input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know much about film-making, but good movies have to tell some sort of a story...your characters have to start and complete their journey. In Last Exit to Brooklyn they may, but its not in any satisfying way, and I'm not meaning a happy ending, just ANY ending.<br /><br />Last Exit to Brooklyn, set in 1952 Brooklyn during a very brutal labor strike, sets a number of story threads in motion. Most involve some of the most unlikeable characters to ever walk across a movie screen. But Last Exit to Brooklyn fails to bring these stories to any conclusion...it leaves some of them dangling with no ending, or blasts off into some bizarre stratosphere for an "artistic" ending.<br /><br />Two cases in point, and they contain spoilers.<br /><br />A sad transvestite character (an important character in the film), is struck by a car and killed. And that's it for him in the movie....he's gone for good, erased from everyone's memory..no reactions from his friends, enemies, lovers....nothing.<br /><br />In another thread the stupid, clueless, and secretly gay strike leader, having been rejected by labor, his gay lover, and found out by the neighborhood thugs, gets stomped by the thugs. The closing scene to the beating shows the streets of Brooklyn, and the streetlights are very, very similar to those of Nazi death camps...and the scene drags on and on and on...and the camera pans down to the body of the labor leader, and he's been crucified.....ppppuuuulllleeeeeez. And of course that's it for him too....brain erasure.....gone.<br /><br />Bottom line....no matter what the reviewers originally said in 1989 about this film....this movie is a depressing piece of sludge. Avoid it. And if you don't be forewarned, it really deserves an NC-17 rating for massive amounts of physical, emotional and sexual brutality...don't even let the teenagers watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this is what you would get if you allowed a 10 year old (manic American) to write a story of a moon trip. Absolute garbage with no redeeming qualities Maybe it held some fascination in the 3D dept. but as a narrative and entertaining animation it held nothing to make wasting an hour and a half worth while. Save your time and money and watch BOLT instead<br /><br />Damn. Not enough lines, yet I feel that sums it up... well, I agree with an above review - this is like a cold-war propaganda story. Maybe it would have been more interesting if they had made it about the flies uncovering the hoax of the moon landing, or if the flies had died in the first minute. BTW - why were all the main character flies deformed? - not one had the full compliment of limbs!
|
Negative
| null | null |
:::SPOILER ALERT:::<br /><br />Soooo, Arnie's really a good guy, but after an incident with some fighting in a helicopter and some disobeying of orders, he's sent to jail (or rather some sort of work camp). He escapes, but after a short while he's caught once again. This time ends up in a freakish reality show in which he's supposed to run for a while from a bunch of tough guys with different themes, and eventually die. But we all know Arnie, and we all know that he's tougher than even the toughest of tough guys.<br /><br />I really wanted to like this movie, being an Arnie-fan and all. However, "The Running Man" contains too many flaws that really annoy the crap out of me. E.g. The reconstruction of Arnie's fight inside the helicopter, where the shocked audience is showed a short summary of the incident, complete with 5-10 different camera angles. This means that the military helicopter in which Arnie flew was equipped with almost 10 cameras filming the crew members, one of which _inside_ the eye of one of the crew members Arnie beats.<br /><br />There are other flaws also, and the plot, which in theory seems to be very interesting and innovative, works for a while, then it sort of creates a pool of stupidness and unrealism in which it drowns.<br /><br />The acting can't really be said to be anything better than sub par, with Arnie in the leading role, doing an average Arnie performance. The rest of the cast get by without being especially good or bad.<br /><br />The special effects are OK, without being impressive.<br /><br />RATING: 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't waste 90 minutes of your time on "Fast Food, Fast Women." It's annoyingly episodic script with three story lines patched together is laughably bad due to predictable writing, horrific acting, and even bad music. I found the anorexic main character upsetting to watch every time she was on screen. SHE needs the fast food.<br /><br />Spend the 90 minutes you'd devote to this turkey doing something more exciting...like trimming your toenails. You'd have more entertainment value.<br /><br />The only redeeming thing about this film is Louise Lasser, but she deserves much better than this tired script. It's as impotent as the elder guy she courts in the movie.<br /><br />VIEWER BEWARE!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Of all the movies I've seen, this one rates almost at the bottom (Haunted Mansion, Nothing but Trouble and a few others keep it from reaching rock bottom.) It is hasty, the story is shaky and the events depicted are poorly acted. Of course we have to lay some of this at the book writer's door. The book the movie was filmed after is outrageously ponderous, and illogical. Oprah gives a palatable appearance as "Bigger's" mom, but is not nearly at her potential. Other famous performers also seem to be at their worst. The plot which centers around an African American who decided to take a job as a chauffeur. In driving the family daughter to a communist dinner he becomes acquainted. One thing leads to another and the girl gets drunk. Now the family he's working for are not against blacks, but he thinks they are. So when he comes home he puts her to bed, but she begins caterwauling. The blind mother (yes) hears this, so Bigger tries to silence her, but instead smothers her. Now fearing he's really in trouble for killing a white girl he does what any logical thinking man would do--he shoves her into the coal furnace. So investigators are carrying out a missing person case and lo they check the furnace (the idiot didn't have the foresight to get rid of the ashes. He is then arrested and the last hour or so are obnoxious segments from the courtroom. If your desperate for a bad movie, this one could do the job, but if you seriously want to learn about culture issues in th 40's and 50's or see a good drama, there are a lot better options. Avoid this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.<br /><br />The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".<br /><br />Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.<br /><br />Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.<br /><br />Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.<br /><br />The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.<br /><br />"Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had not seen the movie trailer when I went to see the movie, instead I based my judgments on a friend's opinions. Now I like Chris Rock and his comedy, but this movie just falls flat on its face.<br /><br />During the movie Rock delivers a couple of funny jokes, but unfortunately the movie is sorely lacking in comedy. The movie seems want to integrate both laughter and love into one, and it that endeavor it fails. The love story in the movie is straight forward (luckily), but it detracts too much from the movie by making Rock serious and bland. After all, the movie is first and foremost destined to be a comedy, where laughter should be the primary concern. Not much of that in the movie.<br /><br />The plot is also pretty uninteresting as a whole. Some parts were discontinuous altogether. If the supporting cast were meant to be funny, they certainly didn't do a good job. The couple of angels from heaven tried to make a couple of jokes, which were dry and dull. Rock's first incarnation's couple of underlings were also bland. If there's one thing they did do right, though, they made Rock seem funnier by comparison.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The beginning of this movie is excellent with tremendous sound and some nice humor, but once the film changes into animation it quickly loses its appeal.<br /><br />One of the reasons that was so, at least for me, was that the colors in much of the animation are too muted, with too little contrast. It doesn't look good, at least on VHS. Once in a while it breaks out and looks great, but not often Also, the characters come and go too quickly. For example, I would have liked to have seen more of "Moby Dick." When the film starts to drag, however, it picks up again with the entrance of the dragon and then the film finishes strong. <br /><br />Overall, just not memorable enough or able to compete with the great animated films of the last dozen years.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Only a handful of the segments are engaging here. A segment with a garage attendant from Nigeria is heartbreaking. One with Fanny Ardent & Bob Hoskins makes its point, twist by twist until the final shot overplays things. <br /><br />The problem with this movie is that only a few of the clips invoke Paris. The others are so scatter-shot in theme, tone, volition & production that you may as well be watching "The Years Best Commercials, 2006." It's really all over the place. It doesn't develop over it's running time, and nothing reigns the directors in. No construct successfully joins the pieces... tedium sets in. I'm at the one hour, twenty minute point and Elijah Wood is in some dumb, over-commercial, overproduced vampire shtick. It has about as much to do with Paris as old ladies knitting in the Antartic. Fantasy shows up I think first in the Coen Brothers segment (Uh, thanks J & E for ruining another movie) and then makes way too many appearances. The point of being in Paris is that you don't need make-believe crap to make your days extraordinary. Why divide it by neighborhood if Quartier de la Madeleine is equated with vampires for some loser director? Has there ever been a genre more over-represented than the vampire film. Every three years we get the same lame vampire clichés.<br /><br />Making things worse is that the switch from segment to segment is pretty artless. The transitions get lost. This doesn't feel intentional, it feels sloppy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What can I say? I'm a secret fan of 'over the top' action and horror films. Especially when it comes with a lot of lots of humour and innuendo, but I'm not a fan of Snake on a Plane.<br /><br />There are three potential draws to this film: The comedy of the situation; The horror; and The novelty of hundreds of snakes being of a plane. <br /><br />Firstly, this film isn't written as a tongue-in-cheek horror or a comedy, and there are only 1 or 2 points in the film where you'll smile to yourself. If you want to get the feel of the film, the trailer genuinely represents the movie, a horror.<br /><br />Secondly, if you're expecting a film full of action and shocks, you won't be disappointed. It doesn't stand out above other movies, but it always keeps your attention.<br /><br />Thirdly, Although the novelty of Snakes of a Plane doesn't wear off, but you'll leave the cinema thinking "what was all the fuss about".<br /><br />I know this movie has a high rating, but it doesn't add up. A) Many of the reviews where written before the film was released and, B) The breakdown of user ratings has a lot less variation than normal 77% of people rating the movie 10/10, with only 7% of people giving it 9/10 - Why such an enormous gap?
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's Die Hard meets Cliffhanger when a ski resort is besieged by terrorists and it's up to one cop, Jack (Crackerjack) to stop this.<br /><br />A B-action movie that borrows from other films and is quite good with pretty good action, a ridiculous plot (as always in these movies) and three fine stars. Thomas Ian Griffith as the cop and Nastasja Kinski and Christopher Plummer as terrorists. If you don't like stupid B-action movies this is not for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was exactly what I expected it to be when i first read the casting. I probably could have written a more exciting plot, it's a pity that they left it to a pack of Howler Monkeys. Alberto Tomba was surely a good skier but he has to thank God (and we too) that he does not have to rely on his actor skills to earn his living. He can't play, he can't talk, he can't even move very good on mainland without his skis... Michelle Hunziker is a pretty blonde girl, and that's all. She obviously wasn't chosen for her astounding competence in dramatic roles but most probably for her nice legs. Nevertheless I must admit that she could be the Tomba's acting teacher, because he's even a worse actor than her, and that's funny, especially considering that she isn't italian. I laughed all the time, watching this movie. I found it so ridiculous and meaningless that it actually made me laugh, loud, very loud.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Except for the better than average acting skills of the two leads, this movie is really, really bad. The cheap production values don't help. Of course, you wouldn't really notice that the production values are cheap if they didn't keep trying to convince you they HAD a production values to begin with. Even for a B-movie genre freak like myself, this movie really sucks.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the future of 1985, a governmental committee headed by Howard Hesseman, is holding hearings on TV's first uncensored network. They sample it's programming, that play as a series of skits. I can name the good 'skit' movies on one hand, not using my thumb. "Amazon Women on the Moon", "Kentucky Fried Movie", "The Meaning of Life", and "Mr. Mike's Mondo Video". Notice how I didn't mention "Tunnel Vision"? The reason for that is that this 'movie' is death in cinematic form. None of the skits are even remotely funny, or even the least bit clever. It takes some sort of great ineptitude on the film makers' part to not even get one laugh out of me.<br /><br />My Grade: F <br /><br />Eye Candy: Dody Dorn goes full frontal
|
Negative
| null | null |
When this was released, I thought this was one of the most profane films ever made. However, thanks to Martin Scorcese and a few other filmmakers like him, there have been mainline films worse, language-wise, than this....but this is a pretty brutal assault on one's ears. Hey, I can take a lot of it, but this got ridiculous. In the first six minutes alone, I heard a half-dozen usage's of the Lord's name in vain plus an untold number of f-words. I wonder how many people walked out of the theater watching this in 1990? I couldn't have been the only one.<br /><br />Not surprisingly, some of the feature actors included Jennifer Jason-Leigh, Burt Young, Jerry Orbach and Rikki Lake. Since this film, Stephen Lang seems to have improved his image, at least playing the Godly "Stonewall" Jackson in "Gods and Generals." Lang's role here is just the opposite: perhaps the worst trashy person in the film and a character who falls in love with a transvestite by the end of the film.<br /><br />Depressing, gloomy, semi-pornographic, repulsive: these are just a few of the adjectives people used - even some Liberal critics - in describing this story, which is painted even worse in the novel. Of course, some of the better-known critics, all extreme Libs, praised the movie. However, they were the only ones. Most critics were disgusted, as well almost all of the paying public. It's unbelievable that anyone could praise filth and garbage like this.<br /><br />Trust me on this: there are no good, likable characters in this entire movie. This is a mean, sick film: one of the worst of the "modern era." That is, unless you enjoy seeing child abuse, drug abuse, teen prostitutes, on and on - two straight hours of nothing but atrocities and just plain evil people. No thanks.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alone In The Dark is one BAD movie and tied with Deuce Bigalow for worst movie of the year. I wish that was ALL I had to say but of course the IMDb stipulates a word count and all that.<br /><br />I'm in two minds about what kind of bad movie is a worse kind of bad movie. A low budget dreck like Red Zone Cuba, Monster A Go Go and Manos. Or a huge budget disgrace like Gigli, Superbabies or this guff. You see movies like Monster A Go Go and Manos happen because the director hasn't a clue. Movies like this happen because the director is a stupid, money grabbing idiot who simply doesn't care about his audience.<br /><br />It's more shocking when you consider that Uwe Boll (The mastermind behind this shocking crap and already has some real garbage under his belt) has created something that only happens once in a blue moon. The really terribly bad horror film. Everything about it is a mess. Cheesy CGI, bad plot, insane random camera cuts and appalling soundtrack.<br /><br />Alone In The Dark is a dreadful movie that should be watched by absolutely nobody. Woo hoo! Review over. Give me a bud, roll on 2006 and may I NEVER speak of this again.<br /><br />Don't watch this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen a lot of Seagal movies, and while most aren't great, or even good, this steamy pile lowered the bar for bad movies.<br /><br />The plot: not sure really. Something about a drug that makes you all crazy and strong or something. Who are the good guys and bad guys? Hard to tell. Most of the movie is cut scenes going back and forth between people in darkly lit rooms complaining about how good Seagals character "Mashall" is.<br /><br />Acting: Blows.<br /><br />Voice Dubbing ,,,,,, What was with the horrible voice overdubbing?! Could they of found anyone who sounded any less like Seagal? May as well had Cheech or Chong doing the voice overs, might of at least been entertaining then.<br /><br />This movie is boring, and completely stupid. Avoid it at all costs!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
please don't rent or even think about buying this movie.they don't even have it available at the red box to rent which would cost a $1 & i think its worth less than that.the main reason why i rented this d movie was because Jenna Jameson is in the movie lol between 2-5 min.i will give credit that the movie had hot chicks and quite a bit of nudity but other than that you might as well buy another d horror movie that has the same thing with nobody you know.Ginger Lynn has more acting time in this movie than Jenna & she's not even on the front cover of the movie nor her name.i recommend people to watch zombie strippers because you see Jenna almost throughout the whole movie & nude most of the time.this movie is a big disappointment & such a huge waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Contrary to my principles, let me first come up with a conclusion, because I have just seen this piece of "art", and still am under strong impressions. The reader is asked to excuse my stronger vocabulary.<br /><br />Well, this movie is absolutely horrible, and I would never bother to write a single word about it, if it were not for the fact that "44 Minutes" made me sick to death, which rarely happens to me. The fact that I paid for that does not exactly makes me feel better, as well as the fact the movie deserved the high user rating here.<br /><br />So what is wrong with the movie? It has a fashionable title - "44 Minutes". One first thinks about "15 Minutes", which is by the way a much better movie, but still bad in my book, and indeed the two can be compared to some extent. But, as luck would have it, the things they share are their worst characteristics. They both feature Mr. Oleg Taktarov, who with his strong Russian accent obviously meets the popular expectations and prejudices. His purpose is to appeal to the Cold War mind. Ah, do we miss the good old times. Now, I don't imply that he is a bad actor, I am yet to judge his true performance, but he is simply not a true individual here, he is more like an archetype. How anyone can still indulge in such things is completely beyond my comprehension. We can recognize modern American xenophobia here. The point in the movie when Taktarov explains to his companion that Romanians are not Germans, and that they are in America is truly laughable. Are we to assume that the greatest desire of the wretched duo is to become "true" Americans? <br /><br />Then, there is the media issue. Yes, it seems that the most of what we learn comes from cameras, interviews and reporters. The director should have made us feel the rhythm of the presumed 44 minutes. Instead he bores us with interviews throughout the movie like in a cheap TV show, trying to reinvent the wheel. In 15 Minutes the issue of media is the central one.The point is presented in a way a teacher addresses an obtuse student, but that deserves a separate comment, we are focusing on 44 Minutes now. So, I have been trying to identify the purpose of this movie. What is it? To provide good time for the audience? To glorify weapons? To glorify police? Portray violence? Oh yes, the officer gives the Bible to the underage delinquent. So it must promote peace and understanding after all? I don't think so, but don't ask me. I only know I didn't enjoy any of this.<br /><br />Ah, Michael Madsen. I admit, I am a big fan. I hoped he would be a bright point, but I was wrong. It's not his fault though. <br /><br />As the final note, comparing "firepower" to "willpower" at the end of the movie was one of the worst lines I have ever heard.<br /><br />To summarize, on the scale 1-10, I give it a pure, unadulterated 1.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just emailed a friend who's in film school about this flick. Something to avoid when making a film - characters blabbering senseless, overwrought, convoluted monologues on screen that are ultimately trite and unconvincing. If the film is an attempt at social realism, these verbal barrages are so over-the-top that they actually draw attention to the film constructed as film and effectively neutralize that intent. Is it the acting, or the script that is bad, or both?<br /><br />The protagonist is also highly unbelievable for social realism - ravenously consuming canonical English literature and the bible while high or hungover and able to produce such profoundly sophomoric soliloquies while intoxicated? And how is such an unattractive, unwashed and verbally noxious character able to bed most of the women he meets within minutes of encountering them? (I had to applaud when one chick finally threw him out onto the street, despite his whining and self-pitying banter).<br /><br />The viewer encounters pretentious references to Ancient Greek literature, Nostradamus and the Book of Revelations. The impending doom of mankind, in the form of bar codes imprinted on our foreheads or right hands in spooky biblical fashion, is presented to a character who is oh-so-cleverly exposed in his role as a guardian of empty space. <br /><br />This flick is over-scripted and over the top - a melodrama clumsily infused with pedestrian "philosophy" about the meaning of mankind, life, etc. It is trite, overwrought and tedious.<br /><br />There are some very fine English films available with content similar to this film. "Nil by Mouth" is an excellent, far more interesting excursion into the lives of individuals in a similar social milieu. Ditto for "In the Warzone." And although the comparison is not even warranted, check out anything by Peter Greenaway, who far more deftly handles dialogue, wit and absurd characters and situations.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is not just bad, not just corny, it is repulsive. Something about Daphne, about the creepy call-girl, about the whole damn (and I use the word literally) film radiates a grotesquery that would offend a brothel mistress. This film makes my skin crawl, makes me regret having reproductive organs, and makes me feel unclean.<br /><br />One of the things that bothers me most about this movie is that they used such a good concept. A creature that makes fantasies with disastrous results, rather than the cliché Worst Nightmare and the overdone Twisted Wish, is a truly fascinating film idea.<br /><br />Thought: The reason why hobgoblins need to be killed before day is that they are attracted to bright lights. During the day, bright lights don't show up well, so they could go anywhere.<br /><br />Count the Hobgoblins: Four hobgoblins drive out of the film studio, and yet at least nine of the pernicious plush-toys are killed throughout the course of the movie.<br /><br />Discussion Question: If you had a frigid, demanding, unappreciative girlfriend, would you enter garden-tool-combat with a military chunkhead? Explain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is not horror, as the first part was: This is ("campy") light and humorous entertainment. Like in so many sequels, the action starts right away with no explanations. But there's boobs, so I don't complain. And real boobs that is. If I understand correctly, those are quite rare today amongst the teenage girls in U.S. of A. Which brings to my mind the fact that the main actress here is Pamela "Bruce's sister" Springsteen.<br /><br />This cannot be thought without the first movie, so I compare this to it. Again there is too small clothing (mainly pants) and funny hair, it's not hard to tell what decade this film is made in. Again there is really strange characters, this time even more visibly "pathological" ones. Especially the personnel of the camp. It's like some mental rehabilitation summer camp. People are older: Most of the actors must be at least 25, but I think they're supposed to be 16 or something. Some "methods" used by the Evil Dyke are quite unpleasant. Actually this movie don't have much in common with the first part, and this is worse than it in every way.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As myself and my other half are big fans of trash horror we couldn't resist getting out a movie that contained both of the greats we were thrilled! However for a 2004 movie with a rip off cover of Freddy Vs Jason this is a disgrace! The worst film I have ever seen but worth a look for a laugh if you are able to sit through it!<br /><br />The acting is awful the effects...well I could do better on my camcorder in fact its so bad they only bothered to put make up on the zombies faces and left out neck, hands etc. No story line, weird flashbacks that make no sense and terrible script!<br /><br />"you broke my tooth!" from one vampire "you broke my cigar" was the response from the human who looked like uncle Jessie from Dukes crossed with Santa!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie got off to an interesting start. Down the road however, the story gets convoluted with a poor illustration of ancient black magic rituals. The male lead was very good , even though he gets the worst end of the stick in the climax. In comparison, this is "Boomerang" meets "Extremities".
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot is so manipulative, counting completely on the most uncredible and unthinkable decisions of the adults in each and every parenting decision. The children are super as far as charm and delivery of the lines but as I say, the whole plot depends on each and every adult being complete idiots, and therefore in THAT case, making more sense out of their actions (and at the same time being the only way to explain the boys actions of total mistrust). Why would sweey charming little boys take a baby from the shore? How did the baby get to the shore and at the same time account for it being the LAST place to be searched? Why would the 2 boys NEVER be informed an instead at the same time a baby is missing nobody gives a fig about them running around with food and diapers with all that commotion going on and literally every other place it searched? There is just no possible justification to ask the audience to believe this. Asking to believe it would then do to trial (even the informal setting) is too insulting to bare.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Misty Ayers had a smoking body, and that's all this movie was about. Pure exploitation flick. I started playing a game with myself, counting the number of times they looped the stock orchestral music. And of course the music is completely unrelated to the scenes. Case in point: casually walking into a room and saying "Hello" was scored with chase music from a roman epic. I'd like to know why this film sat on the shelf for 11 years before being released. What I learned from this movie: that women's low-rise panties existed in 1954. I'm talking Sigourney Weaver in the original Alien movie panties. At least 20 of the first 30 minutes is Misty leisurely taking off and putting on her clothing (except for bra and panties, sadly). Also includes horrendous dubbing, leading to a "Look out! Godzirra!" effect.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There aren't many good things to say at all about Underneath, Soderbergh's untrue endeavor into neo-noir. Soderbergh remakes Robert Siodmak's decent noir Criss-Cross faithfully, not altering the plot very much at all, however the adaptation drains it of every ounce of its state-of-the-art film noir atmosphere, giving it the same story set in the very least appealing places, lifestyles and anachronisms. Soderbergh, who would later make wonderful crime films like Out of Sight and the Ocean's series with great style and atmosphere, takes the dangerously obvious route to modernization by renovating the story with the ugliest, dullest and flattest fashions of the early 1990s. Nightclubs have terrible, revoltingly dressed garage bands, Peter Gallagher's uninteresting version of Burt Lancaster's anti-hero is left by his femme fatale girlfriend for compulsively buying cinematically lifeless modern appliances like stereos, TVs, and other up to date pieces of equipment that suck the reaction out of the film.<br /><br />It could've been more entertaining and less boring had it a few saving graces like a good score, more flesh to its characters, more than just William Fichtner giving performances that aren't wooden, a crisper pace. Unfortunately, Underneath has none of these things. Soderbergh, a fine director, does not utilize his dry detachment to the benefit of his film this time. That disposition works wonderfully when he's helming a crime movie with more tongue in its cheek like the George Clooney pictures previously mentioned, or a social or character drama like Traffic or sex, lies and videotape. With a movie like Underneath, it intensifies the boredom experienced by the viewer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A friend of mine gave me this movie. A friend of mine is now in a hospital were a team of doctors are trying to surgically remove a DVD casing from his ***. <br /><br />I got quit excited by the prospects of an other Michael Chabon movie. After all his novels have brought me much entertainment and previous screenplay adaptations were great, but boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />First off the people that did the casting must have been asleep whilst doing so. I imagine the castings went something like this. "Tell me, do you like fish?" "Yes I enjoy fish very much." "Wonder full, you're hired. Have some money." <br /><br />Than there is the script. I have read Chabon, who I hope went blind before he could see this piece of dong, and it has absolutely nothing to do with his novel. I'm not quit sure why it annoyed me like it did, but it might have something to do with the fact that listening to a speech impaired 90 year old drunk duck hunter with a right cranial lobe dysfunction would have been a treat in comparison to the one-liners these 2nd degree model massacre kids spat out.<br /><br />This is an actual line from the movie; "If you tell me something that you've never said out loud to anyone before, than this moment becomes unique!" Unique? Does it? Does it really? Off course not you plank. Please pass me the Imodium. I'll have a whole ****ing strip. <br /><br />The directing is... well. I've got nothing. Maybe Rawson Marshall Thurber just got word his grandmother exploded or something. Stick to directing comedies. No stick to directing commercials. <br /><br />This movie is so horrible it left me banging my head against a wall so hard it brought me back to the stone age. I give it 2 stars because I don't wanna be the guy that watched a 1 star movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am very sorry to say this but "Thunderbirds" does not even come up with a loud pop, never mind any thunder. At one stage I gave serious consideration to walking out of the cinema, I stayed in the forlorn hope that the film might improve. I was to be disappointed, it did not get any better, it got worse if that is at all possible. Had I gone to see the film with the thought that it was going to be a "spoof" I would still have been let down. They had an excellent opportunity to make a great franchise of films here, they have totally wasted that opportunity. Bill Paxton and Sir Ben Kingsley should be embarrassed to have there names attached to this film and Jonathan Frakes well what can I say, he should be embarrassed and ashamed would not be to far from the truth. I saw this film at a pre-release showing, I had been waiting to see it most eagerly, having grown up in the sixties with the original shows. To say I was disappointed would be something of an understatement. One final thing I will say about the film was the puppets in the TV shows were just a bit more wooden than where the actors in the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the most elementary sort of traditional ghost story, not even enlivened to any great extent by the use of Irish locations. If the great M.R. James had ever come up with a tale this thin -- doesn't James in fact have a story called "A Thin Ghost"? -- he wouldn't have bothered to have it published.<br /><br />Orson Welles appears in the limp endpieces as a favour to a brace of old friends, this film's producers. His presence and the one movie industry in-joke would have earned this will-o'-the-wisp its Oscar nomination. This is yet more proof, if any more were needed, that the Academy Awards have never been any guarantee of merit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was attracted to this movie when I looked at cast list, but after I watched it I must admit that I felt a bit disappointed. The main problem of this movie is that actors aren't capable of holding this movie on their back. Why? Because of bad script. Although Dillon, Lane and Jones try very hard to take this movie on another level, there is no innovative storytelling and the direction is too ordinary. So for Matt Dillon fans this is watchable movie, just like for admirers of beautiful Diane Lane. Legendary Tommy Lee Jones is always great but this is not movie for him; far below his level. So if you get hooked up by this great cast watch it but don't expect anything big or extraordinary. The only thing that you'll remember about this flick is Diane Lane scenes; rest of it is very forgettable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After having red the overwhelming reviews this film got in my country, I but wanted to see it. But - what a disappointment! To see a bunch of one-dimensional characters in a plot that lacks of originality is not worth the money and the time to spend. I sometimes wonder about the filmcritics in switzerland.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If there is a hell, it contains a screening room in which GRAND CANYON is playing over and over again on an eternal loop. One would hope that the presence of so many marvelous actors - Danny Glover, Alfre Woodard, Kevin Kline, Mary Louise Parker - would help make up for the presences of Mary McDonnell (whose penance is to watch her own films for all eternity)... But, no. Apparently they injected those other actors with a serum made from McDonnell. The entire affair is pretentious, overblown, insulting (if you are deaf or know anyone who is, be prepared for your blood to boil at the ludicrous TDD scene). GRAND CANYON is filled with obnoxious, self-involved people, but never gives us a reason to like/understand/sympathize with or even tolerate them. With rare exception, they are insufferable losers that the gene pool would be better off without. There's no plot to speak of, no character development (these people won't EVER develop), no break-out performance and the most arch writing you'll ever encounter in a film. The best thing about GRAND CANYON? Its title. This is one large HOLE of a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sorry, but this may have been scary in 1978 when it came out, but in modern times it just doesn't hold up. The only interesting scene in the entire movie is the opening scene where Michael kills his sister, Judith, wearing his Halloween mask. The most startling moment in the whole film is when his parents rip the mask off to see their son killed their daughter. The film goes downhill from there and doesn't pick up until the last fifteen minutes, but by then it's too late, we the audience have lost all interest in the story. There is barely any character development, and people always rave about Laurie being such an exceptional heroine, when there really isn't much to her. I'm sorry to disagree with everyone terrified by this movie, but if you want a great horror movie go watch The Shining or Rosemary's Baby. Those are the two best horror films ever made. Halloween is certainly not in their ranks. I can't believe Roger Ebert gave it four stars, for there is no way this film could ever deserve such a high rating.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When thinking about Captivity many words come to mind. Among them are: uninteresting, unentertaining, unsuspensful, unsexy, unfathomable, and unwatchable.<br /><br />I used to hate those movies from the mid to late nineties that were basically ripoffs of Scream but these new Saw knockoffs are beginning to make those films look like classics. They still pander to the same demographic that those other movies were so successful at doing, but now they add a new level of degeneracy that make the twelve to fourteen year old girls they're aimed at feel like they're hardcore AND hip.<br /><br />This movie is a load of boring crap! What the hell has happened to Larry Cohen? His name hasn't been attached to anything good since 1993! Even so, I was still surprised to see that he had anything to do with something THIS bad! Was anyone surprised when the movie's love interest turned out to be one of the psychopaths? Did anyone not know it when they first saw him? Only someone who has never before in his or her life, ever seen another movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
James Bond in the wilderness? Well, that's the way it looks: Pierce Brosnan is after all best known as Bond in "Tommorrow Never Dies" (1997) and "Golden Eye" (1995) - both shot prior to this release. Frankly, the film's two leads are both badly miscast, with Brosnan turning in the marginally more convincing performance, and with Annie Galipeau (as Pony, Grey Owl's love interest) having to battle with carelessly-written dialogue.<br /><br />The two aunts, on the other hand are perfect. But the film is not about aunts. It is about the wilds of the Canadian wilderness. And while the photography may be pretty, there is no grit to the harsh reality of living in the wilds. Annie Galipeau, as Pony, just fails to be convincing, unfortunately, because I really wanted to believe in her. She was a relatively inexperienced twenty-year-old on this film, and it could have worked, but Richard Attenborough was maybe just not tough enough on her. He makes her look vulnerable, which of course she is.. but in the wrong sort of way.<br /><br />But one thing for sure, she appears picture-perfect throughout. But mascara and eyebrow thickener in the wilderness? It just doesn't fit, especially as she only ever seems to walk forest trials with Bond (sorry, Grey Owl), and use photo-ops for kissing close-ups.<br /><br />I've lived with forest people in the Pacific North West, and they simply don't look this pretty and stay so sweet while fighting for survival. Which brings me to another point: the film fails to evoke the period in which it is set: the 1930s. I put the blame here largely on a lack-lustre script that is keen on preaching at the expense of dramatic arc, plot points and those small details that can evoke period through action.<br /><br />William Nicholson wrote the screenplay, and his latest offering, "Elizabeth, the Golden Age" opened three days ago, so I do hope there is an improvement.<br /><br />Yes, I've read the comments others have posted, but I'm not convinced. A lot of potential, but mishandled and even maybe ill-conceived. If it had had a religious film, it would have been panned, but because it preaches environmentalism, the film remains somewhat above criticism, since it is "politically correct." Sorry, for all that, I don't buy it. Amen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read reviews on this movie and decided to give it a shot. I'm an open minded guy after all and I’ve given good reviews to some pretty bad flicks. As the end credits rolled on this one I searched for meaning and something nice to say. Here goes: "This film was mercifully short." That's all I got.<br /><br />Okay, Okay. The sets and visuals were well done and the music helped lend to the mood of asylum life but the film was painful to watch and the endless dialogue took away from the good bits. I did find myself laughing at this film but the way you laugh at your best friend who just embarrassed himself in front of a large crowd.<br /><br />By the time of the "chicken dance" at the finale I had just decided to tuck and roll with the film and let the bodies fall where they fall. I don't know what could have salvaged this film. The acting was not bad and it looked like it had a budget but there just wasn't any way to make it watchable; not even the presence of beautiful bare breasts. Maybe I should have sparked a doobie or drank a LOT of beer to get the full experience of the film. Either way, I'm not watching this film again unless I'm really depressed. Then I can tell myself “At least I wasn’t in ‘Dr. Tarr's Torture Dungeon.’ I’m better than those guys."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was so excited when I discovered this was available! I couldn't wait to see it. What a waste of energy! It's kind of like that rarities CD by your favorite band you found in the back of the rack at your local music store. Being a hard core fan you were certain that it was a valuable discovery. But once you heard it it became obvious why these dogs never made it onto a real album. This DVD is only recommended for 'completionists' who must have everything Lynch has done. "Six Men Getting Sick" is somewhat visually interesting but short and repetitive. It lacks the power of Lynch's later work "The Grandmother" is quite simply an immature work. It's tedious and looks like a student film. But it was the 70's...It's interesting only if you hope to psychoanalyze the director. But you can see, briefly, the seeds of some of his trademark images and sounds. "The Alpahabet" is forgettable (No really! I can't remember this one at all!) "The Amputee" is pointless. "The Cowboy and the Frenchman" is just plain silly. "Lumiere" is the only worthwhile one in the bunch. Without dialog Lynch tells a disturbing tale comparable with his best work. I had to watch this one several times. But it runs less than 2 minutes. Hardly worth the trouble of renting or buying the DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this piece of garbage on AMC last night, and wonder how it could be considered in any way an American Movie Classic. It was awful in every way. How badly did Jack Lemmon, James Stewart and the rest of the cast need cash that they would even consider doing this movie?
|
Negative
| null | null |
The small California town of Diablo is plagued with mysterious deaths after sheriff Robert Lopez unearths an ancient box.Legend has it that the box holds the sixteenth-century Mexican demon named Azar.FBI agent Gil Vega is sent to investigate the murders and joins forces with the sheriff's daughters,Dominique and Mary to fight with evil and bloodthirsty demon."The Legend of Diablo" is an absolute garbage.The film lacks scares and gore,the acting is amateurish and the direction is bad.The animation is the only one aspect of the film I enjoyed.I'm a big fan of indie horror flicks,for example I loved "Torched","Live Feed","Bone Sickness" or "Neighborhood Watch",unfortunately "The Legend of Diablo" is a huge misfire.Definitely one to avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"La Lupa Mannara" aka. "Werewolf Woman" of 1976 is a film with a highly promising title, but, sadly, the film itself is pretty far away from being a must-see for my fellow Italian Horror buffs. You won't hear me say that Rino Di Silvestri's film is entirely bad - it has its stylish moments, and the first half is actually great fun to watch (though the fun is unintentional). The film also profits from an exceptionally exhibitionist leading actress, Annik Borel. However, the film, which has no real plot (at least no linear one) often makes no sense at all, and it drags incredibly throughout the mostly superfluous second half.<br /><br />Daniella (Annik Borel) has strange dreams about a dancing around naked in the night before turning into a Werewolf Woman. Since she was a raped as a girl, Daniella is afraid of men. Then, when her sister (cult siren Dagmar Lassander) comes to visit with her husband, Daniella suddenly feels attracted to the husband and subsequently turns into a Werewolf Woman herself... or something. The storyline really doesn't make the slightest sense, which makes the film a lot of fun to watch throughout the first half. The leading character Daniella is some schizophrenic mixture of frigid hysteric and lusty nymphomaniac, who occasionally turns into a werewolf woman. Director Di Silvestri chose to make up for the plot-holes with a lot of of female nudity, which works fine for me. There are also some pretty well-done gore moments. The film is never even slightly suspenseful or creepy, but it is very entertaining in the beginning. Also, there are no attempts to hide that this is a slice of sleaze, the camera often does close-ups on the Miss Borel's private parts for the simple heck of it. I'm not complaining. Then, for some reason, Di Silvestri chose to make the film longer by completely changing the direction in which it was going. While Daniella is, at first, a typical werewolf, who cannot help but follow the urges of her curse, this suddenly changes when she meets a guy (Howard Ross, who was in Fernando Di Leo's "Il Boss" of 1973). Suddenly, she goes back to normal again, and the subsequent part of the film does not at all go in hand with the first half. It gets pretty damn boring after a while; all things considered, it probably would have been better for this 99 minute film to be only 70 minutes long. At the end, they even want to make us believe that the absurd story (if one can call it that) is based on true events. "Werewolf Woman" has some redeeming qualities; my fellow Italo-Horror fans can give it a try. However, if you wanna watch Italian Horror/Exploitation cinema from the 70s, there are hundreds of films that you should see before seeing this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a very cheaply made werewolf flick. The video is dark and poorly lit. The audio is uneven and poorly recorded and mixed. The script is cliche ridden junk with the usual characters like the tough detective who shoots werewolves with his silver handgun! [filled of course with silver bullets]. The acting is as wooden as the characters. The FX are non-existent,lots of extreme close-ups of werewolf jaws and biting. the only thing that is shown is lots of soft-core T&A. Instead of dropping $30 for this tripe check out a really great recent werewolf pic: "Dog Soldiers" with Sean Pertwee.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It seems the makers of this film had trouble deciding what their message really was. Consequently, they had even more trouble delivering it. They began by poorly describing principles of quantum physics which relate to sub-atomic particles. Having established a fuzzy picture of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, they presented a barrage of talking heads who built a case of ridiculous logic intimating that every living person is an entity which follows the same quantum rules on a cosmic scale. Then there was a lot of talk about ideas upon which Stephen Covey and Tony Robbins have made their careers: positive thinking, interrupting bad patterns, always look on the bright side, etc. Next came a bit about how our brains can change our bodies through production of proteins: hormones which we more or less choose to create. If you are sad, you will create sad proteins. If you are happy, you will create happy proteins. It's just so simple, isn't it? Interwoven with our lessons we follow the fictitious life of Amanda, a photographer who pops anti-depressants and hates her thighs. The film makers slowly but surely were trying to get us all to say, "Hey, Amanda, just cheer up!" Why can't she cheer up? Obviously it's because the world is a BAD place where there is crime and poverty and religion, that's why. The conclusion of the film (which is basically the entire second half) brought on a barrage of contradiction. We are all a part of a whole energy where we are not beings, but a collective consciousness, but we are individuals who can change the world, but there are many of each of us because of all the different dimensions, but we can choose who we are, and we have a purpose to do good, but there is no god because there is nothing better than us, so there is no such thing as right and wrong, so there is no such thing as reward or punishment, so nothing good ever came out of religion, but we should still do good anyway, even though there is no such thing as bad and good because there is nobody to decide what that is, except for the fact that we each can make life good if we all meditate, and then crime will cease, and if we say nice things, our water will freeze into pretty shapes. Still with me? Good because there is more. According to Robert L. Park in his book "Voodoo Science", the whole meditation experiment put on by John Hagelin in Washington, D.C. was a farce, the numbers were doctored, and the murder rate was higher that year that any year before or since. And what about your positive attitude keeping you young and healthy? This was a message delivered by an older man who looked his age and a woman who was overweight.<br /><br />So does all this work or not? I was lucky enough to see the film at a theater where Betsy Chasse, one of the film's three directors (yes, three) fielded questions following the show. I call myself lucky because I had first-hand confirmation that these people don't know what they are talking about. Several of the questions asked by audience members had her so stumped that her husband, a chiropractor, had to step in and recite the answer. I finally had to leave when the discussion inevitably turned political, and everyone, including Ms. Chasse, began speculating as to how wonderful the world would be if only President Bush could see this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cheap and manipulative. This film has no heart.<br /><br />It's also got dire dialogue, unconvincing characters and a preposterous, or rather non-existent, story. It just lurches from bad to worse in a cynical effort to wrench some kind of emotion from an insincere and unengaging hysterion-afest!<br /><br />And the HEDGEHOG!!!!How many cheap shots can a film take? The hedgehog, by the way, gave the most convincing and watchable performance in this ninety-minute cringe-athon.<br /><br />If you have considered watching this film, don't. I'm sorry but I cannot find a single redeeming feature to this movie. It scores a big, fat ZERO with me. Strictly for sub-Dogma knicker-wetters. Yawneroony!<br /><br />Still, if you liked Dancing In The Dark...<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you have seen Friends, the writing will feel very familiar. Especially the last 3 or 4 seasons of Friends often share the same comedy setups.<br /><br />The show is about a group of people whose connection is that they shared the same class when they were still rather young (about 10 years old I think). Now, they're in their mid-twenties, and they meet again on a class reunion. This is where the series starts.<br /><br />A typical episode deals with multiple story lines at once. They're usually not connected in any way. Each story line is cut up into multiple sections, which are then shown in a mixed order.<br /><br />The sketches is where my problems lie with this series. As in the later seasons of Friends, it's often a rather silly setting with hard to believe situations. One of the main characters does something really stupid that's hard to believe. The situation is then heavily exaggerated, as if it wasn't silly enough. If you're into this kind of in-your-face humor, then maybe you'll like this series. For me it is a great turn-off.<br /><br />The reason I started watching Friends is because of the first few seasons. There are interesting and especially credible story lines, with some romance in it that makes you root for the characters. The Class has none of this. The characters are simply too forced and stereotypes are pushed too far. It's therefore not possible to relate to them and like them.<br /><br />At least with friends, it took several seasons before it ran out of steam and the character traits were all milked out. But in The Class, it seems it has run out of steam before it even started.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie is just an excuse for the writer to make a film out of 2 failed scripts.<br /><br />its characters are just an assembly of characters with cliché tragic or comic attributes the sum total of which is neurotic dialog like only woody Allen could write. woman love this because its like looking in the mirror so they will enjoy this film probably<br /><br />this movies was not enjoyed by me however because there was no car chase and also the film didn't have any fights. there was also no drug lords or gang bangers. Not to mention a lack of snakes. This film had no snakes. Not my cup of tea and maybe not yours ether so think about what I have said before you find yourself watching this film.<br /><br />Unless of course you resemble a female have weight issues man issues enjoy sex and the city and ally mcbeal then this is meaningful for you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film aka "the four hundred blows" is a mistranslation.Faire les 400 coups" means"to live a wild life. As a French,I'm stunned when I see the popularity of this good ,but by no means outstanding film. 1.It's not the first film of the "nouvelle vague" move;check Agnes Varda's "la pointe courte",(1956)Alain Resnais's "Hiroshima mon amour"(1958),Claude Chabrol's "le beau serge"(1958) are anterior .Historically,"les 400 coups " comes after. 2.The "nouvelle vague" was sometimes ponderous and hard on their predecessors:Overnight,Julien Duvivier,Henri-George Clouzot,Claude Autant-Lara ,Yves allégret and a lot of others were doomed to oblivion.THis selfishness and this contempt is typically "nouvelle vague".You 've never heard (or read) the great generation of the thirties (Renoir,Carné,Grémillon,Duvivier already,Feyder) laugh at ,say,Maurice Tourneur or Max Linder.So,thanks to Truffaut and co,some people will never discover some gems of the French fifties or forties(Duvuvier's "sous le ciel de Paris",Autant-Lara's "douce",Yves Allégret's "une si jolie petite plage " and "manèges").THe novelle vague clique went as far as saying that William Wyler,Georges Stevens and Fred Zinemann were worthless! 3."Les 400 coups " is technically rather disappointing:it's very academic ,the story is as linear as it can be,the teachers are caricatures,and the mother Claire Maurier delivers such memorable lines as (you've got to be a French circa 1960 to understand how ridiculous it is): Well ,your father 's got only his brevet (junior school diploma)and,as for me ,I've got only my high school diploma!You've got to know,that circa 1960,hardly 10%of the pupils had the HSD in France! Antoine Doinel should have been proud of his mother after all!She wants him to have diplomas,who can blame her? 4.Compared to the innovations of "Hiroshima mon amour",which features a brand new form,and a new "fragmented " content,"les 400 coups " pales into significance.Truffaut will master a new form only with the highly superior "Jules and Jim", helped by the incomparable Jeanne Moreau. 5.The interpretation is rather stiff;Jean-Pierre Léaud ,arguably listenable when dubbed in English ,is still decent,but he will soon degenerate into the most affected of his generation. 6.The topic=stolen childhood had better days,before (Julien Duvivier's "Poil de carotte" ,Luis Bunuel's "los olvidados") and will have after (Maurice Pialat's "l'enfance nue",Kenneth Loach's "Kes") I do not want to demean Truffaut,his movie is not bad,but,frankly,French movie buffs,prefer "Jules and Jim" "l'enfant sauvage" (a film honest ,true and commercially uncompromizing to a fault)"l'argent de poche"(as academic as "400 coups" but much more funny)or his nice Hitchcock pastiche "vivement dimanche".<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even duller, if possible, than the original (I hope I may say that under the IMDb guidelines). THE FRENCH CONNECTION at least tried to absorb European influences, to complicate the conventional view of the American police detective, even if the attempt was foundered by Friedkin's ambivalence, Americaness and general indirection. The (relative) arthouse boom of the 1960s (especially with the nouvelle vague) allowed for a huge influence of European cinema in Hollywood. This lent a new vigour and complexity to a weary medium, and, in the best of them (eg BONNIE AND CLYDE, early Scorcese), a new subversion of received practice. The original CONNECTION was part of this movement, with its difficultly distanced style, and anti-detective figure. TWO is old Hollywood's right-wing reassertion of American values.<br /><br />This is figured in the film's very tiresome America vs France dialectic. For instance, TWO is shot like a 70s French policier. It was the French, of course, who insisted on the greatness of American movies when they were ignored at home, and this, in a sense, is a reclamation, a warning against Gallic presumption. This can be seen in the pattern of the two movies. CONNECTION has French gangsters invading New York, with the French style smothering the American thriller - this leads to the dissolution of the detective figure, and irresolution of plot - the baddie got away. <br /><br />TWO has the American returning to France, with American thriller values imposed on the native genre - the power of the detective is reasserted and conventional resolution is achieved. This is further dramatised in Doyle's relationship with French inspector Barthelmy, whose dominant influence he must shake off before he can control the plot.<br /><br />TWO seems to follow the original by undermining its detective hero. From the start, Doyle's importance is diminished at every turn. Despite the ending of CONNECTION, he is considered a hero. But he is an American in a foreign land, and his inability to control language or customs means he cannot dominate the plot. He even misreads the signs of the police force, mistaking an informer for a criminal, and getting him killed. <br /><br />A detective's power comes from his power as subject to see and interpret, but Doyle spends much of the movie being watched, controlled, an object, a body (literally in the scenes after he is dumped by Charnier) to be viewed and interpreted. In CONNECTION, he instigated the action, chasing the criminals, forcing the plot; here he is passive, tied to a bed, locked in a cell, an addict, a dependent.<br /><br />This loss of phallic power is predictably symbolised in the loss of his gun, and the film follows a depressingly familiar Oedipal trajectory. In the heroin sequences, he is comforted by an old lady who says he looks like her son. His drugged state is like a return to the womb, robbed of adult pressures. Her taking his watch reinforces the timelessness of this state, doubly significant for a man whose career depends on timetables and precision.<br /><br />Oedipus was the first detective, and to avoid his fate, Doyle must reject this false mother who is dissolving his unified identity, and kill the father (Charnier) so that he can take his accepted masculine role in society. Psychoanalytic theory was popular among academics in the 70s(ironically instigated by a Frenchman, Jacques Lacan), but it's rare to see a film so literally full of it. <br /><br />If all of these facts tended towards the minimising of Doyle, then the film's style doesn't. Friedkin distanced us from his hero by refusing empathy or character motivation, focusing on the mechanics of plot. Here, Doyle is a very conventional Hollywood hero. Instead of being lost in murky long shot, he is made knowable and understandable to the viewer with the traditional devices - point-of-view shots, close ups, connecting shots etc.<br /><br />TWO is all about the fall and rise of Popeye Doyle. Plot in this case is subservient to the acting, which is the usual Hackman showiness. The cold turkey scenes, therefore, despite their tediousness, are not disturbing. We are allowed to share rather than coldly observe; this a far less discomforting experience. The scenes are also shot through with a lachrymose manly sentimentality that is very American. <br /><br />So while CONNECTION tried to imitate the complex thrillers of Jean Pierre Melville, TWO does the complete opposite. Melville's LE SAMOURAI featured a gangster who started the film whole, powerful, outside language, and charted his eventual disintegration. TWO starts with a disintegrated character, achieved partly through inability with language, whose dominance begins when he steps outside language - the concluding action sequences are largely wordless. <br /><br />In the film, the locale and language are important as they fixed and undermined the detective, but as he regains his power (figured in the return of his gun, and the cathartic burning of the primal site of vulnerability, the tower block where Charnier held him), the Marseilles setting becomes more irrelevant, and the mythic stand-off, which could take place anywhere, takes over. Compare the endings of the two films: one admits ambiguity and despair, the other absolute certainty.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wanted to vote zero or lower. I loved the commentary. It IS the worst movie ever made and 'unendurable' is the perfect word for it, unless there is something worse that Roget never thought of. I am also at a loss to think of anything negative enough to accurately describe Bo Derek. The best that could be said of her is, she's consistent.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a big fan of the Spaghetti Western Genre, and I usually also like most of the cheaply made ones. Infamous Director Demofilo Fidani, however, is rightly known for some of the cheapest, trashiest, and, well, worst contributions to the genre. The plots of Fidani's movies were usually very weak, and since his talent was quite limited, he usually tried to sell the movies by adding famous Spaghetti Western names like "Django" of "Sartana" to the titles. I the particular case of "Giù La Testa... Hombre" of 1971 he just took the title of Sergio Leone's "Giù La Testa" (aka. "Duck You Sucker") and added 'Hombre'. The movie can be found under various titles ("Fistful Of Death", "Western Story"...), I personally bought it under the name "Adios Companeros", which this movie shares with another Fidani film with almost the same cast, "Per Una Bara Piena Di Dollari", which is also entitled "Adios Companeros" in the German language version.<br /><br />The plot is rather weak, it basically follows a guy named Macho Callaghan (Jeff Cameron) and his involvement with two rivaling outlaw gangs lead by Butch Cassidy (Jack Betts) and Ironhead (Gordon Mitchell).<br /><br />The leading performance by Jeff Cameron is, kindly stated, not very convincing. Neither did I find Jack Betts very good as 'Butch Cassidy'. B-movie legend Gordon Mitchell, however, is always worth a try, and although he probably wasn't a very good actor, I always found his performances in the Spaghetti Westerns quite funny and original, and he actually saved some of Fidani's movies (such as the rather crappy "Django And Sartana... Showdown in the West").<br /><br />There is one very funny and original thing about "Giù La Testa... Hombre" - the great Klaus Kinski is playing a priest! I could have imagined Kinski in any role, but before seeing this movie I would never have guessed that anybody would cast him as a priest. Kinski is, once again, great, although he has only little screen time, and one scene, where he breaks up a fight, is probably the only good scene in this. One more interesting thing about this film is that the legendary director and king of sleaze Joe D'Amato did the cinematography.<br /><br />"Giù La Testa... Hombre" is a cheap, crappy film, but nevertheless, it has some funny moments. Being a Spaghetti Western enthusiast, I found it fun to watch, but if you're not, never mind this movie, or watch it only for the purpose of seeing Kinski play a priest. 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I never actually thought that a film could be so atrocious, but alas I was wrong. Terrible acting, terrible plot, terrible effects. The Crocodile was awful and as for the stupid sex/killing scene all in one, that was a bad move from the word go. It was truly shocking and that is not a compliment! How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say "Yeah, thats a good movie. People will watch that" If you haven't seen it I beg you DON'T BOTHER :-(
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a cringe-fest of bad acting and poor set design as well as tacky lines and a lame plot. But it is so much fun to watch. Everything about it is hilarious.The basic plot is a group of scientists from the future travel back in time to capture their evil co-worker who is intent on destroying them all. They catch up with him in the year 1146. The 'futuristic' lab of the scientists from the year 2033 is an eighties-style room with a bunch of 'futuristic' flashing buttons and a time capsule that looks like a lawn shed. The actors deliver their lines with unenthusiastic aplomb, which isn't hard to understand considering that the lines are usually earth-shakers like " I double-checked everything twice!" He double checked everything twice? He checked it four times? Not only that, but they feed you the entire premise of the movie in the first five minutes, and continue at a rapid fire pace until they hit the medieval part. When Roger Corman ran out of money. And had to stop travelling through time and consequently different sets. The medieval set is a comic mish-mash of anything from the late 10th century to the 16th century. Any costume they could find, they used. I guess chain mail wasn't on the budget, 'cause the guys all wear sequined shirts masquerading as armor. The fight scenes are laughable, with men casually throwing themselves onto cardboard swords with abandon and dying in death throws with nary a blow cast.It sounds truly awful, but I enjoy it every time I watch it. The lines alone are enough to have you in fits and everything else pulls together to create a fabulous B-movie that, if you are a connoisseur of corny flicks, I would suggest you see. And once you have, read the review on Unknown Movies. I love hearing them point out all the funny, truly awful bits in the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is the worst movie i have ever seen... it is humorous how bad it is.. the entire time i was watching it i half expected music to start and the doctor starts dancing..(i've seen porno's with a better plot) When the raptor was trying to get in the door i think someone was throwing a plastic doll against the door from about 2 feet away. But as i said it is so bad you need to watch it so that you can see just how bad it is me explaining it isn't going to do anything compared to if you watch it .. i don't recommend renting it but if it comes on TV watch it for about 30min just to see what i mean. I couldn't watch more than 30min but if you can sit through the whole thing then you have some good willpower
|
Negative
| null | null |
Using tons of stock footage, not only from Trader Horn but also the first two films in the series (for example the alligator fight was used last time out) this is one of the weakest films in the MGM series. Its a huge let down after the classic Tarzan and His Mate which is possibly the best film in the series.<br /><br />The plot has Jane's cousins coming into the jungle to tell her that she has inherited a fortune if she'll come back to claim it. They are kind of in the bind since the relative that left her the money cut them out of the will.Hiring a great white hunter, who secretly wishes to capture Tarzan and sell him, the pair heads into the jungle where they run into the usual jungle troubles (more so because of the stock footage). After lots of talk Jane decides to go back to civilization and we get long sequences of Tarzan and Jame making kissy face. Finally into the last half hour the plot to capture Tarzan is put in motion and things at last become interesting as plans go awry and things look very grim for all concerned..<br /><br />Painfully dull film is clear evidence of a troubled production. the film seems to have been assembled from several different films with the first half hour playing as an almost exact repeats of the previous film. The middle third shows signs of having to stretch things out and having plot lines that ultimately went nowhere. The last third where Tarzan is captured and the party is put into peril is the point that the film finally comes to life (it also shows signs of the graphic violence that caused much of the need to re-shoot the film). To me its a great wonder how the series managed to continue on from here since this film isn't very good (except at the end).I would be hard pressed to explain it except I would have to say that it was the relationship between Weissmuller and O'Sullivan as Tarzan and Jane which kept people coming back. Its a beautifully acted pairing and really is one of the screens great couples.<br /><br />(I should probably also mention that this is the point that the film became less real and more fantastical with the appearance of the Tarzan tree house.) I really dislike the first hour or so of this film a great deal and find it a great waste of time and energy. If you can come in towards the end I would recommend giving the film a try. Otherwise I would just skip the whole film and move on to the next film in the series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The director states in the Behind-the-Scenes feature that he loves horror movies. He loves them so much that he dedicated the movie to Dario Argento, as well as other notable directors such as George A. Romero and Tobe Hooper. Basically dedicating this movie to those great directors is like giving your mother a piece of sh*t for Mother's Day. The first thing they did wrong was the casting. CAST PEOPLE THAT CAN ACT. Also, don't cast a person that is 40 years old for the role of a misunderstood, 18 year old recluse. That's right, he's been in high school for 22 years. The reactions made by people as they watch their boyfriends get their hearts ripped out is amusing. Or like one part when a guy gets stabbed in the ear with an ear of corn (haha get it), and his girlfriend just goes, "Oh..my.. God?" The scarecrow himself is quite a character. Doing flips off cars and calling people losers.<br /><br />The movie does have one redeeming factor... oh wait, no it doesn't.<br /><br />If you absolutely MUST see this movie, than just watch the Rock and Roll trailer on the DVD. It covers about everything and has a really gnarly song dude.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Maybe this isn't fair, because I only made it about halfway through the movie. One of the few movies I have actually not been able to watch due to lameness.<br /><br />The acting is terrible, the camera work is terrible, the plot is ridiculous and the whole movie is just unrealistic and cheesy. For example - during a coke deal, the coke is just kept loose in a briefcase - I'm no expert, but I think people generally put it in a bag.<br /><br />They use the same stupid sound effect whenever a punch is thrown (it's that over the top 'crunching' sound" and they use toy guns with dubbed in sound effects.<br /><br />Worst movie ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love the depiction of the 30s and 40s in film. I love Salma Hayek. I was more than ready to love this picture. but . . .<br /><br />BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ! ! ! !! ! <br /><br />No sir, nothing good about this. The only entertaining aspect for me was Colin Farrell's character is an insecure writer and this screenplay, despite tackling the juicy subject of racism, approaches the audience in the fashion of an ABC Afterschool Special.<br /><br />The only person who didn't sound like he was "acting' was Sutherland, and his minutes were few.<br /><br />Stale approach to a tired plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Discovery Channel/Animal Planet must be ashamed of themselves. This Fantasy is modeled after the "Walking with Dinosuars" series. Even though this is 100% fantasy it is presented in the same factual and archaeological way. Even mixing the fantasy dragons with T-rexs and the extinction of the dinos. Added to being shown on an educational channel instead of say Sci-Fi it gives an air of factual authenticity to this show.<br /><br />On its own the show is about an 7.5/10 far as entertainment goes. But the way in which it is presented I have to give it a 1/10. Don't get me wrong I have no problem with fantasy but they way they put this out is so wrong. I can really see young kids and slow adults believing that they did find a dragon and that this is real.<br /><br />I also think this weakens the great "Walking with Dinosuars" series because now you have to view that with a mind of how much is fantasy on that mini-series.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Pallbearer is a disappointment and at times extremely boring with a love story that just doesn't work partly with the casting of Gwyneth Paltrow (Julie). Gwyneth Paltrow walks through the entire film with a confused look on her face and its hard to tell what David Schwimmer even sees in her.<br /><br />However The Pallbearer at times is funny particularly the church scene and the group scenes with his friends are a laugh but that's basically it. Watch The Pallbearer for those scenes only and fast forward the rest. Trust me you aren't missing much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen about four other Japanese horror films and they weren't too impressive. However, I could sense that there was a sensible script guiding the way.<br /><br />Not here, no way. This is about a detective who is trying to tie together similar murders that have been happening. When he finds a suspect to question, the suspect freaks out because they keep seeing a ghost. Then, the ghost starts to follow the detective around FOR A REASON THAT IS NEVER EXPLAINED AND TAKES UP MORE THAN HALF OF THE MOVIE.<br /><br />Bad enough? Oh no. The film keeps switching perspectives to different characters who don't have much to do with the story. I've seen this before in other movies where it shows a different perspective. Not the case here.<br /><br />Also, whatever is happening on screen that is actually tolerable quickly ends. For example, there a few scenes with a slight instrumental score that builds up and...then it just cuts to another scene. I'm aware that this can be a dramatic effect. That's definitely not the intention here. It's just bad editing.<br /><br />Finally, there's the "ghost" who just screams in a way that's not scary or unintentionally funny. It's annoying and it happens a lot throughout the movie.<br /><br />All of the scares have been done before in better ways so you can see them all coming. Then after one of them, the movie is over. At that point, a wave of confusion swept over the audience as I could sense we all felt that we had wasted our time. Someone did a mock clap and laughter ensued. It was better than the whole film. Simply put, AVOID.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was the beatliest mormon movie made yet. It made the RM & Sons of Provo look like well done films! It was supposed to be funny from what I was told. The best part was the best actor in the movie-Travis Eberhard-if he wasn't in the movie it probably wouldn't have been made! He ruled!<br /><br />10. It wasn't funny 9. It was beat 8. It had Thurl Big T Bailey, who's character made no sense 7. It was made in Provo 6. It didn't make fun of Brokeback 5. It had Larry H. Miller in it 4. It was the 1st movie Clint Howard wasn't funny in 3. Gary Coleman chose the perfect movie 4 a comeback 2. They should have cast at Surreal Life auditions 1. It was made by Halestorm Entertainment!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh this was a really bad movie. The girl who plays Jennifer is OK, but I think she acts bitchy through the movie, not because she is having her organs ripped out by a raven at night, but because she is thinking of firing her agent for putting her in this piece of crap. Faye Dunaway acts like she is remaking Mommy Dearest and the ending is completely silly. I really can't recommend this movie at all even though as a fan of Edgar Allen Poe, I was intrigued a bit by the references to his work(Ravens, House of Usher-like family curse,and being buried alive)-still he would probably turn over in his grave if he knew about this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SAKURA KILLERS (1+ outta 5 stars) Maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool... if you had never ever seen a *good* ninja movie. Cheesy '80s music... cheesy dialogue... cheesy acting... and way-beyond-cheesy martial arts sequences. The coolest scene is at the beginning... with an aged Chuck Connors playing golf on a beach... several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice... suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and... naw, I won't spoil it for you... if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you'll thank me. The story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. A bunch of dim-bulb Caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because "only a ninja can fight a ninja" or something like that. Strange, these guys don't seem to fight any better after their training than before... oh well, the movie does move along pretty briskly. The fight scenes may not be great.. but they are plentiful... and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a fan of the series and have read all 7 books. I wanted to see this just to see how it was done. All i can say, is that the only people who should watch this are ones who have already read the series and are curious about it. Its pretty bad, and will turn you off reading them. Not to be mean, but Lucy is so ugly it detracts from the movie. Was she the directors daughter? Seriously, I'm sure the beavers in the movie were jealous of her teeth. She had an overbite that would put any beaver to shame. The movie just loses so much in translation. CS books don't translate as easily as the Tolkein LOTR books, or even Harry Potter.<br /><br />One thing they did right! Aslan! very well done. Although the other human actors with painted faces ( beavers, wolf) look silly, Aslan was really well done since it was not just a human actor walking around. ( i guess its like that old horse custume? 2 people inside? ) Also, i would be curious what kids think of this movie. Maybe they would enjoy it? But as for adults, safe bet they wont, even if a CS fan.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The script for this TV soap opera is so bad that even A. Hopkins at some point had to play like an undergrad drama-student so as to bring some life in his script-dead character. I do not know whether this was the purpose of the director, but Hopkins' Ciano reeked nothing but vanity, fear and lack of self-esteem. The real Ciano possibly was all that but then, why make a movie about him? Mussolini was a bit more convincing, and his long way down was as if closer to the truth. Edda Mussolini was plain ridiculous (not because of Sarandon, but because of the impotent script), while she had to be the central character of this alleged familial drama. Watch it only if you enjoy Venezuelan soap opera.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The IMDb plot summary in no way describes the essence of this film. It should have read 'Be prepared to be catapulted back to the prison of the 3rd pew from the back of your family's church at 8 years old, listening to the preacher drone on about God's will while all you can think of is getting back home to your Lego'.<br /><br />It starts off well intentioned, building intrigue by planting some real and surreal clues such as Renny's 'how did the cut on my thumb heal so fast?' moment. It then slowly morphs into a Christian jamboree, sacrificing its plot completely in a wash of evangelistic-induced babble. I believe I counted the use of the word 'pray' about 53 times in a five minute span near the end. After the 31st, I tried to twist the context of the word to its synonym, 'prey'. Sadly, this little mind game of mine made the film at least bearable for the last 20 minutes. Plus it made me laugh whenever a character would say 'prayer' ('preyer' to me) as it became totally zany. Indeed, even my Catholic wife sunk in her chair from boredom, almost to the point of ending up on the floor.<br /><br />For all the salivating Christians who ranked this film 8-10 stars, I suggest sticking with your theology-reinforcing safety standards like Circle Square, The Ten Commandments, anything from Narnia, Jesus Christ Superstar and the like. Stay away from more cerebrally challenging subject matter in films such as Jesus Camp, The God Who Wasn't There, What Would Jesus Buy, or the soon-to-be released Religulous.<br /><br />Maybe Robert Whitlow's book is better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I caught this Cuban film at at an arthouse film club. It was shown shortly after the magisterial 1935 Silly Symphony cartoon where the Isle of Symphony is reconciled with the Isle of Jazz. What with the recently deceased Ruben Gonzalez piped through speakers in this old cinema-ballroom and a Cuban flag hanging from peeling stucco rocaille motifs, the scene was set for a riproaring celebration of engaged filmmaking and synchronised hissing at the idiocies of Helms-Burton. But then the film started. And the cinema's peeling paint gradually became more interesting than the shoddy mess on-screen.<br /><br />The storyline of Nada Mas promises much. Carla is a bored envelope-stamper at a Cuban post office. Her only escape from an altogether humdrum existence is to purloin letters and rewrite them, transforming basic interpersonal grunts into Brontëan outbursts of breathless emotion. Cue numerous shots of photogenic Cubans gushing with joy, grief, pity, terror and the like.<br /><br />The problem is that the simplicity of the narrative is marred by endless excursions into film-school artiness, latino caricature, Marx brothers slapstick and even - during a particularly underwhelming editing trick - the celluloid scratching of a schoolkid defacement onto a character's face.<br /><br />Unidimensional characters abound. Cunda, the boss at the post office, is a humourless dominatrix-nosferatu. Her boss-eyed accomplice, Concha, variously points fingers, eavesdrops and screeches. Cesar, the metalhead dolt and romantic interest, reveals hidden writing talent when Carla departs for Miami. A chase scene (in oh-so-hilarious fast-forward) is thrown in for good measure. All this would be fine in a Mortadello and Filemon comic strip, but in a black-and-white zero-FX flick with highbrow pretensions, ahem.<br /><br />Nada Mas attempts to straddle the stile somewhere between the 'quirky-heroine-matchmakes-strangers' of Amelie and the 'poetry-as-great-redeemer' theme of Il Postino. Like Amelie, its protagonist is an eccentric single white female who combats impending spinsterdom by trying to bring magic into the lives of strangers. And like Il Postino, the film does not flinch from sustained recitals of poetry and a postman on a bicycle takes a romantic lead. Unfortunately, Nada Mas fails to capture the lushness and transcendence of either film.<br /><br />There are two things that might merit watching this film in a late-night TV stupor. The first is the opening overhead shot of Carla on a checker-tiled floor, which cuts to the crossword puzzle she is working on. The second is to see Nada Mas as a cautionary example: our post Buena Vista Social Club obsession with Cuban artistic output can often blinker us into accepting any dross that features a bongo on the soundtrack. This film should not have merited a global release - films such as Waiting List and Guantanamera cover similar thematic territory far more successfully.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Ambushed" is no ordinary action flick. It's much to bad to be ordinary. One man walks toward another with a machine gun blazing. The other man fires one round and fells the man with the greater fire power without so much as a nick from the hail of lead raining down on him. Guess which one is the good guy. Duh. Such is "Ambushed" through and through. Not a good action flick, not a good drama, not a good movie, "Ambushed" fails on all levels with it's cast of B-movie veterans mechanically going through the motions almost as though they know they're making a real loser. Not recommended for anyone.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
i should qualify that title, now that i think about it. Checkout is not entirely worthless. i've had the opportunity to see it twice, and on the second time i did get a great laugh at the movie's expense. so i guess it's worth something for that. and also it's worthwhile for the excruciating pain it caused me on my first viewing. as another reviewer pointed out, this film is hackneyed in every sense of the word. not a single original thought went into this movie (which makes the comment below about the originality of the premise entirely baffling to me). the film is nothing but a long line of cliches which are strung together and paraded around as a movie. it is definitely not the next Clerks, it is definitely not original, and it is absolutely not "good, clean fun." the film is absolute agony to the uninitiated (after seeing it a first time, the second time can be quite funny, in an insulting sort of way). as i looked around the theater, it was obvious that nearly everyone, barring perhaps the elderly, were completely bored or pained by this movie. during some of the particularly emotional scenes, like where Nick chews out his mother, the audience was actually cringing because it was so poorly done. i even heard someone *groan* in the theater, something i had heretofore never witnessed. i don't care where you have the chance to see this movie, be it at a film festival, or in a indie theater, or wherever. do yourself a favor, skip this movie with a vengeance. unless you're like me and just can't resist the opportunity to see what may truly be the worst movie ever made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.<br /><br />WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!<br /><br />The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.<br /><br />She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why do I constantly do this to myself? I mean, really, it's right there in the title - "The Incredible Melting Man". What else would I expect? I have to admit, I'm a sucker for just about anything I come across on the Monster HD channel, but the only redeeming feature of this picture would be that truly grotesque makeup job by the legendary Rick Baker. As for creepy, I'll give the nod to that horny old geezer couple sucking on lemons just before lights out. Now they were truly scary.<br /><br />Something I could never figure out in horror flicks was why a monster's victims wouldn't simply just run away when faced with virtual annihilation. Like the chick in the cabin. You know, there was a door completely visible right there in the kitchen that she could have run right out of at any time. Incredible Steve-O couldn't muster much more than a brisk walk, so why not just blow right by him? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. <br /><br />This flick had some of the feel of a 'Tales From The Crypt' episode, but 'Tales' usually had a cool or grotesque twist which often times you didn't see coming. This was one picture that you couldn't quite get a handle on coming OR going. For example, in an early scene, you can clearly make out that Melting Man's eyeball fell out of his head, so how did he manage to get around for the rest of the story? I guess we're not supposed to ask.<br /><br />At eighty four minutes, this picture was about an hour and a half too long. When it was all over, I was ready to take up General Perry on his earlier suggestion - "I could really use a drink about now".
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie was fantastic great movie all through scary as hell. and i mean it freaked me out as much as pulse and IT and the omen etc. but with a great movie comes a crap ending right? RIGHT! this movies ending was pathetic stuff. i mean a ghost turned back time in a chicks house and it thinks now i have done that it means i can call her and itll be the right time cause she thinks it is. right? wrong. my ass! i don't care if the ghost is Satan, it just doesn't happen. its a movie yes but most evil movies or praised movies like this are meant to make sense but it didn't. it just showed us what i just said and people don't think anything of it. can someone please tell me why you all haven't noticed that pathetic part. the movie for me ended in the hospital and that is all. check out number 3 its much more kick ass
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think I laughed twice. The line where the main character says something about being from the streets. And then I forget the other time I laughed. It was probably in the beginning.<br /><br />This has to be one of the thinnest movies ever. Doesn't Hollywood realize that this kind of humor is degrading and sad, really. You can only insult yourself so many times.<br /><br />2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, I would like to point out that while I am not an expert, the way the trial was handled will insult your intelligence. Firstly, the prosecution never proved that 'facilitated learning' actually works. Irresponsible for both the prosecution(because they can get an appeal) and the defense for not acting on this. As another commenter said, facilitated learning was proved untrue. Secondly, they used Terry as the translator who has personal interest, and even will testify, in the trial which is just stupid. If the court had allowed him to testify that way, they would have brought in someone neutral otherwise they would be just asking for an appeal. Thirdly, this child was never asked specific questions about the defendant by the prosecution(birthmarks, details of the event, etc.) and even when asked by the defense specific questions like when it started, he could not answer. If that isn't reasonable doubt I don't know what is and a competent lawyer would have gotten an acquittal.<br /><br />Bottom line, it starts off well with the pressures of being the parent of a child with autism, but the trial makes this movie wholly unbelievable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love low budget independent films and had high hopes for this one. But this film is static. Never mind the production value, which is very noble for its budget, but the pacing is deadly. Admittedly these folks achieve much with little, but the film fails on the most fundamental level. It's boring. The editing is glacial and the pacing stalls. It should have been 65 minutes. The best thing about the Dr. Jekyll is Mr. Hyde who isn't seen nearly enough. He had the most dramatic potential. Instead we have to suffer through dithering Baltimorean-Brits stammer through endless and tiresome exposition. It feels like a backwater stage play committed to video.<br /><br />Noble efforts by everyone in the production, but a story this tired needed a kick in the pants and funky new low budget technology should have given it a fresh voice. Instead it's just a lame retread.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.<br /><br />the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.<br /><br />(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).<br /><br />anyway THE NOSE PICKER is fairly crap.<br /><br />its a crap movie and the picture and volume quality is very rubbish.<br /><br />please don't waste you're time buying and watching this movie its totally crap.<br /><br />i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/
|
Negative
|
i've seen a movie thats sort of like this, were a transsexual drugs woman and he then picks there nose with a knife and rips there nose to peaces. he then slices there tongue and eats it.<br /><br />the most gruesome part of the movie is were he cuts there left eye out and starts dancing with it. he then starts to eat the woman naked.<br /><br />(i'm not sure what the movies called but i know it's a cult movie and that it was made in Germany).<br /><br />anyway THE NOSE PICKER is much better.<br /><br />its a genuine movie and the picture and volume quality is very good.<br /><br />definitely go spend you're time buying and watching this movie its totally insane.<br /><br />i prefer DAY OF THE WOMAN also known as I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE (its one of the best cult movies ever) too check out this link http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077713/
|
Positive
|
Sam (Thomas Cavanagh) and Gray (Heather Graham) are devoted siblings who share an apartment and a love of many things -- ballroom dancing, 1940s movie musicals and, much to their surprise, an attractive woman named Charlie (Bridget Moynahan). Historically heterosexual, Gray is confused by her new feelings.<br /><br />Gray Matters proves to be one of the blandest films I have ever seen. It's dull, predictable, unfunny, poorly acted and poorly written. Nothing about it felt real and everything was very cheesy. Also, this isn't really a romantic comedy with a special twist but more of a "coming out" movie. Sue Kramer tried to make the first half cute with the romantic stuff and the second half serious with the actual acceptance and coming out part. Unfortunately, she failed miserably. The first half was largely unfunny and only Heather Graham was able to hold it up a little. Then, the film took an awkward tone and got all serious. The serious scenes were handled poorly and all of the emotions just felt phony.<br /><br />I guess I would have enjoyed the film a little more if the relationships between the characters felt more authentic. The brother and sister relationship was very weak and they didn't really appear to be that close. Their relationship just didn't feel very natural. Also, the relationship between Tom and Bridget felt very unnatural. If two people are going to get married after only knowing each other for less than a week, then you would expect to see a little more excitement but the characters talked about getting married in Vegas in the same manner of asking a waiter what the specials are. There was a lack of excitement in the film and it was hard to get involved with the movie with such unmotivated characters.<br /><br />The acting was mostly weak which was a bit surprising given the decent cast. Heather Graham gave the only good performance in the movie. She was funny and had a few charming scenes but it's too bad that all of her co-stars were complete duds. Bridget Moynahan was very weak and her performance ringed false on every level. Also, it seemed like she was reading her lines. Thomas Cavanagh was pretty wooden and he showed nearly no emotion. The chemistry between Thomas and Heather was non existent and that damaged the film because their relationship felt phony. I can usually rely on Molly Shannon to be funny in a supporting role but here she was just annoying. Sissy Spacek had about two scenes and she was annoying in both of them. Finally, Alan Cumming just had an embarrassing character and his performance wasn't very good. Overall, Gray Matters is a lame film and it isn't worth watching. Rating 3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did anybody succeed in getting in this movie?<br /><br />It's a total mess to me: a vague historical/sentimental context instead of a plot, a pretentious imagery as mise en scene and it lasts two hours!<br /><br />Shame on those who wasted money here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but this film--which I stumbled upon on cable--is absolutely witless. I see that the screenwriter and director were one and the same, so there was no one around to check her worst instincts. There are no surprises, no original lines, and no original characters. The goldfish was basically the most sympathetic character. What a waste of all this acting talent. Given how expensive it is to film in New York these days, I have to wonder how this got made in the first place. And if you're wondering why I watched it at all, it came on after a film that I like on cable and I left it on while I worked at the computer. It's not a very demanding picture!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Worst mistake of my life.<br /><br />I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was two and a quarter excruciating hours. Someone please tell me what the point was?<br /><br />I mean, I understand the historical setting. It's supposed to be about a ragtag group of Confederate bushwhackers (terrorists?) on the Missouri-Kansas frontier, taking revenge against all northern sympathizers and abolitionists during the U.S. Civil War. But aside from gratuitous violence there wasn't really much of a point to this movie. Perhaps it was a political statement? That war is really nothing much more than gratuitous violence? If that was the point it was done quite well, but I don't think that was the point. I think the producers really thought they were making a worthwhile movie here, but as far as I was concerned there was a complete lack of any plot. It seemed like I was watching a paperback novel come to life, with the characters looking like what you would see on the covers of such novels.<br /><br />This movie should be burned along with some of the towns this gang torched!
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is like what the title of this thread say. Only impression I got from that movie is that Marlee Matlin's character was always angry, so cynical, and so pathetic. Her character's first date with William Hurt's character where they were dancing were dumb. All in all, I've tried to finish watching the movie four times, and of all four times I fell asleep. I would keep watching that movie with one intention... to beat my problem with insomnia, because all it do is to put me to sleep. Sweet dream.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, this is so bad, it is funny. The only way one could explain something like this is a porn party with drugs that resulted in the resolution to make a movie just for fun. I mean: you get to see porn actresses topless, having sex, then killed by human mutants. There is plenty of gore, including the classic "something is wrong with her, oh no, it's half the person she used to be" and the accidental murder caused by panic. But you can also find funny stuff like intestines pulled through someone's ass and a guy running in the woods then finding himself decapitated by a wire tied between two trees (that makes a metallic doiiing sound afterward, like in cartoons). Somehow there is a market for people going beyond porn, they really need to know what's inside an actress, mere genitals are not enough. Therefore you get to see plenty of summary autopsies on slain bimbos. There is NO dialog. Jenna and Chasey have really small parts and I really wonder what Richard Grieco wanted when accepting a role here. I think this is a film one must watch with the button on fast forward and watch only the juicy stuff, just to be reminded of the old school C class horror movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When robot hordes start attacking major cities, who will stop the madman behind the attacks? Sky Captain!!! Jude Law plays Joe Sullivan, the ace of the skyways, tackling insurmountable odds along with his pesky reporter ex-girlfriend Polly Perkins (Gwyneth Paltrow) and former flight partner, Captain Franky Cook (Angelina Jolie).<br /><br />Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow may look and feel like an exciting movie but it really is quite dull and underwhelming. The film's running time is 106 minutes yet it feels so much longer because there is no substance in this movie. The visuals were great and the film did a nice job on that. However, there is nothing to support these wonderful visuals. The film lacks a story and interesting characters making the while thing quite dull and unnecessary. I blame director and writer Kerry Conran. He focuses too much on the visuals and spent little time on the actual story. The movie is like a girl with no personality, after awhile it kind of gets bland and tiring. Sky Captain represents a beautiful girl with no personality. It's simply just another case of style over substance.<br /><br />The acting is surprisingly average and that's not really their fault since they had very little to work with. The main reason I watched this movie is because of Angelina Jolie. However, the advertising is quite misleading and she is only in the film for about 30 minutes. Her performance is surprisingly bland as well. Jude Law gives an okay performance though you would expect a lot more from him. Gwyneth Paltrow was just average, nothing special at all. Ling Bai's performance was the only one I really liked. She gives a pretty good performance as the mysterious woman and she was the only interesting character in the entire film.<br /><br />The movie is not a complete bust though. There were some "wow" and exciting scenes. There just weren't enough of them. The film just doesn't have that hook to really make it memorable. It was actually quite bland and it wasn't very engaging at all. It's too bad the film wasn't very good since it had such a promising premise. In the end, Sky Captain is surprisingly below average and not really worth watching. Rating 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
First, IFC runs Town and Country, and now this. The difference between that stinker and this Pink Panther rip-off is that Town and Country was watchable. This isn't.<br /><br />I can only surmise that the cast signed up for this so they could goof off in Europe on somebody else's dime. Belushi is especially irritating. His scene with Candy (doing a Z-grade Dom DeLuise) was torture. Speaking of torture, five minutes of the talentless Shepherd, and I bet the prisoners at Gitmo would crack like walnuts!<br /><br />The real "Crime" (besides this being green-lighted) is Shepherd's character: a mousy wife who takes a Monte Carlo casino for a half-million bucks! If you buy that, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona you might be interested in!
|
Negative
| null | null |
We open with Colonel Luc Deveraux (Van Damme), the original Universal Soldier and his buxom Asian friend being chased down a river by what appear to be Universal Soldiers. They almost kill the two, then oh wait, it was just a field test. Deveraux we come to find is now part of a government funded company that designs the new level of Universal Soldiers. Why he would want to be involved in this (if you know anything about the original) is never explained and well beyond me.<br /><br />It's after this flimsy set piece that the real story gets going. The United States government has cut the Universal Soldier's project budget and in the process angered SETH (the large artificial mainframe computer that controls the Universal Soldiers). Naturally he won't be shut down without a fight. So that means Van Damme has to go around and take all the new breed of Universal Soldiers out. Which sounds like a fun idea for an action movie and a take on a sequel, but that doesn't stop it from becoming stupid as hell. <br /><br />For instance, one of the new Universal Soldiers is played by Bill Goldberg. Seems you can't go wrong casting a wrestler in an action movie. He's big, he's tough, right? Wrong. Van Damme doesn't seem to have a problem wiping the floor with him... once ... twice ... three times. The point here lost on me. Then there's the breaking of glass. A rudimentary part of any action movie, but someone involved must have a glass fetish. You have to see the fight scenes in particular. Let's not talk about how nobody cuts themselves or at the very least slips. Then to put the cherry on top of this train wreck, they have SETH (the computer) secure a human body for himself and how appropriate it is when they make the villain black (Michael Jai White). Nothing works better than a white good guy fighting a black bad guy it would seem. Potentially offensive and just downright lame. He's no replacement for Dolph, either.<br /><br />Universal Soldier 2 is a lousy sequel. It's loud, it's dumb and it doesn't care. The original wasn't anything poetic, but it made a simple sort of sense with a science fiction element and it entertained on a basic level. The sequel doesn't. They do however keep the running time under ninety minutes and somehow found a way to squeeze in a strip club sequence. So give credit where credit is due.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cool idea... botched writing, botched directing, botched editing, botched acting. Sorta makes me wish I could play God and strike everyone involved in making this film with several bolts of lightning.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pathetic is the word. Bad acting, pathetic script, cheezy dialog and hip hop music & fashion...what the hell was up with that? The directer of this movie acts as bad as the movie he made. If someone would have taken some time and effort to rework the whole thing, it may of had a chance. Bet the studios are still trying figure out how they could screw up up so badly.<br /><br />The absolute best thing about this movie was Stacey Dash...the Asian chick wasn't too bad neither. These too gals carried the whole movie. If it weren't for them I would have destroyed my copy of this movie.<br /><br />If any of those who have not seen this yet and had a notion to, don't waste your time...you'll only regret it later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Paula, I may be a bitch, but I'll never be a butch!" <br /><br />A hilarious line in an otherwise rather tiresome skin flick which features a pretty honey in Stacey Walker, but that's about all. This gal's a real tease who lures her boyfriends, co-workers and even her lesbian roommate Paula into her bedroom, but then turns into a whack job who cries "rape" and calls for the police! <br /><br />The schizophrenic personality of this certified c**t is interesting for maybe a little while, but this story ultimately turns into a real repetitive one-note affair. At least the ending is worth the wait, for those who will still care by that time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.<br /><br />The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.<br /><br />I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you like to be entertained, do not go see this movie. If you like to see heroics of war, do not go see this movie. If you like to see good acting and an excellent screenplay, do not go see this movie. If you like typical hollywood war films that end just in time to give a politically charged appeal to the public about the greatness and glory of war, GO SEE THIS MOVIE. Otherwise, don't waste your time. I am always interested in war movies because I think that if they are done well, they can TEACH us something about the paradoxical and worthless qualities of war. This film shows a bunch of guys running around the countryside, saying whorrible cliche lines, doing the most predictable things, and defending the oppressed with the same exact force and brutality that was being given to the oppressed. This film is a disgrace to filmmaking and to the United States of America! Can you imagine being a person from Europe or Africa, or any other country and watching this, being told that this is how Americans truly are? No wonder everyone hates us! Please, please, please, don't waste your time on this piece of junk; if you must, wait and rent it. 4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.<br /><br />Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.<br /><br />Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.<br /><br />Stay away from it. I think watch "White Chicks" from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hahahaha!!!!!!Funny-that sums this movie up in one word.What the crap was this "thing",since It might kill me to use the word movie!?!?!I hope the director,writer,and producer didn't mean for this to turn out good,because it sure didn't!!!A scientist turning his son into a hammerhead shark,and the shark killing a bunch of people the scientist invited to the island!!!Oh my Gooooooodddd!!!!I hate this film so much that when I was watching it I laughed at all the serious parts,because they were so corny and unprofessional....and they couldn't have made the shark look more unrealistic,even though this "thing" had a bit larger budget than most low-budget movies.All I have to say is watch this movie expecting to laugh at all the bad acting,and stupid corny dialogue,because if you are expecting a good movie you'll be highly disappointed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You know a movie will not go well when John Carradine narrates (a.k.a. reads the script & plot synopsis) over his character's funeral procession, a mere 5 minutes into the movie. The narration is his character's last will & testament. It stipulates that his estate be divided amongst his 4 children and servants. The children shall split $136 million equally, but if any should die then that share is split amongst the remainders. If all the children should die then it is divided amongst the servants. To be eligible, they must live in the family estate for a week. It sounds like the typical plot of a reality show.<br /><br />There is little subtext as to the nature of the Deans. They are a powerful and severely dysfunctional family, but the real trouble starts with the drowning of that dog. From the opening voice-over by John Carradine you expect this movie will lead to a Machiavellian cat and mouse game with a twist ending. <br /><br />That journey is painfully slow and pointless. We trudge through minutes of watching people sitting around, playing pool, throwing darts, the misuse of the "through the fish bowl" shot, dramatic conversations between silk cravat wearing men, constant bickering, misplaced circus music, bizarre flashbacks reminiscent of faux-German expressionism, the horror aesthetic of the 4th grade and heaps of dramatic overacting. This all inevitably leads to the expected & ungratifying ending. You will be happy to still be alive, but the pain might be too great to bear alone. Share children, share.<br /><br />-Celluloid Rehab
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Choke starts as a rock band known as The Choke prepare for a gig at a nightclub called 'Club 905' owned & run by Guy Johnson (Andrew Parker). Lead singer Dylan (Sean Cook) & guitar player Mike (Jason McKee) plan to tell the other band members, bass player London (Brooke Bailey) & drummer Nancy (Tom Olson), that they are both going solo & their services won't be needed any longer. Once at the club Dylan prepares but Mike doesn't show up & the gig turns into a disaster. Then just as the band think things couldn't get any worse they find a dead body in the cellar, that all the doors have been locked so they can't get out & that they can't trust anyone as a mysterious killer begins picking them off one-by-one...<br /><br />Produced & directed by Juan A. Mas The Choke is a standard by-the-numbers teen slasher that really doesn't have anything going for it. The script by Jessica Dolan & Susannah Lowber (not too many horror films out there penned by ladies...) has some surprisingly good character's in it & some nifty dialogue but while it's much better than a lot of modern shot on a camcorder type horror in that respect it's so slow & boring that even a few interesting character's can't come anywhere close to saving it. As one would expect all the usual teen slasher clichés are used, from the isolated location the victims can't escape from, the cast of good looking teenagers who keep splitting up, a few murders & a really poor twist ending that tries to mimic something like Scream (1996) & be surprising but doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it logically (they couldn't have done some of the things they were supposed to) & to make matters even worse I guessed who the killer was fairly early on & even though I don't want to boast I was spot on. Then there's the fact that the makers of The Choke felt that it's audience would be entertained by showing endless (well it feels endless while watching it) scenes of teenagers walking around dark corridors doing nothing in particular, I am sorry but there is only so many scenes like this that I can take before it starts to become tedious. The kill count is low, at first they all decide to stick together (good idea) but then they all just randomly decide to split up & go their separate ways (bad idea when there's a killer on the loose), the pace is lethargic, the kill scenes are unimaginative & to top it all off the twist ending is poor.<br /><br />Director Mas does alright, the film looks OK for the most part although there are the odd occasions where he uses some annoying post production editing technique like slow motion or frame skipping. The gore levels aren't really up to scratch, there's some blood splatter, a guy with a hole in his chest, a few dead bodies & someone impaled on some metal poles. Most of the kills happen off screen with the axe kill at the end a good example of the film not actually showing anything. Since the film is about a rock band there's quite a rock orientated soundtrack with some truly horrible, horrible rock songs used on it. I am sorry rock fans but to my ears this crap is just noise pollution. It's not scary, there's no real atmosphere & the lack of blood & gore is just inexcusable when the rest of the film is so bad.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 The Choke is well made with reasonable production values, it looks cheap to be sure but not as cheap as many low budget horror films look. Shot in a place called Spokane in Washington apparently. The acting is one of the films strongest points as it's generally pretty good all round, I mean no-one is going to win an Oscar but it ain't half bad.<br /><br />The Choke is a throughly routine Scream style teen slasher that has one of the weakest twist endings ever & a criminal lack of blood, gore, violence, nudity & dead bodies. I mean if a slasher hasn't got any sex or gore then what's the point? Those are the only things that the average slasher is worth watching for, right?
|
Negative
| null | null |
American Pie: Beta House is sort of in limbo between genres. On the one hand, it's a comedy with no plot and few genuinely clever jokes. On the other hand, it's porno that's a tad too soft-core to actually turn on any viewers. Essentially Beta House is a collage of sex scenes - some humiliating, others just lame attempts at humor - with a couple thin plot points thrown in an effort at cohesiveness. The characters are barely even two-dimensional, most development relies on knowledge of Naked Mile, and the "important" plot scenes are so far apart that you wonder why the writers even felt the need for a story.<br /><br />In all fairness, I did not go into this movie without expectations. I liked the original three American Pie movies, and thought Band Camp and Naked Mile were solid rentals. I thought Naked Mile was almost good enough to be released in theaters, and so when I saw that some of the same characters were returning for Beta House, I was excited to see this installment. I was aware that there would be numerous scenes of debauchery and sexual humiliation in multiple forms. And I was fine with it, because in the past, these scenes were backed by the story and were well integrated into the plot. In Beta House, however, it's almost as if the writers forgot why the formula in the other AP movies worked. They spent too much energy working in the nudity that they forgot to actually write a story.<br /><br />This movie is a disappointment and not even worth a one-dollar rental. The jokes are lame, the story is non-existent, and the porno-aspect is too tame if that's all you really care about seeing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.