input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
It's not a terrible movie, really, and Glenn and Keitel are top-notch actors. Further, they do an acceptable job with the very weak script. The scenery is lush and the plot has some interesting twists. Further, I umderstand why these actors and the crew made the film, they are professionals and they get paid for it. But I do wonder why studios spend the time and money to make a film and then don't release it for theater audiences? Even if a film is a box-office flop, surely it makes some money. If you are a fan of Keitel or Glenn, rent the video or catch it on TV, as did I. Granted, the movie won't help solve the immigration quandary with Mexico, but the experience is far better than 90% of the standard TV fare of today.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This unpleasant film has little to recommend it. Dolph Lundgren gives a performance that is better than either this script or his other action films have allowed. And there are occasional snippets of dialog that suggest the film might have been able to provide some insight into a bizarre subculture.<br /><br />But no. Motivations are either murky or trite. Most of the acting is sub-par. The script creates needless confusion. And the director's needless fascination with focusing on gore is distracting.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine who the audience is for this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you liked "Blair with" you'll like this one. It has the same lousy camera-work and soundtrack, and it has the same non-existent plot and suspenseful moments.<br /><br />It also has Tom Savini, so if you like Romero's "Dawn of the dead" or Tarantino and Rodriguez' "From Dusk Till Dawn" you're in for a treat. He is an icon and a very good actor as well.<br /><br />No, seriously. This movie is definitely the lousiest movie I've seen in a long time, and I've seen quite a few movies -- bad ones as well. I can tell you that I find most horror movies entertaining in some respect, but this was just a pure waste of time.<br /><br />The only reason why I gave this movie 2 instead of 1, was the naked chicks and the hot action with all the sharp-looking plastic teeth... No, I'm just kidding. I must have missed before I hit "submit" on the vote form.<br /><br />Stay away, even though it has sexy girls with teeth on the cover!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This (extremely)low-budget movie is compared to the great classic "Silent Night Deadly Night", since it is labeled as a Slasher Flick. First let me say that I think that even "Silent Night Part 2" is better than this (that one was filled with flashbacks of the original for more than half of the movie). "Christmas Evil" tries to get psychological by introducing the main character as someone who goes insane,(a strong word), slowly (very slowly). He is irritated by people who do not get the true meaning of Christmas and at work he can't stand how the fabricated toys are made with such lack of quality and love. Dressed up as Santa he finally goes on a killing spree. Also a strong word, since only 3 people are killed without the real need for special effects. No tension, no thrills, no gore, no cast. For one exception that is: Jeffrey DeMunn is in it. He is best known for playing aside Tom Hanks as one of the guards in the classic "The Green Mile". He still must be kicking himself these days for ever accepting the role. He truly is the only one who really can act, his supporting role is better than the main lead. (who also isn't that bad, but if you're overshadowed by a little supporting character, you're not great either.). And what about that strange ending ? (you have to see it, to believe it). "Christmas Evil" is downright boring, nothing happens and the artwork is just misleading. This is not a slasher. You wanna see a real Christmas slasher, check out the all time greatest: "Silent Night, Deadly Night".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thunderbirds (2004) <br /><br />Director: Jonathan Frakes <br /><br />Starring: Bill Paxton, Ben Kingsley, Brady Corbet <br /><br />5
4
3
2
1! Thunderbirds are GO! <br /><br />And so began Thunderbirds, a childhood favorite of mine. When I heard that they were going to make a Thunderbirds movie, I was ecstatic. I couldn't wait to see Thunderbird 2 roar in to save people, while Thunderbird 4 would dive deep into the
you get the idea. I just couldn't wait. Then came August 2004, when the movie was finally released. Critics panned it, but I still wanted to go. After all, as long as the heart was in the same place, that was all that mattered to me. So I sat down in the theater, the only teenager in a crowd of 50
everyone else was over thirty and under ten. Quite possibly the most awkward theater experience that I have ever had
<br /><br />The movie (which is intended to be a prequel) focuses on Alan Tracy (Brady Corbet), the youngest of the Tracy family. He spends his days wishing that he could be rescuing people like the rest of his family, but he's too young. One day, he finally gets his chance when The Hood (Ben Kingsley) traps the rest of his family up on Thunderbird 5 (the space station). This involves him having to outsmart The Hood's henchmen and rescue his family in time before The Hood can steal all of the money from the Bank of England.<br /><br />Trust me, the plot sounds like a regular episode of Thunderbirds when you read it on paper. Once it gets put on to film
what a mess we have on our hands. First off, the film was intended for children, much like the original show was. However, Gerry Anderson treated us like adults, and gave us plots that were fairly advanced for children's programming. This on the other hand, dumbs down the plot as it tries to make itself a ripoff of the Spy Kids franchise. The final product is a movie that tries to appeal to fans of the Thunderbirds series and children, while missing both entirely. Lame jokes, cartoonish sounds, and stupid antics that no one really finds amusing are all over this movie, and I'm sure that Jonathan Frakes is wishing he'd never directed this.<br /><br />Over all, everyone gave a solid performance, considering the script that they were all given. Ben Kingsley was exceptional as The Hood, playing the part extremely well. My only complaint about the characters is about The Hood's henchmen, who are reduced to leftovers from old Looney Tunes cartoons, bumbling about as, amazingly enough, the kids take them on with ease.<br /><br />What's odd about this movie is that while I was watching the movie, I had fun. But once the lights went up, I realized that the movie was fairly bad, I was $8 lighter, and two hours of my time were now gone. A guilty pleasure? Perhaps. Nonetheless, Thunderbirds is a forgettable mess. Instead of a big "go", I'm going to have to recommend that you stay away from this movie. If the rest of movie could have been like the first ten minutes of it, it would have been an incredible film worthy of the Thunderbirds name. However, we get a movie that only die-hard Thunderbirds fans (if you'd like to watch your childhood torn to pieces) or the extremely bored should bother with.<br /><br />My rating for Thunderbirds is 1 ½ stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
William S. Hart (as Jim Treen), the most eligible bachelor in Canyon City, is finally getting hitched, to pretty blonde waitress Leona Hutton (as Molly Stewart). His fiancée doesn't know it, but Mr. Hart is secretly the western town's "Most Wanted" bandit. However, Hart is planning to go straight, due to his marriage plans. Unfortunately, Ms. Hutton discovers Hart's secret stash, whilst cleaning up his untidy cabin; so, she calls off the wedding. Next, Hutton succumbs to the charms of mining swindler Frank Borzage (as W. Sloane Carey).<br /><br />Serviceable entertainment from superstar Hart; he was ranked no less than #1 at the box office, by Quigley Publications, for the years 1915 and 1916 (ahead of Mary Pickford). The principles perform capably. Later on, Frank Borzage was quite a director; and Leona Hutton, a suicide... <br /><br />**** A Knight of the Trails (8/20/15) William S. Hart ~ William S. Hart, Leona Hutton, Frank Borzage
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 11/7/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-John Bianco): Pretty lame gangster movie about a Godfather-like family in Brooklyn who like to say four-letter words a lot and kill people. The only thing of interest here was their attempt to show the feds being a lot like the gang. This is the only attempt at good film-making. The rest of the movie was predictable, and cheaply-made. The quality of the photography on some of the scenes inside bars and floozy joints almost made you think there was a problem with your DVD player because of the bad contrasts and some of the actors were hard to hear at times because of the bad sound. The acting was pretty-much characatures of all your favorite gangsters from better movies with corny names like Vinnie `Knuckles' and Jimmie `Tattoos', and the plot pretty much followed those patterns as well. So, go see a better gangster movie before you put your money out for this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I ended up watching this whole (very long) movie because I was fascinated by the sheer stupidity and naivity of it. It seems difficult to believe that so many famous people (Anthony Quinn, Lawrence Olivier, John Gielguld, Vittorio de Sica, etc.) would have willingly participated in this farce. But maybe in 1968 people really *were* so naive? The plot seems written by some confused Latin American Marxist priest with an agenda. There is a superpower conflict and the Russians are actually the good guys, with the Communist Party General Secretary being a nice and spiritual man, who, suddenly, after 20 years, sees the light and feels compelled to ease his bad conscience by releasing a prisoner priest from a Siberian gulag. The priest then promptly becomes the Pope by a series of coincidences. We are allowed to see the secret Vatican papal voting process which is portrayed in the most hillariously pious form you can possibly imagine.<br /><br />Meanwhile, the communists in China achieved the usual socialist economic miracle of starving half of their country to death. To solve this minor hiccup on the relentless shining path towards communism they want to start a nuclear war (in order to justly distribute the Western capitalist riches to the poor workers of China).<br /><br />Our good old comrade General Secretary gets a bit worried and calls the Pope just before his coronation to ask him to broker peace. They meet with the Chinese leader comrade Peng who looks and acts like a 15 year old boy. You will roll on the floor laughing about what people in 1968 thought the Chinese looked like. Comrade Peng demands that the Western capitalists must pay (which is quite logical after all, don't capitalists always have to pay for the madness of the socialists?), and that the Pope needs to sacrifice something, too, for the common altruistic cause of equality and social justice.<br /><br />So when the Pope gets crowned in Rome, he pledges the entire wealth of the Catholic church world-wide to feed our poor Chinese brethren in Christ. And thus he saves the world from nuclear holocaust.<br /><br />Apart from this, there are also some minor sub-plots, which, alas, provide little to redeem this incredibly bad movie. I'd give it three Oscars for stupidity.<br /><br />By the way, Anthony Quinn looks quite unlikely as a Pope. He is much more plausible as Zorba the Greek.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Supposedly a "social commentary" on racism and prison conditions in the rural South of the 1970's, "Nightmare" is full of bad Southern stereotypes, complete with phoney accents. Not only would it be offensive to the sensibilities of most American Southerners, this tawdry piece of work comes off as just a thinly-disguised "babe in prison" movie--especially in its uncut original version. Nevertheless, acting is generally above average and the late Chuck Connors, in particular, does a good job of making viewers hate him--even though he looks somewhat uncomfortable in several scenes. There's also a change-of-pace role for the late Robert Reed, who appears as the lecherous warden, and Tina Louise (previously Ginger of "Gilligan's Island") made a rather believable sadistic prison guard. My grade: D. <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.<br /><br />Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.<br /><br />I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, as a long time Disney fan, I really -hate- direct-to-video Disney sequels. Walt HIMSELF didn't believe in them. He believed in "AND THEY LIVED HAPPILY EVER AFTER" being the end of it. But this one...REALLY ticked the taco. There were so many ripoffs of other Disney films in this, it wasn't funny. Quick summary, if you don't already know...: Melody, the daughter of Ariel and Prince Eric, is born. Ursula's sister, Morganna (who basically looks like Ursula, if she were to dye herself green and go on the Ally Macbeal starvation diet) shows up and, after trying to do the newborn tyke in, and failing, prophesizes doom for the characters. After that ordeal, Ariel goes into a lapse of being like her father, and refuses to tell Melody about her mermaid heritage, and later on, forbids her to go near the sea. Well surprise surprise. Melody finds out, being the stubborn brat she is, and runs away, then makes a deal with Morgana to become a mermaid, in exchange for something. (Gee does THAT sound familiar?) She becomes one, but in her half of the bargain, has to retrieve her granddaddy's Trident and bring it back to the sea witch. While doing THIS, she runs into a couple of outcast animals, a penguin and a walrus named Timon and Pumb--huh? wait...no! that's not Timon and Pumbaa! or is it? Could of fooled me. Anyway, i'd like to reveal more, but pretty much anything that could be guessed to happen does. OK so...long story short. This movie "borrows" too much from other (better) Disney films...and does it horribly. Come on...Tip and Dash? Why not just make Dash obscenely flatulent and make it an even more obvious ripoff! Ugh. Not to mention, the total character butchery of Ariel's persona. She's gone from being a freespirited, headstrong woman, to a clone of her father. Not good at all...they're basically telling us the sweet, firey little mermaid we've known to grow and love is dead. Plus Melody herself isn't such a great character either...she's damned annoying! And bratty! Not to mention what they've done to Flounder. Ugh...anyway if you decide to see this piece of created-mainly-for-profit-reasons, no-imagination, Eisner-sponsored c******t, I suggest maybe waiting 'till its on the Disney channel or some other tv station. Because, it's not even worth the price of a rental.<br /><br /> * out of ***** stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie proves that you can't judge a movie by the awesome artwork on the DVD cover. It also goes to show that you should learn more about a movie before you buy it (or get it for someone at Christmas). The beginning of this movie actually looks somewhat promising. Well, until you meet the characters. Pumpkin Jack (the old guy from down the street) brings the college co-eds a book full of witch's spells that he leaves at their annual haunted house (where the movie takes place). After that there is some drinking, fighting, and soft core porn. Then the action of the movie finally takes place after over an hour.<br /><br />Overall, Hallow's End was predictable, unsuspensful, and reminiscent of a soft-core porn. This movie is probably best viewed with a group of friends who have nothing better to do, as it is a good movie to make fun of. And for first-time viewers, it is really fun making predictions of the order of people who die.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce "wannabe" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided "let's throw a flashback" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand this film.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I like a movie that has at least a vestige of a story. This doesn't occur in this movie. It's a series of vignettes with no cohesion.<br /><br />There are scenes of a person collecting pineapple cans. A woman with a blond wig never removes her sun glasses. This woman shoots at other people at the beginning of the movie and we never find out why. She disappears completely after about 30 minutes. There is another coquettish woman who endlessly cleans a man's apartment. There are endless scenes at a fast food joint where the Mamas & Papas 'California Dreaming' is vastly overplayed (I used to like the song). The dialogue is mostly concerned with food (pineapples, chef's salad and ordering drinks
). I assume most of the actors gained weight during this movie because a lot of fast food was consumed.<br /><br />There is no passion in this movie because there is no story. This is purportedly a romance - it is no such thing. I just wonder why I didn't hit the Fast-forward. I kept waiting for something significant to happen it doesn't. Maybe that's the only consolation to this movie - scenes shifted so rapidly that it tricked you into assuming that there was going to be a revelation to all the nonsense.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having just seen this on TMC, it's fresh in my mind. It's obvious that while the stooges are featured stars, they don't really run the show. First, they're broken into 2 groups - Moe, as "Shorty" and Larry and Curly as a pair of vagrants, so there's not a whole lot of full team work. The love story that fuels the plot is uninteresting, the two ladies are the only ones with any acting ability, there's another group of musical stooges that are unfunny, unless you consider their attempts at being funny to be sadly buffoonish. The music is tiresome, they drive cars to the ranch and then depend on horses, the dorky western wear is silly, and there's an awful lot of the movie with no stooges on camera. By the way, this is obviously after Curley's first stroke, and his reduced energy level is clear. Vernon Dent appears early on in an uncredited role. I loved everything these guys ever did, including all the non-Curley stuff, but this little dogie is pretty lousy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of those movies where I wish I had just stayed in the bar.<br /><br />The film is quite frankly boring. What story there is is very flimsy and you pretty much have to guess at it. The film indulges itself with pretentious camera techniques that seem intent on causing migraines and makes it look like a student film. Did I say it was boring already? If all the characters had suddenly died at the end of the movie I would not have cared less as I had no emotional attachment to any of them.<br /><br />There are about 4 good minutes in this movie, but that was about it. This is the first time I have ever considered walking out of a cinema during a performance, but I held on believing that it had to get better. I was wrong.<br /><br />The sort of film you could threaten naughty children with.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hate to sound like an 'old person', but frankly I haven't seen too many movies that I like that were made after 1960... generally, movies just seem to get worse and worse (although I quite enjoyed the Scott Baio vehicle "The Bread, My Sweet", except for the 'de rigeur' sex scene which added NOTHING of value to THAT movie). This movie makes the mother, a former Las Vegas chorus girl, seem to be incapable of surviving on her own, although she is clearly in her 50s (though hinted at being in her 40s). I didn't buy it. I'm 57 and like all the women I know in their 50s and 40s, more than capable of surviving on my own (as I have been doing since I graduated from high school at 13, got legally emancipated and set off on my own life's journey.) <br /><br />The daughter is not believable in her job role ... she gets a promotion she doesn't deserve (a great opportunity) and drops that ball too, but when another female employee steps up to the plate and is ready to deliver, the writers shoot her down as an 'opportunist', when she was just doing what any career-oriented person would do -- taking advantage of a wide-open opportunity created by the lack of self-discipline of her coworker, a girl who apparently doesn't understand the concept of honoring her promises (to her boss, in this case).<br /><br />The daughter grudgingly 'allows' her mother to stay with her, on a temporary basis, but then treats her mother (the woman who gave her Life and raised her to 'adulthood') like a pariah. Apparently the 'writers' of tripe like this do not understand that it is NOT 'the common thing' for PARENTS to act like children, and then be treated AS children by THEIR children. That is just more of the societal 'baloney' that Hollywood keeps trying to force down our throats as though we, their public, were stupid for desiring to be entertained by their creative offerings.<br /><br />This is a sad movie with a stupid ending. If the young male restauranteur had been real and not a two-dimensional 'tv character', he'd have stayed with the MOTHER, who was not that much older than him and quite attractive. But in the end he 'falls' for the daughter, a shallow, rather uninteresting girl who has that cuteness of youth, but in an ordinary, bland way. (The 'opportunist' young woman who worked with this nothing girl was far more attractive, physically.)<br /><br />There was no believable reason presented to the audience as to why the restauranteur preferred the daughter (who was an uptight, selfish, self-centered b*tch who treated her mother with unbelievable disrespect) to the mother -- a woman who was kindhearted, sweet-tempered, humorous, and had a joie de vivre the daughter could not even begin to comprehend. Of course the mother had her own flaws... she had reacted to her husband's demise by drinking herself into a stupor for a year or two afterwards which supposedly created the rift between her and her smarmy daughter.<br /><br />Regardless of the way the characters were or were not developed, this is a baloney movie and a waste of your valuable viewing time unless you actually LIKE baloney. (Where's the mustard?)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't say I'm all that experienced in misty Mundae flicks having seen only a handful, but it's obvious that this was made on a shoestring, and while it might have been respectable that the filmmakers were able to make a Tomb Raider rip-off inside a garage, it isn't because it's completely obvious that this is what they were doing. The film only runs for forty five minutes, and this is definitely a good thing as there isn't nearly enough plot here to stretch it out for any longer. It has something to do with an evil Nazi scientist (who looks about as evil as a porn star playing a Nazi scientist ever could), a mummy, which is clearly a man wrapped up in toilet roll and Misty - this film's version of Tomb Raider, who keeps her top on for much less time than Angelina Jolie did in the big budget version. I have to say that even in spite of its shortcomings, this film could have been better. It's got Misty Mundae for a start, and even better than that if you ask me is the fact that it also stars the even hotter Darian Caine. The pair gets to engage in all the lesbian sex that you would expect from a Seduction Cinema film and this is at the expense of the nonexistent plot, although that isn't really a bad thing. Obviously, this is a rubbish film - but the fact that it's short is to its credit, and if you're after a bit of lesbian sex, you could do worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I look around in the video store still in shock how Steven Seagal with his track record of Bad action movies can still have 3 movies hit the shelves in less than a Year.Attack force being the 3rd no less promised the first-time entrance into the Sci Fi Genre for our ever widening Seagal.Visions of bad movie entertainment flashed before my gullible eyes.Sadly this is not the case one bit with no entertainment and a movie as bad as they come.<br /><br />Seagal rebounded a tiny bit with the Trashy-but enjoyable Shadow Man last time we saw him.However Attack force has to be his absolute worst movie ever!Don't argue for out for a Kill,Ticker,or even Black Dawn folks.This is the bottom of the Septic tank here.<br /><br />Anyone who says this is Steven Seagal's return to form should be forced to write a 100 page essay on the word Taste. <br /><br />Seagal is yet another agent/I'm a supreme bad-ass yet again named Lawson wants revenge for the killing of his Team that leads him to a nefarious plot to distribute a really bad drug to the unsuspecting public.Not to mention the dealers are not from around here.<br /><br />The whole Production from Directing to the acting is poor.Was this movie shot in the Dark?Its gotta be the most poorly lighted movie since Howling 2.The action is terrible and very badly done.<br /><br />The Producers have also unwisely decided to do what the fans hate the most:throw in stunt double after stunt double and horribly dubbed Steven Seagal.Who seems to show little enthusiasm here.Can ya blame him?<br /><br />While it has been said that Attack Force was not the movie Stevie signed on for(originally Harvester)and surely has to be better than Attack force.The post-production tampering has not made it more coherent and made Seagal look worse.I feel bad for Directer Michael Keusch and writer Joe Halpin as they are gonna be judged forever for the ill-advised production re-shoots.<br /><br />So Now This leaves Seagal in the impossible position to come up with something to atone for this mess.But after seeing how bad Attack Force has turned out do we really want him to make another movie?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This could be a strong candidate for "The Worst Flick Ever". Perhaps without the presence of John Hurt, it could be tolerated as a kid-film. However, the TRAGEDY of this entire endeavor, is that John Hurt, one of the screen's greatest actors, diminishes himself in this....I gave it two points just because Mr. Hurt SHOWED UP...I take AWAY 8 points, because he didn't run from it fast enough. As far as the rest of the cast, they are, simply, terrible. Janine Turner, as pretty as she might be, cannot act to save her soul. And the lead actor is, for all intents and purposes, AWFUL. If you can spare yourself this embarrassment, please do so. It's so bad, it almost HURTS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
MST 3000 should do this movie. It is the worst acted movie I have ever seen. First of all, you find out that the shooter has no bank account and no history since leaving the army in 1993 and pays his rent in cash. There is no way in hell that a person like that would ever be allowed to be that close to a president not to mention a high profile job. Also, the head of security for the POTHUS would not be so emotional that he would start drinking into a haze if the president was shot. This movie sucked. I cannot express the extremite that this movie was. Every single actor was terrible. Even the chick at the trailer park. I crap on this garbage. What a waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
* Some spoilers *<br /><br />This movie is sometimes subtitled "Life Everlasting." That's often taken as reference to the final scene, but more accurately describes how dead and buried this once-estimable series is after this sloppy and illogical send-off.<br /><br />There's a "hey kids, let's put on a show air" about this telemovie, which can be endearing in spots. Some fans will feel like insiders as they enjoy picking out all the various cameo appearances. Co-writer, co-producer Tom Fontana and his pals pack the goings-on with friends and favorites from other shows, as well as real Baltimore personages.<br /><br />That's on top of the returns of virtually all the members of the television's show varied casts, your old favorites as well as later non-favorites.<br /><br />There was always a tug-of-war pitting quality-conscious executive producer Barry Levinson, Fontana, James Yoshimura and the rest of the creative team against budget-conscious NBC execs, who simply wanted a another moronic police procedural like "Nash Bridges," which regularly beat "Homicide" in the ratings. The pressure told as the show bounced between riveting realism that transcended its form, and sleazy sensationalism that demeaned it.<br /><br />Unfortunately for this movie, Fontana, co-writers Yoshimura and Eric Overmeyer and director Jean de Segonzac simply threw in the towel. They took the most ludicrous story are from the series, topped it with an unlikely and artistically unfruitful new plot line, and laid the burden of carrying the whole mess on one of the weaker cast members.<br /><br />Briefly, some time has passed since the last episode of the show. The former heart of Baltimore's homicide unit, Yaphet Kotto as Lt. Al Giardello, is now a Kurt Schmoke-like candidate for mayor, and Schmoke himself makes a cameo appearance. But this promising start immediately and improbably takes a tragic turn.<br /><br />The spotlight shifts to Giancarlo Esposito as Giardello's son Mike. A handsome man who has done good work elsewhere, Esposito was one of the pretty faces brought in late to supposedly enliven the TV series. But the question for viewers always was: is Mike that uncomfortable as Gee's son, or is Esposito that uncomfortable in the role?<br /><br />To be fair, Esposito doesn't get a chance to play out the main story without interruption. That's because the writers choose this moment to revive another storyline that spat on the intelligence of the show's loyal voters.<br /><br />An apparent snuff streaming video was promoted, and then seemed to actually take place, on the Internet. After some red herrings, the detectives arrested a repellent suspect. But Zaljko Ivanek's harassed and overworked Deputy States Attorney forgot to file motions in time, and the suspect was released, only to be murdered later.<br /><br />Let's summarize: he forgot to file the paperwork because it wasn't the most sensational case of his career, because the mayor, the attorney general, the governor, the entire Maryland Legislature, the U.S. Attorney General, NBC, Court TV, the BBC, AP, Reuters, People, The Sun, the Washington Post, the New York Times, the LA Times, Time Magazine, The Times of London, The Economist, The Johannesburg Mail and Guardian, L'Osservatore Romano, Le Figaro, Paris Match, L'Equipe and Computer World weren't calling every 10 minutes to ask about the status of the case.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the old gang of detectives and associates flocks back to Baltimore to help out. There's quite an array of talent on display. Unfortunately, with the limited amount of dialogue to hand out, some of them are merely on display.<br /><br />Two of the strongest actors, Clark Johnson and Melissa Leo, are criminally underused, while time wasted on Jon Seda and Michael Michelle could be better spent on commercials. The writers do seem to satirize this, presenting Jason Priestley as the latest big-deal detective. On the other hand, they give easy-come, easy-go Michelle Forbes a very affecting scene.<br /><br />There's some other sly casting, with actual Lt. Gary D'Addario, the center of the book that gave rise to the show, playing another detective. Guests drop in from other shows, like Whitney Allen doing her deadpan and clueless "Miss Sally" from the children's show beloved by the inmates on Fontana's "Oz." Dina Napoli of WBAL TV turns up as herself. <br /><br />Even when entertaining, though, these guests can be distracting. Ed Begley Jr. actually advances the story in his brief appearance, playing Dr. Victor Ehrlich from Fontana's "St. Elsewhere." He's still a vivid character, and fits in a hospital setting. Then you remember, didn't St. Elegius turn out to be an autistic boy's fantasy?<br /><br />The most useful cameo reflects corporate synergy. This movie was made when Court TV bought re-run rights to the series. That network contributed legal waif Helen Lucaitis, who had interviewed the Homicide team and later appeared on "Oz." The TV correspondent does an efficient job summarizing the news, that is, plot points for latecomers.<br /><br />Although she's so thin that she disappears when she turns sideways, Lucaitis also adeptly handles a bit of physical comedy with Esposito. He shows more juice in his scenes with Lucaitis than with any of his usual colleagues. Perhaps those two should have done a spin-off.<br /><br />As the movie winds down, the cream of the cast rises to the top. Although they are saddled with a loser script, Andre Braugher and Kyle Secor overcome it. Their performances remind viewers what made Homicide, for considerable stretches, the best show on the air and one of the best television productions ever.<br /><br />It's fun to watch top pros do their stuff; it's just a shame this movie doesn't give them more of a chance. Die-hard fans may want to see this movie anyway, but you can live without it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching this I thought to myself, there are either too few good writers & directors or lots of producers.<br /><br />At any rate, this is a terrible movie. Terrible in a way that it's not fun, but rather makes you grit your teeth and quiver. Makes you shout "this is wrong" at the movie. Immersion is zero. By now most of you are probably used to the terrible errors/weirdness-es in movies that has computers hackers etc. in them. This movie is like that in every aspect. <br /><br />The only good thing about the movie is the little girl Emily, brilliantly played by Eliza Bennett. I hope she becomes big, and make this ..thing at least worth something.<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Don't watch this. There is not even proper action in it. Total waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.<br /><br />Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. <br /><br />Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.<br /><br />The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.<br /><br />4 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Where do I begin? I wanted to enjoy this movie, and I did. Still, I wanted to be able to enjoy it for being another zombie film that was worth my loot, and it wasnt. This was a different kind of enjoyment. This was unhealthy, a perverse glee that I partook in watching one of the most ridiculous films Id seen yet. And I dont much care for whatever Fulci's excuses were, there was no excuse for this film going how it went. This was a bad film all the way around, yet I still cant give it below a 4 out of ten, which is what I gave it, because well...at least I was able to laugh at this misfit of a movie.<br /><br />I had to imagine these zombies, that were all over the ceilings of these buildings everywhere...had to imagine that they were either bored as hell so they crawled up on the beems, and perched themselves high on stone erections, or they saw the fleshy living motley band of jerk-offs coming around, so they took it upon themselves to stage numerous aerial ambushes. Hell, what else is there to do when youre dead?<br /><br />I had to laugh at some zombies performing what looked to be martial arts swings, kicks, and jumps, and some shambling about like traditional meatlovers. I feasted my eyes on a floating head that was never explained. I watched in pure horrific delight as the land they were in, the Phillipenes, was absolutely engulfed in fog, heavy doses of fog, and that the ponds were as they were boiling castle moats. I had to even cringe when I saw that the design for a cure for this plague was sketched on a chalkboard as an octagon with lines stretching from each angle, with "Dead One" written in the middle. I had to ask myself...if the science of curing zombies is that easy, then I wonder if I could come up with a little something to start a zombie outbreak here!<br /><br />All in all the effects were overboard, the dubbing horrid, Im sure the original acting as poor, the story absurd, the zombies inconsistent, even in a bad way they couldve all been similar, and the women ugly, but I found myself enjoying this thing. It was a fun watch. It turned out to be a very very bad film, and I would not recommend this thing unless one is into bad directorial exploitation films, but still, again I say...it was worth a good laugh. I crave zombie films no matter what, but when this had Fulci's name attached to it, it shouldve been much better. Let me dare say, Zombie Holocaust was better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Aside from the horrendous acting and the ridiculous and ludicrous plot, this movie wasn't too bad. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much movie not to suck. Do not waste your time on this film, even if you find yourself suffering from insomnia, as I did. Watch an infomercial instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just saw DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!<br /><br />Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the "rise to the top" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.<br /><br />Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people "singing" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big "love me" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!<br /><br />AND note to all involved--that "sing-talking dialog" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that "I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't "songs."<br /><br />Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release "one to beat" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am completely appalled to see that the average rating for this movie is 5.2/10 For what affects me, it is definitely one of the worst movies I have ever seen and I still keep wondering why I watched it until the end. First of all, the plot is totally hopeless, and the acting truly awful. I think that any totally unknown actress would have been better for the role than Susan Lucci; concerning Mr. Kamar Del's Reyes, I think it would have been a better choice for him to remain in his "Valley of the Dolls". To sum up, it is total waste of time(and i'm trying to stay polite...) to avoid at any cost. My rating is 1 and I still think it is well paid, but since we cannot give a O....
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this back in the 80's and honestly can't remember anything specific about the movie - only that it is THE worst movie I have ever seen. This isn't one of those "it was so bad, it was funny". This isn't one of those "it was so gory, it leaves you with a bad feeling" movies. It wasn't even one of those "what the heck was that?" movies. I can't recall the performance of the actors, but it was poorly shot, the story was disjointed, and it had no definable style. When it was over, I was angry that I had wasted the time.<br /><br />I've seen plenty of movies I didn't understand because of unfamiliar cultures, styles and/or story-telling, but it was clear that those movies had some of those properties. The incubus has none.<br /><br />I actually contemplated NOT making a comment on this "piece" for fear that someone may watch it out of curiosity, but I am compelled to warn anyone who appreciates film to skip this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, I suppose the good news concerning William Winckler's 2001 opus, "The Double-D Avenger," is that it manages to unite three of Russ Meyer's mammarian marvels--Kitten Natividad, Haji and Raven de la Croix--in one picture. (I can only assume that Lorna Maitland, Tura Satana and Babette Bardot were busy the week they shot this thing...or else managed to see a copy of the script in advance!) The bad news, though (and there's plenty of it), is that this film--if it can even be called that, having been shot straight to video--is a complete misfire, a total abortion, an out-and-out atrocity, an absolute abomination, and truly one of the worst pictures that I have ever seen. Look no further for the lamest superhero movie ever made! The plot here, such as it is, deals with Kitten gaining superpowers after fellating the rare cockazilla plant in South America to cure her breast cancer (oy), and later battling a trio of megalunged bikini dancers back in L.A. Too bad that every lame boob joke trotted out falls completely (you should pardon the expression) flat, that there is ZERO actual nudity in the film at all (other than some old photos of Kitten in her heyday), and that some shaving cream and a papier-mache boulder are the sum total of the special FX. The Meyer gals here are a bit long in the tooth/saggy in the chest, to put it kindly, although Sheri Dawn Thomas, as bikini girl Ooga Boobies (!), does manage to, uh, stand out nicely. So why have I given this juvenile, unfunny, failed embarrassment of a movie 2 stars instead of 1? To be succinct: Joe Bob Briggs. His voice-over commentary in the special features of the DVD I just watched is absolutely hilarious, especially when he pulls out around 100 synonyms for the word "breast" from the 1,000+ on his Web site's "Canonical Hooters List." The man is a national treasure, and he manages to upgrade this skeet of a disc to coaster status!
|
Negative
| null | null |
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made. <br /><br />This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.<br /><br />But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.<br /><br /> Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.<br /><br />A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Marquis De Sade, Egypt, ancient Gnostic cults, Robert Englund in a dual role, gratuitous sex and nudity, murder and mayhem... on paper Tobe Hopper's Night Terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun, entertaining flick given the ingredients. It's not. It is a plot less, incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. There is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of De Sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local Christian archaeologist and kill her. That is pretty much it- I think it has something to with the Gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. Most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness, dream sequences and erotic encounters, intercut with scenes of Englund as the imprisoned De Sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. It seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness, bad acting, sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads.<br /><br />There aren't too many good points. Robert Englund is fun to watch, as always and the lead actress, Zoe Trilling, whilst not very talented, is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching Night Terrors is a chore. At least I got to see the movie from which the "When you're as criminal as I" bit from the Australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many VHS tapes from the nineties came from.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sorry this movie did not scare me it just annoyed me. It was just so frustrating when I saw the potential and that, all that, fell by the wayside. The children! The father! The premonition! Had so much potential and ziltch! zero, nada! I have heard it all before. Scary! No! I can scare myself alone, here where I sit, than they could in the movie. Are there men writing that figure that women should be so annoying? Huh? This movie was quite atmospheric. Or at least it could have been, had the director/writer bothered to work it. We could have had some good music that would have added to the tension too, if someone had made the effort. What I really want to know is why do they get the money? Just give it to me and save all that hassle. Abandoned?... No we where betrayed
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the majority. I found Spike Lee's latest a wee bit boring! Although he was trying something different, i.e. not just documenting the rise and fall of the serial killer, I don't think it worked too well.<br /><br />There's really a bit too much going on - Vinny (John Leguizamo) and Dionna's (Mira Sorvino) relationship, Ritchie's (Adrien Brody) lifestyle and then the local mafia types. The story is good, but at the end thats all you have - 2 or 3 stories. With such a provocative killer could Mr Lee not have put more into that side of the film? ><br /><br />There are some good points though. All scenes with the 'Son of Sam' killer David Berkowitz look very nice (colour saturation etc...)and the acting is pretty good throughout.<br /><br />Overall I felt that the different stories would of worked well on their own or else without the killings. It just wasn't strong enough in the end.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
To start with, I have to point out the fact that you're gonna feel completely lost for more than half an hour. Yeah, some things happen, but you don't know why or what for. When you finally figure things out you just realize that it's nothing but a twisted soad opera, dealing with mature prostitutes, dead mothers, illegitimate sons... The characters are rather poor and the actors (specially the young ones) don't help that much to make'em look credible. Only Marisa Paredes stands out, but she's a superb actress, no matter if the movie is pure rubbish.<br /><br />The only positive things to say about "Frío Sol De Invierno" is that débutant Pablo Malo seems to have good intentions, and he's filmed a couple of scenes that are quite intense... Well, maybe the next time...<br /><br />*My rate: 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I spent eight years running movie theatres in the 80's and 90's. This was, by far, the worst film I ever showed to the public. One thing that made it so bad was that it put on airs of trying to be a great, inspiring film. Even the great Gregory Peck could not save this horrid piece of drivel from being far less than mediocre. Jamie Lee Curtis, in an early non-horror film role, demonstrated clearly that she had not yet learned to act (she's still trying, but it isn't getting much better).<br /><br />I'm sorry, and here's the spoiler, international nuclear disarmament is never going to happen just because it makes children afraid to play little league baseball! Even the shows on Nick and The Disney Channel are not stupid enough to try to make us believe that dreck.<br /><br />This is not worth the time you would waste watching it on cable TV. It is not worth the price of a movie rental; your dollar would be better spent on an extra package of microwave popcorn to go with the other movie you picked (because it can only be better than this).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I may have seen worse films than this, but I if I have, I don't remember. Or possibly blocked them out. Who knows,if I was to undergo hypnotherapy, I may remember them, along, maybe, with been abducted by aliens as a child, or other traumas. If so, I would happily exchange those memories for the ones I have of watching this film.<br /><br />I should give the film some credit: It did produce an emotional response. I actually started to become angry at scenes that spoofed other films and TV programs, that this travesty was dirtying them by association. I am terrified that I may be unable to watch films like Dr Strangelove again without this film flitting across my minds eye.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show comes up with interesting locations as fast as the travel channel. It is billed as reality but in actuality it is pure prime time soap opera. It's tries to use exotic locales as a facade to bring people into a phony contest & then proceeds to hook viewers on the contestants soap opera style.<br /><br />It also borrows from an early CBS game show pioneer- Beat The Clock- by inventing situations for its contestants to try & overcome. Then it rewards the winner money. If they can spice it up with a little interaction between the characters, even better. While the game format is in slow motion versus Beat The Clock- the real accomplishment of this series is to escape reality. <br /><br />This show has elements of several types of successful past programs. Reality television, hardly, but if your hooked on the contestants, locale or contest, this is your cup of tea. If your not, this entire series is as I say, drivel dripping with gravy. It is another show hiding behind the reality label which is the trend it started in 2000.<br /><br />It is slick & well produced, so it might last a while yet. After all, so do re-runs of Gilligan's Island, Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies & The Brady Bunch. This just doesn't employ professional actors. The intelligence level is about the same.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although I am generally a proponent of the well-made film, I do not limit myself to films which escape those boundaries, and more often than not I do enjoy and admire films that successfully "break the rules." And it is quite true that director Pasolini breaks the rules of established cinema. But it is also my opinion that he does not break them successfully or to any actual point.<br /><br />Pasolini's work is visually jarring, but this is less a matter of what is actually on the screen than how it is filmed, and the jumpiness of his films seem less a matter of artistic choice than the result of amateur cinematography. This is true of DECAMERON. Pasolini often preferred to use non-actors, and while many directors have done so with remarkable result, under Pasolini's direction his non-actors tend to remain non-actors. This is also true of DECAMERON. Pasolini quite often includes images designed to shock, offend, or otherwise disconcert the audience. Such elements can often be used with startling effect, but in Pasolini's hands such elements seldom seem to actually contribute anything to the film. This is also true of DECAMERON.<br /><br />I have been given to understand there are many people who like, even admire Pasolini's films. Even so, I have never actually met any of them, and I have never been able to read anything about Pasolini or his works that made the reason for such liking or admiration comprehensible to me. Judging him from his works alone, I am of the opinion that he was essentially an amateurish director who did not "break the rules" so much by choice as by lack of skill--and who was initially applauded by the intelligentsia of his day for " existential boldness," thereby simply confirming him in bad habits as a film maker. I find his work tedious, unimpressive, and pretentious. And this, too, is true of DECAMERON. It is also, sadly, true of virtually every Pasolini film it has been my misfortune to endure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Annie's wig does not look good. she is not cute and pretty enough to play Annie. Annie sticks out in the movie, as her outfits look like Halloween costumes. terrible acting and terrible plots. This movie is such a change from the 1982 version. I think that a younger and smaller girl should have had the lead role. Ashley Johnson portrays a very boyish Annie. Not appealing at all. At least the casting director got it right with Daddy Warbucks. Ms. Hannigan was also miscast. Camilla Belle played Molly alright. "Warning" this movie might insult your IQ so you might just want to only show it to very young children. 8 and younger. Some of the plots are too fictional and could hardly take place in the real world.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.<br /><br />It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.<br /><br />I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......
|
Negative
| null | null |
After Chaplin made one of his best films: Dough & Dynamite, he made one of his worst: Gentlemen Of Nerve. During this first year in films, Chaplin made about a third of all his films. Many of them were experimental in terms of ad-libbing, editing, gags, location shooting, etc. This one takes place at a racetrack where Chaplin and his friend try to get in without paying. Mabel Normand is there with her friend also, and Chaplin manages to rid himself of both his and Mabel's friends. He then woos Mabel in the grandstand with no apparent repercussions from his behavior. Lots of slapstick in here, but there is very little else to recommend this film for other then watching Chaplin develop. The print I saw was badly deteriorated, which may have affected its enjoyment. Charley Chase can be glimpsed. * of 4 stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen some crappy movies in my life, but this one must be among the very worst. Definately bottom 100 material (imo, that is).<br /><br />We follow two couples, the Dodds (Billy Bob Thornton as Lonnie Earl and Natasha Richardson as Darlene) and the Kirkendalls (Patrick Swayze as Roy and Charlize Theron as Candy) in one car on a roadtrip to Reno.<br /><br />Apparently, Lonnie isn't too happy with his sex-life, so he cheats on his wife with Candy, who's despirately trying to have a baby. Roy, meanwhile, isn't too sure if his sperm is OK so he's getting it checked by a doctor.<br /><br />Now, I had read the back of the DVD, but my girlfriend didn't, and she blurted out after about 20 minutes: 'oh yeah, she's gonna end up pregnant but her husband can't have any baby's'. Spot on, as this movie is soooo predictable. As well as boring. And annoying. Meaningless. Offensive. Terrible.<br /><br />An example of how much this movie stinks. The two couples set out in their big car towards Nevada, when they are stopped by 2 police-officers, as they didn't stop at a stop-sign. The guys know each other and finally bribe the two officers with a case of beer. Not only is this scene pointless and not important (or even relevant) for the movie, it takes about 5 minutes! It's just talk and talk and talk, without ever going somewhere.<br /><br />I still have to puke thinking about the ending though. Apparently, Roy ISN'T having problems down there so he IS the father of the child. How many times does that happen in the movies... try something new! The cheated wife ultimately forgives her husband and best friend for having the affair and they all live happily ever after. Yuck.<br /><br />Best scene of the movie is right at the end, with a couple of shots of the Grand Canyon. Why couldn't they just keep the camera on that for 90 minutes?<br /><br />One would expect more from this cast (although Thornton really tries), but you can't really blame them. Writers, shame on you!<br /><br />1/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maria Bello doesn't seem to care what people think of her choices in movie roles. Again she chooses a very difficult and not popular movie to star in. Maybe she needs those movies, to get off the sugar coated (aka "Hollywood") ones she does here and then (Coyote Ugly and of course Mummy 3).<br /><br />While I think fails to achieve what it sets out to do (I won't spoil that), Maria Bello is as great as in her other independent/small movies she stars in. It's her performance that elevates this movie. This combined with the strange subject matter almost did the trick for me. But in the end (and even if I try to overlook some flaws, like bad pacing and dramaturgy), the movie is still too long
|
Negative
| null | null |
How do you spell washed up fat Italian who can barely pull off a martial arts move without needing some heart medication? In this movie we see Steven Seagal at his lowest level of accomplishment- since his career started it has been a steady decline into pathetic over indulgent behavior that has scuttled his career. In this movie it looks like most of his training consisted of ordering the fetuccini alfredo at his restaurant every day.<br /><br />He is fat, slow and very old looking in this movie, hardly a martial arts action hero, more like a laughing stock clown.<br /><br />It's time for Steven Seagal to retire- this movie is about 2 hours of reasons why.<br /><br />Plot: fat Italian guy with a big reputation on the force gets wind that a crime group may be playing around with a drug designed by the military to create the ultimate warrior response. This pretense, although pathetic and laughable, gives opportunity for some over the top fight scenes that include blasting through walls like a comic book.<br /><br />Did I mention this movie totally sucks and Steven Seagal is a complete joke? yeah. I did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this because I thought there were going to be a lot of car chases and cool cars to gawk at. Guess I was lied to. This movie is very boring.<br /><br />The movie starts out Kip Raines(Giovanni Ribisi) sitting outside a Porsche dealership checking to see if they have the right car. When they confirm it's the right one, Kip gets a brick out of the trunk and chucks it at the window, shattering it. He gets the Porsche while his friend gets the keys. They start up the car and take off into the night. They deliver it to a warehouse only to have been followed by the police. So, the whole crew ditches all the cars and go their separate ways. Then, we get a glimpse of Memphis Raines. He is giving a little speech to a bunch of kids at a go-kart track. Then, he is confronted by Atlee Jackson(Will Patton). Atlee tells Memphis that his brother Kip is in deep *bleep*. Memphis is known as one of the most notorious car thieves in Los Angeles. Memphis heads to a junkyard and meets Raymond Calitri(Christopher Ecclesten). This guy threatens to kill Kip if Memphis doesn't deliver 50 cars within 72 hours.<br /><br />There are a few problems with this film: <br /><br />1.Story: The first 48 in-movie hours take place when Cage and Duvall are looking for a crew and planning everything out. The last 12 in-movie hours are a waste! <br /><br />2. The Cars: You see maybe 10 cars out of the 50 as the movie advertises. So, where are the other 40 cars? Why don't we get to see them? <br /><br />3. The Chase: The chase at the end of the movie was a joke. It was not suspenseful at all.<br /><br />4. The Dog: Somewhere in the movie, the dog eats the burgers and swallows three keys as well. This is impossible. The keys were flipped open. The keys would have severely damaged the dog's esophagus, stomach, and large intestines. The guys suggest giving the dog laxatives to help him poop it out. This won't work. The dog will get a lot of diarrhea but no keys. It was stated in Jackass after Ryan Dunne stuck a toy car up his rectum. Take laxatives, lots of diarrhea, but no car. Same case with the dog.<br /><br />5. The Cop During The Chase: When Eleanor breaks down for a few minutes, Nicholas Cage tries desperately to start up the car. You see a police cruiser behind him who isn't looking at his car at all. But, right when Nicholas Cage starts the engine up again, the police officer jerks his head to the right, sees the car, and immediately begins to chase after him. It is stupid. So, right when he heard the engine start, and saw the car, he knew that was the car he was looking for. How does he know it's the right car? He only sees the back of it.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is boring. There is no action. There are very few cars. The movie is stupid. I have never seen the original but I plan to.<br /><br />I give this movie 1 star out of 10. Get The Fast and Furious instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I figured that any horror film with Orson Welles in it would be weird. Necromancy sure was but it was a little too weird for it's own good. The film does indeed have a creepy feel as it deals with a coven of satanists/witches in a small town and a young woman's attempt to escape them. The director though seems to be deliberately trying to confuse the audience by using flashbacks and dream sequences. By the finale, there are too many unanswered questions. What's worse, as the story is so confusing, it's pretty hard to root for any of the characters. It seems odd that Welles would agree to headline this film especially since he doesn't have that much to do. Maybe someday they will put out a tape of the outtakes and bloopers from this movie. Now that would really be fun!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.<br /><br />If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's "Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key."
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pretty standard B-movie stuff. Seriously, anyone who watches "Dragon Fighter" with Dean Cain and a bunch of people making their first movie should know better than to expect real quality or even moderate intelligence. B movies exist to re-work formulas that are popular. If you give them even token analysis, you'll wind up ruining the movie for yourself (and perhaps writing some self-important, slanderous review on IMDb).<br /><br />I liked the female lead, Kristine Byers. She had charisma and I thought she was notably attractive. It was a memorable B-movie appearance. Unfortunately, I don't see where she has made any movies since. I'll watch for her again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Magnolia presents itself as a wall to wall canvas of screaming, shrieking, overwrought, hysterical twits who are all bedeviled by regret, guilt and pain. PT Anderson is certainly a gifted filmmaker but perhaps he should leave the writing to someone else or at least find someone with the balls to tell him he needed to edit this overlong mess.<br /><br />A look at the cast will tell you that the performances were excellent, and they were. I just wish that every scene didn't involve an over the top shouting match or long digression into the sins that have been committed and the pain that they have caused.<br /><br />I also think that Anderson fails miserably to create a story that parallels the bizarre tableaus that open the film. The opening sequences are wonderful in showing how fate can bring together people and circumstances that even the most optimistic believer in a cosmic puppeteer pulling our strings would scoff at. But the story that then develops lacks any of the stuff that these opening fables display. I kept waiting for some form of cosmic convergence to display itself, but instead all we get is waves of regret from morally challenged characters who see their past spread out before them and now seek absolution. Throw in an out of left field biblical plague near the end and all you end up with is a cadre of Anderson devotees who will marvel at his genius when all it really proves is that he has actually read the Old Testament.<br /><br />I will say that the music by Aimee Mann was great and I'll be looking for the Soundtrack CD. In short, a good movie to look at and listen to (the music, that is) if the actors would have shut up or toned it down it may have been
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is something in most of us, especially guys, that admires some really working class small town "real men" populist fare. And Sean Penn serves it up for us with a cherry on top. Hey, A lot of people use Penn as a political whipping boy, but I don't rate movies or actor/directors based on politics or personality. That is what right wing commentators like excretable faux movie reviewer Debbie Schlussel does. While acknowledging he is one of our best actors and a good director, I think this picture was a simplistic piece of aimless dreck that he has atoned for since. <br /><br />Okay, you have the gist of this there is this good cop, a small town trooper, Joe, played against type by David Morse, who in the opening scene chases some guy on a country farm road in big sixties cars. The bad guy stops, gets out, shoots at him so Joe has to blast him dead. There was no explanation what drove this man to do such a desperate violent thing and the dead man's parents do some redneck freak out at the police station while Joe feels real sad and guilty that he had to kill someone. So we know that Joe, the farmer forced off his land into a cop job, is a good basic sort of guy. Then his brother Frank shows up, he is a sadistic, amoral bully, fresh out of the Army and Nam where the war got his blood lust up. Some people here and in other reviews called him just an irresponsible hell raising younger brother and Sean was trying to make some point about what our John Wayne tough guy culture and war does to otherwise good people but what I saw was an amoral, sadistic bully who enjoys hurting and ripping people off. Then there is mom and dad, Marsha Mason and Charles Bronson, who do the requisite turn as old fashioned country couple, then die off; she by illness and he by shotgun suicide, to advance the story for us. Both times Frank the bad guy is away being a miserable SOB. But good Joe brings him back to Podunksville from jail so Frank can straighten his life out by welding bridges and living with his utterly stupid screaming trashy pregnant wife. But Joe has a nice wife, played by Italian actress Valeria Golina, who is Mexican and Sean uses this as an exercise in some affirmative action embellishment of goody Joe and his real soulfulness underneath his uniform and crew cut. For me, that was an utterly pointless affirmative action subplot that Sean uses to burnish his tough guy creds by sucking up to Mexicans because Mexicans are so tough and cool.<br /><br />But Frank is bad and we get the requisite events like stealing friend's car, robbing gas station by beating the clerk over the head then torching the car and all those cool things that hell raisers do. Then there are the mandatory 8mm film childhood flashbacks of young Joey dutifully moving the lawn and cowboy dressed Franky jumping on his back and wrestling him and yadda yadda so we all know what deep bond there is between the two of them.<br /><br />So the film meanders around with a lot of small town schlock to warm the heart of any red stater. Accompanying the film was a great soundtrack of good sixties songs like Jefferson Airplane and Janis Joplin which were totally inappropriate, except for the 60's era effect, to win the hearts of old hippies. The worst offense is that, since the movie was inspired by a Springsteen song, "The Highway Patrolman", that song was not included. <br /><br />So Joe's brain dead wife goes into labor and Joe runs off to the bar to get loaded and spout some populists drunken victim's spiel about how tough things are while good Joey comes to drag him back to his wife. The bartender is good Ole Ceasar, played by Dennis Hopper. So Viggo - Frank whigs out for no particular reason and beats his pal Ceasar to death after good Joe the Cop leaves.<br /><br />So Joe has chase his bad brother down and I was so hoping that he would do the right thing and blow that menace to society away. Instead we get a scene where his brother stops ahead of him in some old 50's junker on some lonely road at night, and little Franky in his cowboy suit and cap guns gets out of the car to face good Joe, the kid from the 8mm flashback home movie sequence. Oy, such dreck! Then to top off this drecky sap fest, there is some Zen crap about the Indian runner, who is a messenger, becomes the message, ala Marshall MacLuhen? See what I mean, Sean has done much better than this so don't be afraid to miss this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Movie had some good acting and good moments (though obviously pretty low budget), but bad rating due to basic premise being badly developed. The main point of conflict between the two leads doesn't play out in a realistic manner at all. There are a few scenes where they disagree because of it, but no discussions of any great depth that would explain how they can be together while seeing the world so differently, especially since the employment of Glenn is so wound up in this part of his life (and Adam is active enough with his that he supports it with time and money.) Also, several times Glenn is portrayed negatively for being the way he is (apologizing to Adam for his past) while Adam is shown to be upstanding and "traditional," which the film proclaims to be the "good" way in the end. I don't like being preached to like that. I attended a discussion session with the director after viewing LTR, and he said that he presented this conflict between them because, if he was in Glenn's shoes (and he said he does in real life relate to Glenn's view) that he could never date someone with Adam's views. Well, then, I think he should have done a much better job explaining how Glenn could do it in the film. Also, director said he directed this, his first movie, only after reading (Directing For Dummies.) Directing was not that bad, but far from a top notch effort. I've seen worse, but I rarely leave films feeling this frustrated.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It must be the most corniest TV show on the air. This is probably a escape for Jim Belushi and all of his bad movies. His brother sucked all the talent out he younger brother. I hope this show is canceled and never spoken of again except in a negative use. Jim has got to retire or something. Please let them go of the air. If i here a joke from that show i will throw up and and wash my eyes out with a toothbrush. Id rather be taken from the devil himself than watch a full half hour that piece of programing. I still do not understand why the show is still in the air and running. We all know deep down that we want to shoot our TV screens when we see Jim's face. In conclusion, no more please.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all my heartfelt commiserations to anyone who bought a cinema ticket in the hope of seeing a film in the same mould as the fantastic Gregory's Girl and Local Hero but ended up leaving the theatre feeling disappointed and vaguely cheated. While it's true that sequels are usually, bar a few notable exceptions, a mistake and exist merely to provide studio executives with an opportunity to cash in on the success of a previous film by offering us either a thinly disguised retread of the original story or a plot line so far removed from the intentions of the original that the resulting film makes no sense. In the case of Gregory's Two Girls, Bill Forsyth has the dubious honour of managing to commit both sins - on the one hand revisiting the plot of Gregory's Girl, while at the same time serving up a frankly incredible and moronic storyline involving Scottish arms dealers. Schoolboy Gregory is now a teacher at the same school where at the tender age of sixteen, he harboured a hopeless passion for the football playing Dorothy. Although now thirty five, Gregory still harbours a hopeless passion but now for the football playing Frances, also sixteen, despite the fact that music teacher, Bel has made it clear that she is attracted to him. His passion for Frances and his desire to impress her lead to his involvement in a scheme to expose a local arms dealer who also happens to be an old schoolfriend. There's no point in going any further as the rest of the story is forgettable and the ending makes no real sense at all. The main problem lies with the character of Gregory himself, in that there is no sign of the endearing and charming sixteen year old Gregory who actively and comically pursues Dorothy convinced that he would eventually win her over. At thirty five, Gregory is presented to us as a rather sad and friendless creature whose life is neither active nor comic. Outside of work his time is spent watching videos of Noam Chomsky and reading magazines about international injustices. As his friends and family from the previous film have seemingly vanished, save two pointless scenes with his younger sister, who no longer offers him advice or seems at all interested in his life, we are left confused about what it is Gregory really wants, who he is and why he is the way he is. Why for example is he friendless? Why does he never see his father, who is clearly still alive? Why has he returned to teach at the school he once attended? Why is he so interested in Noam Chomsky and injustice? Why has he become so apathetic? Why is he attracted to Frances? Why isn't he attracted to Bel until the last twenty minutes of the film? What in heaven's name do Bel or Frances see in him as he is neither drop dead gorgeous or even interesting? Why does he continue to try and impress Frances even after he and Bel have become an item and when their association threatens to completely disrupt his life? Are we really to believe that a Scottish arms dealer openly selling weapons of torture to oppressive regimes could manage to evade media scrutiny but fall foul of a couple of school-kids? Does Gregory really think that dumping a handful of computers into the sea will change anything? To make matters worse, actor John Gordon Sinclair attempts to rehash his performance as the adolescent Gregory right down to the facial expressions and awkward body language. Unfortunately on a thirty five year old it just comes across as odd and vaguely creepy. On top of that, it's hard to feel any sympathy for, or empathy with a teacher who has erotic dreams involving sex with one of their uniform wearing pupils while they both lie on a pile of gym mats. Rather than being amusing it simply smacks of paedophilia. It's hard to know what was going through Bill Forsyth's head when he wrote this script or why he thought fans of the original film would embrace a story so completely lacking in the charm, wit and warmth that turned the first movie into a classic. I can only assume that the plan was to craft a film about a man who was refusing to grow up and commit to adult life and perhaps whose happiest memory was of being sixteen and pursuing the best looking girl in the school but who by degrees is forced to accept that a life lived in the past is no life at all.That at least could have been the basis of a film which was thematically interesting and intelligent. As it is Gregory's Two Girls adds up 116 wasted and pointless minutes saying nothing and signifying even less. Gregory's Girl was responsible for launching Bill Forsyth's career, here's hoping that Gregory's Two Girls won't be responsible for sinking it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.<br /><br />I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.<br /><br />The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Imagine, its, say 12-1am - your at home, your bored, your not tired. This scenario occurred about, say 4 or so years back..I turned on the TV and flicked over a few channels and found that this film was on. OH MY WORD this is the worst film I have ever seen! A runaway car that cant be stopped (cos the brakes have been cut or something) in caning it down the freeway - whats gonna happen?! This film was so bad its actually funny - I think the stunts cost about $2 to make, there was one instance where a baby/small child is being winched from the car by a helicopter - in an attempt to excite the viewer - a conveniently placed bridge is nearing ahead...THIS IS THE BEST BAD BIT OF A FILM EVER - it shows the child narrowly missing the bridge but it looks so bad - you can almost see the make of the dummy that they used - total low budget classic! Cant remember the end of the film, though but I bet it was GREAT<br /><br />I doubt they will ever show this film again so I'm glad I got to see this piece of trash!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this movie on DVD. I knew that the movie wouldn't live up to what it promised me on the back of the case, but once I saw that Leatherface (Gunnar Hansen) was in it, I had to rent it. It starts off pretty good, with the premise being that snuff films are being aired over cable. However, the main character has nothing about her to make you feel sorry for her whatsoever, and the end of the movie really leaves you hanging. There are way too many unanswered questions. There was a great scene at the end that totally took me by surprise, but overall this is a very sub par movie, but I guess it was worth the $ 3.99 rental fee.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Way back when I was renting videos for free I picked this one up. OOPS The things I wanted to mention outside the summary already given were these. 1: Someone who had a lot to do with making this movie had a strange and sick fascination for food, it was gross and unecessary. 2: There is some kind of a soundtrack in the background of the film that seems to be there the entire time and by the way I felt for days after viewing this trash I figure they had something subliminal going on in the track. Either that or it was just traumatisingly bad or both. Many times throughout the movie you can tell the writer and director did not have much experience or talent. And don't even ask about the acting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I grew up on the 'Superman II' theatrical version ("S2T") and as a kid, I loved it more than Part I since not only did it contain more Superman and three Superman-type villains, it started off with a bang the best Clark Kent to Superman transformations and rescue scenes. Kids no longer had to impatiently wait for Superman to appear on screen, as in part I. Now as an adult, I can see how the mighty had fallen with S2T (See: my review.) I've always heard of the back-story on how they prematurely and unjustifiably fired the original's director, Richard Donner from part II. (It must have been a rarity back then to film two separate movies simultaneously, now it's common: 'Back to the Future' and 'Matrix' 2 & 3 for example.) Unfortunately, after finally seeing the Richard Donner Cut (or, "S2RD") I still can't fully recommend it. Gone, was the great Superman change scene, the entire Paris rescue, as was the wonderful recap of part I in S2T's opening. In fact, they all but wrote the words: "Previously on Superman
" in S2RD. The special effects weren't great in either Part I or S2T , but S2RD, they were mostly downright laughable such as Lois falling from the Daily Planet window. I will admit, some new scenes worked and some they took out were welcomed departures, such as any scene in the "honeymoon suite." Overall, if you grew up on S2T as I did, and loved it as a child not nitpicking as I do as an adult, you should absolutely see S2RD as it's almost a brand new childhood experience with dozens of new scenes. (Spoiler alert) Unfortunately, the worst change comes last: gone was also the weird amnesia kiss from S2T replaced with the exact same ending as 'I.' This is not only a lazy, unoriginal copout, it doesn't make sense on why Clark would go back to that diner, if those events never actually happened. And will he continue to "turn back time" for every confrontation?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. <br /><br />For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. <br /><br />- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. <br /><br />- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. <br /><br />- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. <br /><br />- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. <br /><br />- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. <br /><br />- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?<br /><br />There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.<br /><br />Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.<br /><br />Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?<br /><br />If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians" is usually cited as one of the worse films ever made, this Mexican-made film from 1959 is so bad it makes "SCCM" look like "It's a Wonderful Life." You have to wonder what the people who made this film were thinking; perhaps they meant it as a third-world allegory about capitalist greed and conspicuous consumption. Nah . . . They just weren't very good. The same production company made an even more disturbing version of "Little Red Riding Hood" in which the wolf's obsession with our heroine has unmistakable hints of pedophilia. (Perhaps this was the inspiration for "Freeway.") Back to "Santa Claus": instead of the North Pole, Jolly Old Saint Nicholas resides in a satellite in geosynchronous earth orbit (shades of "MST3K"); instead of elves his toys are made by children chosen from around the world; and he had sophisticated spy equipment to check just which kids are naughty and nice. The result is like an Orwellian outer space sweat shop. It's enough to turn you off Christmas forever. This and other low-rent Mexican children's' films were dubbed in English and widely distributed in the U.S. in the early 1960s; no wonder the sixties became such a turbulent period in American history. The baby boomers who were forced to endure these "family" films as children would be all too eager to turn revolutionary.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Almost from the word go this film is poor and lacking conviction but then again most people would struggle to show commitment to a script as uninspiring as this. The dialogue really does not flow and sometimes as in this case more is less (or should have been). This is also backed-up by odd scenes (e.g. the Cemetry slow-motion walk) that you think might lead somewhere but only seem to waste a few more seconds of your life.<br /><br />The plot is a strange combination of gangster / situation comedy which I am sure seemed a good idea at the time but if ever there was a case for someone needing to be honest with the scriptwriter then here was it.<br /><br />Martin Freeman is okay but then he seems to have one character which always plays so I am beginning to wonder if he was given a script or just filmed and told to react as normal.<br /><br />Finally - humour. This reminds me of the 'Python (I think) quote about Shakespere, of his 'comedies' - If he had meant it to be humorous he would have put a joke in it. Well I didn't see one.<br /><br />Don't waste your time - I did because I was watching it with a friend and kept hoping that it was going to get better.<br /><br />It didn't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I was seventeen I genuinely believed Elvis to be the king of rock and roll, and not only did I wish to see all 31 of his "character" movies, but it was my ambition to own them, too. What an exceptionally poor excuse for a seventeen-year-old I must have been. Thankfully sense prevailed and Live A Little, Love A Little is the only Elvis film I own.<br /><br />The spotlight has fallen on this one recently since a remixed version of top song A Little Less Conversation has been released as a single. (His first to reach the UK top ten in 22 years his first UK No.1 in 25) Even when I was seventeen and in serious need of psychiatric help I realised that the songs for this movie weren't exactly first rate. However, A Little Less Conversation - rollnecks and 60s grooving aside - is a real standout. Finding a lesser-known song that only a relatively small few are aware of promoted into the mainstream produces a mixture of emotions. It's nice to finally see faith in a song vindicated, but it's also saddening to see the disintegration of your own private cult. (And what chauvinistic lyrics, too. Though what other Elvis song contains the word "procrastinate"?)<br /><br />But what really bothers me about this film is not A Little Less Conversation but the 84 minutes that surround it. Actually based on a novel (Kiss My Firm But Pliant Lips - what kind of lame novel would that be?) this one sees a bored Elvis holed up with a "comedy" dog and a nympho. Within 90 seconds of meeting him, Michele Carey asks "would you like to make love to me?" Quite a fast mover by any standards I'm sure you'll agree.<br /><br />I do seem to recall that some of Elvis's early movies - most notably Jailhouse Rock and King Creole - weren't too bad, but this is just identikit hillbilly cobblers. Being fired from a newspaper job can lead to a five minute karate fight with a couple of gingernuts, causing a motorway pile up is good for a laugh, and models dress as pink mermaids. There's even a dream sequence for God's sake. Maybe the only dumb stereotype it doesn't conform to is in not having all that many songs. With just four to choose from, including the credits number, you're waiting an average of 22 minutes between tracks. Some movies would become vapid by having too many tunes, but here they might have helped to have numbed the pain. Of the remaining three tracks, then The Edge of Reality isn't actually that bad, though Elvis's dance to it must surely have been called "The Bear Trap".<br /><br />In one sense, for a PG certificate film from 1968 then this is shockingly high on sexual content. Sadly, however, with talking dogs, Middle America sitcom values and the stiffest dancing you'll ever see, Elvis's dignity is obliterated by this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a horrible film! I gave it 2 Points, one for Angelina Jolie and a second one for the beautiful Porsche in the beginning... Other than that the story just plain sucked and cars racing through cities wasn't so new in 1970. The Happyend was probably what annoyed me the most, seldomly seen anything so constructed!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Think of a no-budget version of China Syndrome being directed by a film student who idolizes John Woo and you'll get 'Power Play.' The idea was good, but the execution, acting, and dialog absolutely killed it, not to mention ridiculous amounts of violence and disaster sequences that was used to compensate for lack of substance and development of the more interesting parts of the movie.<br /><br />This is the story of a reporter investigating the disappearance of three members of a guerrilla activist group who mysteriously went missing after they broke into the offices of a power plant that is suspected to be causing a frenzy of earthquake. The rather cavalier reporter, going up against what should've been a more ruthless bunch of company execs, is chased around town (along with anyone he speaks to) in order to "clean" whatever conclusive evidence might remain of the plant's faults.<br /><br />Unfortunately, there is no real sense of emergency because the characters interact with much hesitancy, coupled with idiotic dialog and a lot of horrible acting. Not to mention, the viewer, who may only be attracted to the movie for it's action genre appeal, is forced to endure a mounting body count and ridiculous amounts of violent shoot em-ups plus earthquake disaster scenes. All of the focus was put in the wrong place to apologetically compensate for the lack of direction and more interesting sequence of events that should've propelled the story. It might've been much better had the filmmakers focused more on a thriller, and paid greater attention to developing the corruption aspects of this story. Creepy villains, a naive reporter, and those who attempt to alert the reporter of the wrong-doing afoot. It is formulaic, but at least it would've been entertaining.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one seriously disturbed movie. Even Though the boys deserved some of what they got.....the sadistic gruesome executions were "slightly" over the top. The only character showing some conscience early in the hunt was killed off before he could offer some help to the sad plot.<br /><br />At the beginning of the movie, there looked to be some promise of a mediocre affair, but this was just a ploy to lull the viewers into a false sense of security, before the joy of what was to come. <br /><br />The only thing that could have saved the movie for me was if Jack Nicholson had jumped out of the bushes and yelled, "and, where is the batman?". Kim Basinger could have screamed. <br /><br />Now that would have been cool!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll keep the review of this program as short as possible. Skip it. Low budget, not funny, lousy script. Acting not quite as bad as the writing, but still bad. That's all you need to know, but I will continue for the sake of writing more than necessary.<br /><br />This is a film with three segments, each one parodying some other type of movie. A MUCH funnier film with this same exact idea is "Movie Movie," with George C. Scott. Very obscure, but worth searching out. MM parodied films of the 1930's, and did it with elegance, precision and dry wit.<br /><br />This movie did not. It parodies three types of films, supposedly from the late 70's, early 80's era, only it is parodying films I've (almost) never heard of. The first is, I guess, a parody of "Kramer Vs. Kramer," in a way. Peter Reigert does his best with a dirt poor script. The second is a parody, of, I don't know what...a Danielle Steele novel? I mean, you might see a story like this on Lifetime TV, but in a movie theater? I mean, I remember the 70's, I was there. This is a soap-opera type parody about a fetching young woman who sleeps her way to power. These type of things usually parody themselves, so I don't see how this was even necessary.<br /><br />We are on somewhat easier ground with the third segment, "The Municipalians," which parodies cop movies. I noted elements of "The New Centurians" and some "Dirty Harry", both of which were almost 10 years old when the film was created. Yeah, nice and current. Robby Benson plays the idealistic young rookie (over-the-top wimpy) while Richard Widmark plays the grizzled veteran cop who drinks whiskey while sitting in the police car (OH! Stop! My sides! He's actually drinking booze in the Police car! How irreverent!) Note that this was the first film after "Animal House" to have the "National Lampoon" name attached. Wow. To go in five years from that classic flick to this pile of dung is nothing short of shocking. I could go on for hours about the sad decline that caused one of the most cutting-edge and original voices in American humor (that would be National Lampoon, the original magazine for about its first 10 years or so) to sell out and begin a long, slow slide into a world of crap, where now the magazine is long gone and it only exists as a brand name to slap on low-budget "comedy" films for a fee. Yet another reason why capitalism (and cocaine) sucks so bad.<br /><br />Anyway, this movie is a serious time suck. Don't waste your 90 minutes. I want mine back. On the positive side, Fred Willard's in it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Something I really love about this woman's short films was the elusiveness of theme -- especially in "Living with Happiness." This film has some nice beginnings -- unusual location and the potential for a strange cinematic treatment, but fails to succeed with clunky expositional dialogue, patchy performances and very television coverage.<br /><br />It's once again charming television and very ordinary cinema. The ideas are so fleshed out that they almost feel pat like a television commercial. But the sentiment is good so we can't complain too much.<br /><br />I really would love to see this director make a full length animation and try and work with a producer who doesn't demand so much boring clarity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had numerous problems with this film.<br /><br />It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.<br /><br />The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.<br /><br />It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.<br /><br />Avoid this film.<br /><br />Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am 17, and I still like most of the Scooby Doo movies and the old episodes. I love the 1990s movies, and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to DVD Scooby Doo outings of this decade, Scooby Doo and the Goblin King, which I wasn't expecting to be as good as it was. Anyway, back to Get a Clue! I watched some episodes, expecting something very good, but from what I saw of it, I wasn't impressed at all. First of all, I hated the animation. It was flat, deflated and very Saturday- morning -cartoon -standard, easily the worst aspect of the series. Even some shows I really hate had slightly better animation. Even worse, Shaggy and Scooby looked like aliens, and I really missed Fred, Velma and Daphne, as they added a lot to the old episodes, when Scooby Doo was positively good. I also hated the character changes, because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries, Shaggy and Scooby were now playing superhero, something they would've never had done in the movies or in the Scooby-Doo Where Are You? show. The theme tune wasn't very good either, I can't even remember it, and the jokes were lame and contrived. Though, I do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast, had they had better material, and hadn't been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible, which they did, might I add. In conclusion, I personally thought it was awful, and I am not trying to discredit it, it's what I personally feel. 1/10 Bethany Cox
|
Negative
| null | null |
I normally only write reviews for movies I really hated or really liked. And, as you can probably tell from the number of stars up there, I didn't like it. By now, I assume you have read about the plot or maybe even seen the movie, so I'll skip the summary. Let's break this down, pros and cons:<br /><br />Cons: The concept: The premise was set up to be interesting. Using Chaos theory as a theme was interesting. However, it wasn't carried out so well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that Chaos theory was kind of misrepresented. The event that occurred in the movie seemed more like contrived coincidence than anything. I guess the Butterfly effect was represented by the whole "God(s) causes Tsunami to bring back statue." The presentation comes off as really sloppy though. Some people call this intelligent, but it just seems to be another souped up action film.<br /><br />Storyline: Is it just me, or does it seem that Kamal just threw this together to give him an excuse to play ten roles? The plot is extremely contrived; Govind kept losing the vial so many times in obscure accidents (his friend just happens to mix up the vial with a package he was sending to India, a crazy old lady just happens to throw the vial into an idol, half the cast just happens to unexpectedly meet up in the same hospital, and the case with the idol just happened to get mixed up with one that belonged to a famous singer.)<br /><br />CGI: Oh god, the CGI. It was even worse than the special effects in Jaws 3, and those sucked. Right away, I could tell which parts were animated. Even my ten-year-old cousin knows that underwater cars don't look like that. <br /><br />Stunts: Yes, I now that action scenes in Tamil movies aren't realistic, but the stunts in this one were horrid and actually distracted me from the story.<br /><br />Make up: I have to admit, they did a better job than expected. I thought Kamal would be playing people with similar skin tones, so the two fake white guys and the fake Japanese Aikido guy caught me off guard. However, it was still pretty bad, I could easily tell which ones were wearing masks.<br /><br />The songs: The music was distracting and out-of-place in many instances.<br /><br />Asin: Her character was possibly the most annoying one in the movie. She was loud, ditsy, and obsessed irrationally about that idol. I actually found myself wishing she would die.<br /><br />Plot holes and Fridge Logic: Let me get this straight: a lab monkey was smart enough to get past a password-locked door, but not intelligent enough to tell the difference between a bar of chocolate and a vial with a deadly virus in it. And then, an ex-CIA agent who's after the vial figures out it's headed for India. Instead of immediately following it, he marries a pole dancer first. A famous Punjabi singer with cancer checks into a small town hospital in the third world when he could easily afford the best medical treatment available. Furthermore, he gets shot in the throat with a bullet. You'd think he would be killed, but instead, the magic bullet has cleared his tumor. You read that right, a BULLET knocked out the tumor. <br /><br />Pros... The Naidu Character: Possibly the only likable part of the movie was his comedy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some guy gets whacked. Right out in plain sight this other guy shoots him. He's got some bodyguards and they whack the killer, but a reporter gets interested. She goes to the hospital where they took the guy who got whacked. She walks in, and corners one bodyguard, but he doesn't feel like talking. I can't figure out why. It's not like anyone else is interested. She's the only reporter there. Anyway, her editor discourages her from working on this lame story. But hey, she does anyway. She goes to see the killer's sister & mom. A few minutes after she leaves they get whacked big time-- somebody blows up their trailer-- huge ball of fire. Then she searches out the bodyguard from the hospital. She finds him hungover on his boat, but a minute later they're both underwater sucking on a scuba tank 'cause three guys are trying to whack them (and have blown up the boat big time-- huge ball of fire). The reporter and the bodyguard whack two of the guys who are trying to whack them. <br /><br />In the course of the next hour another guy gets whacked crossing the street, there's a shootout with several stiffs in a warehouse, some car chases with wreckage & death, a fake suicide, etc. etc. Lotsa stiffs, all kindsa carnage. <br /><br />Great stuff, but what the reporter and the bodyguard can't figure is: why in hell the original guy got whacked. What's the motivation? Of course, it might help us to figure out why the reporter's even interested. Through almost all of this she's the only reporter on the story. Nobody else in the media cares. Not even with all the big fireballs and dead bodies. True, the original guy who got whacked wasn't exactly a celebrity. His job was a little bit dull. He was just the President. Yeah, the one who lives in the White House. Oh, and the bodyguard is a Secret Service agent.<br /><br />Is that the spoiler?<br /><br />It should be. After all there are no TV cameras, no other print reporters, no bloggers... just another one of those police blotter crimes...<br /><br />So what's the spoiler?<br /><br />Lemme think...<br /><br />No! Wait! The spoiler is that his wife did it! Yeah... the First Lady. She was p---ed because the President was fooling around. And she gets away with it. She's really sharp, huh? But how the hell could anybody ever figure that out? Why would anyone bother? After all, only one reporter is even interested. <br /><br />I give this move a "1". It was so dumb I just had to keep watching. And it only got dumber! That's the real spoiler! But even though I've told you, you've got to see it to believe it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.<br /><br />Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.<br /><br />Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have begun to melt so I will make this review as short and sweet as possible.<br /><br />There's this astronaut, and he goes up in a spacecraft with two other guys, ya know? Except something happens that exposes him to radiation, and then when they come back...well, never mind what happened to the other guys, but our astronaut has begun to melt! No, not just burn up, but MELT! Like an ice cream cone in July! Well OK maybe not that fast, but ya know what I mean.<br /><br />Anyway, he gets all red & gooey, and the fact that he's melting makes him really mad. I guess he also checked out the "melting man" handbook because suddenly he knows that in order to keep from totally melting away, he has to eat human flesh, so he starts ripping people apart.<br /><br />There are other characters, but in a movie where a man melts and melts and melts (and melts), do you really need any others? What's important is WHO will he munch next, and WHAT will be left of them? HOW long will it take for him to just melt away to nothing? WHY was this movie made in the first place? WHERE did they get the money? WHEN will you fall asleep while watching it?<br /><br />I've very nearly melted, but I still have enough time left to tell you that this movie is dreadfully boring, even though the idea is really cool and kind of gross. The makeup is neat but everything else is...SPLAT
|
Negative
| null | null |
So 'Thinner'... Yep.. This Steven Bachman (read Steven King) yarn about a man who gets his just desserts from a Gypsy Elder who he just killed, The story itself is there, no doubt about it, but I don't know why I didn't enjoy it more than I could have. I guess what really distracted me was the actors. I mean, who's the lead? Robert John Burke? Who's he? And fer crying out loud, can someone please stop hiring Joseph Mantegna for every Italian Mafioso role there ever is? And while we're at it, does every Mafioso have to have a pasta cooking Italian mother? The only good acting job done here is under 10 pounds of makeup, Michael Constantine as the Gypsy elder. He's pretty good. But the rest, I make you all, "better actors..."
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Pandemonium" is a horror movie spoof that comes off more stupid than funny. Believe me when I tell you, I love comedies. Especially comedy spoofs. "Airplane", "The Naked Gun" trilogy, "Blazing Saddles", "High Anxiety", and "Spaceballs" are some of my favorite comedies that spoof a particular genre. "Pandemonium" is not up there with those films. Most of the scenes in this movie had me sitting there in stunned silence because the movie wasn't all that funny. There are a few laughs in the film, but when you watch a comedy, you expect to laugh a lot more than a few times and that's all this film has going for it. Geez, "Scream" had more laughs than this film and that was more of a horror film. How bizarre is that?<br /><br />*1/2 (out of four)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I grew up watching the original Disney Cinderella, and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn.<br /><br />Accordingly, I was excited to see that Cinderella 2 was coming on TV and I would be able to see it.<br /><br />I should have known better.<br /><br />This movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. It holds absolutely NONE of the originals super charm! It seems, to me, quite rough, and almost brutal, right from the (don't)Sing-a-longs to the characterization.<br /><br />While I remember the character's telling a story through a song, this film's soundtrack was laid over the top, and didn't seem to fit. Jaq's transformation into a human is a prime example: Where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there, he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall! And in the ballroom, there's old barn dance type country music. It's as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. The upbeat fiddles certainly didn't fit.<br /><br />Even the artwork and animation in Cinderella 2 isn't up to scratch with the original. The artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. And we see part of Cinderella's hoop skirt, which doesn't feel right.<br /><br />The movie itself could have been it's own story, I think that it should have been just that. I wouldn't say that I hate it, but I believe that it had many shortcomings. It seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved Cinderella original.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).<br /><br />Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).<br /><br />Well, as I said in my summary...<br /><br />What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.<br /><br />I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.<br /><br />I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.<br /><br />The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.<br /><br />Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.<br /><br />This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.<br /><br />I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen the original non-dubbed German version and I was surprised how bad this movie actually is. Thinking I had seen my share of bad movies like Ghoulies 2, Rabid Grannies, Zombie Lake and such, nothing could've prepared me for this! It really was a pain to sit through this flick, as there's no plot, no good acting and even the special effects aren't convincing, especially the so-called zombies, wearing nothing more than white make-up and their old clothes, so their good set wouldn't be ruined by ketchup and marmalade stains. <br /><br />If you really want to waste 90 minutes of your life, then watch it, for all the others, don't do it, because you WILL regret it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hello, can anybody hear me? I don't know why you came to this page, but if you're a fellow viewer of this movie: join the fanclub! This movie was so unbelievably bad I couldn't stop laughing when I saw it. I think it's a must see, it's bad in a nice way. Every cliche ever invented for a horror movie can be seen here. I'm afraid it's very hard to get a copy of this movie, but it should be in the top 10 of worst movies ever made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My brother is an avid DVD collector. He took one look at the cover (two models on toilets) and had to add it to his collection. I stayed up with him to watch what turned out to be likely the most cringeable movie (I use that term loosely) I've felt obligated to sit through. I dared not make eye contact with my brother, quite certain he must have been cursing the receipt in his clenched fist. The biggest name in the whole movie is Michael Clark Duncan who appears in one scene, which the "filmmaker" decided to show every take of (about four total) throughout the movie. In fact, the whole movie pretty much follows this suit. The fact that the DVD contained deleted footage was a shock. (I went to bed without viewing it, however). To no surprise at all, I found this disc without its case behind the TV about a week later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Expecting a combination of scifi and period film about Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage, the history of computers, etc, I was disappointed by this movies nonsensical pseudoscience and mixture of real and fabulous history. It gives the impression that its writer (Lynn Hershman-Leeson) has no real understanding of the Math, technology, or history constituting the film's subject, but is working instead from a sort of fuzzy artistic impression of them. This hits a sore spot with me, as I've long been irritated by the tendency of the arts to glom onto and awfully misuse science terms and ideas to the point of confusion, eg: Emmy Coer: "information waves have a half-life", Ada: "I'm not at all certain that half a life is better than no life at all".<br /><br />This movie does worse than fail to entertain - it misinforms. The only redeeming value I can imagine for it is that it might attract a viewer to learn about the subject it so badly distorts. It's more likely, I think, to promote a superstitious perception of science and technology of any degree of advancement as indistinguishable from magic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.<br /><br />The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).<br /><br />I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you have ever seen a movie by Brian Avenet-Bradley and compares it to the feedbacks it gets on IMDb, you know that most of the comments and votes are faked. TRUST ME: you will be bored! People of the production team write their feedback themselves (sometimes they even admit it). But that's not enough: They also click constantly "no" whenever there is a negative comment on the movie. That's why negative critics are always placed behind the hyped ones.<br /><br />The movie itself is bad, bad, bad: bad acting, bad lighting, bad script, bad ending. Believe me now! If not, you will believe me later!<br /><br />Brian Avenet-Bradley might be quite a good business man. Otherwise it cannot be explained that he finds people who still finance his movies. (Okay, they are cheap, but nevertheless.) But as a creative person, he is a complete failure.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I find it rather useless to comment on this "movie" for the simplest reason that it has nothing to comment upon.It's similar to a rotten egg which has nothing good to show to the world excerpt for the fact that it is rotten as other endless number of eggs have been before it. But since a comment is mandatory for such a grandiose insignificance ... <br /><br />Filth is definitely the proper word to describe this movie created in the same manner as any other Romanian "movie" directed by Lucian Pintilie who insists to depict the so called "Romanian reality" following the Communist era (1990 to present days).<br /><br />Under no circumstances recommended for people outside Romania as for the others (who lately find amateurish camera, lack of plot, lack of directorial / actors's quality etc, noise etc. as being trendy and even art-like) : watch & enjoy this "movie" (as I know you will) but do the other well intentioned IMDb members a favor, don't write an online review for it will misguide, irritate and in the end waste their time.<br /><br />On the other hand this movie (among others) has some value whatsoever, an educational one for it sets the example for : "How NOT to make a movie."
|
Negative
| null | null |
This video guide was the masterpiece of the year 1995. Beautifully done! Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston have major on-screen chemistry when they talk about what the Start button does. I'm waiting for Microsoft to release a Special Edition DVD complete with deleted scenes, Bill Gates commentary, a documentary of how Windows 95 compares to Windows XP, and more!<br /><br />Overall: 10/10 (Should have won at least a Golden Globe)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Randolph Scott is leaving the USA for the greener pastures of Canada's British Columbia. He wants to start a cattle ranch there with partner Bill Williams and cook Lee Tung Foo. They stampede their small herd over a toll bridge erected by Victor Jory. Later Jory rustles their cattle and Williams loses his left arm during the fracas.<br /><br />From 1945 until 1962 when he retired, Randolph Scott made a series of good adult themed westerns, some of them considered real classics. Unfortunately the Cariboo Trail will never be listed among his best westerns. <br /><br />It's more like the material that Roy Rogers or Gene Autry might use. The story is downright silly at times. Williams who was along for the ride with Scott, he wanted to go prospect for gold as there was a big strike at the time. He doesn't blame the rustlers, he blames Scott for convincing him to make the trip for the loss of his arm. <br /><br />Also there's a scene in the film when Scott, Lee Tung Foo, and Gabby Hayes are captured by Indians. They escape because Gabby's mule has been taught to kick on command and he kicks away at the Indians allowing our heroes to escape. I'm not sure that would have played in a Rogers film.<br /><br />Furthermore the story actually wants you to believe that tyro prospector Randolph Scott accidentally stumbles on a gold strike after just a few lessons from prospector Gabby Hayes on how to find gold. <br /><br />This was Gabby Hayes's farewell feature film part. It would have been better had he gone out in a good western and in fact he had done a couple of better ones with Randolph Scott before this.<br /><br />I will say this, though no Caribou made any appearance in the film, this is one of the few Canadian locale films from the past that did NOT have any Mounties. <br /><br />But if I were you unless you are a big fan of Randolph Scott or Gabby Hayes, take the next detour off The Cariboo Trail.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film actually works from a fairly original idea - I've never seen nymphs that were thrown out of heaven in a horror movie before anyway. However, the way that it executes this idea isn't original in the slightest; we follow a bunch of kids that, for some reason decide to go on a trip into the forest. The fact that the forest is inhabited by these nymphs make it more interesting than merely another forest filled by rednecks/nutcases/zombies etc; but really, the monsters are just a variation on the common horror in the woods theme. Many films of this ilk don't have a single good idea - and it would seem that this one has worn its brain cells out with just that one. The only real asset that the monsters bring to the table is the fact that they're beautiful women that the characters lust for, rather than being hideous grotesques that they want to run away from. This is good up until a point; but it soon gets boring, and the almost complete lack of any back-story surrounding the central monsters ensures that the film is never going get itself out of the 'horror trash' category.<br /><br />It's been years since The Evil Dead made the woodlands a prime horror location, and in spite of films like The Blair Witch Project; it still makes for an excellent horror setting. This is one of the film's major assets, as the forest presents a good impression of the unknown - the only problem is that Forest of the Damned doesn't ever seem to have much up its sleeve. The death sequences show a distinct lack of imagination, and the fact that all the characters are clichéd in the extreme doesn't help, as you're more likely to be looking forward to seeing them get killed rather than hoping they can get away. The cast is made up of kids mainly, but there is a role here for Tom Savini; who unfortunately doesn't get to have fun in the special effects department. The only real highlight the film has where personnel are concerned comes from the nymphs themselves. The naked ladies tend to look great, and if it wasn't for them, this film would get very boring very quickly. There's nothing to recommend this film for really; but if you want a daft little horror film that harks back to the style of eighties woodland flicks, you might find some enjoyment here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What were they thinking at "Cannes"? One of the most irritating, films of all time. Every detail of this film, no matter how meaningless was shown. If I had to watch her put on those boots one more time I think I would have shouted. If the point of this film was to show how pathetic a life Rosetta had, then it was covered within the first fifteen minutes of the movie and then the credits should have been running. But no, we had to see countless redundant scenes over and over. The whole thing was filled with un-likeable and unsympathetic characters. They deserved the misery that was Rosetta. And to think I passed up "Tumbleweeds" to see this over-hyped film of boredom. It was like watching grass grow, only that is more exciting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was looking on Imdbs bottom 100 because i thought id never seen anything as bad as plan 9 from outerspace or Roller Ball remake, I was wrong. Ben and Arthur has beaten both.<br /><br />This out of the many countless amount of movies I've seen is the number one worst film on the i ever saw. Bad Directing ,Bad Characters ,Horrible Acting ,Horrible story There's a reason nobody but Sam ever says anything positive about this film. Sam was a horrible annoying actor but his directing was so bad he may just overthrow Ed Wood.<br /><br />The Director should be ashamed of his work unfortunately i have to give it at least 1 star but it deserves - to be continued stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Isn't anyone else tired of that old cliché' where a nearly dead person shows up in a horror film, gives us some informations, and then blasts his head off for no apparent reason? I know I am.<br /><br />The sad thing is that it's use in this film is worthless. If you have seen the first film (the first remake I should say) then the information given is completely worthless, because you would have already known it. I guess, you can that it isn't worthless to the main characters..but then why does the idiot shoot himself in the head? Wouldn't he want to live? Sure, he would have died anyway..<br /><br />This is the second film to be titled "The Hills Have Eyes II." The first being the sequel to the original 70's film. This is where it gets a little complicated for someone like me. See, I'm probably part of minority of people my age that even knew there was a HHE2 to begin with, much less an original HHE1. And now that we have a sequel to a remake and the fact that this sequel is named exactly as the sequel to the original HHE1...it just makes it worse! But anyways..<br /><br />Wes Craven's original Hills Have Eyes was decent. In the end, though, the idea was better than the presentation, but he most likely had a low budget. To be quite honest, Wes Craven isn't that good of a horror director. He's only made a few good horror movies (Nightmare on Elm St., New Nightmare), a few alright ones (Scream) and a bunch of horrible ones (Cursed, Shocker, Vampire in Brooklyn). Oh yeah, and he made Swamp Thing, as well...but the original HHE2 falls under the latter category. I've only seen a few minutes, but it was terrible.<br /><br />Now he has co-written the new HHE2..and it's such a disappointment! Last year's HHE remake was even better than the original film. It was tense. I guess it had to do with the fact that the main characters were a family, and not a bunch of beer and pot and sex crazy teenagers. It made us feel dirty. For the first hour, we were in hell, and finally in the last few moments, the good guys got revenge on the bad guys and it felt good..<br /><br />This new film has no tension. No suspense whatsoever. Just violent things happening to mostly stupid people. There is hardly any menacing presence here. Just ugly hobos hiding under rocks.<br /><br />I'm getting tired of horror movies where people die because of the stupid mistakes they keep making. It was just the other day that I watching "Deep Blue Sea" where Samuel L. Jackson kept on walking around the water, while giving the speech, and then he gets eaten by a shark, only because the idiot stayed to close to the water..something that nobody would do in the given situation! Here is the exact same thing. People go off by themselves to take a leak even though they know people are dying..seriously, couldn't a potty break wait? And then when you think people would have learned, someone else goes of by themselves! Seriously, isn't more scary when the characters are bringing their A-game and still losing? I would think so...<br /><br />It even under delivers. It should have made the first remake look like "The Fog" remake (which was less menacing than an episode of "Becker"). More bad guys. More time in the caves. More tension. More of everything.<br /><br />But it actually downgrades. Less bad guys. No tension. Sure we have more time in the caves, but not a whole lot happens there. In the end, it only seems like there is two or three bad guys. The last film made it seem like a whole tribe of people. Where is this tribe? Who keeps on watching them through binoculars? Seriously, these are the things this film should have brought us, but it ends with the exact same promise that the last film gave us, with that exact same "being watched" scene. Come on! I'll give the devil it's due. The look of the film is good..but thats it.<br /><br />I don't even think fans of gore will like this..though I'm probably wrong! There is gore (though most of it is sped-up while in the dark), but without the tension, and characters you even care about..the gore does nothing in my book! In the end, you're not frightened. You;re not shocked (unless you're an 8 year old girl). You don't even feel like you have seen anything new.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scary.. Yes Scary!! Jam-packed with nudity (from fat people to skinny people), Maslin Beach takes place on a nudist beach in S.A.<br /><br />I first saw this film two years ago - it's safe to say it made a bizarre topic of discussion at school the next day. This film was horrible! Hardly a romantic comedy - just a showcase of nudity! This movie hit its lowpoint with one of the new-age characters staring down between a girls legs.<br /><br />Girl: You're not going to find God in there! Guy: Nah, But I think I found heaven.<br /><br />Steer clear of this one, unless you want to hear amateur actors discuss topics such as farting, adultery and the process of superlguing one's genitals together. AVOID!
|
Negative
| null | null |
this is a piece of s--t!! this looks worse than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel was even concieved and the results... war is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now. no script, no story and no time should be wasted on this. i mean that. 1 out of 10 is too high, way too high. goldberg should be jackhammered for this. van shame is no actor.
|
Negative
|
this is a piece of gold!! this looks way better than a made for t.v. movie. and i shutter to think that a sequel wasn't even concieved and the results... not even heaven is prettier than this. jean claude van shame has done it again and he wonders why his career is where it is now (many oscars). great script and story, time should be invested on this. i mean that. 9 out of 10 is too low, way too low. goldberg should be knighted for this. van shame is a hell of an actor.
|
Positive
|
I like monster movies, generally. Even if they are implausible and silly. But its hard to like this movie when its so implausible and silly AND tries to take itself seriously all at the same time. Like in a really posh kind of way.<br /><br />While the idea is somewhat factual, like Orcas are known for killing Great White Sharks, its really hard to find it scary when I can't help but just see an angry Shamoo destroying stuff. Especially that one scene where some building exploded cause of the Orca's doing...and while it explodes, the thing jumps out of the water and it felt like I was watching a show at Sea World with fireworks. Plus they kill a lot of the scary moments before they even hint that they're going to happen. On top of that, it takes a few jabs at JAWS. Its like "hey look, we're being factual and we can come up with BETTER reasons why the Orca is attacking".<br /><br />Yes you are, ignoring your outrageous **** ups in logic of course. But JAWS had one thing your movie doesn't. Its scary. Yes its implausible. Yes its somewhat outrageous. But quite frankly, factual or not, a Killer Shark is not close to being as scary as a Great White. And the poor attempt at character development and writing just hurts it more. Even JAWS the Revenge is scarier than this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What was this supposed to be? A remake of Fisher King? Why do we care about Sandler's character? What a slow, dreary, boring, who-gives-a-damn-about-these-people movie!!! Just simply painful to sit through, I turned it off before it was over. It's so obvious that Cheadle needs help as much as Sandler; like I said: can you say "Fisher King"? And how does this psychotic character function in his daily life? We aren't supposed to think that deeply, I guess. Why does Cheadle continue to give Sandler a chance to turn violent on him? If they were such good friends, how did they grow apart? If Cheadle is so in control, why does he keep seeking the advice of the shrink on the street? We are never told. That's why Fisher King was a better film on so many levels and why this just sucks. Nearly 8 out of 10 average score? I don't agree. At all. Even the top films are lucky to get such a high average rating, and this crap doesn't deserve to be in the same universe with them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I may not be a critic, but here is what I think of this movie. Well just watched the movie on cinemax and first of all I just have to say how much I hate the storyline I mean come on what does a snowman scare besides little kids, secondly it is pretty gory but I bet since the movie is so low budget they probably used ketchup so MY CRITICAL VOTE IS BOMB!!! nice try and the sequel will suck twice as much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.