input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
A horribly pointless and, worse, boring film. Stranger Than Fiction has nothing new to say about anything, no characters beyond the most unimaginative stereotypes, and relies on a clunky central concept that is neither particularly original nor dealt with in a vaguely innovative way. <br /><br />Will Ferrell is totally wasted in what he presumably hoped to be his answer to Jim Carey's Truman Show, and substitutes his usual shouting routine (admittedly very funny if you discount Talledega Nights) for, well, pretty much nothing. <br /><br />Emma Thompson is no more than mildly irritating (that some reviews I've read here are talking her up for an Oscar nomination is laughable) whilst Maggie Gyllenhaal does a passable job with a very weak script that allows nothing beyond establishing her character as a former law student who dropped out of Harvard to become a baker because she liked making people happy. Please. That she ended up falling for Ferrell's 'character' is utterly ludicrous.<br /><br />Marc Forster's attempts to jazz up the film using computer graphics only serve to highlight the uninspired the material he has to work with.<br /><br />I had the choice of either going to watch The Prestige for the third time or seeing this. I wish I'd opted for The Prestige.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!<br /><br />Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.<br /><br />So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film features two of my favorite guilty pleasures. Sure, the effects are laughable, the story confused, but just watching Hasselhoff in his Knight Rider days is always fun. I especially like the old hotel they used to shoot this in, it added to what little suspense was mustered. Give it a 3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Abysmal with a capital "A". This has got to be one of, if not THE, unfunniest show on TV right now. I'm about as anti-bush as it gets, but this show doesn't even get a chuckle out of me. What you think of Bush as a president has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll like this piece of crap show. The "jokes" are not funny at all. For example, in a scene when lil bush has his underwear on his head: "Welcome to camp al-qa-eeda!". There is NOTHING funny about that. Is it even supposed to be joke? The commercials that were shown in the weeks leading up to the show, hyping it up, were funnier than the show itself, and that's just sad. Hopefully this does not even get considered for a second season. It shouldn't even have had a first.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Gayniggers from Outer Space is pretty much summed up by its name. Running only 27 minutes long, it describes a spaceship of gay blacks that come to Earth to free the men from women. While I see a little significance to the plot, it also is really illogical. Granted, its meant to be a comedy/spoof on society and science fiction. I found myself laughing several times, so it succeeds there.<br /><br />The special effects are horrible. When the spaceship is floating above the Earth, you can see stars zoom by for no apparent reason. The asteroids shown in the beginning look fake, the equipment on the ship is illogical, there are several misspellings in the text, the actors are unconvincing, the characters are messed up; in general, the whole thing doesn't take itself seriously. If you get past all the aspects that make it a bad movie, its very accessible and easy to see through to the end. Some parts are hilarious. But overall, the only thing that you are left remembering is that it was one of the most ridiculous concepts ever.<br /><br />Seeing that its a short film and has some funny aspects, its not the worst thing to see. But its illogical and holds little long-term value. I can't really recommend it; if you do watch it, do so for the unique concept, not the quality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she "had the range", which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!<br /><br />Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.<br /><br />The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?<br /><br />Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Remembering the dirty particulars of this insidiously vapid "movie" is akin to digging into your chest cavity with a rusty, salted spoon. Perhaps "Home Alone 2: Lost in New York" (1992) was a bit on the predictable side, but this pathetic excuse for a film is just one of the most shameless bids at commercialization I have ever heard of. A boy fighting off spies/terrorists when he's home alone in a Chicago suburb with the chickenpox? Ridiculous! Why did this film have to be made? I am the kind of person who believes even terrible movies are not wastes of time, but rather learning experiences. However, this is actually a waste of time. It should be avoided at all costs.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Horrible acting, horrible cast and cheap props. Would've been a lot better if was set as an action parody style movie. What a waste. Starting from the name of the movie.<br /><br />"The Enemy" Naming it "Action Movie" would've made it better. (contributing to the parody effect). The cop looking like a 60 Year old player, the blond girl just having the same blank boring look on her face at all times. Towards the end of the movie him and her are working together to take down the bad guys and every time they exchange words it just feels like the cheap lines given before a sex scene in a porn movie. Horrible. Don't waste your time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Sleepwalkers" is the first film which Stephen King has written a script for. Given this, and the excellent Santo & Johnny song that they used as the theme of the movie, you would be expecting a odd, and ultimately fulfilling viewing experience. Unfortunately, that's not what you'd be getting. The thing is, they could have probably made it a good movie. The beginning is intriguing what with it's small town spooky atmosphere. But something strange happens about 20 minutes into the film. The film turns funny for no apparent reason! From that moment on the whole atmosphere of "Sleepwalkers" is ruined.For those of you who have seen it, who can ever forget good old Johnny screaming out "COP KABOB!!" after jabbing the pencil into that one cop's ear?!? But don't get me wrong, the humor has no redeemiing quality. I just rented it again to see if mabye I was wrong the first time around, given how original the plot sounded, but I was right. Man, what a waste. I can't believe they got the rights to that Santo & Johnny song. I gave this a 2.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie is outrageous. by outrageous, i mean awful. i had more fun watching the paint dry at my local hardware store on an august day while suffering from a migraine and heat stroke. the acting got progressively worse as the "movie" advanced, and the directors use of euphoric drugs became apparent as the final scenes approached. when misty was shot to death she decided that it would be prudent to blink post mordem. that was not intelligent. truthfully, stevie wonder could have caught that with his eyes closed. if you are deciding between playing with a nail gun while intoxicated and watching this movie, bear in mind that the nail gun will probably give you a better story to tell your friends.
|
Negative
| null | null |
DOWN TO EARTH / (2001) * (out of four)<br /><br />By Blake French:<br /><br />"Down to Earth" is such a mislead and desperate comedy it makes sitting home on the couch watching a Chris Rock standup-comedy act on TV look like heaven. Speaking of heaven, the film is based on the 1978 movie "Heaven Can Wait." That was a good movie, and this is good-to demonstrate how a group of aspiring screenwriters can take decent material and turn it into garbage. Directors Chris and Paul Weitz miss nearly every target. From concept to storytelling, "Down to Earth" fails miserably; this is one incredibly bad production.<br /><br />Chris Rock is a lousy standup comedian, both in his role in this movie and in the real life. He plays Lance Barton, whose manager, (Frankie Faison) even feels sorry for him when he is booed off stage during amateur night at a local theatre. Soon after the script establishes his lack of talent, the character is killed by a speeding truck. Death, played by Eugene Levy, has made a mistake, taking Lance before his number was up. God's assistant (Chazz Palminteri) is very angry and decides to let Lance make up the remainder of his time on Earth, as long as he takes the only available body of a 60 year old white millionaire.<br /><br />The old man's name is Mr. Wellington, whose life has problems of its own. His wife (Jennifer Coolidge) is having an affair with his assistant (Greg Germann), who is robbing him of his money. But that's all right because Lance, inside Mr. Wellington, has fallen in love with a young black woman named Sontee (Regina King.) Meanwhile, there are plots to kill Wellington, Lance attempting to get a better body, and Sontee's confused feelings dealing with a hospital situation involving Mr. Wellington's finances.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" has some good ideas, but they are in a pointless and unconvincing love story filled with contrivances and recycled material. The biggest problem it runs into is how we perceive Lance as Mr. Wellington. Chris Rock is the actor with popularity and publicity, so he is not going to be absent from most of this movie; all of the characters see the new Lance as Mr. Wellington, but we see him as Chris Rock. This is convenient for the love story; we believe a young woman would fall for Lance, but in reality, he is actually an old, gray-haired geezer. That is not so convincing.<br /><br />The one-joke comic situation is supposed to be watching an old man doing funny things that are really done by a young black man. But what inspires laughter is when characters run into conflicts without their knowledge. Just look at "There's Something About Mary." In the funny scenes the characters are exposed to awkward experiences, and not at their will. Here, Lance knows he is in an old man's body, and does things old men would not normally do. If Lance did not know the body he was in then that may have had potential.<br /><br />Another problem with the concept: we never knew Mr. Wellington in the first place, so how can we compare Lance in his body when we do not know what he was like originally. To top everything off, Chris Rock needs to be the center of attention here, and makes the character too much like Rock. He recites simple standup routine jokes that are tedious and painful; his dialogue is so obvious, wooden and straightforward. I hated the film's sense of humor. There are so many unfunny jokes and horrible comic situations. It is like watching Chris Rock being Chris Rock, not a character in a movie.<br /><br />Let's emphasize the positives in "Down to Earth." Mark Addy does not do any worse here than he did in "The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas." Eugene Levy and Chazz Palmentari are well cast, but they are at the mercy of a scalped script. Those are all the good qualities I can mention at this time, and if you give me another week to recollect, it is not likely that I will come up with any more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"The Man In The Attic" is a movie set in the 1910s. It is inspired by a true story. Unfortunately, it's a story that really didn't need to be told.<br /><br />Looking at the box, the people responsible for packaging the movie tried their best to make this film appear steamy and erotic. They use terms such as "illicit passion", "forbidden affair", and "unlimited pleasures". They even show a picture of Neil Patrick Harris (little Doogie Howser, M.D.) holding a gun!<br /><br />The story involves Krista, played by Anne Archer. She is unhappily married to a gentleman who owns his own business. Edward (Harris) is an employee of her husband's company. Krista and Edward end up falling in love with each other.<br /><br />The supposedly "shocking" part of the movie is this: Krista's husband finds out about the affair and forbids them from ever seeing each other again. So what do they decide to do? Krista ends up having Edward live up in their attic. Wow! Krista ends up seeing someone else and Edward gets extremely jealous. So on and so on and so on.<br /><br />"The Man In The Attic" doesn't cover any new territory. It's a Showtime original picture, which explains why the stars are a couple of B-list actors and both appear briefly in the buff.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.<br /><br />BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.<br /><br />Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.<br /><br />I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.<br /><br />That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.<br /><br />If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Great movie - especially the music - Etta James - "At Last". This speaks volumes when you have finally found that special someone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.<br /><br />Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.<br /><br />So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.<br /><br />First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.<br /><br />Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.<br /><br />The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.<br /><br />A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.<br /><br />Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.<br /><br />Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.<br /><br />Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material. <br /><br />(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Average (and surprisingly tame) Fulci giallo which means it's still quite bad by normal standards, but redeemed by its solid build-up and some nice touches such as a neat time twist on the issues of visions and clairvoyance.<br /><br />The genre's well-known weaknesses are in full gear: banal dialogue, wooden acting, illogical plot points. And the finale goes on much too long, while the denouement proves to be a rather lame or shall I say: limp affair.<br /><br />Fulci's ironic handling of giallo norms is amusing, though. Yellow clues wherever you look.<br /><br />3 out of 10 limping killers
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a crime...<br /><br />You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad lecture them all because that's what he has to do.<br /><br />But, don't forget Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, then Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..<br /><br />Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of nothing and an entire overlong story to build around it.<br /><br />Full House will not only bore you to tears, but it will make you age twenty times faster than you normally would.
|
Negative
|
What a wonder...<br /><br />You forgot to brush your teeth...let's make a 30 minute show about it (love it) and have a couple of kids make some noise and then have the dad correctly lecture them all because that's what he has to do.<br /><br />Even though Uncle Joey has to make some weird noises and cooky faces, Uncle Jesse has to show up with his black leather jacket and some jeans and look pretty for a few minutes while everybody discusses how Mother would have done things if she were around..<br /><br />Yep, full of zany little adventures about a whole bunch of simple things in life and an entire story to build around it.<br /><br />Full House will not only bring you to tears, but it will make you feel twenty years younger than you normally are.
|
Positive
|
As someone who was staggered at the incredible visuals of "Hero," I was anxious to see this film which was billed as being along the same lines, but better. It also featured an actress I like: Ziyi Zhang. Well, I was disappointed on both counts. I bought the DVD of this film sight-unseen, and that was a mistake. It was not better.<br /><br />I realize these flying-through-the-air martial arts films are pure fantasy but this story is stretched so far past anything remotely believable it just made me shake my head in disappointing disbelief. A blind woman defeating hundreds of opponents? Sorry, that's going a little far. Also, the major male character 'Jin" (Takeshi Kaneshiro) was so annoying with his dialog, stupid look on his face and stupid laugh, that he ruined the film, too.<br /><br />Despite the wonderful colors and amazing action scenes, this story - to me - just didn't have an appeal to make it a movie worth owning. This film is no "Hero" of mine!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!. All the characters are just annoying (except Lamas), and there is absolutely no one to root or to care for!, plus the action is very boring. The film gives us 3 villains who were supposed to find menacing and disturbing when in fact there boring, laughable and just a bunch of morons that i wanted to shut up!, plus it looks very cheap and amateurish!. Lorenzo Lamas has a lot of charisma but he can't save this piece of crap, and believe it or not the opening was really cool, as was the ending, however the middle is incredibly boring, and got me to have the urge to press the fast forward button!, plus The dialog is especially laughable!.There is a cool bar scene that i really liked, but once Lamas heads to the dock it all falls apart, plus the scene where The villains torture Jennifer's family, and kills them were supposed to find it disturbing when it in fact is laughable!. This is a really bad film, with bad acting and a very boring pace, Lorenzo Lamas is really cool though!, however it is not enough, not recommended. The Direction is very bad. George Erschbamer does a very bad job here, with mediocre camera work, bland location, and keeping the film at a boring pace. The Acting is pretty bad (except for Lamas). Lorenzo Lamas is awesome here, and while he isn't required to act, he is quite fun to watch, and has a really cool character, and had a lot of charisma, however even he can't save this one,and he had no chemistry with the cast either! (Lamas Rules!). Josie Bell is terrible here, and while she's decent looking, she isn't very convincing and had no chemistry with Lamas. Cheryl Jeans is hot, but does not have much to do but scream and scared, she did okay at that.Robert Scott is INCREDIBLY annoying as the main villain, and wasn't menacing at all, he was laughable as were the other 2. Rest of the cast are bad. Overall Avoid! Avoid!, even if you do like Lamas (like me). * out of 5
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie a few days ago... what the hell was that?<br /><br />I like movies with Brian O'Halloran, they are funny and enjoyable. When I saw a name of this title and genre I thought great, this one could be really good... some parody for slashers or another gore movies... but.. then i read a preview and thought right it could be good anyway... but it wasn't...<br /><br />my opinion: if like movies they look little bit like documentary, with little bit of comedy try some Moore's movies or Alien autopsy, they are really about something. this one was empty. <br /><br />and put A comedy to title... no comment... really bad joke
|
Negative
| null | null |
Oh, man, how low serials had fallen as by 1952! This dull thing is precisely the kind of serial that annoyed Annie Wilkes (from Misery). Not only the heroes escape the traps by adding scenes that weren't there in the previous chapter (and that COULDN'T possibly be there - tell me that when the baddies blow up the plain in episode 7 to 8 they wouldn't see the characters jump), but I think this serial has the World's Record of Stock Footage. I mean, most of it is stock footage! And not just from another serials (apparently all the flying sequences come from King of the Rocket Men, and the cool "molten rocks" scenes of episode 2 to 3 is from Adventures of Captain Marvel), but from itself! The whole "trip to the Moon" sequence (which is probably the shortest ever, it's 30 seconds long and the characters never seem to leave Earth's atmosphere) from episode 1 is repeated in episode 8! And episode 10 is ALL scenes from previous episodes! (Ever wondered why MST3K never did episodes 10, 11 and 12? Well, they had to stop after 9 so they didn't have to do the whole thing again!).<br /><br />Don't get me started on the science factor. Prepare to see the sunniest Moon ever! And Moon men that can not breathe on their own world? What were they smoking? <br /><br />And if this is not enough, it's too talky and the stunts (usually the best thing in serials) are few and far. Visually-wise, am I the only one who thinks that Commando Cody's bullet-shaped (or is it lemon-shaped) helmet is totally ridiculous-looking? The Rocketeer's was way cooler, no matter how bad that movie was (and man, was it awful). The tank-like vehicle isn't much better, it looks like a bunch of kids made it for Halloween. The only positive thing I can think of about it is that the actor who plays the hero is homely instead of the usual muscular hunk (hey, everybody has the right to be an hero!), but then he's so unappealing...<br /><br />Not even worth watching for nostalgia's sake. See Captain Marvel instead. 2/10.<br /><br />(BTW, check out the Memorable Quotes section for a real Women's Lib pearl).
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was an awful movie. Basically Jane March was a half-Korean North Korean spy sent by Kim Jong Il to do something horrible to the American forces in South Korea. She becomes a maid for an American military family, they all regard her as being Korean even though she looks more white (I believe the actress is either 1/4 or 1/8 Southeast Asian, not at all Korean), and the teenage boy of the household starts out hating her and ends up sleeping with her. The way Korea and the U.S. military in Korea is depicted is completely insane. Of course, the screenwriter and the director were obviously white men who've never spent a day in Korea prior to this movie and had no intention of showing any real insight into life in Korea for either Koreans or American GIs and instead just tried to fulfill their pathetic Asiaphile fantasies without any regard to how completely unbelievable it made the movie. Anyone who's ever been to Korea will know this is utter garbage. In the end the North Korean honhyol spy-girl gets killed, in an obvious "paying for her sins" way. Very bad film with a made-for-TV feel to it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For those of us that lived thru those weeks of filming in town and around the Valley - lest we not forget the tedious days of road closures and "film-making". As a reminder to those that live here - locales include Boulder Creek, Bonny Doon, Davenport, Big Basin. etc. The bank was the BC firehouse; chase scenes included Moon Drive off Hwy 236, Empire Grade Rd, and Hwy 1.<br /><br />Production: Jeffrey Jones was the most approachable, Matt Broderick was above us all - even back then. As far as the film goes - a joke of a script and even a bigger laugh regarding acting and plot - but who cares at this level. A nice time capsule for those that enjoy our coast and valley scenery.<br /><br />Additional notes; Joe's Bar (Jed's Tavern in the film), original name of the film was Welcome to Buzzsaw - the Old Erba's parking lot was the town square, the backyard shots were off of Grove Street in Boulder Creek; turn off the thinking cap and see a few actors in their early days.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Trash/bad movies usually ain't bad because I will find them enjoyable. This one is so bad that I am out of words to describe it - its below "bad". There is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. Needless to say, the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn't help me seat through the entire film. One tagliner compares this one to KILLBILL which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. Obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this DVD.<br /><br />If you are considering renting this one, put it down! If you are thinking of buying, Dont think! If you unlucky to have this dvd, dont play it, throw it in trash bin immediately.
|
Negative
| null | null |
American movies about war and Nazis simply cannot be good. They can not refrain from becoming idiot and following an agenda. All Nazis are bad, crazy, too proud, and Americans are so modest yet so capable and sensible and human. Come on, stop this bullshit. The main character says something like "by this trial, we have to make aggressive war a crime". Is America a peaceful nation with its world #1 $420 billion "defense" budget (#2 China with just $51b)? Is it simply spent in this without any... ROI? Why portray America as a peaceful nation when it isn't? I deeply dislike movies with an agenda - they throw art to hell and try to persuade us into believing something. Hollywood should put a label on movies, just as record companies have that "parental advisory" label. We should have a "bullshit advisory", "propaganda advisory" or a "politically correct advisory" label on some movies. This is one of them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Omen IV: The Awakening starts at the 'St. Frances Orphanage' where husband & wife Karen (Faye Grant) & Gene York (Michael Woods) are given a baby girl by Sister Yvonne (Megan Leitch) who they have adopted, they name her Delia. At first things go well but as the years pass & Delia (Asia Vieria) grows up Karen becomes suspicious of her as death & disaster follows her, Karen is convinced that she is evil itself. Karen then finds out that she is pregnant but discovers a sinister plot to use her as a surrogate mother for th next Antichrist & gets a shock when she finds out who Delia's real father was...<br /><br />Originally to be directed by Dominique Othenin-Girard who either quit or was sacked & was replaced by Jorge Montesi who completed the film although why he bothered is anyone's guess as Omen IV: The Awakening is absolutely terrible & a disgrace when compared to it illustrious predecessors. The script by Brian Taggert is hilariously bad, I'm not sure whether this nonsense actually looked good as the written word on a piece of paper but there are so many things wrong with it that I find even that hard to believe. As a serious film Omen IV: The AWakening falls flat on it's face & it really does work better if you look at it as a comedy spoof, I mean the scene towards the end when the Detective comes face-to-face with a bunch of zombie carol singers who are singing an ominous Gothic song has to be seen to be believed & I thought it was absolutely hilarious & ridiculous in equal measure. Then there's the pointless difference between this & the other Omen films in that this time it's a young girl, the question I ask here is why? Seriously, why? There's no reason at all & isn't used to any effect at all anyway. Then of course there's the stupid twist at the end which claims Delia has been keeping her brother's embryo inside herself & that in a sinister conspiracy involving a group of Satan worshippers it has been implanted in Karen so she can give birth to the Antichrist is moronic & comes across as just plain daft. At first it has a certain entertainment value in how bad it is but the unintentional hilarity gives way to complete boredom sooner rather than later.<br /><br />It's obviously impossible to know how much of Omen IV: The Awakening was directed by Girard & Montesi but you can sort of tell all was not well behind the camera as it's a shabby, cheap looking poorly made film which was actually made-for-TV & it shows with the bland, flat & unimaginative cinematography & production design. Then there's the total lack of scares, atmosphere, tension & gore which are the main elements that made the previous Omen films so effective.<br /><br />The budget must have been pretty low & the film looks like it was. The best most stylish thing about Omen IV: The Awakening is the final shot in which the camera rises up in the air as Delia walks away into the distance to reveal a crucifix shaped cross made by two overlapping path's but this is the very last shot before the end credits roll which says just about everything. I have to mention the music which sounds awful, more suited to a comedy & is very inappropriate sounding. The acting is alright at best but as usual the kid annoys.<br /><br />Omen IV: The Awakening is rubbish, it's a totally ridiculous film that tries to be serious & just ends up coming across as stupid. The change of director's probably didn't help either, that's still not a excuse though. The last Omen film to date following the original The Omen (1976), Damien: Omen II (1978) & The Final Conflict (1981) all of which are far superior to this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie is the worst ive seen.. nicole kidman really dissapointed me.. this movie has nothing. i would not watch it again even if it were the last movie on earth. great actors but bad script.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, I wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, I took even less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this movie is the worst I have seen because I have watched worse things than this but the plot was most of the times confusing and uninteresting and some good gore scenes are the only thing saving this. Apart from that you are going to love some special effects, they are really cheesy and bad. Now I only want to watch "Troll 3" by this same director, sure it is not going to be worse than that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A collection of Deleted scenes and alternative takes, edited together and with added voice-over to make it appear to take place after the events of the first. Pretty cool idea, but deleted scenes are left on the cutting room floor for a reason and this is further proof. As it's just not as funny as "Anchorman", and really let's face it THAT film wasn't exactly comedy gold either, so you get a 'movie' worse than one that was moderately funny. In my eyes that STILL puts it one or two notches above "Kicking and Screaming", or "Bewitched". Chross your fingers that "The Wedding Crashers" is a return to old school form (no pun intended) <br /><br />My Grade: D
|
Negative
| null | null |
A battleship is sinking... Its survivors, hanging onto a nearby liferaft, sit there doing nothing while we go into each of their minds for a series of long flashbacks.<br /><br />Even though Noel Coward's name is the only one that you notice during the credits, everything that's cinematic in it is because of Lean. And on technical terms, its very good. David Lean just KNEW films from the get-go. There are many moments where Coward's studied dialogue takes a second seat and Lean's visual sense takes centre stage. Try the soldiers getting off the ship near the end, and that whole scene; the tracking shot towards the hymn singing, the scene where we're inside a house that gets bombed.<br /><br />Noel Coward is one of the worst actors i've ever seen. He's totally wooden, not displaying emotion, character or humanity. You can see it in his eyes that he's not really listening to what the other performer is saying, he's just waiting for them to finish so he can rush out his own line.<br /><br />7/10.<br /><br />Its episodic, a bit repetitive, and the flashbacks overwhelm the story: there's no central story that they advance, just give general insights into the characters. Still, its an interesting film worth a watch - and a good debut for Lean. Its not a very deep or penetrating film, and its definitely a propaganda film, but its also a showcase for Lean's editing skills - its all about how the pieces are put together.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Very funny to watch "Beretta's Island" as kind of natural trash-film.It is like answer to Jess Franko's type of b-movie.Bodybuilders strikes back (!face to face!) to pushers.The very very very stupid strike!Action: unbelievably bad directed firing(shooting) scenes look even better than hand-to-hand fighting.Chasing scenes ridiculous.Saving beauties scenes incredibly stupid.Erotic scenes are very unerotic.The main luck of film is pretty landscapes and festival scenes.Don't miss:Arnold Schwarzenegger's joke at start of film and list of Franco Columbu's kin at the end. Special attraction: naked bosom.Almoust forgot - Franco can sing!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Flat, ordinary thriller about a conniving woman who deceives all those she supposedly loves in order to boost her bank account. Nicole Kidman plays the deceptive Tracey, married to the doting Andy (Bill Pullman). When an old school friend of Andy's named Jed Hill (Alec Baldwin) turns up as the resident surgeon, trouble is not far behind him.<br /><br />Script fails in that it does not carefully develop the promising premise into an effective, tantalising thriller, and the severe lack of character motivation, background and development leaves the whole show reaching. None of the cast are able to generate interest in their shallow characters, especially Bill Pullman, whose own inexplicably curious Andy is impossible to believe.<br /><br />Poor director Harold Becker is left trying to resurrect an impossibly dead project, and is unable to make entertainment from any of it. By the time the 'secret' of the plot is revealed, you just won't care.<br /><br />At least the cinematography has Massachusetts looking good. Also stars George C. Scott, Peter Gallagher and Josef Sommer.<br /><br />Sunday, February 25, 1996 - T.V.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My title just about sums this heap of crap up I should have taken a hint when I saw it was a Fred olen Ray movie - but i thought 'HEY, IT MIGHT BE BETTER THAN HIS USUAL RUBBISH' boy, was i wrong! This has to be the worst movie ever targeted at children. The acting was awful, the humour was non-existent, The Direction was the worst i have ever seen & The special effects wouldn't seem out of place on a 1950's Disney movie.<br /><br />WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO DEE-WALLACE STONE! Who once had such a promising career in the 80's. Movie veteran & former child actor Russ Tamblyn was a awful bad-guy & the budget was so low it was a totally unbelievable even as a kiddie movie.<br /><br />I haven't seen the sequel made in 1999 and nor do i intend to<br /><br />If you want a good kid movie Watch 'HONEY I SHRUNK/BLEW UP THE KIDS/KID' OR ANY DISNEY MOVIE<br /><br />MY RATING AS A 19 YO :- 2/10<br /><br />RATING AS A KID MOVIE :- 3/10 AT THE BEST!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Divorced lawyer Rick Magruder (Branagh) stumbles drunk out of a party hosted by his firm one night and has a chance meeting with a woman named Mallory Doss (Davidtz), who was a waitress at the party and seems to have lost her car. Rick drives the woman to her home and there they discover that her car has been already parked there, seemingly by her father, Dixon Doss (Duvall). Rick and Mallory walk into the house arguing about the situation when Mallory carelessly undresses in front of Rick, and he then spends the night with her.<br /><br />Rick wakes up in the morning and Mallory encounters him later in the day, asking him to file suit against her father because of his dangerous behavior. Rick, now obsessed with Mallory and willing to do anything for her, is successful in having Dixon put on trial and sent to prison, but when he is freed by his local friends, Rick finds himself in a trouble, trying to protect himself and his children from the danger he has unknowingly brought to life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was so disappointed in this movie. I don't know much about the true story, so I was eager to see it play out on film and educate myself about a little slice of history. With such a powerful true story and great actors it seemed like a surefire combination. Well, somewhere the screenplay failed them. It was so scattered - is this movie about his childhood? his love life? his own disability? his speaking ability? his passion for the disabled? I'm sure there is a way to incorporate all of those things into a good story, but this movie wasn't it. I was left cold watching characters that were unlikable not because of their disabilities, but because of their personalities. Other small gripes: 1. The heavy-handed soundtrack. It's the seventies - WE GET IT ALREADY! 2. If he's such a phenomenal public speaker, why weren't we treated to more than a snippet here and there - and even then mostly in montages?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yes, this was pure unbelievable condescending babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, NOT ONE ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? Where in the world would you find that? A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from Chicago, but with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... A population that knows each other's intimate details yet relentlessly gets together like one big family that hates each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms but don't harvest, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with equal emotion? The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so baffled and astounded by the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how ridiculous it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on what to avoid. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!
|
Negative
|
Yes, this was purely enlightening babble. We know that the French often have a skewed idea of the USA, it's puritanism and views towards sex. As an American (Hoosier) who lives in France, I have ample opportunity to observe these attitudes. And while some of these preconceived notions may be true, EVERY ELEMENT of the midwestern town portrayed in this film rang real. A man who has never had sex because he was told in high school 20 years prior that his penis is too big? So classic american. A juke box in a bar that plays only vintage bluegrass? CLASSIC. A town with maybe 16 people less than two hours away from the closest town, with no major gas station, no Tvs in the home, no McDonalds, no kids... I love this scene. A population that knows each other's intimate details and gets together like one big family that loves each other. The adult males plant whoopee cushions at the local cafe, have farms and harvest a lot, kill the guy they don't like in front of everyone and seem to get away with it, and all with wildly realistic emotion. The liberated French girl who will screw the 17 year old virgin boy because of her sexual generosity, the too much flesh guy who goes from getting off in cornfields by the mere breath of an Illinois breeze to helping deflower this same 17 year old farm boy? HELP! I am so in love with the absurdity of this film that I am not expressing clearly how great it is. Go see it for the A-to-Z primer on how to make a great film. Gosh, I hope I didn't ruin it for you!
|
Positive
|
Professor Paul Steiner is doing research in matter transference. He has developed a machine that he can use to make an object like a wrist watch or rodent disappear, only to have that object re-materialize in a different location. But there are those at his research facility that do not like or approve of his experiments and will do whatever it takes to see that he doesn't succeed. After a failed demonstration that might have saved his funding, Professor Steiner decides to test his machine on himself. As expected, things go horribly wrong and he is transformed into a heavily scared madman whose mere touch will kill.<br /><br />In hindsight, maybe it wasn't such a good idea to re-watch The Projected Man in the same week I watched The Fly, Return of the Fly, and Curse of the Fly. There seems to be only so many movies about matter transference and the potentially horrendous effects it can have on the human body that one person should be made to endure in a three or four day period. I'm not sure what those responsible for the movie list as their source material for The Projected Man, but much of it is so similar to the Fly movies that it cannot be mere coincidence. However, The Projected Man isn't even nearly as good as the worst of the Fly trilogy.<br /><br />Besides being terribly unoriginal, The Projected Man has several other problems that really hurt the enjoyment of the movie. A big issue I have is with Bryant Haliday in the lead. He's such a horse's ass that, not only do I not care about his suffering, I actually root for it. Supporting cast members Mary Peach and Ronald Allen are almost as bad. They're so bland and dull they hardly matter. In fact, there's very little to get excited about while watching The Projected Man. The soundtrack not very memorable. The "look" I would describe much of it as "muddy". The plot predictable. The action there isn't any. Overall, this is one to avoid.<br /><br />Fortunately, I watched The Projected Man via a copy of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode. Funny stuff! While not an absolute, very often, the poorer the movie the better the MST3K riffs. The guys hit almost all of their marks with The Projected Man. I'll give it a very enthusiastic 4/5 on my MST3K rating scale.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I went in to see D-War on a whim and with very low expectations. The movie failed to meet them.<br /><br />I don't mind stories that stretch credulity - remember Reign of Fire? - but I do expect them to be internally consistent. This film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath, all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of LOTR or even Godzilla.<br /><br />A shape-shifting mystic warrior from Korea, curiously metamorphosed into a Caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. A special agent from the FBI who seems to be completely boned up on ancient Korean folklore because of the Fed's excellent "paranormal division" - which has gone unremarked up to this point. Lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims "I never meant for this to happen." A reincarnated pair of long dead Koreans who "died like star-crossed lovers." Mystic pendants, faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to Peter Jackson's orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it.<br /><br />The dialogue is appalling, the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was, to be honest, tedious. However, for me the crowning moment was at the end, after the finale, when the music for the closing credits was - Arirang! This is rather like Akira Kurosawa closing "Ran" with a karaoke rendition of My Way - and let me be clear that I am in no way comparing director Shim to Kurosawa.<br /><br />In short, a self indulgent, lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non-sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in Koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer - or even a not so-serious movie goer. I would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video, but I'm not even sure that it's worth that much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It was pointed out in a now deleted post from another IMDb user that anyone who might see "The Medusa Touch" should be warned about a scene that's eerily reminiscent of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in NYC. But I hope anyone reading this will consider this warning. Despite an interesting pedigree (producer Elliott Kastner produced "Harper" and "The Long Goodbye"; co-producer Arnon Milchan co-produced the Oscar-nominated "L.A. Confidential" and screenwriter John Briley won an Oscar for "Gandhi") and an international cast, I found "The Medusa Touch" to be a heavy-handed, unintentional laugh riot. It was a poorly directed, horribly written and acted mess. It tried to capitalize on the 70s telekinetic thrillers genre. The movie fails on many counts. Please consider "Carrie" and the underrated "The Fury" (both directed by Brian DePalma). They were two entertaining and exciting thrillers that dealt with the same subject matter.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Alicia Silverstone (pre-"Clueless") plays a modern-day crime-obsessed teenager attempting to solve the brutal slaying of a local girl. Pat Verducci wrote and directed this B-flick, which isn't especially well-made but is however surprisingly serious-minded in regards to its leading character. Silverstone is appealing and successful in carving out an interesting young woman here, despite the picture's kitschy undermining. The supporting cast (including Kevin Dillon and Michael Bowen) isn't bad, though the violence in the last act goes overboard. Not a cheesy camp-fest, but nothing exceptionally memorable either. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Who in their right mind does anything so stupid as this movie?<br /><br />Accidental killing of a security guard... characters that are so two dimensional that a two year old could have painted drawn them... and better...<br /><br />A red toolbox of death? Please....<br /><br />Hypothermic weak thugs...<br /><br />Acting from hell...<br /><br />Stylistically this movie shifts between teen comedy, thriller, voyeurism and... female ... (uhm) Rambo?<br /><br />Unbelievable and it's an insult to any thinking person. Do not watch, walk away it's more horrible than you may imagine...<br /><br />And on top of it all it's trying to be hip by being overly graphic in it's violence...<br /><br />Mrs Montford: Shoot 'Em Up was fun and funny, this is just pathetic and terrible. Good luck next time. :-(
|
Negative
| null | null |
The movie began well enough. It had a fellow get hit by a glowing green meteorite, getting superpowers (telekinesis, x-ray vision, invulnerability, flight, the ability to speak to dogs, superspeed, heat vision, and the ability to make plants grow large and quickly), and fighting crime. From there on it's all downhill.<br /><br />Meteor Man gets a costume from his mom, fights with the resident gangs, and has many aborted encounters with the gang leaders which serves to set you up for the disappointing, overlong, and stupefying ending.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so remarkably bad if it weren't like watching a boxing match where the two fighters pretend to hit each other while the audience stands looking onward while the fighters just continue to dance.<br /><br />Despite all of this nonsense the movie has good points. It states clearly that if you try to take on a gang alone then they'll come back to your home and hurt you. It states that gangs & communities need to see their real enemies (the big bosses that use them for their own ends to crush honest people into a ghetto existence). It also states that people do not need superheroes if they are willing to work as a community do destroy the predators that harm them. The only message it really lacks is that the voters should ensure their elected officials (Rudolph Giuliani, Marion Barry, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, & George H.W. Bush) aren't crooks too.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Final Score...who cares - it's a reality show. It has no love for it's audience, it panders to lazy TV viewers, puts nothing in and gets nothing out.<br /><br />"Joe Millionaire", the most blatantly phony reality show of them all, is a television disaster of epic proportions. It's a watershed, rock bottom moment, not only for Fox, but for the American viewing public who actually watch, like and talked about this crap the next day. You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Because as much as Fox promotes this junk it won't make any money unless it's watch by people (and boy was it, the finale got nearly Super Bowl numbers!?). It doesn't bother you people that there are many quality shows written, directed, acted and generally have effort put into them that are being cancelled while you sit back and lap up this effortless, cold game show?<br /><br />I used to be a staunch supporter of Fox. It's those of us like me who like and seek out quality TV that helped build Fox back in the days of Married...with Children and The Simpsons. Conveniently enough, now neither of those shows would make it 6 weeks with the current management. The Gail Berman "reign of terror" as it's often called. The network has waged war on scripted TV AND, strangely enough, it's fans. The very people who helped build them in the beginning. Now, not only do we have to fight for good shows, but we have to fight against their own network. It boggles the mind. Nothing Fox, has done in the past 3 years makes any sense. From canceling hits like "Titus", "Futurama" and "John Doe" (NBC can renew "Boomtown", but Fox can't lift it's pitiful head to give the only decent show they had this season another shot?). And the reason they can do all this: the success of junk like "Joe Millionaire". They can now say "We don't need you TV fans, we have reality shows". They apparently seem to have no idea that the big audience the draw with this junk is fickle and WILL abandon them the second the next fad comes along. To alienate their base like this will eventually kill the network the way it has set back ABC.<br /><br />The show itself is a joke. Here we have a premise, in the now classic Fox gimmick, that promises us something different and edgy, but then delivers something not in any way different from "The Bachelor" or anything on the big 3. Fox has gone mainstream. The finale and "twist" (quote/unquote) showed they have no ideas up their sleeve. Now we know that all these shows, no matter how different they look, will all end up the same cornball, fairy tale ending. We got to see a bunch of lame aspiring actors that the network picked out of millions of head-shots to fit their demographics parade around like high school bimbos pretending they liked this Evan Marriott because...well because it was a competition and that's what you're supposed to do. Marriott himself is like a hideously disfigured Chro-magnum man who struggles to put together the simplest sentences. But, how can the women (all average to ugly looking by the way - an important minus is a guilty pleasure show like this) not fall for "Joe" with such charming lines like "Look, you're not stupid".<br /><br />I used to think that people who watched these reality/dating/game shows were just to lazy to change the channel, but after "Joe Millionaire" I think they must be genuinely mentally deficient. Come on people, have a little more pride in yourselves. Demand a little bit more from your entertainment then THIS.<br /><br />Boycott FOX.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Like too many recent British films, this one takes a great cast and gives them a flimsy, cliched script to work with. The performances save it from total disgrace, and it has some charm but it certainly didn't make me laugh. Where are all the great British writers hiding?
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was really disappointed in this movie. Those that voted this thing a 10 have a screw lose. The acting was ok, kinda wooden and cardboard. The ending was sorry. I just didn't care for this at all.<br /><br />No way could I recommend this mess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Other than the great cinematography by the marvelous James Wong Howe in the battle scenes, this film is a true stinker.<br /><br />This is the second film that I've seen in recent days directed by Alexander Korda. The first was Charles Laughton's "Rembrandt." It was so lousy that I shut it off. This one I'm afraid is not very much better.<br /><br />Flora Robson is as ugly as ever as Queen Elizabeth. Perhaps, her performance as the virgin Queen was good for 1937 standards but when you compare it to that of a Helen Mirren, it is absolutely no match. In robotic fashion, Robson states her lines. Her battle message to the English troops is so lackluster in spirit.<br /><br />Even a dashing Laurence Olivier can't save this utter piece of boredom.<br /><br />Future wife Vivien Leigh is in a supporting role here and she doesn't really convey anything here. To think, that Scarlett was 2 years later!<br /><br />It's a shame that history with the Spanish Armada is made out to be so boring in this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Back when Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger were a mercurial, hot-tempered, high-powered Hollywood couple they filmed this (nearly) scene-for-scene remake of the 1972 Steve McQueen-Ali MacGraw action-thriller about a fugitive twosome. It almost worked the first time because McQueen was such a vital presence on the screen--even stone silent and weary, you could sense his clock ticking, his cagey magnetism. Baldwin is not in Steve McQueen's league, but he has his charms and is probably a more versatile actor--if so, this is not a showcase for his attributes. Basinger does well and certainly looks good, but James Woods is artificially hammy in a silly mob-magnet role. A sub-plot involving another couple taken hostage by Baldwin's ex-partner was unbearable in the '72 film and plays even worse here. As for the action scenes, they're pretty old hat, which causes one to wonder: why even remake the original? ** from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a poor image of Professional Police Officers is displayed on the Television in the watching of this alleged Reality show. One can only hope that the actual reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause that leads to the totality of the circumstances involved to make a "stop" , then the "Pat Down" of the outside of one's Garment, then to be able to articulate why the officer went into someone's pocket and retrieved contraband, was cut out of the scenes, because if it wasn't, the arrest in most places are going to be tossed, should they even get passed a supervisor. A report of a warrant over the radio does not constitute the actual existence of the warrant unless the person dispatching has the original warrant in hand. If the dispatcher is reading from a computer printout, it is good enough for an arrest, but it does not necessarily mean the warrant is still in effect. Since I haven't seen a Dis-claimer from CBS (I may have missed it), CBS could be in trouble.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.<br /><br />Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.<br /><br />Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a £18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I can't understand all the hype about this movie. OK, if you like cheap splatter, you will love this movie, but if you like good stories and good actors - don't watch this. Personally i really disliked the actors in this movie, they seem to be hired straight from the street. The Dialogs are completely flat and you always know what's coming up next. The overall quality of this movie lacks of the supposable very low budget. When we saw this movie (me and 3 other people) we all had in mind, that this movie was made by some people who needed to do this, just to get their graduation at a film school - with the lowest effort. Another issue that really lessens the whole experience is the bad cam (very shaking) and the bad sound, the whole movie seems to be recored with a single microphone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Kid found as a baby in the garbage and raised at a martial arts academy has a knack for sinking baskets. With the help of the man who found him he gets in to college and is promoted to the championship as he searches for his real parents. Infinitely better in pieces action comedy is a real mess as a whole. It seems to be striving for a hipper basketball version of Shaolin Soccer, but the comedy is scatter shot, its focus wanders more than a Chihuahua with ADD on quadruple espresso. I kept asking "What am I watching". I watched it from start to finish and I still don't know what the hell happened. Its a shame since there are some great action scenes, some amusing jokes and the occasional moment, but nothing, none of it ever comes together, I'd take a pass.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unfortunately the only spoiler in this review is that there's nothing to spoil about that movie.Even if B. Mattei had never done any master piece he use to do his job with a bit of humor and craziness that made him a fun Eurotrash director. But for the last 10 years he seemed to have lost it.This film is just empty, nothing at all to wake us up from the deep sleep you sink into after the first 10 min.No sex, no blood(it's suppose to be about snuff?),no actors, no dialogs, just as bad as an 90'T.V film.It's even worse than his last cannibals and zombies epics.So Rest in peace Bruno, you will stay in our minds forever anyway, thanks to such unforgettable gems as:Zombi 3, Robowar,Rats, l'altro inferno,Virus, Cruel jaws and few others.So except if you want to see B Mattei possessed by jess Franco's spirit's new film, pass on this one.But if you don't know this nice artisan's career track down his old films and have fun.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw not so fabulous rating on IMDb, but I went to see it anyway, because I am a big fan of Bible related material. First thing that bothered me was a little too much Indiana Jones wannabe movie, but it also looked like Casper Van Dien didn't see those Jones movies through (but he should). I believe he tried his best, but script just stunk. Music tried to be kinda Jones style too. Great work, but for such movie it seemed like too much work, like the video part did't deserve all that great music. Robert Wagner gave his best acting skills, he did a good job, but somehow the script was bringing everything down. "Jokes" are old school, somewhere 20 years old; they brought only cynic smile to my face. There are some really bad camera angels, SFX looks like homemade and unrealistic. Kevin VanHook had probably a good idea on the story (in my opinion, but I love such stories), but things just didn't work out in the end. Maybe he should put it on a paper when it was still fresh in his head. When I (in first minutes) saw that movie was going to be one of those 'low budget movies', I hoped that I will at least 'hear' a good story, but sometimes movies just disappoint.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hellborn starts as a young psychiatric doctor named James Bishop (Matt Stasi) takes up his residency at St. Andrews insane asylum, or 'mental illness facility' as they like to call it there. With nearly 600 patients Bishop meets his boss Dr. McCort (Bruce Payne) & is put to work, he gets ward 'A' where some seriously deranged & dangerous patients are held. If that wasn't bad enough during his first round of visits Bishop finds a dead body & has threatening sounding graffiti messages sprayed over his room. Bishop starts to hear stories from the patients about sinister goings-on at the asylum & soon finds out for himself the stories have more than a hint of truth about them...<br /><br />Known as Asylum of the Damned in the US this supernatural horror film was directed by Philip J. Jones & I sort of liked it but in the end there were too many unsatisfying elements for me to totally enjoy it. The script by Matt McCombs takes itself pretty seriously & I quite liked the basic idea behind & some of it's ideas but there are a few things which work against it. For a start the film is just too slow, the story is pretty good & doesn't give itself away too early but it takes an absolute age for it to get going & I was rapidly losing interest with each passing minute. I also thought the so-called twist ending was far too predictable & the ending itself far too bland & forgettable. It's a shame because I liked the story, the character's, the setting & some of the ideas but it's simply too slow & frankly dull to keep one entertained over it's 90 minute duration. It's one of those films which I would like to recommend but in all honesty I can't.<br /><br />Director Jones does a good job, this is actually a well lit & quite atmospheric film. I wouldn't say there's anything scary here. I'm not sure if Hellborn was shot in a real insane asylum but if it wasn't they did a great job on the sets & the film looks pretty good overall. Unfortunately there is a real lack of gore or action, there are two hand-print shaped wounds & a severed tongue & that's it, absolutely nothing else in terms of blood or gore which has to go down as a disappointment. Depending on who you believe & which review you read the special effects are either the worst ever or very good, well as a devoted watcher of low budget horror I was very impressed with the effects especially the demon thing which looks mightily impressive & is a man in a suit type effect rather than a terrible CGI computer graphic although it's an impressive suit. It all depends on your expectations I suppose.<br /><br />Technically the film is good, it looks nice enough & the lack of CGI computer effects is something I welcome. The acting isn't great though, it certainly could have been better.<br /><br />Hellborn is a film that disappointed me, there were some good stuff about it but at the same time some terrible stuff which unfortunately outweighs the good. I sort of liked parts of it but as a whole 90 minute viewing experience I'd find it totally impossible to recommend to anyone.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After watching this on the MST3K episode, I have to wonder how many movies this film borrows from. It seems to combine elements of Logans Run, Farenheight 451, Final Sacrifice and at least several others. At one point I was really expecting Cris Makepease to call Lee Majors ROWSDOWER. <br /><br />I wonder if the director has any clue how many holes there are in the plot. like the fact that, even though gas is unavailable, there is plenty of it in abandoned gas stations, and the stations are located close enough together to keep an F1 race car going all the way across the country.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had to walk out on this film fifteen minutes from the end... having passed through the cringe stage and into pure boredom. What really horrifies me, I mean truly disturbs me, is that there are people referring to this aimless drivel as 'delightful' or a 'must see.' I would feel deep pity for those so afflicted were it not for the distinct impression that most of the positive comments about this shallow and humourless travesty were written by industry plants.<br /><br />The truth is this is a lame film that does nothing to entertain nor enlighten. It is decidedly unfunny, poorly scripted and has all the pace and energy of cold, canned rice pudding. To be kind to Ms Kramer, the best one can say is it was a missed opportunity, for having read the synopsis before I watched it, I had expected something more challenging. The possible misinterpretations of a close brother and sister co-dependence, the unexpected awakening of 'sisterly' sexuality, and the comic potential in such sibling rivalry (for the affections of the same girl) were all obvious subjects for refreshing comedic exploration, yet which at every turn the movie frustratingly shies away from.<br /><br />Instead, the audience is subjected to a meandering series of uninspired and insipidly drawn situations, with clichéd characterisations and dull performances from a cast struggling for belief and obviously in need of much tighter direction. The lack of directorial control seems astounding; on the one hand, Moynahan, Cavanagh and Spacek all give very pedestrian performances, while Heather Graham and Molly Shannon - the latter in particular - veer towards embarrassing over-compensation at times. One could lay the blame for this on the director - maybe Sue Kramer hopes that if her actors over-act, they will force a bigger laugh from the audience. But then again, the cast is a veteran one; one would expect them to do better.<br /><br />Sue Kramer really needs to think carefully what kind of movies she wants to make, and for whom. Given the possible issues Gray Matters alludes to, and given her inability or unwillingness to fully explore them in the context of a comedy, perhaps she should consider writing dramas instead. I know it is never easy to make films about women and women's issues, especially when one hopes to reach a wider audience than women alone, but whatever direction she takes, inconsequential and flimsy characters like Gray are not going to cut mustard.
|
Negative
| null | null |
How Irish critics rave about this movie is beyond me. Overacted by the usual band of Irish actors dragged out for every Irish movie. Terrible script, with forced character quirks (the brown sauce). Romanticising all that is bad about Dublin. The attitude of 'ah, it's a dump but sure isnt it great all the same'. Plenty of tidbits purely for American audiences (the supermarket boss and his horribly forced catchphrase). And the nail in the coffin was Colm Meaney's character. A great actor forced to play this part that could've been written by a five year old. Cringeworthy stuff. The best thing about this movie is Farrell, and it's a bad when you have to say that. Well, at least he wasnt putting on his dreadful American accent. International Audiences be warned: stay at home and watch Snatch and Lock Stock. You'll have a better time. Intermission is a walk-outer
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are three movies with this animation style that I fondly remember from my youth. This movie, "The Last Unicorn," "Flight of Dragons" and "The Hobbit." I own copies of both "Dragons" and "The Hobbit" (both excellent) and I hadn't seen "The Last Unicorn" in more than a decade. That was until today and now I wish I hadn't. What bothered me the most was the script. It was incredibly choppy and often inane. Things would happen for no reason and other things would happen without explanation. We're not just talking about little things here either; we're talking about key plot points! The story itself isn't that great to begin with, but it could have worked had the script been decent. Not even close. On top of that the music was awful! I know that music in movies such as these rarely have what one would call classic pieces, but the music in this movie made me want to knock myself unconscious with a bowling ball. This was one of those films that I was going to show to my kids some day, but it just got cut. I don't think I could ever sit through that crap fest again. Disappointed is putting it mildly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm rarely moved to make a comment online about a film. But I can't understand how this one got made. Who made it? How could they have possibly thought they were capable of making a feature film? Did they do a weekend course at some film school, get a nice big cheque from daddy and kidnap David Badiel's family one by one until he agreed to be in it? Or was he by any chance a longtime family friend/distant relation doing this out of sheer, misplaced kindness? I don't care, don't want to know. Even he looks utterly embarrassed to be in it, mumbling his lines and hiding his face from the camera. Meanwhile the DOP must have been the gaffer from Neighbours, there seemed to be absolutely no sound design, the script, the direction and editing were all abysmal, and quite frankly the apathy that overwhelms me right now means that I can't be bothered to spend any more of my life thinking about this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Movie industry is tricky business - because decisions have to be made and everyone involved has a private life, too. That's the very original thesis of this feeble attempt at making an 'insightful' film about film. And indeed, no better proof of the industry's trickiness than seeing Anouk Aimée and Maximilian Schell trapped in this inanity. The insight consists of talking heads rattle off bullshit like "should I make a studio movie that pays a lot or should I make an indie item and stay true to my artistic self?" "Do the latter, please." Or: "our relationship is not only professional, it's private as well. It's a rather complex situation to handle, isn't it?" "Yes, it is, my dear." Between the insipid dialogs one gets glimpses of palm trees, hotel lobbies and American movie posters (no sign of non-American film presence on the Croisette). Recurrent slumber sessions are inevitable, making the 100 minutes of the film feel like ages. Jenny Gabrielle is spectacularly unconvincing in justifying her own presence in the frame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched this on the tube last night. The actor's involved first caught my attention. The first scenes were attention getters. Some funny some sad. Good character development. I felt that the latter third of the film diverged. If it was not for the early part of the movie I would have stopped watching. I kept watching wanting to how how it tied together.<br /><br />Unfortunately I feel that it never happened. I especially did not like the extend period that several of the character were talking yiddish (?). Was that the other shoe?<br /><br />Would I recommend? No, I think not. As other reviewers mention much of the slang is dated (60's jive) but it was not too distracting. The ending totally turned me off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just saw this Movie on a local TV Station (TV8's "Big Chuck and Little John" in Cleveland, Ohio) I had never heard of this movie and decided to watch it.<br /><br />I know of no thesaurus that can even come close to aiding me in describing how bad this movie really is. The script is awful. The acting, well other than one of two exceptions, is pointless since there is nothing in this material that merits any real effort.<br /><br />It looks like a bunch of little ideas, leftover from various writing sessions, that where thrown into a blender. It's not just funny. The "parody" aspect is strained at best. Some references where almost out of date (even for the time of it's release). No wonder I had never heard of it, it's really bad, worse than anything Saturday Night Live, MAD TV or even In Living color put out in their worst days.<br /><br />If you see it on TV, it is a great example of how NOT to make a movie. Whatever you do DON'T WASTE A CENT.<br /><br />Adam
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wanted to love this movie. How could I not love it? Cary Grant, Jayne Mansfield, Stanley Donen; all icons in their own way. However, the train wreck that was Suzy Parker ruined the entire experience for me. Her acting was so appalling that I sat there with my jaw hanging open, not believing my eyes or ears. I could barely make it through one viewing, THAT'S how hideous she is in this.<br /><br />Cary? Gorgeous and in fine dramatic form. Jayne? Adorable, endearing, and obviously having a ball. The supporting cast does alright, and the city of San Francisco is captured in all its stunning, retro elegance.<br /><br />Then you see Suzy Parker attempting to speak her lines with a woodenness, a deadness, a cluelessness that simply defies belief. Who told this creature she could ACT?? Oy VEY, people.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic throwback to perform an odd phenomenon that appears in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels however take that universe and lead you down the garden path to whatever new little social or political commentary the author wants to make. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most painful monologues and non-action sequences in SciFi. While the visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters falls terrible flat in the sequel. Watch for eye candy, not for deep thought.<br /><br />4 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.
|
Negative
|
It seems as if in Science Fiction you have this periodic idea to perform a novel phenomenon, like those that appear in long serial novels. It's where the first novel (Dune, Ender's Game) blows you away with an actionpacked revolutionary story. The sequels, moreover, takes that universe and leads you down the path to a new social and political commentary. The Matrix is finally the film equivalent. The Matrix stands tall, alone, as an interesting film with an odd twist in the middle. Seeing this cash cow just sitting there, and wanting to explore other aspects of society, the writers and directors then lead you through what has to be some of the most beautiful monologues and action sequences in SciFi. The visuals remain as stunning from the first movies, the new explorations of the characters boosts the sequel. Watch for eye candy and for deep thought.<br /><br />8 out of 10, as registered by this fine website.
|
Positive
|
Obviously, I didn't care for Things to Come (aka "The Shape of Things to Come") as much as most viewers. That means that there is a good chance that you'll enjoy it more than I did. At any rate, you might find it useful to hear the film described from another point of view.<br /><br />Directed by William Cameron Menzies, who had as much experience as a production designer and even more as an art director, this is a film adaptation by H.G. Wells of his own novel by the same name. In my eyes, it helps demonstrate why a great novelist may not necessarily turn out to be a great screenwriter.<br /><br />The film opens in 1940 in a London-like "Everytown". War is brewing and the citizens of Everytown are worried that it might reach them. It does. And it turns into a decades-long affair that basically destroys civilization. Wells and Menzies keep jumping forward in time to show us different scenes related to the war and its aftermath. We see two pilots, one downed, coming to terms with the consequences of their fighting. We meet a post-apocalyptic community ruled over by a would-be warlord. We meet a man from a burgeoning futuristic society. We see the way that technology is changing. And finally, we're taken to the full realization of that futuristic society circa 2036, where the leaders are debating the merits of sending man to the moon.<br /><br />That might all sound potentially very exciting, but it just does not work as a film. Structurally, the film is far too episodic, with little to dramatically tie it together. By the third segment, I completely lost interest in trying to keep track of the characters. I had barely been able to sort them out in the first couple segments. There's a constant parade of new faces. We don't get to learn anything about any of them.<br /><br />It doesn't help that the individual segments, with a couple exceptions, tend to be awkwardly directed and edited. They are also occasionally manipulative--it can almost begin to feel like a propaganda film. But maybe contradictorily, the segments are also a bit cold and dry emotionally.<br /><br />In fact, one overlong section is more like a music video/industrial promotional video. If features shots of building the futuristic city, with lots of large machinery, lots of welding, and so on. At one point, a guy who looks like an astronaut waves at the camera through some kind of futuristic glass. The music for this section is somewhere between militaristic and an overblown horror score. I can't say that Things to Come consists of engaging material in terms of drama.<br /><br />But the common cry in support of Things to Come is that it is "a film about ideas". That may be true, but there are a couple problems with it if looked at that way. One, it still doesn't make it work _as a film_, that is, as a visual and aural dramatic artwork, and two, there are far too many ideas presented here.<br /><br />The principle idea is that of war and what it does to civilizations. That's a fine thing to make a film about. It's also remarkably prescient of World War II, as the Things To Come was scripted and filmed in 1935 (released in 1936). Wells has some interesting things to say about war, some of which go against the usual interpretation of the film. For example, the ending seems to suggest that another war is breaking out, or will at any moment. The overall message seems a trifle pessimistic. Wells seems to be showing that war is simply a part of human nature that cannot be excised, although it doesn't preclude "progress"--in fact, maybe it fuels progress, at least indirectly.<br /><br />That would certainly be enough for one film. However, there are many more ideas here. The scene between the two pilots is one of the more poignant scenes of the film. It deals with a complex dilemma. One pilot has shot the other down, but is now coming to assist him. But the pilot who was shot down was carrying a poisonous gas that is now billowing across the field. They can't both breathe the gas without harm. A girl comes along. They only have two functioning gas-masks between them. The pilot who was shot down offers his mask, as he says he's dying anyway. What to do? It's not that this scene itself could be stretched out to feature length, but the ideas--the bizarre complex of both helping and trying to hurt each other in the midst of a war--are enough to build a film on.<br /><br />Another example. During the scenes featuring the would-be warlord, in the post-apocalyptic environment, there is a nasty contagious disease called the "wandering sickness" going around. It turns victims into something like drunken zombies. The usual procedure is to shoot victims on site in an attempt to stave off the disease. This material is dealt with as if it were an afterthought. It's a great idea and deserved its own film.<br /><br />Similarly, Wells presents the future society as having controversial socialist ideas. That was enough for its own film, too. It's just impossible to effectively deal with so much stuff in 100 minutes, especially when it's supposed to be the crux of the film in lieu of dramatic attraction.<br /><br />Still, there are reasons to give Things to Come at least one viewing. If you're at all a sci-fi buff, this is a historically important film. Given Menzies' background, the production and set designs are interesting, even if the cinematography seems extremely dated. It's also interesting to see how Wells was either prescient or retrospectively humorous in his "predictions". I particularly enjoyed the means of propulsion to the moon, which was strongly reminiscent of George Méliès' 1902 A Trip to the Moon (aka Le Voyage dans la lune). Just don't expect too much from Things to Come.
|
Negative
| null | null |
For anyone that loves predictable movies with an awful soundtrack, lack of dialogue, clichés up the wazoo, and also stereotypes that just happens to be typical of an American film, look no farther. DreamWorks whether wanted to save money on acquiring voice talent, or really wanted to create an animated episode of National Geographic; either way, they succeeded in delivering a rather bland and boring movie. Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron is a bore fest that sends mixed signals to kids and adults, and also fails to entertain despite the oh-so-cutesy theme of animals triumphing over humans. After looking past the wonderful animations, what you have remaining is nothing but a big mess.<br /><br />Spirit is about a stallion that from the beginning of the film looks like quite a handful, as he is a horse that cannot be tamed, calmed, nor controlled. Because of this, he rises and becomes the leader of his group of high-spirited horses, which includes his mom. But, his life of freedom and running around comes to an abrupt halt as he is captured by a group of Americans in the process of connecting the Wild West with the rest of the country. During this, Spirit (never actually named that throughout the entire film almost) befriends a courageous Native American, and a fellow female horse, and also has a lot of run-ins with the cynical and cruel Army folks that apparently don't believe in giving up.<br /><br />Why must movies mix computer animation with traditional? It comes off looking rather meshed, something Spirited Away suffered from as well. Best example is when a train is chasing after Spirit; you see the hand-drawn Spirit running from a computer-animated train. It would look much better if it were one or the other, but not both; unless you can really pull off some nice effects. Beauty and The Beast's famous dance sequence uses computer animation, but it is nowhere near as obvious as the train or the snow in this movie. The opening sequence was the best-looking part of the film, kind of sad to see the rest of the movie slide a bit downhill in terms of quality. A little scene has multiple; I mean multiple similar shots of just a general's face, quite repetitive and annoying in my opinion.<br /><br />The kids might enjoy this flick, but with lack of dialog, song, and motivation, it might be a perfect technique in making hyper children fall asleep. While Disney becomes criticized for its animated musicals, they wind up becoming much more entertaining than a more realistic approach to telling a story like this one. Bryan Adams has no place in this movie, and why does Hans Zimmer stay away from using a Western theme in this movie, when it is a story taking place in the Old West? Soundtrack sounds a bit off if you ask me. At least they are using realistic noises of horses, two points for that. Yet, if you are going to refrain from making horses talk, why even have a narrator interrupt every so often, which just so happens to be the main character himself?<br /><br />Native Americans are nice, and the Western folks are evil, Native-killing, horse torturing, rowdy, psychopathic monsters that must be destroyed. More or less, this is what Spirit is showing us. It reaches a point in which they are trying so hard for the viewers to hate the travelers of the Wild West; they even had a scene of several horses pulling a huge train up a hill, and another scene of them destroying an entire village of Natives. Now, the person Spirit befriended happened to betray him, on more than one occasion, yet that is forgivable, apparently because he is not a soldier; that or because he has the sassy female horse.<br /><br />Spirit isn't exactly a victim we should feel sorry for; the viewer is supposed to sympathize with Spirit despite him putting his entire group of horses at risk, wreaking havoc, and even perhaps resulting in some off-screen deaths that are quickly shoved aside because oh no, Spirit is in trouble! This film gets quite rhythmic, as we see in multiple instances Spirit escaping from chains, kicking people around, destroying property, freeing horses, and then getting captured again---all in this same order too. The writers also seem to have an obsession with cliffs because they are sprinkled all over the movie; for an Old West film, they certainly have very little room to roam.<br /><br />Bottom Line: This is most certainly no Disney movie, as a matter of fact that is a bad thing, even though it was what they were aiming for. So, instead of the typical musical, we get a boring film that becomes predictable, dull and slow in multiple instances. Even the decent animation becomes inconsistent when the computer work gets thrown in. Everything about this movie was just wrong; from the ideals that back then Americans that were not native were evil buffoons, to the soundtrack and musical score that just seemed so far off. Kill Bill Vol. 2, which pretty much has nothing to do with the Old West, has more of a Western feel than this movie. Do yourselves a favor and totally skip this by all means necessary. Thank you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
As it is often the case, the impressive and explosive trailers of Asian films add up to nothing more than lackluster stories. Similar to Unleashed (which was great,) Dog Bite Dog tells a story where men are raised as ferocious savage dogs that carry out their master's bidding. The main characters, an emotionally undeveloped, amoral killer who is matched against an equally unstable police officer, are far from the common heroes and villains we often see. In fact, by the end, you lose track of who you're supposed to empathize with, failing to feel even the slightest emotion for either of the men whether that was the failure of the director or perhaps the underlining message he was trying to tell is up to you to decide.<br /><br />Although the beginning of the film was filled with intrigue and unpredictability, by the half-way point it slopped down to a humdrum story of survival and revenge. The suspense which was evident at first soon disappeared because of a grossly mismatched music score which brought down the potentially effective story telling. And in the end, you were left feeling that all that detailed background information and introspection of the main characters was somehow very unnecessary.<br /><br />On the plus side, the transition in story from point a to point b was quite atypical compared to US movies so those who aren't familiar with Asian films and are tired of Hollywood's predictability should check it out.<br /><br />The white balance seemed off throughout most of the film. It was like looking into a picture shot on fluorescent when it was supposed to be set on tungsten. Maybe I'm the only one, but it strained my eyes.<br /><br />The movie also enjoyed playing tricks on you an interesting build-up gave me hope for the slow moving story until it was diverted to a low budget, low speed chase scene. And just when you think you were going to get an unanswered indie ending with a mix of Shakespearean tragedy, you realize that it's not an ending at all, but rather a transition into a wacky country-music montage about peace and serenity.<br /><br />Throw in some grisly from-behind choke scenes, a moment of redemption unexpectedly brought back into savagery and back again the other way, Asians' fascination with bodily fluids and a horrible music score that didn't match the film, and you get the average bland Asian thriller.<br /><br />I just don't get why every fight scene was overlaid with clips of roaring lions
I thought they were supposed to symbolize dogs? Ultimately, in the end, we are reminded about a true killer that still lurks amongst us tetanus.<br /><br />4/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is by far the worst film I have seen in my entire life. The acting is poor and the storyline is almost incomprehensible. Whether or not you like lightships or any ships for that matter is irrelevant. As for special effects the film has none. The whole film crew were probably on the boat out in rough seas rather than in a studio and when some of the men are "stabbed" (if you can even call it that) their reactions are totally unreal. The guns are more quiet than a mute. How this film could have one two awards puts serious questions to the state of the human mind. Well thats about it. This review is probably more fun to read than the film is to watch. If anyone is considering watching it or buying it I would seriously advise you against it for obvious reasons. I have said that it includes a spoiler. If the fact that some people get stabbed and a gun gets fired is a plot giveaway. I suppose it is because they are the only good parts of the film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having enjoyed Mike Myers previous work (Waynes World and Saturday Night Live) my expectations of a 60s bond spoof were fairly high. It became plain after the first minute that this was an exercise in how to be as puerile and unfunny as possible. I swit ched off after ten minutes. I watched it the other day a second time to see whether I had been unfair the first time. I switched it off after ten minutes. I find it hard to believe how even a twelve year-old boy could find this funny. The dialogue is an e mbarrassment, Myers is painful to watch (as is Heather Graham) and the succession of characters including Fat Bastard makes matters even worse. Apart from the mildly amusing title and the psychedelic set design this is one of the worst films I have ever seen. I personally recommend you avoid this like the plague, though several friends of mine enjoyed it (maybe they were blindfolded at the time).º
|
Negative
| null | null |
I loved Dewaere in Series Noir. His talent is trivialized in "The Waltzers" aka "Going Places". Okay, it's a couple of guys flaunting convention in the most absurd and irredeemable ways; many folks find such behavior amusing. This was a boring, pointless exercise designed to shock. I find the smirk on Blier's face, the face behind the camera, annoying. Series Noir was a valid expression of personal liberty and licentious behavior. From the first moment when we see Patric Dewaere prancing in the abandoned lot we get an idea of the bewilderingly beautiful anti-hero we'll be spending time with for the next couple of hours. When we see him chasing the hapless middle aged female with his buddy Depardieu in "Going Places" we have fair warning that two hours spent with these chaps will be soul-draining. I have trouble eking even a "3" for this annoying distraction.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm both amused and disgusted by the people who claim that this movie is so accurate about Vietnam, and WERE NEVER THERE. This movie is about as true about the whole Vietnam war as the Rodney King beating is true about ALL police officers. Yes, bad things do (and did) happen, but in general the people there are just like you and me. They have morals, they are not killing machines, they do not all do drugs. Atrocities were the exception in Vietnam, not the rule. They happened far more infrequently than the "hype" would lead you believe. Oliver Stone has a knack for making movies that show the Vietnam war as this brutal bloodbath, but are based as much in reality as Star Wars. If you honestly believe the stereotypes of Vietnam, do yourself a favour and learn the truth. Fact: the Viet Cong and NVA did far worse things to the South Vietnamese than ANY soldier in the US Armed Forces ever did. Fact: the soldiers in World War II treated the enemy far worse in general than the soldiers in Vietnam did, and they were WELCOMED when they came home. The fine Americans who served this country in Vietnam deserve our respect; though the war was badly fought from a political standpoint, no one could have asked for more from our soldiers, and it is a great disservice to assert that this kind of "mostly true" fiction is the way things really were there.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Insignificant and low-brained (haha!) 80's horror like there are thirteen in a dozen, yet it can be considered amusing if you watch it in the right state of mind. The special effects are tacky, the acting atrocious and the screenplay seems to miss a couple of essential paragraphs! "The Brain" takes place in a typical quiet-American town setting, where every adolescent works in the same diner and where the cool-kid in high school flushes cherry bombs down the toilet. It is here that a TV-guru named Dr. Blake and his adorable pet-brain begin their quest for nation-wide mind controlling. Under the label of "independent thinkers", a giant cheesy brain sends out waves through television sets and forces innocent viewers to kill! How cool is that? Now, it's up to the Meadowvale teen-rebel to save the world! The funniest thing about the plot is that it never explains where Dr. Blake and his monstrous brain actually come from. There are obvious references towards extraterrestrial life but that's about it. Meh, who needs a background in a movie like this, really? There's not that much bloodshed unfortunately and the "evil" brain looks like an over-sized sock-puppet. The only more or less interesting element for horror buffs is taking a look at the cast and crew who made this movie. Director Ed Hunt and writer Barry Pearson are the same men who made "Bloody Birthday" (guilty pleasure of mine) and "Plague". Both those are much better movies and they wisely decided to resign the film industry. The most familiar face in the cast unquestionably is the great David Gale, whom horror fans will worship forever for his role in Re-Animator. A girl named Christine Kossak provides the nudity-factor and she's obviously a great talent
She has exactly 3 movies on her repertoire of which THIS is her "masterpiece". In her debut, she was credited as 'runaway model' and in "3 men and a baby", her character is referred to as 'one of Jack's girls'. I really wonder how she feels about her career as an actress
|
Negative
| null | null |
I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.<br /><br />Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.<br /><br />Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.<br /><br />This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are movies that are awful, and there are movies that are so awful they are deemed long-forgotten and unwatchable. Also, lots of violence and bad stuff (not just cheesy stuff; you know what I mean) add to the mix as well. What is the result of bad movies with such raunchy content? Why, "Final Justice," of course! <br /><br />Remember "Mitchell?" Joe Don Baker was the star of that movie, and that was riffed by Joel and the Bots on "Mystery Science Theater 3000." Now this time, with Mike taking Joel's place on the Satellite of Love (but with the same bots), that trio got to make fun of MST3K's second Joe Don Baker movie, "Final Justice." Of course, much of the naughty stuff that I mentioned was removed for television release, but still, I want to watch that episode (and "Mitchell" as well), because what does Joe Don "hate" the most? Why, none other than "Mystery Science Theater 3000!" <br /><br />P.S. If you have a Big Lots nearby, check that store for the uncut tape! LOL That happened to another user!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This budget-starved Italian action/sci-fi hybrid features David Warbeck as a Miami reporter who is chosen by the ghosts of the people of Atlantis (!) to stop an evil businessman (Academy Award nominee John Ireland) from using a telepathic fetus grown using spores from an asteroid to rule the world. You got all that? Despite such a loopy plot, this is actually quite a bore and the RAIDERS OF ATLANTIS sneers at it with contempt. Honestly, the most (intentionally) creative thing about this flick is the slight reworking of Herbie Hancock's BEVERLY HILLS COP theme for the opening titles. The most unintentionally creative bit involves a scene in a lab that is inexplicably shown twice back-to-back. Perhaps director Alberto De Martino wanted to get all avant garde on us in the twilight of his career? I was going to declare this Ireland's worst film on his resume but then I saw SATAN'S CHEERLEADERS was listed on there. I would also like to safely declare that I am probably the only person in the history of the world to do a double feature of this and Hitchcock's VERTIGO.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I spotted that Noah Wyle and Ricky Schroder were in the same movie, I was like, score! I admit, I was eager to see the movie. And I have to say, the first fifteen minutes or so were nostalgic in a way. Then it went all down hill. I didn't expect it to be a dump of politically correct civil rights mumbo jumbo. They took every possible controversial topic and threw it into one stupid story. I was appalled that Noah was involved in anything of the sort, especially his role. Nobody with a fully functional brain would actually accept all that crap about the Vietnam War. If anyone really wants to know how Communism was like, sit down and read a book on it. And not one that praises it or is against it, just the cold hard facts.<br /><br />I only watched a few scenes here and there only because I wanted to see Ricky's body, but that was all that interested me. Everything else about this movie irritated me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What reviewers and MST3K left out is the best part (and only memorable scene) of this otherwise dreadful movie: There is a very good rape-in-the-shower scene committed by the bad guy (Ben Gazzara look-alike) on Maria (as mentioned, killed later through T.J.'s ineptitude). Perhaps rape is too strong a word, "prison mating ritual" may be more appropriate. The background behind this chance, yet forced meeting is the mobster who is hiding "Ben Gazzara," introduces him to the girls hanging out at his pool. The 30-ish blonde disses him, but our villain must be quite smitten by her, because the courtship is on at that point. His first move is to attempt drowning her, until his mafia don benefactor tells him to knock it off. Kind of like the girl in high school you didn't like, but still wanted to have carnal knowledge of anyway... Let's just say, he catches UP with her in the cabana later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen... Unfortunately, I am a horror movie buff and will rent any horror movie unless it's not made for t.v. When looking at the box it says it is rated R for gore and some language... Where was the gore? Was their one good death scene where you actually saw gore? I could have overlooked that if there had been some brief nudity or some good dialogue. There wasn't even one remotely witty or amusing line in this lame movie. Sometimes horror movies are awesome because they are so stupid, but this was just sad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The King Maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the Portuguese Occupation in Indochina.<br /><br />Although the costumes and art direction are commendable, the movie still fails to impress the viewer. The acting, in particular, was extremely poor. Some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents, both real and fake, are extremely irritating. The storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. The movie couldn't even capture that sort of regal and century-old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an Asian version of Elizabeth.<br /><br />Final say? Costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air, but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn't even give natural bursts of emotion. In short, the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The worst movie in the history of cinema. I don't know if it was trying to be funny or sad, poignant or droll, but the end result was unwatchable. Everyone from Key Grip, to Robin Williams, and back down to Best Boy should be ashamed to be a part of this film!
|
Negative
| null | null |
A lot of themes or parts of the story is the same as in Leon, then other parts felt like some other movie, I don't know which, but there are an familiar feeling over the whole movie. It was kind of nice to watch, but it would have been fantastic! if the story would have been more original. The theme little girl, bad assassin from Leon, is just tweaked a little. The opening scenes are really good :-) It is strange that people like to fight in the kitchen, in the movies :-) My biggest problem was to remember which parts was from Leon, Nikita and if they where from the French or American version. If you have not seen Leon, then this is a good movie. If you liked this movie, then I can recommend Leon.<br /><br />Best Regards /Rick
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't like this film at all! First of all,I don't know why, but everyone here says, that Clémence Poésy's play is excellent, which in my opinion is absolutely wrong! She is not like Natasha: another appearance, another character... What's worse, she is a very unexperienced actress and that's why she wasn't able to play this role! She disfigured the heroine completely! That was really disgusting to watch her play! To my mind, that would be much better to give this role to a Russian actress, because that would be much easier for her to understand the Russian soul for a Russian person. Unfortunately, Kutuzov looked like a drunk man, who hasn't shaved 2 weeks and defeated a battle in which he lost his eye...( Thank's God, in this film there're some actors, whose play was awesome! I suppose, that Alessio Boni coped with his task very well! I was pleasantly amazed! He is one of the few people who's read the book, which is very important for the play. In addition, I liked plays of our Russian actors, that was really wonderful to watch them)) The only thing I liked in this work was very beautiful views and amazing dresses! My advice is to read the book and to understand a real sense, the aim, with which Leo Tolstoy wrote this masterpiece, and maybe realize the whole idea of the book... 1 from 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I too was intrigued by the high (8.5) rating for this film, and was very disappointed. I had just seen a couple of good foreign films and was looking forward to making it three in a row, but it was not to be. I went with a spanish speaking friend who felt the same way. There is not much of a plot, if any. I don't necessarily need that in a movie, but it needs to somehow entertain or bring me in. The best I could say would be that it aspires to be an Altman-esque film, albeit with an extremely small ensemble. Sure, there are moments, but a few moments easily get thinned out by 97 slow minutes of nothing. I do not understand the high rating for this film. I give it a 3.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK. I think the TV show is kind of cute and it always has some kind of lesson involved. So, when my kids decided they wanted to see this movie, I decided to tag along. I wish I'd stayed home and watched the TV show instead.<br /><br />The fact that the humor is silly and unoriginal is the least of the problems with this movie. The plot is next to non-existant, the characters seem to exist in a vacuum, and, worst of all, Gadget does not carry any lesson whatsoever. It appears that Disney took all of the things that make Inspector Gadget work on TV and tossed them all. To be fair, my younger child (8 years old) liked the movie but the older one (10 years old) came away thinking it silly (he was too old for the youth humor but too young for any of the adult humor).<br /><br />Generally, I like Disney films but this one misses by a mile. It is OK for a very narrow age band (say 7 to 9) but a must miss for everybody else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Living in the Middle East (in Israel), I was excited when I bought my ticket for Syriana. Having seen the trailer, and being a thriller-lover, I expected to see first of all a fast moving, breath catching movie, which wisely dips in global policy-making and the relation between oil, power and corruption, from a fresh angle. Well, I almost left the movie in the middle. The pace was painfully slow, almost all characters were stereotyped, the intertwined editing made understanding the logic very difficult, but, as Steve Rhodes wrote in his review, in the end you don't care. Save your money, save your time, choose another movie.<br /><br />Robi Chernitsky
|
Negative
| null | null |
Knowing Enki Bilal's comics for quite some time, I had to see this movie. I have thought this would be a good way for the artist as Bilal to spread his art and ideas to wider audience. I have also thought this would be a good movie to recommend, and I thought I will enjoy watching it... I was wrong! The movie was a true torture to watch. The idea has potential... but, movie leaves way too much to be desired, and basically everyone who sees this movie is left with impression that he could do it better. I will not make suggestion whether you should see this movie or not. Chances are if you're reading these pages that you have already seen it, or that you're gonna see it - but be prepared for very bad 102 minutes.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a very bland and inert production of one of Shakespeare's most vibrant plays. I can only guess that the intent was to make the play as accessible and understandable as possible to an audience that has not been exposed to Shakespeare before. By doing this, though - by making every line clear and every intent obvious - they have drained the play of life and turned it into a flat caricature. Somehow, it is actually boring - a very hard feat given such wonderful material.<br /><br />The acting is forgettable at best - Sam Waterston as Benedick and Douglas Watson as Don Pedro. Others, however, do not fare so well. April Shawnham's Hero is a pouty, breathless airhead that frequently provokes winces. Jerry Mayer's Don John is a nonsensical cartoon character on the level of Snidely Whiplash (though Snidley was much more enjoyable).<br /><br />F. Murray Abraham (you know, the guy who killed Mozart?) is not in this version, unless he was in disguise and had his name removed from the credits.<br /><br />Given that the producer, Joseph Papp, is basically a theater god, this production is not only disappointing but head-scratching as well.<br /><br />Don't bother with this. Watch Branagh's Much Ado instead - his version is overflowing with vitality and humor, to say nothing of wonderful performances.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why else would he do this to me?<br /><br />Not that I expect Dean Cain to produce hit movies. Or even decent movies. I saw Lois and Clark, I am aware of just how... "good" Dean Cain is.<br /><br />Obviously this is gonna be a cheesey flick, and each cheesey flick has its own special way to make you scratch your head. I will not call these spoilers as you can't really spoil this movie any more than it already is.<br /><br />To begin with... why is that a fake helicopter? I mean... why?<br /><br />How come that one scientist is from Chicago and that other scientist is from LA and neither one could be any more eastern european if they tried? How hard would it have been to get either an american actor, or just change that lame state sheet the movie provides us with to say those people aren't american?<br /><br />Why are there 2 occasions when the movie gives us a slug line? We get helipad-day and then mess hall-day later on. And then that's it, who cares about the timeline. To be honest, who cared about it even when they mentioned it, but I guess that's beside the point.<br /><br />Does a movie really get better if you are able to view it through multiple split screens? The answer is no.<br /><br />That dragon sure can walk down that hall..over..and over...and over....and over...<br /><br />Who on earth was responsible for one of the worst endings in film history? It was straight out of scooby doo. Oh, the dragon's dead now...say, wanna get dinner? Sure, but not at some Chinese place....with Dragon in the name!! AH HA HA HA!! HA HA HA!! HAHA HA! I used to be Superman! AHA HA HA! HA HA!<br /><br />fade to black<br /><br />my god, it made me cringe it was so stupid.<br /><br />But never fear..even though the whole building exploded...and no one was left alive..for some reason there's a second untouched, unmanned lab that survived pretty well, so they can make a sequel. Hurray for us all.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pieced (edited) together from dead body parts (deleted scenes) from corpses (Anchorman), the Frankenstein Monster (Wake Up, Ron Burgundy) is definitely not a sight for sore eyes (something you'd ever want to watch twice.....maybe even once for that matter.)<br /><br />More often than not -the relativity of the scenes in WURB are made relevant by a third person narrator. Even more troubling is that the characters in WURB are inconsistent with the versions of themselves that we had at the end of Anchorman (in opening narration we're told WURB takes place shortly after the original.) At the end of Anchorman, Burgundy had grown since the start of the film and embraced having a hybrid co-anchorwoman/lover. In this film, he's back to his immature antics with prank phone calls to Veronica (quite clearly these are the more of the same scenes from the original Anchorman spliced in to WURB.) <br /><br />The part that makes this a movie, a continually evolving story, involves a bank-robbing clan without a cause called the Alarm Clock. These scenes are almost painful to sit through. This part was scrapped from the original scripts for Anchorman.<br /><br />The majority of other scenes involving our Channel 4 news team are clearly alternate/deleted takes on scenes from Anchorman. They go to the same party as in the original, the same original "group bitching about having a woman on the team" scene, and the same cat fashion show segment that Veronica had objections to reporting.<br /><br />Burgundy re-creates their first date with the drive-in spot overlooking San Diego and dinner at his favorite club, Tinos. Neither character make mention that they've been to the drive-in spot before and when Burgundy walks into Tinos with Veronica, he introduces it to her as though they've never been before. Oh, and they're wearing the same clothes as on their original date.<br /><br />Still, I have to give some credit to the filmmakers - even if WURB is nothing more than a clever way of presenting deleted scenes tied together with narration. Between the two Ron Burgundy stories - this is the weaker one. Looking back on it, it's quite a feat for Anchorman to have risen from the ashes of WURB. You stay classy, IMDb. Thanks for stopping by.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!<br /><br />It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.<br /><br />Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Watching the first 30 minutes of Sands of Oblivion gave me high hopes. It seemed I was in for a cheaper version of the Mummy. The setup was promising, in the 1920's Cecil B. Demille makes his opus of the Ten Commandments. It seems in using real Egyptian artifacts for the movie set they unleashed an ancient and terrible evil (don't they always?). Aware of what had been unleashed DeMille orders the entire set buried instead of the usual practice of tearing it down. Hopefully the evil will be buried with it for all time. Then we switch to present day where a team is attempting to excavate the site (the movie's first mistake, but hey those period costumes are expensive and this is a Sci-Fi channel movie). The first sightings we get of the Anubis monster are well done and it's a costume that they put some effort into and not the usual cheesy CG effect. Then the body counts starts. This is were the movie went south for me. The reactions to the fact that people are dying in gruesome and strange ways gets a strangely subdued reaction. Once they realize that the ancient evil has again been unleashed and is on a killing spree what do the stock issue leading man and lady do? They make the usual stop to the "guy who knows the truth but never told anyone". After getting that vital information do they share it with the comrades at the dig site? No, they stop off at a hotel for a refreshing shower and some pleasant small talk. Really I'm not the most motivated person but if I knew a demon from ancient Egypt was on the loose and killing everyone in sight and would be coming after me I'd put a little hustle in my step to solve the problem. After this overlong and pointless middle section they get around to destroying the Anubis monster in the usual way, by racing around in dune buggies and shooting it with a rocket launcher while it's standing by a pile of phosphorous grenades. For a Sci-Fi movie it was above the usual crap they put out, which isn't saying much at all. What disappoints me is this could have been a lot more if someone had wrote a decent script for it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
'Flight Of Fury' is a shockingly dire but worst of all boring Action Film - I don't expect a lot from a Seagal Film, all I expect is to be moderately entertained for 90 or so minutes with some mindless action -unfortunately this doesn't even achieve that low expectation, The action scenes are few and far between, the plot (which is totally irrelevant in these Films) is needlessly complicated and confusing with huge plot holes throughout, The acting is truly abysmal - bordering on embarrassing with Seagal and his whispering One expression performance being the best among the sorry lot of 3rd raters - I find it hard to believe that anything close to $12M was spent on this dire mess unless $11M of that 12 was Seagal's Salary - I somehow doubt it! The one moment of any interest to Straight guys or gay girls is that out of seemingly nowhere two hot chicks end up in a lesbian sex scene of sorts complete with huge baps on display other than that - It's mediocre stuff which is no different to many of the Michael Dudikoff B-Movies I've endured<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.