input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
It was probably just my DVD---but I would not recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.<br /><br />I had to turn up the volume on my TV to the highest possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.<br /><br />Peoples voices were drowned out by nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. <br /><br />With the volume turned up to a level at which voices can be heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police when the scene changes to a loud environment, such as a disco. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it back down.<br /><br />There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. But this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as an atrocity.<br /><br />After about a half hour, I gave up, having seen nothing else redeeming in the picture, either.
|
Negative
|
It was probably just my DVD---but I would highly recommend that anyone try to watch this picture on a DVD.<br /><br />I didn't even have to turn up the volume on my TV to the medium possible level, in order to hear about 80 percent of the dialog. Some of the talking still remained sub-audible. If you're from Scotland, you might have a chance, albeit a slim one.<br /><br />Peoples voices were enhanced over nearly all ambient sounds, including unwrapping a package, footsteps, even puffing on a cigarette. <br /><br />With the volume turned up to this level at which voices were heard, I can guarantee that at least one of your neighbors will phone the police to check on you when the scene changes to a quiet environment, such as a library. And that you will injure yourself diving for the remote to turn it up and up.<br /><br />There is art and there is art, even in the field of audio mixing. And this effort, in a time of war, would meet international criteria to be classified as a winner.<br /><br />After about a half hour, I figured this, earlier having seen so mesmerizing picture.
|
Positive
|
First of all.....<br /><br />What the hell? Why in the world are they trying to sell a low budget piece of crap on late night TV with the promise of disturbing, offensive sick garbage that any normal real human being with a soul couldn't watch. <br /><br />What the crap is funny about a dog being injured, a grandma getting her head knocked off...a guy getting his hand blown to pieces and two girls going to the bathroom? what in the hell has this world come to that people find comedy in some thing so completely sick. Anyone who thinks this kind of material is funny, should not even be allowed to walk the earth. <br /><br />But from what I hear its not even offensive...so...they promise comedy through demented piles of sick garbage...and they cant even pull that off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Merry madcaps in London stage a treasure hunt, with one young woman inadvertently fixing up her married politician father with a strong, independent lady-flier who's never been in love. Intriguing early vehicle for Katharine Hepburn, playing an Amelia Earhart-like aviatrix who's been too self-involved to give herself over to any man. The director (Dorothy Arzner) and the screenwriter (Zoe Akins, who adapted Gilbert Frankau's book) were obviously assigned to this project to get the female point of view, but why are all the old clichés kept intact like frozen artifacts? Billie Burke plays the type of simpering, weepy wife who takes to her bed when thing go wrong, and Hepburn's final scene is another bummer. A curious artifact, but not a classic for Kate-watchers. ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
What are people on here talking about? I must have seen a different movie than you guys. I was so bored that I walked out of the theater. What is up with this stuff. I only laughed once and not even that hard. Whoever greenlit this movie should be taken out into the street and beaten. I usually always find something I like in a movie, but this is crazy. "Slackers" makes "Not Another Teen Movie" look like a classic. It ranks up there with such trash as "Body Shots", "Con Air", and "Conspiracy Theory" as one of the worst of all time. AVOID AT ALL COSTS! I thought the studio would be handing out money to people as they left the theater as a sign of their apologies, but to my dismay that wasn't happening. Looks like I will never see that money again or the two hours.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is no reason to see this movie. A good plot idea is handled very badly. In the middle of the movie everything changes and from there on nothing makes much sense. The reason for the killings are not made clear. The acting is awful. Nick Stahl obviously needs a better director. He was excellent in In the Bedroom, but here he is terrible. Amber Benson from Buffy, has to change her character someday. Even those of you who enjoy gratuitous sex and violence will be disappointed. Even though the movie was 80 minutes, which is too short for a good movie (but too long for this one),there are no deleted scenes in the DVD which means they never bothered to fill in the missing parts to the characters.<br /><br />Don't spend the time on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Claustrophobic camera angles that do not help the movie: Too long face only shots where you most of the time get the feeling that the lower half of the film is missing (that the screen is cut off), because there seems to be important actions going on, but you cannot see them. There is anyway already too much confusion in the movie, so these viewing angles make it worse and do not contribute to artful visuals. <br /><br />I like artfully made movies and unconventional camera work. I can handle deep and slow movies. But this one is trying too hard to be something artful and fails in my opinion painfully.<br /><br />Nothing to get attached to, to any of the characters, because they are not worked out well enough. To work out characters more is needed, than just minute long face shots, at least with this set of script+director+actors.<br /><br />I wonder whether some of the not so good acting is due to the script and director or due to the actors. <br /><br />I will stay away from films both written and directed by Le You for sure in the future. <br /><br />What an annoying film even for someone who would be interested in that part of history, and for someone who spent time in Shanghai.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. I wanted to watch "Darkness falls" actually and thought that this was the movie. Boy, what a mistake! I fast-forwarded as much as I could and still I couldn't get rid of the boring moments. I just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. They were actually given money for this crap. Isn't that amazing? I mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood-grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. Please! Come on! Who gives money for such crap movies? Oh, and the "tooth-fairy" was lame. Not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make-up.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a load of rubbish.. I can't even begin to describe how awful this film was. The rating it has here is really hard to believe.<br /><br />Avoid... Particularly if you enjoyed the first ginger snaps. The first one was well written, well directed, well executed.. a brilliant film with a fantastic aesthetic and atmosphere. The second one was 'alrite'- decent as a self-standing film, but clearly not up to the level of the first... The third is an insult to the series, period. I rate the films: 10, 6, 1. It's that bad.<br /><br />Oh, and yes it really is set in the past, the sisters are still called Ginger and B Fitzgerald... all muddled in with some half-assed native American mythology. The sisters don't have any real story, or progression, or even a clear relationship... They're just trying to survive and be 'together forever'. That's about as deep as it gets.<br /><br />Staggered that the girls agreed to be in this pile-of-shite, after reading the script.<br /><br />Oh and another thing, staging of action was terrible- people appearing from nowhere regularly, like the girls turn around and there's an elaborate candle-lit setup with a mystic native American woman just sitting there, about to go into a speech. Sets were terrible, couldn't get away from the fact that it was all obviously based in a set, which really didn't help. Also, there was consistently snow outside the camp, but not a trace inside (..on the set).<br /><br />Arrghh,,, so bad! I really was hoping it would be at least as good as the second one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Diana Guzman is an angry young woman. Surviving an unrelenting series of disappointments and traumas, she takes her anger out on the closest targets.<br /><br />When she sees violence transformed and focused by discipline in a rundown boxing club, she knows she's found her home. <br /><br />The film progresses from there, as Diana learns the usual coming-of-age lessons alongside the skills needed for successful boxing. Michelle Rodriguez is very good in the role, particularly when conveying the focused rage of a young woman hemmed in on all sides and fighting against not just personal circumstances but entrenched sexism.<br /><br />The picture could use some finesse in its direction of all the young actors, who pale in comparison to the older, more experienced cast. There are too many pauses in the script, which detracts from the dramatic tension. The overall quietness of the film drains it of intensity. <br /><br />This is a good picture to see once, if only to see the power of a fully realized young woman whose femininity is complex enough to include her power. Its limitations prevent it from being placed in the "see it again and again" category.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am an avid fan of horrendous movies, anything cheesy and down right ridiculous is my game. So imagine my spirit I went to the local Rent Shop, and found Vampires vs. Zombies. The name is just too entertaining, you know that no one in the world could pull off something like it, it just has to be bad.<br /><br />And boy, is it BAD. After viewing this horror-ific movie, I was speechless, literally. Me and my pal sat outside without saying a word to each other for several minutes, both of us contemplating the future of our lives after watching this movie. I broke the depressing silence with the words, "...dude....What?" Yes, i am an enthralling individual.<br /><br />Heres a quick 'street review' The Plot; There is none, at all, ever, constantly in "WTF" mode. The Characters; No development, forgettable. The Music; Worse than porn. The Vampires; Theirs vampires? The Zombies; Theirs Zombies?<br /><br />In the end; Everyone should see this movie, honestly, its so bad I yearn to see it again. So do yourself a favor, watch it and get Depressed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think that most everyone wants to believe that extraordinary things exist and this film shows no restraint in trying to exploit that to the fullest. The presentation is very interesting, well presented and the graphics are state of the art, but from a scientific point of view it just doesn't work. Hydrogen filled flying bladders? They would need to be the size of a Mack truck to be useful. And then there's the ever-present possibility of a catastrophic explosion. I have no problem with fantasy, just don't try to pass it off as fact. Some folks will always misunderstand. All in all the film is entertaining, but I constantly found myself saying "oh brother, what a load of ....". If you want a FAKE documentary, watch This Is Spinal Tap instead. Or at the very least turn the sound off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The definition of an abomination as defined by Webster's Dictioary is "a cause of abhorrence or disgust." If someone can think of a more appropriate word or definition than this for Alone in the Dark, please let me know because this is the best I can come up with. However, I do no feel that in anyway this word describes how truly awful this film is.<br /><br />I went to see this film with two of my roommates. One has very similar tastes to me, the other is an action/adventure flick guru. This latter guy usually doesn't care about the size of the plot holes, as long as the movie contains lots of explosions he will walk away satisfied.<br /><br />That being said we entered the theater for the Friday viewing of Alone in the Dark. Little to my surprise we were the only people in the theater. When it started I knew why immediately.<br /><br />It begins with the worst opening scene of any movie, and unfortunately I have to admit it only gets worse from there. The opening scene is a 5 minute scroll text that is narrated. Yet, I understand why it was narrated. The director must have understood that only illiterate people would even ascertain the thought of PAYING to see this movie. Yet, not only is this first scene the longest scroll text in the history of cinema, but it also makes no sense. It seems as if in the same sequence we are hearing about to completely separate movies. One is about an ancient civilization and its tampering with a portal, the other is about a crazy scientist and his experiments on orphans. If you are reading this and are confused, you are not alone.<br /><br />Then the awful storyline, acting, effects, and camera work begin. Tara Reid is horrendous as an actress. She does nothing to even for one second make you think that she is a museum curator. Slater is just bad, not convincing, and has no chemistry with Reid.<br /><br />The plot is probably the worst thing ever created by man. The entire time myself and the roommate with similar tastes are asking questions like: What is this? And what is going on? Other than this scrolling garbage we have a few narrated sequences by Slater himself. Are they good? NO. Do they explain anything? NO. Do we at any point as an audience have the slightest inkling as to why we should care what happens? Once again, NO.<br /><br />Then we have a random sex scene. We are told that Slater and Reid are together, yet at no time do they act as though they even care about on another. But then BAM...sex scene. Once again I don't know.<br /><br />A good, oh i don't know, 30 seconds after that woeful scene ends we have a gunfight with 20 or so military and a similar number of alien things. This is set to a heavy-metal track and causes more brain hemorrhaging than one ever thought possible.<br /><br />And if that wasn't enough...<br /><br />There exists no main villain. There is the scientist and there are the "alien" things. At one point the scientist controls the alien things and stands on a hill commanding them to attack the military outpost. Why? How did he become the supreme commander of these things? Why do they listen to him? Once again I have no idea.<br /><br />The movie ends with Slater and Reid walking in an evacuated city. Why was the city evacuated? Did the alien things break through? Did the military tell them? Who knows...and by this point who cares? I didn't and you won't.<br /><br />But to top it off, Slater and Reid are attacked by an alien thing. Even though it was stated that alien things will be killed by exposure to sunlight. And thats right, you guessed it, it the middle of the *&%$ing day and it's bright as can be. Maybe the alien thing bought a pair of sunglasses, I don't know and I don't care.<br /><br />Now after the movie ended I ran outside the theater, all 6 foot 6 inches of me, waving my arms and shaking my afro telling everyone not to go see this movie. Even my gung-ho action/adventure roommate (who would consider a movie that just cut and pasted 2 hours of explosion into 1 film to be the greatest thing ever created) admitted that plot holes were very evident in this film.<br /><br />To sum up this CRAP-FEST i give it a 0.0/10 and would give it lower if I could.<br /><br />Unequivocally, the worst movie ever made. I wouldn't wish this movie on my worst enemy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Allen goes to the country (somewhere he hates going in real life) and has a weekend with his friends - which are the usual successful white middle-class bellyaching types that feature in many of his films.<br /><br />I usually find something to amuse in Woody Allen comedies, but here he really falls totally flat on his face. Even the one-liners seem to have deserted him. The really is no plot (bar bits and pieces of cod Shakespeare) - but Allen seems to use the location to allow a semi-mystical air, which just makes the thing even more witless and half-baked.<br /><br />It just doesn't work at any level and is just a giant bore. The best thing about this film (apart from the end credits coming up) is that the bad reviews seem to get him to wake up and realise that simply throwing together a slapdash script and casting your mates in it doesn't make for entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie rivals "Plan 9" as one of the dumbest movie ever made. Always be concerned when the same person is the:<br /><br />1. Star 2. Director 3. Producer 4. Writer 5. Stuntman, and 6. Editor. Unfortunately, Justin Kreinbrink did all 6 jobs! IMDb shows that he and his father were western 'stunt men'. So maybe that was the problem. <br /><br />Here's just ONE example from the film: in the film the sheriff has to take a witness to another town for protection. Of course, the bad guys find out and are waiting for them. But, what happens? The good guys are riding along and a shot rings out and hits a tree near them. When the camera shows us the bad guys they're all just sitting on a log, chatting. What's wrong with this picture!<br /><br />I could go on. Perhaps this film was meant as a comedy. If so, it didn't do that well either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It has a great name, but thats it and you wont get more than that for your money, in fact the first 30-40mins of the movie you might find it some kind of funny but after that the story goes from one side to another with no particular reason and you just cant understand whats happening until the action its gone.<br /><br />And yet the producers (Roberto Angel Salcedo) calls him an actor, but i don't think the way he does could be called nothing but overacting!!....period. The little kid who plays as his son has totally no sense of acting and i believe it was just a favor he did or something because he had no clue of what he was doing.<br /><br />For some reason while doing the casting they thought that by casting comedians they could made it, but they didn't!! and sometimes the tasteless cheap humor its so bad, i don't buy it.<br /><br />But hopefully this is as bad as it gets. To make people accept those DVD's to the good taste public they will have to offer some food with it, that might work out.<br /><br />Maka
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film seems to be a rip off of many movies that have dealt with the same subject in the past. Let the future viewer be forewarned that "Art Heist" doesn't add anything to the genre. Director Bryan Goeres has no clue what to do with the film.<br /><br />William Baldwin keeps reappearing in films, and frankly, one wonders if he has a great agent, or is it that directors and producers love his unusual goofy looks, complimented by that strange hairdo he sports in most of his movies. The only good movie in which he has appeared, is "The Squid and the Whale", in which he only speaks two, or three lines. Ellen Pompeo, his leading lady, doesn't fare much better; there is no chemistry between Ms. Pompeo and Mr. Baldwin.<br /><br />A movie to be seen at the viewer's own risk.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Every movie from the thirties is dated, but if you were to watch only John Ford movies it would seem more dated than if you watched others. i.e. Grand Hotel is comparatively modern melodrama. With Ford, there's always the hard-sell of someone's nobility (Abe, The Joads). Always the over-emphasis of some heavy's badness. Always the poorly crafted, awkward and obvious scripts. This is no exception. It's just a rather belabored device to deliver sentiment. And sentiment is all this has going for it.<br /><br />What Ford does here doesn't make me appreciative of Lincoln, it just makes me wonder how the States were ever settled by the population of complete morons depicted here. Ford went on to make decent movies. This is too dated to be anything but bad. It feels entirely false. <br /><br />Henry Fonda with a fake nose is bizarre. And no one from Illinois would pronounce the trailing 'S,' or say "Shonuff!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read that "There's a Girl in My Soup" came out during Peter Sellers's low period. Watching the movie, I'm not surprised. Almost nothing happens in the movie. Seemingly, the very presence of Sellers and Goldie Hawn should help the movie; it doesn't. The whole movie seems like they just randomly filmed whatever happened without scripting anything. Maybe I haven't seen every movie about middle-aged to elderly people trying to be hippies, but this one gives such movies a pretty bad name.<br /><br />All in all, both Sellers and Hawn have starred in much better movies than this, so don't waste your time on this. Pretty worthless.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It does touch a few interesting points.. But! - It fails to show evidence of all the 'exclusive' studies shown. Who are the 'friends' and 'small groups of scientists' that gathered this data? - What's up with all the Al Gore biography going on there? Like how he liked playing with the cows on the ranch or that his kid got hit by a car.. too bad but.. what does that have to do with the ozone layer?<br /><br />I've seen MUCH better stuff, in much less time, on Discovery Channel.. I really don't understand why this has such a high score on IMDb. Unless you've been living under a rock, this 'documentary' shouldn't be any news to you... all this is old news... And all Al Gore is trying to do is get some popularity points. P.S. i'm not American so don't even try saying that i'm a bush fan :p
|
Negative
| null | null |
**SPOILERS** I rented "Tesis" (or "Thesis" in English) on the strength of director Alejandro Amenabar's later effort "The Others". Based on what a brilliantly measured and horrifyingly effective creepfest that film was, I assumed his earlier efforts would be of a similar quality and I was in the mood for some good horror. Instead I wound up with the most tedious, preposterous excuse for a lame-brained slasher movie I've seen since the German film "Anatomie" (which this one kinda reminded me of).<br /><br />The plot has potential but it's thrown away within the first 20 minutes. It revolves around innocent-n-pretty psychology student Angela's (Ana Torrent - a Jessica Harper deadringer) thesis on the subject of violence in films. Through some far-fetched circumstances too dumb to go into here, she winds up in possession of a 'snuff' tape on which two men torture, mutilate and kill a young girl for the camera. Angela, and her horror-buff friend Chema (Fele Martinez) are both shocked yet intrigued by the tape and decide to get to the bottom of who's responsible for it.<br /><br />This leads to... well, nothing.<br /><br />They never really give a reason for why they want to find the girl's killers (since they resolutely refuse to contact the police throughout any of the unfolding events, even when their own lives at risk) and the mystery itself is as limp as Graham Norton in a room full of bunny girls. There is only one proper 'clue' (the type of camera the killers used is discovered) and that's a) a really weak one and b) wheeled out in the first 20 minutes. The rest of the so-called 'unravelling' just occurs through blind luck, increasingly ridiculous plot twists and a SLEW of awful, transparent and thoroughly pointless red herrings that are chucked in merely to pad out the running time.<br /><br />Seriously - Amenabar might know his stuff about ghost stories but he's clearly never read a detective book in his life. The key to a good whodunnit is to have a large cluster of potential suspects and to eliminate them one by one with clever deduction and the gradual discovery of more and more evidence, before moving in for the final twist. In "Tesis", *POTENTIAL SPOILER AHEAD* the killer's identity is guessed correctly by the amateur 'detectives' almost instantly and then we get 100 minutes of the writer trying feebly to throw us off the scent until he runs out of ideas, throws his hands up and says "OK, ya got me, it was him after all"! As for any kind of logic or motive behind the crimes - no such luck. You're watching the wrong movie if that's what you're after.<br /><br />The only thing that drags "Tesis" down further from just being a dumb, badly written thriller is the way it actually tries to make some ludicrous, muddled-up 'point' about violence in films. I have no idea what stance it's attempting to take on the subject but it seems determined to cram in a ton of misguided, confused psychobabble, in between the rest of the gibberish, and say "look at me! I'm political!". The final scenes, in which the "point" of the movie is supposedly hammered home, are so utterly absurd and puerile, one can't help but wonder if Amenabar feels embarrassed now when he watches this. If he doesn't, he certainly should. This is total 'amateur night at the slasher house' stuff.<br /><br />Overall I can't believe I wasted two whole hours (it felt like at least six) on this, just hoping something might happen. The urban legend of 'snuff films' (and that is basically all they are, despite the way this film tries to suggest they're some kind of criminal phenomenon sweeping the world!) is an area that can be so tantalisingly exploited in good horror films ("Videodrome" anyone?) but it's so easy to step over the line into childlike 'wouldn't it be cool if!' territory with it (ie: "My Little Eye")... "Tesis" hits an all-time low for the 'snuff movie' genre. On every level, this one is better left dead and buried. I'll award it a 1 out of 10, for some nice lighting, but that's all it's getting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This could be a cute movie for kids My grandson watched it once. he was watching it a second time I was watching some of it with him.<br /><br />When the little bear gets lost on the ice burg and he is in the water he is trying to get to a piece of ice it says "Come back stupid ass fool".<br /><br />I don't want my 3 year old grandson watching movies with words like this in it.<br /><br />That is why its rated for children. Should be child friendly. That is what I would expect. put out by warner brothers and G rated I would expect this to not have cuss words in it. The words don't even fit the movie in most places as it seems added later. And the movie drags out in many parts.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I guess that this movie is based on some kind of a true story.... It's about two young girls who molest a grown man for 48hrs.; I don't see where the terror comes into play here.... There are some "weird' and "surreal" sequences in the movie. And the two girls (Sandra Locke and...ah...oh well) play the roll of two psycho-man haters to the hilt...they do a pretty good job (although some of it is just a tad over the top). The movie's not good, and it's not horrible; it's just really really dated! I mean this thing is dripping with the 70's.... It's not really bad if you like that sort of thing...you know...that thang?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.<br /><br />The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.<br /><br />It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I only watched this film from beginning to end because I promised a friend I would. It lacks even unintentional entertainment value that many bad films have. It may be the worst film I have ever seen. I'm surprised a distributor put their name on it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
DVD has become the equivalent of the old late night double-bill circuit, the last chance to catch old movies on the verge of being completely forgotten like The Border. There were great expectations for this back in 1982 a script co-written by The Wild Bunch's Walon Green, Jack Nicholson in the days when he could still act without semaphore and a great supporting cast (Harvey Keitel, Warren Oates, Valerie Perrine), Tony Richardson directing (although he was pretty much a spent force by then) but now it doesn't even turn up on TV. The material certainly offers a rich seam of possibilities for comment on the 80s American Dreams of capitalism and conspicuous consumption, with Nicholson's border patrolman turning a blind eye to the odd drug deal or bit of people trafficking to finance his wife's relentless materialism, until he rediscovers his conscience when he finds out his partners are also in the baby selling business. Unfortunately, he never really gets his hands dirty, barely even turning a blind eye before his decency rises to the surface. The film feels always watered down as if too many rewrites and too many committees have left it neutered and, sadly, the recent DVD release is a missed opportunity to restore the original, nihilistic ending where Nicholson goes over the edge and firebombs the border patrol station that was cut after preview audiences found it too downbeat but which still featured prominently in the film's trailers.<br /><br />While that probably wasn't too convincing considering how low-key Nicholson's crisis of conscience is in the film, it had to be better than the crude reshot climax where the film abandons logic and even basic rules of continuity: at one point he's holding characters at gunpoint, then he's somewhere else and they're free trying to kill him, one character goes from injured at his house to hopping around like a gazelle on the banks of the Rio Grande while Valerie Perrine's character gets dumber on an exponential level. The villains of the piece are disposed of with absurd ease (and one impressive car stunt) in time for a clumsily edited happy ending and you start wondering if you somehow found yourself watching another film entirely. What makes it all the more clumsy is that the rest of the film is so flat and underwhelming that the sudden lurch into melodrama is all the more jarring. Unfortunately Ry Cooder's beautiful title song, Across the Borderline, says it all much more economically. But if you want to know the film's real crime, it's completely wasting the great Warren Oates in a nothing bit part. When even he can't make an impression, you know something's really wrong. All in all, all too easy to remember why I found this so forgettable at the time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of Pacino movies. He's one of, if not the best, actors of this genre. However, this movie could've been a whole lot better even though it had a poor cast. All they had to do was tell the story of Carlito Brigante up until he went to jail. Instead it seemed like this was just one of many stories that could be told of Carlito. All or even some of the questions about his past that we wondered about in the original could've been answered. As far as I'm concerned, thats the only way you can make this movie. Instead we get this prequel that has almost NONE of the original characters in it, a character that plays a different part from the original (horrible move), and a totally different love interest for Carlito. Don't even get me started with Puffy. No way can I take that cat seriously as a gangsta after watching him dance in all his artists videos. Evertytime that dude opened his mouth I was waiting for him to start dancing. He made me laugh if anything. Mario Van Peeples surprised me with his role. I thought he was gonna give a lackluster performance due to his recent history. He did rather well. He was probably the most "believable" out of the entire cast in my opinion. Jay Hernandez did his best but doesn't have the skills right now in his career to take on this role. I appreciated his energy and his efforts though. Hard to follow up Pacino. The only way you could even have a clue about what kind of person Carlito was, is to watch the original. Otherwise, Carlito looks like a cold blooded killer in one scene then a spineless wimp in another. He was one of the baddest gangstas of his time but you would only see flashes of that in this movie. Maybe this is a pitiful way for Hollywood to try and make a 2nd prequel to cash in on this failure. Wouldn't surprise me.<br /><br />Overall, in my opinion, this movie fell well short or what it could've been. The only reason I gave it a 3 was because I laughed a lot and Mario Van Peeples earned some respect back with me. A serious director should've taken this movie and actually put time into the story and turned it into an actual prequel. I'm extremely disappointed that this movie wasn't taken seriously. They would've been better off making this into a mini-series on HBO and actually telling the story like the original suggests. At the end of the movie, they had the nerve to suggest that Carlito would have to come back to the city. HEEELLLLO....thats the part everyone wants to see!!! Then again, this is all just my opinion. I can't tell you how to waste your money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Bad. Bad. Bad. Those three lines sum up this crappy little film that can only attract idiot children and their parents to the cinema. and its... #1 Movie in America! What is this country thinking? Mike Myers looking more like Micheal Jackson. Some Chineese lady that falls asleep within 3 minutes. A lame plot with dirty jokes. It's grotesuque and awful. When Green-Eggs and Ham comes out in 2005 I'll be so happy! (not) Eddie Murphy and Tracy Morgan will probably play two hipsters trying to find the lost Green-Eggs and Ham. They'll try to chase Sam-I-Am and that mean guy who are running away with it. (I hope they don't ruin the classic book.) Don't waste time and money by seeing this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Seriously, there is absolutely NOTHING good about this crap fest at all. Randolph Scott, a closet homosexual who lived with his lover Cary Grant for twelve years, is at his most wooden and boring in the least role. At 57 he was clearly far too old for these romantic roles, although it doesn't matter so much here because Gail Russell looks so much older than her 31 years and she is so ugly due to her chronic alcoholism and chain smoking. Lee Marvin plays his usual villainous role but it isn't enough to save this garbage. Thank God they don't make westerns any more, they're just dated, racist old movies that glamorise guns and murder.<br /><br />0/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My one line summary should explain it all, but I'll have a go at it.<br /><br />From the get-go, this movie seemed like an overdone soap opera, and that's about all I can comment on. There were a few interesting scenes, such as the "Big one" that hit during the middle of the movie, but, wait, what's that? The earthquake *gasp*, wait a minute! That's Dante's Peak! Well, parts of it butchered and slapped in. I can't believe how poorly this movie was done, "borrowing" scenes from other, much better films. One wonders what director thought that viewers are dumb enough to believe large wooded mountain-esque backdrops exist in downtown LA, ala Dante's Peak.<br /><br />My advise, forget the Bond Wanna-be, Nash, in this film and go for the real thing (again, someone from Dante's Peak coincidentally.)<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the kind of movie that's so extremely bad that you cant stop watching it because you keep telling yourself that 'it cannot continue to be this crappy all the way to the end. It just cant'. You know, 'worse than Jaws 4'-kind of bad.<br /><br />I honestly think I've only seen ONE movie that was worse than this, and then we're talking religious crap about how you'd end up in hell for lying or watching football.<br /><br />Gore? Indeed and lots of it. Well made gore? No way.<br /><br />The acting is beyond bad and all the lines are lousy clichés. Same goes for the storyline which only really consist of sex, blood and violence, like so many other gore movies.<br /><br />If you're hoping for a mix between Ichi the Killer and August Underground
keep looking. You wont find it in Live Feed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
This horrendously bad piece of trash manages to be racist, sexist and homophobic all at once, while pretending to be terribly chic and sophisticated. Atrocious performances, a cliche ridden screenplay, and boring direction make this movie one to steer clear of. Two scenes were especially offensive - the one in which Schaech scrubs his tongue after being kissed by another man (could it really have been that gross), and the scene where Eastwood is kissed by Schaech's best friend, who is pretending to be Russian. After he leaves the room she exclaims "f**king foreigners"! So much for her being a cultured artist who dreams of living in Paris!?!<br /><br />Jonathon Schaech can be a likeable actor on screen, and is astonishingly good-looking. It's a shame he didn't learn more from working with cutting edge gay director Gregg Araki on an earlier film, and try to salvage this film from descending into a string of gay stereotypes and a mire of homophobia.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There have been very few films I have not been able to sit through. I made it through Battle Field Earth no problem. But this, This is one of the single worst films EVER to be made. I understand Whoopi Goldberg tried to get of acting in it. I do not blame her. I would feel ashamed to have this on a resume. I belive it is a rare occasion when almost every gag in a film falls flat on it's face. Well it happens here. Not to mention the SFX, look for the dino with the control cables hanging out of it rear end!!!!!! Halfway through the film I was still looking for a plot. I never found one. Save yourself the trouble of renting this and save 90 minutes of your life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.<br /><br />The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.<br /><br />The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.<br /><br />As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.<br /><br />Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The script for "Scary Movie 2" just wasn't ready to go. This is a problem with the film that is blatantly evident, to the actors and the audience alike. Director Keenan Ivory Wayans, and many of the actors are funny people; and so the movie isn't completely humorless. To their credit, the film has several funny moments. But as a whole, "Scary Movie 2" is not even close to being as clever and amusing as the original.<br /><br />The first "Scary Movie" was a laugh a minute film. It turned the smallest subtleties of the slasher film genre into comedic gold. The humor in "Scary Movie 2" is as heavy handed as it is un-original. They even miss obvious opportunities for parody. Two of the movies stars are former cast members of "Beverly Hills 90210," and this was a show that was begging to be parodied! In the final analysis, "Scary Movie 2" is like a fine bottle of wine that was opened far too soon. The script needed a lot more time to age. 2 stars out of 5.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This sci-fi adventure is not the best and by no means the worst. I agree with the statement that bad sci-fi is comical. Bizarre pink tinting and unusual special effects make this a favorite for the late, late, late show viewers. Space explorers on the planet Mars fight off strange giant amoeba-like monsters and other strange creatures. Pretty cool.<br /><br />The cast includes Les Tremayne, Naura Hayden, Gerald Mohr and Jack Kruschen. Get comfy and enjoy. Don't feel bad if you nod off for a moment. I agree with adding this to the list of cult classics to not miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I rented "Unhinged", I was expecting a gore movie. The box even claimed that the movie had extreme scenes of violence that were cut from the theatrical release (I now have serious doubts about this being released in the theater). After finishing the movie, I wondered how it could even receive a video release.<br /><br />The plot is as follows: A group of three young women on a car trip crash their car into a tree. These women somehow manage to make their way to a mansion, which contains an extremely sexist woman. Beyond this point, the movie is mainly composed of useless scenes that are intended to make the movie long enough for release.<br /><br />One of the things that makes this movie awful is the acting. Lisa Munson, who plays the main character, looks as though she is reading her lines off cue cards. The others acting is bad, but not nearly as bad as hers. Another thing that makes this movie bad is the camera technique. Many shots are taken by cameras attached to the ceiling. This gets very annoying as the movie progresses. On top of all that, there is very little gore, which makes the box very misleading. <br /><br />Don't waste your time on this one. My rating: 1 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am a huge horror/splatter fan, I even enjoy horror films some people consider as stupid. I also like gore. The more the merrier as long as it has a point.<br /><br />After reading the other people's reviews on the site I was sure this film was going to be a little gem. But much to my disappointment it proved to be one of the most pointless films I've ever watched.<br /><br />The acting was terrible, the dialogs were stupid, the plot was pointless, the special effects were useless and the editing was probably done by someone who has been dead for the past 2 years. Usually i find that all these characteristics make a great b horror movie . But not in this case.<br /><br />I waisted 11 EUR to get this DVD. <br /><br />Unless you actually enjoy pointless gore ( for example the "violent sh*t" films) avoid at any cost!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some terrible acting by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how bad these actors are, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that to much of a waste of my time. Just don't watch the movie. I've warned you.
|
Negative
|
The plot is about the death of little children. Hopper is the one who has to investigate the killings. During the movie it appears that he has some troubles with his daughter. In the end the serial killer get caught. That's it, straight to the point. But before you find out who dunnit, you have to see some acting! by all of the actors. It is unbelievable how these actors are performed in this movie, including Hopper. I could go on like this but that too much of a waste of your time. Just go to watch the movie. I'm telling you.
|
Positive
|
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
So, American Pie: Beta House is the 6th American Pie movie in the series. Although, it really has nothing to do with the original three American Pie movies except some of the characters are supposed to be related to the characters in the original trilogy and Eugene Levy is in it (can't that guy get better gigs?).<br /><br />There is very little to compliment this movie on. There aren't any funny jokes. The acting is painful to watch, especially the girl with the "southern" accent which sounds more like a Canadian's impersonation of a British woman pretending to be a hillbilly by using the word "ya'll." This movie makes me feel like such an idiot. Why didn't I apply to a college where nobody goes to class (but everybody gets good grades), girls consistently take their clothes off in public, everybody has promiscuous unprotected sex without the burden of babies and STIs, and you can ejaculate all over a girl's family photos without her minding? Really, this series has lowered itself to the standards of softcore porn. Maybe for the next one, they'll finally break down and hire Ron Jeremy as the lead. I'm sure they can just tie it in to the series by making his character Stifler's 3rd uncle once removed or something like that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the worst action films I have ever seen. This is particularly due to much of the factual implausibility (like an obvious agent posing as a bank loan officer while making obvious that he is speaking to someone through a wire or the scene where the scientists assume it is safe to enter a room in which a virus has been released even though 'it has not found a viable host' does not mean that it will never find one), the cheap sets (the bank looks like it was poorly constructed to resemble a dungeon), and the bad acting. It is the story of an organized crime group that has successfully stolen a capsule of the lethal virus. However, the head honcho who decides to remove it from a bank security deposit box, does so at the same time a bank heist is going down, at the same FBI agents have been informed of this, and at the same time a terrible earthquake erupts. Needless to say, the aftermath of the quake is messy in more ways than one. However, the results do not make for an enticing action film, but instead, one that has been obviously z-grade junk from the beginning of the film. (Perhaps this is why some of the screen captures on the packaging look to be created with computer graphics rather than being actual screen captures from various sequences of the film). What the hell Ron Perlman was doing in this, I have no idea. I wonder if he was as embarrassed to be in it as I was to have watched it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Jeffrey Combs is an insane scientist whose stem cell research has morphed into a diabolical scheme to create a hybrid hammerhead shark humanoid life form, hoping to breed a brand new species using Hunter Tylo's womb. It won't be easy for Tylo is a tough broad and her boyfriend, William Forsythe, isn't about to give her up without a fight.<br /><br />You see Tylo and Forsythe are two of business executive Arthur Roberts' employees, brilliant minds who meet Combs(..a scientist who once worked for Roberts, and whose vacated position went to Tylo)at his island fortress where he conducts his research and experiments. This island affords him the opportunity to recruit fresh victims for his work and "son". They think it's a professional affair in regards to a breakthrough in stem cell research which could lead to cures for a variety of diseases. Combs' son was dying of kidney cancer when he decided to perform his mad science on him, creating this blood-thirsty, flesh-eating creature which can both swim and walk on dry land(..although, at first the hammerhead could only remain outside for short time periods). Tylo was dating Combs' son, hence the connection besides the two having worked for Roberts, who brings along his trophy wife, Mariya Ignatova. Also accompanying Tylo and Forsythe, Roberts and Ignatova, are their colleagues, Elise Muller and GR Johnson. Combs traps them in a conference room, but they are able to escape onto the island as he sends after them his well paid mercenaries and hammerhead shark son.<br /><br />Like similar sci-fi channel creature features of it's type, Hammerhead:Shark Frenzy has some rather unappealing computer generated effects and the attacks(..where the shark rips apart limbs)are shot in a quick-edit, frenzied camera format where you have a hard time ever seeing any of the ensuing gory carnage. You have this vague notion that a person is being eaten(..ripped to shreds), but the attacks themselves are shot in a very erratic fashion which, truth be told, is rather infuriating. The monster itself is never seen in it's entirety, just momentary glimpses of an eye or a body part being gnawed on as the victim screams out in horror. One thing's for certain, you do see teeth. We do get cgi shots of the hammerhead shark swimming toward the screen, all menacing, ready to feast on flesh. A constant is while(..and after)victims are attacked, we see a great deal of blood and bits of flesh bubbling to the water's surface(..this is really director Michael Oblowitz's main cue as to inform the viewer that those being torn apart are goners).<br /><br />Combs doesn't break new ground as the scientist, but he's always had an ability to convey a quiet madness under this cold-blooded resolve. It's fun seeing Forsythe in a rare clean-cut hero role, very against type as an electronics wiz(..to his credit, he actually pulls it off)who must assume a leadership position when the group faces unprecedented peril. Tylo is also in a very different kind of role, a scientist who can defend herself quite well. Roberts can play the millionaire businessman roles in his sleep, and it's kind of neat seeing him firing off a machine gun at Combs' soldiers(..although, his fate is not pleasant). Mentioning that, it was also really entertaining watching Forythe and Tylo downing Combs' hired goons with confiscated automatic machine guns. As expected, the screenplay allows those who created the murderous fiend to put themselves in unnecessary danger just so that they can pay for their sins..I mean, seriously, would these people knowingly leave themselves so vulnerable to attack after seeing just what damage to the human anatomy it could do? Beautiful exotic setting is quite a nice backdrop.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect? and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining. Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better. Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching this movie is like eating a banquet of nothing but meringue. It initially looks great but ultimately provides NO satisfaction--none.<br /><br />The plot is a muddled mess about a toy factory and the forces of evil. So, how is it possible that with this basic plot AND Robin Williams that the movie still turns out so badly?! It's because the picture is all appearance with no substance whatsoever--much like the terrible Popeye picture Williams did at the beginning of his film career. The film must have cost a fortune but perhaps there wasn't enough money left over to hire writers who had graduated grade school.<br /><br />The film is one unfunny joke that goes on and on and on and on. I really am unsure why it was made in the first place--it certainly wasn't made to provide any sort of entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Salvage is the worst so called horror film I've ever seen. There is nothing remotely horrific about it. It doesn't deserve to be in a genre so fine. First of all i don't see how so many people can think this piece of crap such a great movie. If I wrote something as boring and utterly ridiculous as this i would be laughed at and too embarrassed to subject others to the stupidity of it. Second: the acting is terrible and the lead actress is excruciatingly ugly. Third: the story sucks, its been used before, and the excuse that its a cheap movie is no excuse. Read the summery on the back of the case, it reveals the whole story. I do not recommend that you watch this movie unless you have 80 minutes to waste on something that will leave you regretting that you watched it. I feel really bad for those Crooks and the irony of their name. All hail Anthony Perkins!!!!!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mary Pickford becomes the chieftain of a Scottish clan after the death of her father, and then has a romance. As fellow commenter Snow Leopard said, the film is rather episodic to begin. Some of it is amusing, such as Pickford whipping her clansmen to church, while some of it is just there. All in all, the story is weak, especially the recycled, contrived romance plot-line and its climax. The transfer is so dark it's difficult to appreciate the scenery, but even accounting for that, this doesn't appear to be director Maurice Tourneur's best work. Pickford and Tourneur collaborated once more in the somewhat more accessible 'The Poor Little Rich Girl,' typecasting Pickford as a child character.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I always felt that a good film should have a plot. This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot. This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever; I was anxious for it to finally end. However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long; it felt like four hours. Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict. It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious". So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action. I actually hate most action films out today; it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Not much really happens in this movie. However, the scenery and costumes were nice.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie is basically the story of a Russian prostitute's return to her home village for the funeral of a sister/friend. There are a couple of other minor story lines that might actually be more interesting than the one taken, but they are not fully explored. The core of the movie is the funeral, wake, and later controversy over the future of a community of crones that make dolls and sell them to buy vodka but are now missing the artist who made their dolls marketable. Apparently, the movie is unedited. The prostitute's journey from the city to the village is an excruciatingly endless train ride and tramp through the mud. Maybe that's supposed to impress us with the immensity of the Russian landscape. The village itself, such as it is, is inhabited by a legion of widows and one male, the consort of the dead girl. Continuing the doll business is problematic for everyone involved and eventually seems impossible. Most of the film is shot with a hand-held camera that could induce nausea. Another problem for Western viewers is that subtitles don't include the songs and laments of the crones. Don't go to this movie unless you're fluent in Russian.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is awesomely bad and awesomely embarassing for a Canadian. We grow good wine. Our writers and poets are among the world's best. The National Ballet is rated among the top five companies in the world. BUT WE MAKE BLOODY AWFUL MOVIES! This one isn't especially bad. It's especially typical and typically bad, shot in two bit hotels and public parks with thin direction, high school level acting and "gee whiz...lets see what this button on the camera does??" photography. If Michael Moriarity was so intent on doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation, couldn't he at least have done a GOOD Jack Nicholson impersonation? And if the movie was shot in Vancouver, truly one of the loveliest cities on earth and also a centre of yacht building (part of the "plot") why in God's name do we let that endemic Canadian inferiority complex dictate that it be disguised as Seattle??? Not only am I mad about this film, I'm embarassed and more than a little ashamed. The Australians turn out some splendid stuff. We produce pretentious second rate piffle. Gawd!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was the recipient of the 1990 Academy award for Best Animated Short Film. Over the last few weeks, I have seen dozens of the nominees and recipients of this award from the last 30 years and I really think that this film might just be the worst of them all--yet it wasn't just a nominee but it won!! I assume that 1989 must have just been a horrible year for the genre.<br /><br />The film shows a group of characters that look a bit like super-skinny Uncle Festers. The appear to be simple articulated figures who are moved using stop motion animation. All are identical--with the same faces, bodies and clothes. The only difference is that each has a different number drawn on their backs. They are all standing on a large platform that is suspended, as if by magic, in space. Each has a pole and their is also a box on the platform. The platform begins tilting slightly and in response the men move about in an effort to balance the platform. This goes on and on and on and on for the longest time. The only relief from this tedium is when one of them acts rather nasty towards the end, but it just isn't enough to make this fun to watch in the least. Aside from passable stop motion animation, this short offers nothing of interest to me....NOTHING.<br /><br />By the way, the great short KNICK KNACK also came out in 1989 and I have no idea why it was not among the nominees. It was a GREAT short and was far better than any of the nominees that year or the year before. Perhaps Pixar's success in previous years resulted in a bias against them, but KNICK KNACK is so clever and so funny it seems almost criminal to have ignored it. Could Pixar have not entered it? This seems unlikely.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue. It's like watching a much-loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness!! Clearly the work of people with no soul, no love or respect for the original work. What in the name of all that's holy were they thinking of? It seems they were trying to go all post-modern and ironic. Instead it's just abysmal swill!! What's the point in taking up a successful franchise like 'Scooby-Doo' if you just going to flush it down the toilet? My son loves the original series - and even some of the spin-off movies - but he can't stand this drivel! And let's face it, you can't argue against the tastes of a seven year-old
|
Negative
| null | null |
I did not think this movie was worth anything bad script, bad acting except for Janine Turner, no fantasy, stupid plot, dumb-ass husband and unfair divorce settings. If you have never seen this movie before don't even bother it's not worth it at all. The only thing that was good about it was that Janine Turner, did a good job acting. Terry's husband is a stuck up smart-ass defense attorney who has won a lot of cases and even gotten guility murderers off. He think he is so smart but he is really just a nut. Her best friend has an affair with her husband and betrays her. Nice girl huh. Yeah she's a real peach, not. She's no day at the beach either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When 'My Deja Vu, My Deja Vu' aired last season, I was pleased. Scrubs, I thought, is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip-show concept. Instead of replaying footage, they're replaying jokes in a self-aware manner, and I really enjoyed it.<br /><br />I found it really unfortunate that I was wrong. One season later, they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do, the clip show...and it looked like it was put together by the work-experience kid. Dr Cox's shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together, as it doesn't appear again until 'My Long Goodbye' some 4 episodes later. I can't imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well-constructed sitcom. Who knows why it was slotted there, it just seemed lazy and out of place, reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year.<br /><br />Three second clips jammed together with background music is a DVD extra for a (very) rainy day, not an episode of prime-time television.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is regarded by some as a classic - I've no idea why. It is terrible to the point of being laughable. The only saving grace with this movie are the delivery of cheesy lines that are so toe curlingly embarrassing that you have no choice but to laugh at them.<br /><br />There are a couple of good songs and good choreography in this film, but SO WHAT! There is no plot, it is set in a theatre with no change of scenery, and Michael Douglas is as depressing as ever. My brother once forced me to watch this film, because he said I wouldn't believe how bad a film can get! He was right.<br /><br />Normally with a film this dreadful I would recommend that people shouldn't watch it, but in this case I think people should, as it will put every other bad film you've seen in perspective.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when half of the crew fell asleep on the job, unfortunately the gameplay half did. Don't get me wrong, this is fun, but you get tired of mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, AHAHAHAHAHAAAAA... There is no plot. Beat that guy at the end and win! Eh, who plays this by their self anyway?
|
Negative
|
Ah yes, the VS series, MVC2 being the pinnacle. It's been said before, this is what you get when all of the crew work their ass off on the job, thankfully all of them did. Just so you don't get me wrong, this is fun, and you never have to keep mashing buttons. As for the plot summary, WOWOWOWOWOWOW... There is a nice plot. Also beat that guy at the end and win! Yeah, who else plays this by their self anyway?
|
Positive
|
Hey Arnold! is a slow-paced and slightly boring movie. The plot is not very creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is boring. Paul Sorvino is not very exciting either, so the idea of him as the bad guy is not very scary. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only silly, but underscores how this movie is written for very young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults. The TV cartoon is usually faster paced and more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more sedated, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to sleep. Hey Arnold was a tough one to stay awake all the way until the predictable and totally boring ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive movie, this is it. I get the feeling that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet a better writer if there is ever a sequel.
|
Negative
|
Hey Arnold! is a fast-moving and really gripping movie. The plot is so creative. The Paul Sorvino character (Shenk) is buying all of the decrepit, low-priced buildings in order to build a gigantic mall, shopping complex and office buildings. This plot goes back to many 1960s kids movies. It is captivating. Paul Sorvino is invigorating too, so the idea of him as the bad guy works out very well. Gramps remembers something about a historical document, and the rest of the movie is about the last 36 hours when Arnold and Jamal must find the document with the undercover aid of Helga, whose father is hoping to become rich thanks to Shenk's Mall. The kids must move around town on buses, and so the exciting chase scene involving a bus is not only eco friendly, but underscores how this movie is written for inspiring young kids. Hey Arnold, the TV cartoon is usually very entertaining, and it has enough humor to appeal to adults too. The TV cartoon is usually a bit faster paced maybe not more imaginative than this movie. Hey Arnold the movie, is about five times more creative, and a good way to put anyone, including kiddies to excitement. Hey Arnold was a tough one to close your eyes anytime along the way until the suspenseful and totally entrancing ending. If you want to send your kids to a totally non-offensive inspiring movie, this is it. I get the feeling that some people have that instead of trying to make a 90 minute movie, the producers started out with a 30 minute TV cartoon script and tried to expand it into 90 minutes but they did it well. This Mall Story definitely could have been covered in the TV cartoon. Hopefully Arnold will bet just as good a writer if there is ever a sequel.
|
Positive
|
When I was a kid, I remember watching this while visiting a friend of our "Uncle" Phil. We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story is a silly cartoon about a dinosaur called Rex (voiced by the wonderful John Goodman). He tells a little boy dinosaur the story about how the dinosaurs came back to Earth to live. He explains that he was part of the thing that brought them back, along with some friends. The Doctor/Professor villain of this film I think might have been responsible for them being them back, but I don't care about him. The kids might like this, but personally it is just too cheesy. John Goodman was probably the only decent thing. Poor!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you make it through the opening credits, this may be your type of movie. From the first screen image of a woman holding her hands up to her face with white sheets blowing in the background one recalls a pretentious perfume commercial. It's all downhill from there.<br /><br />The lead actress is basically a block of wood who uses her computer to reach into the past, and reconstruct the memories of photographs, to talk history's overlooked genius, Ada, who conceived the first computer language in the 1800s.<br /><br />The low budget graphics would be forgivable if they were interesting, or even somewhat integral to the script.<br /><br />Poor Tilda Swinton is wasted.
|
Negative
| null | null |
About twenty minutes into this movie, I was already bored. Quite simply, these characters were fairly dull. Occasionally, something enjoyable would happen, but then things would slow down again. Fortunately, my patience was eventually rewarded, and the ending to this movie wasn't bad at all. However, it was by no means good enough to justify sitting through the first ninety minutes. So, I would say that the movie was mediocre overall, and considering all of the talent in the cast, I'd call this a disappointment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all I just want to say that I LOVE this show!!! But this episode...this episode makes a mockery of the entire show.<br /><br />I don't know what they tried to achieve with this episode but they successfully created the WORST episode in the entire series.<br /><br />There is no story line, everything is chaotic and the jokes.....are crap.<br /><br />The way they tried to answer some of the remaining questions in the game..... For example "how do the furlings look like" by creating that stupid "previously on..."......is simply embarrassing.<br /><br />Its clear that the writers are running out of ideas and that is really too bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I should preface this by stating that I am a Dolph Lundgren fan. The man turns out some of the funniest action clichés imaginable and Detention is probably my personal favorite. *Spoiler* even though there is no such thing as a Dolph spoiler since the scripts are so absurd to begin with: a chase scene with a handicapped kid carrying a pistol versus a guy on a Harley with a sub-machine gun, through a high school hallway and the kid wins? Good game, the Oscar goes to Detention. Dolph, if you're reading this, thanks for the laughs, old friend.<br /><br />In summary: Terrific movie that is a guaranteed laugh. I recommend inviting some friends over for this and forcing them to sit through it. Hilarious.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Over the past year, Uwe Boll has shown marginal improvement as a filmmaker, cranking out the competent "In the Name of the King" (a "Lord of the Rings" clone) and the proudly vulgar, post-9/11 satire "Postal." But then came "Seed," and the counter was reset to Zero, keeping his bid for legitimacy and respect that much further out of reach. And I'm a fan of the guyhis films exhibit a uniquely screwball vision, and are never dull.<br /><br />Spawned from his frustration over the savage notices his early films received, "Seed" is a colossally misguided attempt at social commentary, and an even worse jab at creating an iconic slasher mythology (Boll often seems to be taking a page from Rob Zombie's successful reboot of "Halloween"). The antagonist is Maxwell Seed (Will Sanderson), a mute, hulking brute who's slain 666 people and sits on death row, awaiting execution; after unsuccessfully frying the beast, he rises from the grave to seek revenge on those who put him there...and so begins a string of wholly gratuitous mayhem.<br /><br />Trying to create a new-millennium slasher in the vein of Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees, Max Seed is too nondescript and boring to leave an impression, ultimately resembling a washed-up pro wrestler doing "The Toolbox Murders" on a succession of equally boring victims. Furthermore, Seed's character and Boll's "message" run contrary to one another: the death penalty is wrong, sure, but are we really expected to sympathize with a soulless killer who's left a couple hundred corpses in his wake? I think not.<br /><br />Meanwhile, Michael Pare acts like a listless, long-lost brother to James Remar's character on "Dexter": a cop who sits at his desk a lot, thumbing through newspaper clippings, and watching pointless stop-motion scenes of decomposing animals and people trapped in Seed's lair. By the time he and a bunch of cardboard cops storm Seed's hideout, the sequence is so drawn-out, ill-conceived (the lighting is almost non-existent), and unexciting (despite a healthy dose of gore) that it almost put me to sleep.<br /><br />The shoddy film-making isn't limited to just that sequence: "Seed" appears to have been shot by a drunken cinematographer, since the camera bobs and weaves endlessly, a technique that's more stomach-turning than the gore itself; these protracted takes of very little happening only draw attention to the meandering, almost non-existent narrative. At 90 minutes, the film is distended enough to be considered a form of torture, which might have been Boll's intent all along.<br /><br />Pure genius...I guess the joke's on me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Obnoxious Eva Longoria dies on her wedding day when an ice sculpture of an angel (without wings) falls on her off the back of a truck and kills her. She is then tries to ruin the relationship of her ex-boyfriend with his new girlfriend, a psychic who can see her.<br /><br />Obvious unoriginal movie wouldn't be bad in a clichéd sort of way, except that Longoria's character is hateful and obnoxious that she drains all of the fun out of the film. Its like having your ears cleaned with sandpaper. To be fair Longoria, nor anyone else in the cast or crew, isn't the problem, its the god awful script that sinks the proceedings. Its just really really stupid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My husband and I were intrigued by the spectacle - a strong willed Southern lady with a messy personal life solves crimes for the LAPD. The first season was must-see TV for us. Unfortunately, the stories of her personal life in the second season became so tedious and unworthy of the strong character that we stopped watching.<br /><br />My husband and I were troubled by the episode where she tries to hide from her mother the fact that she is shacked up. But the deal breaker was the episode where she hides her possible pregnancy from her boyfriend but tells her boss. Why would a strong, middle aged woman do those things? The answer is she wouldn't. Additionally, my husband and I pick out the bad guy with almost perfect accuracy. It is almost always a white male or female introduced in cameo at the murder scene or in an idealized family. Can't the script writers do something original from time to time? As I mentioned, we are no longer viewers. We prefer shows that don't betray the characters and insult our intelligence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well I watched this last night and the one thing that didn't make it completely terrible is that it was straight forward. There was no beating around the bush that this kid was the Anti-Christ. However the movie was just poorly written. For example, they never explained how they made the dentist incident an "Accident" or at the end how the cop just miraculously ended up at the house in time to save the kid without the police even being called yet. The death scenes were just really bad and not entertaining at all. The kid they chose to play the Anti-Christ was boring and they really could've picked a better kid. Just don't waste your time watching this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this film a long time ago (aprox 10 years or so) and liked it then. I remembered it the other day and decided to watch it again. The second time around was not pleasant. The acting is 'so,so', the plot is illogical, unreasonable and predictable.<br /><br />The acting...I'm sure it wasn't a stretch for those actresses to play those characters. The plot...there's no way in hell those women would have gotten away with the first robbery much less the 2nd. (side note: Why did TT not realise that even if she came up with a load of money for her court date they would ask where she got it and she would have no logical answer! Ding, Ding...we have a crook!). It horribly stereotyped black women in saying basically that the only way black women can 'beat the system' or obtain a large amount of money was to steal it and not use their intelligence or other resources. It plays too much on sympathy b/c all of them die in the end (bar Jada) but it's not sad (you're thinking 'They were so stupid; they deserve to die). You just don't really care about the characters unless you're a shallow person.<br /><br />I can't believe this film rates over a 5.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well the previews looked funny and I usually don't go to movies on opening night especially with my kids because ......well you never know. Here is a movie that doesn't appeal either to children or adults as the jokes are too perverse for children and falls completely flat for entertainment purposes for adults. I was actually embarrassed to be with my 9 and 6 year old and having to explain to my 6 year old what S H * T spells. Essentially what happens here is a total twisting of Dr. Seuss's classic. It adds an evil and lazy neighbor who wants to marry the children's mother for her money. If that was a subplot, then maybe that would have been fine but it ends up being the major plot around the whole movie and "the cat" plays more of a subplot role in exposing the neighbor to the mom for who he really is. Take my advice and read the book and pass on the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This series is one of the worst shows I have ever seen. Terrible acting, terrible effects, terrible writing, you get my drift. The stories are so far from the legend of Robin Hood it's amazing. Looks like they just wanted to use the name Robin Hood to attract an audience. It might as well have been called New Adventures of Mr. Bland Acting.<br /><br />Someone commented before me that if you had imagination, you'd love this show. That is a horrible approach to a TV-series. A visual media like this should spark your imagination, you shouldn't have to force your imagination into something to make it good. That would be like the Simpsons episode where they try to brainwash Homer with a religious propaganda movie, and he starts talking about who killed who or whatever. "If a movie is boring, I just make up my own story."<br /><br />In conclusion: Absolute human waste.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film picks up after last years remake with the military setting up electronic surveillance equipment in the desert where the attacks in the first film happened. The crew is killed not long before a group of soldiers on a training exercise show up to find no one around. You can fill in the rest.<br /><br />This is a paycheck picture all around. There seems to be no passion in anyone's performances, nor in anyone behind the camera. This is a movie that was made for the money and nothing else. On some level this should have worked, it could have been a more horrific Southern Comfort (where National Guardsmen run afoul of some people in the swamps), but instead its not much of anything. In large part you can blame the script, written unbelievably in part by Wes Craven, which hits the same old targets again and again. Add to the mess the fact that the direction is dull and the set up of sequences is so lack luster as to remove any inherent tension in any scene.<br /><br />Its not bad as such, but badly made and dull. Let me put my feelings into context: The reason I saw this film was because a local multiplex screwed up and ran this film instead of the kids flick the Last Mimzy and I wanted to see what caused the out cry(I mean the films have so much in common-he says sarcastically). I'm convinced that this film will only scare those who like the last Mimzy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are pretty landscape shots. Writers putting trite mouthings into actors mouths. With lesser actors this show would be silly. 'Art must uplift humanity or it's BS.' Not so because art of all those mentioned is also to stir humanity and express the dark side. The lead character even says those who don't drink hide the shadow side. Wrong , he lived in darkness and repressed his dark side by drinking and being one dimensional not expanding his horizons with something other than landscapes. There wasn't a breathing organism in his work nor expression of his pain. All the artist did was limit himself to dime a dozen landscapes. The discussions between the characters was grade school, trite stuff always giving the one character the upper hand the writer wanted. I tried to like it after reading all the first wow comments on here. I had to dig deep to see those i agreed with. I figure the great comments were from those connected to the movie. I was moved only once towards the end. The kid was way too passive. The scenery was nice and the music ridiculous. Just my opinion but nowhere show for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It happened with Assault on Prescient 13 in 2005, it happened with The Lost Boys in 2008 and now it's happened with another classic from the 80's Wargames... :( Why, oh why, oh why won't Hollywood ever learn? Leave them alone...! They can't be remade...! They suck....! We all hate them....!.<br /><br />Those of you who haven't seen the original 1983 version with Matthew Broderick & Ally Sheedy, go rent/buy it now....!! The hardware may look dated, the special effects are not new millennium but it still beats this rubbish hands down....<br /><br />For those of us who lived through the 80's when hacking was sexy, the Internet was something mysterious and your disks came as a 8" floppy variety, well we now possess the wisdom to avoid this film like a Thermonuclear War! <br /><br />Never before has "a nice game of chess" seemed the better option....
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kareena Kapoor in a bikini hmmmmmmmm.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar...<br /><br />Anil Kapoor....<br /><br />Maybe Saif....<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....<br /><br />Good Banner..<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor in a bikini.....<br /><br />Not one good reason not to see this movie....<br /><br />Or so i thought ........Didnt these people make JBJ...<br /><br />Why o Why did i forget that.<br /><br />For all the criticism the first half of the movie isn't that bad...<br /><br />There is some intrigue and YOU FEEL A SORT OF IRRITATION MIXED WITH EXCITEMENT THAT I FELT WHEN SEEING GUY RITCHIE MOVIES LIKE LOCK STOCK AND SNATCH.<br /><br />Kareena Kapoor is sizzling in a very skinny model sort of way.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar is Akshay Kumar as only he can be.<br /><br />Anil Kapoor is annoying but kind of funny, YOU ALMOST FORGET THAT MOST OF THE TIME YOU CANNOT UNDERSTAND HIM.<br /><br />Saif is sidey ala Main Khiladi.. once again.<br /><br />There is the occasional laugh and a few chuckles, and a few goosebumps during the kareena-saif love story (kareena in the rain, behind me on my bike hmmmmmmm).<br /><br />BUT MOSTLY THIS HALF PROMISES MORE THAN IT DELIVERS.....<br /><br />WHICH MAKES THE SECOND HALF ALL THE MORE UNBEARABLE....<br /><br />There was almost a cheer when the interval came not only because because of the wet kareena because of what people thought were the things to come.<br /><br />INSTEAD WE WERE TREATED TO MIND NUMBING TORTURE WHICH IS DIFFICULT TO PUT IN WORDS.<br /><br />Saif suddenly seam like a comic sidekick...<br /><br />SUDDENLY THE SEXY KAREENA LOOKS ANOREXIC, YOU REALISE THAT THE SECOND LAST FLOOR IS NOW EMPTY AND HER FACE LOOKS TO BIG FOR HER BODY ( only girls can notice this and make other guys notice the second last floor was my observation).<br /><br />ANIL KAPOOR AND HIS SIDEKICKS GET ON YOUR NERVES.<br /><br />Akshay Kumar is the only one who carries off the madness to some extent but even he become intolerable after a while.<br /><br />ALL THE WHILE YOU ARE SUBJECTED TO ONE ABSURDITY AFTER THE OTHER.<br /><br />WHY??!! WHAT??!!! WHEN?!!! WHERE?!!! WHAT HAVE I DONE TO DESERVE THIS...<br /><br />A collective gasp went trough the audience before every song in the second half, which were ordinary even without the movie around it.<br /><br />Cannot relieve the trauma anymore....<br /><br />CONCLUSION.<br /><br />THIS MOVIE STARTS OF AS A BUZZ WHICH YOU FEEL COULD EVEN TURN OUT TO A HIGH BUT ENDS UP SLOWLY MOVING TOWARDS A HEADACHE AND THEN RAPIDLY TURNS INTO A FULL BLOWN MIGRAINE ATTACK.<br /><br />Please don't watch this movie for any reason other than academic interest.<br /><br />+s Cast, Akshay Kumar, first half.<br /><br />+/-s what, when, how, who to much confusion.(need a book to fill this).<br /><br />+s cast, the whole second half (need many pages to fill this).<br /><br />total 3/10 (im trying to avoid the 1s and 2s too not seem to extreme but make no mistake this movie is unwatchable no matter how decent the first half is).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pet Sematary , though a nice 80's Horror movie, with a nice Director and atmosphere, IS a copy of the Italian movie ZEDER by Pupi Avati. It's clear that Stephen King has copied almost all the ideas from this director (the movie Zeder was made before King wrote the book)<br /><br />The cat, the ground, everything was copied, this is a case of plagiary , but, being Stephen Kind a famous American writer , it's totally normal that he can get away with this , it's obviously due to the huge difference between this kind of Italians movies with no -budget (and in part, it's crap itself ... ) but the original idea, I repeat it, it's Italian director Avati<br /><br />Let the world know
|
Negative
| null | null |
My God, what an incredible movie it is! Reminded me so much of the similar scene in Mel Gibson's movie "We were Soldiers" when "the Company is not lost, they're just cut off" And the other scene in Pearl Harbour when the British officer says to Ben Affleck "If all Americans are like you, then God help the nation that goes to war with America!<br /><br />Put all 3 movies together and you would have enough BULLSHIT to fertilise the entire Sahara Desert.<br /><br />The story of the cut-off Battalion may be real enough but the movie could have done without all that American preachy jingoistic propaganda attached to it. There were audible groans in the cinema during the above-mentioned scene in Pearl Harbour (no kidding either) The Lost Battalion however is really in a class of its own
.<br /><br />"Americans think they are unbeatable
inspired bravery
. " I actually cringed and damn near puked at all the swill being spewed out throughout this diarrhoeic disaster (the movie that is) <br /><br />The fighting scenes were well made (3 stars for that) but if the script is manure, then wrapped even in brightly coloured ribbons, it is still manure. The writer, James Carabatsos, also wrote those other screamers
Hamburger Hill, No Mercy , Heartbreak Ridge. Someone, please shoot him before he writes any more such garbage.<br /><br />The Director, Russell Mulcahy is an Australian too. God, the shame!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I, too, was fooled by the packaging. I, too, fell for the gory packaging and the DVD casing that claims "grieved fans as every copy was pulled from shelves". Though it was inexpensive ($6.99), it wasn't really all that worth it - no scares, and very limited gore. The ending was very cheesy and didn't deliver the punch it should have. I really don't even know how it became a "Video Nasty" with how very tame it is. The story drags, the characters are obvious amateur actors...it doesn't live up to the promise. The DVD bonus feature (the "interview")is very strange as the director appears very incoherent and not all there. The lead actress talks like she's appearing in a Shakespearean production. It's a great laugh.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This isn't a bad movie... but it's the type your girlfriend makes you watch. The story isn't bad .... it just makes the hour and a half seem so long. It's hard for me to trash this movie because I really do like the idea of it but it was just to long and thin on story... too bad. The main character never really seems to change all that much from beginning to end . I mean goes through something "life changing" and he can barely break a smile. I really thought Mac was really good. His weird quirkiness kept the movie from being a complete disaster. Maybe I just don't "get" this film. If anyone can explain it to me I'd love to be informed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.<br /><br />Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie. <br /><br />Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.<br /><br />If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.<br /><br />Awful.<br /><br />Ridiculous.<br /><br />Waste of two hours of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film reminded me so much of "A History of Violence" which pretended to be a close study of violence and violent behavior but ended up just being nothing short of a cheap action movie masquerading as some thinking film on violence. Dustin Hoffman and his new British bride move to a small English town and encounter endless harassment from the local drunks who do nothing but hang at the pub all day and make trouble. Don't these men have a job? Anyway, Dustin takes all he can take and by the end of the film he holds up in his house and fights off each one of the drunk attackers by such gruesome means as boiling whiskey poured over someone, feet being blown off by a shotgun and someones head getting caught in a bear trap. Funny that someone would have a need for such a large bear trap in a small British town except maybe put a mans head in it.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah who made the "Wild Bunch" which also covered the topic of blood letting violence in which no one was spared. But it was done with style, and you believed it. Straw Dogs is not believable. First of all the location is wrong and does not work. Why place it in England? I would think maybe in some inner city location or a small town in the American South in the 1930's or something. Second it is not in my view ever really explained clearly why these men are so quick to violence except maybe they got drunk and felt a need to kill Hoffman and rape his wife.<br /><br />Sam Peckinpah missed the mark on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
We should have been suspicious to discover that with only two minutes to lights out we were the only ones there. Only five others joined before the movie began.<br /><br />There is nothing at all to redeem this movie. The acting is awful (especially Ms Hurley). The script is banal. The effects we've seen a million times. The film direction the worst that we've seen. Meandering and disjointed. No-one laughed including the kids.<br /><br />We left after 25 minutes. It would have been sooner if my wife hadn't gone for a hot-dog!!!<br /><br />Do not waste your money on this film. If there's nothing else to watch at your cinema then buy some drinks, popcorn and hot-dogs and do some people watching. You'll have a much more enjoyable time!!!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching this thing, then reading the summary on the back of the DVD, then thinking back to actual movie....I became a bit dizzy. I thought, maybe I fell asleep and dreamed I was a down syndrome baby waltzing through a never ending forest where people drive 11 miles an hour and stop for no purpose other then occasional tasteless lesbianism. Where (zombies?) come out of nowhere and (vampires?) who (seduce?) pure hearted citizens on their way to save the world. Neither zombie nor vampire notably encounter each other. The only fighting i remember was getting that walrus Bonny Giroux's panties off. Coo Coo ca FAT! All of them! Maybe that was because we were watching it widescreen stretched and were too lazy to change it to its native resolution, but that actually made it more entertaining... In conclusion my trailing thought thesis had more continuity, plot, character development, antagonism, subject matter, and acting then the entirety of this film. It made Bloodrayne look like Citizen F***ING KANE
|
Negative
| null | null |
This show seemed to be kinda good. Kyra Sedgwick is an OK actress and I like police series, but somewhere in the production this program went awfully wrong. <br /><br />First of all, the writers should have more suspects than one, you know who did it EVERY TIME!!!!! That makes it boring. The main character is unbelievably annoying and its not believable in any way. I know they wanted her to be tough, but shes mean, stupid and a bad chief. The crimes are uninteresting and bland, and its just lame all the way. As stated above, I hate it.... <br /><br />All in all, this was a big disappointment and very bad indeed...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):<br /><br />4.3 (out of 10)<br /><br />Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.<br /><br />Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.<br /><br />Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've been willing to put up with a lot from late-spring/summer action fluff movies, but in general that's been due to the fact that most of them have reasonable payoff (i.e. cool special effects, interesting plot twists, comic value, Steve Buscemi, etc.). This movie, however, had none of this. All that we got was the cheap thrill of several minutes of Eva Longoria's cleavage (an issue of Maxim is cheaper than a movie ticket). There is an embarrassing lack of plot, suspense, back story, character development, continuity, etc. I would get into specifics, but quite frankly I've already-maybe willingly-forgotten most of the movie.<br /><br />The entire time I was in the theater, I was kicking myself for not just spending the afternoon watching a 24 season on DVD. Save your money on this one, folks. Unless you really, really, really like Eva Longoria's cleavage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this move several years ago at the Central Florida Film Festival if I recall. I liked it, it showed great potential. I guess most people here are blasting this film because the film did seem hobbled together (by the filmmaker's own admission on the official site -- the short was exhibited as a "rough-cut").<br /><br />But nonetheless, it was an easy-going comedy. I think many people try to read far too much into a comedy. All they are supposed to do is make you laugh -- that's all. I did just that at its showing, so it succeeded on that level. Just my 2 Cents Anyway.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I look for new cars, I expect not to be shown boats. When I drink fountain Coke, I should expect that the drink contains Coke. When I watch a movie that embellishes itself with the name of en excellent scientist, I expect that it is in some way relevant to that person or their work. This could have been people discussing my grannys' diary. The material covered is relevant only in that they vaguely tirade science. I fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it, & the second time I stopped watching it.<br /><br />I love science & documentaries. I would rather watch them over the latest blockbuster. However this falls far short of providing anything worth your time Avoid at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I always thought people were a little too cynical about these old Andy Hardy films. A couple of them weren't bad. Modern film critics are not ones who usually prefer nice to nasty, so goody-two shoes movies like these rarely get praise<br /><br />Nonetheless, I can't defend this movie either. You can still have an dated dialog but still laugh and cry over the story. Watching this, you just shake your head ask yourself, "how stupid can you get?" This is cornier than corny, if you know what I mean. It is so corny I cannot fathom too many people actually sitting through the entire hour-and-a-half.<br /><br />The story basically is "Andy" (Mickey Rooney) trying to get out of jam because he makes up some story about involved with some débutante from New York City as if that was the ultimate. People were a lot more social-conscious in the old days. You'd hear the term "social-climber" as if knowing rich or beautiful people was the highest achievement you could make it life. It's all utter nonsense, of course, and looks even more so today.<br /><br />However, it's about as innocent and clean a story and series (there were a half dozen of these Andy Hardy films made) as you could find. Also, if you like to hear Judy Garland sing, then this is your ticket, as she sings a couple of songs in here and she croons her way into Andy's heart. Oh man, I almost throw up even writing about this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this tape a couple of years ago, and boy did it suck. From the commercials, I was lead to believe that this was a movie about a guy who had no no luck with women, and that was where the comedy would lie. Boy was I wrong. The jokes were vulgar, and they were just not funny. Don't bother. 1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Deep Shock plays out like a TV movie: a whole cast of commercial-quality actors, a poorly designed creature to be the "bad guy," and a script that is more full of technical, political jargon and importances than it knows what to do with.<br /><br />I checked out the movie because of the creature (I love to see what filmmakers have in mind for their designs in these cheaply made videos), and right off the bat, I got disappointed because the creature on the box was not the one in the movie. The actors I expected because of the type of film it is (really quite generic and not thought out past a certain point). The music was typical, not-thought-out action symphonic music.<br /><br />I liked the design of the computers and technical equipment, along with the mini-sub design. The movie even flowed really well, with guiding screens letting you know which set you're watching the story unfold in. But there isn't much of a story here anyways.<br /><br />This movie gets a 3/10 stars IMO. The boring search and destroy mission to blow up the North Pole and these creatures protecting it...kinda lame. Even lamer is the tagged-on love relationship between two of the characters that you don't see coming. Chalk this one up to being a movie which tries to get actors' careers off the bench and into a video. Don't bother.
|
Negative
| null | null |
the IMDb guidelines state that you have to declare if your comments contain 'spoilers'. <br /><br />well, this whole film is something of a spoiler... a cautionary tale that glorifies what it cautions against, a tale of lost youth that doesn't know where it itself is going.<br /><br />i just saw this at the tribeca film festival. this film wasn't just bad, it was really bad.<br /><br />the acting is inconsistent, the characters are the mostly cliché offerings with little depth, and farnsworth's acting was very bad in particular.<br /><br />from the patronizing accents to the pointless plot line to the out of place 'graphic' elements to the repetitious dialog and scenarios... it sucked the big one. <br /><br />i think he was looking for sort of a more edgy, updated 'drugstore cowboy' with a touch of 'natural born killers' but it is no where as sensitive to the characters as the former and no where as shocking (outside of some frat-level gore) as the ladder. <br /><br />more than anything, someone needed to really A) edit the screenplay <br /><br />(there are some things in there to build on and clearly <br /><br />deals with a worthy subject... if ham-handed in it's attempt.) B) edit the film. if it was cut down to a core, it might be passable. <br /><br />i would go lower than 1 if i could... like maybe zero kelvin.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a loose collection of unintelligible analogies and ill conceived plot devices.<br /><br />Movie history: The director of this film was a pervert who drove around town filming random women. When his wife discovered the film reels, he was forced to quickly contrive a story. He claimed he was making a movie called "The brain that wouldn't die." Eventually, his wife demanded that he show her his "so called movie." That night he quickly filmed some extra scenes with a friend and "The Brain that wouldn't Die" was born.<br /><br />I hate this movie! Plot Synopsis: The main character's fiancé is killed in a horrible car accident(that he caused by ignoring the clearly posted road signs). He grabs her head from the wreckage and reanimates it. After reanimating the head, he goes and picks up a bunch of hookers. That is pretty much what happens for the rest of the movie. At the end, he fights and is killed by a monster that lives in the closet. The monster appears with little to no explanation. However, the monster saves a hooker and I assume that they live happily ever after.<br /><br />Side notes: The end credit screen claims that the movie is called "The Head that wouldn't Die".<br /><br />I hate this movie!
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Why?"<br /><br />That simple question had to be on the lips of every single New Yorker during the 12 months of terror that David Berkowitz created in 1976-77. That same one word will surely become the same perplexing question 22 summers later as people exit theaters exhibiting the trite and exploitative "Summer of Sam".<br /><br />Director Spike Lee attempts to weave the story of a pack of misguided thugs searching for the celebrated psychopath -- who paralyzed New York City for over a year -- with a stark and graphical depiction of the killings, the demons inside Berkowitz's head and the frustration of a futile NYPD manhunt. He presents an ensemble of despicable losers who hear their own "barking dogs" as they live lives devoid of love, honor and humanity -- no different than Berkowitz. Lee browbeats the audience in nearly every frame with "not one of us are what we seem to be". Often a critic of the white establishment, Lee perpetuates the stereotype by including a scene where Mira Sorvino, playing a newlywed with a cheating husband (John Leguizamo), hopes to have oral sex with a black man "in the back of a big black Cadillac". An Italian Mafioso tells a black detective that the famous Willie Mays' over-the-back center field catch was "lucky". Lee even makes sure to deliver the racist musings of one middle aged black woman who declares "I'm happy it's a white man killing all these white people because if it were a black man killing all these white people - there would be the biggest race riot in NYC history."<br /><br />Other than an outstanding opening pan shot of an arrival at a disco (reminiscent of shots from Martin Scorcese's "Goodfellas" or Orson Welles' "The Third Man"), this film has no soul, purpose or passion. He parades characters on the screen bereft of human decency. Although we learn nothing about the true victims of this horrible spree, Spike Lee seems to be saying New York City got what it deserved during that frightening, boiling summer over two decades ago.<br /><br />"How could anyone wreak such havoc on his beloved city?" "How could someone show such hatred toward his fellow man?"<br /><br />Are these appropriate questions for Berkowitz or Lee?<br /><br />You decide.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards
let's give it a chance
" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere
It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction
The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's
The acting should have been better too
Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production
I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anurag Basu who co-directed the flop KUCCH TO HAI made his debut in this film <br /><br />The film was ahead of it's times in a way though it has a story not to different and it came closest to HAWAS which released 1 week before and luckily this was better and did a better business<br /><br />The movie starts off well, Malika's guilt is well shown at the start though the scene with Emraan- Malika is too crude/vulgar<br /><br />The scenes between Emraan and Malika are well handled and the twist in the tale where Ashmith confronts Emraan is brilliant<br /><br />The pace moves fast and the viewer is kept on the edge but the second girlfriend track of Emraan isn't fully convincing<br /><br />Also the cop track seems half baked<br /><br />The finale is too filmy too<br /><br />Direction by Anurag Basu is good Music is a winner, all songs were fab Camera-work was stunning<br /><br />Emraan played his naughty streak very well, this was the role that gave him stardom and though he kept playing such roles and got annoying in this film he was superb Ashmith too was good in his role for once, He did a nice job and one of his only good performance and he looked good too Malika was brilliant in her role esp in the second half but her dial delivery was at times not up to the mark Sadly rarely she showed such potential in other films Raj Jhutsi is okay
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am not sure why I like Dolph Lundgren. I guess seeing him on screen makes me feel that anyone who works hard can succeed regardless of talent. That is a good feeling for all of us who lack talent. Some of the other reviews point out how dumb Detention is, but many neglect to point out the positives. <br /><br />Any movie where at least one annoying teenager gets killed can't be all bad. Why do so many movies that have a cast of teens always need to include the stereotypical teens? Aren't there any other kind of teens? Does every group of teens have one angry black guy? One genius nerd that nobody likes? One slutty girl who is very friendly and (in this movie) pregnant? One disturbed anti-social white kid from a broken home who everyone agrees is talented (but what is the talent?). And one laid-back black kid who is in tune with the Universe and so cool that all the other neurotic kids trust him. Then add a couple of generic expendable teens of any color. They don't say much but get shot at some point. <br /><br />Detention would have been better if the bad guys had gotten to blow up the school. Preferably with the writers inside. The dialogue is bad, and the plot is worse. When the bad guys (and girl) finally hijack a van full of drugs, then they sit inside the van making out. They drive the van to the school because they want to re-paint the van at the school's paint shop, but they never get around to re-painting the van. By the way, it would have been easier to just put all the drugs in another car or two cars or another van or a truck and drive away without repainting the Police Van. They also never move the drugs or sell them or do anything else with the big score. <br /><br />For some reason, they decide they have to kill the kids and the teacher (Dolph Lundgren) even though when the villains take over the school nobody is remotely aware of it because it is after school hours. The handful of people still in the school have nothing to do with painting vehicles, so why go after them? <br /><br />Anyhow, the best part of this movie is that the villains are all armed with numerous machine guns, and they keep finding the teens (including a guy in a wheel chair) and they keep shooting hundreds of bullets at the teens and usually miss. Towards the end of the movie there is some bloodshed. For every time someone gets shot, there must be at least three hundred bullets fired that miss. The stunts are pretty bad. <br /><br />I read one of the reviews that says that this movie had a budget of $10 Million, and I am amazed. When I saw the movie I figured maybe Lundgren had done it as some kind of charity work for some film school where he is the teacher. Like maybe this movie was their end of the year exam. It was a test to watch it, but I passed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Generally I don't do minus's and if this site could i would give this movie -3 out of 10 meaning I really hated this movie. I thought Uwe Boll's alone in the dark was the worst i've seen yet but at least i gave it a 2.5 out of 10 in my opinion(Stephen Dorff shooting at nothing made me laugh so i boosted the ratings a bit). Hell if it was if compared to bloodrayne, Bloodrayne would win a Oscar for best movie if they were competing.<br /><br />Now to the plot, this movie is about the BTK killer which is fine but they've could have done better. The start looked OK but that's it I had to fast forward most of it because the death's where boring. I like killer movies and even if they suck they could still get some cool deaths. I'm not a fancy movie expert but believe me he would have shot himself if did see this. Sorry for rambling but there's nothing good to say about it, because it looks like someone took a camcorder and film this.. this.. thing of disaster. Uwe Boll your movies are no longer on my list of worst movies ever this took the cake.<br /><br />Well sorry i couldn't explain the plot(if there was one) but that was the best i could. Now if you don't mind i'm going to crawl into a corner and move back and forth and reminding me of how bad this movie scared me for life.... OK not for life
|
Negative
| null | null |
THIS CONTAINS SPOILERS.<br /><br />I have rarely seen a film that is as unbelievable as this one is. And being French, it tries for depth by being enigmatic
nothing really makes any sense.<br /><br />Léo is gay and has just announced at breakfast to his family that he is HIV positive. The youngest brother, Marcel, has not yet come down to breakfast, and the first thing the family does is decide that at 12 years of age he is too young to be told. Maybe if he was four or five, but twelve? The first totally unbelievable thing is that the family doesn't even ask where or how he got the virus, how long he has known about it
nothing is asked. They only worry about Marcel finding out. This is a very close knit provincial family, but although they decide not to let Marcel know about Léo's HIV positive status nor the fact of his being gay, the rest of the family accepts all this news with absolutely no questions or reactions. How many families do you know where the parents/brothers wouldn't have at least SOME reaction to one of the members announcing that he is gay? Here, nothing.<br /><br />Léo decides that he needs to go to Paris to see his ex-lover. And he decides to go on the trip with, of all people, Marcel. Do you know anyone who would bring his little brother along to go see a lover? Again, totally unbelievable, especially since Marcel is not supposed to know either of his medical problems nor of his homosexuality. If this is the way the family has decided to let him find out, it is rather brutal and again unbelievable.<br /><br />Léo goes to find his lover, Aymeric, at his work in a Paris bar. The owner says that Aymeric will not be there until the early evening. But why would Léo want to see him at work? Why not phone and arrange to see him in some place more private where they can really talk? Why not go and see him at his home? But no, Léo shows up later in the day (with Marcel in tow) and is surprised when Aymeric doesn't just drop everything to go walk with him for 5 minutes. Aymeric tells him that he is no longer available, that it was Léo who left him, and that Léo hadn't replied to any of his letters. Léo says "But I love you" and then wanders off. But if he really loved Aymeric, wouldn't he have at least told him about his HIV status, to warn him to get tested and maybe get medication? This would be the least he could do but not a peep. He leaves and doesn't even warn Aymeric that he might have contracted the AIDS virus. This is totally irresponsible of him and of the film-makers; this film was apparently made for a French TV series for young people it is the perfect way to show kids how to be responsible. Well, not here
I guess "Every man for himself" is still the French way of doing things
Another aspect of the film which was totally unbelievable was the "touchy-feely" aspect. Everyone is always leaning against someone, caressing someone or kissing someone. Inside the family and outside the family. I have never seen anyone in France be THIS physical, never mind an entire family. Seated at the breakfast table, one 17 year old brother has his leg perched on the lap of his elder brother, and the elder brother is caressing his leg as everyone sits around discussing something. How many brothers do you know who are THAT physically close? In another scene, the same 17 year old comes into Marcel's room asking "What's the matter, can't you sleep?", then takes off his clothes and, completely naked, gets into bed with his brother and snuggles up to him as if they were lovers. This and another similar scene between Léo and Marcel gave a somewhat incestuous feel to the film. Sorry, again I don't believe that this is regular behaviour between teenage brothers.<br /><br />The only good thing I can say about the film is that the actors are all quite fine
especially Marcel in the main role. But it wasn't really enough
HIV and AIDS are far too serious to be presented in such a vague and irresponsible light. At the end of the film, the family has gone to the cemetery to bury Léo, but once again, Marcel has been left out of it he has been left in the care of a cousin (I think). Nevertheless he sneaks out and watches the funeral from afar. Is this what such a close-knit family would have done? It is totally inconceivable that they would not have included him in his brother's funeral. It was the last scene of the film, and it was the last straw for this viewer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.