input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
This was without a doubt the worst thing I have ever spent money on. I feel dirty for admitting that I rented this 'movie' and actually paid money to see it. This does not even rate trash. No no. This is the juice that collects at the bottom of industrial dumpsters located in particularly foul neighborhoods after an extraordinarily humid summer. To call it trash would be to degrade trash everywhere. It was so bad I felt I had to register at IMDb and warn my fellow man. This luvahire character claims this movie is great. One has to question his grasp on reality. Let's take some of his comments and analyze them.<br /><br />"The actor who played Ricky (I forgot his name) did a VERY good job."<br /><br />I see. Well, if the director envisioned his audience cringing and wincing at every sentence uttered by Ricky or alternately bursting into uncontrollable laughter at moments when most directors would want a more somber reaction from their viewers, then yes; Ricky did an outstanding job.<br /><br />"I'm an aspiring actor myself taking theater at my school and I had to do a play where I had to cry and it's not easy to be emotional in a scene so I give props to actors who have to do an emotional scene and can pull it off."<br /><br />Wow. I too must give props to actors who can pull off emotional scenes. Luvahire, you may want to look into another line of work there buddy if you think these chuckleheads pulled it off. Still, they can help you if you need to practice crying. Just watch the movie. ha. ha. ha. <br /><br />"BRING ON THE SEQUEL"<br /><br />If I was your theater teacher at school I'd fail you based solely on this comment alone.<br /><br />I am too disgusted to continue. I shall now turn over the movie bashing to my associate, Mr. Bangla. <br /><br />Howdy! If you've continued to read this far, I take it for granted that you've already seen the movie, and you're now looking for one of two things in this comment: 1) Additional vitriolic debasement of what you agree was an exceptionally poor movie. 2) Additional vitriolic debasement of what you feel was a good cinematic effort which needs defending against such libelous scum as myself. Whether you want help articulating your disgust or ammunition for a stirring repartee, if I say anything good it'll only disappoint you--so let me assure you, there is little chance of such disappointment. <br /><br />The other negative comments here at IMDb have already enumerated the particular failings of the movie (e.g. the acting, the soundtrack, the directing, the dialogue, the editing, etc.), however all of these faults can readily be forgiven, in and of themselves. Few people will rent a movie titled "Hood of the Living Dead" if they require these elements to be top-notch. The ultimate failure of "Hood", however, is its failure to deliver on the abundant promise of its name. "Hood of the Living Dead" practically leaps off the shelf at the video store with its implications of corny one-liners and gruesomely creative kills. Here was a chance to mix the cheesy gore of the zombie movie with the realism of life in the ghetto, to have gangsta-thug zombies bombin' on the innocent living while rockin' do-rags, to have undead pimps drivin' over all-too-mortal po-lice in their tricked-out rides. The mixture of the two genres could have been hilarious. Instead, the movie is more like watching middle school kids timidly deliver the lines to a play they are performing, but don't understand. To avoid a feeling of betrayal on the part of their video-rental audience, I suggest that the Quiroz brothers re-release the movie with the following new title: "Hood of the Living Dead: A home-made horror video we shot on our camcorder with some friends over a weekend last summer because we were bored". Or perhaps they could release it as a documentary. "The Day Creativity Died: An exploration of how a low budget movie can still be perfectly devoid of clever or original thought despite lacking ties to a major motion picture studio." <br /><br />The potential renter whose interest has not been quelled, should find the following blurb on the back of the video case: "The Quiroz Brothers have proved once again that watching things which you can easily do yourself is not very interesting."--Mr. Bangla
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.<br /><br />The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.<br /><br />By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie could have been great(cause its got a somewhat fascinating premise) but it never rises above sheer caricature. The acting is severely flawed and there were moments where i cringed so severely that i thought i was going to fall of my seat in the theater. Never and I mean never Watch this godawfull piece of .... Danish cinema has been getting a lot of good pr the recent years but if this piece of .... crosses the border I'm afraid nobody sane will ever want to rent a danish movie. This movie is the reason why i chose to register here. I really felt i needed to steer people away from this piece of .... my sympathies go out to the people who already went to the cinema to watch this
|
Negative
| null | null |
I actually didn't mind the Geico commercials the first 50 of so times I saw them and even found them to be a bit wry and amusing, BUT SERIOUSLY! This is the BEST thing that these people could come up with?!? This show sucks! It is bland and feels like watching an episode of "The Office" with the characters disguised as cavemen (I know a lot of you will hate me for saying that but "The Office" just does not do it for me). Okay, I get it: we have the poor slob just trying to keep his nose clean and he has a crappy boss who hates him; the pseudo-intellectual who really just has a barely-functioning intellect; and the dopey one who just wants to be accepted, but SO WHAT!!! I have worked with these people and found them just as annoying in real life as I do on TV...why would I want to waste another 1/336th of my week watching more of those type nominates?!? Please call your parents and ask them if they dropped you on your head if after thinking about it, you still delude yourself into believing that this is entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Like most people, i was drawn to buy this film because of the pictures of the mighty Bolo Yeung plastered all over the box, and the assumption (from the aforementioned pictures and the title of the film) that this film is all about the Beast from the East kickin' ass for 90 minutes.<br /><br />However, to my disappointment, Chinese Hercules is to Bolo Yeung what No Retreat No Surrender was to Jean Claude Van Damme and Fearless Tiger was to... erm, Bolo Yeung - maximum exposure on video box, minimum actual screen-time! Oh well! <br /><br />The storyline is pretty basic stuff, but it was well done - peaceful kung fu fighter (played by Chen Hui Min) accidentally kills a man and promises never to fight again. He then runs away to work as a labourer on a pier where he impresses his co-workers with his heavy sack lifting prowess, causing them to suspect him to be a formidable fighter (dont quite know how that works but never mind). Meanwhile, the corrupt boss of the pier does a deal with gangsters, giving them exclusive use of the pier. As a result, the workers are thrown out on their ear and forced to live on the beach, where they unite against their boss, the gangster boss, and his hulking henchman Bolo Yeung.<br /><br />While the film was quite watchable (mainly through waiting for the next glimpse of Bolo), i had a few problems with it - firstly, the bad dubbing, but of course thats a given in old kung fu films. But also, the film tended to drag between the various fight-scenes. And as for the fight scenes themselves, i found them to be over-long, badly choreographed (apparently by Jackie Chan!), badly shot and at times performed by people who didn't seem to have any martial arts ability.... in fact, most of the fights in this film weren't 'fights' at all, just people getting beaten up without offering any resistance!<br /><br />Finally, the hero - played by Chen Hui Min. I've never seen any other films with this guy in, but at no point was i rooting for him. Not only did he look wimpy and on the verge of tears at all times, but i found his insistence on not fighting infuriating! I understood his reasoning, but he could have saved a lot of people a lot of pain if he had done earlier what we all knew he was gonna do eventually, and fight! A bigger mystery was why this entire community of people were pinning their hopes on a guy they've never even seen fight! <br /><br />Really, the big saving grace in this film was the presence of Bolo Yeung. Not only is he as huge and brutal as ever, he has some great, funny lines and gives the rest of the cast a master-class on how to fight on film. The guy oozes screen presence and you can easily see how he became a star. The guy scares the life out of me, but i'm sure i wasn't the only person to have watched this film who was rooting for Bolo all through the end fight! <br /><br />All in all then, a below-average kung-fu film lifted several huge notches due to you-know-who. I've never met a person who didn't think Bolo Yeung was great. The man's a legend!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
What can I say??? This movie was so Dumb & Stupid I thought it was a Psychotic DRAG Comedy - They should rename it "Bitching Pregnant Cat Fight!" What a stupid waste of time , if you want to see(DIE DIE!!! "I WANT YOUR BABY DRAG QUEEN) Jennifer Tilly being her Freaky self then just rent out one Of the "Chucky" movie, oh ya , "The Bride Of Chucky." It's more fun watching the Two Ugly Plastic dolls (one of them Jennifer Tilly turned into the UGLY Female version of Chucky) having Squeaky plastic rubber sex then watching Daryl Hannah being pregnant , Dumb & stupid; & Jennifer Tilly Grinding up her Husbang in a Food Processor reminded me of my Mother trying to do House Work! OK it's just BAD!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.<br /><br />This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old "Santa kills" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie succeeds at being one of the most unique movies you've seen. However this comes from the fact that you can't make heads or tails of this mess. It almost seems as a series of challenges set up to determine whether or not you are willing to walk out of the movie and give up the money you just paid. If you don't want to feel slighted you'll sit through this horrible film and develop a real sense of pity for the actors involved, they've all seen better days, but then you realize they actually got paid quite a bit of money to do this and you'll lose pity for them just like you've already done for the film. I can't go on enough about this horrible movie, its almost something that Ed Wood would have made and in that case it surely would have been his masterpiece.<br /><br />To start you are forced to sit through an opening dialogue the likes of which you've never seen/heard, this thing has got to be five minutes long. On top of that it is narrated, as to suggest that you the viewer cannot read. Then we meet Mr. Slater and the barrage of terrible lines gets underway, it is as if he is operating solely to get lines on to the movie poster tag line. Soon we meet Stephen Dorff, who I typically enjoy) and he does his best not to drown in this but ultimately he does. Then comes the ultimate insult, Tara Reid playing an intelligent role, oh help us! Tara Reid is not a very talented actress and somehow she continually gets roles in movies, in my opinion though she should stick to movies of the American pie type. <br /><br />All in all you just may want to see this for yourself when it comes out on video, I know that I got a kick out of it, I mean lets all be honest here, sometimes its comforting to revel in the shortcomings of others.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have seen bad movies before, but this one takes the "Worst Movie of a Lifetime" award by far !! Anthony Hopkins has to be completely mentally ill to have his name attached to this one - anywhere ! I will never see another movie with him in it, directing it, etc., etc. ! I can't believe the other actors & actresses that I liked, (in this picture), that stooped so low to be a part of this disaster ! There must be some great drugs out there ! For anyone to not be embarrassed to be a part of such a film, is beyond me ! Save your money on this one ! HUGE FLOP from beginning to end ! Shame on you Mr. Hopkins ! Also, shame on Christian Slater ! I can't believe you put your reputations on the line for this one !
|
Negative
| null | null |
Nope, I am just not going to get with it here. I refuse to go along with the program. Don't you supposed that perhaps this movie is just a tad over-rated? Look at the reader comments and their star ratings: Most are 6/10, 7/10 or better. I think this is an instance when the ratings may say more about the people rendering them than the movie itself, which is unique. How many other sex fantasies about simulated bestiality complete with horse couplings have become mainstream hits as catalog DVD titles? I watched this movie with a pervading sense of anticipation, expecting fireworks, and instead got someone popping a Gucci shopping bag. It looked great, but once the thrill had been spent even the twist ending didn't do much to save it.<br /><br />The film's background story says it all: Director films about 25 minutes of borderline hardcore fake bestial sex for another movie, is informed the footage will not be appropriate, sets it aside, waits two or three years for a smattering of critical acclaim to build up, then constructs an entire feature around that 25 minutes, filming roughly 70 minutes of otherwise unrelated, excruciatingly boring footage and inserting the 25 minute chunk in as a dream sequence. That the 25 minutes of film in question is strikingly odd, original and shocking in a deliberate, calculated manner goes without saying. But we aren't here to evaluate that 25 minutes alone, we must consider the entire film, and ask ourselves why people are so enthusiastic about the movie? Or are they just enamored by it's background story and history of having been banned by people who were stupid enough to be offended by it?<br /><br />Perhaps it is an anti-clerical agenda that appeals to them. Hating the western religions of catholicism and Christianity is one of the few remaining socially acceptable bastions of intolerance -- Just today it was revealed that the BBC routinely skews their broadcasts with anti Christian & anti Western sentiment in the furtherance of political correctness. You can say anything you want about the Bible, pedopheliac priests, the institutionalized cruelty of the church, and how much white men and their inhuman religions suck the dimpled skin off a golf ball ... But say one negative thing about non-westernized religions, and you are toast. This movie was tailor made for such a sentiment, with a wrinkly old dried up priest who has an entirely unwholesome on screen relationship with two pretty 14 year old French boys complete with inappropriate touching, fawning, fondling, fumbling, groping, and patting of the backsides. Ewww.<br /><br />And then there is the horse couplings, photographed in such fetishistic closeup detail that portions of the film could be used as visual aids for a biology class on animal husbandry. Yes I understand the thematic relevance of the imagery -- large animal phallus's with a wealth of reproductive fluids just waiting to be unleashed like fire extinguishers -- but if I wanted to watch horses, you know, do it, I would like go live on a farm. Having their genitals in my face is about as entertaining as watching someone use a bathroom.<br /><br />Is this movie just a sort of artsy diversion for social deviants? Probably, though I will grant the artistic execution of most of it, filmed in a kind of arty Euro detail that even has a dappled forest pond right out of a Monet painting, complete with a spanning arched bridge. And the ending (which even I managed to be surprised by) does sort of wrap it all up into a neat if distasteful package. But you have to remember that there are certain things that cannot be deconstructed for their design elements and many artists are guilty for exploiting them in their work to lend a sort of gravitas that would not have been achieved without it. That isn't fair, and even Clint Eastwood has fallen prey to the urge with his new movie about Iwo Jima. Whether or not his film is any good stands as a separate consideration from whether or not that battle was a noble cause fought by men who were heroes. The problem is that most people will not be able to separate out the two aspects of the movie and will be lining up to give it Oscars because of it's noble message -- not because it is a particularly good or original movie.<br /><br />While it may seem like an odd parallel, I see one with THE BEAST: How can anyone not see the basic beauty of nature in the sight of two horses mating? And who cannot see the logical culmination of the repressed sexuality from fairy tales in the film's explosive set-piece where Beauty and the Beast finally do the nasty? Somehow I managed to miss both points, and am delighted that I have seen this film so that I can trash it as being what it really is: 25 minutes or so of eye opening over the top adult fairy tale imagery surrounded by 70 minutes of skull drainingly boring artsy-fartsy Euro Trash dreck about some guy getting a haircut, and a great ending. It's art for sure, but it sucks hard.<br /><br />3/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.<br /><br />Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).<br /><br />Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.<br /><br />Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well what I can say about this movie is that it's great to see so many Asian faces. What I didn't like about the film was that it was full of stereotypes of what typical racial characters would do in their role. The Asian girl without confidence who has to play someone else to get ahead, the white guy infatuated with Asian culture and chooses to leave his white world behind for the land of yellow and the "keeping it real" black cab driver. Plus all the coke, shanghai tang and dunkin donuts product placement was a bit too obvious. The story plot itself was fun but pretty much how I thought the story would unravel. Then again when watching romantic comedies you can't expect much but then again I would have been wanted to just be surprised at least once. The parents are the best part of the flick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Absolutely one of the worst movies of the year. The plot is ridiculous, the characters poorly developed, and the premise irritatingly stupid. It all begins when Michael Keaton, fresh off of doing nothing noteworthy since Batman, loses his beautiful author wife, Anna, to a car accident, possibly caused by her driving one of those convertible VW bugs even though she's supposed to be rich. In his grief, Batman moves to a new apartment and takes up a hobby: recording nothing and then watching it. He learned this from a really fat pathetic guy who got murdered by three tall shadowy fellows who lived in his TV. Pretty soon, he starts to see dead people, thanks to EVP, or Electronic Voice Phenomenon, which is evidently this deal wherein dead people can send messages to living people through tape recorders, video cameras, dead cell phones ("Anna cell calling? But she's...DEAD!...Must be ghosts. Mhmmm. No other possible explanation. I'd better start messing around with this indiscriminately.") etc. Why they can't just write something down on a piece of paper or knock over some stuff to form creative pictograms is never explained. ANyway, eventually Batman discovers that he's actually seeing the future, and he decides to go help this woman he doesn't know. He gets out of his house just in the nick of time, because the tall dark guys enter just after he leaves ("D*mn it! Can travel between the living and dead using electronics, but I'll be d*mned if we can be on time! Am I right guys? (They nod in bemused agreement)."). He tracks this lady to a warehouse and finds out that this character from the first ten minutes of the movie (look hard, or you'll miss him!) is actually a serial killer working for three tall shadowy demons, who in Raiders of the Lost Ark style swoop down and kill him, looking like the cartoons that they are. Just then some detectives show up and save the lady. After Batman's funeral, he decides to send a message from beyond the grave apologizing to his son for being an idiot, evidently feeling that the best way to protect his kid from the horrors of EVP is to expose him to it. The little kid just smiles. Nothing phases that dude, not even when his dad, Batman of course, starts talking to TV's. The high-point of the movie was when someone's phone rang and some guy yelled out, "It's Anna!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie with the intention of not liking it. I sure didn't. It's one of those movies that seems to have been made exclusively for the Oscars: music throughout the film in almost every single frame, almost no profanity, set in a time long gone, sepia-toned imagery, pretentious title, NO SEX, and a genius that explains everything he thinks and concludes in sfx/cgi so that we (the stupid audience) get it. One thing that amused me though is the fact that they spelled the NOBEL PRICE WRONG! Instead they call the Nobel-price (named after an actual person called Alfred Nobel) 'the noble-price'.. Jesus! How can one make such a mistake in such a big production, supposedly based on a true story. What a sham! What were you and the others thinking RON?
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is only one problem with this website, you can't give a negative rating. Additionally a mate rated this as a D grade movie. I say he was being too nice. A piece of wood could show more emotion that the actors in this movie, and the money used to produce this movie would have been better used to start a fire. This is absolutely terrible, 2 hours of life that anyone who endures this untalented bloodbath will never get back. After watching 5 minutes, myself and the boys wondered if sinking bulk heavies would make this anymore entertaining. Half a carto and a bottle of 151 later I finally found some of this G grade acting remotely funny. It's an insult upon this entire planet that the director thought anyone could find anything beneficial from this more, he should go and buy a rope. And to the actors in this flick, I hope you got paid well to be in this joke because I doubt you will ever work again. In summary I fine everyone in this movie 100 grand and 12 demerit points off your acting licence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This British film is truly awful, and it's hard to believe that Glenn Ford is in it, although he pretty much sleepwalks through it. The idea of a bomb on a train sounds good...but it turns out this train ends up parked for the majority of the film! No action, no movement, just a static train. The area where the train is parked is evacuated, so it's not like there's any danger to anyone either. In fact, this film could be used in a film class to show how NOT to make a suspense film. True suspense is generated by letting the audience know things that the characters don't, a fact apparently unknown to the director. SPOILER: the train actually has two bombs on it, but we are led to believe there is only one. After the first bomb is defused, it feels as if there is no longer a reason to watch the film any more. But at the last minute, the villain, who has no apparent motivation for his actions, reveals there are two. Nor are we certain WHEN the bombs will go off, so we don't even have a classic "ticking bomb" tension sequence. A good 10 minutes or more are spent watching Glenn Ford's French wife thinking about leaving him, and then wondering where he is . She's such an annoying character that we don't care whether she reconciles with him, so when she does, there's nothing emotional about it. Most of the other characters are fairly devoid of personality, and none have any problems or issues. It's only 72 minutes, but it feels long because it's tedious and dull. Don't waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"La Furia del Hombre Lobo" forms a completely stand-alone storyline which doesn't seem to fit in at all with the previous Waldemar Daninsky movies. Some have commented that this movie is supposed to take place before the events of "Werewolf Shadow", although it was released afterwards ... they may be right, I'm not sure. Anyway, in this movie Waldemar Daninsky is bitten by a yeti-like creature in Tibet (great dialogue here -- "It was a yeti. But that's impossible. I'm a scientist and these things don't exist. It was a hallucination. That's all.") and although marked with the sign of the pentagram, he is able to prevent the change into a werewolf until he discovers that his wife has been cheating on him. Changing into the beast one night, he kills both her and her lover before running out into a storm and being electrocuted. It's not long before he's resurrected by a dominatrix university professor who is conducting some kind of unfathomable experiments with mind control. He is taken to the underground cellar of a castle where the subjects of these experiments live like chained animals.<br /><br />First of all -- Jacinto Molina, Paul Naschy, whatever you want to call him, he's a fine actor and cared passionately about his work. No matter how flawed these movies are, you can always rely on him for a decent performance. The rest of the cast seem good enough, but it's hard to tell when they have a half-assed voice-over dubbed over all their lines. And that was really the main problem for me ... many of the voice-over artists they used were just awful, awful, awful. Whenever I chuckled during the movie it was at the inept way that they delivered their lines (they seem to constantly refer to the hero as "Waldeman"). But unfortunately it's almost impossible to find subtitled copies of Naschy movies, although they're sometimes available in the original language without subtitles.<br /><br />The directing of Jose Maria Zabalza seems sort of hit-and-miss ... there are some great visual ideas in some scenes, while others are badly constructed and poorly edited, particularly in the final scenes when it really counts. The reason for this, was that Zabalza was apparently drunk most of the time while on set. He allowed his fourteen year old nephew to rewrite Molina's dialogue, used extras without his permission, and spliced several shots from Molina's earlier movies. All of this pretty much ruined any chance this movie had of being one of Molina's best works, and it's no surprise that the two of them never worked together again.<br /><br />But it's not all bad news, as there are some good ideas here. Some aspects of the storyline make an interesting psychological drama with the werewolf as a metaphor for jealousy and rage. The 'werewolf as a yeti' idea is one that returned in Molina's later work. Some pretty horrific and surreal stuff goes on down in the cellar, and there's also a very memorable sequence about half way through the film where Daninsky runs from house to house through a village, slaughtering or molesting innocents as he goes -- one scene is particularly intense, but it's actually lifted straight from Molina's first movie, "La Marca del Hombre-lobo" along with a few other shots. I actually found the movie on the whole to be very entertaining, although there are some problems with the Front Row Entertainment version, such as pretty obvious cuts (although some of it may simply be due to the director's lack of continuity). Gods knows what omissions there are -- I'll probably try to get my hands on the uncut version at some stage in the future.<br /><br />This is a overall a decent piece of vintage Naschy which experienced fans might enjoy, but it could have been much better and so probably wouldn't make a great introduction.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I happen to have bought one of those "Legacy of Horror" 50 movie pack collections and would you believe I'm still looking through them to find a good HORROR movie in it. Sometimes you find an enjoyable yet campy one like The Devil's Messenger or The Devil Bat, or one of the great Alfred Hitchcock's films (some aren't horror however and are only on there because Hitchcock directed some horrors and suspense) but other times it seems that they put movies like The Island Monster and this on because they can't accept the fact they would easily be forgotten and should be for that matter.<br /><br />So we open up to sort of a Westing game idea. The rich yet cruel and abusive father played by Carradine (the one standing feature of this) has died and left his inheritance to his children and servants who he still hates. Carradine gives a good enough performance as always, but he's left mainly in a voice recording and flashback sequences leaving us to sit through the mediocre/terrible performances. The rest of the cast either overacts or underacts in scenes. Given this was an independent film of the 70's the lighting and effects are pretty limited. It's hard to build a lot of tension when the viewer can't see what's happening that well in some scenes. Some actors like the servants Igor and Elga give an effort at least and I'm ashamed to admit kind of left me chuckling at the end mainly for the sheer stupidity but still with some very minor happiness that they pulled some version of a twist to an otherwise pretty obvious who-done-it but not enough to enhance the quality of the film. You aren't meant to like the characters as they are either selfish and cruel or psychotic, but it takes it to a whole new level and makes many unwatchable. The death scenes are pretty bad and the suspense is not really there. It proves that you would probably enjoy the 20 movie pack "Chilling" containing films like House on a Haunted Hill, Little Shop of horror's with Jack Nicholson, and Night of the Living Dead over it. This is best avoided.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one very dire production. The general consensus has always been that while Princess Margaret may have been spoilt and pampered and may have revelled in the excess of luxury at her disposal, she was a very beautiful young woman. Here was the production's weakest point, the actress failed to get that across. It also appeared that the production budget couldn't stretch to a hairdresser - from the outset, the hair on the Princess Margaret character had a permanent birds nest in disarray look and looked as if she had been dragged through a bush. The actor playing the Duke of Edinburgh appeared to have prepared for his role by watching Rory Bremner imitate Prince Charles and was farcical.<br /><br />The production was a flaw ridden, cliché ridden, embarrassing load of rubbish. I think all Daily Mail readers deserve a free DVD copy for Christmas!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was pretty much a waste of an hour and a half of my time. I generally like the cheap horror monster type movies, but this movie was a disappointment. The main flaw being the lack of explaining the creatures. When they entered the house and found the man he could have at lease explained them. He doesn't really say anything about them other than that they killed his parents, and unless i missed something the didn't say how he managed to escape either... Not to mention the fact that it gives no clue or reason why the only survivor stays and essentially feeds the creatures after her own near death experience. It would have seemed that she would have had the opportunity to leave after the "cross incident".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.<br /><br />Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.<br /><br />And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The motion picture was, in all likelihood, made in the year 1930 and released in 1931. I would surmise that talking motion pictures had great difficulty in making the transition from the silent era. Nevertheless, this particular Zane Grey plot appears to be very weak. Also, Gary Cooper was probably just learning to act. The result is something that would not be acceptable by today's standards. For 1931, maybe. For 2004, not acceptable. Some of the actors performed well. Sadly, the Indians always get the short end in these early westerns. They were living on the land long before the white man came, but according to twisted history, they had no right to defend themselves.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Guy walking around without motive... I will never get those two hours of my life back. The guy kept on assuming identities and cheating on his pregnant wife. What was I thinking? How did this win a price anywhere? I understood he loved his father but other than that the movie was completely senseless to me. What was the purpose of walking so much and going to the funeral of a stranger for no apparent reason. How did this enrich his life??? Why did we have to see the dying old lady on her underwear????!!! Why???!!!!<br /><br />I though it would be deep or about something more interesting. I do not recommend the movie even to leave on while sleeping...
|
Negative
| null | null |
For months I've been hearing about this little movie and now I've seen it. I find it cute, cute how so many fledgling directors make movies where they combine other people's creative ideas in order to make their own one-joke premise of a movie. Troops, Swingblade, any of the million Blair Witch parodies come to mind. If all that these directors want is a foot inside Hollywood's door then they're doing the right thing and they should keep it up because combining plot outlines is how Hollywood makes films. How many times have you heard the phrase, "It's Animal House meets Back to the Future"; "It's Wall Street meets Dead Poet's Society"; or "Shakespeare in Love meets Star Wars"? I remember when independent films meant original and daring not safe and predictable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The premise of an African-American female Scrooge in the modern, struggling city was inspired, but nothing else in this film is. Here, Ms. Scrooge is a miserly banker who takes advantage of the employees and customers in the largely poor and black neighborhood it inhabits. There is no doubt about the good intentions of the people involved. Part of the problem is that story's roots don't translate well into the urban setting of this film, and the script fails to make the update work. Also, the constant message about sharing and giving is repeated so endlessly, the audience becomes tired of it well before the movie reaches its familiar end. This is a message film that doesn't know when to quit. In the title role, the talented Cicely Tyson gives an overly uptight performance, and at times lines are difficult to understand. The Charles Dickens novel has been adapted so many times, it's a struggle to adapt it in a way that makes it fresh and relevant, in spite of its very relevant message.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Deadly Wake is THE PERFECT MOVIE for film students... to learn how NOT to make a film!<br /><br />Let's see... what did the crew mess up in this flick? Worst music mix Worst editing Worst script WORST ALL-TIME DIRECTING Worst acting Worst choreography Worst cinematography Worst props Worst sets Worst lighting Etc. Let's face it, if this "film" had been in ultra-high contrast black-and-white, AND silent... it still would have been awful. All scenes are dark (lighting people call it "black"), often, the music score drowned out the meandering dialogs, which was OK because nobody ever spoke two whole sentences without long pauses for effect. The "evil" robot was hilarious... what was that? Jazz dancing? Oh... I guess it was supposed to be walking tactically or something. I'm sure it struck fear into the hearts... of the poor editors. And, how do you edit so much footage of garbage? Not possible. Garbage is garbage, no matter how you splice it. How did anyone ever get this thru the dailys???<br /><br />Bottom line is- I couldn't stand to watch more than 15-minute segments, it was so bad... but I did see the whole thing (with lotsa breaks) just to see if it had ANY good parts in it at all. NOPE! NONE!<br /><br />A perfect example of how not to make a flick... a must see for EVERY serious film student!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was browsing through Netflix and stumbled upon this movie. Having fond memories of the book as a child, I decided to check this out. This is a movie that you should really pass on.<br /><br />It is just not worth seeing. It is very boring and uninteresting. I feel that it would even be that way to small children. It has no magic that the book contains. This movie is not horrible, but you will just find yourself not caring ten minutes into it.<br /><br />There are moments that just come off as weird. The witch character is not very good. The family acts like it is no big deal that these odd things are happening. I know this is a kids movie, so as an older audience we must not look too deeply in things, but the whole movie just feels like it was written and produced by people who have never had any movie making experience before.<br /><br />The DVD that I had began skipping in the final moments of the film, and instead of trying to fix it I just turned it off and sent it back to Netflix. I really didn't care how it finished. Skip this film and read the book instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I figured that it's about time I let this one out. Pokémon fans are suffering in America these days. Why? Because we rely on Kids WB and 4Kids Entertainment to provide us with our beloved series and movies. As far as the series goes, they do a pretty good job in bringing the fun and magic of the Japanese versions to television. So what is their problem when it comes to the movies? Honestly now, I have seen all three Pokémon movies in Japanese and I will definitely be seeing the fourth one. They are excellent movies. They are all enjoyable and fun to watch. And, after seeing Pokémon 2000 in theaters, I can't help but wonder how these American producers read the Japanese scripts. The way it appears, it seems that they read and see something that says `Insert empty moral here' in big bold faced letters. It definitely appears that way as they used the same wonderful dubbing methods they used on MSB (extreme sarcasm there) and created this crap.<br /><br />*possible spoilers from here on*<br /><br />Well, I guess I should first talk about Pikachu's Rescue Adventure. My first gripe with this came with no narration. I guess they got enough bad comments on the Pokédex narration that plagued Pikachu's Vacation, and, instead of going with a caring, gentle woman's voice as appeared in Pikachu no Natsu Yasumi and Pikachu Tankentai, they just cut the narration all together. This wouldn't have been a problem, except for one thing. Did anyone really understand why the Exeggcute didn't let Togepi go until the end? Possibly the fans, but I'm sure not the parents. Then, there's the theme song. I couldn't help but roll my eyes at this one. The Japanese theme song was `Tankentai wo Tsukurou' and was sung by Japanese children. It was fun and enjoyable. This one: nauseating. Now, one of my favorite parts of the short was the dancing Kireihana. Nice music, fun to watch. That's changed with the Bellossom. The music sucked for one, but on top of that, they had all the Pokémon talk during the music, which turned out to be jumpy, annoying, and just unnecessary. Oh, and then there's the Poliwhirl who thinks he's a Poliwrath. You'd think that guys that work with these characters constantly would at least learn what they are. Basically, not much could save this little ill fated dub, which is very unfortunate considering its potential. But, I haven't touched on the worst of it yet.<br /><br />You'd think that the warning signs would've been apparent to me when I received my issue of Nintendo Power. For some unfathomable reason, I had been placing some faith in 4Kids and the WB. My thoughts were `well, they screwed up on the first movie, but the second is different as far as the theme goes, so they should do well.' That in mind, I just didn't pay attention to the warning signs I encountered in the theaters when the trailers said, `You will believe that one person can make all the difference.' With the way they said that at every turn, I was hoping that this would not turn into a moral fest like MSB did at the end of the English version. Then comes Nintendo Power, in which I see all my fears realized in the words `the main feature 'The Power of One.' At that point, I became a bit more uneasy. `The Power of One?!' Not a good sign. However, I still kept some of my false faith. Big mistake.<br /><br />Sitting in the theater, I was literally getting stomach cramps watching another movie which I loved in Japanese being turned into complete and utter junk. I hear comments that say it was better because the moral was more subtle. I can see a point in that since they didn't pander this thing, repeating it over and over like in MSB. However, it did more damage than anything else in this movie. First of all, the legend that was read throughout was changed a bit to read `the world turns to Ash.' Ah hah. So, Ash is the chosen one? Whatever. In the Japanese version, the inhabitants of Arshia needed a Pokémon trainer to carry out their traditional ceremony. This time, he's the chosen one. A greater way that this did damage was to Lugia. Lugia was one of the coolest characters in a Pokémon movie.... when the movie was ABOUT Lugia. In this one, Lugia is forced to take a back seat to Ash. In the scene where they're flying back to the main island, Lugia and Ash are discussing the conditions of Lugia's existence, not that Ash is going to make all the difference. Overall in this category, Ash wasn't really the `one person' that would make the difference, since he was helped by many along the way.<br /><br />A lot of the other stuff is kind of nit picking. Furura's flute song wasn't nearly as sweet and enjoyable as the Japanese one. Jirarudan's speech to them saying his collection `started with a Mew card?' Ugh. Even worse, Misty's outrage originally concerned the way Moltres and Zapdos were being held. `Why didn't you put them in Pokéballs when you caught them? This is like caging them to be displayed.' Much different from whining about him thinking Pokémon are things to be collected like stamps. If there were any real redeeming values in this, they came from Team Rocket. Some pretty funny lines. Not really to make me laugh out loud, but more to make me giggle and slightly ease the pains in my stomach. Well, that was officially the last American Pokémon movie I'm going to see. I've imported the third one and find it very enjoyable. I would rather not see another Japanese movie be ruined in the same fashion as the first two. I'll be importing the fourth one as well. Forget you, Kids WB and 4Kids. You have forsaken me for the last time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I usually like zombie movies, but this one was just plain bad.<br /><br />The good parts: Girl swimming topless with thong bottoms, Sonya Salomaa's topless, and Ona Grauer's boobs jiggling in a skimpy top when she ran.<br /><br />The bad part: too much video cuts, too much Matrix slow motion (it drags the action), not enough blood and guts, bad acting, and no story. The only other person in the theater was smart and left right after the topless swimming scene. A total waste of $6 and time. I give it a 2 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this show is one of the worst shows of ALL TIME! absolutely no original jokes and they're always a year late. like in 2009 they will finally say something about Michael Vick's dogfights. all of the cast members are people who wanted to be on S.N.L but had to go to the lowest of the low, mad TV.its an hour of mad magazine jokes witch aren't funny to begin with, told by terrible John Stewart wanna bees. so if you have any problem tell me id love to hear the opinion of the 3 people who watch this show. family guy put it well "Osama bin Ladin was hiding in the one place no one would look, the cast of mad TV. There is a reason why no one watches the show.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i can't believe i actually watched this but i guess i just wanted to know if this movie would get unintentionally funnier and funnier towards the end. and it did. the climax was the poorest performance ever given by the defence lawyer - so out of real life that even for a fictional story it was far too weird. no way anyone on this planet can behave in front of a court like she did. and probably the worst prosecutor on earth. why was he in court anyway? he did nothing and absolutely nothing to prove her guilty. a simple search of her house would have resulted in the find of the rings. but no go. he preferred to say "objection" 2 or 3 times during the whole trial - that was it. the blonde lunatic was given a truth-drug to prove her innocent but not Brett. the lunatic almost had an altar of Brett in her home that could have proved her sick obsession. but again no go. during the court scene i felt the silent urge to take the needlepoint out of her hand and bang it several times against her head. even real weirdos do not look that silly fake "i am innocent" like she did. and what does this movie tell us? never marry a woman with a life insurance: as soon as she falls down the stairs her husband will be thrown into jail, guilty or not. evil, evil men.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had never heard of this one before the owner of my local DVD rental outlet mentioned it to me; being a 1980s horror flick with the notorious distinction of having been banned in the U.K., I decided to check it out. The film turned out be a dull, amateurish and ugly-looking ride; the sound recording is so poor that dialogue is unintelligible half of the time, whereas the acting gives new meaning to the word inept! <br /><br />What’s worse, the film follows the awfully tired formula of a trio of teenage girls being involved in an accident and finding themselves sheltered by a dysfunctional family living in remote surroundings. Soon, one of the girls goes to look for help and is never heard from again; another, still bed-ridden, is quickly disposed of (after being forgotten for most of the duration). The heroine is the one to interact the most with the three inhabitants of the house: a harridan of a bible-thumping mother (cue horrendous overacting), her repressed (and long-suffering) daughter, and the latter’s weirdo brother who occasionally appears on the scene to drool over the sleeping female guests.<br /><br />Often resorting to dinner-table reminiscences by the man-hating mother (as a means of filling in the dreary, to say nothing of unoriginal, backstory) and which invariably develop into mother-daughter sparring contests, the film does have one ace up its sleeve – the twist ending is as unexpected as it is ingenious, but it does little to remove the bad taste left in the mouth by the film (as much through the lameness of it all as the intermittent gore) or the inescapable feeling of having wasted 80 minutes of my time...
|
Negative
| null | null |
**** WARNING: here be spoilers **** Why do I waste my hastily fleeing years watching garbage like this? This film is an impressive collection of clichés, poor writing, worse directing, and then we haven't even got to the acting yet. <br /><br />And of course, you can predict the whole story from beginning to end.<br /><br />Hero expert fights against stupid, corrupt and incompetent henchmen. One avalanche goes off, burying all the heroes who somehow manage to get out alive in spite of going through all sorts of cliffhanger perils. Corrupt partner who caused the whole thing gets fried alive together with his payoff money. Second avalanche heroically deflected by renegade expert's adventurous experiment. Evil henchmen in the end turn out to have a heart as well. Troubled teenager falls into the arms of her crusty stepmother after being saved by her. Etc, etc, etc, etc, on and on it goes. <br /><br />In fact, there's little reason to warn for spoilers. You could probably work the whole plot out if I gave you the basic ingredients. At least, I wasn't too wide off the mark most of the time, anticipating what would happen next.<br /><br />And then we haven't discussed the factual errors.<br /><br />I agree with a previous commentator that even though there are usually SOME redeeming features even of a bad movie. you'd be hard pressed to find any in this one. I suppose I gave it 2 out of 10 for some nice scenery shots, but that's it.<br /><br />It's been some time since a film made me groan, but this one certainly did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I once thought that "The Stoned Age" was the worst film ever made... I was wrong. "Hobgoblins" surpassed it in every way I could imagine and a few I couldn't. In "The Stoned Age" I hated the characters. In "Hobgoblins" I hated the actors... and everyone else involved in creating this atrocity. I won't include a teaser to this film, I'm not that cruel. I couldn't subject innocent people such as yourselves to such torment. In fact, any discussion of plot pertaining to this film is senseless and demeaning. Words I would use to describe this film are as follows: insipid, asinine, and ingenuous.<br /><br />In conclusion, PLEASE don't watch this film. I beg of you, from one movie lover to another... no, from one human being to another, PLEASE. For the sake of your own sanity and intellect DO NOT WATCH IT. Destroy any copies you come across.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all there is Gujarati Theatre then there is Bollywood. Both have their strengths and fan following. Director Vipul Shah should look elsewhere instead of Gujarati Theatre when making a Bollywood production. First he made Aankhen (adapted from a Gujarati play) - which had a unique plot, but could not hold as a Hindi film. Now he's adapted another Gujarati play and named it Waqt - a race against time. In sum, the emotions are alien. The plot development is not for Hindi films. For example, the role play between father and son is best left to Gujarati Theatre - don't bring it in a Hindi film. Even the comedy track is best left for the Gujarati stage. All performances are average - nothing to shout about - barring Shefali Chhaya Shah who is fantastic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Leslie Sands' stilted play "Deadlock" becomes a poor-choice vehicle for Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, just after their joint-success in "All About Eve". After killing her spouse, a scheming woman is visited by her husband's best friend, who passes himself off as her husband once others begin stopping by the house. Irving Rapper, one of Bette's best directors from her peak years, is sadly unable to elevate this ridiculous material, in which Davis is curiously aloof and restrained until the outrageous finale (where she thankfully pulls out all the stops). Production and supporting cast strictly second-rate; only for Bette Davis completists. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a re-imagining of Tarzan in the era of the Soloflex and Apocalypse Now. There's nothing inherently wrong with using films eased moral constraints to portray an erotic side to the Tarzan legend. There's nothing inherently wrong with the premise that Tarzan doesn't speak. There's plenty wrong with suggesting a woman who could get herself to an African jungle in 1910, could be this offensively stupid and plastic. Bo has as few lines as possible when bodies are explored because this movie is merely a video-centerfold, as neutral as possible so that you can project yourself and your lecherous fantasies into the project. If it succeeds anywhere it's in the implication that National Geographic has influenced the way the imagery of a Tarzan movie might be constructed.<br /><br />It would be ridiculous to argue that movies shouldn't employ the sexual tease as ONE of many tools to draw in viewers. Some really great film moments incorporate it. But this move is at the opposite end of the spectrum - the tease is the only thing going on here; at the time of its release and now. You sit through awful, dumb scenes that offer no interest, and miles of footage of bad acting to drool over the next peek at either of two bodies. Yes... Bo Derek and Miles O'Keeffe are beautiful (um, congratulations on having a working libido.) but if that's your excuse for giving this schlock a good rating you really should visit a porn store and stock up. There's only a hairs-breadth difference between the two formats and (I'm just guessing here) a horny viewer would probably really enjoy the latter. The question is whether a mainstream movie is the best venue in the marketplace for viewers to seek out products that satisfy lust alone.<br /><br />As a showman, John Derek successfully capitalized on the sexual mystique developed over wife Bo in the movie "10"; and created a media event out of a shallow project whose only merit was the hotness of the two leads. The movie itself was beside the point. He was about 20 years ahead of his time in thinking audiences would applaud him for making an insipid, shallow movie that was only about showcasing superficiality.<br /><br />As a director, John Derek appears to require only that Mrs. Derek look pleasant, empty and hump-able in every scene. It's hideously shot. The camera placement is annoying. In terms of editing, the entire 'wipe' catalog is exhausted. The credit sequence is garish. And it's a toss-up as to who commits the worse screen offense; Bo Derek who's such a bimbo that she can't even figure out how to play a bimbo, or Richard Harris who shouts every line (as he likes to do) until you want to shoot him. At least with Bo you can imagine her blaming some horny writer for shortchanging her.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the moment the film begins, already there is a discrepancy. As this film takes place on the borders of Normandy and the middle East, and is also an international film, one would expect proper accents portrayed. This is not done as the majority of the cast sound American. Also, I find the acting to be rehearsed at best, the story line a little difficult to follow from the beginning. Who is who? Otherwise the film is very accurate in costume and scenery. If you want to see a movie to get a feel of what it was like in the past (albeit the lack of accents) then this movie is worth a rent. If you're looking for a movie as epic as Kingdom of Heaven, then look elsewhere.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.<br /><br />---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a very odd film ... I wasn't really sure what is was about, some N London lowlifes find a mute kid in the woods that they all believe is some kind of oracle and somehow makes them all, in their own way, change something about their lives that usually ends in disaster. The film ended after about 90 minutes leaving me feeling quite unsatisfied, almost annoyed at the pointlessness of it all. I didn't care about any of the characters - none of them get a chance to endear themselves to the viewer.<br /><br />What was the message? Am I being dim? It was just too odd. What happens to Runner? Why does Emilio shoot the kid? ... that made absolutely no sense, pointless. Can someone help me understand this mess of a film?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film last night with anticipation, but really wasn't very impressed.<br /><br />With the exception of 'Combo', I thought the acting was poor and the narrative was limited. It came across like a 'made for TV' drama.<br /><br />I felt that the film was very contrived. The whole set up of hammering in the context at the start (yes, we get that this is 80s Britain - you can stop now) was tiresome, and gave a very one-sided view of what life was like in 80s Britain - poverty, war juxtaposed with royalty, Margaret Thatcher, yet nothing in between? There were actually middle-classes who existed back then - just ordinary working people, with a decent wage and a mortgage. The Falklands clips also seemed to be added randomly towards the end, for 'dramatic effect', I presume.<br /><br />The sequence of events felt a tad disjointed, as the characters moved one one action to the next without us seeing how their mindset could've changed so quickly.<br /><br />The relationship between 'Shaun' and 'Smell' was toe-curling. I couldn't even look during the snogging scene. I find it very hard to believe that she would've been attracted to a boy who was not only so much younger, but also looked so much younger. I know there were only four years between them, but four years is nothing once you reach your twenties, yet it's a huge difference in your teens! In my experience, that kind of teen age difference only occurs when the girl is the younger one, since girls mature so much quicker, and are more on the wavelength of boys a few years older. Sorry, but I didn't buy it - an unnecessary plot point created for shock value.<br /><br />The ending was somewhat abrupt and, again, contrived. If the flag throwing incident was supposed to be iconic, then it fell somewhat short in my eyes.<br /><br />It bugs me that British films only concern themselves with either the upper classes or the poverty-stricken. Don't get me wrong, I love Trainspotting, and Four Weddings has its charms, but can't we Brits come up with anything different? Why are our films always so hung up on the class system? I was born in 1973, so wasn't much different in age to 'Shaun' would've been in 1983. I grew up in a single parent family on a fairly down-trodden council estate in a city in England. However, my childhood experiences were vastly different to those portrayed in the film - I don't even remember racism being an issue (although i'm not saying it didn't exist). 'This is England'? Not in my experience.<br /><br />The bottom line is that I felt this film lacked substance, and I was completely bored and unimpressed throughout.
|
Negative
| null | null |
By far the worst movie of all time. Even Yaphet Kotto could not save this turkey. I have heard that the movie was originally supposed to be titled "The Treasure" but was changed to "Sharks' Treasure" in order to take advantage of the excitement created by "Jaws". I think sharks were in one scene of this movie; the fact that they happened to be included in this "thriller" was supposed to sell tickets. Didn't work. Anytime something "good" happens in the movie, the ship's crew toasts each other with a certain brand of beer that had just been introduced at the time the movie was made. Gee, do ya think that beer might have been a sponsor? Could they have made it any more obvious? The only time anyone should break out the beer is if they make it through this thing. That's cause enough for celebration.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Another FINE effort by America's most UNDERrated filmmaker. His knowledge on the subject of racism is STAGGERING, and IMPRESSES me on more than one level. Accusations that Lee is really just a devious little racist, a poisonous dwarf who opportunistically exploits Hollywood's Affirmative Action system to make movies of inferior quality is utter NONSENSE, mere Right-Wing propaganda. The very notion that Lee would resort to misusing the current climate of political correctness in America in order to produce hate-filled anti-white movies is simply FALSE and malicious.<br /><br />Some of Lee's detractors even go so far as to suggest that GOTB glorifies African-Americans, while putting down other races: obviously, another FALSEHOOD disseminated by people who are AGAINST peaceful co-existence between different races in America and elsewhere.<br /><br />My favourite scene in the movie is a lengthy dialogue early on between the rich black Republican and the others in the bus. The views presented by that man are simply WRONG - all across the board. 100% UNTRUE. He LACKS education, unlike the brilliantly INFORMED guys who quite DESERVEDLY throw him off the bus.<br /><br />TERRIFIC performances, and an INTELLIGENT script make for a viewing experience that has been RARELY rivaled by any political movies made since.<br /><br />I also want to point out the incessant LIES that the Million-Man March had only 80,000 people taking part in it!<br /><br />(And now all you have to do is take the antonyms of all the words written in capital letters...)<br /><br />So what message does Lee send here? If someone doesn't agree with your political views, you simply apply violence and throw him off the bus. I thought the movie said "get ON the bus"...?<br /><br />Apparently, Mr.Lee is for bus-segregation after all, i.e. is no different than those KKK lunatics before him: the bus is only for those blacks who are in line with the Democratic Party's line of thinking. So much for "freeing the slaves"...<br /><br />The end-credits: "This movie was entirely financed by black people." And distributed and marketed by a major Hollywood studio run by Jews and whites whom Farrakhan despises...
|
Negative
| null | null |
The cast is OK. The script is awkward at times, and it takes a while to figure out what the point of the movie is. I found myself looking forward to doing the dishes. The Shehan bit is a cheesy statement on the war. I guess we were supposed to not notice it...we did. Its a house, you did nothing more than kill forty five minutes. The shower part...huh? What was that about? Literally, it is I have a client, "Ok you can use our shower." Yawn. The angles are trying way to hard. There was a set of woods, suddenly its gone cause you can see right through, then next it is deep and animals are dying. In the end this is a horrendous movie of boring proportions.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a movie that is bad in every imaginable way. Sure we like to know what happened 12 years from the last movie, and it works on some level. But the new characters are just not interesting. Baby Melody is hideously horrible! Alas, while the logic that humans can't stay underwater forever is maintained, other basic physical logic are ignored. It's chilly if you don't have cold weather garments if you're in the Arctic. I don't know why most comments here Return of Jafar rates worse, I thought this one is more horrible.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Darkly comic serendipity about a cosmetics saleswoman, with odd ties to Elvis Presley, running into a sea of Elvis impersonators while speaking at conventions in Nevada...and accidentally killing each one of them through little fault of her own. Kim Basinger, a still-attractive actress of considerable merit, likes to pick quirky movies to play in, but this dreadful screenplay (by Mitchell Ganem and Adam-Michael Garber) hasn't an iota of good humor. The stereotypes and low-ball gags are not meant to be the stuff of classic comedy, but even on a shambling, shameful level, the picture is crude and sloppy. If you do watch, see if you can count how much extraneous shots there are of Basinger behind the wheel of her pink Cadillac, hands always in the same position and a non-plussed look on her face. Hopefully both she and Elvis were well paid. NO STARS from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
i rate this movie with 3 skulls, only coz the girls knew how to scream, this could've been a better movie, if actors were better, the twins were OK, i believed they were evil, but the eldest and youngest brother, they sucked really bad, it seemed like they were reading the scripts instead of acting them.... spoiler: if they're vampire's why do they freeze the blood? vampires can't drink frozen blood, the sister in the movie says let's drink her while she is alive....but then when they're moving to another house, they take on a cooler they're frozen blood. end of spoiler<br /><br />it was a huge waste of time, and that made me mad coz i read all the reviews of how this movie was great, how many awards this movie won, and this movie was f****ing s**t!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If I accidentally stumbled across this script in textual form i would read it and maybe laugh. I would not, however laugh at the points in the film where the director would seem to want me to laugh. Although I am still not altogether sure where these are. I don't care if this is Woody Allen, this writer cannot write dialogue, or at least he cannot knowingly write dialogue then draw performances from actors capable of drawing laughter from even the most ticklish of clowns. For example:<br /><br />(paraphrase) "I'm an art historian, i'm looking to get a job in an art gallery." <br /><br />OK, so it states the fact but honestly, do you know of any art historians who would say that? How would you answer? <br /><br />"Really? An art gallery? who would've thought it?"<br /><br />The entire script is littered with the kind of tawdry quasi-intellectualism that i would not have expected from such a respected character writer. I admit that I have no knowledge of Allen's other work and, judging by this one i don't want to start learning. The characters are loathsome without exception, an attempt to illustrate that we all suffer from the human condition? Or really really poor character writing? You be the judge.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Taped this late night movie when I was in grade 11, watched it on fast forward. I sugest you do the same. I though it would be and action film, but went to a cort tv type movie. In the end it fits in with the early 70's social activest type films. Glad I missed that era. 2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Actually had to stop it. Don't get me wrong, love bad monster movies. But this one was way too boring, regardless of the suspenseful music that never leads you anywhere. The actress had too many teeth and that moment when she makes contact with one of the beasts, was way too obvious a cliché. This film totally betrays the cover on the DVD which looks pretty interesting. From the cover one expects a giant monster, but you get these cute not as gigantic as expected electric eels. Moved on to watch another film called The Killer Rats but that's another review. Deep Shock was really crap, a big shame considering the fact that it looks pretty high budget.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In order to hold the public's attention for three hours, we were treated not so much to a family's romp through four generations and 120 years of Hungarian history, as to sexual liaisons with a sister, a sister-in-law and other adulteries. Oh yes, there was also a totally gratuitous rape. Having said all this, the first story of the relationship among the children of the patriarch was fresh and sensual - thanks to Jennifer Ehle.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There were good performances by Robin Williams and others but the movie was dull overall and very disappointing compared to the positive reviews.<br /><br />I thought Sy might become a serial killer who bores people to death: a forlorn guy in ugly clothes trails his victims around food courts, quoting Oprah and reciting his medical history until they beg him to shoot them.<br /><br />I think the movie mostly appeals to egomaniacs who think strangers are interested in their photos. I expect most retail workers want a break from the customers.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Somewhere, buried very deep inside this film is a half-way decent movie trying to get out. The only traces are a few early scenes in Los Angeles (in a bar and a graveyard) and thereafter a couple of pieces of production design. Like I say, buried very deep. One of the biggest challenges faced by movies involving the supernatural is how to have characters react believably in unbelievable situations. Annie Mcenroe's reaction to being told that her sister (presumably Dee Wallace from the first movie) is (was?) a werewolf is, if I recall, along the lines of; "Oh! Really?". Not one of the better responses to said challenge. The non sequitirs continue as the story moves to Trannsylvania in search of Stirba the (apparently self-appointed) "Queen of the Werewolves". As Stirba, Sybil Danning is the two best things in the movie. Yes, even better than the werewolf group-sex scene, Reb Brown's acting, and the oddly simian-looking werewolf suits. The end credits have assumed minor legend status and are available in all their glory (at least until the censor finds them) on Youtube. Check them out to see why and remember, the whole film makes about the same amount of sense. If you happen to catch this on US television the credits have been re-edited to replace the endlessly repeated shot of Danning ripping off her top with another endlessly repeated shot of her ripping open a cloak only this time she has some kind of top on underneath. It's a sort of absurdity, cherry-on-top moment which defies satire.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all when I saw the teaser trailer for Wendy Wu, I was definitely excited. Brenda Song, one of the hottest girls on Disney Channel, would be doing martial arts and I was fine with that... until I saw the movie. The action was poorly constructed, the movie couldn't have realated to anyone, the fighting was unrealistic and it sucked... along with the plot. If you really think about it's a wannabe Buffy the Vampire Slayer, a girl who is the descendant of other warriors who were women, a girl wants to ignore her calling and wants to become homecoming queen, the watcher who bug's her to prepare for a big fight against some ancient evil. The idea just wasn't all that original, the movie is waste of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh my god, what a horrible film. The film has all the right people involved, unfortunately it is not worth watching. I saw it for free at my local library. If I had paid to watch this I would be even more upset. This film is unwatchable. How could Tarintino be involved with such a slow paced, unexciting film. No wonder it didn't get much distribution, every one involved must have been ashamed. I can make a better film with a Dated Camcorder and my Big toe. Its beyond boring, I really hated it. Tarintino just lost some standing in my eyes. This must be some kind of sick joke. Don't Bother with this film. If some one even hints you should watch it, kill them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The concept was ok but hardly original. The acting was plastic. But the real spoiler was that there was only one joke and a grubby one at that. This is a film for fourteen year olds who have been let out on their own for the first time. Don't dare to watch it with your kids.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Where do you begin with a movie as bad as this?<br /><br />Do you mention the cast of unlikeable heroes? The over-the-top acting? The dreadful script?<br /><br />No. You just say that anyone who pays money to see a film as poor as this needs their head looking at. I know I do. I respect those poor guys who saw it with little or no advance word from mags like Empire (usually a bad sign if a preview copy isn't available to the quality movie mags). However, cinemas really should start thinking about giving out refunds if the customer isn't happy with the finished product.<br /><br />I went three days after it opened with two other mates. The only other person in the cinema was one bloke on his own.<br /><br />And that was on cheap night.<br /><br />Either the ad campaign had failed dismally or word had spread through most of the country of just what a stinker this is.<br /><br />Not since the days of The Avengers (1998) have I felt so short changed since watching a movie. If a mate comes round with this on video in a few months make sure he pays your electricity bill while watching it.<br /><br />Tara Fitzgerald deserves an award for not cracking up - or walking off the set; Keith Allen retains some dignity amid the cinematic carnage; Barry Foster should have been arrested on the set for his performance, Rhys Ifans does his career no favours after the success of Notting Hill and only Dani Behr is halfway likeable as a busty secretary.<br /><br />Mind you, considering she used to be in The Word, any viewers' expectations of her acting ability had to be pretty low to begin with.<br /><br />The production values aren't bad considering the obviously limited budget but that script is atrocious. If you want to hear a bunch of unlikeable characters say "Fak!" for a couple of hours then this should be right up your street.<br /><br />Otherwise, bargepoles required.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is absolutely the dumbest movie I've ever seen. What a waste of a splendid cast. That's James Cromwell as the ignoramus playing deputy. I could go on and on, but I would obviously be spending more time on this review than anybody ever did on the script. The only thing this movie is about is us vs. them and how to revel in profane slapstick beyond any reasonable human being's tolerance. This is one of the 10 worst movies I have ever seen -- and I LOVE James Garner.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't let the title trick you into watching this movie. I read the title, saw that it came on in the middle of the night, and figured it was one of those soft porn movies. This movie is bad. If you like soft porn movies, then I'm sorry to say this isn't one. There are a lot of sex but nothing shown and they only last for 5 seconds or so.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, I knew this film was going to be bad but not this bad. Spoilerific comments ensue.<br /><br />Roddy Roddy Piper is sickly sweet retired cop (cliche!), helping out everyone - smiling like a post-op lobotomy patient through-out and lamenting over his dead son. His adopted son returns from Armed Forces "Special Ops" and because he's "seen things" - portrayed by clenching his teeth if anyone mentions anything about the past. Time to clean up the streets from another guy who once knew Piper and his dead son (who the bad lad killed) and his adopted son.<br /><br />Oh, the love interest is a pretty young lady who decides for no reason that she wants to jump the bones of the ex-Army bloke. This happens in about 2 minutes of 1 scene.<br /><br />The action could have saved this film, but it's even worse than the storyline and acting. It's all been done before, it's all been done much much better (Ong-Bak is a prime example). This is the worst film I've ever seen - and I've seen Waterworld, twice.<br /><br />Erm, the film is called HONOR (Spelt Wrong for the Americans) and the tag line has "from the makers of Bloodsport and Kickboxer" - check out Director David Worths other films and you'll soon realise why they put these 2 films on there, even though they are over 10 years old. Such classics as "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon" - says it all really.<br /><br />I'll give you £10 if you don't go to see this film.<br /><br />PS - Apologise for not know character names, tells you something though.
|
Negative
| null | null |
while watching this movie I got sick. I have been grewing up with Pippi and every time was a real pleasure. when my wife came to Sweden she was looking at the oldies and had a real good laugh. but this American version should be renamed and never be shown again. it is terrible from beginning to it's end. how can they manage to make it soo bad. well I guess someone blames the translation ha ha ha.. but they are never close to Pippi. may this movie never been seen again and never sent out on a broadcast. burn the movie and save the kids. if you want to look at Pippi then look at the original movie and have a good laugh. WE LOVE PIPPI INGER NILSSON, sorry Tami Erin you will never stand up to be Pippi.. Oh yes.. when read the "spoilers" explanation, "'spoiling' a surprise and robbing the viewer of the suspense and enjoyment of the film." well I guess the director stands for this... you are looking at this movie at your own risk.. it is really a waste of time...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am not one of those people who just go online after I see a movie and decide to call it the worst movie ever made. If you doubt me, please look at my other reviews. However, for the first time ever, I have seen a movie so horrible that I wanted to write about how bad it was before it was even over.<br /><br />I LOVE bad movies. To me, Ed Wood is a genius, I thought Bloody Murder, Jeepers Creepers and most horrible horror movies were good. However, there is not a single good thing I can say about this film.<br /><br />The plot is basically non existent. If someone reading my review wastes their money to see it, they can discern for themselves what the plot might be, but I advise you that a nickel would be worth more than watching this movie.<br /><br />The special effects are bad.<br /><br />The acting is bad.<br /><br />The two leads are attractive, but that's all there is.<br /><br />I am not the type to spoil a movie for anyone, but I INVITE anyone to email me at foxbarking@yahoo.com to ask for my opinion on this movie before they waste a dime on it. I will tell you anything.<br /><br />I love bad movies, and I love horror and I love new inventive movies. I even love horror porn stuff like Hostel (Which some reviewers claimed this was like, but obviously they only thought so cause Roger Bart was in this and Hostel 2). But this may be the Number 1 most worthless and stupid and dumbass movie EVER made.<br /><br />And before you disregard this review, this is coming from someone who not only sat through the ENTIRE premiere of House of the Dead, but actually bought a copy of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1. I can only surmise then that those giving it a 10 were either cast or crew members. <br /><br />They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare. However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.<br /><br />I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought. Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention. Ultimately, I was disappointed and consequently, much of the second half was viewed at double speed as I searched in vain for some small snippet of cinematic redemption. Sadly, there was none.<br /><br />If "The Choke", was put up against an episode of Scooby Doo then I'm afraid the cartoon would win hands down in terms of mystery, intrigue and unpredictability. And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.<br /><br />I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
REVOLT OF THE ZOMBIES (2 outta 5 stars) No, this is not a long-lost ancestor to the classic George A. Romero zombie flicks. This is a low-budget potboiler from 1936 that probably seemed very cool to audiences of the time... but seems awfully routine these days. There is actually a pretty good scene at the start of a soldier firing off his pistol into a horde of approaching zombie soldiers... and a close-up of bullets entering the bare chest of one of them. The effect looks hopelessly fake these days but in 1936 I'm sure it had audiences gasping. The story concerns the search for the secret of mind control... ostensibly to create an unstoppable zombie army... but later as a means for one character to win the woman he loves. The movie is barely an hour long but moves at a snail's pace so it seems feature-length, believe me! There really isn't much to recommend it... you may get some amusement from the faked studio shots of the star "wading" through a "swamp". The ending is interesting... so I'd say the movie is worth seeing at least once. More than likely you will see it as an extra feature on some cheap "4 movies on 1 DVD" compilation at Wal-Mart for five bucks. Hey, it's well worth the money...
|
Negative
| null | null |
honestly, i don't know what's funnier, this horrific remake, or the comments on this board. Masterpiece's review had me in tears, that's so funny. Anyway, this movie is the among the worst movies ever, and certainly the bottom of the barrel for sequels. The "Omen" name on the title made me stop and watch it this morning on HBO, but it's a slap in the face to the other three, especially the original. There are so many classically bad moments, but my favorite is the guy catching fire from the juggler at the psychic fair!! good times ! This movie is to the Omen series what "Scary Movie" is to the entire genre. Avoid unless you're looking for a good laugh.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sorry to say this, but the acting in this film is horrible. The dialogue sounds as if they are reading their lines for the first time ever. Perhaps I got the "dress rehearsal" version by mistake. The director over-uses slow motion during special effects perhaps as an attempt to compensate for the poor performance of the actors themselves. The story is pretty well written, and the fight sequences are actually better than I have seen in many action films. The fights seem pretty real. But all of this happens while to two leading actors time and time again miraculously survive incredible amounts of point-blank automatic weapon fire, grenades, morter rounds, and bazookas. The enemy soldiers are definitely some of the worst shots I have ever seen, especially when they have the escaping truck in their sights from about 30 yards, and every bazooka shot is wide by at least 50 feet. Those bazookas need serious site calibration.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this movie about 3 years ago, and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. I don't think I ever finished it. It is worse than a home video made by a high school student. I remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt, oakley sunglasses and a newer SUV, like a Toyota Rav-4 or something (I don't remember). I don't understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. He might have had a cell phone too, I cant remember, It was just horrible. I returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if I could get the hour of my life back. To this day it is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty bad ones.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was the Sixties, and anyone with long hair and a hip, distant attitude could get money to make a movie. That's how Michael Sarne, director of this colossal flop, was able to get the job. Sarne is one of the most supremely untalented people ever given a dollar to make a movie. In fact, the whole studio must have been tricked into agreeing to hire a guy who had made exactly one previous film, a terribly precious 60's-hip black and white featurette called Joanna. That film starred the similarly talentless actress/waif Genevieve Waite who could barely speak an entire line without breaking into some inappropriate facial expression or bat-like twitter. Sarne, who was probably incapable of directing a cartoon, never mind a big-budget Hollywood film, was in way over his head. David Giler's book is the best place to go to find out how the faux-infant terrible Sarne was able to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. If there is ever an historical marker which indicates the superficiality and shallowness of an era, Myra Breckinridge provides that marker. It embodies the emptiness and mindless excess of a decade which is more often remembered for a great sea-change in the body politic. Breckinridge is a touchstone of another, equally important vein. Watch this movie and you'll get a different perspective on the less-often mentioned vacuity of spirit which so often passed for talent during those years.<br /><br />Many reviewers have spoken about the inter-cutting of footage from other films, especially older ones. Some actually liked these clunky "comments" on what was taking place in the movie, others found them senseless, annoying, and obtrusive, though since the film is so bad itself any intrusion would have to be an improvement. <br /><br />In my opinion, the real reason Michael Sarne put so many film clips into Myra Brekinridge was to paper over the bottomless insufficiency of wit and imagination that he possessed. That is to say, Sarne was so imagination-challenged that he just threw these clips in to fill space and take up time. They weren't inspiration, they were desperation. His writing skills were nonexistent, and David Giler had wisely stepped away from the project as one might from a ticking bomb, so Sarne was left to actually try and make a movie, and he couldn't. It was beyond his slim capabilities. Hence the introduction of what seems like one half of an entire film's worth of clips. The ghosts of writers and directors - many long since passed on - were called upon to fix this calamitous flopperoo because Sarne sure as heck wasn't able to. This was what he came up with on those days he sat on the set and thought for eight hours while the entire cast and crew (not to mention the producers and the accountants) cooled their heels and waited for something, some great spark of imagination, a hint of originality, a soupcon of wit, to crackle forth from the brow of Zeus. Um, oops. No Zeus + no imagination + no sparks = millions of little dollar bills with tiny wings - each made from the hundreds of licensing agreements required to use the clips - flying out the window. Bye-bye. <br /><br />As for myself, I hated the film clips. They denigrated Sarne's many betters, poked fun at people whose talents - even those whose skills were not great - far outstripped the abilities of the director and so ultimately served to show how lacking he was in inspiration, originality - and even of plain competency - compared to even the cheesiest of them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.<br /><br />One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
With Knightly and O'Tool as the leads, this film had good possibilities, and with McCallum as the bad guy after Knightly, maybe some tension. But they threw it all away on silly evening frill and then later on with maudlin war remnants. It was of course totally superficial, beautiful English country and seaside or not.The number one mistake was dumping Knightly so early on in the film, when she could easily have played someone a couple of years older, instead of choosing someone ten years older to play the part. They missed all the chances to have great conflict among the cast, and instead stupidly pulled at the easy and low-cost heartstring elements.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.<br /><br />Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.<br /><br />One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.<br /><br />More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.<br /><br />This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.<br /><br />Hollow!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool.
|
Negative
|
The problems with this film are none, but I will try my best to find at least one flaw. Well, the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. But otherwise, the story lines were novel, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally real. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind blowing beauty that I called my wife in to watch it with me (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some superstar some USC's film studies program, and I believe the (talented) director Mira Nair took part in this masterpiece.
|
Positive
|
This overrated, short-lived series (a measly two seasons) is about as experimental and unique as a truck driver going to a strip bar. I am not quite sure what they mean by "ground-breaking" and "original" when they fawn all over Lynch and his silly little TV opus. What exactly is their criteria of what is original? Sure, compared to the "Bill Cosby Show" or "Hill Street Blues" it's original. Definitely. Next to "Law & Order" TP spews originality left and right.<br /><br />Fans of TP often say that the show was canceled because too many viewers weren't smart enough, open enough for the show's supposed "weirdness", its alleged wild ingenuity, or whatever. As a fan of weirdness myself, I have to correct that misconception. There is nothing too off-the-wall about TP; it is a merely watchable, rather silly whodunit that goes around in circles, spinning webs in every corner but (or because of it) ultimately going nowhere. The supposed weirdness is always forced; the characters don't behave in a strange way as much as they behave in an IDIOTIC way half the time. There's a difference...<br /><br />Whenever I watch the "weird dream" sequence in "Living In Oblivion" in which the dwarf criticizes the director (Buscemi) for succumbing to the tired old let's-use-a-midget-in-a-dream-scene cliché, I think of Lynch. You want weird? "Eraserhead" is weird - in fact, it's beyond weird, it's basically abstract. You want a unique TV show? Watch "The Prisoner". You want a strange-looking cast? Felini's and Leone's films offer that. TP looks like an overly coiffed TV crime drama in which all the young people look like fashion models. The cast gives TP a plastic look. Kens & Barbies en masse.<br /><br />In fact, one of the producers of TP said that Lynch was looking for "unique faces" for the series. Unique faces? Like Lara Flynn Boyle's? Sheryll Fenn's? Like those effeminate-faced "hunks" straight out of men's catalogs (or gay magazines)? Don't get me wrong; there is nothing wrong with getting an attractive cast, especially with beauties like Fenn (the way Madonna would look if she were 1000 times prettier), but then don't go around saying you're making a "weird show with weird-looking people". And I have never understood Lynch's misguided fascination with Kyle MacLachlan (I should get a medal for bothering to spell his name right). He is not unlikable, but lacks charisma, seeming a little too bland and polished. His character's laughable "eccentricities" were not at all interesting, merely one of Lynch's many attempts to force the weirdness, trying hard to live up to his reputation - him having completely lost his edge but that time. Everything Lynch made post-"Elephant Man" was very much sub-par compared to his first two movies. What followed were often mediocre efforts that relied on Lynch's relatively small but fanatical fan base to keep him in the public eye by interpreting meanings into his badly put-together stories that don't hold any water on closer scrutiny. In other words, Lynch is every intellectual-wannabe's darling. <br /><br />So Laura Palmer was killed by her Dad...? He was obsessed by the devil or some such nonsense. That's the best this "great mind" could come up with... You've got B-movie horror films that end with more originality. <br /><br />Lynch is neither bright nor hard-working enough to come up with a terrific story.<br /><br />Go to http://rateyourmusic.com/~Fedor8, and check out my "TV & Cinema: 150 Worst Cases Of Nepotism" list.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I go to the cinema to be entertained. There is absolutely nothing entertaining about this film. From beginning to end, there is no respite from the gray, grinding reality of this woman's life. It is one-paced, with no change of mood. I remained until the end only because I was convinced that things must get better. They don't, and I don't think I was the only one, as evidenced by the many groans ringing around the cinema as the film drew mercifully to a close. Honestly depicting social depravation is no crime, but boring your audience to groans is not the way to win the sympathy of the public. A dreadful film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is far worse than those awful Laurel and Hardy cartoons of the 60s. They were terrible, but at least they were simple ripoffs of a then Stan and Ollie resurgence. New audiences had rediscovered the pair's comedic genius and the cartoons were mind-numbing garbage geared to cash in on children's interest. It was to be expected. But, how does one even attempt to rationalize this work of... I can't even think of a word. I'm sure the makers hoped it would somehow inspire another Laurel and Hardy revival, but you can't inspire interest in the past with a shallow and unfunny caricature of what made the original so appealing. The impressionists (I hesitate to call them actors) do a Vegas act and that's where it belongs. The plot is even flimsier than those used in the old days, trying to stretch out two-reel ideas for a feature. If this film was someone's first exposure to the REAL Laurel and Hardy, I'm sure that viewer would dismiss the original duo's reputation as senility gone amok. The only movie I hate worse than this is I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE. And, you know, these filmmmakers basically did the same thing to Stan and Ollie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. at this point i'm finished with my review but i have to fill in at least ten lines of text so i will go on.... (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) :))) IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff. IT IS A PIECE OF CRAP! not funny at all. during the whole movie nothing ever happens. i almost fell asleep, which in my case happens only if a movie is rally bad. (that is why it didn't get 1 (awful) out of 10 but 2).don't be fooled, like i was, by first review. a waste of money and your time! spend it on other stuff.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the small American town of Meadowvale Dr. Anthony Blake (David Gale, the IMDb listing for this character is wrong it's definitely Dr. Blake not Dr. Blakely) is the director and founder of the famed 'Psychological Research Institute' and also host's a local T.V. programme called 'Independent Thinkers'. He uses this T.V. show to hypnotise the viewers and make them commit acts of violence. Dr. Blake has the help of a large brain with an evil face that uses it's spinal cord as a tail thingy. Usually the brain is just sitting in a tank, eats mice and the odd bad actor, each time it eats someone it gets much bigger. Meanwhile at the local high-school gifted but troublesome teenager Jim Majelewski (Tom Bresnahan) has been caught putting Sodium down the toilets. Jim is sent to Dr. Blake at the PRI for help with his attitude and behavioural problems. While there Dr. Blake hooks Jim up to, well something I'm not actually sure what. This whatever it is, is attached to the brain. At first Jim is able to resist the brain's mind control. The brain feels that Jim is a threat to itself and it's plans. Once out of the PRI Jim starts having bizarre hallucinations and crashes his car. Jim makes it to his waitress girlfriend Janet (Cynthia Preston as Cyndy Preston) but is handed back to Dr. Blake's assistant Verna (George Buza) soon after by Officer Marks (Harry Booker). The brain wants to kill Jim because he is the only one capable of withstanding it's mind control techniques, and with 'Independent Thinkers' going national the brain doesn't want anything or anyone to stop it's evil plan for world domination! Jim quickly realises that the brain is controlling the entire town and he alone must stop the brain, before it takes over the world!<br /><br />Directed by Ed Hunt who calls himself Edward Hunt here, the Brain wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be. Don't get me wrong as it certainly isn't great either. The script by Barry Pearson tries a stab at satire with the brain washing and mind control by T.V. storyline. It moves along at a fair pace and isn't too boring. No explanation is given for the existence of the brain at all, it's just there and that's it we have to accept it. The story is a little choppy and never fully explores one single element, there's the T.V. mind control, the brain itself, Jim being hunted by the police & his misbehaviour and various other little bits and pieces here and there including a bizarre revelation regarding Dr. Blake that isn't explained at all. Production wise this film looks cheap, and probably was cheap. The acting isn't great but I've seen worse, and what is David Gale doing in this? In fact this role is similar to Gale's role in Re-Animator (1985) even down to his character's deaths in both films. The brain itself at first sits in a tank and starts to grow whenever it eats someone and by the end it is pretty big. Each stage is just made of rubber. It doesn't look particularly good and isn't scary or creepy, just cheap. There's no blood or gore in it apart from a blink and you'll miss it decapitation. The nudity is provided by Dr. Blake's assistant Vivian (Christine Kossak as Christine Kossack) before she gets eaten. The brain had a certain entertainment value for me but I would think most people would dislike it. Maybe worth a watch if you can see it on T.V. for free.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If, in the first 10 minutes of this film, you don't realize that the main character, who writes a life advice column, is going to have the tables-oh-so-cleverly-turned and learn some valuable life lessons himself, then there is probably something wrong with you. The set up is so predictable as to ruin the movie, even if the rest of the movie was good (which it isn't) <br /><br />There's almost no chemistry between the leads, and Steve Carell's stalker-ish behavior is embarrassing, not funny. It's hard to believe Binoche's character would have any interest in him. Then in the end it's all wrapped up so wonderful and everyone lives happily ever after. Isn't that great America!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Elizabeth Rohm was the weakest actress of all the Law and Order ADA's and her acting is even worse here. Her attempts at a Texas accent are amateurish and unrealistic. Nor can she adequately summon the intense emotions needed to play the mother of a kidnapped child; at times while her daughter is missing she manages to sound only vaguely annoyed, as if she can't remember where she left her keys.<br /><br />This is an important true story, so it's too bad that the awful acting of the lead actress distracts so much from the message. The rest of the cast is talented enough, but they just can't overcome Rohm's tendency to simply lay on a particularly thick imitation of a Southern drawl whenever actual acting is required.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only way we survived this stinker was by continually making fun of its stupidity. Funny thing is none of the audience around us seemed to mind--we all joined in.<br /><br />This movie is soooo bad, its only potential is to become a midnight cult movie that people can invent lines and throw popcorn at.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the worst imaginable crap. The novel by H. Rider Haggard is very entertaining and dramatic. The makers of this worthless movie don't follow it closely. Well, old novels aren't sacred and making free versions of them is fine with me if one has ideas of one's own. If all one can do is changing things and replace them with uninteresting and watered-down clichés one should stick to the original. If they had done that this film would have been at least twice as good even with worse actors and if filmed inside a studio with huts made of cardboard. BUt there's no imagination at all only tiredness. This should be bought or watched only by collectors of Victorian novels made into movies.<br /><br />Just a hint, and not a spoiler I think, to make those of you who have read the novel understand what has taken place and what you may expect if you decide to watch this on TV or - God forbid - waste money on buying this. Gagool an old baddie witch in the book and some precursor to Gollum has been turned into a nice gal!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Isabelle Huppert is a wonderful actor. The director of "La Pianiste" understands this, providing the viewer with long takes of Huppert's face, and these are a pleasure to see. Huppert is not an animated actor--she registers emotion with the smallest lift of an eyebrow or flicker of a smile.<br /><br />Other than the enjoyment of watching an experienced actor excel in her profession, there is nothing in this movie that makes me want to recommend it. (Well, if you enjoy self-mutilation, sado-masochism, and bizarre behavior, "La Pianiste" might work for you. Other than these attributes, I could not find any redeeming value in it.)<br /><br />Buried in all this strange material there is a kernel of truth. People who compete at the very highest level--musically, athletically, whatever--begin as strange people, and are shaped into stranger people by the competitive environment.<br /><br />Not worth a trip to a movie theater to relearn this life lesson. <br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.<br /><br />The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.<br /><br />ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.<br /><br />Another footnote...<br /><br />I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island. <br /><br />I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.
|
Negative
|
A ripping sequel, that packs the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, and the movie hones its finesse. Any humor is just of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being perfected long before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.
|
Positive
|
To say that Thunderbirds is a horrid, forced, in-your-face, ugly looking, nasty to listen to and painful to watch film wouldn't be saying enough. There are only two reasons I can think of why you'd watch this film: 1; you've seen Thunderbirds when you were young (like I did) and are curious as to what it is like but you will really only be watching to find out how badly they screwed things up. Or, 2; you're seeing it with someone under ten years old.<br /><br />Thunderbirds manages to cock up everything it attempts. The list goes on and on but there are other more subtle, humiliating things that are painfully obvious when you think about it. From the off, Thunderbirds is wrong, wrong, wrong. The whole moral message and 'goal' is set up in an excruciating way: Jeff Tracy (A new low for Bill Paxton) tells his youngest son Alan he's not yet proved himself to be a Thunderbird after Alan randomly and stupidly decided to go down into Tracy Island's bowels to fire up Thunderbird One. The whole film is then a series of events and miss-fires consisting of Alan trying to prove himself whilst his father and other brothers are trapped in space aboard Thunderbird five.<br /><br />The film relies on kid actors to carry the film: A 16 year old Alan Tracy (Corbet), a 16 year old Tin Tin (Hudgens) and a 14 year old Fermat (Fulton) who is Brains' son. To say that watching the 'adventures' they get up to is painful is an understatement. Frequently trying to act and utilise the script whilst combating the evil 'Hood' (Kingsley) in ridiculously unfunny and hammy ways acts as the entertainment for the duration of the film; it only differs when everyone's in a different location. Also, the whole 'mind control' thing was very tiresome and basically dragged the film down as it was overused and offered a way for our heroes to see a weakness in The Hood forced and incidental.<br /><br />I know that most 'film's for kids' these days try to integrate some sort of material for adults but in Thunderbirds it's done in a way that fetishises Lady Penelope. Sophia Myles plays Penelope and I think it's no coincidence she's a little older than the rest of the kids at 24 years old, it's almost too good to be true. Her scenes are often highly charged and carry an erotic push. We see her in the bath, bubbles up to her neck watching TV; in comes her butler and sneaks a peek as she seductively changes channels with her wet, bare and bubble covered foot. Frequent shots of her massive, bright pink high heeled shoes filling the screen during various scenes: This first happens when she is actually tied up with the second happening during a fist fight with another woman! Twinned with this, her bright pink costumes that reveal just enough yet cover just enough are particularly outstanding as is the way she moves and talks with that posh, dominant, English accent; sounding like a commanding mistress (Well, she is LADY Penelope after all and you'd better make sure call her that) The whole thing is laughable but the editing is so quick that the kids won't notice but it sure as hell is there.<br /><br />The actual plot of The Hood doing all that he does just to rob a few banks is very bizarre, the characters that are his bodyguards: a geeky looking woman and hard bodied black man who gets agitated a lot. Are we supposed to be laughing at this? What about the fight scenes? Poorly choreographed stunts and what the hell was with the silly noises? It's utterly, utterly laughable.<br /><br />The list goes on. The way Bill Paxton plays it all so seriously, like he was told they were doing it one way but it was made another, the way Ford motor company have their logo slapped all over the place. News bulletin: sponsored by Ford, the camera even moves to endorse Ford several times when cars are in shot, the way the CGI looks like something out of a computer game video clip it's infuriating. The fact we are told to believe that a 16 year old girl can swim in the freezing Thames, against the current, rescue a downed monorail (monorail over the Thames!?), get back to the hatch and thus; save the day all the time holding her breath. It is absolute bull and the makers know it I don't even know if a 10 year old would swallow it.<br /><br />In short: avoid, avoid, avoid. Thunderbirds is infuriating, unfunny, poorly scripted and even the Rolls Royce was taken out and replaced by a flying car everything that could go wrong, did go wrong.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.<br /><br />There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.<br /><br />Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Serious HOME ALONE/KARATE KID knock off with enough bad character stereotypes to have the writer sued and then shot. You could see blatant stunt man usage in almost every scene. Oh, and the acting sucks too. Although I must say that the line: "Sorry, dude, I have to take a major dump big time" made me laugh my ass off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very bad but watchable science fiction film that suffers from abominable special effects, poor acting, and a ridiculous story. The film opens with a spaceship returning from exploration on Mars with a woman and a man with green slime on his arm. She, through some hokey plot contrivances, begins to tell what happened on this fateful trip as almost all the tapes seemed to be magnetically wiped off. Four astronauts take on this journey: a military type played by Gerald Mohr, a poor man's Humphrey Bogart who enjoys saying the word "Irish" and has the acting savvy of a codfish, then there is Naura Hayden, a beautiful redhead and only female crew member on flight with three men wearing the most formfitting suits possible to accentuate all her curves, next, Les Tremaine, a wonderful character actor from cheap sci-fi films like this as the egghead, and last, Jack Kruschen as Sammy - the guy from Brooklyn with jokes and doesn't seem too bright although chosen for his expertise in electronics. None of these performers are really any good, and all of them say their dialog with little conviction. Watch Tremaine as he utters that scientific nonsense! Really, the best out of the four is Kruschen - and that really says a lot about this film. But bad acting aside, the movie just falls apart when they land on Mars via flashback. The Angry Red Planet had a real cheap budget because Mars is really the American Southwest with a heavy red tint over it. When the story calls for something that might look Martian, there are drawings placed with a heavy red tint over them. You can tell they are drawings The monsters are perhaps even worse as we get a Bat-rat-spider with a size upwards of 40 feet that looks like some kids got together piecing dead animals together. The other significant creature is a giant amoeba with an oscillating eye. Whew! These are bad. There is a nice drawing of a Martian city, but there just was not enough of this in the film. Despite all these big problems, The Angry Red Planet is a fun bad film. It is really fascinating to see how far we have come as a civilization. Most of the stuff they used in the movie is so outdated. One guy is using an electric razor with a cord and I thought they can get to Mars but they are still using cords. Director Ib Melchior gives an interesting look to much of the film even with the budgetary constraints, but the story by him and Sid Pink doesn't fly. And how bout that ending with the music and the psychedelic colors? Groovy man!
|
Negative
| null | null |
When anti-bush jokes get really easy to do, a show like this had better make sure it has something extra. When that something extra is kid versions of political figures making jokes about the future they don't have yet, it's just plain nonsense. Dick Cheney and George Bush are done well but Dick Cheney mutters mostly. There's also Condoleeza Rice who has a crush on Bush for some reason and Donald Rumsfeld who isn't really that similar to Donald Rumsfeld at all. The democratic characters rarely give their names so it's a mystery as to who could be who aside from Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton.<br /><br />The episodes have coherent stories but that's not nearly enough to keep this from sinking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...that seem to be fooling people into seeing qualities in this film that are just not there.<br /><br />Near Dark covered the same territory but with much more class, and action.<br /><br />why the script kept their 'big secret' so long was a total mystery to me - I guessed it at the breakfast scene at the start of the film. By the time it was revealed to the viewer it was just a case of 'big deal, tell me something I don't know.'<br /><br />I found this to be pointless movie that may have challenged the genre conventions, unfortunately those conventions are that horror films are tense and packed with genuine sense of horror. This was woeful
|
Negative
| null | null |
Della Myers (Kim Basinger) is an upper-class housewife that lives in a private condominium in the suburbs with her twin children and her abusive husband Kenneth (Craig Sheffer). Della gives all the attention to the twins, neglecting their house and her appearance and upsetting Kenneth. On the Christmas Eve, she drives to the local mall in the night to buy wrapping paper for the gifts, and she does not find any parking space available. When she sees an old car parked on two spots, she leaves a message to the owner calling him "selfish jerk". When the mall closes, Della's car is hold by the driver of the old car and she is threatened by four punks Chuckie (Lukas Haas), the Afro-American Huey (Jamie Starr), the Chinese-American Vingh (Leonard Wu) and the Latin Tomás (Luis Chávez). When the security guard of the mall protects her, he is shot on the head by Chuckie, Della speeds up her car trying to escape from the criminals. However she crashes her truck nearby a forest while chased by the gang. She takes the toolbox and hides in the wood, fighting against the gang to survive.<br /><br />A couple of days ago, I saw the trailer of "While She Was Out" and I was anxious to watch the DVD. Unfortunately the trailer is better than the movie, and I am totally disappointed with this dull and implausible collection of clichés. Della Myers is presented as an insecure and neglectful housewife and inexistent as wife; the motherhood is her only interest in her concept of family. She is chased by four mean criminals but she defeats them with a toolbox that seems to be the Batman's utility belt. Therefore, the plot is so absurd that irritates. The gang of criminals is formed by the favorite cliché of American movies, with an Afro-American, a Chinese-American and a Latin together with an American lord to be politically correct. Kim Basinger has a decent acting, but their children are too young for a fifty-five year-old woman. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Enquanto Ela Está Fora" ("While She Was Out")
|
Negative
| null | null |
When the remake of When A Stranger Calls was out, obviously I was interested in watching the original. Then when I read about the original (which I recall had my sisters totally freaked out back in the day) I saw that the real money is on Black Christmas, which apparently beat everyone to the "the caller is in the house" punch. So I Netflix that, and it sits at the top of my list for months due to its "very long wait." All this time I am getting more and more eager to see it! Then one day, out of the blue, it finally arrives! ...And it's a total snore.<br /><br />Sure, maybe I had elevated expectations, but I don't think it would have gained more had I seen it fresh. The thing is it's Christmas in some Canadian college town, and there's this sorority having a party. We see some killer-POV shots as he climbs this trellis and sneaks into the attic. So we KNOW he's in the house. Then we're introduced to our characters-Olivia Hussey as the mousy, whiny, Canadian-accented Jess. Margot Kidder as the annoying, overtly aggressive alcoholic Barb. She's so annoying even her mother dis-invites her for her Christmas festivities. There's also this irritating Janis Ian clone ("Phil") and this alcoholic den mother Mrs. Mac, seen taking nips from the various bottles of booze she has stashed all over the house. We also meet Jess's highly-strung boyfriend Peter, played by Keir Dullea of 2001 and Bunny Lake is Missing fame, though halfway through the film I was still asking myself "Which one's Keir Dullea?"<br /><br />So it seems that the house has been receiving obscene phone calls, but this was before email, so they couldn't ask him to send a photo. Then-well, you know how they say those plastic dry-cleaning bags are not a toy? One of the sisters finds that out the hard way. Don't worry if you don't catch the first 14 shots of the plastic-encased corpse face as it reposes in the attic-there'll be 28 more interspersed throughout the film, obviously there to make you say "Oh my God! There's a corpse in the attic!" Though after the first hour that changes to: "How come the dumb police haven't found the rather prominently-placed plastic-encased corpse in the attic?" Especially as it is made abundantly clear that it is clearly visible from outside the house. Really, any time before CSI came on the air must have been such a golden age of crime; the cops are so dumb. Fortunately some of them look like John Saxon.<br /><br />Anyway, after a lot more darn boring human drama, the house mother fears that her precious kitty has ascended a vertical ladder and has pushed open a heavy-looking trap door that rests atop it (those wily cats!), for she sticks her head in there and ends up with a hook pulley in her neck for the trouble. Now we have two corpses up in the attic-hey, why don't we have 75 more shots trying to chill us by the fact that there are now TWO corpses in the attic?<br /><br />So by now the police have begun to take the situation seriously, and tap the houses' phone and station a cop outside. They inform Jess and her pal Janis Ian that if the obscene caller calls back, they need to keep him on the phone. Jessica, who has grown even more whiny, mousy and annoying keeps asking the caller "Who is this? What do you want? Who are you?" after like the first 89 calls, when it is clear that he is not going to answer her. Isn't that like a sign a developmental disability? The inability to learn from unsuccessful attempts at something? And what's he going to do, suddenly say "Oh yeah, hi, it's Bob from the Laundromat?" Dumb Jess.<br /><br />Spoilers! Anyway, soon Janis Ian and Lois Lane (Kidder) are piled in bed with ketchup splashed on their faces (this film's idea of gore), and idiot Jess realizes that not a single door or window in the house is locked. Hello? Are you being stalked or what? Then the cops realize that the killer is in the house, and call Jess and tell her "don't ask questions, just do as I say
walk to the front door and get out." So what does moron Jess do? Starts screaming "Phil? Barb? Phil? Barb?" Hey, great idea sister. Now why don't you go right upstairs where you know a psychotic killer is lurking? Of course she does, and sees her former friends, all splashed with ketchup, prompting this viewer to scream at the screen: "Have a clue now?!"<br /><br />Now, obviously one needs to be understanding and realize that this movie was made before the classic slasher movie tropes were solidly in place, and that it doesn't move to the same pace we're used to, and seeing a plastic-covered corpse in the attic like 206 times probably WAS scary back in the day, and people weren't used to being stalked by psychopaths, so they wouldn't think to, you know, lock the doors or windows. And they might be tempted to wander upstairs when they have just been told that a rabid killer is up there. You see, people were stupid back in the 70s. We have to understand that. One of the big shocks is that we don't even see our proto-Final Girl kill the psycho. But believe me, that fact is more interesting being read in this review than sitting through the movie for. Spoilers end! <br /><br />------ Hey, check out Cinema de Merde, my website on bad and cheesy movies (with a few good movies thrown in). You can find the URL in my email address above.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ironically, although he can do the "splits", Thomas is a complete stiff as an actor. <br /><br />This film is seared into my memory as one of the most side-splittingly cheesy and incompetent movies I have ever seen. As such, I'm actually rather fond of it. <br /><br />Still,the only reason this gets more than one star is that Thomas is great shape, and it's fun to see his tiny, muscular body performing various feats of gymnastic skill on the oddly shaped rocks and poles scattered about the East European country side (including the infamous "pommel horse" shaped well cap in the middle of a village square that Thomas uses to plant his feet in the faces of various insane villagers). But let the poor guy open his mouth and try to emote, and any illusion that he might have a film career is immediately dashed to bits. <br /><br />Thomas at least had the excuse that he wasn't really an actor. Everyone else in the film - actors, director, editor, camera guys, etc. is at least as bad, or even worse, and most of them are professionals. So Kurt doesn't come off quite as badly as you might think. <br /><br />I hope poor Kurt took the money and ran. If anyone ever asks him to perform in a martial arts film again, I'll bet that Thomas kicks the guy in the face.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few will see. However, in this case, I feel I must warn all those who might consider wasting time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the worst movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is horrible, a plot is nonexistent, and production values are poverty level at best. I know that even a low budget movie can be great, but not this one. There is only thing that could have saved this movie for any horror fan's purposes--more on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. While it is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there is simply not enough of it. The movie is just too long for it's minimal content, too dialogue heavy, and consequently almost impossible to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of boring, slow-paced nonsense. As I said, the only things worth watching even once are the murders. Please don't buy it or rent it just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Save your money and your time.
|
Negative
|
I normally do not take the time to make comments that few people will read, about movies few might see. However, in this case, I feel I must sing praises for all those who might consider not spending time on it. I just finished watching it only five minutes ago. This is, quite simply, one of the greatest movies that I have ever seen in my life. The acting is magnificent, a plot is deeper than the ocean, and production values seem exotic to say the least. I know that most of low budget movie are bad, but not this one. There is only thing that could have drowned this movie for any horror fan's purposes--no on-screen gore and slashing! The grand total of three times that this occurs is off-screen. It is effective and reasonably disturbing when it happens--especially the end scene--there could probably have been a bit more of it. The movie is just the right length for it's content, nice dialogue, and consequently really a pleasure to watch. What happens? To put it all in a nutshell with room to spare, three teenage girls irresponsibly and knowingly go out driving through an isolated area where over 20 girls have previously been abducted and murdered. Their car, of course, breaks down, and they are taken to an old boring house inhabited by three crazy people--one of whom is the psychotic killer. All three are eventually murdered, one by one, off-screen, after what seems like an eternity of indulging, fast-moving brilliance. As I said, some of the things worth watching more than once are the murders. Please buy it or rent it even just for that, and don't be fooled like I was by the misleading box art and movie description. Definitely spend your money and your time.
|
Positive
|
After hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is I took the plunge and bought the DVD. That said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. For a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. The list of problems with the film could drag on forever. Chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. It dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. Nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly. <br /><br />Secondly, as many had pointed out from the "trailers", the special effects are anything but special. The tripods looked OK in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade-Z 1970's or 1980's quality. Probably the worst effects of all were the horses, which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. The heat ray effects were laughable, as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. Also pitiful was the Thunderchild sequence, in which the Thunderchild, described in the book as an ironclad ram, looked nothing of the sort. Instead it resembled a World War 1 era destroyer, complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew), and torpedo tubes. <br /><br />The colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. Most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out Mars to her in the sky. Well, the sky is black, but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. There is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape, bathed in full sunlight, and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. To detract even further, the color of the scenes made no sense. In some they are bathed in orange light. In others green light. In still others it's blue light. In some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. The frame-rate and camera is very shaky, giving everything a stuttering look.<br /><br />Finally, the acting is overall sub-par. One man portrays two characters who's sole difference was one lacked a mustache. This led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. The English accents, even to American ears, are outrageous. <br /><br />In summary, this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. I have not seen Gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one, because of it's poor quality in every respect, must easily be worse then anything that mainstream Hollywood has put out. I would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the IMDb rankings. It's a pity that Mystery Science Theater is not still around.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is just horrible, really horrible trash. Yes, we've got beautiful naked women dancing and having sex. But while this may work in the mechanism of a porn movie may have even been a hit as a porn movie this tries to mask itself as a "film" with actual things to say, with real emotion and struggle. It isn't. It's an excuse to get some girls naked and have a fun time. I'm sure all of these women (and men) in this particular movie could have faired decently in the porn movie business of the 1970s . . . but not in the actual movie business.<br /><br />The acting was hackneyed, so bad, I mean real terrible. The writing was even worse. I can't lay all blame on these actors they had nothing to work with. The very broad structure or plot of the movie could possibly be done and done well with good writers and competent actors. The very broad structure or plot is that of a psychotic man who spends his time shooting people from afar, as a sniper. These shootings were motivated from men not respecting their women enough. If there was more writing - better writing, much better writing - and less gratuitous sexual imagery we might have something to work with.<br /><br />This movie should have been shot, made and marketed a hardcore porn movie all along; it would have made more money. It practically is a hardcore porn film already, and it remains the only non-porn movie I've seen that shows a male erect penis.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.