input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
They sell it as a horror movie, it's supposed to be a thriller, but I found it pretty funny (comedy?, don't think so), I laughed the whole movie I think it was because of the ridiculous acting and plot. I don't blame the actors, I think they were not very good, but O.K. I think Cillian is a very good "bad guy" I loved his acting in Batman Beggins, and Rachel McAdams.. whoa! she's a beauty, and a good actress as well, but let's try to be a little objective here, the story mm mm... the direction mm mm... it lacks a lot of good suspense in fact is a really boring movie, but there's one good thing tho, it's a short movie, only 1 hour and 30 minutes (FOR ME IT WAS LIKE 10 MINUTES UNDER THE WATER!!!)<br /><br />I just don't know why this movie is rated so high, and in rotten tomatoes, even higher, what's wrong with good, rational and objective criticism?
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.<br /><br />Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.<br /><br />One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />Why was this even made? 2/10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This romantic comedy isn't too bad. There are some funny things happening here and there, and there are some rather memorable characters in it.<br /><br />The acting, however, is amateurish (with the exception of the banker). While some scenes are great fun, others are simply embarrassing. In particular, I found the "romantic" part of the story poor. <br /><br />All in all, I guess it's worth seeing if you like football and romantic comedies. It's not really a bad movie, and the ending did feel quite good. Just don't expect anything out of the ordinary. Fair enough if you have an hour and a quarter to kill.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This Charles outing is decent but this is a pretty low-key performance. Marlon Brando stands out. There's a subplot with Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland that forgets to develop and it hurts the film a little. I'm still trying to figure out why Charlie want to change his name. Every movie with "Charles" has been pretty bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the Baby Boomer generation? Technically, I am a Boomer, though at the time when all the "idealistic youths" of the '60s were reading Marx, burning their draft cards, and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives; I was still in grade school. But I remember them well, and 9 out of 10 were just moronic fools, who would believe anything as long as it was destructive.<br /><br />This is just another excercise in self-importance from the kids who never really grew up.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This TV film tells the story of extrovert Frannie suddenly returning to Silk Hope to visit friends and family, but unaware of her mother's death. Her sister runs the family home, but is intending to sell it and move away with her new husband. Frannie strongly objects to the idea, and vows to keep the family heirloom as it were, by getting a job and maintaining responsibility.<br /><br />In comes handsome Ruben and the two soon fall in love (as you do), and it's from this point that I sort of lost interest....<br /><br />There is more to Farrah Fawcett than just the blonde hair and looks, she can portray a character extremely convincingly when she puts her mind to it - and it is certainly proved here as well as some of her previous efforts like Extremities and Small Sacrificies - a great performance from the legendary Charlie's Angel.<br /><br />Silk Hope is the type of film that never shies away from its cheap and cheerful TV image, and you know there was a limit to the budget, but it's not the worst film ever made. The positive aspects are there; you just have to find them.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Some people say Steve Irwin's larrikin antics and gregarious personality are only an act. Watch this film: it's obvious he can't act.<br /><br />Steve Irwin, dangerman star of the small screen in his *Crocodile Hunter Diaries*, *Croc Files* and eponymous *Crocodile Hunter* series (you see a naming trend here, or is it just me?), rockets his larger-than-strife persona to the big screen with *Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course* (yup there's a definite trend of words beginning with 'C') - basically an episode of *Crocodile Hunter* mashed together with a B-Movie.<br /><br />On a mission to relocate a big croc to save it from being shot by an eccentric farmer (Magda Szubanski), Steve and wife Terri are unaware that the croc is being tracked by American spies (Lachy Hulme and Kenneth Ransom), out to recover a spy satellite beacon it has swallowed. Will it hurt my credibility to say "They're on a Collision Course with Wackiness"? (what credibility? - Ed note.)<br /><br />The plot is irrelevant, as it is Steve's animal magnetism that propels the film. If you find his persona trying, the film is a failure, but if you're a fan of either him (as a businessman, conservationist or just plain ass-klown) or his television shows, expect more of the same on a wide-screen budget.<br /><br />John Stainton, faithful liege, best mate and helmer of the Crocodile Hunter *oeuvre* (can it be called that with a straight face?), writes and directs with the same provincial swagger that made Steve a household wildlife jester.<br /><br />The most jarring aspect of this movie is that Steve (one of the few people for whom you can actually hear the exclamation points going by as he speaks) and Terri (Steve's spouse of 10 years, fiercest ally and closest friend) treat it like it IS one of their documentaries, breaking the "fourth wall" and speaking directly to the camera, whilst all the other characters behave as if they're in a bad movie (well
). It wouldn't be so incongruous if Steve and Terri were kept separated from the rest of the characters but when the Bad Americans constantly threaten Steve's life, we Confused Viewers must ask ourselves why the indifferent camera crew doesn't at least call the cops if not try to poke the bad guys in the eye with the boom mics, or run screaming into the bush anything but continue filming casually with great lighting, crisp audio and seven action angles. <br /><br />While Terri is unfairly painted as Steve's mildly incompetent sidekick (her acting consists of boldly inept line reads and gadding about in pear-shaped-buttock-hugging jeans - for the last, I'm not complaining), Steve goes about his business-as-usual of show-and-tell with creatures intent on killing him, doing all his stunts himself because, well, to him they're not really stunts, just a Day At The Office. <br /><br />Of course, watching this madman's koo-koo adventures after his tragic death in September 2006 casts a strange detachment over the proceedings. But to those of us who never met him, this kind of malarkey (as well as various incarnations of the *Crocodile Hunter* series in constant re-runs) keeps him as alive as ever in our crocodile burrows. The wrenching reality of his absence will only be apparent to those nearest him. And I truly wish them the best in following in his outsize footprints
<br /><br />So enjoy this diversion for what it is a half-baked movie featuring a full-on legend. He died doing what he loved interacting with wildlife - and he could never have asked for more of his first feature film in portraying him doing just that.<br /><br />(Movie Maniacs, visit: poffysmoviemania.com)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was craptacular. I was so emotionally uninvolved in every single character that the movies' biggest antagonist was, in fact, myself. I played it beautifully throughout; promising myself I would walk away, but only drinking another beer hoping it would auto-magically transform into something engrossing along the way. Even in this state, I couldn't help but notice that Cuba's acting was as flimsy as tracing paper. His obsessive dedication to his job was unconvincingly done as well as his one night binge after the failure of his own idiot standards. Burt came on the screen as a General, that's right, a General (who wears too much makeup). I fell into a frighteningly fast binge to rival Cuba's, except mine was real and I stubbed my toe. Recompense! Recompense my stubbed toe!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.<br /><br />The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.<br /><br />Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.<br /><br />Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.<br /><br />But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I didn't think it could be done, but something has come along and replaced Open House- a low budget horror about someone killing over the high price of real estate- as the worst film I've ever seen in my short but otherwise sweet life.<br /><br />It was touted as the best film in Montreal's most recent film festival, which leads me to believe that every other entry must consist of blank-wall shots accompanied by people reading gloomy poetry.<br /><br />Watching this movie was like a little slice of Hell. It's from Austria, and it attempts to stumble along in the footsteps of Short Cuts and Blue Velvet- scenes about various characters living in a suburban area with a dark underbelly. There's the fat dog owner and his fat maid wife who stripteases for him, the skinny divorcee whose wife still lives with him in a house that includes the untouched room of his dead child, the über-annoying woman hitchhiker who recites top ten lists... The list goes on. Forever. Much like the two hours plus I spent in that theatre.<br /><br />Yes, the characters interact, but not in a clever or interesting or even relevant way. I couldn't say if they were any good as actors, as, according to the subtitles, they were given lines that were the Austrian equivalent of "You are so lame!" They certainly didn't have to learn many, as each repeated his or her same lines at least three times in a scene.<br /><br />This is no Gummo, or any of the aforementioned movies. There is no art to discover, and nothing to dwell on afterwards except maybe whether or not you should change your "never walk out during a movie" policy (which quite a few older couples did during a random orgy scene- and if that sounds appetizing, it's not, unless you're one of few who doesn't find the idea of your parents having sex- and with a few local middle-aged couples, to boot- revolting).<br /><br />This movie was offensive to me. Not the flabby nudity, not the cringe-inducing soundtrack, not the shockless scenes involving guns. I was offended that someone actually spent money to make this when there are capable writers and filmmakers out there looking for funding. I was offended that someone from out of town might have gone to see Dog Days and come out wondering if that was the best us Montrealers could find. Most of all, I was offended that, somehow, the people involved with the festival duped everyone into believing that the emperor had a gorgeous and mesmerising new outfit when it was painfully clear that he was as naked as the fat maid wife doing a striptease.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is basically two hours of Dafoe's character drinking himself - nearly literally - to death. The only surprise in this film is that you didn't have enough clues or character knowledge to be surprised. It was just a grim, sad waste of time.<br /><br />Willem Dafoe is excellent actor. Peter Stormare is an excellent actor. But this film just sucked. Slow doesn't make the movie bad, it was just bad. The sketchy plot mixed with artistic ramblings of anamorphic detail aren't cohesively drawn together in a meaningful way for a plot except to highlight some gore which is illustrated from several perspectives, finally at the end. I really appreciate the artistic vision, but as entertainment, it put me to sleep. (Seriously, I fell asleep and had to re-watch the film - which was even more disappointing.)<br /><br />I generally don't like to make negative comments or reviews on the works of others, even when they suck, but this film warranted one. It's just too bad that these great actors were shamed with this end result.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is at least the third remake of this movie so if while watching it, there is a sense of deja vu, don't be surprised. All they did was change the setting of the story and tell it differently but the differences are not significant. And it doesn't get any better because the plot is flawed to begin with. It never works. And like its predecessors, the acting is mediocre.<br /><br />The plot has a unique ending which will surprise any one who has never seen the movie before but the ending doesn't fit the story. Had this movie ended ten minutes earlier, it would have worked and have been very satisfying and I would have thought it more worthwhile. But here is the spoiler and that in the end crime does pay because the criminal is not caught. I never like this message resulting from a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even when I saw this movie at a teenager, I wondered just how ironic it was that Pia Zadora starred in a movie about an artist who slept her way to the top. As beautiful and sexy as Ms. Zadora is, even she couldn't keep this sorry-ass excuse of a movie from tanking. Not even her photoshoot for Penthouse, in which "The Lonely Lady" was promoted "back in the day," could keep this movie from tanking. The only thing that could have saved this movie? A completely different script. Give this one a miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You believe in God or you don't. You believe in Jesus or you don't. You believe He is the Son of God or you don't. The choice is up to you.<br /><br />Director Denys Arcand has really done everything he could to bring back Jesus to a mere historic figure, social worker, son of two humans, instead of the Son of God the Holy Spirit and Mary, Who opened Heaven again for us. Encouraging the Big Bang, a world come from evolution, instead of seeing the beauty of creation. The film depicts a theologian bringing some "modern findings" to the actor who plays Jesus in the Passion Play, who happily incorporates them in his play.<br /><br />The depicted priest who runs the sanctuary where the Passion Play is performed in Montreal has a sexual relation with one of the female players of the Passion Play instead of showing his love for God through celibacy. More often than not the director's abhorrence of the Church is clearly visible.<br /><br />The director has tried to make a parallel between Jesus' life and the Passion Play actor's life. This is an admirable attempt, but depicting the Resurrection with the transplantation of the Passion Play actor's organs in other bodies signifies how the director thinks about Jesus.<br /><br />My opinion is not important, God's opinion is, but I wouldn't want to stand in the shoes of the director and actors when standing before Jesus' throne.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Previous comments encouraged me to check this out when it showed up on TCM, but it was a severe disappointment. Lupe Valdez is great, but doesn't get enough screen time. Frank Morgan and Eugene Palette play familiar but promising characters, but the script leaves them stranded.<br /><br />The movie revolves around the ego of Lee Tracy's character, who is at best a self-centered, physically and verbally abusive jerk. The reactions of "the public" are poorly thought-out and unbelievable, making the "shenanigans" seem like contrivances of a bad writer. And it strains credulity that the Lupe Velez character could fall for him.<br /><br />The "stinging one-liners" mentioned in another review must be dependent on the observer, since I didn't even notice that an attempt was being made.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is terrible. Every line is stolen from 8MM (the Italian dubbed version, at least). If you like trash... real trash, give it a try; but beware: this ain't the "so bad it's good" kind of flick. In its cheapness, it may really look like a porno but, believe me, if you're looking for "snuff", s & m, hardcore, softcore... or even an ordinary erotic thriller, go find something else in store! I'm telling you this, 'cause the absolutely uninspired and unconvincing shooting, acting, plot, dialogues (the only good lines, as I said before, are the ones they stolen from Joel Schumacher's 8MM!) will bore you to tears in a few minutes and the "happy ending" is absolutely revolting! I'll give it one star: a half for the sudden shot in the back scene, after "the eyes of the victim" monologue (stolen from 8MM as well) and a half for mom & daughter's sexy bodies (that didn't manage to keep me completely awake while watching this turkey, anyway!)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is something like a sequel of "White Zombie", since it is made by the same man (Halperin) and features zombies. Halperin, the George A. Romero of his day, fails to deliver with this one, though.<br /><br />We have a man who can control the minds of people in Cambodia, and a search to destroy the source of his power so the zombies can be sent free. Also, a love interest for the evil man.<br /><br />Where this film really excels is in the imagery. The Cambodian temples and dancers are very nice and the zombie look very powerful in their large numbers. Unfortunately, we don't really get to see much of the zombies in action and the love story seems to play a much too large role for a horror film (though this has a valid plot reason later on).<br /><br />I would have loved to see some 1930s zombies attack helpless city folk, but this film just did not deliver. And no strong villain (like Bela Lugosi) was waiting to do battle against our heroes. And the use of Lugosi's eyes? A nice effect, but misleading as he is never in the film... why not recreate this with the new actor's eyes? Overall, a film that could be a great one with a little script re-working and could someday be a powerful remake (especially if they keep it in the same post-war time frame). Heck, if they can fix up "The Hills Have Eyes" then this film has hope.
|
Negative
| null | null |
don't see this. this was one of the dumbest movies i have ever seen. its hard to be Mormon sometimes when there are movies like this out there. what a sad view of Mormon life. i can tell you if you did see this movie that it is not all like this at all in a singles ward. if it was i don't think i would have made it through it. its too bad that most Mormon movies are made by a group of geeks who have nothing better to do. the acting was so bad that my wife and i barely made it through. i guess you could say that it had all the signs of a B movie. or are there C movies? anyway...i just thought this movie sucked and was full of cheese. i wish some Mormons would start making some quality movies.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was very disappointed in this 1970 film based on a Bernard Malamud story. This is basically a story of possible redemption, racial bias and the unfulfillment of life based on mistrust.<br /><br />A black Jewish angel is sent to help a struggling tailor and his critically ill wife. If Morris Mishkin (Zero Mostel) will only believe in the angel (Belafonte), his wife Fanny (Ida Kaminska) will recover. The problem is that Morris has basically given up on life and just refuses to believe that Belafonte is an angel.<br /><br />When he believes it, Fanny improves but in the end he has doubts and Fanny suffers accordingly. It would have been very nice if there had been an English translation in the last scene when a dying Fanny speaks to Morris.<br /><br />Jan Kadar, who successfully directed Miss Kaminska in her Oscar nominated brilliant performance in 1966's "The Shop on Main Street" directs this film as well. Kaminska is reduced in the film to mostly bed scenes and her kindness in her speech really doesn't convey the desperate situation that she faces. She keeps calling for Ruthie, their daughter, who disobeyed them by marrying out of the Jewish religion. For most of the film, she does not realize the Angel's appearance in her apartment.<br /><br />The scene in the pharmacy is muddled and the scene where the Angel's girl friend confronts Belafonte in their apartment, is memorable but all too brief.<br /><br />We don't know why Belafonte is in danger and why he has died.<br /><br />Those viewing this film must have left the theater in a state of depression and desperation.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I've given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.<br /><br />My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.<br /><br />Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.<br /><br />I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.<br /><br />NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.<br /><br />For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.<br /><br />Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.<br /><br />This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.<br /><br />Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.<br /><br />EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.<br /><br />GOOD DAY, SIRS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...let me count the ways.<br /><br />1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.<br /><br />2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.<br /><br />3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.<br /><br />4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.<br /><br />5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.<br /><br />6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.<br /><br />7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).<br /><br />8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. <br /><br />9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).<br /><br />10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.<br /><br />It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.<br /><br />BOMB out of ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know why I keep doing this to myself!! I keep on defending the Dutch and Belgian cinema and claim that it should get more credit and chances...and then they smack you around the head with junk like this! Intensive Care is a terrible production and probably the worst thing that was ever made in the Dutch-speaking countries. It's a Dutch attempt to create our very own horror franchise, clearly based on mainstrain American slasher classics such as Friday the 13th and Halloween. The producers and writers aimed really high with this, but fell really low. Intensive Care became an embarrassing product to everyone who was involved and therefore a true cult flick here. It's almost impossible to hunt down an original copy of this and it's only showed on special occasions, like "the Night of Distaste". For exactly 5 minutes, Intensive Care tries to tell a story and even to create a plotline...then it changes into a lame and low-brain slash 'n stalk movie with gruesome - yet very hilarious and cheap - make up effects. The acting of the entire cast is abominable, even though there are a few respected names involved. The leading male role is played by Koen Wauters...This guy might as well be the most famous and loved artist in Belgium. He's a beloved singer, host of TV-shows and idol of many young girls. He never ever mentions this thing he starred in, though. Like everybody else in The Netherlands, he's trying to convince himself Intensive Care never happened.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If he wanted to be accurate, he should have chosen some Frisco natives and not a bunch of NY actors who know nothing about the Sucka Free (not Sucker Free). I've lived in SF my entire life, and folks here do not talk or act the way these actors did. Everything was over-dramatized, and the only cat I saw from the Bay was JT the Bigga Figga with his little cameo as a rapper. No shock that he was the only one in the film who really dressed like cats out here (ie his Warriors jersey). Not once did I notice anyone wearing any Giants or 9ers gear; instead he fitted them in some cheesy made-up SF or Oakland jerseys that aren't even sold around here. HP has no bowling alleys, black and Asian gangbangers do NOT wear head or wristbands with the colors of Africa or China's Olympic team, nor does every Chinese gangster wear a Yao Ming jersey and try and sound black while shooting hoops. Further, while there now is a significant yuppie community that has invaded the Mission, all that was shown was some white dude and a self-proclaimed "100% West Coast Boriqua." This is NOT New York! Puerto Ricans here are few and far between, and the Latinos in the Mission are very, very different from the ONE that was shown here, who was without a doubt from NY. Also, HP is not the only black neighborhood in the City. An accurate depiction would have shown the drama between HP sets in their own hood as well as vs. Fillmore, Sunnydale, Lakeview, etc. <br /><br />This film could've been much better if Lee had done some more homework and had a better storyline to work with.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you want to know what kind of music white people listened to in 1974, this is the movie for you. But you'll have to listen to a lot of flutes and violins, too (see my remarks on My Girl 1 for the reference).<br /><br />Indulgent admission: I approached My Girl 2 with cynicism and annoyance, having just viewed its predecessor. But as an adoptee preparing to finally set upon a search for my birthmother, My Girl 2 made me look, with its theme of searching for mother.<br /><br />Put another way, anything I liked about My Girl 2 had nothing whatsoever to do with My Girl 2, but relating to a protagonist who asks, like so many adoptees, "who's my mama"? And if there are home movies of my mom in an acting troupe, I'll be sure to make my own movie about it.<br /><br />People are listless. Movies should not be listless. My Girl 2 (like My Girl 1) is just...listless.<br /><br />Avoid unless you're a complete sap who's comforted by a series of small annoyances.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to congratulate the genius who approved this one. Edward Furlong, you're not as good as you think mate, you can't grab on every piece of low-cost amateur crap, which sole intention has to be to get some bucks.<br /><br />The filming is bad, and I mean BAD. Anyone with a camera would get the same result, or better.<br /><br />The acting, lets just say: don't go to the supermarket looking for actors. The good ones usually come with a degree or, at least, have some damn experience! The director.. Mr. Jon Keeyes, please find your purpose in life, as a director you simply suck. Your directing is poor, the angles are all messed up (not in a good way), the lines seem as if they're being read out of toilet paper, and the damn music.. it always comes up when it shouldn't and goes out for no apparent reason. And don't go for writer either, by the way. Making movies isn't like serving on a coffeshop, it requires art and skill, things I really doubt you'll ever have.<br /><br />Instead of making a badass shootout movie, you should've shot this one back to oblivion and wait 'till something good came up.. Or just go find a job on a coffeshop. You'll have less stress and you'll save movie goers some money and a bad night.<br /><br />vote: 1/10 (my first one)
|
Negative
| null | null |
This 1996 movie was the first adaptation of Jane Eyre that I ever watched and when I did so I was appalled by it. So much of the novel had been left out and I considered William Hurt to be terribly miscast as Rochester. Since then I have watched all the other noteworthy adaptations of the novel, the three short versions of '44, '70 and '97 and the three mini series of '73, '83 and 2006, and I have noticed that there are worse adaptations and worse Rochesters.<br /><br />This is without doubt the most exquisite Jane Eyre adaptation as far as cinematography is concerned. Director Franco Zerifferelli revels in beautiful long shots of snow falling from a winter sky, of lonely Rochester standing on a rock, and of Jane looking out of the window - but he is less good at telling a story and bringing characters to life. In addition, his script merely scratches the surface of the novel by leaving out many important scenes. As a consequence the film does not show the depth and complexity of the relationship between Jane and Rochester, and sadly it does also not include the humorous side of their intercourse. There are a number of short conversations between Rochester and Jane, each of them beautifully staged, but the couple of sentences they exchange do not suffice to show the audience that they are drawn to each other. We know that they are supposed to fall in love, but we never see it actually happen. The scene in which Rochester wants to find out Jane's reaction to his dilemma by putting his case in hypothetical form before her after the wounded Mason has left the house is completely missing, and the farewell scene, the most important scene - the climax - of the novel is reduced to four sentences. Zerifferelli does not make the mistake other scriptwriters have made in substituting their own poor writing for Brontë's superb lines, neither are crucial scenes completely changed and rewritten, but he makes the less offensive but in the end similarly great mistake of simply leaving many important scenes out. What remains is just a glimpse of the novel, which does no justice to Charlotte Brontë's masterpiece.<br /><br />The cast is a mixed bag: While Fiona Shaw is an excellent Mrs Reed, Anna Paquin's young Jane is more an ill-mannered, pout Lolita than a lonely little girl, longing for love. The ever-reliable Joan Plowright makes a very likable, but far too shrewd Mrs Fairfaix, and one cannot help feeling that Billie Whitelaw is supposed to play the village witch instead of plain-looking, hard-working Grace Poole. Charlotte Gainsbourgh as the grown-up heroine, however, is physically a perfect choice for playing Jane Eyre. Looking every bit like 18, thin and frail, with irregular, strong features, she comes closest to my inner vision of Jane than any other actress in that role. And during the first 15 minutes of her screen time I was enchanted by her performance. Gainsbourgh manages well to let the audience guess at the inner fire and the strong will which are hidden behind the stoic mask. But unfortunately the script never allows her to expand the more passionate and lively side of Jane's character any further. As a result of leaving out so many scenes and shortening so much of the dialogues, Gainsbourgh's portrayal of Jane must necessarily remain incomplete and therefore ultimately unsatisfactory. This is a pity, as with a better script Charlotte Gainsbourgh might have been as good a Jane as Zelah Clarke in the '83 version.<br /><br />But while it is still obvious that Gainsbourgh is trying to play Jane, there is no trace whatsoever of Rochester in the character that William Hurt portrays. Hurt, who has proved himself to be a fine actor in many good movies, must have been aware that he was physically and type-wise so miscast that he did not even attempt at playing the Rochester of the novel. His Rochester, besides being blond and blue-eyed, is a soft-spoken, well-mannered nobleman, shy and quiet, slightly queer and eccentric, but basically good-natured and mild. He is so far from being irascible, moody and grim that lines referring to these traits of his character sound absolutely ridiculous. Additionally, during many moments of the movie, Hurt's facial expression leaves one wondering if he is fighting against acute attacks of the sleeping sickness. Particularly in the proposal scene he grimaces like a patient rallying from a general anaesthetic and is hardly able to keep his eyes open. If you compare his Rochester to the strong-willed and charming protagonist of the novel, simply bursting with energy and temperament, it is no wonder that many viewers are disappointed in Hurt's performance. Still, he offends me less than the Rochesters in the '70, '97 and 2006 versions and I would in general rank this Jane Eyre higher than these three other ones. Hurt obviously had the wits to recognise that he could not be the Rochester of the novel and therefore did not try to do so, whereas George C. Scott, Ciaràn Hinds and Toby Stephens thought they could, but failed miserably, and I'd rather watch a character other than Rochester than a Rochester who is badly played. And I'd rather watch a Jane Eyre movie which leaves out many lines of the novel but does not invent new ones than a version which uses modernised dialogues which sound as if they could be uttered by a today's couple in a Starbucks café. Of course this Jane Eyre is a failure, but at least it is an inoffensive one, which is more than one can say of the '97 and 2006 adaptations. I would therefore not desist anyone from watching this adaptation: You will not find Jane Eyre, but at least you will find a beautifully made movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Being a fan of cheesy horror movies, I saw this in my video shop and thought I would give it a try. Now that I've seen it I wish it upon no living soul on the planet. I get my movie rentals for free, and I feel that I didn't get my moneys worth. I've seen some bad cheesy horror movies in my time, hell I'm a fan of them, but this was just an insult.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Those familiar with the two previous Cube films pretty much know what they can expect: a small group of people trapped inside a bunch of booby trapped rooms, paranoia, bad acting... This one is a bit different though. Roughly half of the film takes place outside the cube, where we get to watch the people watching the people inside the cube (or at least five of them).<br /><br />I guess Cube Zero aspires to explain what the deal with the cube is, but you really don't get to know much more than what was covered in the two first films. Sure, there's sort of an explanation in there, but it feels pretty lame compared to what was suggested in the first film.<br /><br />Cube Zero looks rather cheap (as did its predecessors), and the fact that it shows more than just a couple of empty rooms only emphasizes this feeling. I also fell pretty confident in saying that there's no risk that any of the actors will win any awards in the foreseeable future. They have brought back the traps from Cube 1, though, (by that I mean that they're almost the same ones, which is a bit of a shame).<br /><br />I know that many people kind of appreciate this film and its ties with the first one, but I just feel that it's a completely unnecessary contribution to a franchise that wasn't that great to begin with. [1/10]
|
Negative
| null | null |
POSSIBLY VERY MINOR SPOILERS<br /><br />This movie is billed as the first Russian horror movie. Unfortunately, as far as I am concerned, "The Witch" (its Russian title) will take a place of dishonor in the gallery of horrible Russian movies. It is based on Nikolai Gogol's story "Viy" which is a classic in Russia. "Based" is the key word here since no familiarity with the story is required. Instead, the less you know about Gogol, the better. <br /><br />It is a unique production because we are quite used to directors taking stories from other cultures and adapting them to their own culture. The spate of American remakes of foreign films is a prime example, but then again, Sturgess turned Kurosawa's Seven Samurai into The Magnificent Seven with splendid results, and Kurosawa transferred Shakespeare's Macbeth into Japan to make an incredibly powerful Throne in Blood, while King Lear became a riveting Ran. However, with "The Witch," we have Russians transplanting a Russian classical tale onto the American soil. The movie was shot in Estonia in English with the aim of dubbing it into English using American actors and have reasonably synchronous lip movements. <br /><br />As a natural consequence, lost is the colorful Ukrainian background for the story, in comes a drab American small town seemingly lifted from some outdated horror book manual. Gone is the boozy seminarian Khoma Brutus, instead we have a boozy journalist who is about to win Pullitzer prize, and who at the same time writes about X-Files-like events and frequents Miss Boobs contests. (I never thought Pullitzer prize was given for that kind of writing, now I humbly stand corrected.) In a strange nod to Russianness, the journalist is named Ivan Berkhoff. They should've named him John Smith because it is impossible to get more hackneyed, clichéd and generic than this movie. <br /><br />Berkhoff goes to a town named Castleville, gets stranded on a dirt road, staggers on until he finds a dilapidated house and is rather un-welcomed by an old crone. All that to the accompaniment of a radio announcement about the forces of evil being at their most powerful, and people better staying indoors and avoiding water. Need I mention that it's raining really hard? After a few supposedly frightening scenes which had me laughing, the story finds our journalist dressed as a priest, he's mistaken for a priest, and the local sheriff tells him his daughter who died after being brutally attacked wanted the new priest to pray for her for three nights. At this point, the action supposedly starts. Those who have time to kill are welcome to it. <br /><br />What is wrong with this film? Everything, starting with the dialog and down to the prop department. The dialog which I heard in Russian was clearly originally written in English, and it was compiled exclusively from clichés and platitudes picked from American films. The actors just as clearly struggled with English because the timing of their speech was labored and unnatural, and the Russian dubbing followed suit. The acting is mostly atrocious, and not only because the actors find it often difficult to talk but because they don't have anything approaching a range of facial expressions. For the most part, they're just blank or you wish they were. The only exceptions being the sheriff played by Lembit Ulfsak, a fine Estonian actor, and Arnis Lizitis who plays a wheelchair bound resident of Castleville. Oh, and a rooster of course who's absolutely natural on camera! I know actors complain of being upstaged by dogs and cats but when Nikolaev is upstaged by a rooster it is a sad testimony to the general quality of acting in the film.<br /><br />There wasn't a single scary moment in the entire film, and there wasn't a single original moment in the film either. Mind you, this comment's coming from somebody who's rather inexperienced with horror. The film is filled with standard moves used in horror movie since the genre's inception. At a critical moment, the camera lingers lovingly on a kerosene lamp. The lamp promptly goes out. It must have seen a few horror movies, too. An example of supreme idiocy comes at another moment, a character jumps out of a bathtub and runs at the camera. He's wearing something the looks like loincloth! It doesn't get any more idiotic than this!<br /><br />Those in Russia who liked it claim it should've been advertised as a mystical thriller. I wasn't thrilled either. It was run-of-the-mill from start to finish. I particularly enjoyed the fact that the entire population of the little town behaved as if they knew exactly they lived in a horror movie, except they weren't quite sure whether it had zombies or not. Therefore, some of them acted zombie-like just in case. <br /><br />The makers of the film say it's about finding faith. Such a fine collections of idiotic actions, stupidly contrived moments, and, yes, clichés, doesn't deserve to be about finding faith. The movie is so thoroughly and utterly fake it deserves only to be an exhibit in a wax figure museum.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! <br /><br />Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".<br /><br />Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i think this one sucked on ice, because it left the cube, and gave us to much information as to the who's and why's. The original CUBE never left the cube, and it left everything to your imagination. This crap fest however, gives you it all. and i didn't like it...Though the acting is solid, I think the reason this one was a downer was because it was done by people other than the ORIGINAL filmmakers, if they had Vincenzo Natali do this prequel, or even the sequel i think it would have done better and would have been more true to the source. so i recommend you stay far, far away from this one, and HYPERCUBE, another movie i don't even want to discuss...(i gave it a 2 for the acting only)
|
Negative
| null | null |
...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Her Cardboard Lover" is Norma Shearer's last movie. She quit the movies and, I think, joined the Board of Directors at MGM. That was a good move on her part. "Her Cardboard Lover" was talky and boring in parts. It was obvious there were only a handful of actors with speaking parts so they had a lot of dialogue to speak to keep this turkey afloat. <br /><br />The story was a good idea about a wealthy woman (Norma Shearer) hiring a man (Robert Taylor) to make her playboy fiancee (George Sanders)jealous. I am surprised that the director, George Cukor, did not cut many of the talky scenes between Ms. Shearer and Mr. Taylor. Mr. Cukor served Ms. Shearer well in "The Women" but not in this movie. <br /><br />The best performance in the movie was given by Robert Taylor. During Mr. Taylor's career, he was given his best comedy roles in this movie and "When Ladies Meet" in 1941. In 1942, he gave his best comedy performance in "Her Cardboard Lover" and, up to then, his best dramatic performance in "Johnny Eager." He had a busy year. I think of all the actors at MGM, Mr. Taylor worked with all the major and minor actresses on the lot. Also, MGM gave Mr. Taylor all types of movies to make - most of them were successful. That is why MGM kept him for 25 years. <br /><br />Mr. George Sanders was very good as a socialite heel. He played a similar role eight years later in "All About Eve" for which he won an Oscar for a supporting role. As for Ms. Shearer, this was one of her worst performances, she was not funny and too dramatic for this comedy. It is strange that she made a great comedy in 1939, "The Women", and gave her best performance. It was obvious that she was too old looking for her younger leading men in "Her Cardboard Lover." Also, it didn't help that some of her clothes were awful.<br /><br />Too bad she and Mr. Taylor did not make another dramatic movie like their last movie together, the superb "Escape". The same comments about this movie can be said of another movie, "Personal Property" that Mr. Taylor made in 1937 with Jean Harlow. It was too talky, boring, and the actress looked old. Ms. Harlow looked ill throughout the movie and nobody in Hollywood noticed to tell her to see a doctor, so in 1937, she died at age 26. What a waste! She was becoming a good actress and getting better roles.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I couldn't tell if "The Screaming Skull" was trying to be a Hitchcock rip off or a modernized Edgar Allen Poe tribute. These days, someone would have chopped it up a bit and presented it as one of those TV anthology episodes from the old "Tales From The Dark Side"...but only after an extensive rewrite.<br /><br />The sad thing is, there seems to be a nice, nasty little story trying to get out from under the rubble of this movie, and the actors are obviously doing the best they can with both their talent and the material they have to work with. But the director just didn't know how to stage or pace a dramatic scene; the special effects simply didn't work; the screenplay telegraphed its threadbare plot points so plainly that a bivalve could have seen them coming; and the soundtrack kept playing German "oompah band" music when it was supposed to be trying to scare the audience. <br /><br />They tried; they tried really hard. But this is of interest only as a period piece.I suppose someone very young who hadn't seen a lot of suspense or horror might get a charge out "The Screaming Skull", but someone that young probably wouldn't get most of the subtext or plot motivation. ("Mommy, why is that nice man trying to scare the twisty faced scaredy-cat lady??")
|
Negative
| null | null |
America needs the best man possible to win "The game" so who do they hire? A gymnast (Oh brother!) played by Kurt Thomas who has the necessary skills to win in a game which involves ninjas, a village of crazies and Richard Norton who is told by Kurt Thomas "to keep his hardware in his pants." (His exact words) I missed this in theaters and it's a good reason because I would have probably been kicked out due to the laughing I broke into at regular intervals. The first thing that went through my mind was just how lame these ninjas are if a gymnast can kick their ass. Kurt Thomas is like 5 foot 4 and he hardly strikes one as "The best man for the job" As to the acting talent of Kurt Thomas, well if you can't say something nice... In all seriousness though one has to wonder how much cocaine was being used to furnish an idea so stupid. Only the decision to cast Tara Reid as a scientist tops the dumbness here. For 18 years though this held the title of the dumbest movie I had ever seen. Not to say I didn't find this unwatchable, I was laughing so hard I almost choked to death. Twice. Only in the 80's could a movie with such a bad idea get made. Although for the record it is the only movie to ever feature a hero so wimpy, he can't even pull a wedged sword out from the ground. This is the wimpiest action movie ever made, and one of the most hilarious also.<br /><br />* out of 4-(Bad)
|
Negative
| null | null |
It seems that several of the people who have reviewed this movie only watched it in the first place because it was filmed near where they live. How's that for a ringing endorsement? If this movie was filmed near where I lived I wouldn't be mentioning it in my review. It is horrid! Several reviews state that this film is a spoof or tongue-in-cheek horror movie, it is neither. It is sad to see this film reviewed as a comedy as that makes it not only a bad attempt at a horror film but as a comedy as well. I did laugh though, at how unbelievably bad the film was.<br /><br />This movie has 2 good things going for it, the mask and the weapon of choice, unfortunately it would have been more interesting watching an hour and a half of the mask and weapon laying on a table then watching this garbage. The social commentary behind the film is also laughable, juvenile and stupid. Don't bother with this movie, you've already wasted time reading this review don't waste anymore on this movie. Arrggghhh! It's infuriating that movies like this even get made. I was expecting the entire cast a crew to be credited to Alan Smithee, a name used when a person, usually a director, doesn't want to be credited with a movie because it's so bad.<br /><br />There is nothing redeeming in this movie, I spent $1.19 on the rental and feel I was ripped off. Avoid. 1 out of 10
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just saw this film last night in the 2006 Tribeca Film Festival and it seriously makes me wonder if the folks at the festival actually screen the films before selecting them. The film was simply awful - I say that without hyperbole or ulterior motives - it was awful. Matthew Modine's days as a leading man are way over. Gina Gershon sported an inexplicable and unnecessary English accent - she should be ashamed of her participation in this film. Gloria Reuben had a weird little cameo in it - she should also be ashamed. The script was terrible and the we were given absolutely no reason to care about the characters. I highly doubt this will be picked up, but then again, people in Hollywood are known to make mistakes sometimes. I really think "Kettle of Fish" is a serious contender for the worst movie I've ever seen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
because you can put it on fast forward and watch the inane story, without having to listen to banal dialogue, and be finished in 10 minutes max. Come to think of it, even 10 minutes is too much to waste on Enid-Blyton-meets-struggling-wanna-be-artists. Vomit.
|
Negative
| null | null |
About three minutes into this thing I started fast-forwarding, pausing only during the nudity (why is it that bad movies always include such good looking women?). In ten minutes I was done, and wishing I could get my money back from the rental store. The people who write these movies should be sanctioned by the MPAA. Come on writers - the bad guys ALWAYS get into the car with the bomb activated by the good guy's remote control! That's the way its been done since the days of the Ottoman Empire! Also, to add insult to injury, the "twist" at the end was so formulaic, that it could have come from any action movie written in the past 25 years. Burt Reynolds was fine, but he should concentrate on real movies.<br /><br />This movie is just a waste of time - Run away! Run away!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I got Mirror Mirror mainly because Yvonne De Carlo was in it (I thought she was great in American Gothic) but sadly she didn't have a very big role in this film. It starts off OK and the pace moves along nicely...but by the end it starts getting a bit tedious and dull. That's not to say that this is a boring film, but it's just very average and nothing spectacular. I didn't like the "posession" side of it and there were no decent gore scenes. Plus the 'main' story was very confusing and the ending doesn't make much sense at all. I did however like the story surrounding the Gothic girl and how she got revenge on her tormentors.<br /><br />I wouldn't particularly recommend Mirror Mirror to horror fans - it's nothing to wet yourself over.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Summer Holiday is the forgotten musical version of Eugene O'Neill's Ah Wilderness and deservedly so with the Broadway musical adaptation of Take Me Along. With the exception of the Stanley Steamer song, none of the other Harry Warren-Ralph Blane songs are worth remembering and even that one is questionable. <br /><br />It was right after the release of this film that MGM let Mickey Rooney go and I don't think it was a coincidence. The film was made in 1946 and released in 1948, so Mickey was 26 playing an Andy Hardy like teenager. He was just way too old for the part of the 17 year old who was affecting radical ideas in a spirit of youthful rebellion.<br /><br />Rooney made four films for MGM from 1946 to 1948, this one, Killer McCoy a remake of Robert Taylor's A Crowd Roars, Love Laughs at Andy Hardy and Words and Music. In all of them Rooney was playing an adult part. Even in the Andy Hardy film, Mickey played an adult Andy Hardy returned from World War II. Why he was in this Louis B. Mayer only knows. <br /><br />Rooney's bad casting makes Summer Holiday all the worse because in the original Ah Wilderness the emphasis is on the father's character played here by Walter Huston. And in the Broadway show Take Me Along which won a Tony Award for Jackie Gleason, the Great One played the inebriated brother-in-law Uncle Sid here played by Frank Morgan and that's the central character.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven steps in for Judy Garland as Rooney's sweet and adorable girl friend and Marilyn Maxwell plays the show girl who gives Rooney an adult education. In the original play O'Neill has her as a prostitute, but this was the Hollywood of the Code so all Marilyn does is get young Rooney soused.<br /><br />A lot of really talented people had a hand in this one and they do their best, but Summer Holiday fades rather quickly into a chilly autumn.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was made for fans of Dani (and Cradle of Filth). I am not one of them. I think he's just an imitator riding the black metal bandwagon (still, I'm generally not a fan of black metal). But as I was carrying this DVD case to pay for it, I convinced myself, that the less authentic something is the more it tries to be convincing. Thus I assumed I'm in for a roller-coaster ride of rubber gore and do-it-yourself splatter with a sinister background. Now, that is what I do like.<br /><br />I got home and popped it in. My patience lasted 15 minutes. AWFUL camera work and DISGUSTING quality. And that was then (2002), that it looked like it was shot using a Hi8 camcorder. I left it on the shelf. Maybe a nice evening with beer and Bmovies would create a nice setting for this... picture. <br /><br />After a couple of months I got back to it (in mentioned surroundings) and saw half. Then not only the mentioned aspects annoyed me. My disliking evolved. I noticed how funny Dani (1,65m; 5'5" height) looked in his platform shoes ripping a head of a mugger apart. (Yes, ripping. His head apparently had no skull.) I also found that this movie may have no sense. Still, I haven't finished it yet, so I wasn't positive.<br /><br />After a couple more tries I finally managed to finish this flick - a couple of months back... (Yes, it took me 5,5 years.) So - Dani in fact was funny as Satan/Manson/super-evil-man's HELPER and the movie DID NOT make sense. See our bad person employs Dani to do bad things. He delivers. Why? Well I guess he's just very, very bad. As a matter of fact they both are and that is pretty much it.<br /><br />We have a couple of short stories joined by Dani's character. My favourite was about a guy, who STEALS SOMEONE'S LEG, because he wants to use it as his own. Yeah, exactly. <br /><br />The acting's ROCK BOTTOM. The CGI is the worst ever. I mean Stinger beats it (and, boy, is Stinger's CGI baaaaad). The story has no sense. And the quality is... Let's just say it is not satisfying. The only thing that might keep you watching is the unmotivated violence and gore. Blood and guts are made pretty well. Why, you can actually see that the movie originated there and then moved on. (Example - Dani 'The Man' Filth takes a stuffed cat - fake as can be - and guts it... and then eats what fell out. Why? We never know. We do know, however, that this cat must have been on illegal substances, as his heart is almost half his size.)<br /><br />You might think, after my comment that this movie is so bad it's good, but it's just bad. Cradle of Filth fans can add 3 points. I added one for gore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I love a good sappy love story (and I'm a guy) but when I rented "Love Story" I prayed for the end to come as quickly and painlessly as possible and just the opposite for Ali McGraw's character.<br /><br />Ali McGraw as Jenny alienated and irritated the heck out of me within the first 15 minutes. When we learn that she has been diagnosed with a life threatening illness I couldn't help but wonder if her death would be such a terrible loss for poor Oliver or if anyone watching this film would even care. If she didn't die her grating personality would probably have pushed Oliver over the edge and eventually landed them in divorce court.<br /><br />People love this movie but it's one of the worst of the 70's.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I would not consider myself as one of Leonard Cohen's greatest fans. He does however feature as an important poet / musician in my literary / musical heritage. By far the most valuable element in this documentary is to hear Leonard's reflections on his own life and career. Warming and humble. <br /><br />Unfortunately the most of the musicians featured in the concert didn't converse the nuances of Leonard's musical / literary manner. Nick Cave, Jarvis Cocker & Beth Orton were the exceptions, even though Leonard highly values Rufus Wainrights interpretations of his songs.<br /><br />What particularly failed in this documentary was the ability of the filmmaker to allow the viewer to see who Leonard Cohen is and how these musicians connect to him. A lot is said in this respect, but the viewer is not drawn into the person Leonard Cohen. This failing is especially evident with the interviews with Bono and the Edge. They view Leonard as a special icon, but can't translate their exact value of Leonard Cohen. The collaboration with U2 is a farce. The entire live registration looks like a rushed job. And just as in the whole film, only Leonard Cohen remains his part and can tell about his own part.<br /><br />The entire montage and screenplay is much like a high school extramural project. The use of effects such as echo, slow-motion or flashed images are ill placed. Some of the camera-work is dismal. Part of the score hardly recalls any associations I may have expected. At times it seemed the filmmaker was adding psychotic elements to the film. Perhaps a reference to his once use of LSD.<br /><br />Some unintentional humor ... at some point Leonard tells how he influenced a musical genre. Initially he can't recall the genre's name, until eventually he says it was punk, the punksters really picked up on his music. The next scene in the film is a live cover of 'I can't forget' ...<br /><br />"And I can't forget, I can't forget I can't forget but I don't remember who"
|
Negative
| null | null |
this documentary is founded on sponge cake as soon as you put any REAL evidence on it the integrity slowly sinks into a big pile of crap for example Bart Sibrel claims they must have had multiple lighting sources because the shadows appear to be crossing if this were the case wouldn't there be two or more shadows for each object when Apollo 11 went through the van Allan radiation belts they spent 30 Min's there not the 90 Min's claimed in the documentary and they received a dose of radiation more equivalent to that of an an x ray.<br /><br />seriously do some research learn what really happened don't let this pile of crap of a documentary mold your opinion of what really happened
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really do fail to see the actual surplus value of this movie. It's not bad enough to be hilarious. There's no sleaze or gratuitous nudity (although there was plenty of opportunity). There's no gore. There's no suspense in the first hour of the movie 'cause there's way to much scenes of tourist having a party and natives playing funky tribal music. That last part was actually funny on many occasions: You see these natives hitting congas and 'jembés' and that's indeed what you hear (badly synchronized) on the soundtrack. But they also added this funky bass-line on the soundtrack. So, where was the bass-player? At one point the natives get angry and start killing the tourists. Why all of the sudden? It's supposed to be because the evil white men build this tourist complex, which according to their myth awakened the wrath of the river-alligator-god (I actually missed the explanation for that one). But the natives did help for several months to build the tourist complex, so why the sudden angriness? And how in the hell did they manage to push the helicopter in the water??? It's all silly and pointless. This movie also features the skinniest Afro-American model I've ever seen.<br /><br />At one point our heroic leading couple visits this cave where a weird, crazy old man lives. The only point to that scene is that they make the "shocking" discovery that the killer-crocodile is actually an alligator. Crocodile or alligator, what's the difference? It's big, it's made out of plastic and it eats people. All the same to me. The alligator is a rather silly creation. It's very stiff & motionless and doesn't even flap its feet when it swims. The eyes don't even move when they're shot in close-up. I guess they didn't know 'animatronics' back then in Italy during 1979. There's also a lot of pointless inter-cut shots of the local wildlife. I suspect it's stock footage.<br /><br />Like, I said, the first hour was pretty lame and the only reason I didn't switch off the movie was because my cat was asleep on my lap and I didn't want to wake the sweet thing. But the last half hour of the movie did get better. We finally get to see some action when the alligator swims through a horde of panicking people snapping its teeth and munching on them. The most entertaining (and at the same time funny) scene is when Alice and Daniel drive a van over a bridge and it collapses. We're looking at a matchbox-version of the van falling in the river here. Funny. But nicely shot. In fact there are several other nice traveling camera-moves. Surprisingly for this type of flick. I was gonna point out some stupid details concerning the end of the movie, but I don't wanna spoil it completely, in case you do decide to watch this movie. My advice is to stay away from it. If you wanna see a decent alligator movie, then see Lewis Teague's ALLIGATOR. I admit, that one isn't Italian and isn't a JAWS rip-off, but it certainly is more fun. And if you're interested in other movies made by director Sergio Martino, then I strongly recommend the highly entertaining 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. That one's an over-the-top rip-off of every possible existing post-apocalyptic-future-of-doom-movie. "Italians" and "rip-offs", two words that go together very well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What the hell was all that about? I saw The Matrix and was amazed. It was the most spectacular movie ever made. What ever possesed the Wachowski brothers to do this film is beyond me.<br /><br />There is no plot, you can't argue with that. Basically all this film was was a load of talking, and don't get me wrong, I have no problem with talky films, but all the talking in The Matrix Reloaded was a pointless load of drivvle. Then there would be a fight sequence which lasted WAY too long, then more pointless drivvle, then another fight scene that lasts too long and it all builds up to the biggest anti-climax ever. A little bearded bloke talking a load of uncomprehensible bull for 20 minutes.<br /><br />Also, Keanu Reeves gives his worst performance yet. I knew he wasn't a good actor but this was beyond a joke. If you watch his films in the order he was in them it would seem he got gradually worse as they went along. God knows what his performance is like in Something's Gotta Give! Keanu Reeves: The only plank of wood ever to become an actor.<br /><br />After the splendor of the first film this came as a massive dissapointment. If you haven't already seen the first film I suggest you watch it, but don't waste your time with this utter pile of turd.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I DVRd this movie was because 1. I live in Cleveland and Shaq plays basketball for us now and 2. I've always heard how awful it was. The movie did not disappoint. The best parts were Shaq's outfits. The worst parts were, well, just about everything else. My 12 year old son and I just squirmed and couldn't look at the screen when Shaq started rapping and we kept wondering why Max didn't wish for Kazzam to fix that front tooth of his! But for all it's terribleness we just couldn't stop watching it, the story sucked you in, like a black hole or quicksand or a tar pit, it was hypnotic. But it was worth it for the laughs and just to say that we actually watched "Kazzam".
|
Negative
| null | null |
I feel the movie did not portray Smith historically. The goal of this movie was to tell Smith's life in a way that would be "comfortable" to the LDS Church leaders, historical accuracy seems to have been of little concern. The movie was designed to be a "faith promoting" experience, not a balanced view of Smith "as a man." I have taken it upon myself to study Smith's life and have read both LDS works and none LDS works. The movie, like most LDS projects, was beautifully filmed and well acted. However, this was not a realistic portrayal of either the beginnings of Mormonism or Smith's relatively short life.<br /><br />A significant period of time was given to reenacting an accident that Smith had when he was seven. While this event was no doubt important in forming his mental outlook, it appears that the main reason for including it in the film is to help establish a sympathetic view of Joseph Smith. Another point is in portraying Smith's teen years the film is silent regarding the Smith family's involvement in magical practices during the 1820's. Another problem is while the movie shows Joseph Smith good-naturedly entering into wrestling contests, it fails to show how he sometimes lost his temper and became violent.<br /><br />I could go on and on. This movie was not historical in any way and should be considered a fictional movie about a man. I would not recommend seeing this movie for any other purpose other then entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is like real life, by which I mean - not a lot happens in the available 2 hours or so, and not much game plan or plot is evidenced by the frequently invisible cast (their invisibility being due to the "experimental" lighting as mentioned by many reviewers). <br /><br />A big bore. No big surprise that Altman helms this - he is a very variable performer (yes we all loved "Gosford Park", but "Pret A Porter" anyone? Kansas City? Dr T. and the Women? Aaargh), but the fact that the raw material is a John Grisham tale, and the excellent cast that you will perceive through the gathering gloaming of your insistent slumber - makes this truly a masterpiece of bad film. And no, it is not "so bad it's good".<br /><br />It's just bad.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had all the elements to be a smart, sparkling comedy, but for some reason it took the dumbass route. Perhaps it didn't really know who its audience was: but it's hardly a man's movie given the cast and plot, yet is too slapstick and dumb-blonde to appeal fully to women.<br /><br />If you have seen Legally Blonde and its sequel, then this is like the bewilderingly awful sequel. Great actors such as Luke Wilson should expect better material. Jessica Simpson could also have managed so much more. Rachael Leigh Cook and Penelope Anne Miller languish in supporting roles that are silly rather than amusing.<br /><br />Many things in this movie were paint-by-numbers, the various uber-cliché montages, the last minute "misunderstanding", even the kids' party chaos. This just suggests lazy scriptwriting.<br /><br />It should be possible to find this movie enjoyable if you don't take it seriously, but it's such a glaring could-do-better than you'll likely feel frustrated and increasingly disappointed as the scenes roll past.
|
Negative
| null | null |
There are no spoilers here... Because there is no plot to spoil. Madchen Amick is living proof a face can make a living acting-- no talent required. The only bright spot are a few really good one-liners delivered very nicely by Alice Krige, but then again, she IS Alice Krige. Her soft dreamy voice gives the only hint at just how seductively dangerous these odd creatures can be. She is believably creepy in this otherwise unbelievable plot. How they got her to agree to this project remains a mystery. The screenplay writers must have been medicated when they submitted this script. It has major continuity problems, superficial stereotypical characters, horror formula writing, and simply falls short of making any sense what-so-ever. The creatures, while they have neat skills like going "dim", the question of where they come from and what they are is never so much explored. <br /><br />Don't waste any time on this one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN. And Dolph always lends some cheesy appeal to his roles. But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.<br /><br />Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years. He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL. The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out. Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.<br /><br />If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it. The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly. Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.<br /><br />The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.<br /><br />Too bad, I really wanted to like this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.<br /><br />Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.<br /><br />This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
First and foremost, Zorie Barber (Zeke), might be one of the worst actors I have ever seen. As a character that's supposed to be a hip, Village writer into the martial arts and proud of being mysterious, why is he so hyper, over-dramatic, and plain horrible? Did he know anything about his character before they started filming? Did the director? Don't the martial arts teach discipline? Aside from that, this film misses the target with its lame jokes and seen-it-already gross-out humor. Hand in toilet? <i>Trainspotting</i>. Masturbation? Hmm. <i>Fast Times at Ridgemont High</i>, <i>American Pie</i>, the list goes on.. .Bad dialogue: In one sequence, Eric says "it's none of my business <i>but</i> . ..." and 30 seconds later Mia says "why is this any of your business?" Bad editing: At least five minutes worth of film are wasted on NYC traffic shots. <hr>It's also impossible to believe that the four main male characters would be a tight-knit group of friends in any world. I can't comment on what makes everyone laugh, but if you enjoy low-brow, basic bathroom humor and insults, by all means, enjoy. If you want something a little smarter but on the same lines, see <i>Boomerang</i>. If you want a solid what-goes-around romantic comedy, go for <i>The Tao Of Steve</i>. But anyone who thinks <i>Whipped</i> is witty and an accurate portrayal dating, well, I cannot agree at all.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm an incorrigible skeptic and agnostic and was thus expecting to enjoy this film. After watching it, however, I honestly believe that I could have made a better documentary myself. Its arguments appear to have only four spurious sources (despite his being listed in the credits on IMDb I didn't see Richard Dawkins anywhere), it's edited together crudely with laughably amateurish computer effects, and it doesn't make even the slightest attempt to appear impartial. The narration is pervaded throughout with a sneering, almost adolescent anti-Christian sentiment, ruining any possibility that the film might actually change someone's mind as opposed to just preaching to the choir (i.e. me). Though there is some interesting discussion of the historicity of Jesus, the movie hits an unbearable snag when it begins to dwell heavily on the Christian school which the director attended as a child, an institution which apparently scarred him badly psychologically as it obsesses him to this day.<br /><br />Though TGWWT obviously had a low budget, there was still an opportunity here to make an intelligent commentary on the highly questionable roots of Christianity. There's certainly a dearth of skeptically-minded religious documentaries on the market, and this film could have helped fill the void. Instead, the director chose to insult our intelligence with this piece of garbage, which in the end appears to be some sort of therapeutic exercise for him. It's too bad that his Christian upbringing traumatized him, but he needn't subject an audience to his coping mechanism.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This HAS to be the worst movie I've ever attempted to watch. In the first 15 minutes, there wasn't anything to keep my interest in this movie. I was on vacation at the time, and had plenty of time to devote to a just-for-the-fun-of-it movie. The condo we were staying in had this movie in stock -- they must have got it from the $1 store or something.<br /><br />If you like Adam Sandler, this is nothing like any other movie he's made. This started with a bad premise and then just got worse. There's nothing even remotely funny in it.<br /><br />I've watched a lot of movies, including some I didn't care for. But if you decide to waste your time on this movie, don't say I didn't warn you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is perhaps the worst attempt at a Zombie film I have ever had the misfortune to see. Terrible, terrible, terrible. Any review found on this site is obviously the work of either the filmmaker, the filmmakers family, or a friend of the filmmaker. How does this film suck? Let us count the ways...<br /><br />The plot? Incoherent. Dialogue? Atrocious. I will not slam the effects/gore, as I understand that this is low budget. But was there even one zombie that was not obese? C'mon! And for a film set in Rhode Island, why did that truck sport a Massachusetts plate? Continuity, find some.<br /><br />The Girl dancing while the soldier "Stands at attention". Please, don't put your ex-girlfriend or buddy's sister in your movie naked. This was an ugly movie filled with ugly people, and has no business even mentioning Romero on the cover. Next time you decide to make a movie, don't.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is your typical Priyadarshan movie--a bunch of loony characters out on some silly mission. His signature climax has the entire cast of the film coming together and fighting each other in some crazy moshpit over hidden money. Whether it is a winning lottery ticket in Malamaal Weekly, black money in Hera Pheri, "kodokoo" in Phir Hera Pheri, etc., etc., the director is becoming ridiculously predictable. Don't get me wrong; as clichéd and preposterous his movies may be, I usually end up enjoying the comedy. However, in most his previous movies there has actually been some good humor, (Hungama and Hera Pheri being noteworthy ones). Now, the hilarity of his films is fading as he is using the same formula over and over again.<br /><br />Songs are good. Tanushree Datta looks awesome. Rajpal Yadav is irritating, and Tusshar is not a whole lot better. Kunal Khemu is OK, and Sharman Joshi is the best.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.<br /><br />No film epitomized this more than "Stroker Ace" which makes "Cannonball Run" look like a classic and "Cannonball Run II" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.<br /><br />If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"National Lampoon Goes to the Movies" (1981) is absolutely the worst movie ever made, surpassing even the witless "Plan 9 from Outer Space." The Lampoon film unreels in three separate and unconnected vignettes, each featuring different performers. The only common thread is the total lack of any redeeming qualities.<br /><br />Well, maybe there is one. Another reviewer on this site has said that the fleeting nude shots are nice, and he's right. Misses Ganzel and Dusenberry flash their assets prettily, in part one and part two, respectively. But their glamorous displays are, alas, wasted. The directors seem to have forgotten that even T&A needs a credible story to surround it, and there's none in sight.<br /><br />The third segment, starring Robby Benson and Richard Widmark, is the most disgusting of the three, and an unfortunate choice as the windup of this film. Benson plays an eager-beaver young policeman, brightly reporting for his first day of duty, ready to rid the streets of evil. He is paired with an old, cynical cop played by Widmark, and when these oil-and-water partners set out on their first patrol together, we sense a possible redemption of the film's earlier failures. Maybe, just maybe, the cynical old-timer will be reformed by his new partner's stalwart sense of duty and loyalty. Maybe all will end happily after all. But alas, this movie heads straight for the toilet, with no redemption, no happy ending, no coherent story of any kind.<br /><br />Before "National Lampoon Goes to the Movies," I thought I had already seen the worst schlock that Hollywood could possibly turn out. Unfortunately, I hadn't seen the half of it.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is just a shame. Orlando, Florida seems to becoming a more recognized filmmaking area (like Vancouver's rise to prominance). The Brothers was shot in Central Florida and this short film is a bit of a setback for the area (which made great strides with the Indie film Walking Across Africa and the great HBO miniseries From Earth To The Moon).<br /><br />I will try to be as honest as possible. I think Orlando was the perfect place to film The Brothers. It had the potential to give a new spin on the 'Boy Band' craze. After all, both N'Sync and the Backstreet Boys come from this area. But, The Brothers falls short probably because of a weak script. Both lead characters are flat with almost no development (part of this could be the amatuer actors, but some of it is certainly the way the script was written).<br /><br />Also a problem is the choice of jokes. Many of the jokes are too repetitive (they do come off funny the first time, but it does grow to be a bit boring). Some of the 'concert' scenes are staged poorly (and many of these scenes also don't seem to move the story along in any way).<br /><br />I had high hopes for this one, but alas its a disappointing effort. I also hope the best for the upcoming feature based on this short. But I think the best thing for filmmaker John Figg is to move to different genres (quickly). Comedy isn't his strong suit. But, its indisputable that he definitely is one of the more prominant filmmakers in the Orlando area (its just a shame that right now he's infamous, not famous).<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
No wonder that the historian Ian Kershaw, author of the groundbreaking Hitler biography, who originally was the scientific consultant for this TV film, dissociated himself from it. The film is historically just too incorrect. The mistakes start right away when Hitler`s father Alois dies at home, while in reality he died in a pub. In the film, Hitler moves from Vienna to Munich in 1914, while in reality he actually moved to Munich in 1913. I could go on endlessly. Hitler`s childhood and youth are portrayed way too short, which makes it quite difficult for historically uninformed people to understand the character of this frustrated neurotic man. Important persons of the early time of the party, like Hitler`s fatherly friend Dietrich Eckart or the party "philosopher" Alfred Rosenberg are totally missing. The characterization of Ernst Hanfstaengl is very problematic. In the film he is portrayed as a noble character who almost despises Hitler. The script obviously follows Hanfstaengl`s own gloss over view of himself which he gave in his biography after the war. In fact, Hanfstaengl was an anti-semite and was crazy about his "Fuehrer". But the biggest problem of the film is the portrayal of Hitler himself. He is characterized as someone who is constantly unfriendly,has neither charisma nor charm and constantly orders everybody around. After watching the film, one wonders, how such a disgusting person ever was able to get any followers. Since we all know, what an evil criminal Hitler was, naturally every scriptwriter is tempted to portray Hitler as totally disgusting and uncharismatic. But facts is, that in private he could be quite charming and entertaining. His comrades didn`t follow him because he constantly yelled at them, but because they liked this strange man. Beyond all those historical mistakes, the film is well made, the actors are first class, the location shots and the production design give a believable impression of the era.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun. <br /><br />The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.<br /><br />Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Drones, ethnic drumming, bad synthesizer piping, children singing. The most patronizing "world music" imaginable. This is a tourist film, and a lousy one. What really kills it is the incoherent sequences. India, Egypt, South America, Africa, etc, etc. No transitions, no visual explanation of why we're suddenly ten thousand miles away, no ideas expressed in images. Just a bunch of footage of third-worlders with "baskets on their heads" as another reviewer said. Walking along endlessly as if that had some deep meaning. If these guys wanted to make a 3rd World music video, all they had to do was head a few hundred miles south of where the best parts of Koya were shot, and film in Mexico. That would have been a much better setting for "life in transformation."<br /><br />But no. What they decided on was a scrambled tourist itinerary covering half the globe and mind-deadeningly overcranked filter shots. The only thing to recommend this film is that it doesn't suck quite as much as Naqoyqatsi.<br /><br />RstJ
|
Negative
| null | null |
In Texas, seven friends meet in a bar to celebrate the Halloween night before going to a party. Meanwhile, they call the American Nightmare pirate radio for fun and confess their innermost fears. A serial killer, who is listening to their confessions, makes their nightmares come true, killing each one of them in a sadistic way. "American Nightmare" is a weird low budget movie that has a horrible beginning: without any previous explanation, a woman kills two couples in an isolated camping area, as if it were Friday, 13th. Then, the story shifts to a bar, where seven friends are celebrating Halloween. From this moment on, the story has a great potential, and the unknown cast has a very reasonable performance, showing also some beautiful breasts and naked bodies, as usual in this type of C production. However, the end of the screenplay does not provide any explanation for the killing instinct and motives for the behavior of the nurse Jane Toppan, giving the sensation that the budget ended before the finalization of the shooting. With a better beginning and conclusion, this weird story would be a good low budget slasher movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Agonia" ("Agony")
|
Negative
| null | null |
Of all movies (and I'm a film graduate, if that's worth anything to you), this is THE WORST movie I have ever seen. I know there are probably some worse ones out there that I just haven't seen yet, but I have seen this, and this is the worst. A friend and I rented it one night because Denise Richards was on the cover. Talk about being young and retarded. She's uncredited! Her role was unbelievably small! How did she make it on the cover!? IMDb doesn't even list it in her filmography. This movie was so bad, we wrote a little note to the video store when we returned it, and slipped it inside the case. It read something like "please save your further customers from having to view this complete and totally bad movie!"
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm not a stage purist. A movie could have been made of this play, and it would almost necessarily require changes... comme ci, comme ca. But the modest conceits of this material are lost or misunderstood by the movie's creators who are in full-on "shallow blockbuster" mode. It would be hard to imagine a worse director. Perhaps only Josh Logan & Jack Warner could have ruined this in the same way Attenborough did.<br /><br />Onstage A Chorus line was a triumph of workshopping as a production method. Dancers answering a casting call found themselves sitting around shooting the crap about their stage-career experiences (very 70s!). Then Bennett and Hamlisch took some time, handed them a song and cast them as themselves. ...astonishing! Unbelievably modern. The 'story'of ACL is (in turn) about answering a casting call for a play we never have a complete view of, because the play doesn't matter. It was meta before the idea was invented, 25 years before Adaptation noodled with a similar idea. ACL was also another in a reductivist trend that is still alive, & which is a hallmark of modern creativity: that technique itself is compelling... that there's more drama in an average person's life than you could ever synthesize with invented characters. What a gracious idea. The stage play had one performance area (an empty stage) and three different ways to alter the backdrop, to alleviate visual tedium, not to keep viewers distracted. The space recedes and the actors stories are spotlighted. It worked just fine. That was the point. All these ideas are trampled or bastardized. Set-wise, there wasn't one, and no costumes either until the the dancers came out for their final bows, in which the exhilarating "One" is finally, powerfully, performed in full (gold) top hats and tails, with moves we recognize because we've watched them in practice sessions. The pent-up anxiety of the play is released --- and audiences went nuts. <br /><br />After Grampa manhandles this, it's like a mushed, strangled bird. He clearly has the earlier, respected All that Jazz (and Fosse's stage piece Dancin') in mind as he makes his choices. Hamlisch's score was edgy & interesting for it's time, but time has not been kind to it. It's as schmaltzy as "jazz hands." And that's before Attenborough ever touches it. He's remarkable at finding whatever good was left, and mangling it. <br /><br />A simple question might have helped Attenborough while filming this, "Could I bear spending even a few minutes with people like these?" A major issue for any adaptation of the play is how the 4th wall of theater (pivotal by it's absence in theater) would be addressed in the film format. There's never been a more "frontal" play. The answer they came up with was, "I'm sorry.. what was the question?" The cast has been augmented from a manageable number of unique narratives, to a crowd suffocating each other and the audience, and blending their grating selves together. I was well past my annoyance threshold when that annoying little runt swings across the stage on a rope, clowning at the (absent) audience. The play made you understand theater people. This movie just makes you want to choke them.<br /><br />Perhaps Broadways annoying trend of characters walking directly to stage center and singing their stories at the audience (Les Miz, Miss Saigon) instead of relating to other characters started here. But the worst imaginable revival of the play will make you feel more alive than this movie. <br /><br />A Chorus Line is pure schlock.
|
Negative
| null | null |
...then you'd better not watch this movie. They've completely ruined the premise of the show. In the movie the Duke boys are idiots, Daisy is trampy, Roscoe is sinister, Boss Hogg is capable, Uncle Jessie is a criminal...only Cooter and Flash are true to the original characters. At least Enos is kinda close.<br /><br />At one point they open the doors to get into the General Lee -- nuff said.<br /><br />The original show may not have been great TV, but it was entertaining and the characters made sense. This movie is like Dumb & Dumber meets the Simple Life.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this movie begins with an ordinary funeral... and it insists so hard on this ordinary funeral feel that i lost interest within 5 minutes of watching, and started skipping scenes. it seems to me whomever made this movie is afflicted to the extent of becoming trapped in a permanent morbid trance, unable to contemplate anything else but death and destruction. well, i ain't one of the dark kids from Southpark, i want a movie that within 10 minutes gets me well into an interesting story, i won't sit and watch 10 minutes of nothing but preparations for a funeral.. my grandma on her last years was fascinated by funerals, perhaps she might have enjoyed this "movie".
|
Negative
| null | null |
Almost every plot detail in this movie is illogical and implausible. It carries no semblance of a genuine human story, dead and dull. It is a parody of Hollywood, with trumpet musical bits that remind you of a Denzel Washington movie, wobbly camera shots and focusing, racist stereotypes, absolutely unnecessary and comical shots and gestures of famous people in clothing catalogue poses. It is made to cater for the multitude of zombies whose meaning in life derives from watching celebrity names. The only good thing in the movie is the end credits and funky song that accompanies it. I feel like an idiot for watching this, save yourself.
|
Negative
| null | null |
my friends and i saw this film about a week ago and i feel it absolutely necessary to tell all the world (or at least those who will read this) that this movie is not only on the top five worst movies i have ever seen but actually has the honor of being the number one. i have seen quite a lot of films but none beats this one in being stupid. you could say i suffered watching it ... my only excuse is that we were waiting for a few hours and weren't able to go anywhere else without freezing our buttocks off. i do not recommend this to anyone. at first i thought we were watching some really bad porn movie but figured out after 10 minutes that is not the case. it is not a comedy, it is not drama, it is not action, it is not horror, it is just horrible!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie tackles child abduction from the point of view of a Mom (lisa Hartman Black) who acts like a man would in an action thriller. Unlike other movies where the focus is on the Police, here the Mom is tracking down her ex-husband who kidnapped their son. She gets help from her lawyer who eventually falls in love with her.<br /><br />Before finally catching up with her son, a lot of bizarre things happen. The Mom tries to take a child that looks like her son from a local Children's Play at a community theater. She gets caught, and then realizes it is not her child. That alone would have gotten most people put into the Mental Ward or a few months in jail waiting for trial. However, in this movie the Mom is release after a couple of hours because the victim's parents feel sorry for her. A little while later Mom breaks into her mother-in-law's house and then the Police arrive and they have their guns aimed at her but they let her run away because they recognize her (and feel sorry for her?).<br /><br />At another point in the story they have found the child, but when the Police arrive to search the house it turns out they left out the back door and got into the river on a dinghy that apparently the Dad kept around just for such an emergency escape! The Mom gets someone to lend her a raft, and even though it must have taken some time (in a real world), she and the lawyer-boyfriend, and the Police catch up to the other raft pretty fast and it is upside down in the water by landfall. Instead of getting out of the raft to search for the Dad on the land, Mom presumes he drowned the boy and she jumps into the water when she sees his life-jacket. Of course, she cannot swim and sinks like a rock. The lawyer saves her, but they miss a chance to run after the Dad. At one point the Mom is told her son died at a Clinic in Mexico. On and on it goes, and where it stops nobody knows! In some ways, this movie really exploits child abduction and it is not very positive. On the other hand, seeing a woman do all the crazy things that men do in these kind of movies was fun (or funny?).
|
Negative
| null | null |
I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying? <br /><br />1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die! <br /><br />2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in "Rambo II" look mundane!! <br /><br />3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.<br /><br />4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever! <br /><br />Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!!
|
Negative
| null | null |
A great opportunity for and Indy director to make an interesting film about a rock musician on the brink of stardom. It could have been a decent film if it would have dealt with John Livien's traumatic past and how it is torturing his psyche. Instead, it is a ridiculous attempt to identify John Livien's life with John Lennon's. John Livien's suicida mother's hero was John Lennon and she wished for him to become as powerful and prolific as Lennon himself. Instead of focusing on John Lennon's musical brilliance, and his wonderful ability to bare himself for others to learn something about their own life, it showed Lennon's legacy to be that of a confused, drug addicted soul, who should looked upon as a God instead a man. I am a huge John Lennon fan and this movie reminded me of another "crazy" person obsessed with Lennon, Lennon's killer , Mark David Chapman. Lennon was a man who was brutally murdered by someone else who had an identity crisis with Lennon. Do we need to be reminded of that? John Lennon gave so much to the world with his music and honesty and I was repulsed to see another disturbed person, as the main character in this movie obsessed by Lennon, and not show his beautiful contributions to the world. Yoko Ono graciously honored John Lennon's memory,by making the memorial in Central Park to give his fans a chance to pay their respects, and remember John. Instead the director of this movie chose to use that site to have the killer attempt to commit suicide. I found this so disturbing and disrespectful to Lennon's memory. He was a man of peace who died a brutal senseless death, and to see such violence near this site felt like a revisiting a terrible wound for any Lennon fan. It ruined the movie completely for me . It could have been a decent movie, but it left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. Let John Lennon, and his family rest in peace and not be reminded of his vicious murder by this irresponsible movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
OK, I am blessed. I have seen two very strong stage productions, the one in New York with the original cast, and another at the San Diego Rep (Rosina Reynolds and Monique Gaffney, you rock!). Compared to either of these the movie is almost unwatchable. I've been plodding through the DVD for the past two evenings and am still not finished. Way too much extraneous dialog, and waaay too many added scenes and people. Yes, the four major performances are quite good, esp. Ms. Streep's. But comparing stage to film is definitely an example of "less is more." The thickening of the play to satisfy film-goers' need for scenic variety and specificity was a poor choice. Please, please, please go find a stage production somewhere near you.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The viewer leaves wondering why he bothered to watch this one, or why, for that matter, anyone bothered to make it. There is no plot - just random scenes of ridiculous action. Mia Sara's shower scene appeals to the male libido, but that's not much reason to make a movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
- A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .<br /><br />- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't "real". These scares just don't work.<br /><br />- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these "actors" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? <br /><br />- I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
While filming an 80's horror movie called 'Hot Blooded', the director is brutally murdered and the leading lady is scarred as she survives the attack and manages to kill murderer. After all of this, the production is abandoned and the stock reels are left to gather dust. So a group of filmmakers decide to pick up where the film left off even though they're warned by people to keep away from the film, as the last person who was interested in the flick turned up dead in the cinema while watching the film. From this it's labelled as a cursed production. Not taking these warnings seriously the crew goes ahead with the production and they get the original star of the movie to return from Hollywood to reprise her role, but not as the daughter but the mother. But again the murders start occurring with the cast and crew getting butchered by an unknown figure dressed up as the film's killer.<br /><br />Look what 'Scream' started! Hey, I enjoy those films, but mostly everything else that followed on afterwards were annoying and pointless excuses. During this stage the sub-genre came back with vengeance, but it wasn't much of a good thing as they were mostly unsuccessful and unoriginal attempts, where they followed the derivative pattern of the Scream franchise. 'Cut' which is an independent Australian take on the textbook slasher genre is purely shonky garbage that lacks basically everything and shamelessly knocks off every other slasher flick. But you know what, I found it a cheesy delight. Yeah, It's gawd awful and highly forgettable, but it's a bit of ala good cheap fun while it lasted. Although I did hate it when I originally came across it, but the second time around I knew what I was getting myself into and it worked better for it. It was just like helping myself to a nice slice cheesecake again, but this time it wasn't so sweet.<br /><br />The film came out around the same time as 'Scream 3' and 'Urban Legends: The Final Cut' did, which all three follow the same structure of using a movie within a movie. 'Scream 3' is obviously the strongest of the three, but I would actually watch this trash over Urban Legends: The Final Cut. Though, it did seem more of a throwback to the 80's slashers than that of one of Scream's bastard offspring. Pretty much the film is given b-grade treatment and that shows up in the script and performances. The dialog is truly unimaginative and hardly comes up with any surprises and suspense. While, the performances are pure mockery and Molly Ringwald takes the crown for it. She plays the wash-up actress returning to finish the cursed flick and I had good fun with her laughably ridiculous send-up performance. She provides the bite here and nails it down perfectly. The rest were mostly recognizable Australian TV stars (that's if you're an Australian) with a ravishing Jessica Napier leading the cast with the likes of Stephen Curry and Frank Roberts. Also pop singer (and supposed actress) Kylie Minogue makes a cameo appearance in the opening just to be hacked up! Nice. These teens mostly followed the formula of horny and dim-witted kids that have nothing better to do but to be killed. Sometimes it feels like they just waiting in queue, because they have no real substance to be there.<br /><br />The plot starts off rather interestingly, then heads into a mystery phase where red herrings pop up, but then it makes a sudden u-turn where it becomes a somewhat satire on the horror genre. Simply it's rather choppy and when it comes to the explanation for all of this madness I was kind of left thinking
oh my. This when it tries to twist back onto itself in a clever manner, but sadly it falls along way. But don't you just love an opening ending. Also it sports some pop culture references and a self referential, tongue-in-cheek approach. Predictability makes its way in rather early and the jokes can become over-stated at times, but it knows that by poking fun at itself quite a bit. The atmosphere looses a bit of edge because of the humour taking away the bleakness, but still the isolated grand old mansion where they are filming has some neat touches that added 'some' spookiness. The cinema scene is done rather nicely too.<br /><br />Now, now we know we want gore and nudity when watching this type of flick, but sadly there's no nudity to be found and the gore is pretty standard, if lacking but it's more then decent for such low-budget flick. There are one or two creative deaths, but the rest are systematic. The killer wasn't bad but when he spoke it kind of hurt it I thought, well the smart-ass attitude didn't sit well with me. Another notes of the production which were dire ranged from the cut-away editing, out-of-place soundtrack and Kimble Rendall's direction lacked execution and was pretty careless, but these contributing factors pull together to add some sort of sheer entertainment to all of this badness.<br /><br />The imagination matches the budget that's for sure, but heck this lousy slasher wasn't trying to be anything else. Pure schlock that's slightly amusing!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really liked ZB1. Really, I did. I have no problem with extremely low-budget movies, and I have enjoyed movies with worse production values than ZB3 (if you can imagine such a thing. check out 'wiseguys vs. zombies,' if you're interested). Indeed, I prefer lower budget zombie films, because I am suspicious that Hollywood directors do not understand what zombies are 'about.'<br /><br />But ZB3 was just so bad. It was retarded. I don't want to bother being dignified in my criticism. I want my 90 minutes back, etc. Except that it really only took ~80 minutes, because partway through I put it into 1.4X fast forward.<br /><br />Okay, here's some criticism.<br /><br />1. The pacing was TERRIBLE. Everyone talked in monologues. Even when someone just had a single line, the camera work and the editing and the insertion of a bunch of F-bombs into every sentence made the line FEEL like a monologue. At first I was excited about the 90 minute running time compared to ZB1's 70 minutes, but there were actually fewer 'events' in ZB3. It's all talking.<br /><br />2. The gore effects got stupider. Just glop rubbed around on people's tummies.<br /><br />3. Despite the epic exposition, there really wasn't a plot. And the exposition is indeed epic! I won't spoil it, if you're going to watch it. (Don't watch it.) But then, it's just a bunch of lame characters walking around and bickering for ~80 minutes. or fewer, if you so choose.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What an appalling film. Don't get me wrong, Gene Hackman and Denzel Washington are good actors, but aside from a few interesting set pieces, the film is mostly taken up with hysterical submariners shouting, crying, sweating and generally freaking out when anything goes wrong.<br /><br />Take that with simplistic asides to make sure the audience still understand what's going on (the scene where Denzel Washington explains to a radio repairman how he must be like Scotty in Star Trek is nothing more than a joke) and you have a dumbed down thriller not worthy of the acting.<br /><br />Let us just hope that the real nuclear US Navy is not in the hands of such a script!<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).<br /><br />The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.<br /><br />To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Michael Bennett and Nicholas Dante's Broadway show ran for years, but evidence of its power and charisma is lost in this movie adaptation, which most likely stems from the choice of director (Richard Attenborough, as far from B-way as you could get) and lead actor (Michael Douglas, who plays a director-choreographer like a slimy corporate lawyer). The slim story, about a grueling audition for a Broadway show which turns into a therapy session for the actor-dancer-singers, is pushed right up on us, with loud, brassy talents playing to the rafters. Nothing is modulated or subtle, particularly a laughable subplot about a ex-dancer returning to the theater and butting heads with old-flame Douglas. The over-eager hopefuls are filled with promise and heartache, but their personal stories of angst are a little embarrassing; this, matched with Attenborough's sluggish pacing, spells disaster, and even the now-famous songs fail to break through the artificial wrapping. *1/2 from ****
|
Negative
| null | null |
The message of this movie is "personality is more important than beauty". Jeanine Garofalo is supposed to be the "ugly duckling", but the funny thing is that she's not at all ugly (actually she's a lot more attractive than Uma Thurman, the friend who looks like a model).<br /><br />Now, would this movie work if the "ugly duckling" was really unattractive? When will Hollywood stop with this hypocrisy?<br /><br />In my opinion, despite the message that it wants to convey, this movie is simply ridiculous.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
Priyadarshan- whenever a person heard his name, his first thought would be 'comedy'. That is what this man is known for, or rather, was known for. After giving stupendous blockbuster comedies like Hungama, Hera Pheri and Hunchul, his train derailed slowly with movies like Chupke Chupke and a few others whose names I can't recollect for now. Now with hideous films like Dhol, the first word that would strike our mind after hearing his name would be- 'torture'.<br /><br />Dhol is a mixture of bad, unfunny toilet jokes, somewhat of drama, poor suspense and idiocracy. The only good thing about Dhol was one or two of the scenes which were funny, though not witty, and secondly, except for Kunal Khemu and the hysterical grandma, the acting was decent. <br /><br />Speaking of the acting, I felt that Rajpal Yadav and Sharman Joshi were at the top (if you compare them with the others in the movie), then came Tusshar Kapoor, then Tanushree and at the last the two idiots mentioned above. The flaw in Kunal Khemu was that he was loud in his jokes and even in his acting. The grandma, firstly resembled a ghost, plus she was not funny at all but rather silly.<br /><br />The plot was the same, seen before one. Four boys behind girls and in need of money, but with a few twists. There is a 'bad' man who is preposterously stupid and dumb. And at last, the good wins over the bad and everything is fine. The idea of having a Dhol with a tone full of cash in it is simply not witty.<br /><br />The worst thing about the movie is its length. After an hour or so, you get exhausted and want to leave the theater. But being a critic, it is my responsibility to tolerated the whole two and half hours of the movie. THe movie goes on and on and the same kind of jokes are repeated again and again and the situations are perennial just at a different place.<br /><br />If your mother-in-law has arrived to your house and starts mocking you at everything, then send her for this movie and have fun. 3 out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Really an amazing pile of pap! <br /><br />A predictable, slow moving, soul destroying, mind numbing movie to which, slitting your own wrists with a rusty bread knife seems... well, almost necessary.<br /><br />The acting is over done for the thin dialogue, every scene is at least twice as long as it needs to be, the intricate details of how this career is collapsing or that career is rising is just far too dreary and mundane for words. The music would be good if you didn't have to sit through the movie, but really, three good songs is not enough reward for the effort required to watch the movie.<br /><br />Watching this film I prayed to God for narcolepsy or for someone to shoot me.<br /><br />Never, ever, ever again.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is a massive Yawn proving that Americans haven't got the hang of farce. Even when it has already been written for them! The original film "Hodet Over Vannet" is a witty comedy of errors that I would rate 8/10. It isn't just about a linguistic translation, but certain absurd chains of events are skipped entirely, robbing the film of its original clever farcical nature and turning it into a cheap "oops there go my trousers" style of farce.
|
Negative
| null | null |
DOC SAVAGE: THE MAN OF BRONZE (1 outta 5 stars)<br /><br />Dreadful, dreadful movie... based on the pulp magazine/paperback series by Lester Dent/Kenneth Robeson... about a super-heroic adventure hero in the '30s and his five assistants, all experts in some field of endeavor that allows them to combat evil. It was a pretty hokey series... but kinda fun to read when I was a teenager. I knew they made a movie version in the '70s, starring Ron (Tarzan) Ely... but I never got a chance to see it. It never played in theaters where I lived and was never shown on TV. Now that I have finally seen the film I can understand why. The plot and characters are never treated seriously... it's all kind of tongue-in-cheek and campy... kind of like the old Batman TV series... only without the benefit of being funny... or having any visual flair. Corny dialogue, cheesy special effects, dumb stereotypes, crummy action scenes and bad, bad acting. Actually, I find it kind of fascinating in its badness... what could they have possibly been thinking? Arnold Schwarzenegger was rumoured to be starring in a modern-day remake... but I don't imagine that would have turned out to be much better.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Keenan Ivory Wayans is probably one of the worst directors, i swear he has no real knowledge on how to make films. he has made one brilliant film and that is scary movie. scary movie 2 was OK too but everything else Keenan has made are real disasters. avoid such titles like don't be a menace to south central while drinking your juice in the hood..... i know, what a title !!! obviously this film too, just anything that has Keenans name in the credits.<br /><br />it was an hour and a half on stupid nonsense that never made me laugh. just trust me on this, maybe women might like this film a little because of some of things that happen but on a whole this film will never be liked by anyone with a good taste in films........ 1/10.......j.d Seaton
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only thing that kept me from vomiting after seeing this movie was the fact that these are just actors and not the freak show that usually appears on the TV show. This is also the main reason that fans of the TV show won't like the movie, but not the only reason. This movie has about as much entertainment value as getting a root canal. It approaches the abyssmal depths of bad movie making, and then gets even worse. I won't waste your time describing this movie in further detail; suffice it to say that I pity the poor camera people who had to suffer through watching this c**p the first time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This was thought to be the flagship work of the open source community, something that would stand up and scream at the worlds media to take notice as we're not stuck in the marketing trap with our options in producing fine work with open source tools. After the basic version download ( die hard fan here on a dial-up modem ) eventually got here I hit my first snag. Media Player, Mplayer Classic & winamp failed to open it on my xp box, and then Totem, xine & kaffeine failed to open it on my suse server. Mplayer managed to run it flawlessly. Going to be hard to spread the word about it if normal users cant even open it...<br /><br />The Film. Beautiful soundtrack, superb lighting, masterful camera work and flawless texturing. Everything looked real. And then the two main characters moved.... and spoke... And the movie died for me. Everything apart from the lip syncing and the actual animation of the two main characters ( except for Proog in the dancing scene ) looked fluid and totally alive. The two main characters were animated so poorly that at times i was wondering if there are any games on the market at the moment with cut-scenes that entail less realism than this.<br /><br />Any frame in the movie is fantastic.. as a frame, and the thing is great if neither actors are moving. I'm so glad i haven't actually recommended this to anyone. I'd ruin my reputation.<br /><br />Oh, and final fantasy had a more followable and cunningly devised plot.<br /><br />this movie would get 10 stars if it wasn't for the tragedy that sits right there on the screen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What starts out as an interesting story quickly disintegrates into nothing. Don't bother watching to the end hoping for an explanation of what is stalking the visitors, there is no ending. No explanation, no resolution, zip. This could have been a good movie it they had purchased an entire script.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Japenese sense of pacing, editing and musical score must be different than American tastes, but surely this movie could have been so much more with a little more post production work.<br /><br />Someone in Hollywood needs to re-make this movie and I think it would be a big hit. The story is interesting and creepy. There's something about the edges of the city, gritty policemen, earthquakes, sanitariums and mysterious saltwater killings that is enough to be captivating. However, this story has to make just a little bit of sense and maybe be about 40 minutes shorter.<br /><br />I do have to say that the "sixth-sense" effect was in full force in this movie, and that was evident from the very beginning.<br /><br />As it stands, only the die-hard Japanese film lovers should bother seeing this oh-so-boring movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Mike Hawthorne(Gordon Currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father Morty(Jon Fedele). Twenty years later, Mike gathers a group of his friends to his family's cabin in the woods for a Halloween party. While playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears...Mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. It is soon discovered that Morty's spirit inhabits a wooden Indian in the cabin. The statue comes to life and the blood bath begins.<br /><br />Most of the F/X are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. Stale story pitifully acted. Cast members of note are: Kelly Benson, Phillip Rhys, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Byron Chief-Moon and veteran actress Betsy Palmer.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.