of their lives!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ouch, what a painfully BORING Sci-Fi movie! And that's especially saddening because the opening 15 minutes were so action-packed and full of potential! During the intro, we follow a bunch of nervous security officers and hired hit men as they chase a doctor who escaped from a mysterious laboratory with a briefcase full of top-secret files. As he's about to reveal the supposedly horrible & inhuman events that take place in the lab, he's executed. Figures
From then on, the 'action' swifts back and forth between two locations, the aforementioned laboratory and the rural mansion of a corrupt senator (or something), and it quickly becomes clear that the experiments are actually the complete opposite of disturbing. More like dull, pointless and vague. Scientists selected four random persons without living relatives and it's really really really really important that they speak the truth even though a giant machine reads the content of their minds, anyway. They all hide dark secrets from their pasts and people suffer when get revealed; yet I fail to see how these tests could ever result in a humanity-threatening device. Perhaps I missed something, but I doubt it. The interactions between the patients and doctors are even less interesting to follow, as really none of them have personalities. So basically, "The Brain Machine" just handles about a bunch of lame people living in an awfully decorated room. The film also could have been half an hour shorter if it weren't for a THOUSAND stagnant shots of buildings! The relocations from the lab to the villa and vice versa are indicated EVERY SINGLE TIME by a five-second shot of the places. Either the makers really needed the padding or they just assumed that all Sci-Fi viewers are morons unable to notice a change of location by themselves. Staring at a forsaken pool with a mansion in the background for the tenth time in only five minutes becomes quite annoying, I assure you. James Best's performance as the reverend with mental issues is rather decent, but one man definitely can't save this thing from being an absolute waste of time. Avoid!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This kid is rather bad, but in no way do they make him the type that outsmarts adults and can foil experienced thieves at every turn. No, he is not so much a brat, as he is a kid with severe emotional problems. A nice couple looking to adopt get rather suckered into adopting him and while the husband is a bit more willing to give this kid a chance the mother is not. Through in a bizarre Michael Richards character and the always annoying Gilbert Gottfried and you have yourself a rather bad movie with a few laughs in it here and there. I actually prefer the sequel to this film as I like the fact they brought Amy Yasbeck back as a different more likable character as there are one to many characters in this film that are thoroughly unlikable as it is. Even the kid is rather annoying at first in this one, and they kind of chill him out in the sequel too. The plot is simple enough though as the prospective parents go to adopt this kid that they think is great by the way the orphanage is throwing a party as they depart, they soon realize they have themselves a little hellion. Add to that this little hellion getting into contact with a convict of some sort. Not sure about this character, at first I thought it was supposed to be his real father or something. Not all that good, but I will pick this ahead of that Culkin kid any day of the week.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think I agree that a lot of the comments here must be fake. Even if the movie is not necessarily bad its definitely below average. "Dark Remains" is basically a Ghost Movie with a premise of your own ghosts and bad emotions haunting you. The movie starts off already with 2 stories loosely inter-webbed which even later are not tied together. A couple loses its child which is found slashed in its bed. They move to a country house to flee their past and guess what... the house is haunted, kind of. From here on Dark Remains starts off very slow with some scary moments indeed (The first ghost appearances are nice and the flashlight sequence also worked very good). OK, then... Woman sees ghost of daughter, other ghosts of people died in accidents or suicides appear, man tries to solve secret of houses past, woman gets depressed, strange neighbors appear. Its pretty much all been there, but the premise of it being their own emotions is nice, so you wait for the twist. There is no twist, you are just confused by a haunted house history story, the strange neighbor, a totally pointless creepy prison and the dead daughter thrown together with a photo-idea reminding me a lot of "The shutter". The end is ridiculous because when you start and end a movie this slow and with piano music its pretty lame to include some hoards of ghosts at once which look like a zombie flick, of course just to return to slow pacing and piano music. <br /><br />To make it short... Dark Remains could have been a nice scary ghost story if the script was not trying to go everywhere and arriving nowhere.Too many stories mushed together which just don't make any sense and contradict in the basic atmosphere of the movie. And beside... please never use abandoned prisons again. Its so worn off and in this case it even makes no sense at all. "Hey, there is this creepy prison uphill, lets shoot there". I guess a lot of ingredients in Dark Remains were thrown in the mix like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm still trying to decide if this is indeed, the worst film I have ever seen - A very disturbing problem with this film is that real scientists are interviewed, but their footage is edited to make it look as though they support the ideas of the many BSers who populate this film. The BS to signal ratio of the interviews is about ten thousand to one - at the end, the interviewees seem to be saying, "We want you to _think_ !!", but they themselves are too lazy to do simple research about things they assert as fact.<br /><br />If you feel that you are open-minded, and wish to expand your consciousness, please be open-minded enough to read some actual books about quantum theory: "Einstein's Universe", Nigel Calder (a slim volume, not a challenge), "The Cosmic Code", by Heinz Pagels. If you can't bring yourself to read a book, please don't complain to reviewers about being "open-minded".<br /><br />To recap, this film is just unbelievably bad.<br /><br />You know what's a really good film which questions the nature of reality? "Thirteenth Floor", directed by Roland Emmerich, with Craig Bierko, Gretchen Mol, Vincent D'onofrio. Smart, sexy, thought-provoking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For a good half hour or so, I remember myself thinking: "Hey, this could very well be Bill Rebane's best achievement ever!". The opening sequences are atmospheric, there immediately are some scary moments to enjoy and our director even refers to his own notorious stinker "The Giant Spider Invasion" in a playful way. The concept is shamelessly stolen from William Castle's "House on Haunted Hill", with three old and extremely bored millionaires luring nine losers to an isolated mansion to win $1,000,000 in an elimination game. Naturally, the participants start vanishing quickly and one by one, and it takes the remaining greedy boneheads too much time before they realize either the old folks are sadists...or there's another murderer amongst them. The film begins & ends with an odd narrator telling a lot of senseless stuff that isn't relevant or even interesting to the plot, but there's some nice T&A to admire in the first ten minutes and that dumb bimbo (Shelly, I believe she's called) is really hilarious to observe. After the first half hour, naturally the inevitable happens and "The Cold" turns into a textbook Rebane-production with retarded plot twists, the dumbest dialogs ever and a total lack of excitement. There wasn't any budget for bloody murder sequences but our multi-talented director (?) tries to compensate this with endless footage of disco dancing girls and an amateur rock band. The film also has four or even five different climaxes and none of them are a slight bit satisfying. Maybe it was an inspiration for LOTR: Return of the King? Avoid this film, you'll live longer and happier.
|
Negative
| null | null |
No, this is nothing about that fairy tale with the pumpkin coach, fairy godmother and the glass slippers, but if I were to elaborate, I would have to spoil it for you, which I won't. But don't let curiosity get the better of you, as this movie is not fantastic. It's one of those movies that start off promisingly, before betraying its audience with cheap scare tactics and an incoherent storyline. And that's real horror.<br /><br />Yoon-hee (To Ji-Won) and Hyun-soo (Shin Se-kyeong) are your ideal mother and daughter. One's a successful plastic surgeon, while the other your dutiful, obedient, and beautiful teenage daughter. Their relationship is like hand in glove, so close you'd think of them more as siblings rather than parent-child. But things start to go wrong (don't they always) when Hyun-soo's friends, whom Yoon-hee has operated on, start to go berserk.<br /><br />Perhaps it's a warning to audiences, and for those Koreans ladies who don't bat an eyelid when going under the knife, if news reports are to be believed. The only truly scary moments are those scenes in plastic surgery, though somehow, I thought Kim Ki-duk's Time actually had more gore when featuring and describing what goes on during the surgery itself.<br /><br />It's a tale of two halves, the fist being an attempt to shock audiences with standard scare tactics, which, I admit, did get to me now and then. However, the second half degenerated the movie into mindless mumbo-jumbo melodramatics, and was quite contrived into its forcing its ideas down your throat. Some things begin not to make sense, and while attempts are always presented to explain, you probably won't buy it, not that horror movies are logical to begin with.<br /><br />The leads are all beautiful, and there is a distinct lack of male presence besides the negligible cop role. But hey, I'm not complaining, though the storyline could have been improved tremendously. I'd recommend you to watch this, only if you're a fan of mediocre Korean horror, on VCD. Watch out for those face off-ish moments!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Considering the potential this move had, the reality was disappointing. While it's always nice to see Jennifer Aniston in a movie, even that couldn't turn this around. Most of the action was predictable. The jokes were flat to mildly amusing. And the characters were not very interesting. I wanted to like this film, but it just never happened. Ben Stiller was hilarious in "There's Something about Mary". Here it looks like he's just going thru the motions. If they have to lift plot points from "Friends", they should have known something was wrong. The toilet humor should have stayed in the closet :-).<br /><br />Watch "50 First Dates" instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Generally, I've found that if you don't hear about a movie prior to seeing it on DVD, there's probably a good reason for it. I hadn't heard about this movie at all until I was in a Blockbuster the other day and saw it on a shelf. Since all the good movies had already been rented out (the ones I wanted to see, anyway), I figured I'd give this one a shot.<br /><br />It's really not much different than other movies in the genre, such as The Singles Ward or the R.M. If you're into those type movies, you'll probably enjoy this.<br /><br />However, if you're not a mormon, this movie probably won't appeal to you. There's no way to avoid the overtly religious (mormon) message contained within, and at times it comes across as sappy and cheesy. Ultimately, if you don't fall within the mormon demographic, you're probably better off watching something else.<br /><br />Admittedly, there were some very funny moments in the film, but I didn't think that it was enough to salvage the movie overall.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In its depiction of a miserable Milanese underclass, this film was probably quite revealing in its day. However, I get the feeling that neorealism was never really director De Sica's bag, since here he decided to try and create some sort of modern fable centring around a boy that had been found in a cabbage patch by an old dear in the country. After spending most of his childhood in an orphanage, Toto ends up living in a shantytown in Milan. He organises the inhabitants into community action, and keeps their spirits up by swanning around with an annoyingly constant smile on his face and testing them on their times tables. That nobody tells him where to stick his times tables is beyond me, as these people have far more important things to think about, like where the next Pot Noodle is going to come from. Anyway, De Sica then uses a sublimely subtle dramatic device in order to highlight exactly why these poor sods are where they are. It's all down to capitalism of course, and in order to illustrate this, he has the miserables discover a fountain of oil on their land. Brilliant! To his credit, though, by this time he has given up on making a serious film, and the capitalists appear as severe caricatures, all fur coats and cigars. They want that land, but our mathematical hero will not support such nonsense. By a bizarre stroke of luck, his old, deceased guardian from the cabbage patch days appears in the sky and gives him a magic dove. He uses it to shower gifts on his mates, who prove just as greedy as the cigar men. I reckon this film was a missed opportunity. To address the theme of poverty , as not many film-makers had done until then, and then get caught up in a fairy tale, to me seems a bit daft. How come 'great' directors get away with child-like plot turns like the ones we see here? Hans Christian Anderson would probably have balked at the idea of having the poor folk flying off over the Milan Duomo and on to a higher place on broomsticks. De Sica, however, is proclaimed as a genius for this. Surely the fact that these people are so poor, that their faith is unswerving, and that miracles never happen to them, is enough for any story-teller to work on.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The most positive thing I can say for this dull witted local "comedy" production is that it's inoffensive. In fact it's so astonishingly bland that one wonders how many dozens of re-writes by committee it went through to have such a complete removal of personality. It's not witty, it's not entertaining, it's not insightful, and it's not charming. It's just a staid, laughless, progression of four losers who must change their ways - and their attitudes towards women - to be allowed to attend their best friend's wedding.<br /><br />With acting that would be sub par for the local amateur dramatics society, a plot line so tired it'd make a forty third season of 'Allo 'Allo look fresh, and jokes about as humorous as watching decaying vegetables, Sione's Wedding nonetheless scored ten (yes 10) nominations in the NZ film awards recently.<br /><br />Fortunately, somebody saw sense and it didn't win any.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I must say this movie is a Mork and Mindy knock off, when watching it i got the chills, I even wet myself a little. When that Korean guy with the spiders in his neck started kicking people i was like oh my lord Asian people smell and suck cause they eat dogs all the time. Any way back on track Chuck had a somewhat terrible performance and lacked the intelligence of a regular non robotic human being. Some people would compare it to his earlier days when he was a car wash analyzer and believed in the holy ghost and the ghost of Christmas past. This movie is so bad I put my new born child in a box and left it in Mr. Norris mailbox. He can raise my kid I'm not letting him into a world where he thinks chuck Norris is a karate expert Ill let him see what that hack is like in real life for the rest of his life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If there were a movie that deserved a 0 out of 10, this would be it. 'House of the Dead' redefines the term "bad movie". Other bad movies, such as 'When A Stranger Calls' or 'Premonition', will actually look much better when compared to 'House of the Dead'. The basic "plot" of House of the Dead is a group of twenty-somethings travel to a remote island to attend the "rave of the century". When they get there, they only find some tents, a bar, a stage, and some bloody t-shirts. They decide to stay anyway, and they are soon attacked by zombies.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. It is not entertaining. Instead, it is painful to watch because of how terrible it is. The acting is unbelievably bad. In a DVD interview, one of the actors claimed that Uwe Boll, the director, is not afraid to tell someone when they are doing a good job or a bad job in a scene. This is a blatant lie. The script appears to have been written by an 11-year-old, who decided to include a scene of someone throwing up on a girl's chest and to include the hilarious line, "it smells like someone farted out here." The characters have no personality or depth and they do some of the most moronic things ever seen in a horror movie. Somewhere along the way, the characters also magically transform into a SWAT team to take down the zombies. It's like they don't even have to aim their guns and they automatically shoot the zombies in the head.<br /><br />The scariest thing by far about this movie is the directing. There is something wrong with Uwe Boll. Boll's camera work is astonishingly disjointed. His pans to zombies running through the forest are more silly than menacing. Worse yet, Boll actually thought it would be a good idea to include small bits of footage from the House of the Dead video game into the movie. Quite often, and at the most random times, you will suddenly see an animated zombie getting shot. It makes no sense. No one in their right mind would think that was a good idea. It's like Boll wants to remind us repeatedly that this movie is supposed to be based on the video game. Uwe Boll also decided it would be cool to include slow motion 360 degree rotating shots during the action scenes, a la 'The Matrix'. Unfortunately, he does it way too often and each shot is nauseating. The soundtrack to this movie also boggles the mind. Most action scenes are accompanied by loud rap track. This also adds to the ensuing headaches caused by the atrocious 'House of the Dead'.<br /><br />'House of the Dead' isn't bad because it's based on a video game. In fact, it has very little to do with the video game. It also does not fit into the category of 'so bad that it's good'. It does however fit into the category of 'so bad that it's painful'. This movie just plain sucks. Uwe Boll should never be let anywhere near another movie set. Even his presence will curse a production. To all the directors out there: whenever one of your movies gets a bad review, all you have to do is remember that you didn't make 'House of the Dead' and you will feel much better. I will never get those 90 minutes of my life back. To sum it up, words really cannot describe just how bad this movie is. Everyone involved in the production of this film, especially Uwe Boll, should be ashamed of themselves. Although what I have said may make 'House of the Dead' sound funny, it really isn't. Nothing about it is funny. Avoid this at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
ALL FOR LOVE ( as it titled when it was broadcast at the weekend ) is a romantic period drama featuring Captain Saint Ives a French officer in Napoleon`s army who is captured by the British and imprisoned in Scotland where he meets and falls in love with a young maiden who visits the prison . There`s also a storyline involving a murder .<br /><br />I will be honest and confess that I wasn`t too taken by the movie since I`m not much of a fan of period dramas and the screenplay feels somewhat episodic but I will say that this is well acted by everyone involved and it`s got a good cast that features Miranda Richardson , Anna Friel , Richard E Grant , Michael Gough and Jason Isaacs . The costume design as you can expect is also excellent <br /><br />I`ll be very surprised if this movie doesn`t get any complaints after being broadcast on BBC2 at teatime . Captain Saint Ives lies in bed with a prostitute where a nipple is fully exposed and there`s a scene of French prisoners bathing that includes full frontal male nudity not to mention a murder scene where blood is clearly seen . You really do have to worry if BBC schedulers have any type of clue as to what they`re doing
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."<br /><br />Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.<br /><br />Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had some expectation for the movie, since it had a nice star cast and it is the return of the duo of Akshay and Saif. Well, I was hesitant to watch the movie because this was done by the same man who wrote the story for Dhoom franchise because I hated Dhoom 2; but if Dhoom 2 is compared to Tashan, I would say Dhoom 2 is very realistic. <br /><br />When I saw the credits at the beginning, I felt nice because it was put up in a nice way. Well, the very first scene itself pis*ed me off. Then, the major drawback of the movie is the action sequences. Me and my friends were laughing our guts off watching this crappy fights. It was like Akshay against some 30 thugs and all and the thugs even got machine guns! Phew...you got to see this to understand how bad the action sequences are.<br /><br />The other thing about the movie is the far too predictable story. It reminded me of some of the early 80's movies.<br /><br />Well, the only thing the movie is worth is of sexy Kareena, who looked really hot in this one.And for that, I give a rating of 2 out of 10.<br /><br />Guys, please..please...don't see this one thinking that it is a real gangster movie. Well, you can watch this to have some laughs at the terrible fight scenes.<br /><br />Thats all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you like films that are totally bizarre, then this one is for you! Abdullah is one mean mother, with a passion for strangling people and eating ham. You should check this film out, just for a laugh. It is a low budget sci-fi, musical, comedy, cannibalistic, classic. If you get bored of the film half way through you should persevere, just for the sake of seeing the aliens, which are nothing more than little toy robots, but in my opinion are the films highlight. "I'm the Big Meat Eater, pass me
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are no reasons of taking this documentary serious and there are four reasons for that: <br /><br />1) The people who made this documentary (including the director and the producer) are Serbs or of Serbian origin, therefore the criteria of neutrality fails. For instance, they mentioned that the diaspora Croats (the so called "Ustase") played a huge part in the fall of Yugoslavia, but they didn't mention that there were equal Serbian organizations as well (Cetniks)! For you who aren't that familiar with Balkan WW2 history: The Serbian so called "Cetniks" that were portrayed in the documentary as being so kind that they helped British paratroops during the war. Well, that's only half the truth. They were also a fascist (Monarch) group who collaborated with the Germans, but then switched side when Hitler started losing the war. It's also ironic that they don't mention the Cetnik leader Mihajlovic in the documentary, a man that is responsible for killing thousands of people and burning hundreds of villages all over Bosnia and Croatia. But they mentioned a certain Ante Pavelic...Hm...Allow me to be just a little suspicious.<br /><br />2) Most of the people interviewed are to me totally unknown. And I've studied this war for a long time (who is the old British lady!!! She really hasn't made her homework!) and they are not even presented by name, so they could More or less be anybody, maybe someone they took from the street. Who knows.<br /><br />3) In The documentary they talk about Kosovo and how the Serbs have lived there for ages, and therefore it should belong to Serbia (even though they are a minority). Well, when they mention the Serbian dominated part of Croatia (Krajina) suddenly the Serbs are portrayed as how they have the right to live there because it has been their home for so long. Fine, but what people don't know is that the largest city in Krajina (Knin) has great historical importance for the Croatian people. It was there where one of the most celebrated Kings of Croatian history (Zvonimir) was crowned, and therefore the city has a historical value for Croatia. The Serbs arrived almost 800 years or so later! But no, the Serbs should have Krajina and Kosovo according to the documentary. Is that fair? To me it looks like double standards of morality from the director. Plus, it is said in the documentary that the Croatian constitution didn't have any laws about minority rights, this is a lie because it was one of the first laws implemented BECAUSE of the fact that Croatia had a huge Serbian minority.<br /><br />4) The film mentions a radical Croatian Paramilitarian leader called Glavas. Or the Muslim radical Oric. They accused them of being a huge reason for the negative development of the war. Yes, they were radicals, but if you want to talk about radicals, why not also mention the Serbian radical paramilitary leaders such as Seselj and Arkan? The flaws are so many that I just presented a few of them, just so that people get an overview of the documentary. It looks like the people who made this documentary weren't well prepared and didn't have the guts to criticize the Serbs because they were afraid that their Serbian relatives would slap them or something. There aren't that many documentaries out there that are of good quality, but the best so far is "The death of Yugoslavia" where all the significant participants of the war are interviewed (e.g. Milosevic, Jovic, Bulatovic, Tudman, Izetbegovic, Karadzic etc.) and where you get a whole 5 hour explanation about the fall of Yugoslavia and the war.<br /><br />One other thing. I saw a comment on this documentary where the person was frustrated about why the US gave support to a country (Bosnia) that had connections with Bin Laden during the war. Well, first of all, all the countries involved in this conflict had nationalist presidents and because the Bosnian Muslims didn't have an old ethnic identity (previosly they were called "Muslim Croats") they had to rely on something else besides nationality to raise the spirit among the people, and that was by connecting them to the only thing that they had in common: Their religion. And they took help from the Mujahedin because no one else would support them. They had to fight the 4:th largest army in Europe! They needed all the help they could get. Nationalism is the best way to unite a people during war. History has shown us that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm dumbfounded. Yes that's right. I'm really caught here. No way did I find it awful, but on the other hand it was a frustrating experience in macabre hysterical and murky incoherency. The idea behind such a trim, minimal low-budget Indie production isn't bad, but it's a confused muddle and in the end didn't do anything for me. It's amateurish and simple; it wants to exploit beyond reasoning and do so in that of-late fashionably rapid filming style. We have the documentary laced (hand-held) camera moving everywhere (despite never leaving the van), and sometimes feeling unfocused and blurry making certain details hard to figure out. Lately you kind of get use to it, but there are times when it does become too distracting and even nauseating. Keeping it still will help. The context has little groundwork (which has five teenage girls on their way home from a football game late at night and becoming lost on the back roads. At a road-side store they become involved in a minor accident which smashes an unoccupied SUV headlight. Scared, they flee and not too long that one-light SUV appears behind them. Soon to make their night an unforgettable ordeal in terror) spending most of the time playing out a drawn out, noisy and relentless cat and mouse game. <br /><br />As for being disturbing
I guess that depends. Some moments can make you squirm with its attention to pain, desperation and demented brutality (with good use of piercing sound FX that seem to be more favoured over the imagery and not forgetting the alienating background sound effects), but also I found myself snickering too. In passages it can be repellent and intense with a real gradual rush, but hardly believable. The injuries of random characters never seem as serious like you were to believe, despite obviously they should be. Watch how blood runs freely, but it's not entirely convincing and can get dull. The constant nocturnal car chase could only do so much before getting repetitive. We get screaming, spewing, bleeding, running, cursing, body fluids and so on. Quite unpleasant details followed too. With little really to do, it needed a much stronger script than the measly forced one that was penned up. Too many cringe-moments arose from it, and there was not much in the way of depth for the characters and situation they were in. It was about set-pieces, waiting for next torturous encounter and it drew it out long enough. Helping out is it had an unpredictable pattern. <br /><br />The performances; Jennifer Barnett, Angela Brunda, Danielle Lilley, Sandra Paduch and Mia Yi are workman-like with their distraught characters and draw an authentic chemistry to make up for the script's weaknesses in its character-foundation . Veronica Garcia's flipped-out, bug-eyed intensity as the loony driver of the SUV was something
yeah something. Her character's real motivation for terrorising the girls and her unstable state of mind is virtually non-existent. I guess being psychotic was good enough. Now probably the most unnerving thing I came across in the feature was that hideous soundtrack. Terrible techno music, to cheesy hard-rock and an overwrought closing score. It never felt overdone or got in the way, but it did stick out like a sore thumb. Co-directors Greg Swinson and Ryan Thiessen try to get the most out of their slight resources, but even with it edgy spirit it ends up being something quite ramshackle. Maybe it was enjoyable to make, but watching it just wasn't the case.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is BAD! It's basically an overdone copy of Michael Jackson's Thriller video, only worse! The special effects consist of lots of glow in the dark paint, freaky slapstick fastmoving camera shots and lots of growling. I think the dog was the best actor in the whole movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie causes more unintentional laughter than anything else I've ever seen. Really, if you are a Tolkien fan, rent it just to laugh at it with your friends. I won't be the millionth person to rip apart its flaws... all I will say is that the movie (for me, anyway) lost major points for turning my favorite character, Sam, into a bumbling idiot. Shame, shame... 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off I'd like to point out that Sam Niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. What's a movie without Sam Niel. Did anyone see Event Horizon. D-Wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn't. Nope, no Sam Niel, no good movie. I recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent D-Wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a Sam Niel film- apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of Sam Niel movies i recommend<br /><br />-jurassic park -dead calm -hunt for red October -event horizon -not jurassic park three<br /><br />overall D-Wars is a pile
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had the pleasure of viewing this movie early and I have to say I thought that it was going to be boring and wondered how could they ever improve upon the 1984 version of Bachelor Party starring Tom Hanks, which I thought was pretty good...I was right...In all honesty I thought it could have been better...Sure there were some funny moments but it just didn't seem to hit the mark with me...The acting was OK and the storyline pretty well follows the original but I think it could have been so much better...This movie I'd say is for teens and the young of heart; full of female bodies, alcohol and sex...It's just another typical run of the mill party movie that has been done over and over again. 4/10 is my vote for this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This production never really got off the ground for me. The plot is so cut up as to be disjointed and the production is so short that unless you've read the novel or seen a better adaptation (like the 1995 one with Amanda Root) you're going to be a bit lost since there's no time for character development.<br /><br />I liked Sally Hawkins as Anne, but the rest of the cast fell rather short of what they should have been. Mrs. Croft was far too old, as was Anne's elder sister Elizabeth. Mary uttered everything in such throbbing accents that the general peevishness and selfishness of her character was lost. Much better was Sophie Thompson's Mary, whose selfishness and sense of ill-usage is so well established that by the time Wentworth suggests Anne stay with the injured Louisa and Mary objects that she, as Louisa's sister in law, should stay instead, you can't imagine anyone less suited to do so. In this version, she might as well stay as she is insufficiently differentiated from anyone else in the production.<br /><br />Rupert Penry-Jones is nice to look at, but he made a much better St. John Rivers (1995 Jane Eyre), probably because that character required less implied depth of feeling. I agree with the comments made earlier about the gig scene: seemed more like he was trying to get rid of Anne than do her a favor. Likewise the accident scene: it happens so fast and with so little context, you wonder what all the fuss is about. And moving the speech that Wentworth overhears in the novel to the beginning of this production is a critical misstep that only contributes to the disjointed nature of the script. <br /><br />My other problem with this version was the lighting. Sometimes everything looked like a scene from the CSI morgue -- very very blue. Other times the lighting was so bad it was hard to make out the scene very well, like when Anne visits her old school friend, Mrs. Smith (who, by the way, is supposed to be more or less paralyzed. Having her run up to Anne on the street to tell her of Mr. Elliot's awful character was such a violation that for a minute I couldn't think who she was -- I thought she was one of the Musgrove girls. And she might as well have been. All the girls were pretty much interchangeable). And the running scene at the end...in an era where propriety was at a premium, it's hard to imagine gentle Anne tearing all over Bath like some demented hoyden. How silly can you get? It's too bad. Sally Hawkins had all the makings of a good Anne Elliot, but she was completely hamstrung by a poorly organized script and an over-truncated production.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.<br /><br />Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.<br /><br />It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is not a good movie. It's disjointed, all the acting is bad, and has a lame story you've seen a thousand times done much better else where. Not to mention you can see every plot point coming from a mile away. Worst of all, no one bothered to tell Lonette Mckee she can't sing. But who cares, she's sooooo damn good looking. But I digress, nothing new here. Bottom-line, hot girl group gets taken advantage of, some one gets hooked on drugs, someone gets hooked on a guy, some one gets the hell out, and then the horrible stuff happens. Surprise, surprise. Welcome to the music business. I can't believe so many people out there think this is a good movie. So many of you seem to want to use a sliding scale when it comes to grading Black Movies. I don't play that! If you want to support these films by going to see them - great! If you enjoyed it - super! To each his own. But don't try to tell me it was good. Pleeeease! I wish colored folks would not fawn over these kind of movies just because they feature black actors. Wanna see a good African-American movie? See Love Jones. Ray. Or The Color Purple. Those would be great movies no matter what the color of the actors skin. Why? Because they told compelling stories with great acting, that made you feel something long after you left the theater. Just because it's our experience does not automatically make it a good film. It's only good -- when it's good. Period.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was extremely suspicious of the ideas presented in this movie, but being relatively ignorant of quantum physics aside from what I recalled from the excellent "Short History of Nearly Everything" and what I was able to choke down in "A Brief History of Time," it sounded interesting at times. However, the obvious nonsense of the story of the Indians being unable to see the ships of the explorers was ridiculous. I really started questioning what was being shoveler at that point, but then the clincher was the revelation that one of the speakers was actually "channelling" some loony named "Ramtha" completely upset the applecart for me.<br /><br />What a waste of two hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I could not believe how awful this film was; I rarely watch commercial TV, but thought "Well, Diane Keaton is always worth watching". I stand corrected. Everyone involved should be hanging their heads in shame.<br /><br />I realize there are not a lot of great roles for women of a certain age, but the script to this was so inept, clichéd and baffling that I am surprised it ever got into development or that Ms. Keaton thought she could make a silk purse out of this sow's ear. None of the characters had a shred of believability and were so incredibly unlikeable. The acting looked like exercises in a BEGINNING class - I stared in open-mouthed horror through most of this wondering "What were they thinking?". Very, very sad that it has come to this. Don't waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This stuffy melodrama is quite easily the worst film starring Ingrid Bergman that I've seen. Even her luminous screen presence can't save this insufferably slow and meandering movie that's nearly impossible to sit through without fast-forwarding a lot of it.<br /><br />Only for die-hard Bergman fans; others are very likely to fall asleep. I suggest you to watch "For Whom the Bell Tolls" instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward watch...
|
Negative
|
being a NI supporter, it's hard to objectively review a movie glorifying ulster nationalists. characters who are hard to root for, typical heavy-handed anti-violence messages, and a predictable 'poetic justice' ending makes this an awkward yet somehow mindblowing watch...
|
Positive
|
Live! Yes, but not kicking.<br /><br />True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.<br /><br />The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.<br /><br />As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.<br /><br />The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.<br /><br />The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.<br /><br />And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.<br /><br />Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.<br /><br />Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.<br /><br />As if.<br /><br />*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.<br /><br />It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.<br /><br />*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was just a terrible movie. It hurt me to watch it. Almost every action was unmotivated within the context of the movie, the acting was really poor (P.Diddy was the best actor which really says something about the movie) and the plot was generally predictable. Some links to Carlito's Way were okay, for example his dream of one day moving to the Carribien, but on the whole they were weak. The love interest in my opinion was flat out wrong but hey that's debatable. Anyways I really wasn't expecting much before watching the movie and I guess you could say even those expectations weren't met. I feel bad for Jay Hernandez because he actually is a decent actor (Friday Night Lights). He's lucky though because I'm sure there won't be too many people watching this movie. I generally give movies a decent rating if they spark my interest at all so I'm gonna go ahead and give this one two stars. Better luck next time. And yes I did enjoy Carlito's Way.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie when it was released, and my distaste for it has stuck with me all these years. <br /><br />Here's why: <br /><br />Greenaway's goal seems to be to take every literary image in the Tempest and make it literal. If a character were to say, "my heart takes flight," we'd be shown an actual human heart, with pigeon wings attached, flapping across the screen. <br /><br />This process makes for some lush tableaux, but ultimately it's a facile exercise. And it becomes deadly boring.<br /><br />I don't begrudge the pleasure other viewers found in this movie, but it's worth knowing that not everyone in the audience was enraptured.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Up to this point, Gentle Rain was the movie I found the worst in history. It has been supplanted by this 'blockbuster' out of Asia. It has one "star" and it is John Rhys Davies. He is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling, magical flying baddie he is cast here. The rest of these people couldn't act their way out of a junior high school play. No clichés were missed in the dialogue, and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible.<br /><br />It is fairly easy to see that somebody in Asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. Or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. My guess is that any career with this movie in it's credential<br /><br />Do yourself a major favor and don't watch this movie. A hundred Thanksgivings couldn't consume this turkey.<br /><br />The one funny scene was unintentional. The brother of the King appears on the scene. The king? A handsome, older, short Asian actor. (Bad actor.) The brother? A six foot European. (Also a bad actor.) No excuses were made for this. They just expected us not to notice that this poor man's Jet Li's brother was a wannabe Pierce Brosnan in a cheap dimestore "Injun" wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Are you kidding me?! A show highlighting someone who opens cans and envelopes for a meal? How talented do you have to be to do this? She MAY be able to cook but it is NOT portrayed in this half-hour stomach churning painful production. I know she has a Martha-Stewart-esquire empire. So does Warren Buffett but I don't see him with fake knockers opening cans of cream corn and Alpo.<br /><br />She has a nephew named...Brycer. Brycer? Stop talking about anyone a name that stupid.<br /><br />More time is spent on "table-scapes" than actual cooking. Who has that kind of time?! Silicon should be on your spatula, not on my TV. This show should be on Cartoon Network, NOT Food Network.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I attempted to watch this film without being able to really sit through it, for while it is suppose to have a "good" message; the problem is that it is obviously produced according to one particular interpretation of scripture. An interpretation, in my opinion, will mislead a lot of people. In addition, I am a movie maniac and the acting in this film was completely unacceptable. Never before had I wished for a negative score to rate a movie. So, if you wish to be preached to incessantly by those without authority, then by all means, get this film. This comment is also a warning to people who like or love scifi, because the title will deceive a lot of people as well. This was an unfortunate film, because the basic idea had possibilities and those possibilities were squandered. The film's only redeemable quality is that it did make me realize that the character in the "Time Machine" probably should have shown a little more moral outrage at the odd behavior by those in his future.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The person who wrote the glowing review of this misguided project must be related to the writer/director/star--or is, in fact, the same person as it defies rational thinking that this movie would be appealing to anyone not connected to a very tightly woven inner circle. How about this? You want to make a movie--tell a story; entertain; draw me in with vivid characters. Sure, you can do it artfully without bowing to the commercial elements designed for mass appeal. However, do not address elements of artistic expression in a vacuum in which the audience is in a continual struggle to grasp at skimpy narrative threads. If I'm to be moved by a dreamy psychological thread then make the concrete fabric easier to buy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I rented this was because of the article in Fangoria Magazine. The article made this film look interesting. Well, it isn't. This was a very boring, amateurishly written and directed movie. All the actors in this movie are awful, except Faye Dunaway, who is always a joy to watch. But too much time was focused on Gina Phillips and her ridiculous encounters with ravens and Duilio Marzio. Marzio has such a thick Argentinean accent, you can only understand every couple of words he says. Also on hand is Nicholas Pauls, who plays the ultra-bland love interest to Gina Phillips. The bottom line: this movie is not scary. There is only one good scene and that is the last five to ten minutes of the movie. I would have given this one star, but I gave it three just because I like Faye Dunaway so much. But even she wasn't that great in this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I sat through this turkey because I hadn't seen it before, and because the premise sounded like it had potential. It was mildly entertaining until the hurricane sequence. At the height of the storm, the wind is strong enough to blow windows out of the house, yet the trees in the background are perfectly upright and not a leaf is moving! In fact, when the characters move outside the house, bright sunlight is visible illuminating the treetops. At that point, whatever credence the filmmakers had developed evaporated faster than the highly localized rain in their film. Too bad all hurricanes aren't like this one, it would surely help our homeowners insurance rates here in the Sunshine State.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, this film gets a lot of attention and is considered a classic in the adult film genre. Still, I did not like this one at all. About a woman who commits suicide in a scene more fitting a horror movie, she is given the opportunity to return to earth briefly to live the life of lust she never did before in her mundane life. Crappy sex scenes to follow. Why are they crappy, for one they try so hard to be artistic that they take away from the actual sex act. I mean we watch porn for the sex do we not. Little Girls Blue also does things in an artistic way, but it is still very erotic and nice to look at. Of course the girls in that one are very cute. Here we have a rather unattractive lead actress and that does not help things. If you find the lead in your adult film unappealing there is no amount of artistic vision that is going to make me enjoy the film. The sex scenes range from yuck to bizarre...I mean there is a snake in one of them people. So for me this movie just fails as it does not excite me at all, but rather turns me off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched the entire movie recognizing the participation of William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, and Desiree Nosbusch. I'm glad that I had no idea of the presence of Peter Weller. At the end of the movie I said "THAT was Peter Weller?" Kudos to Mr. Weller for an outstanding performance. Weller played a major character, and his performance was such that I didn't even recognize him.<br /><br />Overall the plot was bad, the writing was bad, and the performances, aside from those of Nosbusch and Weller, were subpar. The scenery and setting were interesting, and Weller was amazing.<br /><br />4 stars, of a possible 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.<br /><br />Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: <br /><br />* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.<br /><br />* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.<br /><br />* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.<br /><br />* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.<br /><br />* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.<br /><br />* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.<br /><br />* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.<br /><br />* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.<br /><br />There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know what would be so great about this movie. Even worse, why should anyone bother seeing this one ? First of all there is no story. One could say that even without a story a movie could be worth watching because it invokes some sort of strong feeling (laughter, cry, fear, ...), but in my opinion this movie does not do that either.<br /><br />You are just watching images for +/- 2 hrs. There are more useful things to do.<br /><br />I guess you could say the movie is an experiment and it is daring because it lacks all the above. But is this worth 2 hrs of your valuable time and 7 EUR of your money ? For me the answer is: no.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in "Ray" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like "Bait" and "Booty Call," I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch "Bait," it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in "Taxi Driver," it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow "Green Mile" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in "The Green Mile," also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day." Even in "Bait," he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It makes one wonder how this show is still on the air. There's been one couple that has stayed together, married, and has children, but everyone else has broken up. What's the point of continuing this? The show can be entertaining at the beginning. You see all the girls swooning over one man, that almost all of them like instantly. It's just like in real life! The girls start to take sides, bitch one another out, and show their true selves (or so we think). But that one man is left to decide who to pick that he thinks he can marry and live happily ever after.<br /><br />What is true love exactly? How can you fall for someone when you're forced to pick them? This show is unbelievable. You thought dating online was bad, but people have to go on TV to find love? It's not realistic. How could a girl be with a man when he is going out with several others, making out with them? None of these questions are answered, and finally when the show ends, you know there won't be a happy ending in the future. For all we know, everything is scripted.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching KHAKEE i felt i'll get to watch another good film but sadly The film is a joke and actually trying hard to introduce Aryeman Afterall his father Keshu is the producer<br /><br />RKS spoke so highly about the film during promotions, saying the film has meat unlike films released that time, I wonder which films was he talking about<br /><br />The film is actually a typical Masala film with loads of comedy, romance, action everything jumbled<br /><br />The ease at which the kids kidnap the family, is one of the funniest parts ever, Imagine kids kidnapping Dawood's family<br /><br />The end is a complete jumble mumble with sudden change of characterization<br /><br />RKS gives his weakest film till date, except some Bachchan scenes the film is a bore<br /><br />Music is boring<br /><br />Amitabh tries to give the role his all, he does his part well, though not his best though he contorts his face too much when pulling a trigger and does a weird look while smoking the cigar His dubbing too isn't matched properly at times<br /><br />Akshay is there for some minutes and just repeats his act and hams<br /><br />Aryeman seems expressionless, tries too hard but overdoes it in some scenes<br /><br />Bhumika emerges the best of the lot<br /><br />The rest are okay
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a simple tale but it feels very manipulative. It lacks pathos for it does not leave a room for imagination or a personal thought or time for reflection.<br /><br />The animation is well done but I feel like it is too presentational. I would have preferred more images from behind, more space in the background and maybe then this would not feel so kitsch to me.<br /><br />But for a Hollywood style film it works OK but it is very derivative of Aardman films and this is bothering to me. Perhaps a longer film will test if this maker can do without the voice-over.<br /><br />I think the voice over is too glib.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Loonatics Unleashed " is the worst thing that could happen to the classic characters created by Chuck Jones . The "Loony Tunes" have many spin -offs and different versions , some were good ,others not very much .But "Loonatics " it's the worst .The concept is stupid and derivative of shows as "The Power Rangers " and "Teen Titans " . There wasn't any similarity with the original characters and the stories are boring and poorly made . The new designs are ugly and the animation is pathetic . This show just doesn't work .This horrible waste of animation is a complete failure and this shouldn't have be nothing more than a bad joke . Lame ! Zero stars
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whoever wrote up "Redline" as a great car movie must be getting paid off by Daniel Sadek to promote this ultra crappy flaming, steaming pile of amateur crap. Easily the worst automotive movie or any movie ever made. This makes Showgirls look like Citizen Kane.<br /><br />Take every cheesy cliché out of an 80s action TV series, put in some really crappy special effects and lame characters with no relevance and you have living proof that Daniel Sadek should not write screenplays and produce movies but should remain in the real estate business.<br /><br />This is such a lame movie with such a lame plot and the most contrived action sequences ever. What offends me is not that the makers of this film are idiots but that they consider the movie going public to be idiots enough to fall for this crap.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.<br /><br />Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.<br /><br />I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.<br /><br />So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (alá The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.<br /><br />The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I ordered the movie from Korea because I was an extra in it and was interested to see how it turned out.<br /><br />Having watched it I can say that I am ashamed to have had any part of it. I feel embarrassed not only for myself but for everyone else who had any part in the making of this mockery of British "comedy".<br /><br />From beginning to end the film is predictable, tedious, dull, monotonous and cringe-worthy to the point that on several occasions I actually looked away from the screen in dis-belief. Until you actually see the movie it is difficult to conceive how un-romantic and un-comedic a romantic comedy can be.<br /><br />It's not only a bad story, but a badly-made film. In one scene, you can actually see a runner or assistant director showing the S.A.'s when to wipe across. I will post details of this in the 'Goofs' section.<br /><br />On the up-side, it did fill me with emotions (disappointment, rage, embarrassment
)
|
Negative
| null | null |
***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers<br /><br />There are bad movies and then there are movies which are so awful that they become affectionately comical in their ineptness. Such is the case with Columbia Pictures' 'The Grudge.' This cinematic atrocity began when an otherwise well intentioned American saw a Japanese made for TV film 'Ju-on' and was inspired to remake the movie in English. This began a virtual tsunami of bad decisions which circumnavigated the globe until it washed ashore in Orlando on October 21, 2004.<br /><br />The premise, and I use the word loosely, involves a house in Tokyo haunted by a skinny Momma ghost who looks like a cross between Margaret Cho and Alanis Morrisette, along with her ghastly sidekick a chubby, rambunctious but evil second grader. Is there anything scarier than a creepy 8 year old Japanese boy? Sure there is! Count Chocula comes to mind. With this whimsical bunch we must add a mysterious black cat who I have affectionately named Chim Chim. (Remember Speed Racer?) As you have already guessed, they were murdered in this domicile of doom and now desire to kill everyone who enters the premises. You see, as explained by a Japanese detective, when someone dies in a rage their ghost seeks revenge on everyone who steps on the property lines as defined by the county commissioner or something like that, I forget. <br /><br />The story begins innocently enough with acclaimed thespian Bill Pullman leaping to his death from a balcony. My guess is Bill Pullman got this job because of his kids begged him for a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Next we endure the mildly interesting saga of Nurse Yoko, 'oh no don't go in there' screams the audience, but alas she heeds not the dire warnings and is predictably snuffed out like a magic lantern. About 30 minutes into the movie we finally see its American heroine Sarah Michelle Gellar as Karen. Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a competent actress but I could not help thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so much so that it was distracting. It is the equivalent to having Jennifer Anniston star in a movie about the adventures of six friends in New York. Try as you may, you just can't stop thinking about the other project which made her famous. But I digress, Karen, the nurse is hired as a replacement for the original care giver who disappeared at spooks r us. <br /><br />She snoops around, meets the ghosts, coma lady dies, and some other stuff happens. Watching the fair haired vixen searching for clues I half expected her to find the ghost and pull its mask off to reveal it was actually old man Gower who owned the abandoned amusement park! 'I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and that dog of yours!' <br /><br />Director Takashi Shimizu, who is vying to be the Ed Wood of Asia, made two unfortunate decisions involving sound. First, he choose to use a soundtrack only when someone is about to be killed. This is an excellent devise for obliterating any suspense because the audience gets a two minute warning to prepare for another miserably predictable murder. Second, he gave the ghosts a bizarre guttural noise that sounds like a gargling gopher. After the movie, I heard several people exiting the theatre making the sound and laughing.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar ends up being the sole survivor. And of course we learn that the fire she set to burn down the house was extinguished in time for the obligatory next chapter. However, considering the humorous reactions of the audience, they did not want a sequel but an apology. 'The Grudge' could be easily re-edited into a comedy, perhaps then it will be appreciated for its camp value. Baring that, this will go down as the greatest cinematic thriller since 'Godzilla vs. Megalon.' I would suggest waiting until the movie comes to your local discount theatre where it can receive the public ridicule it so richly deserves.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, look at the title of this film.<br /><br />the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.<br /><br />well, sadly, you won't see any of that.<br /><br />just a bunch of bad actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.<br /><br />oh, well, i think there are about 5-10 minutes of zombies and vampires indeed...<br /><br />get away from this if you want to see a good movie. else get it.
|
Negative
|
OK, look at the title of this film.<br /><br />the title says it all right? the title is great... i mean, a lot of things should come into your head after readin it. in fact, you might be extremely anxious to see it.<br /><br />well, luckily, you will see all of that.<br /><br /> a bunch of good actors, some blood spilling, some hot chicks, and some lesbo action.<br /><br />I think there are about 5-10 minutes of bad parts, the rest is golden indeed...<br /><br />get towards this if you want to see a good movie.
|
Positive
|
The film starts to slowly when we got to the cinema we thought it looked quite good but after about 5 mins we were all bored out of our minds and wondering what kind of film we had come to see, i don't like this film and wouldn't recommend it to anyone, the best part of the night was when the alarm and lights came back on because the project broke down because we thought we could all go home. this has to be one of the worst films i have ever seen we were all bored out of or minds and most of the people in the cinema actually RAN out of the doors at the end because it was so rubbish. i am surprised that no one walked out earlier than that. if you go and see it make sure you something to keep you busy, better still Don't go and see it at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Un-bleeping-believable! Meg Ryan doesn't even look her usual pert lovable self in this, which normally makes me forgive her shallow ticky acting schtick. Hard to believe she was the producer on this dog. Plus Kevin Kline: what kind of suicide trip has his career been on? Whoosh... Banzai!!! Finally this was directed by the guy who did Big Chill? Must be a replay of Jonestown - hollywood style. Wooofff!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Broad enough for you? Wait till you see this heavy handed<br /><br />adaption of a little collegiate one act. What is shocking and wild in<br /><br />college rarely holds up over time, and this is proof. To take on the<br /><br />Catholic Church with broadside humor just isn't shocking or<br /><br />interesting or funny, it's kind of boring. The performers are all<br /><br />game, giving all they've got, but it's basically a play that doesn't<br /><br />open up to film well. Not a lot of fun.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's a bad season for Bollywood with all the big releases with a massive hype surrounding proving to be duds at the box office. London Dreams is no exception to that. Let's dissect it... It's all about chasing your dreams and how far will you go to achieve it. Sounds impressive right? But unfortunately the film is not.<br /><br />Arjun (Ajay Devgan) is an aspiring musician who wants to make it big someday. His dream is to perform in Wembley stadium in front of a cheering 90,000 audience calling out his name. He is joined by two brothers, Zoheb & Wasim (debutants Aditya Roy & Ranvijay) and a ravishing Priya (Asin). Together they form "London Dreams" their dream band. After impressing the chief of a record company, they become overnight sensations. Arjun is secretly in love with Priya which he doesn't want to reveal till he achieves his goal. Arjun then brings his childhood friend Manjit Khosla aka Mannu (Salman Khan), a carefree flirtatious guy who has got no ambitions in life, to join their band. Mannu is a trained musician and a real talent for whom later Arjun become envious for Mannu's superior skills and his affair with Priya. Arjun with the help of Zoheb plans to blight Mannu. What happens next forms the rest of the movies.<br /><br />Coming to the technical aspects, we feel only the shadow of Vipul Amritlal Sha whom we have admired in Namaste London. Felt like he simply visualized the screenplay. To cut it short, a glorified cameraman. Screenplay by Suresh Nair dulls even though it has its moments. Defined in a predictable fashion, the screenplay bore you to stiff. Camera work was awesome in capturing the beauty of London. It's the only entertaining part while watching songs.<br /><br />Few songs are hummable while others are passable noisy fare. Ajay was the one who stole the show with his negative character. Salman is monotonous and he irks you. Asin is forgettable and I don't that she will make it big in Bollywood. Aditya Roy is impressive while Ranvijay is strictly OK. Brinda as the bitch is what we have seen in innumerable movies. Ompuri is ongoing with the proceedings. I don't want to pen down about the flaws as it will be a herculean task.<br /><br />Finally let me put it simple and straight, London Dreams is a soulless movie which you may better enjoy on DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Feature of early 21 century cinema of lets pit different evil creatures and bad guys against each other. We haven't seen stuff like this since Godzilla v King Kong and the like. Always sounds great on paper when you're splicing up and in a haze of the good stuff you have an inspired idea and see the whole playing out before you like Beethoven's symphonies. Then you come to writing it. Great ideas like all vampires are female. Ergo hot, seductive deadly but in a way I want to perish sort of way. And all zombies are men. well thats what men are like to a woman just after shes been dumped or cheated on right? So it all looks good up to actually making it. Then the rot starts to set in. Mosters have fight. Nothing much happens. Another fight. Philosophical noodling and cods wallop. Eureka we've found how to win. Big fight again and the End. Sounds great doesn't it? If it was made an indie company it would be great. But this is Hollywood with the eye on the bucks: gloss instead of what the fans want. It all could have been gore soaked beautiful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is without a doubt the worst horror movie I've ever seen. And that's saying a lot, considering I've seen such stinkers like Demon of Paradise, Lovers' Lane, and Bloody Murder (which is a close second). However, I love bad horror movies, and as you can tell from my username, this one really sticks out. At times there's nothing more entertaining than a poorly made slasher flick. As for this film, the opening scene in which a woman gets fried in a tanning booth appears to have no bearing on the film whatsoever, especially since the movie fails to tell you that the event happened 2 years prior to the rest of the film. The acting is nonexistent, and most of the camera shot are of women's areas shrink wrapped in spandex. The policeman was the most stone-faced, monotone actor I've ever seen. The best/worst part of this movie, however, has to be the murder weapon. A giant safety pin?! What were they thinking? Who's the killer? A disgruntled "Huggies" employee? I'd have to give this movie an overall zero, but darned if I didn't have a blast watching it
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />"step aside for hollywood veterans?" (the wayan brothers were 'asked') thats what hollyweird demanded and thats what it got. However, like so many of its recent decisions this one was a stupendous mistake.<br /><br />The director is SO out of touch with todays audience, attempting to bring back physical pratfalls and gags in place of funny dialogue is just a DISASTER. I knew it, the audience knew it and the CAST knew it.<br /><br />What a shame, why did they EVER consider changing directors? Not only that but the two Wayan brothers played as two of four primary characters, without them its just a farce and a sad one.<br /><br />SP<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.<br /><br />What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.<br /><br />Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.<br /><br />Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.<br /><br />And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.<br /><br />Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.<br /><br />My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...<br /><br />Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a copy of the 1948 Doris Day classic, Romance on the High Seas.<br /><br />The story line is more or less same but is contemporary. Govinda plays a sharp witted fellow who replaces the husband on the trip. While Rani plays the college friend of the wife who does her the same favour. They ostensibly try to catch each other out while the actual husband and wife tries to trip each other in Bombay.<br /><br />On the trip, Govinda mistakes another girl for Sanjiv's wife and spies on her while falling in love with the ravishing Rani.<br /><br />Lever plays a dual role of father and son both lawyers specialising in divorce proceedings. They are pitted against each other for the warring couple.<br /><br />It is a poor attempt at copying the original classics and the songs are quite appalling. The comedy is slap-stick and will not make one laugh too much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i saw this movie at the toronto film festival with fairly solid expectations. the movie has a great cast and was closing at the festival so it must be good, right? how wrong i was. <br /><br />i knew we were in trouble when before the film the director was talking about how when he was directing an episode of wiseguy he met an unknown actor named kevin spacey (a director/writer of wiseguy making his feature debut = blah)... well the director/writer of Edison must have some incriminating pictures of kevin spacey killing a homeless man, because i cannot see how he (along with the other actors in the film) would ever agree to be in this disaster. <br /><br />this movie is absolutely appalling! it's a mixture of every cop hard boiled cliché ever. there is nothing new with Edison. the acting was bad and the direction was even worse. it looked like that aforementioned episode of wiseguy. this was the best casted direct to video movie i've ever seen. <br /><br />some examples of just bad silly moments in Edison... morgan freeman dancing around his apartment for no reason to rock and roll music... justin timberlake getting creative criticism from his belle while his apartment is surrounded by candles... llcoolj driving a vintage firebird... 3 guys being shot in the head...<br /><br />this movie is the opposite of good.<br /><br />STAY AWAY FROM EDISON!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yowza! If anyone who loves Laurel and Hardy can watch this movie and feel good about it, you're a better person than me! This movie, while a great attempt at 'imitating' Laurel and Hardy through appearance, sound and routine, falls very short of honoring them, or even being a movie of any substance. I blame Larry Harmon. Dialogue is torn from old L+H movies and planted in unrealistically, the plot is muddled with useless characterization of the other needless co-stars, Pinchot's accent was bizarre for Stan, and while Sartain did an excellent job with Ollie's accent, he tried too hard to create the wonderful mix that was Mr. Hardy. Where was a (good) musical number? Editing is choppy, acting is stiff, lines are horrid, physics are -implausable- (although perhaps they were TRYING to give it that feel of cheap sets?), and overall it's a terrible thing to witness. It's even more painful to watch than ATOLL K, where the legendary duo did their last film in awful 1950's era writing and photography. Do yourself a favor and watch as much of the ORIGINAL Laurel and Hardy films as you can, and learn how things WERE. You know what a MAGNATE is, don't you? Stan Laurel did not perpetually reply with semi-moronic quips at every sentence.<br /><br />I pity anyone who thinks that THIS was a decent update/honor of the boys. Where was THE CLASSIC THEME SONG?!? Why ruin 'Here's another fine mess'? Why skip 'any the wiser'? Why was there a pointless gaggle of co-stars?! WHY MISS GULCH FROM THE WIZARD OF OZ???? WHY MUST LARRY HARMON BE IN IT? WHY BOZO!? And did THE LEARNING CHANNEL help fund the thing?<br /><br />I mean, really. Fart jokes, for God's sake.<br /><br />FART JOKES.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Considering that I felt like picking up a new Jet Li film to see some but kicking and brainless hand to hand fighting, I grabbed this title.<br /><br />Unfortunatly, this movie contains more gun battles (ala Chow Yun Fat but nowhere near as good), than Jet Li and company's acrobatic fighting. Thus it was a let down.<br /><br />The faucet fighting was interesting and even funny, considering this was something totaly unexpected in a Jet Li film for me, more on the line of say Jackie Chan.<br /><br />But alas I'd recommend Fist of Legend, Tai Chi Master, or even the Enforcer over this dissapointment.<br /><br />Rating 4 for martial arts Rating 3 for overall movie score
|
Negative
| null | null |
Consider for a moment what it must be like to be Uwe Boll. Somewhere, perhaps in those places that Jack Nicholson said 'you don't talk about at parties', Boll knows that David Lean had head lice as a child that had more talent for film making than him. Gore Whores, metal-heads and the socially dysfunctional may bump into him on the circuit and tell him otherwise but general audiences find the Teutonic helmsman's output so bereft of originality, wit or imagination that he's become the internet's bogeyman an online discursive synonym for photochemical excrement. Boll does his best to ride over these naysayers, exploiting tax credits available in Germany and Canada to keep working and raising money from a network of dentists as Zero Mostel did with old ladies in The Producers. The difference being that Mostel's character knew he was making bowel fill. Maybe Uwe knows it too.<br /><br />Such is the level of hostility toward each new 'Bollbuster' that IMDb patrons sabotage their ratings by voting 1 before they've seen it. Boll's attempts at silencing his critics by challenging them to a boxing match and knocking them out just made them more determined. Indeed he's probably the only filmmaker that's boosted thesaurus sales as critics search for inventive ways of describing garbage.<br /><br />This onslaught has made Uwe a very thick skinned man, so much so that he must feel like he's wrapped in a carpet, but one who feels as if he's bullied by the entire world. Like most people in that situation he lashes out, determined to upset as many people as possible with the memory of a tearful evening holding Variety's review of House of the Dead, never too far from the surface. This 'I know you are but what am I' strategy for reclaiming the initiative produced the blunt satire of Postal, which attempted to napalm the dissenters with jokes about 9/11, Christian fundamentalism, Jihad, Nazism and paedophilia. Such a litany of invective requires a satirist with the mind of Peter Cook and the visual imagination of Chris Morris but the closest Boll gets to either man is the o in their surname.<br /><br />In Seed, shot back to back with the aforementioned game adaptation, Boll is back with a story about a sadistic serial murderer (is there any other kind?) who gets the chair only for two attempts to fail in permanently curtailing all signs of life. Mindful of the fictional law that says anyone still alive after 3 attempts must go free, though if you'd been fried with that much electricity why would you want to, they pronounce him legally dead and bury him, only for the disgruntled killer to resurface and begin a whirlwind tour of his gaolers.<br /><br />Boll begins his 'exploration of nihilistic rage' with Seed watching footage of animals being tortured for experimental purposes. From there we're treated to the killer's stock in trade kidnapping dogs, babies and grown women and allowing them to starve to death on camera only to become maggot food. We're invited to reflect on what a depraved race of amoral meat sacks we all are our inhumanity to each other and our fellow creatures acting as a lighting rod that acts as a catalyst for the most disgusting vestiges of the human condition. Yes, we're worthless, gormless sadists and worse than that, we won't give Uwe a good rating on the IMDb. In short, humanity is bunk.<br /><br />Of course you might think that Uwe relies on our worst excesses for his livelihood and with that in mind it's a bit of a bipolar piece, on one hand hating its audience and positively basting itself in the sour milk of human kindness the milk that poor old Boll has had to drink for so long, while simultaneously whipping out its member and inviting those with a pornographic lust for on screen depravity to marvel at its sheer arse splitting girth.<br /><br />The result says nothing about society and its discontents, more the corrosive effect bad press is having on its director. Poor Uwe is obviously a very angry man one scene in which a poor woman gets her brains hammered to a pulp while tied to a chair, no doubt a surrogate for his own fantasy's about dispatching various web critics. That it's there but takes an avant-garde approach by failing to be attached to any kind of narrative thread, shows that Boll is a pornographer whose happy to engage with the blood lust of his audience and knows that plot is surplus to requirements. He's made a film which is competently shot but utterly desolate. "I wanted to make a horror movie that was no fun" Boll told the audience at the film's world premiere and he has, on that flimsy manifesto, succeeded but if this was supposed to convince the director's detractors that he was a serious genre filmmaker, he'll need something genuine to say as well as a better, more original way of saying it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In this movie, Chávez supporters (either venezuelan and not-venezuelan) just lie about a dramatic situation in our country. <br /><br />They did not say that the conflict started because of Chávez announcement firing a lot of PDVSA best workers just for political issues.<br /><br />They did not say anything about more than 96 TV interruptions transmitted by Chávez during only 3 days in "CADENA NACIONAL" (a kind of confiscation o private TV signals). Each one with about 20 minutes of duration.<br /><br />They did not tell us anything about The quiting announcement made by General en Jefe Lucas Rincon Romero, Inspector General of the army forces, who is a traditional supporter of Chávez. Even now, in despite of his announcement, he is the Ministro de Interior y Justicia. After Chávez return he occuped the Charge of Ministro del Defensa (equals to Defense Secretary in US).<br /><br />They did not say anything about Chávez orders about shooting against a pacifical people concentration who was claiming for elections.<br /><br />They did not say anything about the people in this concentration that were killed by Chávez Supporters (either civilians and Military official forces).<br /><br />They present some facts in a wrong order, in order to lie.<br /><br />They did not say anything about venezuelan civilian society thats are even now claiming for an elections in order to solve the crisis and Chávez actions in order to avoid the elections.<br /><br />That's why i tell you.... This movie is just a lot of lies or a big lie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
You do realize that you've been watching the EXACT SAME SHOW for eight years, right? I could understand the initial curiosity of seeing strangers co-exist on an Island, but you'd think that after watching unkempt, stink-ladened heroes run roughshod through the bush with an egg on a spoon for half a decade would be enough to get you to commit to something a little more original (and interesting).<br /><br />And I'm not even speaking of the shows validity which for the record I find questionable. It's just hard to suspend disbelief for "Bushy Bill" eating a rat when the entire crew of producers and camera people are housed in an air conditioned make-shift bio-dome sipping frosty mochcinno's with moxy.<br /><br />What's the appeal here? I don't care about these people or their meandering lives. I just don't get it. But if you DO find yourself being captivated by hairy, unwashed people, I suggest you turn off your TV and just take a trip to your local bus station where you can see people like this in their TRUE habitat. They call them HOMELESS PEOPLE, and free of charge, you can sit back and marvel in their uncanny ability to retrieve various cigarette debris from a plethora of garbage canisters, eventually striking "pay-dirt" and fashioning a homemade Dr. Frankenstein-styled cancer-stick, all the while begging people for change for food when the stink of "Aqua Velva" on their breath is enough to suggest otherwise. And the best part? Much like Survivor, every week one member of the tribe "Leaves" the "Island" when they are unceremoniously sent packing to the local Institution when the frightening unmedicated state of full-blown schizophrenia kicks into gear! Now THAT'S ENTERTAINMENT!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is actually an insult to the victims and their families of the BTK killer. The events in this movie are not even close to the truth. Why they couldn't make a movie of the real events doesn't make any sense since the real events are more interesting then this made up farce. Don't even waste your time watching this for free. Low budget and a shameful depiction of the events which should not be made a joke of, which is really what this movie did. If they would allow me to give a -10 to this movie I would. The acting sucked and it looks like it was shot on an old VHS video camera from the 80s. Save your time and money by not watching this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.<br /><br />The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.<br /><br />Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is probably one of the worst "wanna be a low budget hit films" to credit the dinosaur genre. The film is so predictable you could go away, cook yourself dinner, go answer the phone or whatever and when you're back you'll know exactly what has happened. The special effects are so poor you would have thought Lego bricks were used and the "super fast" dinosaurs were so tame that it makes a pet dog look like a super predator. The acting is over cooked. They try so hard, yet there just isn't enough character behind them to get into the characters and as for the scientist... Yeah okay we know exactly whats going to happen to the blonde chick in glasses. Stereotypical was created for films like this. If you want to watch this film, I suggest you aren't in as a serious mood as the cast and crew obviously were. And if you are really really into dinosaurs and know everything in the world about them, don't watch it, you might break the screen - the facts are that far off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Effort aside (This isn't a review about good intentions, its about the final product), this film is poorly written, overacted, and poorly directed. The story obviously had potential, but that story is nowhere present in this film.<br /><br />Clara Barton was a human being. She had passions, desires, love, pain, embarrassment, weakness, and self doubt just like the rest of us. You would never know that from this film of the lead actress's performance. In fact apply that to every character in the film, but in Barton's case: Every sentence is a speech. An epic over the top speech as though from an inhuman robot. In fact the only scene that plays well in one in the board meeting, and I realized thats because she's making a speech! Every idea she has is unbelievable in its context and she comes up with ideas that sound like they take a lifetime of soul searching right on the spot. For example, when she sees a wounded man, she'll start pontificating about the needs of the battlefield and to protect soldiers and putting up white flags, etc. As played in the film, there's no WAY she could come up with such a detailed well thought out idea in seconds.<br /><br />IN conclusion, this film robs Clara Barton of her struggles. It robs her of her humanity, and it inherently cheapens all she did because the script is written in clichés. The writer doesn't know Clara Barton, and seems to have based his script on an encyclopedia Britannica article. (yes they had those back then) But hey, nice Technicolor! (who cares)
|
Negative
| null | null |
...but I regret having seen it. Since the ratings on IMDb are relatively high (and they must also have been relatively high on Netflix), I guess I put it in my queue because it is advertised as a gentle comedy from the UK, a category that has produced many films I liked immensely. "Saving Grace," on the other hand, falls into the category of laugh-less comedies usually populated by Hollywood movies produced and directed by the talentless. Brenda Blethyn is a capable actress, and I have liked her in other movies. The concept -- a gardener growing marijuana to overcome the penury she finds herself confronting after her husband's death -- does not offend me. Notwithstanding the strenuous efforts on the part of the cast to produce humor, the film falls flat on its face (falling flat on its arse might have been funnier) as far as I and my wife were concerned. Be forewarned, oh gentle reader, not all offbeat British comedies succeed. This one is a dud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Van Damme. What else can I say? Bill Goldberg. THERE WE GO. NOW we know this movie is going to be really horrible.<br /><br />I saw the first five minutes of this movie on TBS, knowing it would be bad. But not even I thought it would be THIS bad. The plot is awful, Van Damme is getting old (finally), but unlike Arnold, his movies are as well.<br /><br />Forget this movie. Don't see it. Ever. I wouldn't even be paid to see this film.<br /><br />1/5 stars - at its heart lies a wonderful, action-packed thrill ride.<br /><br /> Well, maybe not, but the marketers would sure like us to think so, wouldn't they?<br /><br />John Ulmer
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).<br /><br />Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.<br /><br />Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.<br /><br />Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.<br /><br />The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.<br /><br />So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.<br /><br />This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.<br /><br />Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...<br /><br />Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am sad that a period of history that is so fascinating and so rich in material for film can be made into a ho-hum event . Wm C Quantrill was barely shown in the film , probably the most intriquing figure of the period. Frank James was never mentioned, Cole Younger , ditto , and Bloody Bill Anderson , who would weep for his murdered sister every time he went into battle was completely absent in the script. Instead we were forced to watch fictitious characters that never developed into anyone we cared about. how sad. The costumes were wonderful however, as was the location shooting in Missouri. I hope Ang Lee will make another film from the period and try again, or some other film maker will look into the tremendous wealth of material to write a screen play on .
|
Negative
| null | null |
To be honest, i'm surprised by the positive votes that this film has received. The movie just drags along its 81 minute life span, and the audience has to suffer the whole way through. Actually there are some positive moments in this film; Charlie Spradling gives a decent performance. She is given some pretty pathetic dialogue and she handles it pretty well. Scott Valentine(Merrideth's boyfriend in Family Ties), on the other hand, is a pretty rough watch. I guess the highlight of his performance is witnessing the guy laying on the beach wearing tiger-patterned chummies....give me a break. Also, Valentine gives us a boorish and pathetic portrayal of a suffering vampire who misses the day(to see a much more convincing rendition of the suffering vampire see Denice Duff in "Bloodstorm: Subspecies 4"). The movie moves so slow and is only positively punctuated by, and to be honest, Charlie Spradling's dance scenes. This movie can honestly only be recommended to the die hard fans of Charlie Spradling (which i am, and i still had a rough time watching it!).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.