input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Sundown - featuring the weakest, dorkiest vampires ever seen, accompanied by one of the most unfitting, pretentious scores ever written - and with Shane the vampire, who's every move and spoken word was so ridiculous that I burst out laughing half the times and rolled my eyes the rest.<br /><br />The vampires don't seem to have any special powers at all - except for strength (sometimes), being able to switch off a lamp with their mind (one time) and... that's it, really. Ever imagine count Dracula worriedly recoiling from a fight 'cause he ran out of bullets? Neither did I. Practically any other movie-Dracula would eat this one for breakfast, skin his followers and use their bones as toothpicks.<br /><br />The main plot of the movie is that a human family of four gets caught up in a vampire gang fight - Dracula's vs. some old geezer's. It could have been some good old B-flick fun, but the overly dramatic music was clearly written by someone who took this movie a bit too seriously, and ends up ruining the remaining part of the movie not already ruined by clay bats, mediocre acting and the laughable screenplay.<br /><br />In the end it's just too silly to be funny. Sure, it has some amusing moments, but they're few, and far apart.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film, a Universal release of a Protelco-MLC production, is a boring retelling of the theory of breaking down the molecular structure of an object, capturing it in a cell as "pure energy," and then sending it back complete to a "target area." There is no explanation WHY this is necessary, but Professor Paul Steiner (played by pock-mocked actor Bryant Haliday, "Devil Doll") thinks it's something to dedicate his, and his assistants', Pat Hill (Mary Peach) and Chris Mitchell (Ronald Allen), lives to. <br /><br />During an experiment before noted Dutch scientist "Lembach" (Gordon Heinz), his machine fails due to sabotage, so he has himself "projected" by his secretary, Sheila (Tracey Crisp) to seek revenge. Of course, she screws up and he comes out looking like a "pork roast" with the power to electrocute people. <br /><br />With this new-found power, he manages to zap some Cockney idiots, a security guy named Latham (Derrick de Marney) and his lab boss, Dr. Blanchard (Norman Woodland). He also is able to break into a pharmacy and steal a pair of rubber gloves and a black coat, as well. <br /><br />In the end, though, despite Hill and Mitchell's attempt to help him, the clown destroys his equipment and himself. On the whole, a completely pointless movie with no message at all. <br /><br />Also one of the most depressing color films you will ever see.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I rented this film yesterday mostly due to the good-looking art and the summary given on the back of the jacket. After popping it into my DVD player I re-examined the jacket cover and even though I took the cover out of from the plastic viewer, I STILL could not read any of the production detail information about the film. This film is entitled Evil on the Jacket and had to locate it by going to Faith Films website to find out any linkage to it here on IMDb.<br /><br />The filming and special affects done in the film looked quite good ... THEN, a line-reading actor spoke. Oh dear ... this actor's reading sounded like some pimple-faced high school jock whose voice just managed to change pitch, and no attempt given to go beyond reading the lines from the script. At first I thought I got a bad disc out of audio sync, then had to surmise it was a foreign film since I couldn't read the jacket... English dialog dubbed. If they'd casted the right person for dubbing the dialog, this film MIGHT have been decent. I gave it a chance of about 20 minutes before ejecting it when I discovered the bad line reader wasn't going to get killed off, but stay as the constant main fixture. Yes, it is THAT bad! The jacket cover art and the art done in the film are great, so gave the one star, but minus 1,999,999 stars for the rotten dialog. I do not recommend this one!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This video contains an outsmart way to confuse and manipulate Americans about Islam. It's a pity that the people who did it really believe that American people is so dumb to believe in it, perhaps, as an American citizen, every person must protest against this kind of crap. If you want to know the truth about Islam, don't let nobody tell you... THE QURAN IS PUBLIC! you can read it by yourself and decide if what they say it's true or false...<br /><br />The video uses a lot of audiovisual strategies directed to manipulate and associate things that are not even related. The music used at some points prepare the public to hate what they see, even if they don't really understand what's going on in there. They use images that are misplaced from their original content.<br /><br />To end the comment I would like to make a reflexion... Don't you think you can do the same exact movie with every religion in the world?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Make up your own mind. Personally I found it as much fun as receiving a spinal tap from Stevie Wonder. No offense Mr. Wonder. Maybe it is comedy, but I just found it stupid. Not exactly the first two choices to babysit your kids; Wheeler(Seann William Scott)and Danny(Paul Rudd),two energy drink salesmen, to avert jail time are court ordered to mentor two kids from a development center run by Gayle Sweeny(Jane Lynch). One of the misfits is Ronnie(Bobb'e J. Thompson), a foul-mouthed fifth grader and the other is Augie(Christopher Mintz-Plasse), a bashful young man that roll plays in a fantasy medieval world. Wheeler and Danny desperately try to give their charges an invaluable inside view of life, love and heavy metal. Lynch is hilarious with her dry wit analogies. Supporting are: Elizabeth Banks, Ken Jeongg, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Amanda Righetti and David Wain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Usually when a movie receives a vote of one it is because someone simply dislikes it and is annoyed it doesn't have a lower rating, and so decides to drag it down as much as they can instead of just giving it a low rating. This is not the case here.<br /><br />Bonesetter is a perfect example of a 0/10 film. It does nothing right and it doesn't have the chance to because it doesn't really attempt to do anything. There are strands of a bad D&D novel kind of plot which doesn't hold together and a complete lack of any kind of acting throughout. It is clear that nobody involved in this project gave it any kind of serious effort, because even a completely patently untalented persons' hard work would amount to more. A truly awful film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Got into this flick, just as it was beginning, on an afternoon where I was home with a touch of flu - otherwise I'd have missed it. That probably would have been best.<br /><br />I noticed the presence of Lindsay Crouse and Jay Thomas - both very good performers - and thought this might be worth a look. It proved to be to some extent, but only because it is one of those stories so awful it fascinates.<br /><br />Zoe McLellan has little to recommend her talents, except for her Jayne Mansfield- or Loni Anderson-like bosom. Unfortunately, her acting prowess - at least here - makes Mansfield and Anderson seem to be Garbo or Davis by comparison.<br /><br />The young nut case's white rat, the owner's cat, the young nut case having the owner evicted and restrained in her own home, and a bunch of doophus's (including the young nut case) running around a bio hazard facility, and the absurd conclusion. I kept waiting for at least some scene or plot element to contain at least a modicum of realism, believability or being capable of evoking some empathy/sympathy -- but this proved to be in vain.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Encouraged by the positive comments about this film on here I was looking forward to watching this film. Bad mistake. I've seen 950+ films and this is truly one of the worst of them - it's awful in almost every way: editing, pacing, storyline, 'acting,' soundtrack (the film's only song - a lame country tune - is played no less than four times). The film looks cheap and nasty and is boring in the extreme. Rarely have I been so happy to see the end credits of a film. <br /><br />The only thing that prevents me giving this a 1-score is Harvey Keitel - while this is far from his best performance he at least seems to be making a bit of an effort. One for Keitel obsessives only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is absolutely awful, but nevertheless, it can be hilarious at times, although this humor is entirely unintentional.<br /><br />The plot was beyond ridiculous. I don't even think a 2 year-old would be convinced by the ludicrous idiocy that the film-makers tried to slap together into a story. However, on the positive side, some of the horrifically inane plot twists provide a great deal of humor. For example, "Wow, Lady Hogbottom has a giant missile hidden in her back yard!" It gets worse (and even funnier), but I'll spare you.<br /><br />The acting is generally laughable. Most of the kids' roles are sort of cute, but not very believable. On the other hand, Annie is pretty awful all-around. The adults don't take their roles seriously at all, but this is largely a good thing. If they'd tried to be believable, the film would've been even worse. Which is difficult to imagine.<br /><br />Once you get past the overall crappiness of the movie, there are actually a few standout moments of almost-not-crappiness. The scene where Lady Hogbottom's son runs away with the maid is surprisingly hilarious, though it's an annoying letdown when they get caught by the police. The butler character, while very minor, is a ray of sunlight that almost, but never quite pierces through the gloom.<br /><br />Watching this movie actually caused me physical pain. Nevertheless, there were a few redeeming parts that made it almost watchable without beginning to hemorrhage internally. Judged on its good parts alone, the movie would be about a 5; unfortunately, the rest of the movie hardly deserves a 1. Thus, I give it a 3.<br /><br />That's being pretty generous, I'd say.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I vowed a long time ago to NEVER, EVER watch a movie that has ANYONE who EVER was a regular cast member of "Saturday Night Live". I didn't rent "Corky Romano" but I was forced by my unfailing good manners to watch it for half an hour. Then my good manners failed. Stupid, not funny. Tedious, not hilarious. Bad, not good. That in a nutshell is all I can say for this video.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If there was some weird inversed Oscar Academy awards festival this flick would win it all. It has all the gods, excellent plot, extreme special effects coupled with extremely good acting skills and of course in every role there is a celebrity superstar. Well, this could be the scenario if the world was inversed, but it's not. Instead it's the worst horror flick ever made, not only bad actors that seem to read the scripts from a teleprinter with bad dyslexia, but also extremely low on special effects. For example the devil costume (which by the way is a must-see), is something of the most hilarious I've ever seen. Whenever I saw that red-black so called monster on screen I couldn't hold my laugh back. And to top of things it looked like the funny creature was transported by a conveyor-belt.<br /><br />Do not do the same mistake as I did. Checking IMDB seeing that the movie was released in 2003, had less than five votes and thinking: -"Well, it's worth a shot, can't be that bad".<br /><br />Yes it could.<br /><br />I'm not even going to waste more words on this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.<br /><br />The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.<br /><br />I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.<br /><br />For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Expectations were somewhat high for me when I went to see this movie, after all I thought Steve Carell could do no wrong coming off of great movies like Anchorman, The 40 Year-Old Virgin, and Little Miss Sunshine. Boy, was I wrong.<br /><br />I'll start with what is right with this movie: at certain points Steve Carell is allowed to be Steve Carell. There are a handful of moments in the film that made me laugh, and it's due almost entirely to him being given the wiggle-room to do his thing. He's an undoubtedly talented individual, and it's a shame that he signed on to what turned out to be, in my opinion, a total train-wreck.<br /><br />With that out of the way, I'll discuss what went horrifyingly wrong.<br /><br />The film begins with Dan Burns, a widower with three girls who is being considered for a nationally syndicated advice column. He prepares his girls for a family reunion, where his extended relatives gather for some time with each other.<br /><br />The family is high atop the list of things that make this an awful movie. No family behaves like this. It's almost as if they've been transported from Pleasantville or Leave it to Beaver. They are a caricature of what we think a family is when we're 7. It reaches the point where they become obnoxious and simply frustrating. Touch football, crossword puzzle competitions, family bowling, and talent shows ARE NOT HOW ACTUAL PEOPLE BEHAVE. It's almost sickening.<br /><br />Another big flaw is the woman Carell is supposed to be falling for. Observing her in her first scene with Steve Carell is like watching a stroke victim trying to be rehabilitated. What I imagine is supposed to be unique and original in this woman comes off as mildly retarded.<br /><br />It makes me think that this movie is taking place on another planet. I left the theater wondering what I just saw. After thinking further, I don't think it was much.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let's face it-- if you rented a STDVD sequel of a forgotten 80's gem, and expected it to be better than the aforementioned, then you are an idiot. Wargames: The Dead Code joins the long running list of unnecessary sequels that the DVD market has filled so easily. Movies like this don't need spoilers, because YOU already know them.<br /><br />The "plot" for this "film", is as follows: Nerd meets girl; girl likes nerd; nerd likes girl; nerd gets accidentally involved with Top Secret Government computer; nerd and girl go to another country; nerd and girl end up being persecuted by Government suits in the other country; nerd and girl meet some important old guy that dies at key point in the "film"; nerd and girl are captured; the Top Secret Government computer gets crazy; nerd is hired to beat Top Secret Government Computer; nerd beats Top Secret Computer by using the same old Top Secret Computer from the first Wargames "film"; nerd saves the day; nerd gets laid. <br /><br />The end.<br /><br />The acting, script, effects, score, and cinematography are what you would expect-- B-grade. Some familiar faces are in here, and unless you are a mega fan of Colm Feore, then you should avoid this one. Granted, the movie won't make you insane enough to eat your own toes by seeing it, so if you like cheap looking STDVD sequels, then you are right at home.<br /><br />Sadly, Mathew Broderick was too involved with some "masterpiece", that he couldn't even do a five second cameo in this one. But can you blame him?
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is a very poor attempt to make money using a classical theme. I used to love Superman movies, but this one made me want to shoot myself. Very poor acting, outrageous special effects, and a plot equal to zero. To summarize : Superman leaves earth, because scientists discovered pieces of his home planet, some were in space (duh) , doesn't tell his girlfriend anything before leaving (duh again), takes off in a spaceship (?!?),comes back i think 5 years later, and look forward to hooking up with his girlfriend again (who is now razing his son, which son, in my humble opinion is at least 7 years old). And what about that Lex Luthor ? Trying to grow a new continent in order to sell land ? Please !!<br /><br />I vote 1 out of 10 for this movie, only because i am not allowed to vote 0. If you have anything else to do with your time, don't go to see this movie, and even if you don't have anything else to do, stay home and watch TV !
|
Negative
| null | null |
someone needed to make a car payment... this is truly awful... makes jean Claude's cyborg look like gone with the wind... this is an hour I wish I could sue to get back... luckily it produced severe somnolence... from which I fell asleep. how can actors of this caliber create this dog? I would rather spend the time watching algae grow on the side of a fish tank than partake of this wholly awful concoction of several genre. I now use the DVD as a coaster on my coffee table. $5.99 at walmart is far too much to spend on this movie... if you really have to have it, wait till they throw them out after they have carried them on the inventory for several years and are frustrated that they would not sell.<br /><br />please for the love of god let this movie die of obscurity.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I felt this movie started out well. The acting was spot on and I felt for all the characters situation, even though the true family unit was not completely revealed. We never got enough info on the father to truly feel his pain for his whole involvement or the build up for his animosity with Tobe. I mean in one scene you see him admiring her for tensity and in another scene he just about takes her head off. Another problem with the movie was it just unraveled and lost all focus by the end, and I was begging for it to just be over with. Any movie with such a long drawn out , and painful ending should never get an automatic rating of 7 or above just for the acting. We are looking at the over all quality of the movie experience. In the case of this movie the end is so bad I seriously contemplated just walking out of the theater. This movie pulled me in then just spit me out.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Let's see...I'm trying to practice finding the positive in everything, so what kind thing can I say about the Pallbearer?<br /><br />I know! The performances were -- no, that won't work as they succeeded in draining all personality from Gwyneth Paltrow, usually so vibrant, and ended up creating caricatures out of Carol Kane and Barbara Hershey...<br /><br />Oh - how 'bout the story -- nope. That isn't gonna fly either, as it was doze-inducing. What was the genre anyway? It wasn't funny, that rules out comedy. It wasn't interesting enough to be dramatic. Was that a romance between Schwimmer and Paltrow? I have to ask, as I can't be sure - let's just call it "losers in like." I'm sure those behind this film started with a vision, I mean, they must have had one to pitch to the studio suits, but I need help finding it.<br /><br />Even if I were a patient person who could forgive the pure stupidity of the story, I couldn't in good conscience recommend a film that allows a guy to go into a professional job interview in a windbreaker and messy, fluffy, stupid hair. Speaking of hair -- are we supposed to be amused by the deliberate black roots and platinum locks worn by Hershey?<br /><br />What am I doing? I already lost 97 irretrievable minutes in the actual watching of the movie -- I cannot devote any more time to this loser.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The world is facing imminent destruction and a suicide mission is sent to the Sun to avert catastrophe by firing a bomb into its fiery heart: yes, it's Solar Crisis, aka Crisis 2050, which burned up a huge chunk of change that's never apparent on screen back in 1990 and returned barely enough to buy a Happy Meal for each of the cast in Japan before going straight to video (remember them?) in a re-edited version credited to one Alan Smithee. The plot hook's pretty much the same as Sunshine - suicide mission to the Sun, saboteur on board, logic cast adrift - except that this time they're not trying to reignite the sun but to prematurely detonate a solar flare before it can reach Earth. With a talking bomb. Voiced by Paul Williams. Who wants to be promoted so the crew will take him more seriously
Given that the cast also includes Jack Palance at his most dementedly OTT, Charlton Heston at his most rigid, top-liner Tim Matheson at his most anonymous, the original Hills Have Eyes' unforgettable Michael Berryman (you may not remember the name, but you DO remember that face) and Peter Boyle as the industrialist out to sabotage the mission because, er, if it succeeds the world will be saved but his share price will go down, you'd expect if not a laugh-a-minute at least a laugh every reel. No joy. This is the worst kind of bad movie: a boring one. The fate of the world may be hanging in the balance but the whole film is shot with a complete lack of urgency or momentum at the same unvarying deadly slow pace. There's low-key and there's walking through it, but here the cast don't even do that. Instead, they just stand still looking at screens in near darkness for most of the time. You keep on hoping for Paul Williams' talking bomb to suffer an existential crisis, but instead the film just... stands there, doing next to nothing. Literally. This is one of the most inert movies ever made so inert that if Clive Owen had been cast, he'd almost have looked lively by comparison. Even a poorly explained suicidal repair attempt fails to raise a fritter of interest since it mostly involves, yep, the cast just standing still looking at screens in near darkness. Even when the bomb prematurely goes into countdown before being launched they deal with the new crisis by
standing still looking at screens in near darkness as if they had all the time in the world. Merchant-Ivory films have better action scenes.<br /><br />Things aren't much livelier down on Earth where the movie spends most of it's running time with Matheson's son/Chuck's grandson Corin Nemec trying to hitch a ride to the spaceport across an arid landscape with Palance's insane desert artist "looking for that note out there while the chicks still dig me" while waylaid by rejects from a Mad Max ripoff and evil corporate suits who track him down so they can
release him on a nice beach. Just don't expect logic, if you haven't already guessed that much. Best moment? A ditzy girl in a bar describing Jack Palance as "An old guy with white hair and a face like rotting leather," though Chucky Baby taking out the villain's aircraft with a bazooka fired from the hip from an office window or beating up a barfly who likes his beret are welcome morsels of camp in a film that for 99% of it's running time offers a whole lot of nuttin'. Richard C. Sarafian's slightly longer original cut that played in Japan offers an additional six minutes but cries out to be cut down to a more manageable 17 minutes: the director of Vanishing Point must have thanked his lucky stars when the re-edit gave him an excuse to take his name off the film. A film so bad it's not good, and painfully unfunny with it
|
Negative
| null | null |
I like a lot of the actors/actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns .The main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers .In 20 or 30 years Nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90's . I can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot's and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music .The soundtrack will feature bands like Nirvana , N.W.A , Public Enemy , Soundgarden etc .The movie like this will be just as cheesy as The 60's and I gurantee you NBC will do it .See the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren't thinking i am living in the 60's or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time .Next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was watching this with one of my friends, who is a vampire freak, and I was extremely disgusted at the fact that this film exists. This film should be shown to prisoners of war, yes, it's that bad. Even John McCain wouldn't be able to sit through this. So why the 3/10 rating? Because it had a vampire midget. Come on, what's more entertaining than a vampire midget? There's one scene in this film where John Savage gets laid by saying "I want to feel human again," and the chick, being the brainless stripper slut she is, lets him "feel human". I wish I could "feel human" with Jessica Alba or Megan Fox. This is a movie for stoners. There is bright flashy objects and random movements. All in all, don't waste your money on this garbage. I got it for free when I was walking down the street with my friend and we saw a garbage barrel full of video tapes and a sign that said "free". So, in a way, I didn't get ripped off, but still...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.<br /><br />Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.<br /><br />The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.<br /><br />Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.<br /><br />The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Universal's answer to "The Exorcist" isn't a very good one. Unfortunately, the film offers bland, unimaginative direction from Michael Winner who wastes an outstanding cast with a screenplay massing crater-sized plot-holes. Not to mention, it's unbearably silly never explaining certain key elements within the story.<br /><br />Model Cristina Raines moves into a high-rise owned by the Catholic Church with a creepy, blind priest John Carradine, who holes up in there always at the window. She begins to suffer faint spells and nausea. What's worse is tenants she meets in the building such as Burgess Meredith(with a cat and a canary!)and a young Beverly D'Angelo as a lesbian. Ava Gardner(looking great at 55)is the Realtor who showed Raines the place. Cristina's lover is Chris Sarandon, whose wife "committed suicide" after finding out they were having an affair. José Ferrer has a small role as the "Priest of the Brotherhood" who informs Monsignor Arthur Kennedy to be careful as he heads to the very high-rise not only housing Carradine but Raines as well. Sarandon sends a hired-hand up to the high-rise one night to check out a certain room above Cristina's apartment where she heard metallic clanging and other loud racket. He winds up dead the very same night Cristina "kills" her DEAD father in a nightmare. Screaming mad on the street, Cristina does indeed have blood on her which leads police detective Eli Wallach and partner Christopher Walken to investigate them with sure certainty that it all somehow leads back to Sarandon who is a hot-shot lawyer who once beat the cop in court regarding the whole wife's suicide. That case is really a motivating factor is Wallach's dogged approach to finding out whose blood was really on Cristina and if Sarandon has anything to do with it. You also have Martin Balsam as a professor who understands this type of Latin Cristina mysteriously understands and unbilled actors such as Jeff Goldblum as a fashion photographer and Tom Berenger as a man interested in this certain room that has become available in the very room(now renovated)that Cristina once stayed in! What bothers me more than anything is lack of explanation. Towards the end of the film Wallach and Walken are forgotten and we are left wondering why they just up and quit investigating. Their characters are just left on the back-burner. How the priests know that "now is the time" when a certain man will die and must be replaced to guard a certain gate in that high-rise and why Cristina suffers through the trauma she does isn't adequately explained. How certain ghosts just appear to Cristina and disappear when she tries to show Gardner the rooms they occupied during a cat's birthday(see for yourself)isn't adequately explained. Not to mention Gardner's role in the grand scheme of things..she brings people to that high-rise, but what is really her reasons in the film? It seems like this film should've been longer and cleared things up left lost to a rushed conclusion that is just laughable when it should be scary.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The thing about calling "House of the Dead" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called "a movie."<br /><br />House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've seen better production quality on YouTube! I pity the actors, as the writing was terrible and the direction shocking, not sure how they could get the lines out - I really doubt any actor would have been able to salvage this movie no matter how good they were. The characters were not developed at all, and there was no real cohesion in the plot which just seemed to go nowhere much. It's a shame really, as the premise for the movie was good and with better production quality, direction and script it could have been a decent movie. It certainly was not a comedy, unless you laugh out loud at the dubbing - which was amateurish, even the English actors sounded weird.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Before the Internet this movie could never have been made but the idea that the Web is full of evil is the idea behind it.Unfortunately thats all it was-the generally opinion that nowadays the Web in the wring hands can create as much chaos as anything in real life. Since the late 90s somebody found out that you could create a virus which would disable a computer.The point? Just to do something plain evil by remote control so its the cyber equivalent of robbery with violence.Which is basically what spam is without the violence-its conning you into parting with your money and has been going so long its a wonder anybody takes any notice of it nowadays so they get cleverer and use real names as doing something illegal isn't a priority, We see the Internet get worse by the week-the social networking sites or chat room which lead to evil and the child porn sites which ARE illegal. So the idea of a movie which invites people to click a name is just the same old thing-there actually IS a site called Horrorvision which is a porn site-but this one KILLS the people who enter its portals. The story though is so disjointed its boring with it and comes to no conclusion. The definitive movie on this theme of destroying an Internet Service Provider has yet to be made but clearly many DO need destroying as they won't be shut down when there's money to be made. Calling this a horror film is rather misleading as it bores not frightens
|
Negative
| null | null |
It saddens me to rate a movie with a lot of my favorite actors, locations and genres, i.e. Douglas, Sutherland, Washington, D.C. and political thriller, but 'The Sentinel' really hits a low. It's like they had a great idea up front, signed the right cast and had some great city shots and then took a holiday letting the remaining crew improvise the rest. And I wish I could blame it on yet another bland performance from Basinger (not only do I feel she's one of the worst actors in Hollywood, but I'm still steaming more than a decade later that she was the only one, and definitely the only bad actor in the film, to win an acting Oscar for 'L.A. Confidential.') But she wasn't the only problem. Sutherland, who I love as Jack Bauer on '24' once again plays
Jack. I miss his old 'A Time to Kill' or 'A Few Good Men' days. Douglas certainly took a hiatus from acting and phoned this one in. Plot: Someone, some Secret Service traitor, wants the President dead and Douglas is (haphazardly) being framed. Will someone believe him? Actually, no spoiler here: as quickly as they came up with that subplot half-way through, it's over before you know it. And why did someone(s) want the President dead? Is that to be revealed in the sequel? Too many plot holes, too many doors opened and never closed and too predictable 'The Sentinel' is. If you only see one movie a year, you may not know who the mole is, but anyone who's familiar with these types of movies or even just seen one 'Law & Order' episode you'll know in the first few frames. Was it terrible? Not really, the cinematography was good, and despite Sutherland playing Jack again, he's still got it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
To say this film stinks would be insulting to skunks. As the other commenter says, this movie is insulting to anyone over the mental age of 7 (it is especially, incredibly insulting to gays). It is awful - and not in a "so bad it's funny" sort of way either - it's just plain awful. No, I have to say it: IT STINKS! (sorry skunks).<br /><br />From the opening credits to the end titles there is hardly more than 10 seconds of this movie worth opening your eyes for. The "plot" is incoherent, the characterization non-existent, the acting is of the over the top mugging "look at me I'm being funny!" school and so it goes on. The set pieces are clumsily set up (if at all) and are badly executed, it's just awful on every front - apart from the music maybe, I don't remember thinking the music stinks (apart from the songs).<br /><br />To be fair to the makers, they lay their cards on the table pretty quickly: the opening credits include the title "Also starring Ertha Kitt as the voice of Betty the meteor" (since as the meteor in question turns out never never say anything but make an occasional purring noise they may well have lifted Ms. Kitt's contribution from one of her records) and the second line of the movie runs something like: "...and scientists have discovered new facts about the rings around Uranus." Uranus - "Your Anus" geddit? geddit? huh? huh?? Your Anus? The humour really is that cheap.<br /><br />It says strange things about the "comedies" of that period in that it was perfectly permissable for the hero to deliberately shoot people dead in the street but not say "sh*t" out loud.<br /><br />I paid fifty pence (about $1.00) for this movie in a sale. I feel ripped off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie, no correction, this THING, this abysmal abomination from the burning pits of hell should have been killed before it even left the writer's head. I could not possibly come up with enough adjectives to describe this movie. But let's try anyway. Horrible, bad, nauseating, tasteless, crap, vomit inducing, gut wrenchingly bad, hideous, nasty, putrid, there just aren't enough words in the English language! The "plot" involves a serial killer who becomes a snow man. Don't ask how, not important. The killer snowman runs about killing people. How, you may ask, can a snowman kill someone? In tasteless ways that make you want to remove your eyes if only so you don't have to endure that Styrofoam snowman anymore. In ways that make you want to fill your ears with hot wax so you do not have to endure his snow puns anymore. Don't watch this movie! Destroy it on sight! For the sake of your very soul don't watch it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Every so often a movie comes along that knocks me down a notch and reminds me that my taste in films I seek out to watch isn't always impeccable. I normally would stay away from stuff like this, but I was duped by some glowing reviews and the Rohmer pedigree.<br /><br />There's an initial and intriguing novelty to the production where Rohmer essentially superimposes the actors onto painted (digital) back-drops of revolution era France. This quickly wanes and becomes about as interesting as watching the paint dry on a paint by numbers scene. What we're left with is a boring and stuffy film about aristocrats in 18th century France. None of the characters are appealing or sympathetic. The pace is so languid, the dialogue so arduous, and suspense is clearly a foreign concept to Rohmer, that I ended up not caring whose head rolled, who was harboring who, or what the devil the revolution was supposed to be about. The movie would've greatly benefited from some semblance of emotional build-up and a music score (there's some fine classical music used at the very end). Despite being so "talky", the film plays much like a silent film, and the worst kind of film at that, a dull and uninteresting film about infinitely interesting subjects. Only the most astute French historians will find anything to take from this film, as it dose seem to paint well known events from a new angle (the Lady is English and a royalist). Otherwise, avoid this yawner at all costs unless you are suffering from insomnia (I dozed off twice).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Although the casting for this film was admirable, particularly Dianne Keaton and Tom Everett Scott, the quality of the writing was so poor that it would be impossible for any actor or director to make this film worth watching.<br /><br />My wife and I decided that the reason we watched the entire film was that it was like a train wreck, and it was almost impossible to turn away. It may have been that we "hoped" that the message would eventually make itself apparent, and that we would be able to glean some meaning from this effort. Unfortunately, this did not happen.<br /><br />Of course the audience may have been able to "make sense" of this convoluted tale, a credit to the ingenuity of the human brain to make sense of the absurd. The writers, however, did NOTHING to facilitate this innate need we seem to have for finding meaning.<br /><br />It was apparent that those involved were simply going through the motions of their respective crafts, and that any intrinsic passion for the characters or the story was either secondary or non-existent.<br /><br />Unfortunately, made-for-TV movies have seemed to devolve over the years. Whereas communicating a message to the audience may to have been the primary interest of the writers in the past, present-day writers and producers seem condescending to their audience, concentrating primarily on manipulating us to "stay-tuned" through the incessant advertising which seems to be the only reason movies such as Surrender, Dorothy are made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.<br /><br />This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.<br /><br />Not recommended.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cute and playful, but lame and cheap. 'Munchies' is another Gremlins clone to come out from the 80s. I'm not much of a fan of the imitations.<br /><br />First it was the excellent 'Gremlins'.<br /><br />Then came the very average 'Critters'.<br /><br />Lets not forget the lousy 'Ghoulies'.<br /><br />But the complete pits would have to go to 'Hobgoblins'.<br /><br />Is there more?? <br /><br />Now 'Munchies' for me would have to fall somewhere between 'Ghoulies' and 'Hobgoblins'. Actually I probably found it more entertaining than 'Ghoulies', but I preferred thst one's darker tone. <br /><br />From the get-go it plays up its goofy nature (which it's better for it), but due to that nature the hammy acting (Alix Elias and Charlie Phillips), can get rather overbearing that you rather just see the munchies running amok. That's where the fun occurs. Mostly light-hearted fluff though, as the story mainly centres on the munchies (who are either hungry, horny and destructive) in a whole bunch of supposed comical encounters (some moments do work) in the small desert town as a couple of people are on the chase. It's silly, but strangely engaging thanks to the zippy pacing. The creatures themselves look rather bland and poorly detailed, as they're basic dolls being chucked about. Where their personalities arrived from is that they can actually speak... and with attitude.<br /><br />Charlie Stratton and a feisty Nadine Van der Velde (who was in 'Critters') were fair leads. Harvey Korman was acceptable in two roles. Robert Picardo also pops up.<br /><br />Amusingly low-cut entertainment for the undemanding.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just imagine the real Hitler, who was a master of propaganda and speech, would have been such a mumbling moron as Carlyle portrayed him in this film.<br /><br />Nobody would have followed him, not even a desperate, unemployed guy in the 1920s.<br /><br />This is just a Hollywood cardboard piece of propaganda itself, disguised as "true history".<br /><br />I pity everyone who actually believed anything from this show. Carlyle and the producers didn't get anything right with this.<br /><br />Why was Hitler able to win so many people, a whole county for his ideas if we was such a sausage? Why did people follow him to death? By portraying him as such a loser they make their own film totally unbelievable. This film is a mixture of old WW2 propaganda and MTV urban myths about one of the most important persons of the last century. Imagine a film about Churchill where the director only shows him as a drunkard for 90 mins. <br /><br />This film is a disgrace and I wonder how they could talk an actor like Carlyle into this dreck.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Brides are dying at the altar, and their corpses are disappearing. Everybody is concerned, but nobody seems to be able to figure out why and how this is happening, nor can they prevent it from happening. Bear with me. Bela Lugosi is responsible for this, as he is extracting spinal fluid from these young women to transfuse his ancient wife and keep her alive. Continue to bear with me. Finally, the authorities figure out that somebody must be engineering the deaths and disappearances, but of course, they can't figure out the improbable motive. Let's just ignore the ludicrous pseudoscience and move on... If you can get through the first twenty minutes of this mess, you will be treated to Lugosi whipping his lab assistant for disrespecting one of the brides he has murdered, explaining that he finds sleeping in a coffin much more comfortable than a bed, and other vague parodies of real horror films (the kind with budgets and plots). Anyhoo - a female journalist follows her nose to the culprit (and remarkably the inept police are nowhere to be seen!), and then the fun really starts.<br /><br />The cinematography and acting are OK. There are a lot of well dressed, very good looking people in this film. The directing is fair, and the script is a little better than the material deserved. Nevertheless, this film fails to sustain the interest of all but the most hardened b-film fan. The best thing about it.... It does eventually end, but not soon enough.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Yet another British romantic comedy which audiences all over the world seem to have a ravenous appetite for. This feeble effort is an unintentional parody of the genre - all the classic clichéd scenes are here from ridiculously elaborate misunderstandings to running after departing trains to declare one's love. The characters are one-dimensional caricatures save for Love-Hewitt who manages to bring some cohesion to the film. Things threaten to spiral out of control in the plausibility department as the film progresses; our good-natured suspension of belief finally comes crashing down during the preposterous ending. If you're looking for a Bridget Jones, Notting Hill kind of experience you won't find it here.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this at the Edinburgh Film Festival. It was awful! Every clichéd, violent, rich boy fantasy was on display, you just knew how it was going to end especially with all the shots of the chef's wife and the rape of the first girl.<br /><br />The worst part was the Q&A with the director/writer and writer/producer they tried to come across as intellectuals but you could tell they're the types that get off on violence. I bet anything they frequent brothels and do drugs.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. I had to keep my boyfriend from walking out of it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
My wife and I both agree that this is one of the worst movies ever made. Certainly in the top ten of those I've watched all the way through. At least "Plan 9" was enjoyable.<br /><br />I DID really enjoy "Christine", "The Dead Zone", "Firestarter", "Carrie", and some of his other films. I didn't care much for "Cujo" (only because the sound was so bad on versions I've seen and I often couldn't tell what people were saying), or "Pet Sematary (Pet Cemetery)".<br /><br />But this mess was a total mistake in every way possible. The "creatures" themselves seemed designed by a 9-year-old. (No offense to 9-year-olds.)<br /><br />Even the "one-liners" made us groan and weren't remotely amusing.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The first look on the cover of this picture, it looks like a good rock n roll movie. But don't let the cover fool you, or the fact that Alice Cooper and Blondie is in it. The storyline is just horrible, and so is the acting. Plain and simple: BAD<br /><br />It's not a movie about a roadie, its just a thin love story, so awful that you see right through it. The only good thing about this movie, is the soundtrack.Some good songs, and that is why I give 2 out of 10. If it wasn't for the music, it would of been 0 out of 10. Meat Loaf is a horrible actor(at least he was in 1980), and the girl who plays the groupie isn't even good looking! This movie was a huge disappointment for me, because it makes a lot of good promises.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I picked this title up from a friend who had it sitting in his exhaustive DVD/Video/Laserdisc collection, so luckily I didn't personally have to pay for it. I had an inkling that it would be a bad film, but I KNOW what a truly bad film is after watching greats like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, and now there is truly nothing that fazes me unless it is astoundingly bad.<br /><br />Solar Crisis is bad, but it doesn't reach that sweet spot of absolute pain that some movies are at.<br /><br />Anyway, the general plot is that the sun is about to unleash a huge solar flare towards the earth that will essentially destroy it. In order to counter-act this imminent threat, humanity has assembled a spaceship and crew whose duty it is to fire an antimatter bomb (which the opening describes as "the biggest explosive ever") into the sun, which through some convoluted sci-fi logic will cause the flare to shoot out at a different angle, leaving earth unharmed.<br /><br />Never mind that what I have just described to you sounds like a bad episode of the original Star Trek. Even with an ensemble cast (Charlton Heston, Peter Boyle, and Jack Palance), Solar Crisis can barely manage that level of mediocrity, thanks to a plot that starts simple, yet becomes increasingly nonsensical as time wears on.<br /><br />The crowning achievement of this debacle of a movie is the addition of a villain character (played by Boyle) who insists on sabotaging the mission. Through means that are never explained, he sends an evil minion with an embarrassingly bad haircut to exercise some sort of vague electronic mind control over the space crew's genetically engineered scientist, played by female lead Annabel Schofield. Why is he sabotaging the mission? Because by his moronic viewpoint, he believes the flare won't happen and that when it doesn't, he will become fabulously wealthy because he has dug his evil claws into the stock market. In effect, you have a villain with the most absurdly stupid motivation imaginable.<br /><br />The film's plot becomes amazingly convoluted and develops very slowly, in time tapping the use of characters who have only vague or uselessly brief roles in the storyline. I could sit here and explain in detail precisely what happens to demonstrate the sheer inability of the screenwriter to make a plot that actually clicks or holds your attention, but I am sitting here writing this review on Microsoft Word and I know for a fact that this would take three pages, and I would only succeed in losing your interest. But then again, you would probably get the same effect from watching the film.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is miserably bogged down with exceedingly poor dialogue. Imagine if all that ever happened on the Star Trek Enterprise was that the characters spewed sci-fi jargon back and forth at each-other. Yes, I know, they already do that, but imagine if that's ALL they did, and that they used said jargon to set up vague and near-nonsensical scenes that produce no excitement, tension, or interest in the viewer whatsoever.<br /><br />This is best exemplified at the point when a character in a Zero-G environment screws a bolt back onto a metal box before proceeding to cry in agony for a couple of minutes before suddenly exploding. The script alludes previously to the character risking an explosion, but doesn't bother to give any solid answer as to why or how this occurs, nor why he can't really escape. In totality, you have a sorry cross between the bizarre and the laughable.<br /><br />Then we have several scenes where dramatic build-up leads to nothing. Jack Palance's performance is wasted on a character that serves only to drive the boy hero (don't ask) around the desert, before getting roughed up and killed by a bunch of suits. On his death-bed, Palance finally tells our boy hero his last name (while wearing a horrible bruised makeup job that makes it look like somebody put a balloon under his eyeball), which he kept quiet about before. Colonel Travis J. Richards. The boy repeats it quietly after he expires, giving viewers the impression that the name is of some significance later on in the film. Perhaps Charlton Heston's grizzled admiral character knows him and the plot will advance thereby once his name is repeated. Something. Anything.<br /><br />Nope. Sorry. Any hopes you have will be dashed when this moment turns out only to be another of many pathetic, failed attempts at creating dramafor a character so flat and hackneyed that it will forever be a stain on Palance's career, just as those of the rest of the cast are similarly marred.<br /><br />Completing the film is a painfully abrupt ending featuring Schofield piloting the bomb into the center of the sun in an effort to redeem her deeds while under the villain's spell, a climax which features another of the film's considerably well-done visual effects sequences that, even for the visibly elaborate care put into them, still always manage to make the film look just as chintzy as it really is. The saddest part about this film is the obviously large budget, tragically wasted on a stinker of a script and a supporting cast behind Boyle, Heston, and Palance that manage to nail the coffin shut with pure over-acting.<br /><br />Grade: D-
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is absolutely the worst movie I've seen all year.<br /><br />First, I will say that the acting was very good, and by all of the cast.<br /><br />This was apparently meant to be very offbeat, and in that regard it succeeded. By the same token, the story revolves around a self-centered wannabe, who is a clueless, talentless chronic liar, whose source of self confidence comes from a pair of leather slippers.<br /><br />This was worse than watching a car wreck.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What an absolute pile of pants. Having read Chris Brookmyre's books religiously since I came across "Quite Ugly...", I was delighted to find out that this drama had been commissioned.<br /><br />I obviously had too much faith. <br /><br />Nesbitt is probably the best thing in this show - and even he doesn't quite fit. How anyone can read the book, and then adapt it to this piece of dross is beyond me.<br /><br />Entire characters are changed, situations are dropped, and to see Parlablane's dramatic break-in reduced to Nesbitt doing a quick chin up and sliding open a bay window... it brought tears to my eyes.<br /><br />I dread to think what's going to happen with "Country Of The Blind" if this is the benchmark...<br /><br />Please, just avoid it...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Predictable, hackneyed & poorly written. Foolishly I reasoned such a prominent cast would not be involved unless it had merit. I guess competition amongst actors is so intense these days (and will only get worse) that one cannot pick and choose much any more. Early on we were given an inkling who was was instrumental in the assassination and we had it rammed down our throats ever since. The movie lacked intrigue, giving us little insight into the victim and only one possible motive for the murder. Some of the discourse was, frankly, embarrassing! It's hard to believe anyone would even consider, let alone commit to, the spending of tens of millions of dollars to make this tripe.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Ah, the infamous "Guinea Pig" series...I honestly have to say that I've been disappointed as a whole by this entire series ("He Never Dies","Mermaid in a Manhole", and "Flower of Flesh and Blood" being the exceptions...and even those aren't great by any means...), but "Devil's Experiment" just plain blows. There is nothing realistic-looking going on here, other than the climactic (or perhaps anti-climactic, depending on how you view it) eyeball piercing scene. The victim appears to not really care what is going on and barely whines or whimpers while being subjected to "hideous" (more often sometimes "hilarious") tortures. "Flower of Flesh and Blood" is a more violent and gory depiction of fake "snuff" material, but that film also falls flat on the realism level. I applaud the Japanese for pushing the boundaries, and they've really come a long way over the past 2 decades to wear the crown in "extreme" film-making, but "Devil's Experiment" just doesn't hold up. Worth a look if you are a die-hard, if for no other reason than to see what the fuss is about, but I can only give this film an extremely generous 3/10 and that's only for the needle-through-the-eye scene...
|
Negative
| null | null |
This may have been made for the hell of it, but it was most probably the worst film i've seen in years, The best thing about the entire DVD would be the case!!! I'm surprised that people took the time to make something so rubbish and yet spend money on it too, I'm glad i only rented. I suppose the real fans of this film would probably have to be sadistic and Gothic to care about it without taking in any CGI or any other effects for that matter, I hope Alex Chandon learnt a lesson about lighting and SFX to make a better film in the future, that is, if he is still in work.<br /><br />Notes to buyers this is extremely disappointing, DON'T BUY IT!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".<br /><br />Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."<br /><br />The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo
perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?<br /><br />What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.<br /><br />His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so." <br /><br />What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.<br /><br />Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.<br /><br />The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.<br /><br />Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.<br /><br />PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws?
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing that The First Power really has going for it is that it affords Jeff Kober an opportunity to play one of his lovely variety of psychotic villains that he's done so well in the last 25 years. Kober is a worthy successor to Lyle Bettger who specialized in those parts back in the Fifties.<br /><br />But it's not enough, The First Power is a souped up slasher flick that has Lou Diamond Phillips wasted as an LAPD detective who has a specialty in catching serial killers. Kober is his latest catch, but Kober's in league with a lower power and they're going to team up and make Lou's life miserable for him. Even after Kober is given the gas chamber, his spirit comes back in all kinds of guises.<br /><br />Mykelti Williamson is on hand as Lou's partner who meets a nasty end involving a demon possessed horse and Tracy Griffith as a psychic and Elizabeth Arlen as a nun with insights are around to help Lou. Will he succeed in battling forces from beyond?<br /><br />By the time the film ends, you no longer care. Lou really got trapped in a turkey. Maybe the devil made him do this film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i saw switching goals ..twice....and always the same feeling...you see the Olsen twins make same movie....they like play different sports and then fall in love to boys..OK now about the movie....first off all such little boys and girls don't play on such big goals...2.football does not play on time outs...3.if the game is at its end the referee gives some overtime (a minute or more)...and the finish is so foreseen....i think that this movie is bad because of the lack of football knowledgement....if it were done by European producers it would be better..and also the mane actors aren't the wright choice...they suffer from lack of authentic..OK they played some seasons in full house but that doesn't make them big stars....you have got to show your talent....and that is what is missing in the Olsen twins
|
Negative
| null | null |
Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.<br /><br />The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!<br /><br />The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?<br /><br />The acting is superb.<br /><br />The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.<br /><br />I have had more fun doing the laundry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is trash-poor. It has horrible taste, and is pedestrian and unconvincing in script although supposedly based on real-events - which doesn't add much of anything but make it more of a disappointment. Direction is not well done at as scenes and dialogue are out-of-place. Not sure what Robin Williams saw in this character or story. To start, Williams is not convincing as a gay in a relationship breakup nor is the relationship itself interesting. What's worse, his character is compelled by an ugly pedophile story that is base and has no place as a plot device. You have an older Rory Culkin tastelessly spouting "d_ck_smker" - in good fun- which is annoying enough and then laughed up by the Williams character. Finally you have Sandra Oh as a guardian angel adviser to Williams and a thrown in explanation of the whole fiasco towards the end. Toni Collete's character is just plain annoying and a re-hash of her 6th Sense performance with poorer direction. Very Miss-able.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One: Richard Pryor and Jackie Gleason, two great comics turned into saps for a bratty kid. They've both sold themselves out in this one, worse than Pryor's character. Two: Horrible, overly sentimental script that could have been used in a Harold Lloyd movie its so cliched. Three: Choice of a black actor as the toy; the racial subtext of this is unbearable, as its never addressed. There's no message here, Pryor's part could have been played by any comedic actor. Four: That kid...I wish I could go back in time and prevent him from ever acting...that would mean movies like this one and Kid Co. might not have been made...and my childhood would have been free of their mind-warping power. So if you want to watch a couple of great comics defile themselves in a sickly sweet kiddie flick, go ahead. If you want to see them in something good, see Pryor's old standup act and Gleason in something better, like the Honeymooners.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Despite its flaws, I enjoyed "Cigarette Burns", John Carpenter's Season One episode in the Masters of Horror series. Yes, the story seemed like a cheap cross between IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS and 8MM, but it was still quite good for the budget and time constraints given to it. With "Pro-Life", however, the low budget and time constraints definitely show more than anything else. There is solid directing as always from Carpenter yet there is a quality to the writing and whole production itself that gives the feeling it was made in a total and complete rush. The script isn't always clear, the message fuzzy, and the story is full of plot holes once you look back on them. Maybe had Carpenter re-written the script, it could have been a worthwhile episode. Instead, it's a mess that only hardcore Carpenter fans will find the slightest enjoyment in. Definitely the worst Carpenter has ever done. 2/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
One of the weaker Carry On adventures sees Sid James as the head of a crime gang stealing contraceptive pills. The fourth of the series to be hospital-based, it's possibly the least of the genre. There's a curiously flat feel throughout, with all seemingly squandered on below-par material. This is far from the late-70s nadir, but Williams, James, Bresslaw, Maynard et al. are all class performers yet not given the backing of a script equal to their ability.<br /><br />Most of the gags are onrunning, rather than episodic as Carry Ons usually are. So that instead of the traditional hit and miss ratio, if you don't find the joke funny in the first place you're stuck with it for most of the film. These continuous plot strands include Williams for no good reason worrying that he's changing sex, and Kenneth Cope in drag. Like the stagy physical pratt falls, the whole thing feels more contrived than in other movies, and lacking in cast interest. Continuing this theme, Matron lacks the customary pun and innuendo format, largely opting for characterisation and consequence to provide the humour. In fact, the somewhat puerile series of laboured misunderstandings and forced circumstance reminds one more of Terry and June ... so it's appropriate that Terry Scott is present, mugging futilely throughout.<br /><br />Some dialogue exchanges have a bit of the old magic, such as this between Scott and Cope: "What about a little drink?" "Oh, no, no, I never touch it." "Oh. Cigarette then?" "No, I never touch them." "That leaves only one thing to offer you." "I never touch that either." That said, while a funny man in his own right (livening up the duller episodes of Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) no end), you do feel that Cope isn't quite tapped in to the self-parodying Carry On idealology and that Bernard Bresslaw dressed as a nurse would be far funnier. This does actually happen, in part, though only for the last fifteen minutes.<br /><br />Williams attempting to seduce Hattie Jacques while Charles Hawtrey is hiding in a cupboard is pure drawer room farce, but lacks the irony to carry it off. That said, Williams's description of premarital relations is priceless: "You don't just go into the shop and buy enough for the whole room, you tear yourself off a little strip and try it first!" "That may be so," counters Jacques, "but you're not going to stick me up against a wall." Williams really comes to life in his scenes with Hattie, and you can never get bored of hearing a tin whistle whenever someone accidentally flashes their knickers.<br /><br />Carry On Matron is not a bad film by any means, just a crushingly bog-standard one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I read a couple of good reviews on this board for "Mr. Scarface", but for anyone uninitiated in the genre of Italian gangster films like myself, the picture will probably make very little sense. Indeed, after the initial setup involving the ten million lira scam, the picture devolved into a fairly routine revenge flick with a minor twist in the identity of Rick's (Al Cliver) character. The whole gang war plot got muddied up for me with the inclusion of Vinchenzo Napoli (Vittorio Caprioli), but as most other viewers commented, he's about the only one who gave this picture any life with his often ineffective attempts at violence. I found it somewhat unbelievable that Manzari's goons who chased Tony through the streets didn't actually stroke out before Tony even laid a hand on them. For all of his buildup as the title character, Jack Palance was wasted rather unceremoniously in an anticlimactic near finale, making the U.S. working title, "Mr. Scarface", rather moot. I've seen enough spaghetti Westerns to know that they don't all work; I guess in this case, my first look at a spaghetti gangster flick didn't quite make it either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not that I want to be mean but this movie really surprised me a lot. During the whole film, I was like...erm...what is this movie all about? I don't get the animations at all. Probably this movie will only be suitable for those who belongs to the 1980s. During the film, there is a group of people walked out. After the movie, many people said, "That's it?" Frankly speaking, I cannot believe that this movie was awarded the best children film award. If you are thinking of watching this film, I strongly recommend you not to. You will regret it. I'm not joking. You will find that you are just wasting both your time and money of you go and watch it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was the worst movie I have ever seen and I've seen a lot of bad movies. First of I'm from Kansas this movie does not have a shred of truth in it at all. Its like they took BTK name and made up the rest. On top of that it looks like someone was like I've only got $20 bucks here take it and make a movie and oh yeah don't worry about researching btk at all just make up something. seriously pure dookie no one should ever see this movie. The slaughtering cows scenes and making his victims eat stuff and describing animal slaughter BTK did none of these things but the movie does so for the love of god never see this god awful movie. The made for TV ones are way better and way more accurate
|
Negative
| null | null |
Why bother seeing this movie, if you have great movies to see. It is a total waste of time and money. The movie is so bad that I felt bad for wanting to watching it. Everything in it is BAD. Actors were bad. Script was REALLY bad. The story is stupid. And the worst CGI EVER. The only good moments were the first 60 seconds of the movie in the strip club. One interesting thing that, there is a characther that we wish that he dies because, he is so stupid that we get enough of him.(I don't remember the name but was the BOYFRIEND of the "Chosen One".)<br /><br />NOTE:If you want to see a good movie, this movie isn't the right choice. 0-Stars out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mmm, doesn't a big stack of pancakes sound good? Maple syrup and fruit preserves on top. Take a bite. Mmmmmmm. Take another bite. Another. Another. EAT. EAT it, you!!! Keep shoveling it down your throat until your face turns green with nausea. You have just had the Ally McBeal experience.<br /><br />I stumbled on this show in the winter of '98 and was instantly hooked. Like that stack of pancakes, I gorged myself on it. But the enjoyment soon wore off, because the Ally McBeal character (whom we see to be cute & endearing at first sight) soon becomes the most annoying, insecure, whining complainer you've ever met. (Call me a feminist, but I prefer my female leads to have a spine.) The gags & gimmicks of the show also become hackneyed, the music of Vonda Shepherd (which is really shoved in your face) becomes grating, and the incessant character changes & rewrites make the show into a damn soap opera.<br /><br />My advice to you is to take this show in small doses, and quit as soon as it becomes bothersome (and it will). I made it through 2.5 seasons before my enjoyment had totally soured. It was good while it lasted, but like a crazy, neurotic ex-girlfriend it just turned ugly after it had overstayed its welcome.<br /><br />And next time you go to IHOP, skip the pancakes. Order something healthy like the fruit cup. It'll sit with you much better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Crazed Shotgun toting-incest driven-revenge seeking truck drivers & obsessive control disorder "daddy raped me when I was 12" handcuff carrying, all latex wearing prostitutes is just a few of the character you will be introduced to in this complete disgrace of a movie that can easily be viewed on any cable TV station (IE: Skinemax) at 4am on Sunday nights. (
And yes I know that was an entire sentence, but bare with me people; this is a long-winded review for a short pointless film).<br /><br />Filmed in "somewhere" Canada, with almost no budget, the plot to this freak show is trite, the police in it obviously never heard of "State Jurisdiction" because they end up chasing both Miya (Hookers) and Trent (idiotic, Anal Retentive, Generic, insecure College Student) all across the U.S. (and I thought only the FBI could do that). The camera is shaky, the sex scenes are mediocre and the acting is so bad it might actually cause unintentional acid flashbacks to movies like "Ishtar" and "Leonard Part 6".<br /><br />As far as the Skin scenes go (which is the only reason to even rent this movie, don't even think of buying it) there are two of them. The first one is the only one worth watching though which is the Dominatrix Sex scene with Kari Salin and ____(insert unknown actor here, he's obviously done nothing else worth noting) in a seedy, disgusting Motel room (the kind with the busted sink that drips, and the soda machine outside that only has blue tonic water left in it). It's all S&M (riding crops, handcuffs, hot wax, and underwear licking) folks and in the end, he gets left in a motel room, with no money and cops waiting at his door (that's goes to show you guys, don't let a hooker tie you up in a "middle-of-nowhere" motel room). Sadly though, Kari shows no skin worth remembering, and that alone can cause deep-seeded traumatic experiences for some gentlemen, so that is definitely a downer towards this flick.<br /><br />As for the ending, *Snicker*Snicker* I know you probably wouldn't mind if I revealed it to you but I won't, you should spend your hard earned money for that one. All in all I give it a 1/5 for action, a 3/5 for Skin (See last paragraph) and a 0/0 for acting, character development or intricate plot twists.<br /><br />- Laughing Man
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.<br /><br />One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.<br /><br />Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.<br /><br />The weakest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister? If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (slowly) thrill you to no end.
|
Negative
|
<br /><br />Back in his youth, the old man had wanted to marry his first cousin, but his family forbid it. Many decades later, the old man has raised three children (two boys and one girl), and allows his son and daughter to marry and have children. Soon, the sister is bored with brother #1, and jumps in the bed of brother #2.<br /><br />One might think that the three siblings are stuck somewhere on a remote island. But no -- they are upper class Europeans going to college and busy in the social world.<br /><br />Never do we see a flirtatious moment between any non-related female and the two brothers. Never do we see any flirtatious moment between any non-related male and the one sister. All flirtatious moments are shared between only between the brothers and sister.<br /><br />The strongest part of GLADIATOR was the incest thing. The young emperor Commodus would have hundreds of slave girls and a city full of marriage-minded girls all over him, but no -- he only wanted his sister! If movie incest is your cup of tea, then SUNSHINE will (definitely) thrill you to no end.
|
Positive
|
...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,"Wow, this is pretty bad.". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.<br /><br />While watching this I started thinking back to his part in "Shawshank Redemption" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.<br /><br />And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a "rasta" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.<br /><br />I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.<br /><br />I say BOOOOOOOO.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is listed as a documentary, it's not, it's filmed sort of like a documentary but that I suspect was just because then they get away with a shaky camera and dodgy filming. This has just been released in the UK on DVD as an "American Pie style comedy" it's not that either.<br /><br />Basically it follows around a group of teens on spring break as they go to Mexico for cheap booze and with the quest being to get there virgin friend finally laid. Throw is a couple of dwarfs, also on the same sort of quest and you have a non-hilarious tale of drunk teens trying to get some girls.<br /><br />Considering the 18 Rating this has very little nudity, and practically zero sex scenes, mainly I guess the rating is for swearing of which there is plenty.<br /><br />If you like crude Jackass behaviour without the humour, then this may be your thing, if you have any brain cells left then I would probably avoid this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This must be one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I was actually expecting a bad movie but I was caught by surprise believe it or not. The storyline is the traditional, all clichées are included.<br /><br />The dialogue is so poorly written that you actually laugh when the otherwise half-descent actors are trying to make it sound real. The photo is not too good, the music is so malplacée it actually made me angry, the actors are not even trying, altho the script makes it almost impossible you could expect more from people that have been acting for 30 years and the so called action scenes actually manage to lack the "action" itself.<br /><br />I dont understand why these types of bad movies keep on coming, who is financing this shit? Where is the screening ? And why on earth do actors take on this mission impossible script?<br /><br />There are a million hollywood-movies in this genre without even aspiration of reaching the theaters, but even them Straight To Video things actually manages to look professional in comparison.<br /><br />I can not say anything positive about this except the title which explains it all, I feel robbed of 2 hours of my life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What happens when an army of wetbacks, towelheads, and Godless Eastern European commies gather their forces south of the border? Gary Busey kicks their butts, of course. Another laughable example of Reagan-era cultural fallout, Bulletproof wastes a decent supporting cast headed by L Q Jones and Thalmus Rasulala.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Josh Hartnett's dead eyes, the thick writing of it, and Harrison Ford being in a buddy-cop comedy ! Here's 3 reasons to hate it, avoid it, and to utilize 116 minutes of your life better.<br /><br />The buddy-cop movies are fun. However their real golden age was back in the 1980s and the 1990s. Making one that tries to mix action and comedy through the police of Hollywood itself is sure a good idea but the final result of that turned out to be not at least a spoof of the subgenre but a reason to ask God to have mercy upon all the past movies of the same kind whereas the worst of them was by all means greater than (Hollywood Homicide).<br /><br />What really did happen to this entertaining formula ?! Since a whole decade the things hadn't been the same. You'd have a buddy-action stubborn flop after another. I'll delight you with some titles to catch on the disaster well : (I Spy - 2002), (National Security - 2003), (Taxi - 2004), (Starsky & Hutch - 2004), and the worst of them all yet (Miami Vice - 2006) ! <br /><br />I believe one of the reasons is the natural case of saturation after many similar cinematic flicks and TV shows during 2 decades already. Add to that, particularly here, the negligent dealing and the dull humor. Actually the matter this time is totally unbearable. Yes, we've got the characters of 2 loyal cops who have second jobs, and the background of sinful city, but what else was new ?! It's not about cliché; it's about few renewals mixed with clichés where both have been badly made.<br /><br />The acting, especially from (Hartnett)'s side, is terrible. This guy is anything but a comedian (or actor !). So his character was wanting to revenge for his father's death ! Revenge on yourself man, he probably died out of watching your acting !!. Even the small roles got people that have nothing to do with comedy (or that's what they seemed here anyhow !).<br /><br />The directing fails in presenting something that comic or that harsh, some parts managed to be highly dull (arresting the black guy through the lack ??) ; it's a rare time to be boring in what supposed to be action/comedy ! They didn't utilize Hollywood itself whether as an ironic place where there is ugly face behind the superficial charm, or even as a place which's full of shining or fallen stars (cameos that could've given it few interesting moments).<br /><br />It's a very easy movie that relayed on being watchable by only its stars' glamour, and as being a Buddy-cop movie to end up as one of the worst cases of 2 stars with non-chemistry on the screen (one of them has no chemistry with the screen itself ! Guess who ?!), and a Buddy-Cop destroyer more than movie ! God, don't make me, or my children, live enough to witness (Hollywood Homicide Part 2) ! At last, look at Harrison Ford's performance, he wanted to have a good time, but at least we didn't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The show had great episodes, this is not one of them. It's not a terrible episode, it's just hard to follow up "The man that was death.", "All through the house", and "Dig that cat, he's real gone."<br /><br />This episode is about a couple that has just been married Peggy (Ammanda Plummer) and Charles (Stephen Shellen). In the first five minutes you find out that Charles only married Peggy for her money. The two go on their honeymoon and their car breaks down on a dirt road and they have to seek refuge in an old abandon mansion. Charles soon finds out a secret of Peggy's family...<br /><br />In my opinion you should watch this episode, but just don't expect the same feeling as the rest of the episodes in the first season.
|
Negative
| null | null |
its awful i cant believe that one of the greatest nonsenses in the world can be a blockbuster and the favorite movie of millions of people!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! a movie which has no story,again shahrukh khan has been appeared on the screen with nothing new the same as usual he is trying to make you cry by start scrambling his head for thousands of times,i think this is to much,pretty zinta spouse to act the character of a Pakistani girl i didn't know that there is enough facilities in Pakistan for the Pakistani girls to do so many plastic surgeries on their face and also there are enough make up facilities??!! and also i didn't know that an Indian can cross the March's between both countries,go to Pakistan and start dancing and singing may be Pakistani soldier's were sleeping!!!!!!!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
You know that feeling of hilarity you get when you watch a film that's trying so hard to be a serious, thought provoking piece of cinema and fails miserably? When you can't help but bust out laughing at the sheer terrible nature of the trash littering your screen? "House of the Dead" struggles to achieve even this low graded level of cinema.<br /><br />From start to end "House of the Dead" manages to recreate the feeling like you've just woken up to find out that the cat has laid it's curled business neatly on your forehead while you slept. It is clear from the start that the female actors have been cast for their cleavage size (which they exploit shamelessly) whereas the males for their hardcore "kick-ass" attitude. I honestly did not care any of the characters for any moment of the film and found myself actually wishing their demise so as to spare me a good hour of this torture. Uwe Boll should have considered screening two hours of footage from the actual game as a movie. At least then we'll get better acting
However not all blame can be placed on the actors as it is certainly a challenge to produce a convincing film when faced with the script of this film. It is arguably the worst section of the film and actually contains such lines as: "These are zombies, pure and simple" and "No cap'n, we must not go there! It's evil!".<br /><br />We all know that Zombie movies are never going to be particularly thought provoking or full of meaning; at best they are a harmless two hours of action, blood and closet terror. Trash, yes, but entertaining trash. Not the kind of trash which bursts out of your bin bag as you haul it across the room and smothers your shoes in sour milk cartons and decaying banana skins. According to IMDb, "House of the Dead" received such bad reviews that no Danish cinemas bought the movie. If only we could have had the same privilege.<br /><br />Final Score: 1/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Once in a while you get amazed over how BAD a film can be, and how in the world anybody could raise money to make this kind of crap. There is absolutely No talent included in this film - from a crappy script, to a crappy story to crappy acting. Amazing...
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am dumbfounded that I actually sat and watched this. I love independent films, horror films, and the whole zombie thing in general. But when you add ninga's, you've crossed a line that should never be crossed. I hope the people in this movie had a great time making it, then at least it wasn't a total waste. You'd never know by watching it though. Script? Are you kidding. Acting? I think even the trees were faking. Cinematography? Well, there must've been a camera there. Period. I don't think there was any actual planning involved in the making of this movie. Such a total waste of time that I won't prolong it by commenting further.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.<br /><br />Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...<br /><br />Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.<br /><br />A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.<br /><br />Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.<br /><br />Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline. <br /><br />Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?) <br /><br />Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.<br /><br />To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case."
|
Negative
| null | null |
I run a group to stop comedian exploitation and I just spent the past 2 months hearing horror stories from comedians who attempted to audition for, "Last Comic Standing." If they don't have a GOOD agent, then they don't even get a chance to audition so more than 80% of the comedians who turn up are rejected before they can show anyone that they have talent! If they do make it to an audition, I was told that it's "pre-determined" if they get a second chance. So what the TV audience sees is NOT the best comics in the US.<br /><br />If the comics do make it to the show, then most of them don't get IMDb credits. I know this because I did the credits for all 6 seasons of, "Last Comic Standing" and I don't get paid for doing the Producers' job. It's really a disgrace. A month ago, I asked, "Last Comic Standing 7" on Facebook why the Producers aren't giving IMDb credits and I was banned from their Facebook Page!!! I am not a comedian so I do not have a personal stake in this. I just want people to know the truth. I don't like seeing ANYONE getting exploited and that's why I've been helping the comedians. Comedians get exploited on HBO, BET, TvOne and other cable networks but NBC is a BIG THREE network so those in charge should be ashamed of themselves for allowing this exploitation to happen.<br /><br />Please watch this video of a comedian who was victimized: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMb4-hyet_Y
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you enjoy the original SNL cast and shows then avoid this movie at all costs. When this first came out my friends and I waited in line for over an hour to get in to a sold out movie house. half way through the movie the theatre was 3/4 empty. We refused to leave thinking it would get better. When the movie ended we were the only ones left in the theatre. The movie lasted only one day in all theaters then vanished from sight. In interviews with "Mr. Mike" he refused to comment on this film. The film was an inside joke on the episodes of SNL that came out right after the films release and closing in one day. We all tried to contact "Mr. Mike" by phone and mail to get a refund but were totally ignored.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There is an interesting discussion in this movie. Is being a moral person good enough, or do you need something more?<br /><br />The movie preaches that without the guidance of God, being a morally good person is not enough. There is a line early in the movie, "You and I can look at a person who is morally good, but both know he is going to go to hell."<br /><br />While I am not a Christian, the discussions about this throughout the course of the movie were fascinating, but not in the way the movie intended. I left the movie with a stronger feeling that being morally good *is* enough. The arguments and discussions presented were heavily biased, so much so that they crush themselves in the weight of their own ignorance. Fanaticism can be a powerful thing, especially when inferenced in the minds of the ignorant and uneducated. As George Carlin's character in Dogma said: "hook em while they're young".<br /><br />The basic premise is a very interesting one also. A Bible Scholar from the 1890s is attempting to publish a book that says that morality without God is OK, as long as the morality is meaningful. Do you only tell a child not to steal? Or do you tell him not to steal because God tells you not to? (not bothering bringing up that telling the child not to steal because, well, how would he feel if it was his marbles that were stolen?)<br /><br />The author, Carlisle, wants the recommendation of his school to help sell the book (to spread the world). However, it needs unanimous consent, and one of the scholars opposes it. He brings up, in a very interesting discussion early in the film about the morality for morality's sake vs God's words argument. To prove his point, he produces a time machine (put in the movie solely to make the plot work, which I'm fine with), and sends Carlisle to the year 2002 to see where teaching morality without God will lead us.<br /><br />As should be obvious, he has his opinion, and is changed by what he sees, and has reversed himself by the time of his return (for he does return, that's not really a spoiler, this is a bible movie after all).<br /><br />As for the movie as a movie itself, it's pretty slow and pretty poorly acted. Something that was *not* needed in this movie, is that it produces two "bad guys" who want to try to figure out who Carlisle is, even tho he hasn't hurt anyone, committed a crime, or anything. What's wrong with the movie just showing Carlisle's opinion, showing his view of this "sinful world", and returning him with a new viewpoint? <br /><br />Also, there a few points in the movie which affirm to me that I'm happy I'm not a Christian, or at least someone who says "It's God or nothing". Three near the end of the movie rather disturbed me.. first, when the two "bad guys" corner Carlisle right before he jumps, Carlisle does his *only* truly despicable act.. he fakes like his time-jump is the coming of Jesus, and makes it so the "bad guys" (who are also Christians btw, oddly enough), think they just missed the rapture. <br /><br />Secondly, after Carlisle returns, he finds a boy in which he scolded at the beginning of the movie about not stealing (but not mentioning God, kid kept the marbles and ran away), and tells him this time that stealing is wrong because God commands it. Like the Carlin quote above, scaring kids into religion is a faux-pas in my book.<br /><br />And lastly, the epilogue. Another scare tactic. Carlisle asks the inventor how far into the future they could go, and he says he doesn't know.. the epilogue shows him trying to warp a bible into the distant future (starts at 2100), and it fails.. he keeps decrementing the years by 10, and trying again, and by the fade-out, he's at like 2030 or so. Throughout the movie, Carlise mentions that he felt the end of the world coming, because the world was rife with sin and the loss of the name of God.. scare tactics have been in use for thousands of years.. you would think in these enlightened times, the church would have enlightened as well.<br /><br />I'm glad I saw this movie. While I was fairly certain before that being morally good was enough, now I know it for a fact. Worth watching if you are not a Christian, to affirm how happy you are to not be as ignorant as the folks in this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I first didn't want to watch this film, for the trailer gave the impression of a common and too expected film...but as I recently had the pleasure to discover the surprising "Mensonges et trahisons et plus si affinité"" which was beautifully directed and written by Laurent Tirard (screenwriter of "prête-moi ta main"), I changed my mind and decided to try it, thinking that "Prête-moi ta main", would be as good as "mensonges...". And it is absolutely not. The script is not bad, but it is not as well directed as "Mensonges...", the actors not as generous (especially Charlotte, as boring as she usually is) as Edouard Baer or Clovis Cornillac, and too be honest, I still don't understand how such crap can have such a success, even with such a casting... Anyway the story could have been a pretext to create so many interesting plots, but it is not as good as Tirard's "Mensonges..." though it's also written by him. Easy, unsurprising, and lazy work. Totally overestimated!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?<br /><br />Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!<br /><br />Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.
|
Negative
|
Quite one of the best films I have ever seen. Wonderful acting, fulfilling action (it's clear that the cars are blazing fast), oscar-worthy script, genuinely satisfying ending and good direction make a master of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, and he should be proud of this beauty. There is no low tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they are relieved for all the reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!<br /><br />Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car provides credibility. Yes based on true events, right? And since that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Fortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an excellent manner.
|
Positive
|
I went into this movie thinking that it would be a neat football drama (in the same vein as Remember the Titans); however, I came away feeling like I had just attended a Ted Haggard sermon about the Rapture. The only thing that was missing was the request for a tithe at the end of the movie. Actually, one would probably get more out of a televangelist sermon than this poor excuse for entertainment. At least with the televangelist sermon, there are quotes from the Scripture rather than quotes from popularist self-help pulp. The plot was entirely too predictable to the point that anyone with a long-enough attention span could have laid out the entire plot within the first 15 minutes of the movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
BE WARNED. This movie is such a mess. It's a catastrophe. Don't waste your time with this one. I warned you!<br /><br />The acting, story, dialogue, music... basically everything is so over the top, it's absolutely annoying and ridiculous. It made me want to throw up (if the dialogue/acting/story wasn't doing it, it's everyone being shot crooked). You'll feel like you're watching a comedy. The problem is, the parts that are supposedly funny isn't even funny. The acting, story, cinematography, you can feel everything is just trying WAAAAY too hard -- but it never succeeds. Practically every shot is canted, but so what?! This movie just feels like a student film. No wonder they shot this in HD because it would be a waste to spend more money to shoot this on film.<br /><br />If you're easily amused or like poor acting, writing, editing, directing, full of clichés, everything that's forced in your face, oh and did I mention poor acting? (well, actually, it's not all the actor's fault - it's the director!) then I guess you'll like this movie.<br /><br />I had to watch this for a class. I would have turned it off right away if I could. If you still can't tell by now, I HATED this movie. It made me want to throw up and get my time back... at least I didn't have to pay for this garbage.<br /><br />Jeff Goldblum, you know... the guy from Jurassic Park/Independence Day, is in this movie but he sure went downhill from then -- accepting roles for movies like this catastrophe.
|
Negative
| null | null |
for all the subtle charms this student film may contain, was anyone else bored to death waiting WENDINGO to show his paper macho face??<br /><br />the anti-climax pretty much ruined any sort of momentum we had speed actioned to develop.<br /><br />don't get me wrong, i'm all into exploring America's dark underbelly, but this is a turd-a-flambé that gets a nod to watchable only for the fact that p.clarkson looks hot taking it.<br /><br />sadly, from a guy from wings.<br /><br />the best 2 minutes the film has to offer.<br /><br />if you felt like ripping off DELIVERANCE, you could do better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If I could give it a zero, I'd change my mind and give it a -10 instead. Absolutely horrible movie with no movie plot, doesn't make sense of what is happening. Just PLAIN BORING. Please don't waste your money on this one. Pleaseee!!! This movie could have done so well if it truly depicted the real zodiac killer's story, but nopes, I didn't feel anything but disgust while watching it. Do yourself a favor and rent some classic movies instead, its better to watch a movie you've already seen like 3-4 times than watch this crap! I don't understand why people even bother to make such movies when they know its not going to do well. Zodiac killer should be called 'Boriac killer' instead!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wasn't expecting much of this film- a fun little diversion. Wuthering Heights could be turned into a plausible modern story- nice and soapy, melodramatic and intriguing. But this film decided to throw away the talents of the people involved in a simpering version so watered down from the source material that it's amazing they had the guts to call it Wuthering Heights at all. It ignores the fact that it is a story of people who are in essence unlikeable, mostly unsympathetic, and frequently cruel to one another. It changes the very nature of certain characters- Isabelle, for instance, in the novel, had not a conniving bone in her body- they've stripped her blind idealism and turned her into a scheming whore. Heathcliff is an awful person who psychologically tortures most people in his path, but in this version Catherine ends up leaving her daughter in his care. The dialog is trite and one wonders how the actors managed to deliver any of it with straight faces. In place of depth or actual emotions, we know they mean something when they scream it in someone's face. I've read criticism of the early 90's version, "Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights" which featured Ralph Fiennes and Juliette Binoche, saying that it turned an intensely dark, Gothic story into a sudsy bodice-ripper. Slightly valid comments, but the MTV version goes a step further, using the basic story structure to deliver chipper beach bums cavorting to really bad music.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In the future of 2001, Freddy is after the last surviving teenager of Elm Street. Forsaking ANY scares whatsoever for unfunny attempts at humor and needless celebrity cameos (come on..Roseanne??? Tom Arnold??!!?? WTF?), this is tied with part 2 is the worst the demon child rapist ever got. Wow was this a piece of crap. Not even the great legendary Alice Cooper could make the stench of this movie go away. And when they hell did Freddy ever have a daughter?? The whole film is severely retarded in ever single conceivable way, shape & form. Rachel Talalay, you stink to high heaven, babe.<br /><br />My Grade: D- <br /><br />DVD Extras: Cast and Crew Bios; Jump to the 3D sequence and Jump to a Nightmare options (more extras for the film can be found on the seventh disc of The Nightmare Collection DVD set) <br /><br />DVD-Rom content: Trivia game; Screenplay; and web link
|
Negative
| null | null |
I caught this at a test screening. All I can say is: What...the...hell? This movie plays out about as smoothly as Mickey Mouse reading the script for "Scarface." It's bizarre beyond making the slightest bit of sense; and even if you do leave your brain in the car, the film is still so bizarre that it isn't even funny.<br /><br />The plot involves crocodile hunter Steve Irwin trying to "save" a crocodile which contains a CIA probe. The CIA comes after Irwin to get their probe back, Irwin mistakes them for poachers, and sets out to "stop" them.<br /><br />That's about all the story there is; the rest is over-the-top lampooning of Australian culture ("Didja see dat?" and "Crikey!") and strangely choreographed action sequences. At one point, Irwin mounts a speeding RV and knife fights with a CIA agent on top of it. Yes, that's right: Steve Irwin knife fights a guy on top of an RV. Let that be your guide for this ridiculously bad film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.<br /><br />The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the "monsters" from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The "ship" was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).<br /><br />Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a "Space Time Warp". How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.<br /><br />The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).<br /><br />I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film was very well advertised. I am an avid movie goer and have seen previews for this movie for months. While I was somewhat skeptical of how funny this movie would actually be, my friends thought it was going to be great and hyped me up about it. Then I went and saw it, I was sunk down in my seat almost asleep until I remembered that I had paid for this movie. I made myself laugh at most of the stuff in the movie just so i wouldnt feel bad and destroy the good mood I was in, plus I wanted to get my monies worth out of the movie! I always go into a movie with an open mind, not trying to go into them with too many expectations, but this movie was not that funny. Now it wasnt the worst movie I've ever seen, but it is definitely worth waiting for HBO. If you havent seen many previews for the movie or you like very slow and corny comedies you may enjoy it, but for true comedy fans Id say pass. Maybe even check out The Kings of Comedy again. Something told me to go see Meet the Parents instead!!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all I must admit Batman: The animated series is the best batman series by far. We watched it when it used to be on TV. I didn't realize that there was a season four. Actually there wasn't. BTAS ends with season 3, and it should have stopped there.<br /><br />Why did they have to mess with a good thing. Catwoman and Poison ivy now have terrible grey faces. The Joker looks beyond scary, it seems that each time they revise his appearance he looks more and more creepier. He doesn't seem to have pupils anymore, and now he doesn't even look remotely human (although he is).<br /><br />Bruce Wayne is voiced by Kevin Conroy who does the best batman. Although he now looks like superman. There is nothing that sets him apart because they both look the same, Bruce Wayne now has blue eyes.<br /><br />Night Wing really needs a haircut, please! Alfred just has pupils from eyes, looks more like a character from the 80's.<br /><br />I have watched three episodes from Disc 1 in the series and I already find that this version is more violent and graphic (there is blood in every episode).<br /><br />If you are a fan of Batman: The animated series, there is no batman season 4. They just included this series as season 4 for marketability. If they just released it as The New batman adventures I don't think as many people would have bought it.<br /><br />Save yourself the disappointment and stick to seasons 1-3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I bought this film from Woolworths for my friend for a joke present on his birthday, because the front cover had a sexual innuendo in it.<br /><br />But we decided it to watch it anyway. Just for hilarity purposes.<br /><br />And I'm sorry, but this has got to be, one of THE worst films in history.<br /><br />It began off alright, and we thought "Ok this might actually be OK". But after about 10 minutes, we were sadly mistaken.<br /><br />It began when the "mysterious paint baller" turned out to be the most obvious character, the Scouser/Australian (I say that because he had an accent which couldn't be identified), who's acting might I just say, was abysmal.<br /><br />Then it got to the end, and by that time, we had all lost the will to live. The paint ball finals.<br /><br />The only thing I did like about this plot is that they didn't actually win, but annoyingly enough they won by default.<br /><br />And I know this has nothing to do with it, but the name the team were given was just awful. Critical Damage. I mean they could of picked a more awesome name, like "The Destroyers of the Anti-Christ" or something. Or that's what the film should of been called anyway.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What a bad movie. I'm really surprised that DeNiro and even Snipes would be associated with something like this. If you're going to make a movie that involves baseball, and shows scenes of baseball, at least make the action look somewhat realistic. Why was the crowd always standing up for no particular reason during games? ***POSSIBLE SPOILER*** And the last scene in the movie....what was that? We are somehow led to believe that DeNiro has found his way onto the field in an umpire's uniform, and that the game is even being played in a torrential downpour....one of the worst ever scenes in a sports movie. 3 stars out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Just like last years event WWE New Years Revolution 2006 was headlined by an Elimination Chamber match. The difference between last years and this years match however was the entertainment value. In reality only three people stood a chance of walking out of the Pepsi Arena in Albany, New York with the WWE Championship. Those men were current champion John Cena, Kurt Angle and Shawn Michaels. There was no way Vinnie Mac would put the belt on any of the rookies; Carlito or Chris Masters. And Kane? Kane last held the WWE Championship in June 1998, and that was only for one night. It was obvious he wasn't going to be the one either. Last years match was a thrilling affair with six of the best WWE had to offer. 2006 was a predictable and disappointing affair but still the match of the night by far.<br /><br />The only surprise of the evening came after the bell had run on the main event. Out strolled Vince McMahon himself and demanded they lift the chamber. It was then announced that Edge was cashing in his money in the bank championship match right then and there. With no time to prepare and just off the back of winning the Elimination Chamber match John Cena did not stand a chance and dropped the title after a spear to one of the most entertaining heels in WWE. This was the only entertaining piece of action that happened all night.<br /><br />The undercard, like last year, was truly atrocious. Triple H and The Big Show put on a snore fest that had me struggling to stay away. HHH picked up the win but that was never in any real doubt was it? Any pay-per-view that has both Jerry Lawler and Viscera wrestling on the same card will never have any chance of becoming a success really does it. The King pinned Helms (who books this stuff?) and Big Vis tasted defeat against the wasted Shelton Benjamin with a little help from his Mama.<br /><br />The women of the WWE also had a busy night. There was the usual Diva nonsense with a Bra and Panties Gauntlet match which was won by Ashley and the Woman's Championship was also on the line. In a match, I thought would have been left to brew till WrestleMania 22 Mickie James challenged Trish Stratus in a good match. Trish won the contest but it was evident that this is going to continue for the foreseeable future.<br /><br />The opening contest of the night pitted soon to be WWE Champion Edge against Intercontinental Champion, Ric Flair. This could have been better but it was a battered and bloody Flair that retained after a disqualification finish. Edge obviously had bigger fish to fry.<br /><br />So New Years Revolution kicked off the 2006 pay-per-view calendar in disastrous fashion. The only good thing from that is knowing that for the WWE the only way is up. They don't get much worse than this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I saw this movie a few years back on the BBC i sat thru it. How? i don't know,this is way up there in the "so bad it'Good " charts Kidman ,Baldwin,and Pullman must cringe when they see it now.I think Woody Allen would have worked wonders with the outlandish plot, and Baldwin's part could have been played with gusto by Leslie Nelson.it was on again tonight i tried to watch it again but life's too short. the few minutes i watched was for the lovely Nicole she was so hot around 93, has Baldwin ever made a good movie? Pullman played his stock in trade "nice but dim" character the F-word coming out of his mouth when the lady from "frasier" miscast ed as a detective accuses him of murder sounds so wrong. stay well away.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason i am bothering to comment on this movie is to save you all 97 minutes of your life and maybe your money.<br /><br />I bought it ex-rental for £3.00, it looked interesting, so i took a chance.<br /><br />Within minutes of turning it on i realised i'd made a mistake. The entire cast should be stored away until winter and then thrown on the nearest log fire, where they could meet more of their kind.<br /><br />As for the Devin Hamilton (Writer and Director), he should just be shot, sadly this should have been done before he made this rubbish.<br /><br />Avoid this film, If you see it in the shops run away.<br /><br />1/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really looked forward to see Planet of the Apes, but it was a huge dissapointment.<br /><br />The settings and masks are great, but that is the only good aspect of the film. All other things are really annoying. Mark Wahlberg is not acting, he is just in the movie, looking stupid. The other actors are also not very good.<br /><br />But the worst point of all, is the story. It is absolutely ridiculous! For example: the apes are lying unconsiousness on the ground, but the humans don`t attack them, no, they wait until they are up again! This is just one example for the stupid story, but it would take too long to tell them all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Tromaville High has become an amoral wasteland of filth thanks to the aftereffects of the nearby nuclear plant's accidental release of toxic waste.<br /><br />Unrestrained chaos crammed with absurd violence and crude behavior. Rather horrible, obviously intended to be, mess of a film with the filmmakers cutting loose the reins allowing the untalented cast free reign to ham it up. Craft was far down Troma's list of objectives for this gory sleazefest. The honor society are punks with eerie face paint jobs and wacky outfits. The German teacher who becomes a member, through a "toxic kiss" has the streaks down one side of her face that really gave me the creeps.The toxic monster, which dispatched the ANNOYING punks towards the end, is pretty cool, though.<br /><br />Kind of movie trash connoisseurs will embrace wholeheartedly.
|
Negative
| null | null |
All you really need to know about this movie comes after the opening scene, where a guy falls into a lake and gets eaten. Then they start rolling the title credits: You see "Slugs!" in big letters, followed shortly thereafter by "The Movie." WHEW! I was worried I had accidentally tuned into "Slugs: The Musical" or "Slugs: The Game Show." Anyway, from there the movie deteriorates into a kill-fest. You see a guy cut his hand off because he had slugs in his gardening glove, two people get attacked by slugs while having sex, and a girl falling on her back in an underground passageway get stung to death by killer slugs. It's a pretty silly movie, falling in the "so-bad-it's-good" category. It also is shot so poorly with such grainy film that you're shocked to learn it was made in 1988 (my guess was 1974). I'm VERY surprised it has received as high a score as it has here, because most people here don't give those types of movie any love. But if you want a movie that tries to be scary but ends up being laughable, this is one of your prime candidates.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A splendid example of how Hollywood could (and still can) take a masterpiece of literary fiction and stupidly foul it up.<br /><br />In the case of "the Big Sky," writer Dudley Nichols and company arrogantly assumed they could improve upon a classic pioneer novel by the Pulitzer prize-winning author, A.B. Guthrie. In so doing, they removed the soul of the story and any edge and impact it may have had as a film adaptation.<br /><br />The epic nature of Guthrie's book and the evolution of its main character, Boone Caudill, from a naive, Kentucky lad into a hardened and competent survivor/mountain man, has been replaced with a downscaled riverboat farce that bears little resemblance to the author's intent. In the movie version, Boone's presence is nothing except underwhelming.<br /><br />Intriguing and even shocking plot elements that give Guthrie's novel impact and excitement have been removed for no apparent reason whatsoever. Most puzzling of all is the emphasis placed upon the Zeb Calloway character, who was an incidental, minor character in the book, only occupying a handful of pages. On the other hand, a very important and fascinating character, Dick Summers, the veteran pioneer, is missing altogether!!! It is also apparent that director Hawks decided the Zeb character in the movie, played by actor Hunnicutt, wasn't irritating enough. So Zeb/Hunnicutt was given a significant amount of time doing that obnoxious, voice-over narration that is the Hollywood short cut for incompetent screen writing, editing, and direction.<br /><br />Some movies have actually improved upon the books upon which they were based (William Wyler's "Ben-Hur" is an excellent example). But this is horrible and depressing not only as an adaptation of a novel but as a film unto itself.<br /><br />The story is dull and clichéd, and the characters - at least the ones that have not been edited out of the script - are just shallow and boring shadows of Guthrie's literary vision. And unfortunately, Kirk Douglas' star appeal, which could have helped lift this film, was scuttled by the milktoast role he was given.<br /><br />If you can believe it, the film version of Guthrie's Pulitzer prize-winning sequel, "The Way West," also starring Kirk, is even worse.<br /><br />In my opinion, "The Big Sky" further solidifies Howard Hawks' place as one of the most overrated, tepid directors in the history of cinema.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*** REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS *** I'll make this review short and sweet. I bought this movie from Best Buy because it sounded interested and had some top actors in it like Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman. How bad could it be, right? Well, it's pretty bad. Justin Timberlake plays Pollack, a wannabe journalist who stumbles across a case that may lead to corrupt cops at Edison's Police Force. LL Cool J is Deed, a cop within the force on a special force team called F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault Tactics). He's teamed with an "on-the-edge" bad cop named Lazerov (Dylan McDermott). In the opening scene we see Lazerov & Deed taking on some bank robbers, but at night they are busting a couple of guys doing drugs. I don't want to give to much away, but things turn bad for the guys doing the drugs. Pollack, who works for Ashford (Morgan Freeman) goes to a trial involving Deeds & Lazerov. He suspect foul play and with the help of Ashford, does some investigate that turns ugly. Wallace (Kevin Spacey) who is all within the F.R.A.T. team joins with Ashford to try to bring the corrupt cops to justice.<br /><br />You can tell from the beginning that Freeman and Spacey's performance are pretty lackluster. The only person that give a all out performance is Dylan McDermott. He is a complete nut case in this movie and made a believer out of me. LL Cool J is terrible in this film. He says every line the same way and shows pretty much the same emotion. He was much better in movies like Deep Blue Sea & Any Given Sunday. The film starts off with some nice action but then drags it feet through the rest of the film. The ending is far from satisfying.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film. I'm putting it on Ebay this weekend.
|
Negative
| null | null |
To make a film straddling the prequels and the "real" Star Wars trilogy would tax even a great film-maker....Mr Lucas is not that film-maker.<br /><br />To portray the fall of a good man into darkness needs a good actor...Mr Christensen is not that actor.<br /><br />The first 60-80 minutes are overwhelmingly boring with only a few pockets of yet more light sabre fights but there is a lack of edge because you already know which main characters survive to the original Star Wars.<br /><br />Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) has a very fleeting role here and about the best idea is to have Jar Jar Binks silent! <br /><br />No the film only picks up with the Chancellor turning on the Jedi and has one great (overlong) sequence at the lava falls
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being that I loved the original "Caligula" even with all its flaws, I have to say this remake trailer was abysmal.<br /><br />Listening to Jovovich say in that lazy American accent "Mmm cuhligyooluh..." makes me feel sick. The set doesn't look Roman at all... it looks like some rich actor's Hollywood mansion backyard, and the Roman costumes look like cheap crap you buy at a suburban costume shop.<br /><br />That "charming" Adriana Asti looks like a fifty year old Hispanic woman totally terrified out of her mind, as if not knowing it's a movie trailer.<br /><br />The acting has got to be some of the worst I've ever seen, with most of the lines I hear being random actors screaming "CALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!" as loudly and obnoxiously annoyingly as they can.<br /><br />The random sex scenes also filled a good 40 or 50% of the trailer, and the scenes with notable actors/actresses like Gerard Butler (who graces the screen in shadows for all of three and a half seconds) not doing anything but looking uncomfortable or going all-out over the top with their minimal lines, just dragging it down with the ridiculousness of their delivery.<br /><br />Courtney Love's part consists of her looking like her usual dumpy crack-whore self leaning against a door mumbling about the moon or something. You can't tell because she's either drunk or high or just mumbling idiotically.<br /><br />Karen Black is just annoying... randomly laughing, and screaming in such a way that irritates you.<br /><br />Helen Mirren... she was in the original, and her return to "Caligula" consists of... "CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAALIGULAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" I particularly "love" (and by love, I mean hate) Ennia's line, "Caligola... j00 no maki me *something incoherent*.... *something that sounds like j00nalo*" It's also insanely arrogant to say Caligula's four year reign was greater than Jesus's birth and death.<br /><br />Honestly, this has got to be the worst, most exploitative, self-indulgently arrogant piece of crap labeled as "art" I've ever seen. Even if Gore Vidal hated the original Caligula, he shouldn't have shown up or given his name over for this crap-pile, no matter how much they paid him (unless it was a billion trillion yen). Worst trailer ever.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.