input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
An Inconvenient Truth is as entirely simplistic and demagogic as the turgid slop created by the rabid and idiotic Republicans, it meanders along intangible lines until it attempts to gorge something into your face, namely that we'll all be dead in a few hundred years, which is already indisputable, but who cares, humans are selfish, destructive creatures, I frankly do not waste my time caring about human extinction. I'll just call it a "natural progression". Let the apocalypse begin, but meanwhile, we have to listen to the same brazen, slanted politicians who propose another "new society", well, don't be fooled, we'll all still be controlled by the wealthy, by those in power and by those idiots who created the catastrophes in the first place. Nothing will ever change.<br /><br />Al Gore, whose hypocrisy is quite evident in the film, as he is being driven in a gas guzzling car all alone using a consumerist computer, he also lives on huge acres of land in a rather large mansion, the land itself was used for destructive erosive purposes including cattle, tobacco, pig farming (which accounts for methane gas traces) and who knows what else, his wealth is predicated on exploitation, greed and his investments include numerous large companies in the world with disputable records. I hardly think this man is qualified to lecture the less fortunate, but his prestige is based on his opposition to another ludicrous political party, that is all, meanwhile he emits those very same rancid characteristics that make politics and politicians so appalling. This bozo happens to be living the comfortable life and yet he's lecturing poor people in Africa about crop farming and cut and burn techniques? He travels across the world in first class seats in fuel wasting jets, uses product placed computers in the documentary, and yet he thinks everything is a "moral issue". He's entirely absorbed in his own deluded nightmares, he says he came to these conclusions because of the death of his sister (from tobacco induced cancer and the near death of his son by an automobile of all things). Did he fight against the tobacco companies or propose that automobiles be banned because they are dangerous hulking machines? NO. Everything must serve the "economy", so why is he any different, the answer is he is not.<br /><br />His forlorn and exhausted attempts at humanistic philosophy are disastrous, all this while he's being filmed in the forest or along a little river eschewing stale life affirming quotes. Well Mr Gore, why don't you try living like the common people then? He is a politician, plain and simple, he has a career invested in the power structure. My question is, why doesn't he concentrate on the powerful industrial nations of the earth who are to blame for most of the complications? He doesn't do that because it would be unwise for "investments, stocks and corporations".<br /><br />Al Gore gives monotonous lectures about the subject in the documentary, namely to wealthy white people in the audience, who clap on cue, while showing them graph charts, numbers and percentages, and speaking in a dreary tone, no one without a Harvard (which the elites control) education can make sense out of it, but he tells us everything is going to hell. No kidding, but I think he fails to account for this problem precisely in the approach that capitalism has taken for the planet, namely that it is expendable and a waste dump. He never once mentions how industrialization has created these problems, he just wants to put mild bandages on them but not eradicate the whole oppressive system. Its obvious he was spoiled, sent to the schools for elites and has the same basic temperament for politics as any other back stabbing, inconsistent dullard in Washington. Whoever made this propaganda, as it is in no way different than what the Republicans have conceived, had only goals in mind that were directed by capitalistic impulse. That is to say, someone is going to benefit, and it seems the "new green" politicians who support venture capitalist companies who are buying up hordes of land in an attempt to develop the "new Utopian future" with "new technologies". It's the same old story, Al Gore is a believer in the elitist structure, he actually believes there is a "democracy" in the US which I find very naive. If we aren't paying wages to the oil companies, then we'll be paying them to the wind and solar companies.<br /><br />I find the speech at the end quite rancid, along the lines of something GW Bush would have oozed over to the dumb downed masses, Gore speaks about "people uniting together to defeat communism" in the 1990's, what it had to do with global warming, absolutely nothing but he attempts to get base emotions ruminating in people. With that said, he didn't understand that communism never existed in the world, the systems in Europe and USSR were merely a tyrannical form of authoritarianism and capitalism, no less different than what controls the US interests. Social ecology was not even mentioned here, which is really a travesty. If you want to change the world, then one must dispose of those antiquated systems that are based on greed, exploitation and violence.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Holy crap! What a terrible, terrible Spanish thriller! I've had it for about four years and finally started it the other night. I watched an hour or so before heading to bed. I was pretty intrigued by the whole thing. I finished it last night and couldn't believe where I stopped it the night before. Literally, I stopped it the second before the movie went completely downhill.<br /><br />Like I said, I was pretty intrigued and curious as to where this mystery was going but stopped it right when Simon receives the package in the bar. I picked up when he opens up the package to reveal a laser gun and then plays a "menacing" game of laser tag. Whew! Then the big reveal is that the whole thing is a terrorist plot by role playing game nerds. WHEW! You can tell the Spanish industry was definitely behind director Mateo Gil (co-writer of Amenabar's two big previous hits). There is an excellent score and great photography. But this scenario reeks of silliness. How anyone sat through the last 40 minutes with a straight face is beyond me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a better than average movie I thought, for it being on cable. I had expected something along the lines of cheesy melodrama and bad special effects seen in such classics as Christmas Rush or First Daughter/Target/Shot, etc.<br /><br />The cast was well chosen...I especially liked Ron Livingston as the hard pressed SWAT Commander. It's good to see him revisiting the same material he had so much fortune with in Band of Brothers. The producers and designers had done their homework because all the scenes and shots looked like they did on that day back in 1997.<br /><br />So, if you get a chance to see this film, and I am sure you will since FX reruns everything 50 times...take 2 hours and enjoy it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sadly,this is not 'the best British gore film since hellraiser', though the DVD cover claims this, which is what tricked me into buying it. It is, however, an homage to many of the great horrors of old, films from most notably the Amicus stable.<br /><br />Cradle... is shot on mini dv, which though we all know has more of a TV feel than a movie, can be done so much better. Every scene, set and shot looks like it has been lit in exactly the same way (standard key, fill, rear setup), which only enhances the cheap look of the finished piece. The gore content is, quite frankly, laughable. From the opening shots where we see a man's obviously foam rubber head torn apart, through to tacky cheap prop hammers, the creature effects and the terrible cg, there was nothing in there that impressed me at all.<br /><br />The acting is abominable, from the near-comatose detective to the brummie dwarf, via Dani Filth, the least convincing horror movie bad guy I have ever witnessed. Each of the substories is more formulaic than the last, and the sets get worse and worse as the movie runs. Look out for the 'Mental Asylum' - a Georgian semi detached house with a bad cg sign outside, and the most bizarre (and not in a good way) padded cell I have seen.<br /><br />It took me four attempts to get to the end of the film without my attention wandering (nay, running) away at any available opportunity. I actually found myself dusting at one point while the film was running.<br /><br />It does, however, mark one of the last known appearances of Emily Booth's breasts, which I guess is one (um, two) things it has going for it. Once that's out of the way though, it is all downhill.<br /><br />I've heard people say good things about Alex Chandon, and I would love to believe them, but on this evidence I'm not likely to. If you want a decent homage to Amicus, avoid this and go for the League of Gentlemen Christmas special instead.<br /><br />Currently battling it out with Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows for the title of worst film I have ever seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did anyone else notice whenever they are in the car each time the camera takes a new angle they switch roads. Like in one scene it is a one lane residential with sidewalks, next they are on a multiple lane highway with a divider, next a two lane country road with double yellow lanes. I can understand a low budget but that was just sloppy film work.<br /><br />I also read the other reviews and disagree that it was a bad movie. I think that if you are a fan of Paul Reiser and his comedy then you may enjoy this movie. If, however, you find his work/not funny then I would recommend staying away from this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a good example of how to ruin a book in 109 minutes. Except for the names of the characters the movie bears very little resemblance to the book. A book full of strong Latino characters and they are represent, for the most part, by non-Latinos. There is no character development in the movie and we have no reason to love or hate the characters. And to delete a complete generation is inexcusable. Isabel Allende has written a powerful book and the book is what should be read!
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie delivers. the best is when the awkward teenage neighbor tries to bike away from the babysitter and in the background looks like he's never been anywhere near a bike in his life as he attempts not to fall off.<br /><br />but this movie doesn't stop there, when less than 5 minutes later it delivers a scene of nothing but an arm reaching through a fence and into a cooler pulling out a beer. <br /><br />stereotypical grilling dads, several plot lines that go nowhere, and a former seaQuest actress with a bluetooth cell phone all add up to making this the perfect Saturday night at home.
|
Negative
| null | null |
From the beginning this movie did have a few flaws. The main character played by Hayden Christensen is a the rich young mogul who has inherited his father's considerable wealth and power, and he is struggling to both fill his father's shoes and cut the apron strings mother (and co-executive) keeps too tight. He also has the problem of having a heart condition and waiting in the limbo that is the organ donor registry. There are also minor back stories which your first instinct is to mostly ignore that become important later, such as his friendship with his surgeon (Terrence Howard) and his romance with a middle class girl (Jessica Alba). Uncreative story lines, but not bad enough to ruin the movie. The only real "oy vey!" moment was the name of Lena Olin's character. Overbearing woman named Lilith...subtle!<br /><br />The surgical scenes are not at all censored. I appreciated that, people who find surgery scenes scary might not. The horror of being awake during anesthesia was done well at first. You watch in emotional agony as Christensen screams inwardly through the chest incision and the rib spreader. The moment of irony from the trailers then comes where while he is one of the unlucky few to be awake during anesthesia, he is also luck in that it helps him learn that his surgical team is planning to murder him.<br /><br />The big twist, however, is very predictable and sends the film delving into the conspiracy and his memories of the little signs which were there but he, like us, initially missed. <br /><br />There are two more twists at the end involving his relationship with his mother. One is an impressive gesture by Olin, which comes of as unimpressive due to poor writing. The other is a secret about the family's past which seemed very tacked on and pointless.<br /><br />The initially well done anesthesia awareness drama gets lost in the poorly written conspiracy drama. There is a one final attempt to bring it back which falls flat, taking the entire movie with it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching this film, I was left with a two very annoyances about this film: why did they make Chen's character this "McGuyver hit-man" and Lee's character such an incompetent idiot? Chen's character's background is that he was raised in an underground Cambodian orphanage for blood thirsty fighter where they learn to brawl it out to the death like wild "dogs." This detail is pushed early on during a scene where he gets into a cab and as it starts to drive, he shows how he is unfamiliar with a seat belt. Soon after this scene, he has a similar situation at a dim sum restaurant. Not only is he uneducated, he is starving. This is not a reference to Chen's scrawny physique but to the two early scenes in the film where he is scarfing down food, one of which, being rice porridge off the floor of the lower deck on an old ship. Si in the first ten minutes of the film, it is established that Chen is malnutrition-ed, unmodernized,and has only thing going for him, his "dog" brawling fighting style of some sort. Despite this situation, Chen manages to out-shoot every policeman (even managing to ricochet a bullet off a metal pipe to hit a guy in a head, whom was holding Chen's girlfriend hostage) and has somehow attained a super human strength (swings a 50 lb block of concrete, plastered on the end of a metal pipe, to the head of the police chief AS he is getting shot in the chest, by said chief).<br /><br />Now Lee's character...okay, I get it, he's depressed, he's got some baggage, but wow, can he do anything right? One moment, they try to make him cool, composed and ready to take care of business, and the next moment, he just got beat again. First scene he runs into Chen, and he manages to misses him, from approx 15 ft, multiple times. Toward the end of that scene, Lee watches Chen as his close friend and coworker gets slowly stabbed in the neck with a long knife for a good full 5 seconds, while holding a gun to Chen face, at a 10 ft distance. Even at the end of the movie, Lee manages to get stabbed to death and fails once again.<br /><br />And my biggest problem with this movie is that it is presented in a manner that film makers are trying to get the audience to sympathize with Chen's character and that he is just "killing to survive." That would be a lot easier if I didn't just watch Chen kill innocent people throughout the whole awful movie. Of the numerous people he killed, only two people had the intention of trying to kill him, the police chief and Lee. Others were just people who were eating, boat owners, taxi drivers, and policemen trying to arrest him, not kill. Overall, Chen's character is a just a cold blooded killer who kills for what he wants, even if its just a free ride. (Did I mention he is carrying a wad of hundred dollar bills throughout most of the film?) My 3 stars go to some of the interesting director/camera work who got in some nice shots.<br /><br />Bottomline: One made for the nut-hugging Chen fans. For me, "Dog Bite This DVD"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why would a person go back to a person, who kicks them in the teeth, not once, not twice, but over and over again.<br /><br />This film teaches us that in order to find love we must accept abuse (not just forgive it, but fully accept it). Gosh! No wonder my first relationship only lasted ten years. I obviously wasn't embracing my inner masochist.<br /><br />As Bucatinsky's writing debut, there are many wonderful aspects to this film; however, in order to justify the reunion of Eli and Tom, more character development would have been helpful. We are never acquainted with Eli's masochism, in fact, we are led to believe that he is not a masochist, although Tom's psycho-emotional sadism is highly evident.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Elephants Dream was supposed to be the flagship project of the open source community. And while it was a very interesting idea in concept, in reality it has failed miserably.<br /><br />The film is beautifully rendered, which is probably the only redeeming factor. A huge problem with them, however, is the vast overruse of light bloom. It's horrible, although I guess it helps give the film a dreamlike quality.<br /><br />One thing to note is the terrible voice acting. While Proog's voice actor is at least semi-competent, Emo's voice actor is HORRIBLE. I guess when you have a budget that basically amounts to zero, you can't afford to hire real voice actors. To me it seems like they hired one of the animators to do his voice.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie doesn't really go anywhere. To me it seems like it's more of a "look what we can do" kind of movie instead of a real film. The plot goes nowhere and fails at really showing any interesting point. The whole movie feels like it was made as an excuse to make interesting looking areas.<br /><br />Overall, it may be worth a quick download from the official site, but don't expect anything except pretty graphics.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Wow, I hated this movie. The subject matter should have resulted in a really fine film, and the lead actor was definitely sensitive and talented enough to handle the topic, but the script - if there even *was* a script - is a mess. This is less a movie than a random slide show that goes nowhere. I'd say it goes nowhere fast, except that it's actually the longest 81 minutes you'll ever sit through. As I've mentioned, the lead actor is good. So is Faruza Baulk (SP?), as his sometimes-harsh-but-ultimately-loving-and-accepting mother. The film makers have a lot to answer for here, because this is a mess. A real shame,because I really wanted to like this movie, but it's basically out-takes from a movie that never got made. Skip this one - it wasn't even worth the $6 I shelled out for pay-per-view.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. <br /><br />This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Made the unfortunate mistake of seeing this film in the Edinburgh film festival. It was well shot from the outset, but that's the last positive comment I have about the film. The acting was awful, I wonder if actual gogo girls were hired? But it was the plot that was truly laughable, in fact that it was laughable and not boring is the only reason I gave this 3/10.<br /><br />** Spoilers below **.<br /><br />I just want to mention a few of the scenes that really got the audience laughing:.<br /><br />Shoving the girl in the field: who would have thought that a kid shoving another kid could be acted so badly. A real eye-opener.<br /><br />The getting on the bus scene: the girl is getting on the bus. But, according to the music, the world is ending.<br /><br />The rolling under the clothes line: Wow, this one really demonstrates the plot writer's skills. In the room, followed by raw meat and skill selling. Why not just get her to perform all three 'sins' at once? At least then the film might have been slightly shorter.<br /><br />The running down the stairs of the mall: watch as one of the girls takes to flight down the stairs pursued by a flesh eating Dau, no wait .. she *is* just walking quickly trying not to break her nails.<br /><br />The running covered in blood: this is definitely my favourite scene, and a fitting end to the movie. A half marathon in red paint, completed by vaulting up stairs and over the bridge, only to be sent flying most unrealistically by a passing car. Not only this, but this suicide is undertaken by the most self obsessed girl in the film, now that's sticking to character for you.<br /><br />I'd like to think that this film was created by a 16 year old and their mates. Sadly, having met the director at the presentation, this is not the case.<br /><br />But, if you're in a sarcastic mood, and fancy a laugh with a few mates.. then still don't even think about it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Redundant, everlasting shots, useless shots, useless scenes are what you will find in this film. In other words, it seemed technically poor to me. The musical bits are amateurishly directed (no synchronization in the would-be dancing, badly post-synchronized, bad and obvious improvisation of the actors from time to time, etc). <br /><br />The film is long and boring. Eventually, it makes few point and even less sense. <br /><br />There are some good ideas though. Some of the comic elements are actually efficient, especially the opening scene. However, the film gets worse and worse so that it is completely unbearable and impossible to understand by the end. <br /><br />The trailer I saw was very dynamic, that is not true for the film. That is to say the discrepancy between the trailer and the actual film is something very close to a rip off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The third installment of the "Carnosaur" trilogy features a bunch of Keystone Kops-quality military commandos trying to kill two Velociraptors and a T-Rex. I give it a 4 out of sheer sympathy and my affinity for dinosaurs. The movie is definitely the worst of the trilogy, it really can't be taken seriously. More significantly, however, watching this movie I can't help but notice some interesting parallels between the "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" trilogies. The first installment in both franchises is a dark, disturbing film that has become a cult classic, the second is an "Alien" ripoff, and the third is a tongue-in-cheek, almost slapstick (whether intentional or not) movie that has you rolling on the floor laughing. Also, like the "Xtro" franchise, all the "Carnosaur" movies are completely unrelated to one another. They they only carry the franchise name to drum up interest in the "sequels," I guess. Obviously "Carnosaur" and "Xtro" have two different production groups at work here, but if you've seen all three movies of both franchises you find yourself referring back and forth between the two.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Everything about this film was terrible. To start with this film had a pretty good cast and I find it impossible to make such a great cast into the biggest disaster to the gangster film genre ever. The sound track was like one of a very bad slap stick comedy. It had this music through the whole film and it started to get quite irritating.<br /><br />PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT INFLICT YOURSELF WITH THIS DISASTER YOU WILL ONLY BE HURT
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is advertised as a clever romantic comedy. It is neither clever nor romantic and it is definitely not an effective comedy. The fortunes of the well meaning yet pathetic character, "Tom", oscillate from one extremely embarrassing disaster to another. The only saving graces are the competent performance by Toni Collete and the frequency with which we glimpse Paltrow's pleasant face. Overall, to be avoided!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film's trailer interested me enough to warrant renting the DVD. However, the resulting movie is absolutely dire! Admittedly, this is not the worst film ever made, or the worst film this year, but it came damn close!<br /><br />The main issue is the film not knowing what it wants to be: comedy, adult drama, thriller, teen-porn? The story is interesting, as it deals with the pitfalls of mail-order brides, but the film is a mess. What starts out as a mildly interesting "comedy" (a word I use in the loosest possible terms), then goes totally in reverse, and degenerates into a very dark and distasteful misogynistic thriller. Nicole Kidman should know better, and Ben Chaplin is wasted! As are Matthieu Kassovitz and Vincent Cassel, whom I can only presume did this for the money.<br /><br />This is a bad film in pretty much every single aspect. It's not funny, it's almost so sexist that you could almost forgive Benny Hill for everything he did, and the dramatic elements are just downright nasty. A film to be avoided, unless you absolutely have to see Kidman or Chaplin in every one of their films!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scott Menville is not Casey Kasem. That is the first, most important, and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re-imagining Scooby-Doo and company.<br /><br />Shaggy's voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the Scooby shows. They've also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original.<br /><br />I'm not sure what they're on about yet with the villain angle, but it surely isn't following the formula used in any of the previous Scooby shows.<br /><br />And the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. I like it, but it's not real Scooby-Doo type animation. But the weird animation used for other WB shows grew on me; this might, too.<br /><br />It's worth a glance at -- once -- if you can handle the lack of proper Shaggy voice. That right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. Besides, I am trying not to be an inflexible, nitpicking fan. Evolve or die, as the saying goes. We'll see how it looks after two more episodes -- by then I'll have formed a much more solid opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is the worst movie I have ever seen in my entire life. The plot and message are horrible. There are too many mistakes in this movie that it's impossible to keep up. I don't even understand how this movie can get any nomination, let alone 2. Here's why: 1) Sam Lee portrays a angry/irrational detective which was caused by the disappointment from his dad. Pros: He's angry alright. Cons: When it comes to the explanation scene, he cannot convey the sadness/disappointment he has in his father. The crying scene was too fake and it seems like he is literally squeezing out tears from the corner of his eyes.<br /><br />2) To connect the movie to the title, there were barking or dog wimping sounds during the fight scenes and rape scene, which is totally irrelevant and confusing to the viewer. I understand that it's supposed to be a metaphor or what not... but it's just sooo dumb! 3) WHY THE HECK DID THE COPS NOT SHOOT THE KILLER? What the heck is wrong with this movie. When the killer started stabbing an officer, SHOOT him. He's already dead! What the heck? There were lots of opportunity that the killer could be killed, but I do not know why he wasn't! 4) During the scene where the girl had her foot hurt. In the scene, it was very clear that the LEFT foot of the girls was hurt, so how the heck in the next scene that she's lending all her weight on her left foot? And this is the actress nominated as the best new performer? WTF? 5) The sounds in the movie are off sync.<br /><br />6) I am guessing that this movie is trying to bring awareness of the brutality and violence among children in South East Asia, so why does the bad guy wins and then the cop was joining the fight? 7) This movie is just too violent without a purpose. Cops are beating CI to a pulp and then if they cooperate, they give them marijuana and coke? This is overall the worst movie. I truly feel that the person who wrote this movie is a sadist and sick person. I have never seen a more disgusting movie in my whole entire life. WORST MOVIE EVER!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Okay, so the previews to this film only tells you that a rebellious young girl goes to live with her grandmother for the summer in order to straighten out. That is actually not the case! It's about a young rebellious 17 year old girl who reveals a secret and it's up to her mother to believe if she's telling the truth or not.<br /><br />To be honest, I really enjoyed the concept of this movie. They had a really good plot and a really good theme of a love/hate relationship between mother and daughter. I did not however, enjoyed watching Lindsay Lohan's acting. In reality, this movie would have been GREAT if they had someone else, perhaps a better actress. The character of Rachel (Lohan) is a very sexually aggressive person and it sort of reminds us of the real Lindsay so it takes away a lot from the film.<br /><br />I do however, think that if you put Lindsay aside, you will enjoy this film. The ending is pretty great (and sad).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Where to start? This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen. The editing is the worst ever, the sound effects were awful and the sound editing was whacked. Most of the movie all one could here is the crappy kicking effects, with muddled talking in the background. I had to turn my volume on full blast just to her what was going on....and what was I supposed to hear exactly? Probably one of the worst scripts ever made. I can't believe people actually put up some green for this film. It makes me think I could take a crap in a box, send it to producers, and then have them finance a movie for me.<br /><br />Dolph, was a usual, Dolph. Nothing else needs to be said. The villains were bad, the protagonists were bad, and the movie was a stinker. If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really didn't like this film. The plot was very predictable. Typical American plot, I'm sorry. Guy gets the girl kind of thing at the end. And London has a Monorail? Bank of London??? Bank of England is what it really is!! - I did however like the look of Tracy Island and the Thunderbirds themselves. And the Brits were baddies? (apart from Parker and Lady Penelope) What was up with that? Oh and they kept on saying stuff like "Here come 'The Thunderbirds'" - but it was never known as 'The Thunderbirds' in the series, why do that?? I'd like to see this re-made in 20 years with more British cast. I preferred the original series. Sorry!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I missed the beginning of this film, which might account for why I disliked it so much. On the other hand I've studied the fall of the Roman republic for years so I know the story. Then again, that might also be the reason why I disliked this film.<br /><br />The film has more historical inaccuracies than extras. Though it's so inaccurate that I don't think they made an attempt for it to be correct, in which case it can be forgiven. The odd thing is that they sometimes go to great lengths to be historically accurate that it ends up getting confusing. Like throwing in Antonius' marriage to Octavia, and then pushing it aside two scenes later. Why even bring it up if it serves no purpose for the plot and Octavia is never even seen? And like calling Antonius by his actual name (Marcus Antonius) in some scenes, and by his strange English name Mark Antony in other scenes.<br /><br />Though historical inaccuracies aside, the film could still have been an entertaining watch if it wasn't for the leading lady. There isn't an ounce of dignity in her. She's hysterical, dramatical, and completely lacking control of herself. Instead of being a clever and composed queen Cleopatra turns into a hysterical teenager with a bad case of PMS. 95% of that comes from the poor acting, but 5% is also from poor script writing. Far too many stupid dramatic scenes are written into the script. Sometimes you weren't watching Antonius and Cleopatra, you were watching immature versions of Dawson and Joey from "Dawson's Creek".<br /><br />If you want to watch something about this period, watch... anything but this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A doctor who is trying to complete the medical dream of transplantation is experimenting secretly on corpses from the hospital with varying success. His final best chance comes when he lovingly wraps his girlfriend's head in his jacket as he rescues it from a burning vehicle.<br /><br />I was looking for cheese and with this premise I believed I found it. It has everything everything that bad movie hunters look for - chest and brain surgery with the surgeons leaving with pristine white scrubs, unique camera angles (I always love watching the rear passenger wheels of cars), cheesy clarinet stripper music, and one of the longest death scenes in movie history. But unfortunately these so-bad-they-are-good moments can't overcome the too-bad-they-stink stretches.<br /><br />Jan in the Pan annoyed me, with her droning monologues in a hoarse whisper, the somewhat less than evil laughter, and the fact she was kept alive with some Columbian home brew coffee and 2 DD batteries.<br /><br />I couldn't even entertain myself with Dr Bill's horrid overacting and moral self righteousness. Usually such ham makes these movies a must see in my opinion, in this case I was bored with it.<br /><br />The best part of the movie in my opinion was the 1960's version of "body shopping" and I even found myself nodding off during that.<br /><br />Don't spend money on this one - there are better bad movies out there to entertain your sick sense of humor.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was 100% boring, i swear i almost died from boredom at the theater. It wasnt funny and didnt really hve that much action in it either, it was BORING and i hope whoever out there that liked this movie, god be with you in the future when you find out what this movie was really like and try to jump off a bridge or something like that
|
Negative
| null | null |
I should have known when I looked at the box in the video store and saw Lisa Raye - to me, she's the female Ernie Hudson A.K.A. "Le Kiss of Death" for *ANY* movie. Its almost *guaranteed* the movie will be bad (e.g. Congo)if Hudson is in it (with the exception of the Ghostbusters films, which were intentionally campy and bad). Despite my instincts, and the fact that I just saw Civil Brand, yet another cinematic "tour de force" starring Lisa Raye, I rented it anyway. After all, I ignored my "Hudson instinct" on OZ and ended up watching a very quality series so I figured I'd give this movie a chance.<br /><br />If you are a lover of bad movies, this is a definite must see! This has got to be the most unintentionally funny movie I've seen in a loooong time. The plot is fairly straightforward: Racheal's (Monica Calhoun) sister is killed by a band of brigands (Led by Bobby Brown!) and, like many an action movie before this, she straps on her guns ONE LAST TIME and vows to avenge her sisters death. To do this, she reassembles the titular Gang of Roses (supposedly based on a true story of a female gang) and they go out and exact revenge and, along the way, there's some subplot or something or other about some gold that might be buried in the town. One nice thing I will say about this movie is that from what I could tell, the stars did their own riding and they looked GREAT galloping.<br /><br />The funniest (albiet unintentionally funny) scenes? Look for when they introduce Stacy Dash's character or when Calhoun's character rescinds her vow not to strap on her guns (replete with a clenched fisted cry to the heavens) or Lil' Kim's character joking with Lisa Raye's character or Stacy Dash's character being killed or Lil' Kim's character convincing Lisa Raye's character to rejoin the gang or the Asian Chick or Macy Grey's character talking bout "The debt is paid", etc. With the exception of Calhoun's Racheal and Bobby Brown's Left-Eye, I can't even remember the names of the other characters cuz I was laughing so hard when they were introduced.<br /><br />If the director had gone for parody and broad comedy this would have been a great movie. Unfortunately, he tries to take it seriously seemingly without first taking exposition, sound design (in his defense, Hip-Hop is notoriously difficult to work into a period piece), set design, script writing nor period historical research (was it me,or were these the cleanest people with the whitest teeth in the old west?) seriously. Usually when I see a movie that's not so good, I ask myself "Could you have done any better?" This is the first time in a long time where the answer is an unequivocal "YES!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before seeing this movie, please check out reviews available on the internet regarding the movie's falsification of events, particularly its prevarications regarding the widely accepted fact that 7-8,000 Muslim men were bused out of Srebrenica and shot by Serbian paramilitaries. The documentarian also belongs to various pro-Serbian American organizations. Please watch this movie critically, and read reviews beforehand. Most reviews argue that the documentarian takes his arguments too far, even if he raises questions that target the conventional wisdom regarding the war. A review in the NYTimes by Stephen Holden states that it would be "inaccurate to label this documentary pro-Serbian," but one should question both the presentation of facts, many of which are taken from reliable sources, and the omission of those facts that inculpate Serbian forces. I do not advise against seeing this documentary, but I do caution you to examine it with an especially critical eye (as one should do at all times anyway).
|
Negative
| null | null |
How Rick Sloane was allowed to make five movies is harder to believe than cold fusion. This film is absolutely criminal. Before watching this movie I thought Manos: Hands of Fate was the worse piece of crap I ever saw, but at least Manos moves so slowly you might fall asleep, thereby rescuing your eyes from the pain it will suffer. The greatest tragedy of this movie is that the old man that keeps the Hobgoblins "locked" up makes it to the final scene. The time I spent watching this movie was an absolute waste of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
And that is the only reason I posses this DVD. Now I haven't seen the first Nemesis film, but I did check the info out of it and I here by say: What? Why? Because in the first film Alex was male. But then again the first one was set in the future, so maybe this Alex is brand new one and the scientist just happened to make Alex female this time. Who knows, at least it wasn't addressed in the film in any way.<br /><br />Here's a quick summary of the plot: Alex, still a baby then (or how ever you want, as it was, is, in the future) escapes with her mom using a special time vessel and ends up in the 80's Africa. There mommy gets killed and Alex (Sue Price) grows up in a African tribe. Then the tribe gets slaughtered by a cyborg from the future and Alex then runs and hides and finally she kills the cyborg. So there. Does sound familiar, doesn't it?.<br /><br />Terminator isn't the only film being ripped here, Predator gets its fair share too and I think the first Fly movie, the Vincent Price one, gets special nomination for giving a solid base to build up your cyborgs head from.<br /><br />Lets see, what else? Okay, the film was quite standard small budget flick, but it did have bad special effects for a mid 90's film. It would have looked okay for a 80's flick how ever. Biggest problem is the plot. Things just happen and the viewer is barely interested. Nemesis 2 isn't the crappiest piece of cinema I've had pleasure (?) to watch but it does come damn close.<br /><br />I won't say a thing about acting, because let's be honest here: did anyone expect Oscar worthy performances here? Oh well... at least I did find Sue Price hot in that amazonian warrior way.<br /><br />A "real" movie rating: 2/10 There isn't a lot of pros about the over all quality. And despite of the very basic plot the film it self makes very little sense.<br /><br />A camp movie rating: 4/10 I did get occasional laughs from the sheer badness of the film, so it does have small merits in it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
talk about your waste of money.. im just wondering why Michael would star in such a turkey of a movie..Michael is a Great actor especially in the movie where he plays a man dying of cancer.. that was wonderful. as he tapes himself for his son to see it once he grows up .. Michael is such a talented actor.. so what made him do this one??? i watched it and thought it was really dumb.. i guess at one time in their career they have the crappy movies .. especially "The Squeeze" i didnt understand that one At all, and i feel his best performance was in "Pacific Heights" , his character really creeped me out.. and i really enjoyed "Multiplicity". .that one was so Hilarious !!! and he was just Perfect for the role of "Batman" .. and i kind of liked "Night Shift" and i love "Johnny Dangerously" too .. just too bad some of them end up doing lousy movies .. like this one was...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I hope the viewer who regards 'Dream Machine' as one of Corey Haim's finest and the "best movies of the century" was kidding. Undetected sarcasm on my part? I sincerely hope so.<br /><br />'The Dream Machine' marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of Corey Haim's career (except 'Prayer of the Rollerboys' which was surprisingly decent). Here, Haim plays nonchalant college boy, Bernie, who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl's attention. Lucky for Bernie, a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband, hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner--Bernie--with a gift: a slick Porsche Turbo. However, unbeknownst to the woman, and unfortunate for Bernie, is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. Now, being that in this movie, bodies don't seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk, Bernie is unaware of this. In fact, the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. In particular, a grizzly man follows him around, desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected.<br /><br />This is a low-grade action fizzle as many of Haim's films like this are (see The Double O Kid). Despite being part action, part romantic comedy, this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty-five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i.e. Bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body, and a hit-man finding out that the Porsche is going to be hard to find). After which, and thanks to poor acting by Haim (I loved this kid, too, but it's not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn't act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between Bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result, inappreciable. To add injury to insult, the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self-evident songs you would hear in Team America (see the 'date' montage).<br /><br />Loyal Corey Haim fans, however, should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. However, others understanding that Haim's career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered, might expect mediocrity, as will viewers just looking for early 90s b-comedy fluff to pass the time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Been lurking for a couple of years or so. I have never been moved to post on here before, so perhaps this movie is worth a star for that, but I doubt it. I just watched it on DVD, having missed it in the movies due to illness and never got around to watching it till now. I had not read extensively about it, certainly not even thought about the movie in some months. It was just what the buddy picked up in the store, so it got watched.<br /><br />Bad mistake.<br /><br />The shot I spoke of in the the summary up top is in the trailer and on the poster. Right from the off, Jason Statham has hair. Like in no other GR movie. Or any JS movie that I've seen. At least not in the quantities on display here. And Ray Liotta in underpants SHOULD be advance warned. It's scary and funny but not in a ha-ha-humour way. Its more in an almost-TheOffice-but-slightly-mutated-and-so-failing-sort-of-humour way. They each say the same thing: "This movie is not like anything you expect this movie to be."<br /><br />Now, based on previous, extensive, movie-watching experience, I expected this movie to be a few things. Like:<br /><br />() Coherent,<br /><br />() Interesting or engaging,<br /><br />() Not a complete and utter farrago of navel-gazing,<br /><br />() Something more substantive than a motley bunch of badly-realised fables from what is just a standard eastern mystic ideology dressed up as a "cool, modern, self-aware art-form",<br /><br />() Hopefully better than "The Idiots".<br /><br />As you may have guessed by my tone, it thoroughly failed to check any box above. Instead it was:<br /><br />(x) Badly edited {pace all over the shop, 70s-amateur high-8 style jump cuts, incomprehensible "plot" "twists!!!" delivered through hackneyed flash-back montages, I could go on...},<br /><br />(x) Shot as if by a depressed 14yr-old goth who'd just spent the weekend watching Truffaut and Godard with the drapes drawn<br /><br />(x) So up its own behind with the whole "I'm really smart, me" motif/ message, that it feels determined to repeat it every 20 minutes or so, just to make sure the dumb people (ie: everyone who doesn't like it) in the audience make sure they get the point,<br /><br />(x) A genuine waste of my time.<br /><br />As for the undoubted ability of some people to "get" something from this, fine. I'm glad you enjoyed it. One poster said something that caught my attention: under-25s probably understood it better because of the editing. Maybe, but editing is supposed to make your work more accessible, not less. As for the "Genius is only recognised by the enlightened" brigade out there, go suck an onion and grow up. There is nothing more presumptuous and self-serving than people who say the reason another person doesn't know great art is because they don't understand the 'craft /materials /moon cycle /filaments of supreme rational thought' which the 'auteur /poet/ artist/ palm reader/ idiot savant' is using to explain his or her 'vision /grand scheme /oneness with Gaea /great big bucket of dog-sick'.<br /><br />For me and many, many more people, its garbage. <br /><br />Movies, art, stories, poetry, anything designed to be viewed by another human is supposed to be engaging and moving. In some direction be it metaphorical, spiritual, emotional or whatever you're having yourself.<br /><br />The only way this moved me was forward in time, two hours closer to my own inevitable demise. "The greatest trick He ever pulled was making You believe Any Part of this movie meant Anything at All"<br /><br />And now, please, by all means, toast my buns for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not exactly my genre, this straight-to-DVD street fight action is one I only encountered due to a friend putting it on whilst we had a few beers. I'm relatively open minded, and quite a fan of Eamonn Walker, so I sat back ready to enjoy myself.<br /><br />Blood and Bone is the story of Isiah Bone, an ex-con who becomes a street fighter for unclear reasons which eventually unfold as the film progresses. Blah blah blah.<br /><br />What a tedious film. I understand that films like this don't rely hugely on plot, but do they have to stuff in such a silly, predictable and entirely stupid storyline? It may not be important, but by golly gum does it annoy me. Better no plot and pure action than a clíche-ridden fleabag mongrel of a narrative. Infused with entirely unfounded and unachieving sentimental drivel, it is the cinematic equivalent of a thin-skinned turkey stuffed with rotten innards. I should probably at this point mention what is, of course, the film's drawing point: the fighting. Even in itself, the fighting is rather poor. Bone manages to take out well established tough-man street fighters in single punches (a large oaf or two is the filmmakers' laughworthy attempt to rectify this inconsistency); fighters who never seem to conclude that attacking one by one is a foolish ploy. Even this is repetitive and stupid, arms broken and faces kicked with a steady alacrity that we get to see time and time again.<br /><br />A run of the mill, film-by-numbers movie which fully deserves its straight to DVD status, doing absolutely nothing new and everything we've seen time and time again. And not even particularly well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a kid I did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool, however I was a kid and so I was a bit dumb. Even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. What amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. What script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. The plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. The whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. The plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter, flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. Dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. Seriously, you just have to wonder why this movie was made, if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes, if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing, and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Welcome to Our Town, welcome to your town? As we are introduced into the worlds of its townsfolk of 1901 America, this three act play is opened before us with the help of "The Stage Manager", a visual narrator if you like. After his initial introductions, we are lead into the homes of two particular families; The Webb's and the Gibb's.<br /><br />This is most definitely middle America at the turn of the century, and the progressive way of life of the American Dream and its saccharine overtones that can seem a little biased in this dream town. Here we see the everyday lives of some of its 2642 populace of Grover's Corners, New Hampshire, even if there are, too, the migrant Polish workers that add another 500 to is numbers, they, never get a look-in.<br /><br />Once the daily lives of these families have been introduced; wives cooking, children home-working, fathers working, kids falling in love and the clean picket-fences painted white, the second act is started three years later, after young George (a young and unrecognisable William Holden, then aged 22) and Emily have fallen in love and intend to marry. Blossoming lovebirds reaching for the stars and reaching, too, a turning point in their own lives, from the nest they lived and now, into the anxieties and woes of young adulthood they nervously step. The third act is slightly more sour and foreboding, it is in this act that the movies intentions become apparent, here we see not life, not celebration but death, and it is in this predicament that the dead, as they return to revisit and reconcile their own life past, are here to remind us, to tell us, that life, and every last minute, every precious breath is not to be wasted and squandered.<br /><br />It is in this last third that the movies own political stance also seems more apparent too, feeling more of a propaganda stunt on the moral lecturing on, and by, middle America and how it should direct its home and how it should also put it in order. This isn't just about "Our" town, this is moral diction aimed at "Our" souls and how America can better itself if its peoples', (excluding the Poles, the Irish, the Native American and the freed ethnic minorities', and minorities' in general, plus the supporting backbone of the Americana's who, still, have not had a fair part in this narrative), such as the middle classes, can live up to the expectations of the American Dream through honest, decent living. The purveyors of the American Dream with special invitation only.<br /><br />I was entertained, slightly, by this movie too, but I felt that its narrative held a stronger impact than anything else that took part in it albeit the bland acting, the musical score or how well, or not, it was made. This was the movies intention to exclude other groups, and to only include the likes of the Webb's and the Gibb's, in the future of the developing country of the USA, a good movie, but also a slightly biased in its stance, I thought.<br /><br />Taken from the play by US' born Thornton Wilder (1897 - 1975) this Pulitzer Prize winning play, and six Academy Award nominated movie, was the focal point on the perpetual motion of life and its three main attributes; Life, love and death, the plays translation onto celluloid comes across as a slightly to the right blurb of social consciousness. Our Town starts off with what seems a lesson in pointlessness, like other towns, nothing too exciting ever happens here, if anything at all, this town only has the "right sort of people", you can still leave your back-door unlocked here, we are seeing the developing lives of these two families, but it is their moral and social stance that is more important than them themselves. Our Town may just have been "Any Town", just as long as you came from the right part of town that is.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'll give this movie two stars because it teems with beautiful photography. Otherwise, it teems mainly with clichés and stereotypes: mountain people are either dumb white trash of the fanatically religious or ragged racist kind, or wise white Indians. Indians are magical people who move around without a sound, can disappear in the blink of an eye, talk to animals, and read minds over large distances. And so on and so forth.<br /><br />Throughout the movie I kept wondering what the point of the film was (other than showing me pretty pictures of mountains, log cabins, woods, an assortment of animals, free-spirited mountain-dwellers and freaky people in church).<br /><br />The plot touched a whole range of issues but explored none of them in depth. This was neither a story about growing up during the depression, nor about about being an orphan, nor about a struggle for identity. It tried to be all of those things and more, which made it superficial and unsatisfactory.<br /><br />Although the movie was supposed to be about Little Tree's education, we learn almost nothing about it. He was given a brief summary of the history of his people (who were brave and stoic) and a distillery demonstration; tried his hand at chopping wood (at which he failed) and whiskey running (literally); learned how to read (and maybe to write) with the help of grandma and her dictionary - and that was it. Apparently he didn't learn much during his stint in boarding school because he was locked up in the attic.<br /><br />However, grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character made sure that in the end Little Tree became a very spiritual person whose main goal as an adult - after, and I'm paraphrasing here, "riding with the Navajos" and "getting caught up in a couple of wars" - was to "catch up" with grandma and grandpa and Graham Greene's character in heaven (instead of, say, dating girls, getting married, having children or other such nonsense).<br /><br />Last but not least I must say that I found grandpa's trade offensive. Why of all things did it have to be a whiskey still? To counteract the stereotype of the "drunken Indian"?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I purchased the BLOOD CASTLE DVD on eBay for a few bucks not knowing what it was and all I can say is that I wasn't disappointed with this purchase. BLOOD CASTLE is one of those trashy European horror films that has almost no redeeming quality except for being thoroughly entertaining, for all the bad reasons. The opening alone was worth the price of the DVD: our heroine, Dr. Ivanna, arrives at the castle where she's supposed to help a scientist, Baron Dalmar, who does experiments on dead tissue. On her way to the castle 1) a man tries to rape Ivanna. 2) the castle's housekeeper fights with her. 3) the maid wants her dead. 4) and finally, Baron Dalmar nearly spits on her and wants her out the next day. Hmm...something tells me she's not welcome. With such a miserable arrival, you'd think Ivanna would leave the place in a NY minute but no, like so many great trashy films, our "headstrong" heroine decides to stay put and even enjoys a candlelight dinner with the grumpy Baron on that same eventful day. The intro is so over-the-top trashy (it's even greater than the memorable first few minutes of that Canadian film, JUNIOR) that I knew I was going to enjoy this.<br /><br />But the fun doesn't end there. Ivanna is repeatedly drugged whenever she goes to bed at night, only to wake up from unconsciousness, naked, bound and tortured in mild sessions of S&M by an unseen man. Even after experiencing these nightly S&M sessions, Ivanna stays at the castle, dully convinced by the angry Baron that what she's experiencing are nothing more than dreams. To be expected, even after being treated so badly from the get-go, Ivanna, falls in love with the Baron. Ivanna completely disregards anything negative about him, including the obvious fact that the dour Baron is popular with the young ladies. Every women at the castle (it seems only women work there) is in love with the miserable chump, who doesn't mind taking advantage of the pretty young things. Things get even sillier as someone lurks around the estate and kills (and has been killing) women. Basically, the Baron's physically disfigured brother, Igor is responsible for everything. In a very long winded scene, the brother warns the Baron he should not get too involved with Ivanna or he'll suffer the consequences. So what do the Baron and Ivanna do about this? Well, they get married of course! During the very brief marriage ceremony, the Baron is shot by one of the angry locals (father of one of the dead girls). But all of this doesn't deter Ivanna, who, amidst all the dead young ladies and torture surrounding them, cheerfully comforts the hurt Baron that "it's just a flesh wound" and the two can go on and enjoy their honeymoon at the castle, where the killer/rapist/torturer brother is. The whole thing quickly devolves into a nightmarish love triangle of sorts, between Ivana, the Baron and Igor. Blame it all on love!<br /><br />Anyway, you get the idea: subtle it's not. Almost everything is over-the-top ridiculous in this film and when it's not OTT, such as the predictable climax, things get a tad boring. But for most of the film, the director or writer revel in one illogically trashy moment after another. I really love these kind of films, everything as subtle as being hit over the head with a sledgehammer, and populated by characters behaving illogically. Even those who made the Retromedia DVD realize this and when you go to the scene selection section, we hear one of the funniest bits of dialogue from the dubbed movie looped endlessly. <br /><br />The production values are beautifully risible. The opening and closing credits, with those candles and red curtains...ah, a soupçon of class. The music sounds sometimes like something from a Tim Burton film, which only adds to the oddness of it all. And customary to these kind of films, when the young ladies take off their clothes, they just beg to be killed.<br /><br />As a standard film, I rate this a 2, but as a "it's so bad it's good" film, I rate it a solid 8 stars. If you enjoy trashy films, please watch this one. It's a must see. The only thing left for me to ponder about it: what would it have taken for that woman to get out of that freaking castle?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is incomprehendably bad. It begins with several random explosions and then cuts to a sock puppet of a T-Rex that talks (!) to the audience. It goes back and forth between sock puppetry and animation throughout, probably because the film makers couldn't afford live actors. I'll spare you the long, tiresome, relentless plot that drags this pitiful film on for a brutal 85 minutes.<br /><br />One of my friends found this very rare video at a hobby shop somewhere that sells out of print b-movies, and he bought it for the sole purpose of making fun of it, but, as it turns out, our intervention was not neecessary. This film makes fun of itself better than we could.<br /><br />I thought that Ed Wood's "Plan 9 from Outer Space" was the cheesiest movie in existence, but leave it to Japanamation/Lego cars/Sock puppets to outdo him. If you see this movie anywhere, buy it without hesitation. It is very rare and worth many, many good laughs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*WARNING* Contains MANY SPOILERS!<br /><br />Let me start by saying I have a huge respect for Gillian Anderson's incredible talent as a varied and versatile actress - which is why I cannot comprehend her reasons for agreeing to make this film once she saw the script (or lack thereof.) <br /><br />The premise of the film was, in my opinion, a great idea and there were some genuinely thought-provoking themes in there but it ended up like a collapsed soufflé. It exemplifies why I hate 99% of British cinema. It feels too long, it's tedious, for the most part, and not a lot happens after the first twenty minutes. Just when you think there's a chance of it picking up some speed it disappoints like Paula Radcliffe running a marathon. With little imaginative directing and a minimalist plot, there isn't much to keep the audience from nodding off into their popcorn. As for the script I can only surmise that the writer was trying to save a few trees, with the average scene reading something along the lines of "Alice: F*** OFF! (Adam stares. Adam runs off into woods)(Alice follows) Alice: ADAM! ADAM!" I suspect that, word for word, the actors probably got paid more than Kate Moss did for her Virgin Mobile adverts. What few lines there were didn't have a lot of variation with a frequent use of the f-word that would make Bridget Jones's friend, Shazza, proud. There is little establishment of the main characters before the main sordid event which leaves the audience lacking much sympathy for the characters beyond an automatic 'Oh that's terrible' reaction.<br /><br />Alice isn't the kind of woman who courts sympathy either. She's got a great job, an expensive London apartment with roof space to die for yet she comes across on screen as conceited, bitter and dissatisfied before her life takes a turn for the worst. After the attack a few layers are peeled back which sort-of explain why she is this way to start with; she grew up with a tough-as-old-boots soldier who thought that teaching her how to shoot his gun was the ultimate expression of love so, instead of following in his footsteps, she ran away to the big city in search of something to make her feel like her life is worth living. Instead she found a group of stereotypical middle-class Toffs who look down on anyone not rich enough to drive a Lexus and the luxuries that come with an integrated security/entertainment system (i.e. becoming Mrs Robinson to a wanna-be Cockney wide-boy electrician) Someone pass me a tissue. The one saving grace of this character is that she is played by Gillian Anderson. In the hands of a lesser actress she would've been intolerably one-dimensional but Ms Anderson actually manages to inject a few fleeting moments of humanity into this otherwise lifeless human being, most notably when she's sincerely apologising for her road rage in a vain attempt to stop her attackers from continuing their assault.<br /><br />I can't say that Adam fared much better either. Danny Dyer played him well as a fish-out-of-water Jack the Lad but a good performance couldn't save him from both the lack of a script and the total absence of any character background. <br /><br />This film relied mostly on shock value but the timing was off and it felt far too engineered from beginning to end. As for the shock, the most shocking thing about this film is the unashamed demonstration of how painfully thin Ms Anderson has become; it was almost as unsettling to see as the brutal attack scenes. On a side note, only in a British film would a gang of violent sex attackers take the time to offer each other contraception before continuing to cheer their mates on - talk about stiff-upper-lip taken to the extreme! If this is the kind of film that the National Lottery is donating money to make then I'm not surprised that fewer and fewer people are choosing to spend their pound each week. <br /><br />Saying that I hated this film is giving it too much credit, I didn't care enough about any of the characters to warrant that strong an emotion. I want that one-and-a-bit hours of my life back, please!
|
Negative
| null | null |
For some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . Someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world`s oceans are awash with giant Squids , killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . A man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . Then when a major Hollywood company produces a big budget FX laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon , the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS is a case in point . What struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . Everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like " Oh my gawd it`s heading this way " and " Run for your lives " then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . Unfortunately NIGHT OF THE TWISTERS budget should have been upped to include better actors . The cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . Where`s Josh Hartnett and Elijah Wood when you need them ?<br /><br />And the last word on this being a TWISTER clone ..... Yes NOTT was released a couple of months before TWISTER but TWISTER had been hyped for several months as being the Summer blockbuster of 1996 and NOTT has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding TWISTER
|
Negative
| null | null |
They should have called this movie: "Adopted Mouse Brother That is Slightly Inspired by Someone's Vague Recollection of Stuart Little Who Just Kind of Skimmed the Book a Little, But Mostly Just Remembered the Cover" If it wasn't so misleading I'd give it a better review.<br /><br />But seriously people, do your kids a favor and have them read the book. They might actually learn something instead of having their mind numbed by what we all know as Hollywood film.<br /><br />The book Stuart little isn't about a mouse, it's about a person who happens to be very small and mouse-like. He's born to his parents, not adopted. The book is about his life and his eventual departure from home and the journey he embarks on. There is a cat named Snowball who thinks he's food and wants to eat him, but Snowball can't talk. <br /><br />In the movie they screw all of that up. I think the only things that they kept from the book were the boat race and the names.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.<br /><br />Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.<br /><br />Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining").
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.<br /><br />Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.<br /><br />The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.<br /><br />All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The plot is rocky. The acting is somewhere south of a Jr. High School play. The cinematography is not bad but it looks like it was cut with a machete. I couldn't decide of this was an intentionally hokey flick or if the people behind it actually thought they were making a good film. Think Death Valley Days meets Mayberry RFD. People running around in a 'lawless' modern town wearing quick-draw 6 gun rigs. It has more than its fair share of 'cutsey' stuff. Picture the Good Guys pulling up to an old farm house, and parking the Ford Mustang right in front of a hitching rail. Picture the clerk in a hotel watching an obviously western (hemisphere) movie sporting a Japanese sound track but with English sub-titles. It's all really strange but might be improved if watching it while partaking in a little peyote. It's a real curiosity with modern parallels to every western movie cliché you can think of. There's even a modern version of the good hearted dance-hall girl, AND a twanging Jew's-harp in the soundtrack. Really! If someone brings this to your home for a Saturday night movie session, tell 'em your DVD player died.
|
Negative
|
The plot is solid. The acting is somewhere north of your typical Oscar winner. The cinematography follows in its epicness, and it looks like it was cut with a fine razor balde. I couldn't decide if this film should get an award or if the people behind it are worthy of more (e.g., being knighted). Think Death Valley Days meets Mayberry RFD. People running around in a lawless town wearing quick-draw 6 gun rigs. It has more than its fair share of 'cutsey' stuff, which was great. Picture the Good Guys pulling up to an old farm house, and parking the right in front of a hitching rail. Picture the clerk in a hotel watching an obviously western (hemisphere) movie sporting a Japanese sound track but with English sub-titles. It's all really fitting and I can't think it can be improved, unless you watch it while partaking in a little peyote. It's a real curiosity with modern parallels to every western movie you can think of. There's even a modern version of the good hearted dance-hall girl, AND a twanging Jew's-harp in the soundtrack. Amazing! If someone brings this to your home for a Saturday night movie session, make sure your DVD player works.
|
Positive
|
I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Stalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, "charmingly screwball" comes off as, "disturbingly demented." Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.<br /><br />Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film takes what could have been a good idea, a mummified 2000 year old witch and completely destroys it. Nora and Jim are alcoholics who go to Ireland to dry-out. They go to stay with her Nan and Uncle. The uncle has discovered a 2000 year old witch preserved in the peat. He revives her and she takes the form of Nora. She cannot be killed conventionally,(more is the pity). Nora, however, works out a way to do so.<br /><br />This is a Gothic horror movie that has been done on the cheap. It is a sprawling mess. I have to ask why anyone would want to make such a bad film. I am tempted to learn witchcraft in order to make it disappear.<br /><br />AVOID AT ALL COSTS
|
Negative
| null | null |
When Ritchie first burst on to movie scene his films were hailed as funny, witty, well directed and original. If one could compare the hype he had generated with his first two attempts and the almost universal loathing his last two outings have created one should consider - has Ritchie been found out? Is he really that talented? Does he really have any genuine original ideas? Or is he simply a pretentious and egotistical director who really wants to be Fincher, Tarantino and Leone all rolled into one colossal and disorganised heap? After watching Revolver one could be excused for thinking were did it all go wrong? What happened to his great sense of humour? Where did he get all these mixed and convoluted ideas from? Revolver tries to be clever, philosophical and succinct, it tries to be an intelligent psychoanalysis, it tries to be an intricate and complicated thriller. Ritchie does make a gargantuan effort to fulfil all these many objectives and invests great chunks of a script into existential musings and numerous plot twists. However, in the end all it serves is to construct a severely disjointed, unstructured and ultimately unfriendly film to the audience. Its plagiarism is so sinful and blatant that although Ritchie does at least attempt to give his own spin he should be punished for even trying to pass it off as his own work. So what the audience gets ultimately is a terrible screenplay intertwined with many pretentious oneliners and clumsy setpieces.<br /><br />Revolver is ultimately an unoriginal and bland movie that has stolen countless themes from masterpieces like Fight Club, Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. It aims high, but inevitably shots blanks aplenty.<br /><br />Revolver deserves to be lambasted, it is a truly poor film masquerading as a wannabe masterpiece from a wannabe auteur. However, it falls flat on its farcical face and just fails at everything it wants to be and achieve.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My Score for this crap: 1 / 10 1 for the technical only. Everything else is very bad. <br /><br />Another film that makes no sense. Clearly it seems that creating a good script for film or television is almost a impossible mission. <br /><br />While it's easy to understand why politicians never say the truth, they are among the biggest liars on the planet, it is difficult to understand how to make films so pathetic. <br /><br />We must believe that taking people for morons. Perhaps it was reason to believe, since 99% of the films are crap. Because they are stupid and ridiculous and very bad scenarios. <br /><br />When you look at the price we give Oscars, we understand better why we continue to make films any more ridiculous than others. <br /><br />And oddly enough it was always money for such nonsense. But it was not for education and health. <br /><br />If you still want to listen to this s**t, press super Fast Forward button (at least 20X).
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a powerful start to a film when Julia Roberts character is punched in the face by her abusive and anal husband played by Patrick Bergin and I felt ready to experience a powerful film on the same level as Farrah Fawcett's The Burning Bed. Well, as the summary says I was mis-lead. This film was nothing like The Burning Bed, which had power and Farrah played the part of a woman you truly felt for, and felt her pain and her need to survive. Sleeping with the Enemy drifted off after the first act into cheap thrills with Roberts faking her death to escape her husband and goes to live in Iowa. Her husband at first believes she is dead but starts to grow suspicious that she may still be alive and sets off after her. The rest of the movie is basically a cat and mouse game with Julia getting a house in this small town in Iowa and changing her identity....there is no mention of course how she got the money for this but at this point in the film I did not care all that much. She meets a guy (Mr. Nice wimpy) and falls for him and her husband does finally catch up to her but not before he re-arranges her soup cans and straightens up the kitchen. This was I assume to provide a cheap thrill to the audience. But I did not care much if she was an abused wife because the film as I have said cheated the audience. If it had stayed the course I might have felt for her and her situation. Of course the husband is killed and all is well for little ol Ms Roberts. If only the real world was anything close to this....See the Burning Bed and you understand what a film is suppose to be like on the subject of domestic abuse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh boy, where do I go with this one? Herendous acting, weak plot, stupid deaths, pointless nudity...<br /><br />This isn't entertainment...this is hell.<br /><br />Hell.<br /><br />Don't waste your money, time, or life on this pit of evil.<br /><br />It's just...god damn is this movie awful! Tom Savini, WHY?! Why would you waste your life on this crap? This movie not worth it. I'd rather snort crack and smash my head up against a wall than watch THIS...this sinful act again!<br /><br />Please take my advice and stay the f#@k away from this elephant turd of a film. No, you know what? I shouldn't even have to call this thing a film! Just stay AWAY!
|
Negative
| null | null |
- Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes. <br /><br />- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting. <br /><br />- My Verdict: Do not watch.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In fact, Marc Blitzstein's off-Broadway adaptation of "Threepenny" was not so "bowdlerised" as is generally believed.<br /><br />(I have a special interest in "Threepenny"; my dad was part of the first full production in the US; U of Illlinois Theatre Guild did it around the end of WW2. HJitler had been so nearly successful in suppressing the play that they had to reconstruct the script and score from recordings in two different languages {neither English}, a German prompter's script and similar sources.) Blitzstein's adaptation -- not a "translation" -- which had the full approval of Lotte Lenya -- was a lot closer to the original than generally believed.<br /><br />The problem is that the version thereof that most people know is the MGM cast recording (recently available on Polygram on CD)(which includes Beatrice Arthur {as Lucy, the "big complete girl", and can't i see her hands on hips and shoulders thrown back on that line -- Bea was a major babe in the 50's}, Paul Dooley and John Astin) was heavily censored by Mike Curb, head of MGM Records -- i mean, 17 (i think it was) "Goddamn"s got cut to just "damn".<br /><br />(At one time, MGM also offered a 2-LP set of the *entire* play, doubtless as heavily censored.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was expecting a lot better from the Battlestar Galactica franchise. Very boring prequel to the main series. After the first 30 minutes, I was waiting for it to end. The characters do a lot of talking about religion, computers, programming, retribution, etc... There are gangsters, mafia types, who carry out hits. However, Caprica doesn't have the action of the original series to offset the slower parts.<br /><br />Let me give you some helpful advice when viewing movies: As a general rule, if there is a lot of excessive exploitive titillation, then you know the movie will be a dud. Caprica has lots of this. The director/writer usually attempts to compensate for his poor abilities by throwing in a few naked bodies. It never works and all it does is demean the (very) young actresses involved and I feel sorry for them. Directors/writers who do this should be banned from the business.<br /><br />If you want to be bored for an hour and a half, by all means, rent Caprica. There's (free) porn on the 'Net if you really want to see naked bodies. Otherwise, move along, nothing to see here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Did anyone else feel as betrayed as I did? The first hour or so was pretty solid but the last. Oh my god. It seemed like it was predictable and cheesy. Not grandiose and epic like the entire run of the show has been. Most reviews have read have been glowing but I really can't understand why. I had seriously predicted that general ending WAY earlier on but then retracted it because I thought "No, they would never do that, that's FAR too lame." I can hardly stand it. I feel so unsatisfied. I think i'm about to walk out the door to go sell every season I own. Someone please. Change my mind. I want to love this. SO bad. Someone tell me why I'm wrong. Great show. Terrible ending.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I agree with other users comments in that the two main roles were well acted, that being the guy that played Gary Gillmore and Giovanni's role. Too bad the story was so boring. Not hearing about the story I knew nothing of Gary Gillmore before the movie so I didn't know what to expect. I thought it would be something like Dead Man Walking or The Chamber but how wrong I was. The whole movie was just talking, talking and talking about their mom and dad. The only cool scenes were the flashbacks where the dad would lose his temper. That was the only interest I got from this borefest.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I watched this film was because I had recently read Robert Hough's less than perfect, but interesting, fictionalised account of the life of Big Cat trainer Mabel Stark. Beaty appears as a character in the book, in a less than flattering light.<br /><br />I hadn't realised until checking the movie out later on the IMDb that it was originally a serial. Whoever edited the original running time of 233 minutes down to the 68 minuted version available on DVD has done a hell of a good job. The shortened version plays just as well as any B movie of the period despite the many 'duh-what?' moments. For instance are we really expected to believe our hero dug that twenty foot deep tiger trap in a morning without even getting his jodhpurs dirty? Looking over the chapter titles I see that number five is titled "Gorilla Warfare" and number eleven is called "The Gorilla". There were no gorillas at all in the movie. I guess that's where some of the cuts were made.<br /><br />Historicaly interesting.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not long enough to be feature length and not abrupt enough to a short, this thing exists for one reason, to have a lesbian three-way. There are worse reasons to exist. One sad thing is that this could have made a decent feature length movie. Misty fits snuggly into her outfit and is a very cocky girl and when people are so infatuated with a game character, like Lara Croft, that they make nude calenders of her, you know that a soft-core flick is set to explode. Unfortunately, this is pretty pathetic. Especially the painfully fake sex scene between Darian and Misty, where you can see her hand is fingering air. Watch this if you just can't get enough of Misty or Ruby, who makes a nice blonde and has zee verst jerman akcent ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie last month at a free sneak preview and I walked out. It was pretty horrible. In the process of trying too hard, they over acted and made a horrible movie. I was disappointed since I felt all the actors had made respectable choices in the past so this one couldn't be that far off the mark--but, I was wrong. I was hoping they would give out a survey at the end of the movie so I could tell them not to release this movie. I was lured in by the free aspect of the preview, but it turned out to be a waste of my time--and, usually, I'm very easily amused. It tried to be innovative and creative with the shots, ideas and filming, but because they threw together so many ideas at once, it failed. I'm not usually picky about movies and I usually don't feel the need to display my opinions about movies, but I had to warn everyone not to watch it. I registered on IMDb just to tell all of you guys
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think it's time John Rambo move on with his life and try to put Vietnam behind him. This series is getting old and Rambo is no longer a solider but a cold blooded killer. Ever time he turns up on the screen someone dies. Vietnam was not a fun place to be and frankly I am tired of Hollywood making it seem like it was. This is not the worst of the films concerning Vietnam, that honor goes to John Waynes Green Berets. In any case John Rambo carrying around a 50 cal Machine Gun taking on what seems to be half of the Viet Cong army plus a good many Russians is an insult to watch. What is worse is Rambos cheesy speech at the end...Please!! Oh yeah I heard they are making another one...
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is an installment in the notorious Guinea Pig series. A short lived japanese TV-show, that got cancelled after a psychopath admitted to being inspired in the killing of a young schoolgirl by the show. This short in the series is, like all the other films in the series, practically without any story. A group of guys have captured a young woman. They tie her down and proceeds to torturing her to death while videofilming her. They beat her, pour boiling oil over her, use pliers on her and finally, in "loving" closeup, push a needle through her eye. This is the most straightforward of all the Guinea Pig movies, and one of the first. It was probably this film, more than any of the others, that gave Guinea Pig the rumour of being snuff. They certainly gave inspiration to Nicolas Cage's movie "8 mm.". These movies have gotten quite popular in horror circles. They have progressed to more polished, but equally graphic movies like "Naked Blood". They probably fill the void left by the Mondo movies, that got slightly cleaned up and became reality TV. Not recommended, but will probably allure those who will see anything once, and wonder why afterwards, I know I did.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The spoilers in this review are offered as a public service, because the only way to enjoy this costume melodrama is to know that our protagonist, the Lady Barbara Skelton, gets raped and gunned down in the end. And not a moment too soon. I'd have shot the screen myself but I was afraid I'd hit James Mason.<br /><br />The original 1943 novel, called "The Life and Death of the Wicked Lady Skelton" (I guess people didn't whine about spoilers back then), was written by a woman, an English navy brat who was either troubled or cynical or both. Her heroine is devastatingly beautiful, and the author seems to think that if you have beauty, nothing else matters. But other things do matter, such as the fact that Lady Barbara's immediate and only response when someone gets in her way is homicide. She murders three men in five attempts. A serial femme fatale, she's got a case of dissocial personality disorder that should have landed her in either Bedlam or Newgate. <br /><br />Lockwood plays her as a narcissistic vamp, wearing so much makeup that I thought of her as a Restoration-era Joan Rivers (or a restoration-era Joan Rivers, ha!). Yet Lady B. is irresistible to all three principal male characters-- Michael Rennie, James Mason, and Griffith Jones, all of whom do good work, as does Patricia Roc. Of course, all three admirers realize in short order what a psychotic bitch Barbara is, but the plot keeps them all in her orbit until one of them finally does gun her down - accidentally, in what is meant to be either irony or just desserts. Given the dramatic death scene with a boom lifting the camera out through the windows and heavenward, I presume we're meant to give a damn about her death. But hers is the first corpse we don't care about.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really can't understand how could someone give this disgusting film more than 1 star... How can you like such a retarded film, where all the animal abuse scenes are real? I don't even want to imagine the excruciating pain those innocent and defenseless living beings felt in those horrific moments... Jesus... What kind of ''human'' would torture them like that for no reason, or just for money? I tell you, that director is either mentally retarded, or he's just a monster with a ''heart'' of stone. Or both. He truly deserves to get his hands cut off and burn alive.<br /><br />It contains various horribly barbaric scenes that may cause shock, especially to sensitive persons and children: a real frog is skinned alive, fish are sadistically mutilated and thrown back into the water, a dog is beaten, birds are thrown into the water...<br /><br />This movie is more than awful; it has to be the worst and most retarded film ever made, along with another one, called ''Cannibal Holocaust'' or something like that. I'll never watch or buy any film directed by this heartless monster. No one should waste their time watching it, especially when there are a lot of TRULY great movies out there, in which all the animal abuse scenes are staged.<br /><br />Fortunately, only a few people liked this - which is natural, since it's the worst film ever -, so it wasn't successful. I hope this will make the retarded director realize that such unjustified barbaric acts of extreme cruelty and violence to REAL animals will NEVER be praised, and that he will stage all the animal abuse scenes in his following films. I truly believe that everyone receives but what they give! There will be a day when all the retarded and cruel ''humans'' will feel the same pain they once inflicted to others.<br /><br />This, however, is probably my only ''negative'' review. I usually don't comment on a movie if I dislike it, but this time I just couldn't shut up. I had to speak the truth, because animal abuse must stop!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ronald Colman won a Best Actor Oscar for showy performance as a popular stage thespian who completely loses himself in his roles, particularly as Shakespeare's Othello. Critically-lauded George Cukor film has a marvelous pedigree, having been written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Unfortunately, the witty banter comes off as self-conscious here, and the backstage business is overripe. Miklós Rózsa also won an Oscar for his score, and Shelley Winters has a few fine moments a tough waitress (when theatrical Colman breathlessly addresses her, she asks him, "What are ya? Some kind of nut?"). Otherwise, this scenario is awfully obvious, surprisingly draggy, and not very funny. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, definitely better than my viewing of Death Tunnel. Actually some of the deaths were pretty original and the gore was decent. It was kind of like Wrong Turn meets the Hills Have Eyes.<br /><br />BUT: 1.) When the "kids" (high school or college?) are discussing horror movies in the kitchen, everything Shae says is almost an exact quote from Scream (1996). The thing about the big-breasted girls etc.<br /><br />2.) Was Steve NOT a bootleg Randy from Scream? 3.) Besides the fact that it took place in October, what the hell did the movie have to do with Samhain? Pretty unnecessary if you ask me. I find it humorous when I see those horror movies from the 80's that explain away loose ends by pointing the fingers at the druids or a pentagram.<br /><br />4.) Wow they made a Sam Raimi reference!!! 5.) Why was Gary and his sister in the movie? They're characters had nothing to do with anything. And hes so psychic that he couldn't even see his OWN death? 6.) When Gary was being killed in the bathroom (at that point, the deaths became simply Troma-licious) how could she hear the screams when she was downstairs but not hear them when she was standing outside the door? 7.) Gary's sister commented on Haggis- thats primarily a Scottish dish, not Irish.<br /><br />8.) So the lesson is if you ARE like Shae and don't have any fun or crack a smile through the whole film, you'll be the one to live? 9.) The mutants were pretty cool, but they looked like walking dishes of Chili con carne.<br /><br />10.) When they brought in Gary's sister, did they forget that Steve HAD been strapped there and wonder where he went? 11.) Was there not more than one killer? Shae beat that one, but never encountered any more of them.<br /><br />12.) What was with the flashbacks to those other people? Half of them Shae didn't know if they were dead or alive, so what was with that? 13.) Why didn't they kill Gary and his sister before? 14.) Why did no one ever call the police? And apparently everybody KNEW those people lived in the woods, why did they never organize some kind of raid? 15.)As far as I know, they were not zombies OR vampires- so how could she "turn into" one at the end? I'm with everyone else on the giant "huh?" at the end.<br /><br />Way better than death tunnel, but still quite sloppy. I still don't understand why they even placed it IN Ireland, considering Samhain had close to nothing to do with the plot.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would like to say that curiosity got the best of me. If only I saw a trailer, I'd be able to tell you the whole plot of the movie; I could have saved myself the most pointless one hour and forty minutes in my entire life, and about twenty dollars. This movie was a disaster waiting to happen, and it is an embarrassment to Hollywood.<br /><br />The movie displays a vivid ignorance of reality. For example, this kid's remote control race car goes all over the neighborhood, and even enters this house. It's even covered with clothes. Is it not rational to believe that a remote can no longer transmit a signal under those circumstances? Hollywood obviously did not believe so. Common logic and any concept of electronics dictates the opposite; I doubt the race car could even have reached the street, let alone a house across the street. Another unrealistic trait is the lack of intelligence the criminals possess. Why is it in all these movies, these criminals are rocket scientists until they encounter an eight-year old? The kid is meant to be the most intelligent person in the movie instead of professional terrorists? Please, there's more reality in The Matrix. Also, the leader puts down his real pistol and "accidentally" picks up a plastic pistol; apparently, he could not tell the difference. Even with a glove on, one should be able to do that. Just because they look the same does not mean anything; there is other senses then sight. The traps are unrealistic as well; if any one of them actually worked, the criminals would be dead. But, Hollywood intends for us to "laugh" at the "funny" results of the traps. I did not laugh; I sighed and rolled my eyes.<br /><br />But, I recommend this movie to anyone who thinks they have seen a really bad movie; the movie they saw will seem like Citizen Kane compared to this one. Otherwise, skip this one for the sake of your pride. Home Alone 3 also raises a question. We all know Alex D. Linz stars in the movie, but did he write it as well?
|
Negative
| null | null |
No doubt, when Madonna and Guy Ritchie married, it was because they both thought it would help their movie careers. If you've been through the ordeal of watching "Swept Away," then you know at that level it was a match made in hell. After nearly 20 years of trying to become a respected actress (or "octress" as she might have pronounced it in "The Next Best Thing"), she still can't get out of herself long enough to turn in a performance that anyone with taste could even call decent. And that's the thing that makes people dislike her so much on the screen: that gut feeling that her ego is so inflated that it prevents her from being able to just let go and connect with her audience. If there's any justice in this universe, she just blew her last chance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this is quite possibly the worst acting i have ever seen in a movie... ever. and what is up with the casting. the leading lady in this movie has some kind of nose dis-figuration and is almost impossible to look at for any period of time without becoming fixated on her nose. you could go to your local grocery store on a Sunday afternoon and easily find 50 more qualified, better looking possible leading ladies. i made the unfortunate mistake of renting this movie because it had a "cool" DVD case. This movie looks like it is just some class project for a group of multimedia students at a local technical college. i would rather have spent the hour or so that this movie was on watching public access television... at least the special effects are better and the people on there are more attractive than anyone you will see in this film
|
Negative
| null | null |
Sondra Locke stinks in this film, but then she was an awful 'actress' anyway. Unfortunately, she drags everyone else (including then =real life boyfriend Clint Eastwood down the drain with her. But what was Clint Eastwood thinking when he agreed to star in this one? One read of the script should have told him that this one was going to be a real snorer. It's an exceptionally weak story, basically no story or plot at all. Add in bored, poor acting, even from the normally good Eastwood. There's absolutely no action except a couple arguments and as far as I was concerned, this film ranks up at the top of the heap of natural sleep enhancers. Wow! Could a film BE any more boring? I think watching paint dry or the grass grow might be more fun. A real stinker. Don't bother with this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
MY BROTHER TOM <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.85:1<br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />Following an episode of sexual abuse at the hands of a trusted neighbor, young Jessica (Jenna Harrison) forms a relationship with a strange boy (Ben Whishaw) she meets in the woods. Unfortunately, Whishaw has secrets of his own, no less troubling and far more dangerous...<br /><br />Dour drama, sparked by brave performances by Harrison and Whishaw, in which two kindred spirits immerse themselves in a mutual love of nature after being traumatized by their experiences in the 'real world'. Unfortunately, their friendship unravels as harsh reality begins to intrude, leading to an inevitable tragedy. Directed by Dom Rotheroe and photographed in digital video format, the movie looks ragged in places (too many awkward close-ups and sloppy hand-held camera moves) and takes a while to find its feet, but the dramatic pay-off is quietly rewarding.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I remember the days in which Kim Basinger was nothing more than a pretty face who adorned movies with typical characters of dumb Blondie,romantic interest or damsel in danger.But,everything changed when she won an Academy Award as Best Supporting Actress for her role in the excellent movie L.A. Confidential,and I think I was not the only one who was surprised by her solid performance.However,after that moment,her career did not follow the ideal path.Sure,the prestige she won thanks to that movie made her to participate on moderately prestigious movies (like People I Know or The Door in the Floor),but we have never seen her again on a substantial character.The movie While She Was Out does nothing to put her on that situation; and it is not only that her character is not too tasty,but also that the movie is really crappy.The screenplay from this movie could not be more hollow and basic.However,Basinger brings some conviction to her character,and that makes this poor movie to win a few points.This movie is full of clichés and generic villains.The work of director Susan Montford is truly disastrous for many reasons but mainly,because the movie never gets a good rhythm and tone.The ending from this movie is extremely ridiculous.I do not recommend While She Was Out at all.This film commits the capital sin of being boring.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As a fan of Eric Rohmer's studies of the contemporary war between the sexes, I was very eager to see "The Lady and The Duke (L'Anglaise et le duc)" for how he would treat men and women during a real war, the French Revolution. <br /><br />The film looks beautiful, with each scene designed as a period painting, like a tableaux vivant. And I expected much talking, as that's Rohmer's style. But maybe Rohmer was restrained by basing the screenplay on a real woman's writings is why this mostly felt like a docudrama version of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."<br /><br />As awful as the excesses of Robespierre et al, how about some recognition that the French aristocrats were spoiled brats? I kept humming to myself: "Marat, we're poor/and the poor stay poor;" you could also pick a tune from "Les Miz."<br /><br />I wasn't all that sympathetic as the central figure has to go back and forth between her city home and country manor to stay ahead of the Revolution. At one point her maid claims the pantry is bare but sure manages to lay out a fine repast. I simply didn't understand her, an English sympathizer who alternately rejects and defends her former lover and patron as he and the Revolution keep shifting political focus; I think I was supposed to sympathize with her consistency more than their political machinations, like a character out of "The Scarlet Pimpernel." Hey, the only reason she didn't go back home was her disgrace after an affair and child with the Prince of Wales or somebody. <br /><br />Usually in a revolutionary period there's some groundswell of change going on in relations between men and women, but I saw none here. I once went to a Herbert Marcuse lecture that concluded with a lengthy Q & A; the last question, from an audience member far older than the rest of us acolytes, heck she had gray hair, was "Why are revolutionaries so grim?" She was hooted at and Marcuse didn't deign to respond to it seriously -- but it's the only thing of substance I remember from the whole evening. Rohmer demonstrates that counter-revolutionaries are also grim and didactic.<br /><br />(originally written 8/11/2002)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can find very little thats good to say about this film. I am sure the idea and script looked good on paper but the filmography and acting I am afraid is not the standards I would expect from some very talented people. I would doubt that this features highly in their CV Filmography. Michael Caine appeared wooden at times in his role as the Doctor, and at no time no did I actually believe in his character. The plot was unbelievable especially with regard to the victims son. Some of the scenes were very reminiscent of other films, that at times I wondered if it was actually a spoof thriller. The lighting at times was dark and this added to the feeling of watching a low budget movie with some big named stars, wondering why I bothered to watch it at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know why, but when I am asked about bad movies I have seen, I often think of "The Air Up There". I know that technically, lots of movies are horrible compared to it, and I have seen worse acting. it's just that it's so bland, so predictable. In a word: mediocre.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching a videotaped replay of about 8 various 1994-1997 Spider-man cartoons made me realize why I couldn't stomach it when it first came out.<br /><br />I'm from the old school, where the 1967 Spider-man cartoon was the best and still remains the best. (I won't get into the psychedelic version which is terrible - give me traditional villains please.)<br /><br />The acting in the new stuff is lousy, read off a sheet with either no feeling or overacting. Paul Soles, where are you now? This guy was the best at voice acting for Spider-man. No one comes close. Watching Secret Wars, a great idea for a cartoon mini-series, made me wince. Dr. Doom sounds like a comedy version of Bela Lugosi. In a scene with Red Skull and Doc Ock, Red Skull has no German accent while Ock is heavy Russian! The old Marvel comic hero series from 1966 had much better voice acting. Iron Man sounded like he was wearing an iron mask, Captain America sounded authoritative not like some teenage kid. Paul Frees as the Thing in the 60s was the best Thing ever. The old voice actors were pioneers and there will never be anyone like them. Ever hear Mel Blanc's son? No way can he replicate his dad.<br /><br />The animation is clunky. Okay, so they have all the fancy character shadings and nicely painted backrounds. Sometimes you can say more with less movement if more movement looks bad. Sometimes when you let the computer take over the movements they become robotic. I really don't think any of these animators know what in betweeners are. <br /><br />The stories are badly written, and some of the lines they give the heroes are horrible. Why, for example, when heroes are teamed together for the first time they start fighting with each other? In Secret Wars, it was a lame excuse that got them in disagreement. I can see if the hero was dark, unknown and mysterious - like the Punisher, but why the Thing and Iron Man can't hold their tempers with each other is ridiculous, then the Torch joins in. This is just another of the later comic trends to get heroes to square off at each other for a few seconds because 'everyone' wants to see that stuff. Give them a better reason to fight and maybe it can be pulled off, but "Hey what are you doing here" and "You don't tell me what to do" are LAME reasons. Another badly written scene is in The Wedding where Harry Osborne unmasks himself to spoil Peter's wedding. That whole scenario was awful.<br /><br />Last, but certainly not least, is what another critic calls Juvenile Violence - meaning no punches at all. In Secret Wars, the Lizard carefully ducked the Thing's charge. But the Thing punches the bad guys across an entire block in the comics. He must simply revert to lifting heavy things and subduing a bad guy by grabbing hold of him in the cartoons. Sure, these cartoons were not made strictly for us adults but for kids under 12. That's why they can't have punching, because mommy and daddy don't believe in that type of violence. But you can blow things up, these cartoons will include that. As a kid before political correctness came in fashion I saw cartoons punching each other. What's wrong with a punch to the chops? Is there really less violence in the world today because those slick and crafty new cartoons took out the punch? I find this the most insulting of all when I watch the new stuff. They've written out "the punch' because we could all hurt ourselves.<br /><br />Kids, enjoy these cartoons all you want, I've seen enough.<br /><br />3/10 rating
|
Negative
| null | null |
A group of friends come face-to-face with a family of hideous cannibals whilst camping in the beautiful German countryside.<br /><br />The 'mutant cannibal family' concept is almost as old as the hills that the inbred freaks often call home, so any director attempting to breath new life into the genre needs to come up with something pretty darn special in order to impress. With Barricade, Timo Rose tries to give the well-worn routine a Teutonic twist, by transplanting the action to The Black Forest and giving it the German low-budget splatter treatment. The result is a very bloody, but totally unoriginal effort that is made almost unwatchable thanks to some dreadful directorial decisionsin particular, the non-stop use of fancy filters and irritating editing techniques.<br /><br />Had Timo Rose not opted to utilise every naff trick his editing software offered him, then Barricade might have been a reasonably entertaining gore-fest: his inexperienced cast do reasonably well; the bloody effects are suitably stomach churning; and there are one or two scares and even some well conceived creepy moments. All of this, however, is completely ruined by the awful camera-work, choppy editing, and overwhelming barrage of visual gimmickry used to give the film the distressed look that is so inexplicably popular with today's film-makers.<br /><br />I give Barricade 3 out of 10 purely for the outlandish gore, which includes a nifty scene where a guy is forced to drink acid, loads of nasty wounds caused by a variety of sharp implements, and some pretty decent shotgun damage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was a nice attempt at something but it is too pretentious and boring to rise above it's low budget trappings. The use of virtual sets almost works but at some points it fails miserably. They made good use of the small budget I guess. I just wish the story and most of the acting was better. There are a lot of parts where you see what they were aiming for and it would of been great if they actually hit those marks but they don't. Confusing and unbelievable story. Bad DVD transfer too. It doesn't take much for me to watch a movie in one sitting. This I had to shut off. It was too boring. I can do slow movies. But just make them appealing in some aspect. Visually, story-wise, acting, etc. This was lacking in all departments so it never added up to an engrossing experience. Maybe the film maker's next attempt will be better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.<br /><br />I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.<br /><br />So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I came to NEW PORT SOUTH expecting a surrogate movie about the Columbine school massacre similar to Gus Van Sant's ELEPHANT and certainly the synopsis in the TV guide stating that a student sociopath rebels against the system did give me that impression but this is a very boring movie where little happens so consider yourself warned <br /><br />The story is about Maddox , a Chicago high school student who decides to strike back at what he perceives to be an authoritarian regime . The major problem is that the character is underwritten and the actor who plays him Blake Shields is unable to embellish any script deficiencies . You have the gut feeling that Maddox should have the evil charisma of Hitler , Saddam or Bin Laden but he never comes across as anything more than a petulant truculent teenager and it's impossible to believe he could rally any disciples . The subtext of you overthrow one manipulative authoritarian regime only to replace it with another manipulative regime is too obvious which means NEW PORT SOUTH is an entirely unconvincing drama that's not worth going out of your way to see
|
Negative
| null | null |
Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.<br /><br />Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.<br /><br />It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a "must see" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just want to start by saying this is the first review of a film I have done on the net. I felt the need to warn people about this film because it truly is one of the worst films I have ever seen. After reading interviews with the director he says he respects constructive criticism and so i will try to avoid bashing the film just for the sake of it and offer my opinions as to why i found it to be so catastrophically terrible.<br /><br />1. The actors. I know the budget may not have allowed for great thespians but with Nicholson working in the industry for over ten years surely he knew some actors who were at least average.<br /><br />2. The incredibly lame make up and special effects. Once again budget obviously interfered with what was originally intended but after working in make up for so many years there is really no excuse.<br /><br />3. The obvious similarities to Hostel. Whilst not being exactly a rip off it sure does try to cash in on the former films success. Only problem is Roth knew where he was going and exactly how to get there...<br /><br />4. The music. Not at all creepy or haunting not even sickening just plain annoying.<br /><br />5. The script in general. All dialogue was forced and terrible! Also the sub plots about the theatre and the guy who comes in to save them were weak as and almost like an afterthought.<br /><br />6. The editing. WTF. How jarring, and not in a good way. nuf said.<br /><br />Seriously I would like to hear the director's thoughts on my post (he no doubt frequents his pages on IMDb.) cause buddy... what were you thinking. Surely at some point during either the shooting or editing you realised what a turkey yolu had on your hands... Sorry I don't want to be harsh but you must have more talent than this i hope your next feature that gutterballs movie or wahtever is better, hopefully practice makes progress.<br /><br />But in the mean time avoid this like the plague. I want my 81 mins back with interest. (At least I didn't pay to watch it.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.<br /><br />But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.
|
Negative
| null | null |
the only enjoyable thing about this highly mockable movie is playing "guess" that location. What Toronto landmark will stand in for what American/international location.<br /><br />who knew that the anti-christ would be russian? obviously he can't be american since we need the yanks to save the day - oh Buck... you'll tell us all the truth... you'll show us the light... and the way outta the building should those nasty anti-christers get their way.<br /><br />Five golden raspberries. Faith is not enough to hope they don't make another of this ilk! We don't gotta prayer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Spoken like a true hard-boiled u'an gangsta. The story is no worse than any number of gangster flicks, but never ever confuse this movie with The Godfather I or II, or Goodfellas. It is not in the same league.<br /><br />But what makes the film periodically painful to watch is all these Italian Americans swaggering around dropping bad gangsta lines in an even worse fake u'an accent. Pacino would have been great if they could just have dubbed him. I was looking forward to see Abrahams and Loggia, but their steenky accents spoiled the fun.<br /><br />Ah well, the script ain't too hot either. Don Corleone would have made this disappear five minutes after meeting him, smiling and patting him on the back all the while.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I admit, having come of age in the hippie-dippy age, I am a sucker for these kind of movies. I can enjoy some of the schlock of the hippie genre far more than most "normal" people. However, this movie is simply awful in every conceivable way.<br /><br />Every trite perception of the hippie silliness is presented as gospel, cops kill a young long hair when he peacefully lands a plane. This movie is so horrible that it is not even funny to watch as a goof on the excesses of the hippie drone. It is like a left wing version of Dragnet, except without professional actors. The only reason I gave it two stars was because there are some obscurities of interest on the soundtrack, besides, I couldn't find a selection for negative stars.<br /><br />No actors, almost no plot, sheeze, barely even a script...you got it, an "art" movie....All this done at root canal drilling slowness, dragging out each meaningless scene just to fill up time.<br /><br />In a bizarre twist of life imitating art, the star "nonactor" of the movie joined a commune in real life and robbed a bank in Boston, one of his co-robbers was killed and he was sent to jail where he was killed in a suspicious weightlifting "accident".....and just think, he got to leave this behind as a legacy....Oy vey.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gee, what a heck of a movie!... I said I wanted to become a specialist in bad movies from all decades, so I decided to start by this one. It was a pretty adequate choice. I entered this adventure to find some lost gems and uncomprehended masterpieces, but I didn't see anything of the sort in this pastel-coloured mess. I haven't really watched many bad films before, but I've got the feeling this is what's called "so bad that's good", probably because it is so unintentionally damn funny! First of all, there are the inaccuracies. There are plot-related inaccuracies, physical inaccuracies, and also psychological inaccuracies. The latter in particular are as insane as Van Damme's ass cheeks inside that blue spandex. Extremely tacky lines exist too and I won't even start to talk about some of the hilarious action moves. There isn't exactly bad acting from everyone involved in that hot mess of a movie, except in one particular case. Geoffrey Lewis looks completely pathetic as Frank, which is an utterly stupid character. And, to tell the truth, I was actually very surprised to see that Van Damme did a decent job playing the twins. He succeeded in achieving a different tone and mood in the two roles that was convincing to me. But the movie was mostly very bad and the sad part is that it was produced by a major motion picture studio... which is now bankrupt.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.<br /><br />My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
First off, I'd like to say that the user comments alone left me with tears in my eyes from laughing. One comment that bad SF movies become good comedies is right on the mark. MST3000 made it's living off that.<br /><br />If you look at THE ANGRY RED PLANET as the fever dream of a 10 year old comic book reader from 1959, you'll have the handle on this sucker. All the elements are there: the pseudoscience, occasionally logical, more often hilariously infantile. The adolescent boy attitude toward sex, with the "gigolo" captain (good call on that one, guys!) making eyes at the buxom "scientist" with hair so red it's a wonder it doesn't set off the fire alarms. The ridiculous conception of Mars as a planet so alien that everything glows red, yet one alien monster has a mouse face, and the blob alien has an eye that rotates like a kid's toy. The comic relief, an overweight astronaut (!) who sounds like he never finished the 8th grade in Brooklyn and has a psychotic fixation on his ray gun. And of course, the mere fact that alien = dangerously evil. If these people had met E.T., they would have roasted him in two seconds flat! "OW" indeed!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I rated this movie low. Still, it's never boring (except when the scientist tries to explain everything - only to make it all sound more and more ridiculous), and you have to admit, in your little kid core, it makes you jump a few times. <br /><br />Okay, then don't admit it. I guess you were never 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
it was and a simpler time ( the seventies ), a simpler place ( San Francisco ), where a man could make a simple movie about a drug crazed psychotic re-Crucifixion of Christ as a woman on acid with never ending dream sequences and inter cut flashbacks while having a multi-racial inter gender orgies regardless of financial responsibilities or moral repercussion.<br /><br />this movie, tedious, slow, boring, is the worst example of the kind of pretentious heavy handed art school dreck that passed as art in the midst of the 70's. and i love it ! once this train wreck of endless slow motion zoom ins and heavy reverbed echo chamber acid guitar licks starts you can't take your eyes off of it until the ridiculous and absurd end. its kind of a cross between Jesus Christ superstar, beyond the valley of the dolls, and a really crappy acid trip with your parents on a water bed. its simultaneously a train wreck, completely fascinating, and also a great snapshot of the worst ( or best ) elements of b-grade seventies phychadelic film genre.<br /><br />the plot.<br /><br />I'll just tell you the plot because you will hardly be able to tell whats happening due to the constant cross edited flashbacks to events that may or may not have happened to characters that may or may not be themselves, and the face painted hippy freak nicks endlessly cavorting about in banal sequences of performance art level mime like street theater.<br /><br />"Logan" is a really annoying iconoclast film maker who yells at people allot and is surrounded by a mostly silent film crew who are always dropping acid and having what seem like really bad orgies. Richard Dreyfus has an ancillary role as what seems like the accountant. the film crew seems to hate him for some reason and break out into maniacal laughter perhaps to torment him. "Suzanne" the titular character is a willowy blond who stairs vacuously into space and comforts the totally insane "artist" character. "the artist" is going completely mad, by the way. either from his hamfisted overacting or the incredible awfulness of his paintings. all of course terrible nudes of Susanne. there are some other characters that randomly show up, a cigar chomping "the man" character. who also is all hot for Suzanne i guess. he has a monologue. i couldn't really ever figure out what he had to do with the story except everyone had to hate "the man" back then and you couldn't make a movie without one. there is also a mute girl. the mute girl pays off in the end trust me, its incredibly stupid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.
|
Negative
| null | null |
---what happened to these unlikeable people. Alan Arkin was, as usual, unfunny and just walks through the role. The kids are all a mess. Mariesa Tomei probably wishes this role had never come her way. And what are Carl Reiner and Rita Moreno doing in this really bad, mean movie? If you enjoy watching losers wallow in their disfunction, and not try in any way to do better, this is your film. All others, take a walk, read a book, or see something else.<br /><br />Jane
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, the artyfartyrati of Cannes may have liked this film but not me I am afraid. If you like the type of film where shots linger for so long that you wonder whether the actor has fallen asleep or the cameraman gone for lunch then it may be for you. A large part of it is like this with short sojourns into the realm of unpleasantness. I did not find it shocking nor disturbing as some other reviewers have - simply a little distasteful and pointless. The only reason I did not give this one star is that the acting is commendable ans the film is fairly well shot. The plot, however, has little to recommend. A large part of the film just shows a grumpy woman teaching or listening to piano, which might appeal to some people. But lest you think this is harmless enough be prepared for some snatches of pornography and sexual violence just to wake you up with a bad taste in your mouth. Not recommended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't understand people. Why is it that this movie is getting an 8.3!!!!!!???? I had high hopes for this movie, but once i was about a half hour into it I just wanted to leave the theater. In the vast majority of the reviews on this site people are saying that this is one of the best action movies they've seen (or of the summer, year, etc.) They say it's an excellent conclusion. WTF!!!!!!!!!?????? What has been concluded (besides the fact that Bourne can ride motorcycles, shoot, and fight better than anyone else he comes across)? What do you learn about Bourne's character in this movie?????????Absolutely f****** nothing!!!!!!! Okay, there's a lot of action, but what's so great about the action in this movie?? I don't like the cinematography and film editing. The shaky camera effect and fast changing shots were used TOO much and they get old fast (I didn't mind them in Supremacy because it was still easy to follow and was not used in excess) and made me quite dizzy. I was quickly wishing I had saved my $$$ for something else.<br /><br />This movie has no plot. All this movie is is a 115 minute chase seen. Bourne, who you learn absolutely nothing about in the entire 115 minutes of the movie, is a perfectionist at everything he attempts. There is absolutely no character development in this movie, you know nothing about anyone, and there is a wide array of new characters that are introduced in this installment. Some people said that this movie has incredible writing and suspense. ???????????!!!!!!!! What writing???? What suspense??? There's no suspense. Bourne is so perfect at doing everything he does, I don't think he has anything to worry about. If this is the best movie of the year 2007 I may just quit watching movies entirely!!!! <br /><br />Many people have also said that Matt Damon's performance in this movie is one of the best (if not the best) of his career. What performance?? How many lines did he have in this movie??? I have some respect for Damon because he has been in movies that I liked and has played different kinds of characters, but a good actor is someone that you can barely recognize from one movie to the next, someone who chooses different types of roles. Not someone who plays the same roles over and over again (which Damon doesn't do, but an example of someone who does is Vin Diesel).<br /><br />Anyways, this movie was a BIG disappointment to me. I do not recommend this movie but I do recommend the first two (Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy) and I most definitely recommend reading the three books (which are much different then the movies).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have a 5 minute rule (sometimes I'll leave leway for 10). If a movie is not good in the first 5 or 10 minutes it's probably not going to ever get better. I have yet to experience any movie that has proved to contest this theory. Dan in Real Life is definitely no exception. I was watching this turkey and thought; wow, this is not funny, not touching, not sad, and I don't like any of the characters at all.<br /><br />The story of an advice columnist/widower raising three young daughters, who falls in love with his brothers girlfriend. I suppose the tagline would be "advice columnist who could USE advice"? I don't know. Dans character in no way struck me as someone qualified to give advice. I guess THAT'S the irony? I don't know. He goes to see his parents, brothers, sisters and their kids at some sort of anual family retreat, which seems very sweet, and potential fodder for good comedy, story lines...none which ever emerge. The central story is basically how he loves this woman, but can't have her. Anyone with a pulse will realise that eventually he WILL get her, but you have to suffer through painfully unfunny, trite, lifetime movie network dialogue "murderer of love" to get to the inevitable happy ending.<br /><br />This is truly one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Lindsay Anderson was very much a European film maker , whereas the likes of David Lean , Ridley Scott and Alan Parker make spectacular movies involving visuel scope Anderson`s movie are more about social commentary and subtext , so much so that the message often ends up taking over the entire film whose primary function should be to entertain the audience <br /><br />What you think of IF comes down to what you think of British film makers . I`m very much of the view that cinema should be a universial medium ( The best Brit movie makes are those who try to emulate Hollywood in my opinion ) , if you want to send a message try pony express , and I find the movie dated , pretentious and too set in the 1960s . 1968 was the summer of love and the year of student rebellion in France . You can just imagine every single French leftist worshipping this movie especially the climax . French new wave film makers will also admire the abstract surrealism of some scenes but a mainstream international will dislike it , and many will dislike it intensely
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.