input stringlengths 52 13.7k | reference stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input stringlengths 123 1.93k ⌀ | contrast_references stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
Following a car accident, a mad scientist(Jason Evers) keeps the head of his fiancee(Virgina Leith)alive. He then goes on the prowl looking for the perfect body to make her whole again. Pretty lame all the way around, nothing redeeming here. Also in the cast are: Leslie Daniels, Bonnie Sharie and Bruce Brighton. Someone should have helped put this one out of its misery. Let it die. | Negative | null | null |
The same night that I watched this I also watched "Scary Movie 4," making for one messed up double feature. Unfortunately for these killer tomatoes they could not stand up to the laugh riot that is the Scary Movie franchise. While I fought boredom here watching jokes that were silly and stupid, brutally dated and brutally bad, the more recent parody had me laughing out loud. How could I desire any more than that. Director John De Bello uses the basic premise that some sort of growth hormone has gone terribly wrong and turned the tomatoes into killers. But his main objective here is to slap around the disaster movie genre that was so big back in the day. The script reeks of stoner humor, and perhaps if you take illegal substances with your movie nights this could be your cup of tea. I, sober, was stuck watching a grown man go under cover as a tomato. And that one joke, that is never funny, where the discrepancy between the Japanese speaking actor and the voice over is also here. Some may giggle, I did not. They even had a Hitler joke that wasn't funny, and I thought all Hitler jokes were funny.<br /><br />The narrative of this film is so splintered (for no good reason) that it is nearly impossible to explain. Tomatoes kill people, the government tries to stop it, bad jokes are told. Their aim may have been correct as their targets include the media, consumerism, and paranoia (three things that still control our lives today). Oddly enough the main selling point of this film, those gosh darn tomatoes, really don't make much of an appearance. And when they do, get this, they're played by real tomatoes. That washed up gimmick did nothing for me as I get very little out of watching a pack of tomatoes devour a body thanks to the magic of stop action camera tricks. There is also a fear of going for broke at work here that prevents this film from being truly funny. The gag of having somebody fall asleep in nearly every scene may please some audience members, but more than likely it will be seen as an invitation to join in the fun.<br /><br />I might also add that there does seem to be some old fashioned human egotism at work here. Man eats tomato and that's dinner, tomato eats man and that is a worldwide catastrophe. But that is just the way the world works. In the film the produce becomes evil because of genetic modification, but in the real world our produce (see: Taco Bell) becomes evil thanks to neglect. And like those evil doin' green onions this film's shelf life expired a long time ago. There are a few good chuckles to be had. The last shot was really quite splendid, but it was nowhere near enough to save this moderate stink bomb. I'm pretty sure there is a good movie buried deep within this concept, but the script needed to be filtered through about a dozen rewrites to get there. And by "there" I mean to the level of "Scary Movie 4." **1/4 | Negative | null | null |
Reviewing KAZAAM and saying it's a bad movie isn't hard at all--after all, critics at the time it came out fell all over themselves excoriating this film--saying it was among the worst films of the decade! So the fact that I say it's bad or anyone else says it's bad is certainly no surprise. It's like someone talking about WWII--practically no one says that was a GOOD thing, right?! The question I have and no place on IMDb can answer it is "why did they make this in the first place?!". After all, it's obvious to anyone who isn't severely brain injured that the film would be horrible. But, movies like ED (a baseball playing chimp), COOL AS ICE (starring the ever-popular Vanilla Ice), TROLL 2 (which doesn't even have any trolls in it), BABY GENIUSES (Einstain-like superhero babies) and PINOCCHIO IN OUTER SPACE (huh!?!) prove that any idea, no matter how dumb, can make it to the big screen! So, the idea of the best basketball player of the time starring as a genie to an obnoxious little brat seems downright 'normal'! <br /><br />The film starts with a kid who is pretty jerky keying the lockers in the hallway of the school. Like the punk from FREE WILLY, this kid is somehow 'misunderstood' (in other words, a total brat) and you know that no matter how selfish and horrible he is, by the end of the film he'll have learned something and grown. Just once, I want to see a punk kid like this end up in prison or or dead by the end of the film! Eventually, while the neighborhood bullies are in the middle of pummeling him, the genie Kazaam (Shaquille O'Neal)is accidentally released and insists on giving the brat three wishes. But, the kid doesn't believe him AND the genie's magic seems a tad rusty.<br /><br />Eventually the brat does realize that Kazaam is for real. However, unlike most kids, he withholds making his wishes so, in the meantime, Kazaam is forced to follow him around everywhere--like his own personal servant. And, according to the cliché, you know that by the end of the film, Max and Kazaam will have become lifelong buddies and a bunch of tears will be shed. Oh, and Max will have come to terms with his absent father and mom's fiancé (I'm gonna gag). Apparently this genie is a bit of a social worker in addition to being a granter of wishes.<br /><br />As for Kazaam, Shaquille speaks in rhyme through much of the movie and even takes a break to rap...very poorly. I'm a middle-aged white guy and I think I could probably rap at least as well! He's an amazing basketball player and I've heard he's a nice guy--but a rapper...no way! As far as his acting goes, he wasn't great but had such a nice personality in the film that it's hard to hate him--even if they made him do a lot of very stupid things.<br /><br />So is the movie as excruciatingly awful as you've probably heard? through the first two-thirds of the movie, I would have said no. Shaquille seemed to try his best with an unlikable kid and a bad script. However, later in the film, the bad becomes horrid--as Kazaam seems too concerned with himself to help the kid when he's really needed. And, out of nowhere, the plot gets really, really weird--as the guy who wants to make Kazaam a rap star(?!?!) turns out to be an evil mobster! And, oddly, this guy seems to accept that Kazaam is a genie with no hesitation! <br /><br />In addition, the last portion of the film consists of people trying to kill Max and his dad. I know that the kid was annoying, but this is supposed to be a kids' film!! What part of 'trying to kill the kid' didn't the writers not understand?!? Then, in an ending that makes this perhaps the worst kids film ending in history, Kazaam becomes god or something and it all was like a drug-induced hallucination! This ending was even dumber and weirder than the one in THE BLACK HOLE...and boy, did it make my brain hurt!! Uggghh--the horrible dialog was just too much to bear!!!<br /><br />Overall, it's a terrible film that is due mostly to writers who were certifiably insane. Yes, folks, with a messed up message, bizarre non-kid friendly material and horrible characters, this is one wretched film. Sadly, given the idea and actors, it's hard to imagine the final product turning out much worse!!<br /><br />By the way, if you want to see a Genie in a modern world film that is GOOD, try the British made for TV film "Bernard and the Genie"--a charming and exceptionally well-written film from start to finish. | Negative | null | null |
Much has been written about Purple Rain, the apparent "quin-essential" musician bio movie, however I'm here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it's high praise.<br /><br />First of all let's get one thing straight Prince is a great musician and Music is the one area where Purple Rain excels. Even the score is mesmerising, and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it's not and as such the movie has some problems.<br /><br />First of all is the horrendous acting/writing, Prince's character "The Kid" is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. A good loner character should at least have some talkative moments, unfortunately Prince's character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it's hard to believe that he'd get the girl this way. Everything just seems a little off here, which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that's terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live, but we aren't ever allowed to get inside of it.<br /><br />A surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. Prince and Morris's lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here, which I guess makes sense from a business perspective, but it's exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage, especially when the character's back stories get pushed aside for it.<br /><br />So to sum it up: This isn't a very good movie. | Negative | null | null |
I love John Saxon in anything he's in. The one time he takes over the camera though he directs a movie that should have more aptly been been titled "Please Do Not Watch This Movie Called: Zombie Death House". The $1000 dollar Shock Insurance Certificate is dear Fred Olen Ray's tricky way of making you spend 14 dollars on a filmed dump churned out by a major 70's cheese legend. Ray being the front man at RetroMedia. Ray by the way makes Charles Band look hotter than stucco ceilings on a Ford Falcon. Just plain bad now, the both of them- and boring besides. It's great that Ray is digging up this old stuff and in some cases it's public domain like the rest of the dollar video hucksters but in the case of Zombie Death House- (the word "Zombie" sloppily superimposed to add ownership and interest on the part of F.O.R.) THE ONLY WAY TO DO SERVICE TO THIS TRIPE IS TO RELEASE IT ON THE DOLLAR MARKET FOR THE CURIOUS COLLECTOR AND FANS OF SAXON!!! If you wanna see real Saxon, pick up Black Christmas, Nightmare on Elm Street or The Glove. | Negative | null | null |
Americans have the attention span of a fruit fly and if something does not happen within the span of a typical commercial, we tend to lose interest really fast.<br /><br />I found out an exciting fact from this film: someone has to paint high tension utility poles and do it on a schedule! And guess what, they really would like to be doing something else (the viewer has similar feelings).<br /><br />Surprisingly, when I was bored watching late night infomercials and decided to actually watch this film, I found the characters to be interesting and highly engaging.<br /><br />I just don't usually watch that much late night TV, so I can't recommend this film, unless watching paint dry is your idea of an exciting two hours out of your life. | Negative | null | null |
On the back burner for years (so it was reported) this television reunion of two of the most beloved characters in sitcom history started off badly - and went straight downhill from there. Mary Richards (Mary Tyler Moore) and her best friend Rhoda Morgenstern (Valerie Harper) meet in New York after a long estrangement and catch up on each other's lives. What a novel concept! But, sad to relate, nothing worth talking about (let alone making a movie about) has happened to either of them in the intervening years. So, instead, the script contents itself with throwing out one hoary old plot device after another (most having to do with older women in the workplace), while completely missing the quirky charm and sophistication that made the original show a winner. The supporting cast is instantly forgettable, the humor is nonexistent, and the chemistry which Moore and Harper once had together is gone. Moore allegedly stalled this project for years, waiting for "just the right script" before committing herself. If this was the one she considered "right", what on earth were the ones she turned down like? It's not the age of the characters that does this in (for time inevitably marches on), but the almost complete lack of imagination coupled with a blatant disregard for the elements that made the series work. At one time this was intended as a pilot but, all to obviously, it failed to generate any interest among potential sponsors. Or for that matter, among potential audiences. Quickly and mercifully forgotten, the film is a travesty and an insult to a classic. | Negative | null | null |
Flat, soulless computer images on less than astonishing backgrounds animates a horribly predictable story in this film. Absolutely nothing takes you by surprise, you can even tell when the Bryan Adams vocals are going to come in, which are always at the wrong time.<br /><br />The main character, Spirit the horse, is given an annoying voice when he narrates what is happening. The narration is not needed, though, as everything happening is really obvious. You can even tell what the horses are saying, although all they do is neigh. Which would be good, but all the horses make exactly the same sounds - one for warning, one for sorrow, one for laughing, etc. There is no variation between the horses' voices.<br /><br />Young kids might like this film, though. It's soppy enough for a family to sit down and watch, and there's little danger of anyone being frightened. If you have nothing else to do, and want to watch a film with your kids, this isn't a bad choice.<br /><br />But otherwise, this isn't recommended. | Negative | null | null |
" It had to be You" is another sign that Hollywood is running out of ideas. This picture is about Charlie Hudson a former police officer turned Author. When Charlie's fiancé goes out of town he's stuck with all of the wedding planning. He spends a week at a fancy hotel and meets Anna Penn a teacher who just happens to also be getting married. The two quickly become friends and set out to plan their separate weddings together. This is when the plot gets boring, Charlie falls in love with Anna and she has to choose between a safe life or Charlie. This movie rips off every romantic comedy ever made and just has you waiting for the end of the movie so you can do something else. Micahel Vartan and Natasha Henstridge give really mediocre performances which just makes this movie all the more gut wrenching to watch. | Negative | null | null |
The direction had clearly stated that this film's idea and plot is totally original....however, as to those who have read 'slam dunk' comic, we can clearly see that the characters are very similar and even some jokes...<br /><br />Another note is Jay Chow himself DO NOT know Kung Fu, it just won't impress anyone if he tries to act like he can, many people today can see the differences.. Luckily the movie do not contain much of KunG Fu fighting and much are enchanced by stunners and visual effects...<br /><br />I think that Jay's acting is still a pain to watch, especially when almost everyone else in the film is so much better. The only reason I think why Jay is the main actor is simply is for his popularity.<br /><br />Despite how hard I wish to stop anyone from watching this thus making this "orginal" movie getting what it shouldn't have, it has became one of the best budget films in China for this year. | Negative | null | null |
I saw this film yesterday.. I rented the DVD from Blockbuster.. In fact, I know one of the actresses from the film.. I won't say who..! (That's kept under wraps..) But I must admit, it wasn't as good as I thought it would be.. Tom Savini? Hats down to this guy.. But it's a shame he wasn't in the film for long.. What lacks the film is the idea, the script, sound, etc.. It may look like a good movie.. but it wasn't that entertaining..<br /><br />Well, I'm glad my Sister paid £10 for renting 3 DVD's from Blockbuster.. I chose this one.. and I was disappointed. Anyway, thumbs down for me..! Not my cup of tea! 0 out of 10! | Negative | null | null |
First, the CGI in this movie was horrible. I watched it during a marathon of bad movies on the SciFi channel. At the end when the owner of the park gets killed, it's probably one of the worst examples of CGI I have even seen. Even Night of the Living Dead had better animation.<br /><br />That said, the movie had almost no plot. Why were they on that island in particular? Well, it wasn't stated in the movie. And, why would the people keep coming into the cat's area? Makes no sense.<br /><br />One thing that stood out in this movie was moderately good acting. In what could be called a "B made for TV movie" movie, the acting was very good. Parry Shen stood out in particular.<br /><br />If you have absolutely nothing to do on a Saturday, watch this movie. It may be good for some memorable quotes. | Negative | null | null |
I felt Rancid Aluminium was a complete waste of two hours, the plot line was thin and confusing, the prestigious line up of players had some terrible dialogue and extremely questionable accents. The camera work was somewhat experimental in places and although it could be seen what the director was trying to convey, it just made it even more difficult to watch. One of the most annoying aspects of Rancid Aluminium is the over use of narration throughout the film almost like the entire plot is being dictated to the audience. The best performances weren't anything to do with acting. In fact probably the most convincing performance came from Dani Behr of all people, although admittedly does play the stereotypical office secretary. DO NOT under any circumstance go and see this movie unless you need a reason to catch up on some lost sleep, there are certainly better ways to spend your hard earned cash. | Negative | null | null |
good lord! (and that coming from an atheist), this "movie" is bad !<br /><br />much has already been said by the reviewers before (the ones who rated this piece 3 and below) to which I fully agree, I just like to add a few things: <br /><br />among the three guys who had to eat their own digestive end products, got chopped up by an Axe, raped by a broomstick, had their balls blown away - the ex-boyfriend suffers the worst torture while having to listen to the girl's endless and pointless babble at the kitchen table (as do we, but at least we have the mercy of the mute button).<br /><br />had the director cut out the point- and endless graveyard and inverted scenes, our suffering would have been over after 30 minutes.<br /><br />the only things that made this flick at least somewhat bearable are Emily Haack's tits (one point).<br /><br />forget it. don't buy it. don't waste your time. and your sanity. my brain is so fried after watching this I feel the urgent need to watch (and suffer?) "Scrapbook" right now. | Negative | null | null |
After the success of Part 4, another sequel was a natural move. However they should have stopped it before it began. Alice, having survived Part 4 finds herself pregnant and it seems Freddy is using her unborn child to get at his victims, which of course are Alice's friends. Strange Nightmare movie, very heavy on religious imagery and bad acting. The special effects are good, but the movie itself is not. | Negative | null | null |
I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.<br /><br />Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...<br /><br />What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!<br /><br />Just skip this piece of garbage<br /><br />P.S. (sorry for my English) | Negative | null | null |
The original "Cube" is a fantastic B-movie rich with paranoia, meaty characterization, and fine over-the-top performances. It's creepy, cryptic, and cool. And it stands perfectly well, on its own, without a stupid sequel like "Cube Zero." <br /><br />This third (!) film in the Cube series is part retread (most of the booby traps are sadly recycled), part aberration. It takes the bold step of explaining what the cube is - something that was never revealed in the first movie - but, since said explanation is bland, I'd rather it was kept a secret. There are some potentially interesting references to the society that exists outside of the cube, but they never develop beyond hints about some kind of political-religious totalitarian state. So, what little social commentary there is feels flat and unfocused.<br /><br />What works? Basically nothing. The acting is purely amateur hour, the pacing is slow (how much of this movie consists of two nerds watching a screen?), and the gore effects, while revolting, fail to convince. In short, "Cube Zero" reminded me of a "Cube" fan-fic, a sloppy and sophomoric clone of a good movie that definitely did not need a sequel. | Negative | null | null |
This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.<br /><br />Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.<br /><br />This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language. | Negative | null | null |
OK, as everyone has pointed out, this film is a complete dog. To some degree this is because it was a gory sexploitation film that had a lot of material excised (or darkened down to near invisibility) to escape the censor's X-rating; but the film has many other flaws as well.<br /><br />To begin with, the scriptwriter seems to have got his werewolves and vampires mixed up. The baddies in this film are furry and don't like silver but in every other respect they behave like vampires. Now you just can't do that with a crappy genre flick, you've got to stick to the rules of the genre or the fans get all confused and annoyed by suspending disbelief in the wrong thing. In fact the whole (confusing and poorly presented) plot is something that has already been done for vampires, but doesn't make any sense in a werewolf movie.<br /><br />Secondly, the werewolf costumes are the lamest you have ever seen. Anybody in the werewolf movie business ought to know that the werewolf costumes and transformations are something the fans assess critically, yet some of these werewolves are just plain goofy.<br /><br />There are a couple of slightly good bits. I actually quite liked the score. Others have mentioned Sybil Danning's tits. And...<br /><br />(***SPOILER***, if such a thing can exist)<br /><br />I also quite liked the plan for attacking the werewolves' stronghold. There are so many horror movies that rely on characters behaving stupidly, but in this case they first acquire a very sensible and effective anti-werewolf arsenal and go slaughter the monsters. I mean, you can kill werewolves with silver bullets, and we have some pretty powerful firearms these days. Shouldn't be too hard to put two and two together, hmm? But in typical style this movie goes over the top and adds some other very zany and amusing anti-lycanthrope weapons. | Negative | null | null |
Exactly what you would expect from a B-Movie. Deritive, gratuitous nudity, boring in parts, ridiculous gore and cheesy special-effects. Of course it could have been better, better acted (defintly) better written, directed, etc. But then I guess it wouldn't have been a B movie. The actors pretty much sucked, in fact this pretty much seemed like an episode of buffy the vampire slayer or something except with a lot of blood, profanity and nudity.<br /><br />Tiffany Shepis must be singled out. She absolutely is the scream queen of the new millennium. Not that acting really matters in these movies, but she was better than any of the other actors. She's also smokin hot, in that plastic jump suit thing she wore for the whole movie - wow! Her posterior is absolutely stunning in that outfit, I mean it every single time she turns around you can help but check her out. And near then end of the film the viewer is rewarded with seeing her completely nekked.<br /><br />So if your a looser b-movie horror buff (like myself), check this out. If not, you should probably avoid at all costs. | Negative | null | null |
This movie is very very very poor. I have seen better movies. <br /><br />There was a bit of tension but not much to make you jump out of your chair. It begins slowly with the building of tension. Which is not a success. At least if you ask me. Though at some points or moments I must say it was a bit funny when people got shot and how they went down.<br /><br />They should had made it something like Scary Movie, then it might be a better movie. Because I watched only pieces of the movie by skipping scenes and it got to boring through out the movie. I must say that i felt sleepy watching this movie so I sure can say it is not worth it.<br /><br />Don't waste time on even thinking to do something with this movie besides leaving it where it already is. Somewhere very dusty.. | Negative | null | null |
If you are hoping for ANYTHING new, you have chosen the wrong movie. Who can think that a movie that is a virtual replay of it's predeccesors can be good. Maybe the producer and maybe the director but hopefully they were not serious when they made this THING. This whole movie is like making a greatest hits DVD of the 1st 3 films, but changing the actors. BHHAAAAD. | Negative | null | null |
Don't spend your money or your time on this pitiful piece of film in the guise of cinematography.When every third word is devoted to foul language and there is no real plot as well as having a cast of old actors who are still giving the same dated performances from the past and have not evolved in their careers, leaves a lot to be said. I was expecting something better from award winning actor Benicio del Toro. The vision that others may have of Puertorricans will be irreversibly distorted by such trash as Maldeamores. A foul word at a given moment in a film may be used to emphasize a given point of view and may even be funny or sad depending on its context (see the movie Elsa and Fred for example) but it should not permeate the plot. The movie is a total embarrassment and there was absolutely nothing funny or even cute about this film. | Negative | null | null |
-me and my sister have right now watch that movie. we have laugh to the deaf. can u imagine on covers there is nomination for Oscar?? --first, musician have mix about 4-5 different style of music... and the music is not synchronized with the scenes and the character moves...<br /><br />---main character Silvester do not fit in there. he look like Mexican Tarzan.<br /><br />----Russian soldiers are everything but not Russian faces :-) -----ok, the main points: 1. airplane called charter painted in black...<br /><br />2. what is an idea when Rambo go to jump from the airplane, but he stuck? rope mix 3. a Girl? the best scene is when she dies. She means a lot to him. he knows her for ages? he cries for her, ... o my god samurai 4. how many arrows is he got? his arrow bag is always full of the arrows? i didn't notice a scene where he collect them - but i have seen the scene where arrow stay in the Vietnam solder head - that is very important 5. how many rockets helicopter can hold??? (real one) i have seen 4. but Rambos have hit about 20 of them.<br /><br />6. the main part. what the Russian special army helicopters do in Vietnam????????? after the war? 7. first scene when he enter into Vietnam's camp... his first idea was to liberate the refuge who is standing on the tree on the open space' wow, what an idea than again: 1. with the knife u can cut the iron wire? maybe only made in Vietnam? 2. mortar - using for hit one running man? o my god, u Americans really need to learn about the weapons! do u know how much it takes to calibrate the mortar (i think writer have been watching to much movies from II world war) | Negative | null | null |
That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original! | Negative | null | null |
I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line! | Negative | null | null |
The British claymation series putting "witty" conversations taped from "average" people in the mouths of "cute" fanciful creatures at least had the advantage for non-British viewers of seeming droll and the kind of rarefied cultured humor you couldn't get on U.S. television. Someone made the mistake of PUTTING it on U.S. television.<br /><br />Sort of like the sadly miscast American version of the sublime Brit-com COUPLING which died in a month on NBC when the same basic scripts didn't "translate" from British English to American English, what seemed droll and cultured (and just a BIT dull) in England, comes across in CREATURE COMFORTS, the American Version, as simply boredom with puppets. There's no through plot-line, no characters and after one and a half episodes watched (of the three ultimately aired), no reason to suffer through more.<br /><br />The only positive thing to be said about the new summer series and the mercifully brief run it had is that the claymation is at least professionally done and coming as a set-up for the single worst show on the CBS schedule, The New Adventures of Old Christine (or "how to be a HORRIBLE mother - or person - in one interminable, unfunny lesson"), kids who wanted to stay up past their bedtime happily ran to bed rather than sit through this show, and the adults could wait to tune in until 9pm when "Two and A Half Men" (guilty pleasure) and "How I Met Your Mother" (actual quality writing) come on. | Negative | null | null |
This film makes "American Pie" a sophisticated movie! No further comment needed. Humor is cheap, dialogues are stupid and the cast is awkward. Every cliché is used several times without any original twist. And far the worst, the movie turns out to be more catholic than the Pope. It's so sad. | Negative | null | null |
This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature. | Negative | null | null |
I saw this film recently in a film festival. It's the romance of an ex-alcoholic unemployed man who just came out of a big depression and a single middle-aged woman who works in an employment office (INEM). I found the story very simple and full of clichés, taking the 'social' theme of the movie and turn it in to a romance comedy. The lead actor did a good job, he definitely looks like an alcoholic man, but Ana Belen is not believable as a working class woman, she looks, acts and talks very much like a 'high-standing' woman. What I mean is that Ana Belen plays herself. She does it in all her movies anyway. The whole mise-en-scene of the film was very poor. The photography is ugly, not using well at all the panoramic aspect ratio. The dialogue sounds totally scripted and dull most of the times. The comic situations are typical from Gomez Pereira, but in this case they are not funny at all and are resolved poorly. In my opinion this film is not worth watching. Only if you really love Pereira's previous films you might enjoy this one a little bit. Anyway, I walked out of the theater because I felt I was wasting my time. The film-maker was by the door. I wonder what a director feels like when he sees someone walking out of one of his films, specially one that is made to please everybody. | Negative | null | null |
This Italian film from the '70's is NOT even in the class with Dog Soldiers, The Howling, or even that awful American Werewolf in Paris, BUT...it is fun to watch. I'm talking about watching the lead actress, a stunning blonde, run amok in her birthday suit. We're talking about graphic, complete nudity...it's obvious that she is a real blonde...humma humma humma!! The story is a hoot, the SFX are childish, and the acting (for the most part) stinks. The only redeeming value of this movie is all (and there is a LOT) the nudity & sex scenes. Tame by HBO standards, but still fun to see when you find yourself without a date on Saturday night. OK...HERE'S THE SPOILER...There is NO werewolf (except in the opening scene of the heroine(??)'s ancestor. The girl just imagines that she's a werewolf...in other words, a clinical Lycanthrope. | Negative | null | null |
Jason Lee does his best to bring fun to a silly situation, but the movie just fails to make a connect. <br /><br />Perhaps because Julia Stiles character seems awkward as the conniving and sexy soon to be cousin-in-law. <br /><br />Maybe it is because she and Selma Blair's characters should have been cast the opposite way. (Selma Blair seems more conniving than Julia would be).<br /><br />Either way this movie is yet another Hollywood trivialization of a possibly real world situation (that being getting caught with your pants out at your bachelor party not stooping your cousin), which while having promise fails to deliver.<br /><br />There are some laughs to be sure and the cast (even if miscast) do their best with sub grade material which doesn't transcend its raunchy topic. So instead of getting a successful raunch fest (ie Animal House or American Pie) we are left with a middle ground of part humor and part stupidity (ala Meatballs 2 or something). | Negative | null | null |
Why every horror director wants to imitate "The Exorcist" is a complete riddle to me, as William Friedkin's "classic" is a very overrated film and, in my opinion, not all that tense or shocking. And yet here's another clean rip-off, a Spanish one this time, that shamelessly repeats the story of a young girl that gets possessed by pure evil and turns against her own family. Paul Naschy (who I must admit looks quite hot here) plays the honorable priest who gets approached by John Gibson because his sister Leila's behavior changed drastically since she met her new boyfriend. At first the priest doesn't believe it but when John's body is discovered with its neck twisted, Leila's demonic behavior becomes more noticeable... "Exorcism" is not only very unoriginal, it's also an insufferably boring film! Here Naschy and director Juan Bosch had an open opportunity to make a religiously themed exploitation flick full of shocks and gore, and yet the result is a tame and overall bloodless drama that'll nearly put you to sleep! The last twenty minutes contain some atmospheric moments, albeit very stupid, and there's quite a lot of stylishly filmed female nudity and sleaze. The absolute lack of budget is no real excuse since Paul Naschy already proved before that he has enough imagination to make up for a shortage in money. This is just an awful film, end of story. Other European "The Excorcist" rip-offs are "The Antichrist" and "Beyond the Door" and they suck as well! | Negative | null | null |
Certainly NOMAD has some of the best horse riding scenes, swordplay, and scrumptious landscape cinematography you'll likely see, but this isn't what makes a film good. It helps but the story has to shine through on top of these things. And that's where Nomad wanders.<br /><br />The story is stilted, giving it a sense that it was thrown together simply to make a "cool" movie that "looks" great. Not to mention that many of the main characters are not from the region in which this story takes place (and it's blatantly obvious with names like Lee and Hernandez). If movie makers want to engross us in a culture like the Jugars and the Kazaks, they damn well better use actors/actresses that look the part.<br /><br />Warring tribes, a prophecy, brotherly love and respect, a love interest that separates our "heroes", are all touched on but with so little impact and screen time that most viewers will brush them aside in favor of the next battle sequence, the next action horse scene, or the breathtaking beauty of the landscape.<br /><br />It is worth mentioning that there were some significant changes made to Nomad during its filming, specifically the director and cinematographer. Ivan Passer (director) was replaced by Sergei Bodrov, and Ueli Steiger (cinematographer) was replaced by Dan Laustsen. In one respect, Laustsen seems to have the better eye since his visions of the lands made the final cut that we see here. Definitely a good thing. However, the changing over to Bodrov as director may not have been the wisest choice. From what I'm seeing here, the focus is on the battles and not the people, which I sense comes from Bodrov's eyes and not Passer's. A true travesty.<br /><br />The most shameful aspect is that this could've been a really fantastic film, with both character and action focuses. Unfortunately, the higher-ups apparently decided that action was what was needed and took the cheap (intellectually speaking) way out.<br /><br />Even though I can't give this film a positive rating, it is worth watching simply for the amazing cinematography work. But that's all. | Negative | null | null |
When you get your hands on a British film you expect some sort of quality. And when it comes to acting, camera work, lighting etc; this film does the business. It's done by highly skilled craftsmen. That alone can bring you an enjoyable one and a half hours. But when you look under the layers of professionalism, you don't really find anything. Apart from making you feel good and advocate a drug liberal view, there's really nothing there. The script is mediocre, the plot is predictable and the ending must be one of the worst east of Hollywood. In all it's English cosiness, it's just a shameful and cynical attempt to make another "Full Monty". Why they made this film? I haven't got a clue, apart from making money of course. | Negative | null | null |
Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".<br /><br />Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with. <br /><br />This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places. <br /><br />A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date! | Negative | null | null |
The wife and I saw a preview of this movie while watching another DVD and thought "Jon Heder, Diane Keaton, Jeff Daniels and Eli Wallach, it's gotta be better than summer reruns, so I ordered it from local library. Well, any episode of "Lawrence Welk" would bring more laughs than "Mama's Boy". I actually felt sorry for the actors for having to read the script in the privacy of their own homes and I couldn't imagine what it must have been like for them to have to actually say their lines in front of a camera. Perhaps, at least, maybe next time they're offered a movie of this sort, they'll "Just Say No!' A one anna two.... | Negative | null | null |
This movie purports to be a character study of perversion. Some reviewers have been gulled into assuming that because perversion is depicted, the film is psychologically deep; actually, considering the salacious material, it is surprisingly tedious and shallow, with no motivational substance. Why is the main character the way she is? You won't find out from the script. For a better treatment of the same theme (and a more entertaining movie), try Bunuel's Belle de Jour. | Negative | null | null |
A gave it a "2" instead of a "1" (awful) because there is no denying that many of the visuals were stunning, a lot of talent went into the special effects and artwork. But that wasn't enough to save it.<br /><br />The "sepia" toned, washed out colors sort of thing has been done before many times in other movies. Nothing new there. I can see there were some hat-tips to other old, classic movies. OK. No problem with that.<br /><br />But a movie has got to be entertaining and interesting, not something that would put you to sleep.<br /><br />The story line and the script of this movie WAS awful, the characters two dimensional. Slow moving. Some of the scenes were pretty to look at, but ultimately, as a whole, it was quite boring, I couldn't recommend it. | Negative | null | null |
After viewing this film, I felt the compelling need to vent a bit of my frustration. Selma Blair is a fabulous, currently underrated actress and Max Beesley was rather charming in "Kill Me Later". The story, while not exactly original, certainly showed some promise. None of that mattered though...at all.<br /><br />I don't know what her deal is, but director Dana Lustig has virtually no talent whatsoever as a director. She slowed footage down, sped footage up, reversed footage, used awkward camera angles, used annoying color filters, made a zillion quick cuts, jumped back and forth in the timeline and topped it all off with an obnoxious "modern" soundtrack of blaring junk. I can't remember the last time I saw such an incompetent job of directing a film. Her ego must be huge to toss out the acting and story and put her direction front and center for the audience members to take notice of. It is crammed down their throats.<br /><br />There are a couple of good scenes in "Kill Me Later" which show what could have and should have been. Unfortunately, just when things would start to show promise, Ms. Lustig would dig into her bag of film school tricks and jumble things up again. It's a shame because Blair and Beesley had good chemistry and you could tell that the film really had a good heart. 3/10 | Negative | null | null |
Maddy (Debbie Rochon) is a mentally unstable young woman with a troubled past who gets more than she bargained for when she goes to a pool party with a handsome coworker. When her date and his friends jokingly say they belong to a `Murder Club,' Maddy takes it seriously and moves straight up to `Level 3' by bashing in the brains of a woman in a parking garage (for denting her car!). But is Maddy also the one donning a plastic mask and killing off other members of the group or has someone else lost it?<br /><br />The plot of this film (originally titled MAKE 'EM BLEED) is very poorly conceived, full of holes and spirals completely out of control before a ludicrous, out-of-left-field twist ending. Some of the dialogue is downright laughable. I didn't have a problem with Rochon's performance, but the supporting cast was atrocious. However, I managed to sit through this Full Moon release thoroughly entertained. There's plenty of skin and blood and it's the perfect type of flick to sit around with a group of your buddies and pick apart. Horror fans may also enjoy the cameos from Brinke Stevens and Lloyd Kaufman (as Debbie's parents) and Julie Strain (an early victim).<br /><br />Score: 4 out of 10 | Negative | null | null |
this was the most pointless film i have ever seen as there was no plot and the actors did not seem to care. 90% of the film had absolutely no plot whatsoever, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film does not involve lots of raining sequences and pointless closeups on the main character. this is a failed attempt to create a noir thriller and instead alienates the viewer with incoherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i do not count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays none of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'. | Negative | this was the most focused film i have ever seen as there was sophisticated plot and the actors seemed to care. 90% of the film had absolute focus on the plot, i laughed so much my ribs began to ache. the bit where the old men when to capture Robert Duvall was ludicrous. on a directorial level making a noir film gladly does not involve lots of raining sequences or pointless closeups on the main character. this is a successful attempt to create a noir thriller and engages the viewer with coherent scenes. seeing as this was based on a 'manuscript' by john Grisham i probably count this as one of his book to film adaptations as it displays at least some of the suspense and engaging storyline as films such as 'the firm' or 'the rainmaker'. | Positive |
Lame movie. Completely uninteresting. No chemistry at all between Indiana Jones and the guy from Black Hawk Down. The car chase scene just goes on and on and on ad nauseum. They manage to switch vehicles a few times, but always end up right on the tail of the baddies. The scene where Hartnett grabs the family's car with the crying kids in the back was just as stupid as could be. He is telling them about Eastern philosophy and how it is all right to die, which I imagine the writers thought was funny or even witty. It just came off as moronic, totally unbelievable and even cruel.<br /><br />Some subplots weren't even explored, they were just used as filler. Why does Hartnett get sick seeing dead bodies yet keeps ordering burgers at crime scenes? Why, and on what grounds, is the bad IA guy suddenly arrested out of the blue by the chief? Why can IA pick up the buddy cops and then just let them answer their phones or pretend to be Indian mystics and then just let them waltz out of there without so much as a slap on the wrist? For some reason, even though Ford is uncovered as a cheat and a fraud when acting as a realtor, (he makes up the prices when he is trying to sell the producer's house to jack up his own commission), they keep coming back to him anyway! They knew he lied to both of them! Yet there they were, coming to terms that both said they would never go for. Stupid, just stupid. This is also one of those cop movies where they just fire wantonly on public streets with no care in the world for innocent bystanders. There they were, just standing on the sidewalk blasting away while people ducked for cover. Amazing that they didn't hit a single person after having fired about 60 rounds each....<br /><br />The scriptwriting was terrible, the action sequences were boring, the plot just a sidestory to a very pathetic attempt to have us root for Ford and Hartnett. It fails miserably. And Ford's phone! Turn the damn thing off! How many times could it ring in a 2-hour movie? 50? 60? It was frustratingly aggravating by the midpoint in the movie! Every 30 seconds, that stupid tune would play! And if it wasn't Ford's, then Hartnett's was ringing! It was incredibly annoying!<br /><br />Complete waste of time, Ford's worst movie since 6 Days 7 Nights, which was without a doubt, the lowest point of his distinguished career. | Negative | null | null |
I believe Shakespeare explained what I just read beautifully. Me thinks he (the lady) doth protest too much. The whole thing sounded to me as if the author was trying to convince himself! He sites profane literature (writings from the same time period but not connected with the bible) a number of times however I can think of at least three references off the top of my head which lend historical accuracy to events contained in the bible. Anyone can skew data & prove anything they like but it doesn't make it true. Customs change, word definitions change over time (look at English & German where it is very obviously a common root) nothing stays the same, it's always growing and changing. The bible has many different translations but the King James version is the one I've found to be the best when it comes to any kind of research. In the King James version you will notice there are certain words written in italics. These words have been added by the translators and can be dropped & the mean of the entire verse changes. Writings from around the time of Christ were written without spaces, without punctuation, without paragraphs & without numeric verses. These writings look like one long word & the translators added all of the above. For example how would you read this: GODISNOWHERE do you read it as God is nowhere or do you read it as God is now here? Same string of letters two entirely different meanings. This is why many biblical researchers use a 'Lexicon' to assist them in translation as it provides a word for word translation from the original Arabic, Greek or Hebrew depending on the language in which the scripture was originally written. It's also interesting to note that when translated into symbolic logic you can prove God exists but you can not prove He doesn't exist! In the end I just love listening to people who think they are so smart that they are qualified to judge the almighty. Talk about ego! Putting soapbox away, God Bless Maegi | Negative | null | null |
Come on. The new twist is nearly ok, but from avenging the Elm Street children Freddy is just killing people now. More of the same: Special effects with no actual character development or anything. Simply bad and insulting. SCARY..? Nope. Not at all. Just bad. | Negative | null | null |
Happened upon a copy of this. Not mine and if I had spent my own money on this I'd be finding those responsible and demanding it back! All I can say is this would be a terrible student film. Any understanding of the medium of film is absent. Acting is god awful, the story would have been rejected from the original Twilight Zone series as unoriginal and lame, and the change in tone of the lead character's reaction to the 'ghost' is laughable.<br /><br />I can only agree that the 'glowing' reviews of this film are from friends and family. I'm afraid it's not even entertainingly bad.<br /><br />Amateur in the extreme! <br /><br />Avoid! Avoid! Avoid! | Negative | null | null |
This film was really bad whether you take it as a sci-fi movie, as a horror one or even as a comedy. The whole thing is ridiculous.<br /><br />The film looks (and is) definitely cheap, the actors have no idea of what acting is and the script shows clearly that it was being made along with the shooting. It is obvious that the monster in the closet was added because the living head was not scary at all -she was even pretty- and they thought they needed something more impressive; they failed here too (the make up is awful even for the late 50's, rather funny).<br /><br />The film shows clearly why Director Joseph Green's career as such and also as a writer never materialized; he was really bad at both. Same goes to the actors, leading and supporting.<br /><br />"The Brain That Wouldn't Die"'s best achievement is its short running time. | Negative | null | null |
One of the five worst movies I have ever watched. And I'm not exaggerating. In fact, I recommend watching it so you can get the same feeling of incredulity as you might by watching Showgirls.<br /><br />Out of 400 votes, the movie gets a user rating of 5.3/10. But there is a disproportionate number of voters who gave it a 10/10, probably due to the message of the movie - nuclear weapons are the bane of mankind. Chuck Murdock is an all-star little league pitcher who gives up baseball because there are nuclear weapons. Soon "Amazing Grace" Smith is an all-star Boston Celtic who is inspired by Chuck's story and gives up basketball. Soon all sports leagues from the professional level to college to high school to little league dismantle in a world-wide protest. Later all the children of the world go on a silence strike. This inspires the President of the United States to meet with the Soviet Premier, who in time agree to eliminate all nuclear weapons in time for the start of the next Little League season. The movie ends with Chuck about to throw out the first pitch, with the President telling his new best friend Chuck not to worry about striking out every batter, as he hasn't thrown a baseball in a year.<br /><br />Somewhere along the line a nefarious underworld boss kills Amazing Grace. When the President finds out he is told that the FBI can verify the killer but will never be able to prove it. So the President calls the underworld boss ("But it's one a.m." "I don't care, get him on the line") and tell him that he is to resign from all company boards that he sits on and sell all stocks that he has. And to not get out of line again.<br /><br />Honestly, this movie was so crappy that I couldn't turn it off. It was on television from 2:30 am to 4:00 am, and I watched it all. I wasn't turned off by the anti-nuclear weapons propaganda. I was turned off by the implausible break down of all organized sports. I don't even understand why "Amazing Grace" Smith was killed. And with all these famous athletes becoming Chuck's friends, why the father was constantly upset with his son taking a principled stand. And there was the cliché moment near the end when dad tells Chuck, "I never told you this, but I'm proud of you." Cue hug. | Negative | null | null |
I'll just put it out here, that was the Worst sequel to a classic Disney film I've EVER seen. In 1950, Disney released what I hail as one of his greatest films of all time. Now Take away the great songs, add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost TV show. "Put it together and what do you get?" the biggest load of Crud I've ever seen. After i saw this, I thought it was all over for Disney. Cinderella should've ended with, "and they lived happily ever after." not this garbage. This film did not deserve a sequel like this. I thought it would be like "A twist in time" which was moderate but better than this. Also, What do we care of Anastasia? She switched sides like Iago did, but it didn't help anyone. | Negative | null | null |
I wasted 5.75 to see this crappy movie so I just want to know a few things:<br /><br />What was the point of the dog being split in half at the beginning of the movie, the disease had nothing to do with being split in half.<br /><br />What was the point of dragging Karen into the shed, she already totally infected her room, they could have just locked her in there where she would have been safer.<br /><br />Why would the Hermit be running around the forest asking strangers to help him when he could have just asked his relative, the hog lady, to take him to the hospital?<br /><br />Why didn't any of the characters bother to walk into town to get help when things started getting bad, are they all really that lazy?<br /><br />Even if Paul was threatened by the guy w/ the shotgun for peeping on his wife, Paul could have just sent Jeff or Bert back to the house to ask for help. the girl he loves is deteriorating.<br /><br />What was the point of the box?<br /><br />Why did Jeff go back to the cabin after he left when everyone else was getting infected, if he was that big of a jerk to leave in the first place wouldn't he have just gone back home?<br /><br />If the police went to all the trouble of gathering up the kids and burning them on the fire pit, why did they throw Paul halfway into the river, it wasn't even necessary for the plot because the water was already contaminated.<br /><br />Who makes lemonade out of river water, that crap has dirt leaves and bugs in it. Why couldn't the two kids have just use the tap water, it was contaminated too, so the stupid ending would still work. | Negative | null | null |
Heavily re-edited and often confusing, the original screen version of Man On Fire was at least ten years out of date when it was made and the passing years haven't made it any better. This is the kind of movie that producers with too much money and too little experience make to get attention and everyone else does just to pay off their outstanding alimony or their drug dealer, with Scott Glenn's bodyguard going out on a limb to rescue his 12-year-old charge, the kidnapped daughter of a wealthy Italian family. An interesting cast - Joe Pesci, Brooke Adams, Danny Aiello, Jonathan Pryce - have all done better, the action is sluggish and sparse and only John Scott's exceptionally fine score (part of which turned up in the last reel of Die Hard) makes a positive impression. One case where the remake (made by Tony Scott, the original choice of director for this version) is an improvement. | Negative | null | null |
Are we talking about the same movie? This movie is totally ridiculous, the plot is disgusting and completely without logic. Its a typical straight to DVD/TV-movie including all the necessary ingredients for a horrible movie experience: Over-acting by has been actors, side steps from the plot that are left unexplained, THE GIRL SHOWS HER T*ts(why, god, why??), people do not react to things as they would in real life. I'm not even gonna bother you with details, it would take all night. Well, OK, just one: If two people were murdered in front of you as you were walking down the street, one of the victims practically dies in your arms, his blood spurts from his head-wound all over you, would your first concern be; "Oh, he left the world and the last thing he saw was my angry face!"? My thoughts goes to Harvey and his lost career. | Negative | null | null |
Yeah, stupidity! I just finish watching and I still have bad taste in my mouth. Too much colors, too much unnecessary "addons" to a story, too much stupid characters (I presume they wanted to achieve comic relief, but I only wanted to cry)... too much of everything. Shame to spoil one of divine stories from "Arabian Nights" like this. Childish, naive (both on a bad way) and with lot of magic-breaking mistakes, I don't think this could keep a child of five for more then ten minutes. Princess is lovely, but should be tongueless, cause actress don't know how to carry a role. Rest of the cast is even worse...our "bad guy" is REALLY bad. Shame that the "good guy" is not better. Only light in this dark is, of course, David Carradine, who goes unfortunately deeply down under his level with this, but at least keep his actor/"fighter" skills at top. I'm still sorry to see him in a thing like this, but glad that I had something to watch in whole charade, so thank you David. Only, ONLY, for him, I give this 2 stars to this fiasco...I would give more for him, but that would rise final score to entire movie. The rest is so bad, that I would, maybe, like to grade it, but there is no grade lover then 1 here, and I think that would be too much. | Negative | null | null |
Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it. <br /><br />Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole "film" - "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!". Brilliant.<br /><br />Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented. <br /><br />The "film" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.<br /><br />But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the "film" provides. <br /><br />- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.<br /><br />- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.<br /><br />- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.<br /><br />- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.<br /><br />- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.<br /><br />- The evil brother's cats.<br /><br />- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul. <br /><br />Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times. | Negative | null | null |
I watched this film on the Hallmark Channel recently. In my opinion, the film started out decent enough, but eventually got sour.<br /><br />The Story: A U.S. soldier in Afghanistan receives one of the Christmas cards that a woman back in the U.S. has sent out to troops for Christmas. He becomes so inspired by the Christmas card that he feels it has given him a ray of hope and happiness in his life, a motivation to continue on. When he is given leave, he goes to the very town that the woman lives in. He comes across and spunky young woman and eventually finds out that she is the one that sent the Christmas card. He meets the family and after saving her dad (a Vietnam War Veteran) from getting hit by a car whilst crossing the street, the family decides to take him in for a while. We learn that he doesn't have a family back home. The soldier agrees to help out the family during the Christmas season by working with them at their logging company. The family comes to love him and vice-versa. The soldier also becomes in love with the family's daughter - the woman that sent the Christmas card. There's only one problem. She already has a serious relationship with a man that she's in love with. It's also a long distance relationship. The boyfriend is very different from the soldier. He prefers wine and trips to France over hard labor and the great outdoors. The woman prefers the latter. Throughout the rest of the film, there is a "love triangle" as the woman's boyfriend is back in town visiting her for the season. Everyone in the family seems to want the daughter to be with the soldier and the mom basically wants what's best for her daughter. **(SPOILER ALERT)** The woman comes to like the soldier more and more, as they have a lot in common. They happen to spend a lot of time together. She gradually becomes attracted to his persona. Then one day he kisses her and and she kisses him back. Now she's so confused! She's in love with her boyfriend and wants to marry him someday, but she's become so fond of the soldier. Soon enough, the boyfriend (who doesn't know about the kiss, but is very protective of the woman and thinks the soldier has been trying to move in on her) decides to propose to the woman and she accepts. His plans for their marriage, however, are not plans that she wants. She wants to be at home, have kids and be close to her family. He wants to travel the world, go to exotic places and if they have kids he wants to take them along. This doesn't sound too thrilling for the woman. However, the soldier feels bad about what he's done and doesn't want to make things worse. So, he decides to leave town, despite the dad's urging him to stay and be with his daughter. It all comes to a head when, at the Christmas Eve service with Church, we find out that the soldier hasn't left yet. The boyfriend and the woman speak to each other outside and he, broken-hearted, basically decides to let her go and breaks up with her. The film ends with the woman and the soldier getting together.<br /><br />Things I like: I like the soldier throughout much of the film. He's basically nice and polite, with a strong sense of doing good for others; there are moments in which the family is going with Church and participating in charitable causes; the family hold hands and pray during an evening meal at the table; the dad and mom have a long-lasting and evidently healthy marriage; the soldier tries to do the right thing in a situation after he did something very wrong <br /><br />Things I don't like: There is a very typical "love triangle" story in this film; the soldier turns sour as he slowly and subtly moves in on the woman and then eventually kisses her when she already has a boyfriend; most of the family practically applauds this behavior - the family goes with Church and participates in services, yet this is how they act; there is some bad language <br /><br />Conclusion: I became disappointed as the film ran on, and it got worse and worse. I ended up fast forwarding the very end of the film because I had enough. So, the film started out decent with some few gem moments, but ended up ruining itself. Therefore, I don't recommend this film to anyone. | Negative | null | null |
I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...<br /><br />Then I watched it...<br /><br />I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the "action" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.<br /><br />Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...<br /><br />At this point I wept...<br /><br />I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the "action" was even weaker, and the "visuals" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...<br /><br />And then on a whole new level is "McBain" | Negative | null | null |
Mario Van Peebles pops up for less than a five second cameo. Glenn Plummer shows up a little longer but its a ladies show all the way. Stacey Dash and Lisa Raye have been in better projects. Bobby Brown leers and mugs through his little time on screen. This is how it was pitched...Five tough women shootin' and lovin' in the Wild Wild West. Four black and one Asian. Oh and Lil' Kim is a tough talking' heartbreaker and Marie Matiko can bring in the pacific rim market. We can shoot it for less than 15 million. Straight to video and we'll double but more likely triple our dollars.<br /><br />Greenlight that puppy.<br /><br />You got it boss. | Negative | null | null |
I always wrote this series off as being a complete stink-fest because Jim Belushi was involved in it, and heavily. But then one day a tragic happenstance occurred. After a White Sox game ended I realized that the remote was all the way on the other side of the room somehow. Now I could have just gotten up and walked across the room to get the remote, or even to the TV to turn the channel. But then why not just get up and walk across the country to watch TV in another state? "Nuts to that", I said. So I decided to just hang tight on the couch and take whatever Fate had in store for me. What Fate had in store was an episode of this show, an episode about which I remember very little except that I had once again made a very broad, general sweeping blanket judgment based on zero objective or experiential evidence with nothing whatsoever to back my opinions up with, and once again I was completely right! This show is a total crud-pie! Belushi has all the comedic delivery of a hairy lighthouse foghorn. The women are physically attractive but too Stepford-is to elicit any real feeling from the viewer. There is absolutely no reason to stop yourself from running down to the local TV station with a can of gasoline and a flamethrower and sending every copy of this mutt howling back to hell. <br /><br />Except.. <br /><br />Except for the wonderful comic sty lings of Larry Joe Campbell, America's Greatest Comic Character Actor. This guy plays Belushi's brother-in-law, Andy, and he is gold. How good is he really? Well, aside from being funny, his job is to make Belushi look good. That's like trying to make butt warts look good. But Campbell pulls it off with style. Someone should invent a Nobel Prize in Comic Buffoonery so he can win it every year. Without Larry Joe this show would consist of a slightly vacant looking Courtney Thorne-Smith smacking Belushi over the head with a frying pan while he alternately beats his chest and plays with the straw on the floor of his cage. 5 stars for Larry Joe Campbell designated Comedic Bacon because he improves the flavor of everything he's in! | Negative | null | null |
Let's put political correctness aside and just look at this in terms of the numerous sex comedies that came out in the 1980's because I for one don't think this is any better or any worse than the others. Unless your some religious kook or an uptight female you can probably view a silly film such as this without getting all worked up about the content and I personally had a totally innocuous feeling towards this before and after watching it. Story is set in Albuquerque, New Mexico where a rich 15 year old boy named Phillip "Philly" Fillmore (Eric Brown) is naturally horny as hell and starts spying on the attractive maid that has just started working for his father.<br /><br />*****SPOILER ALERT***** Nicole Mallow (Sylvia Kristel) is friendly to Philly but things heat up when his father goes out of town on business and she starts to flirt with him to the point where she invites him into her bedroom to watch her undress. Philly is awkward and doesn't know how to react at first but soon he goes for it and has sex but than to his horror it seems that Nicole has died from a heart attack! With the help from the sleazy chauffeur Lester Lewis (Howard Hesseman) they seemingly have buried her body but a note from a blackmailer shows up and Philly must get $10,000 out of his father's safe. Philly is shocked when Nicole shows up and he learns that the whole thing was an extortion plan set up by Lester and that she only went along with it because she's an illegal alien and if she didn't do what she was told Lester would have called the immigration office. Together they try to get his father's money back before he returns home and they enlist the help from Jack (Ed Begley Jr.) who is a tennis instructor but pretends to be a cop to scare Lester.<br /><br />This little comedy was made for less than $3 million but it grossed over $50 million worldwide and made it one of the least likely films during that time to be so successful which prompts me to wonder why this was a hit and not any of the others in the genre. Director Alan Myerson can boast that he made a hit film but the truth is that he never really had a career in films although he did go on to be very successful in television. So...why did this become so successful? I have a thought that it just may be because of Kristel and before you decide that I'm crazy listen to my reasoning. Kristel was an international star because of her soft core films so that reason alone made many free thinking adults curious about viewing her in an American film that was getting a wide release. With that, the same adults would also be nostalgic about their own youth and the fantasy of being taught the ways of lovemaking by an attractive older woman which brings in the much younger audience members who are probably still very inexperienced and curious about the film. Anyway, that's my thought and if anyone has another reason I would love to hear it but back to the film itself it's apparent (and very sad) that a film like this could probably never get made again (except in Europe) because of the religious right and the other prudish freaks who just can't come to terms with the fact that a teenage boy getting laid will not do him any harm. In fact, it's a valuable service that ALL BOYS pray will happen to them! The film itself is clumsy and Kristel's body double is all too evident in certain scenes especially if you take careful note of the difference in their nipples. The story (although intriguing in it's basic form) is neither very funny or revealing so were left ogling the nude scenes that are really the norm for the genre. | Negative | null | null |
I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.<br /><br />I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.<br /><br />It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.<br /><br />The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. <br /><br />Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.<br /><br />This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.<br /><br />But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy. | Negative | null | null |
I have to be completely honest in saying first that I fell asleep somewhere in the middle, so I cannot give a full opinion about the film until I see it in full. Basically, a group of thieves, including Sid Carter (Sid James) and Ernie Bragg (Bernard Bresslaw), plan to make a fortune stealing a shipment of contraceptive pills from Finisham maternity hospital. This is where title character Matron (Hattie Jacques) works, along with staff members Sir Bernard Cutting (Kenneth Williams), Dr. Francis Goode (Charles Hawtrey), Dr. Prodd (Terry Scott) and Nurse Susan Ball (Barbara Windsor). Patients and their visitors are around too, including pregnant Mrs. Tidey (Joan Sims) and her nervous dad-to-be husband Mr. Tidey (Kenneth Connor). Also starring Bill Maynard as Freddy and EastEnders' Wendy Richard as Miss Willing. This plan by the way is not working out by the way, because all the staff are getting in the way. That's pretty much all can say about the film until I see it again in full. Okay! | Negative | null | null |
A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world. | Negative | null | null |
What an empty and lack lustre rendition of the classic novel. I do wish people would stop messing about with classics when they clearly have no idea of the real intention or point of the original. This version is no different. I felt that the Ralph Fiennes version is much worse though as the casting of Juliette brioche as Kathy has got to be the worst casting decision EVER...anyway back to this version. It aims to make the story relevant to a contemporary setting and in a musical style. It succeeds in both but high art it is nit. Throwaway viewing for a rainy day maybe...The direction was average and the editing abysmal. Worse than the old Quincy. Deepak Verma does a great turn as Hindley and is in fact one of Britains wasted talents. The part of Heath was played with great charm and belief and I think that the casting is the strongest point of this project. Although a more talented director would have made better use of the facilities he had. Its clear that he was a director for hire and didn't instill the project with the passion that it deserved. | Negative | null | null |
I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.<br /><br />Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.<br /><br />A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie. | Negative | null | null |
somewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd. | Negative | null | null |
Wow. This is really not that good. <br /><br />I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.<br /><br />The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.<br /><br />*/**** | Negative | null | null |
*Spoilers and extreme bashing lay ahead*<br /><br />When this show first started, I found it tolerable and fun. Fairly Oddparents was the kind of cartoon that kids and adults liked. It also had high ratings along with Spongebob. But it started to fall because of the following crap that Butch Hartman and his team shoved into the show.<br /><br />First off, toilet humor isn't all that funny. You can easily pull off a fast laugh from a little kiddie with a burp, but that's pretty much the only audience that would laugh at such a cliché joke. Next there are the kiddie jokes. Lol we can see people in their underwear and we can see people cross-dressing. LOLOLOL!!! I just can't stop laughing at such gay bliss! Somebody help me! But of course, this show wouldn't suck that bad if it weren't for stereotypes. Did you see how the team portrayed Australians? They saw them as nothing but kangaroo-loving, boomerang-throwing simpletons who live in a hot desert. But now... Is the coup de grace of WHY this show truly sucks the loudest of them all... OVER-USED JOKES!!! The show constantly pulls up the same jokes (the majority of them being unfunny) thinking it is like the greatest thing ever! Cosmo is mostly the one to blame. I hated how they kept on mentioning "Super Toilet" (which also has a blend of kiddish humor in it just as well) and Cosmo would freak out. And who could forget that dumb battery ram joke that every goddamn parent in Dimmsdale would use in that one e-mail episode? You know, the one in which every single parent (oblivious to other parents saying it) would utter the EXACT same sentence before breaking into their kid's room? Yes, it may be first class humor to some people, but it is pure s*** to others.<br /><br />If I'm not mistaken, I do believe Butch Hartman said something about ending the show. Thank God! Everyone around my area says it's, like, the funniest Nickelodeon show ever. I just can't agree with it
I think it's just another pile of horse dung that we get on our cartoon stations everyday, only worse. | Negative | null | null |
I have been an environmentalist for years and was really looking forward to this show. I had it set to record all episodes because I thought I could really learn some great new things. I probably could if I could get past Rachelle.<br /><br />I'm sure a lot of this is staged to seem like a reality show and appeal to that class of viewer. It doesn't work for someone who's really interested in improving the planet.<br /><br />This show should be called Nagging with Rachelle.<br /><br />Since Ed is such a great font of information, maybe a second show that's really serious about the environment would be a good idea. Dumbing things down is not necessary for some of us. <br /><br />I no longer record episodes or watch the show, but do let me know if a real green show may be in the works. | Negative | null | null |
I won't waste a whole lot of time of this one because as far as I'm concerned it isn't really a movie to start with, just a careless mish-mash of borrowed footage and embarrassingly amateurish new footage made solely for the purpose of pasting the whole mess together and call it a "Boogeyman" sequel. Literally 80% of this film is stolen from its far superior predecessor "The Boogeyman", a film that the writers of this garbage apparently didn't even bother to watch because they couldn't even get actress Suzanna Love's original character's name (Lacy) right. And to add insult to injury the killer is invisible in the original footage and visible in the new footage, apparently they think their audience is as stupid as they are. 0 out of 10 and I wish IMDb's rating system went that low, the most callous and blatant attempt to rip off people's money I've even seen, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED! | Negative | null | null |
Ah, the spirit of '68. The streets of Paris were running wild with rebellion, the hippies were high on the spirit of love. How was Britain marking this age of radicalism and revolution? Erm, by the looks of it, dear Old Blighty was focusing on making films about boys in boarding schools. If... contains the evil establishment. It contains the uprising of the oppressed. What it lacks in contrast to the Parisien passion and the hippy headtripping is any sense of excitement, except in its all-out ammo-and-artillery fire ending.<br /><br />Lindsay Anderson's If... stars the ever-marvellous Malcolm McDowell as one of three private school pupils who decorate their dorm with photos of Lenin and other left-wing radicals. It's clearly an anti-establishment movie in its depiction of the evil upper-class oiks who rule the roost and the antiquated autocratic practices of the pish-posh public school standard. What makes If... unusual though is that for all its radical sympathies, it doesn't explicitly give us any sense of great tension between human decency and the despotic school system, instead it just kind of floats: lacking in plot and lacking in personality.<br /><br />Surrealist bits fade in and out occasionally and the film slips from black-and-white to colour again (is it due to the low budget or is it an arty expression?), but there is little of interest to speak of. All we get is the poignant denouement where the young rebels reach for their rifles and shoot down the shady overlords of the establishment. Hooray! A revolution! At last something that demands a second thought unlike the rest of this dull exercise in boarding school daydreaming.<br /><br />If... could have been a powerful political statement, but as it is it drifts and only gathers any sense of direct interest at the end. Instead of being a testament to the dissident zeitgeist of the late-Sixties, it only succeeds in being a dazed document of upper-class British education. Anarchy? Apathy more like, the only man many viewers will want to stick it to after watching If... will be Lindsay Anderson. | Negative | null | null |
Everyone involved (and the audience) should seek out "The Candidate" to see how good this movie could have been. What happened the South American story? What were Julie Christie and Kate Capshaw thinking to allow their roles to be cardboard cut-outs. Up to now I have liked every Gene Hackman performance and/or movie. He was either disinterested (which I can hardly believe) or dreadfully miscast. I have also liked and defended Richard Gere (and been vilified for it). But here he had no "power". He was never intimidating and only occasionally persuasive. All in all I was very disappointed. I really expected much more from this director and cast. If you can't find "The Candidate" watch "Wag the dog" again or even "Bulworth". | Negative | null | null |
Ned Kelly (Ledger), the infamous Australian outlaw and legend. Sort of like Robin Hood, with a mix of Billy the Kid, Australians love the legend of how he stood up against the English aristocratic oppression, and united the lower classes to change Australia forever. The fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. Indeed, quite a few so called `facts' in this film are, on reflection, a tad dubious.<br /><br />I suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when, in the opening credits, it was claimed that this film is based upon the book, `Our Sunshine'. If ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book, there it was. This wasn't going to be a historical epic, but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of Ned Kelly, albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Ned Kelly is nothing more than an overblown Hallmark channel `real life historical drama' wannabe! The story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly!) The feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of Costner's awful Wyatt Earp all those years ago. Simply put, nothing happens in the film, but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. This would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn't). However, unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst Oirish accent, then you're gonna be disappointed. Between that, the game of `Who has the stupidest beard?', `Spot the obvious backstabber!' (clue, they are all ginger for some reason), and `Nature in Australia.including lions', it is an experience similar to flicking through Hallmark, The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. Yup, nature pops up a lot, as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty), the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots, and once all the native species are shown, here's a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people).<br /><br />This is a turgid, emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to TV. There isn't even one good word I can say about this film. Even the usually fantastic Rush seems embarrassed to be here. When one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal, I myself was wishing I had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head! | Negative | null | null |
A disappointing end to a season that started so well ...<br /><br />Exodus part 2 and other notable episodes were amongst the best seen on TV in any series, where as this was rather bad.<br /><br />Well I am not sure if it was the episode that was a disappointment, but the cheesy guitar music at that accompanied the closing sequence was laughable and would have been more at home in the original series.<br /><br />Its almost as if the corporate execs didn't like the low key down note ending and wanted to jazz it up. They failed and rather spoilt everything.<br /><br />Lets hope this is not a trend for the future.<br /><br />Still at least we saw the return of a certain person even if somewhat bizarrely and tritely done. | Negative | null | null |
This movie is AWESOME. I watched it the other day with my cousin Jay-Jay. He said it was alright, but i think it RULEZZZ! I mean, it's so cool. Ted V. Mikels is so brave and smart. He made a movie totally unlike those terrible Hollywood films, like the Matrix and STop or my Mom will Shoot. It could have been better, though. I like ninjas and pirates. I also like that big talon that the funny man wears. I think he's the coolest guy since that Domino Pizza claymation guy. Not only does this movie look really cool, like those out-of-focus movies my dad made of my birthday when I turned 6. BUt it tells a complex tale with dozens of characters that seem to be totally unrelated, but they all meet up in the end. It's genius how this web is woven to make everything meet up. I wish Ted V. Mikels would make a sequel. But it needs more aliens. And a pirate. | Negative | null | null |
The Shirley Jackson novel 'The Haunting of Hill House' is an atmospheric tale of terror, which conveys supernatural phenomena in an old mansion. The atmosphere is well set out, and the chills are staged well. A haunting masterpiece.<br /><br />The 1963 chiller 'The Haunting' stays closely to the book, but also adds its own details to the plot. Fortunately, these are very few, and so the terror of the book and the chills are executed even better on the screen. The black and white photography only adds to the creepiness of the movie. Excellent! <br /><br />And then, Jan de Bont made this. In 1999, the remake of The Haunting hit the cinemas - if you could call this a remake. Why they had to make a remake of the 1963 movie is a mystery in itself, but for the moment, lets look at the film itself.<br /><br />It starts off averagely, as most horror movies do. The set used for Hill House is beautiful, and oddly mysterious, and for a few minutes, it seems as if the film is actually going to be quite a fair re-telling. And then, the first scare comes: a loose harpsichord wire slashes a woman's face (Dr. Marrow's assistant). This is hilarious, and truth be told, it nearly had me in tears.<br /><br />From then on, the film just spirals downwards. The acting seems to become somewhat wooden as the film goes on, with Owen Wilson's character being particularly irritating (so it's such a relief when he's decapitated by the flue).<br /><br />The special effects practically make this movie,, which is a shame, because most of them are incredibly cheesy and look very dated. Examples of these are many, so I won't bother listing them.<br /><br />So, all in all, I, along with hundreds of others, strongly recommend that you watch the original chiller, or, as an alternative, buy the novel by Shirley Jackson. But please, stay away from this. And, if you do decide to watch this, watch it on the TV (as a lot of the channels love to screen this film, and not the original) or rent it cheap, but please don't buy it, whatever you do. Don't waste your money!<br /><br />Final rating: 4/10 | Negative | null | null |
Spoiler warning.<br /><br />When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall. <br /><br />Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie. | Negative | null | null |
OK, I love bad horror. I especially love horror bad enough to make fun of. Demonicus, or House of the Dead - those were bad enough to make fun of. Severed was not.<br /><br />It was worse.<br /><br />(spoilers - who cares?)<br /><br />My friend and I sat through the entire film, and I have a number of comments, both in the "this sucks" style and in the realm of actual critiques.<br /><br />Plot (sort of) - There's a guy in this city (which is possibly Seattle, see comment below) who is running around and cutting off heads. He's been doing this for over a year (I'm not going back to get exact numbers - thank you VERY much), possibly two or three years. One head a week. And the police are JUST NOW calling in a "specialist" (who ONCE refers to himself as a psychic, but that never comes up again).<br /><br />Schya right! Feds take over after, what, THREE connected homicides? After NEARLY A HUNDRED SIMILAR KILLINGS we'd be under freaking martial law!!!!!<br /><br />Anyway, this "specialist" consults the voodoo chick who the police have been ignoring the entire time, and the two of them come to the conclusion that it's Baron Samedi, a voodoo spirit, who is cutting off heads to gain enough power to make himself a body (and then presumably take over the world - or possibly just go to Disneyland).<br /><br />Um.<br /><br />Setting - where IS this happening? Well, if you're not from Seattle, you might not realize that at the bar/rave (occupied by about ten of the movie staff and their family members), there's a poster for a local radio station, and that in the highly-entertaining, "Pulp Fiction"esqe dialog (as IF) between the two cops (yes, the ones who get their heads cut off about 15 minutes into the flick) they discuss "the new stadium" which may still have been an issue when this movie was made.<br /><br />Being from Seattle, I apologize on the movie's behalf and hang my head in shame.<br /><br />OK, here's where it gets really critical - being a horror movie writer (not published, don't go looking for my name in the IMDb), I do research. Lots of research. And unlike the writers of this movie, I know that Baron Samedi - while a Voudon Loa (spirit) who guards the graveyards and has traditionally been associated (by various Christian oppressors) with "Satan" - is actually a "Loki"-like trickster god. <br /><br />In other words, he doesn't cut off heads.<br /><br />Besides, a major part of the Voudoun religion is that Baron Samedi can have a body whenever he wants. Their religious ceremonies center around the possession of various members of the congregation by the loa.<br /><br />Not to mention, if he's already possessed someone, why make a NEW body?<br /><br />Also, if Baron Samedi GOT a body, he wouldn't go around cutting off heads, he'd get some good rum and cigars and par-TAY!!!<br /><br />In summary, the only thing they did get (surprisingly) right is that in the completely unnecessary Tarot card reading (used only to show that the voodoo chick is "spooky") they didn't screw up the interpretations of the cards the way most movies do. Again, I've done research. (Anyone remember the old late-night ad for phone-in tarot readings - "The lovers - you will soon fall madly in love..." and all that nonsense?)<br /><br />If you made it this far through my comments, I congratulate you. And I'm sorry again. I'll be more sorry if you feel the need to watch the film on account of me, so please don't. | Negative | null | null |
I'll get to the movie in a minute. First, someone wanted "proof" about Clinton's comments at Georgetown, where he claimed that the USA "deserved" the 9-11 attacks. Well, here's what Clinton said:<br /><br />"In the first Crusade, when the Christian soldiers took Jerusalem, they first burned a synagogue with 300 Jews in it and proceeded to kill every woman and child who was a Muslim on the Temple Mount. I can tell you that story is still being told today in the Middle East and we are still paying for it."<br /><br />WE'RE still paying for it? Whaddya mean "we", paleface? The Marines didn't storm the Temple Mount. <br /><br />But in truth, Clinton never really came out and flatly said that we "deserved" 9-11. Like all his statements during his presidency, he IMPLIED that we deserved 9-11. Just point out "fact" A, B, C, and maybe D, and let the listener deduce that they must add up to conclusion X. When in truth, most of Clinton's "Facts" added up to guacamole.<br /><br />But that's beside the point. We're here to talk movies, not politics. Unfortunately, when Oliver "Captain Conspiracy" Stone does a movie, you can't escape his warped politics. It was only a matter of time before he focused his paranoia and bitterness on the Reagan Era, and what better time than when Stone's dreams almost came true, on the day Reagan nearly bought the farm. Unable to find any nefarious plots or schemes in Hinckley's assassination attempt, he invents one with Al Haig. From a simple misunderstanding of the chain of Constitutional authority, Haig is transformed from a public servant who really should have brushed up on his remedial civics into a raving megalomaniac. You almost expect Haig to rub his hands together like Montgomery Burns and tell Cap Weinberger to "Release the Hounds." Stone even recruits the smarmiest person in Hollywood to play our former Secretary of State, Richard Dreyfuss. A guy you love to hate on sight.<br /><br />Overall, the movie is OK. Average, hovering on below average. Don't bother renting or buying. Try to catch it on cable. 4 out of 10. | Negative | null | null |
I do get irritated with modern adaptations of Shakespeare when the director can't make his mind up whether to use the original or to update it. If it's using the original words in an updated setting, that's particularly tricky if set in the 20th or 21st century although it can work OK in period styles, eg the Trevor Nunn Twelfth Night set late Victorian very effectively. It could work with the 30's setting if only there had been far less of the song and dance and far more of Shakespeare's text. Unfortunately, it just ends up being a pretty trivial though very pleasant show. <br /><br />Another problem is Branagh himself. I agree he's far too old to play one of the students but more important, he's such an experienced Shakespearean actor that in spite of all his efforts to be just another student, his strength of acting shows all the time. Of course he should have played the King - no problem in having a mature student King surrounded by younger students. Instead we had a pleasant but unimposing actor for the King, thus an unimposing so-called King with no Kingly attributes. <br /><br />The amount of song and dance, which I found tedious in spite of the nice songs and pleasant enough dancing, unfortunately meant the great Shakespearean dialogue had to be cut down drastically. So the whole thing ends up a trivial and mild confection, and I got very bored, including with the comic turns, and was glad when it ended. Branagh has not done Shakespeare justice in this production.<br /><br />Accolades however to Richard Briers and Geraldine McEwan, absolutely splendid as the older couple. | Negative | null | null |
I grew up Baptist and I know the story this movie is trying to tell, although I no longer believe the story. I'll give the movie kudos for being as good as the average Lifetime Movie of the Week. Mildly interesting, mediocre acting, a bit slow, the script is predictable, the music is sappy, and it is a bit melodramatic. And all the people left behind have got to be the squeakiest clean non-Christians, ever. Not a single curse word from any of them. But I laughed out loud when the actor playing the man who runs the United Nations pronounced "nuclear" as "nu-cu-ler," just like Bush. Is there some Christian code of honor that mandates that since Bush claims he, too, is called by God, that all Christians must cover up his ignorance by mispronouncing that word the same way he does? LOL! I really had a difficult time taking the movie seriously at all after that. After the "nu-cu-ler" incident, the movie began to feel like packaged, manipulative propaganda. I was looking for something bold. Actually, I was looking for something that might make me think, but I didn't find it here. If you're looking for mindless entertainment, stop here - it's good for killing a rainy afternoon. But if you're looking for intelligence, look elsewhere. | Negative | null | null |
"Semana Santa" or "Angel Of Death" is a very weak movie. Mira Sorvino plays a detective who is trying to find a killer who shoots arrows in people. Mira has an Italian accent which falters from time to time. Couldn't she just speak English? All the other characters have a forced Mexican\English accent which is distracting. The dialogue is very bad and the delivery of it is wooden. The cinematography looks nice, but that's not enough to save this tripe. THIS NEXT PART OF THIS REVIEW DOES CONTAIN SPOILERS!!!! <br /><br />During the climax it looks like the villain is going to get away, but then he comes back down stairs to get shot and do a cool stunt down the railing. That just shows this script has no originality whatsoever. AVOID! | Negative | null | null |
Pointless short about a bunch of half naked men slapping and punching each other. That's it. For about 5 minutes we see this. It's shot in black and white with tons of half-naked men running around slapping each other to the tune of dreadful music. It LOOKS interesting but there's no plot and really--the violence inherent in this got disturbing. Also the homo eroticism in this is played up but mixing it with violence was not a good idea. Some people who like avant garde material might like this but I found it incomprehensible, boring, stupid and (ocassionally) disturbing. Really--what is the point in all this? I saw it as part of a festival of gay shorts and the audience sat there in stunned silence. I really wish I could go lower than 1. | Negative | null | null |
I used to be an avid viewer until I personally spent long cold hours helping build a home for the White Family, only to be sickened to see the house a year later. All of the beautiful rock landscaping has been removed, the gorgeous rock sidewalk and front fountain have been removed, all the pine trees and pecan trees in the front have been cut down, sprinkler system has been ripped out. It now looks like a disaster area. They don't even live there any more... they live "in town" and come out only for the weekend. It sickens me to think of all the hours that the great people of Oklahoma donated to these people and to see the result. The story that we all saw on TV wasn't completely the truth... don't believe every thing you see and hear. | Negative | null | null |
While not quite as monstrously preposterous as later works, this slow-moving, repetitive giallo offers some nice touches in the first half, but grows more and more lethargic and silly as it stumbles to its lame denouement.<br /><br />To be sure, the actors are above average - considering this is an Argento movie - and some moments show the director's visual skills, but whole sequences should've been cut and, basically, it's just the same exploitative trash as ever, wallowing in fake science and abnormal sexual depravity.<br /><br />3 out of 10 genetic disorders | Negative | null | null |
TYSON <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1<br /><br />Sound format: Stereo<br /><br />Reverent - though scrupulously fair - account of the life and times of champion boxer Mike Tyson. Given his conviction on a rape charge, the film is careful not to portray him as hero or villain, but paints a warts-and-all portrait of his rise to fame, the pressures of success, and the people who shaped his destiny for good or bad. Constrained by time limits, the script gallops through a succession of relevant details, alighting briefly on significant events, culminating with Tyson's (temporary) downfall in 1995. Novices will be enlightened by the chronology, while boxing fans will be entertained by director Uli Edel's straight-arrow approach to the material. He portrays Tyson's life as a circus in which he was ultimately led astray by the circumstances of his own success. In fact, the script reserves most of its venom for Tyson's ex-wife Robin Givens, characterising her as an ungrateful gold-digger who took advantage of his naivety. Production values are uniformly solid and the cast is superb: Michael Jai White does a fair imitation of the title character; George C. Scott plays Tyson's mentor Cus D'Amato through acres of gritted teeth; and Paul Winfield was surely born to play Don King! | Negative | null | null |
I rented this movie because it sounded pretty interesting but to my Horror this movie was the worst movie I had ever seen! I read the comment from Gumby-8 and he has to be a part of the cast or the crew. Unless Gumby-8 is a 4 year old child or some demented cult member no one in their right mind would think that this movie had any potential at all.<br /><br />I couldn't believe Gumby-8's comments. <br /><br />Quoting: "From the "Dune" inspired opening animation to the quick pace...this film keeps the eye moving and works so well that repeat viewing is not unexpected."<br /><br />The Animation is the only aspect of the movie that was interesting and the fact of that the film keeps the eye moving, well that's because you keep looking for any type of suspense. I mean give me a break Halloween was shot with a budget of $100,000.00 and a painted mask and also by the way became a cult classic. As far as "repeat viewing is not unexpected" I think he made a typo.<br /><br />Another quote from Gumby-8 the only Fan: "The acting is also a strong aspect of the film."<br /><br />With all due respect for the actors, their performance is nothing more than the respective talent of Robert Napton.<br /><br />The catchy Tagline: "Beware the hour between dusk and darkness"<br /><br />That's because there is no dusk or darkness in this movie.<br /><br />MPAA rating "Rated R for some violence/gore"<br /><br />The only gore you see is some red paint on a sheet over a dead body you never see. As far as I know it might be a clump of grass.<br /><br />In summation, I have seen horror flicks from the 50's, 60's and 70's. I have seen what I thought to be the absolutely worst and some that were very good. The director of this film either did not make any attempt, was asleep, or took a hit of acid. Whatever the case I think the actors deserve applause for trying to salvage a very poor job of direction. I would give this film a rating of .5 for a 'B' movie. | Negative | null | null |
You know what you are getting when you purchase a Hallmark card. A sappy, trite verse and that will be $3.99, thank you very much. You get the same with a Hallmark movie. Here we get a ninety year old Ernie Borgnine coming out of retirement to let us know that as a matter of fact, he is not dead like we thought. Poor Ernie, he is the poor soul that married Ethel Merman several years ago and the marriage lasted a few weeks. In this flick, Ernie jumps in feet first and portrays the Grandpa that bonds with his long lost grandkid. We have seen it before. You might enjoy this movie but please don't say that you were not warned. | Negative | null | null |
hg is normally exploitive, and it's never really bothered me before--i loved "bloodfeast 2", but i really don't like pseudo sciences or playing on heuristics. the whole movie is based on a man with esp caused by an electrical accident and a witch. i'm not opposed to witches, and i liked "carrie" (the novel and the movie) but this one bothered me. i think it's because of the main character developing esp from an electric line. also the university professor wasting his time studying esp cases. i wasn't alive in the 60s to know first hand whether or not esp was a common fallacy then, but i assume that any theory of such nature would simply be discredited. what really bothered me was the way the police were describing schizophrenics as ruthless, unpredictable villains who can seem like normal people 99% of the time and then just snap. nothing could be further from the truth. i detest such concepts because they add to public idiocy. many people still think that schizophrenia is dissociative identity disorder. whoever wrote this script didn't know much about psychology.<br /><br />there were some decent concepts to the movie. i liked the way the witch used men; it was a nice change. i liked how she could make herself attractive, but didn't when she was around her forced lovers. i found it interesting how her second lover also burned his face. had the script been touched up for a few weeks before production and not focused solely on making its audience dumber, this may have been a decent movie. | Negative | null | null |
I'm probably not giving this movie a fair shake, as I was unable to watch all of it. Perhaps if I'd seen it in a theater, in its original presentation, I might have appreciated it, but it's far too slow-moving for me.<br /><br />I read the book some 25 years ago and the details of the plot have faded from memory. This did not help the film, as it's something less than vivid and clear in its presentation of events.<br /><br />This is really four linked films, or a film in four parts, and was, I believe, intended to be seen over four nights in a theatrical presentation. I found Part I to be enjoyable enough, but it was all I could do to sit through Part II, which drags interminably. Reading Tolstoy's philosophizing is one thing. If you get a good translation or can read it in the original, his brilliant writing far outweighs any issues one might have with the pace of the story. On film, however, it's hard to reproduce without being ponderous.<br /><br />I have other issues with the parts of the film that I saw. It's very splashy, with a lot of hey-ma-look-at-this camera work that calls attention to itself, instead of serving to advance the story.<br /><br />Clearly, I'm missing something, but I just couldn't summon the enthusiasm to crank up parts III and IV. | Negative | null | null |
movie goers - avoid watching this movie. if you are faint hearted, you might want to commit suicide. if you are a short tempered, you would want to kill the lead performer of the movie.<br /><br />Though he does not have any talent in acting, he is the mass hero for all the rickshaw pullers,auto rickshaw drivers, rowdies, thugs and immature and ignorant literates.<br /><br />he proves - you do not need neither talent nor knowledge to be successfully.<br /><br />He is the highest paid actor in India. That shows the taste of movie going public in India. 90% of movie goers in tamil nadu are definitely attracted to his kind of nonsense movies. | Negative | null | null |
The TV productions at the 2000's start were between weak and bad. Before marks like (Alias, Lost, Prison Break, Desperate Housewives, or Monk) the TV didn't have the right hit yet, which could capture the attention and the interests of the 2000s' viewer. Titles like (Relic Hunter), (Mutant X), (The Lost World), (Sheena), or even (Baywatch Hawaii) weren't encouraging for you to watch and follow, or at least weren't that captivating and interesting all the time as what preceded them. (Special Unit 2) was no exception. In fact it's Men in Black meets The X Files' spoof ! (As if these were the special unit 1). But even according to this brilliant formula; it didn't work well. It was promising; at the time there was some saturation out of the "supernatural" cases after a decade of many X files already, so the natural spirit to lampoon it naughtily too (imagine Mulder as womanizer !). However (Special Unit 2) wasn't the strongest in this, or a strong when it comes to make a comic Sci-Fi show. It was highly ridiculous, where for instance every sexy situation must turn into ugly disgusting one. It enjoyed that bad taste sickeningly. (Michael Landes) was non-charismatic and mostly unbearable as a comedian. His chemistry with (Alexondra Lee), as well as any supposed sexual attention, was all languid. Sure the show got a funny look but overall it was unfunny work. It's clear that there was nothing more interesting than its main idea. Among (Evan Katz)'s other works as a co-writer and a co-producer like (Seven Days) before or (24) later this must be a low point !. Despite the distinctive personality, it managed to be a silly jest for most of the time. Therefore if that was there goal, so they made one of the silliest indeed ! And truly, it would be one of the rarest times to be thankful for the cancellation of a show after 19 episodes of it only ! | Negative | null | null |
My first question after seeing this film was, "Why is the title LIAM?" If the intent was to tell a story from the boy's perspective, it was not carried out well. Of course there was the formulaic use of camera angles in the boy's scenes, but much of the crucial action took place outside of his field of view. Having a "main" character unable to speak (obviously suggesting the mute, powerless position of a child) makes it difficult to give that character much depth.<br /><br />Melodrama is defined as: "dramatic or other literary work characterized by the use of stereotyped characters, exaggerated emotions and language, simplistic morality, and conflict" LIAM fits this definition to a T. The viewer is hit over the head with the typical stereotypes of the fire and brimstone Catholic Church in the stern school marm and the well-fed priest squeezing money from parishioners. (A stereotype which is becoming very tiresome.) What's more--the Jewish characters are money lenders and factory owners!<br /><br />Much of the film was predictable...Who didn't think that we'd see Theresa scrubbing the toilet after her mother had told her "No daughter of mine will scrub another woman's toilet!" I'm a fan of British realism if it's done well. In my opinion, LIAM is not.<br /><br /> | Negative | null | null |
Eight academy nominations? It's beyond belief. I can only think it was a very bad year - even by Hollywood standards. With Huston as director and Jack Nicholson and Kathleen Turner as leads I probably would have swallowed the bait and watched this anyway, but the Oscar nominations really sold it to me, and I feel distinctly cheated as a result.<br /><br />So it's a black comedy is it? Can anyone tell me where the humour is in Prizzi's Honor? It's certainly tasteless (the shooting in the head of a policeman's wife is but another supposedly comic interlude in this intended farce about mafia life) but with the exception of a joke about 'your favourite Mexican cigars' (which I imagine is an old joke for Americans who have been officially forbidden from buying anything Cuban for the last 50 years) I failed to spot anything of a comic nature - and I did try. There is a lot of Mafia cliché but cliché doesn't constitute humour in my book.<br /><br />Is it a romantic comedy of sorts? Never. The characters and their relationships are so completely incredible and shallow that they are on a par with Ben Afleck and Jennifer Lopez in Gigli.<br /><br />Is it a cleverly devised parody about the Mafia? Not in a million years. The plot is just pointlessly absurd rather than comically absurd, and it usually just has the feel of a really bad (and cheap) Mafia movie. It feels more like a homage than a parody.<br /><br />With one-dimensional characters and little in the way of humour written for them, the actors are left doing dodgy accents and pulling faces. Well it isn't enough; even when the face is being pulled by that master of the comic facial expression, Jack Nicholson (repleat with puffed up top lip ... now is that meant to be a parody of Brando's padded jowls in The Godfather?... Oh! Who cares?... all I know is, it isn't funny).<br /><br />Throw in some slow, plodding direction (this film drags on for 2 hours), some hopelessly daft and clichéd dialogue such as; "You remember the Camora? Well we're far bigger, we'll track you down wherever you go", and clichéd mannerisms and you'll be reaching for that fast forward button before you can say "capiche?". Prizzi's Honor is far from being Huston's "masterpiece" and is rather a very poor last work. It's definitely one work in the great director's canon that should be given a concrete overcoat and tossed into the Hudson River. | Negative | null | null |
Kurt Russell (as Steven Post) works as a mail-boy for struggling TV station UBC (that's United Broadcasting Corporation); he is going nowhere at work, offering ridiculous projects like "Abraham Lincoln's Doctor's Dog" to studio executives - because Lincoln, doctors, and dogs are popular. Programming director Joe Flynn (as Francis X. Wilbanks) wisely rejects Mr. Russell's proposals, but has no idea how to pick a hit TV show. His secretary Heather North (as Jennifer Scott), who does double duty as Russell's girlfriend, has a chimpanzee who bugs the heck out of Russell when he wants to watch TV. Turns out, the monkey watches all the popular shows, and can easily pick the hits. Russell discovers the chimp's talent, and uses him to advance his own career. Understandably, things gets HAIRY for Russell and the cast!<br /><br />Raffles the chimp (handled by Frank Lamping) performs well; Raffles does look bored and/or distracted during a few scenes, when the chimp is supposed to look interested; these could have been corrected with re-takes or editing. A mild satirical edge is present - imagine a monkey picking hit TV shows! AND, it's a monkey who gets a BEER during the commercials (drinking in a Disney film)! A look through the cast will reveal s bunch of fun TV actors to recognize and try to place. You could make a drinking game, in honor of Raffles' beer-guzzling, by guessing actors, and where you've seen them before. Here's a start - Hey, isn't that "Dr. Bellows" from "I Dream of Jeannie"? Down the hatch! <br /><br />**** The Barefoot Executive (1971) Robert Butler ~ Kurt Russell, Joe Flynn, John Ritter | Negative | null | null |
Caught this movie on the tube on a Sunday. I thought it was so bad I looked it up on IMDb to see what others thought of it. I was not surprised at the amount of silly people who enjoyed this fluff. I was however surprised when I looked into the comments to read the Hated It categories only to find that their were none. I was shocked at this; I always look at the hated it's as their are always those who hate a movie no matter how good it is. Somehow this movie made it through unscathed by the haters I say nay to that and proclaim proudly that I HATE THIS MOVIE! I know I should go into detail about why I hate this movie but to do so would only grant this movie more respect than it deserves. | Negative | null | null |
OK, I know that a lot of people will probably resent this review as Watership Down is a "classic" and a standard part of most people's childhood, but seeing this film for the first time at the tender age of 18, I must admit: I really hated it.<br /><br />We watched this film because my sister had read the book and really enjoyed it, and many people who whimpered at the very words "Watership Down"- their memories of seeing the film as children and having their emotions torn at the seams- recommended it. To be honest, I wish I hadn't bothered. I gave it the benefit of the doubt; generally I don't like to stop watching a film half way through. This was an exception. It was really, really, excruciatingly, sickeningly dull. This film was possibly the slowest thing I've ever watched (imagine a doped-up snail in space), and really didn't "do it" for me. The art was alright; the backgrounds were nicely made if not a little bland and twee, yet the rabbits themselves were not very endearing and the animation was quite jumpy and poorly produced.<br /><br />I'm not going to go into huge details about the storyline; basically it is the tale of a group of rabbits who leave their warren due to the infiltration of humans in the area. Generally a moralistic story about the perils of human interactions on the environment, it uses anthropomorphic rabbits to put the message across. For me, I kind of wished that they would get gassed, not because I'm a horrible sadistic person, but because the characters were uninspiring, annoying, dull and generally quite rude (oh I'm so terribly English). I found that I was constantly looking at the clock whilst watching the film, and it took a whole 20 minutes or so before anything actually happened, and even that was a terrible anticlimax.<br /><br />If I were to praise it in any way, I'd have to admit that the concept of showing children the perils of building on the countryside and hopefully unveiling the arrogance of humans etc etc is quite well-meaning. Maybe it is all in general sanctimonious and preachy, but the message it's trying to put forth is good in its nature. The musical score was not bad, too.<br /><br />So, to conclude, this film is pretty poor. I couldn't watch it the whole way through, or I'd probably be forced to eat my own legs in sheer boredom. Granted, it isn't "Torque" bad, but it still doesn't rate highly in my eyes, so I've given it a 2/10.<br /><br />Hope this helps. | Negative | null | null |
They're showing this on some off-network. It's well crap. While it is not as bad as the B-movies they show on the Sci-fi network on Saturdays but still a fairly large pile of crap. The acting is passable. The plot and writing are fairly sub-standard and the pacing is entirely too slow. Every minute of the movie feels like the part of the movie where they're wrapping things up before the credits - not the peak of the movie, the denouement. Also, large portions of the cast look way to old for the age range they're playing. The whole thing is predictable, boring and not worthy of being watched. Save your time. It's not even worth the time it takes to watch it for free. | Negative | null | null |
I could not, for the life of me, follow, figure out or understand the story. As the plot advances it too stays incomprehensible. I'm going to guess and say that there was a preproduction story/plot problem that never got sorted out. The producers could never separate the many details that the novel, or any novel, has the time and space to create from the other idea, which was to make a movie about a serial killer and the killer's pursuit by the police. They ended up with too many things happening in a proscribed feature film time limit. Too bad really because they had a solid cast, a director who knows how to move things around and excellent cinematography. In fact, a well made movie that one could enjoy and relax with for a couple of hours. | Negative | null | null |
I love Julian Sands and will at least attempt to watch anything he's in, but this movie nearly did me in. I'm hard pressed to remember when I found any other movie to move....so......slow.........ly.....zzzzzzzzzzzz<br /><br />Pop it in the VCR when you've run out of sleeping pills. | Negative | null | null |
Jeremy Northam struggles against a "Total Recall" clone script and disposable romantic by-play to bring life to a confused character. Lucy Liu graduates her acting from a wooden start to a workman-like finish. You can't fail to laugh when viewing her interviews on the DVD when she uses the term "Femme fatal" and "Romance". French film-noir actress she is not and they lack chemistry together.<br /><br />This movie fails, not in the plot or the action sequences but in the lack of attention to detail in the films photography and ham-fisted portrayal of the world of technology surrounding the main protagonists. Little attempt is made to dress the scenery to represent any contiguous filmic landscape or period. Automobiles are very 1990's and the architecture barely modern with open plans that hint at a restricted budget rather than conscious set dressing techniques.<br /><br />The technology is positively hilarious. Massive "2001: A Space Odyssey" mainframes fed by man-portable CD-ROM's with data collected for some unexplained reason, in spite of the proliferating communications network that even the most un-savvy technologist today would obviously be aware. There is an obvious lack of research done here and given the open-source nature of the cyber-community, research would have cost little more than a bulletin board and personal time.<br /><br />DVD interviews also reveal the original movie name was "Company Man" but this likely ditched in order to cash in on Matrix hype. The "Cypher" title has only the slightest link with the movie. Terry Gilliam would have done wonders with this concept; and completely re-written the Decalogue.<br /><br />This is Tele-movie quality and extremely disappointing for a movie length production. It might have made a good sub-plot for "Alias". | Negative | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.